Could you please interpret this as it was put in our final order and stamped by a judge with the Superior Court of Justice Family Court Branch.My husband and I are divorced now but this was done while we were seperated and we both read it differently.The respondent shall maintain medical, extended health and dental coverage for the applicant and the children; as long as he is required to pay child support and spousal support and they are available to him through his employer. The respondent shall provide the applicant with particulars of said coverage. He has told me that his company will not cover me anymore as we are divorced. Other people have told me that he needs to buy extra coverage to include me. Please help I am getting so many different answers.
Phoned the family court office and they told me he has to cover me. His company says no.
I hear you about different answers!!!
What does it mean?
It is a confusing although short amount of facts.....
Some company polices simply do not continue to cover after a divorce. This is contract law and I cannot read the policy. But, I assume that is what the company policy is saying. You need to contact the policy manager and simply ask if it is written in the policy that they do not cover after a divorce.
If that is the case, you ex is in a bind. He cannot force the employer's policy to continue coverage if that is what the contract says.
No they do not cover after divorce I knew that. But what is the order saying. Does he have to provide me with coverage?
But, he is required to provide coverage.
Yes, it is not complicated language and clearly states that he must supply coverage as long as child support and child support. I do not like the way it is worded though. The little word "and" is not well placed. To me it says that as soon as he does not have to pay one, then he does not have to cover.
But, I am with whomever told you that he must supply coverage which means buying private coverage at his expense.
I say that as long as that Order is still alive and not altered or set aside by any Orders afterwards.
There are orders after this but this paragraph was never ammended.
What about the wording and they are available to him through his employer
You have to take care reading further orders that this one was not set aside or replaced. If a judge says that the Order of such a date is replaced or set aside then that paragraph goes. If the other Orders were not intending to amend this clause then it is still in force.
You wrote....."What about the wording and they are available to him through his employer". Can you please explain?
the other orders were to ammend certain paragraphs such as section 7 and to take out child support and to change spousal support
I see. The real problem is "and they are available through his employer".
Could he have an argument that they are not available through his employer as they will not cover me so he does not have to maintain my medical benefits
On the wording of the Order, yes. If you know for sure that the the benefits are no longer available to him through his employer, then his argument will be that he does not have to supply.
How old is this order?
The court wants you covered. Hence the differing opinions including from myself as I work through it. It is a young order.
Did you have a lawyer?
Cost me a fortune and could no longer go back to her.
I know the company will not add me as they pay for the benefits, thats understandable. But could he not pay extra for me to be added is there such a thing.
Fair enough but she may have dropped the ball here. You may want to discuss it with her at a reduced rate. The "and" bothers me and the fact that a mere divorce could have shut you out should have been foreseen. That was an obvious potential with your facts and a company plan. If he sits on the mere words and refuses to do anything, something has to happen. You may have a complaint to the Law Society.
That is another issue. If, it is at ALL available through the employer's plan, then he has no arguments at all. Alas, I cannot tell if such an option is available.
The Order states that you are supposed to be sent details of the plan. Have you and do you see anything of the sort?
Either can I. No I was not sent the details of the plan. Whe you said if he sits on the mere words her were you referring to, my ex spouse or the lawyer.
sorry who were your referring to
Your ex. On the mere words, he does not have to cover unless he has to pay child AND spousal support AND that coverage is available through his employer. You had a lawyer that had to agree to the wording. The respondent shall provide the applicant with particulars of said coverage
Now you know why we are all a little confused. This has too many interpretations. It was my lawyer that wrote the settlement not his.
Again, this is a very young order. The court wants coverage. More.....
Lawyers make mistakes and sometimes mistakes that cannot really be foreseen. Regardless, we are supposed to know some basics. It is common that a company plan excludes a spouse upon divorce. It is obvious that this file was going to end up in divorce. Most lawyers also know that child support and spousal support could end at completely different times.
Well thank you
She knew he was going to divorce me as that was also in the settlement that he was to pay for it.
So should I go to the law society
If this Order is alive, my approach would be to amend the Order in front of the same judge. That judge may or may not feel seized with the matter but it is clear that coverage was desired and it is unlikely that anyone turned their minds to such a short term with a divorce immanent. You could have been divorced in a week! It is ridiculous to suggest that the court desired to have coverage last a week.
Thank you so much. Your answers have helped.
All clients can report to the Law Society. I am not recommending it but it is an option for you. Just never threaten a lawyer with it.
You need a bit more help.
Would never do that. Probably will not go there as you say people make mistakes.
Here is the Lawyer Referral Service. Call them and they will give you some names of family lawyers in your area that will meet with you for no cost. You can meet with one or all.
I think I need alot of help as my ex is very argumentative.
As you are now aware, working with a lawyer is a relationship that you have to choose wisely.
I think I need alot of help because if I dont have an answer clearly written out by a lawyer or judge my ex will not believe it as he is very argumentative.
Sorry sent twice. Thanks again.
If I was advising him, I would say to contact a private provider and keep coverage if indeed you cannot pay more for coverage with your employer's plan. I would tell him that the court wants coverage and they will solve a wording problem.
21 years in practice