Pre-existing Child Support

Question: FILING FOR AN ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT IN A SEPARATE STATE IN WHICH YOU DO NOT LIVE? NON CUSTODIAL PARENT HAS A PRE EXISTING CHILD SUPPORT CASE IN ARKANSAS WHERE ONCE RESIDED. THEN LATER MOVED TO MISSISSIPPI AND LATER HAD ANOTHER CHILD THROUGH A SEPARATE RELATIONSHIP. THE RELATIONSHIP DID NOT LAST,HOWEVER SEES ITS ONLY FAIR TO PAY MOTHER OF CHILD #2 CHILD SUPPORT AS WELL. BOTH NEED TO KNOW IF IT WOULD BE EASIER WITH LESS PAPER WORK HASSLE TO USE THE SAME STATE AS ORDER #1 IS OPENED, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE ARKANSAS WHICH NEITHER PARENTS NOR CHILD #2 LIVE IN THEY LIVE IN MISSISSIPPI. ONLY THE CHILD#1 LIVE IN ARKANSAS. NO OPINIONS PLEASE IF YOU DONT KNOW THEN DONT RESPOND. IS IT LEGAL TO OPEN A CHILD SUPPORT CASE IN ANOTHER STATE OF THAT WHICH THE CHILD ACTUALLY LIVES? WELL IF EITHER CUSTODIAL PARENT WERE TO MOVE TO LETS SAY ALABAMA REGADLESS OF WHERE THE NON CUSTODIAL LIVES, CAN THE CUSTODIAL PARENT NOT CLOSE A PREEXISTING CASE IN ARKANSAS AND RE OPRN IT IN ALABAMA ISN'T THAT LEGAL? WELL THE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT HAS A FEELING THAT IF BOTH SEPARATE CASES WERE OPENED IN THE SAME STATE THEN THEY WILL ADJUST THE AMOUNT EQUALLY BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES THATS WHAT THE INTENTIONS ARE WHICH WOULD MAKE IT FAIR TO BOTH CHILDREN AND LESS STREESFUL DEALING WITH 2 DIFF CASES IN 2 DIFFERENT STATES ? COMMENTS WELCOME MAY I REMIND YOU THAT NON CUSTODIAL PARENT RESIDES IN MISSISSIPPI THE SAME STATE AS CHILD #2 AND PAYS SUPPORT ON CHILD #1 IN ARKANSAS. WHICH ARKANSAS IS FULLY AWARE OF. BUT NON CUSTODIAL PARENT RELIZES DIFFERENT STATES HAS DIFFERENT LAWS AND CHILD SUPPORT IN DIFFERENT STATES CAN BE OVERWHELMING. CUSTODIAL PARENT OF #2 IS WILLING TO TRY AND OPEN CASE IN ARKANSAS TO MAKE IT EASIER SINCE NON CUSTODIAL PARENT WANTS TO PAY BUT NON CUSTODIAL & CUSTODIAL PARENT#2 IS LOOKING AT THE INTEREST AND FAIRNESS OF CHILD AND SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WOULD BE ADJUSTED TO A MORE EQUAL AMOUNT IF OPENED IN THE SAME STATE IS THE POINT OF THE QUESTION NO NEED TO GET RUDE. THANK YOU BLUE ANY MORE HELP WELCOMED

Answer: You would file in the state where your child lives. Your current state has to honor the original state's support order under "The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act". . Child #2 is a separate issue. A new case should be open in the state where child #2 lives. The fact that he already supports one child in a different household will be taken into consideration. It may not, however, decrease his obligation towards his first child.

Question: If the US Govt offered a National Health Care system ("public option") for children only, would you support it? As in, they get rid of pre-existing state and federal child health care programs (like CHIP) and got a NHS-style system for everyone under 18. Since the bulk of the super-expensive specialized care (heart surgery, emergency reconstructive cosmetic surgery, etc.) have Adult patients, those things could stay through private insurers. But since child health care is comparatively cheaper, wouldn't it be better to have a government program for all those under 18?

Answer: Perhaps, as long as parents are truly able to choose their doctor, if treatment is timely with no waiting lists, and parents are still able to opt out of certain treatments if they don't think they are in their child's best interest. It shouldn't be up to some government official to decide. It should be noted that low-income families already can get health care for their children, through Medicaid in its various forms. The problem is finding doctors who will participate, because Medicaid is burdensome. Especially in rural areas, there is a shortage of providers. Also, whenever the government runs a program, it is not run as effectively or efficiently as a privately-run program. And we certainly don't need more government paper pushers on the tax payers' dime.

Question: So all of our cellphone bills will be going up by as much as 33% to support healthcare? That's wonderful! And they didn't get the children with pre-existing conditions covered because they didn't word it correctly and didn't have time to proof read it? Awesome!

Answer: yes thank you 0bama

Question: How can I fix my life? I work full time and my ex-wife (who left ME by the way) saps a gigantic chunk of my check in child support. My old beat up car just broke down again, causing hundreds of dollars in repairs. My fiance is unable to work do to a much needed surgery that doctors won't look at without insurance (can't get insurance -Pre-existing condition.) And we broke down our wedding next month to just the bare basics (and still can't pay for that.) I am desperate and willing to hear ANY suggestions that might help!

Answer: Hi sorry to hear about your problems, if it makes you feel any better I have been ( and am currently) going through similar problems. Life is all about getting a balance between being happy and having enough money to live. I guess what works for me is just writing my thoughts and new ideas down on a piece of paper. If your life isn't working, try new things and even ones that may sound silly. And keep on trying new things.

Question: Did President Obama Make a Mistake, or Did He Tell a Massive Lie About the Health Care Bill? President Obama said Saturday "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions" but now it is revealed that is either a gross omission, or a bald face lie. Under the new law, insurance companies CAN continue to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Was President Obama mis-informed on what his bill said, or was he telling a bald-face lie to generate support?

Answer: Responding to the concerns, Obama administration officials said Wednesday the law does prohibit insurers from denying children coverage starting this year, but they will issue clarifying regulations. "The law is clear: Insurance plans that cover children cannot deny coverage to a child because he or she has a pre-existing condition," Health and Human Services spokesman Nick Papas said. "To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the Secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and to his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan.�

Question: Which of these benefits of the new Health Care Reform Law do republicans object to? This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone. * This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday. * This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need. * This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool. * In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years. * This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections: * This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer. * This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees. * Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies. * Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders. * Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges. Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses: * This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable. * This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same. * This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64. * This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.'

Answer: I am particularly pleased with the ban on denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of people have lost their jobs and their health care insurance. If they can afford to buy a private plan, which many cannot, they will be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. By the time someone reaches the age of 40, he or she probably has some such conditions, which are considered to be anything for which a patient has been diagnosed with or treated for. Let’s be realistic: We are all going to pay for this change in our health care plans, but the cost will be small for each of us. It can be devastating for an individual. Most pre-existing conditions can be treated with prescription drugs and do not require surgery or other expensive remedies. I am not comfortable with the government running our health care, but this is one issue I am very pleased about.

Question: Conservatives: Would you support an optional government health-insurance program for Children Only? As in, they get rid of pre-existing state and federal child health care programs (like CHIP) and got a public option for everyone under 18. Since the bulk of the super-expensive specialized care (heart surgery, emergency reconstructive cosmetic surgery, etc.) have Adult patients, those things could stay through private insurers. Also, it's pretty clear that adults could 'game the system' and obviously can get a job to afford private insurance. But why should sick 5 year-olds be penalized for their parents' bad financial decisions or inability to pay for health care? It's kind of heartbreaking to see children waiting in an Emergency Room for treatment. Plus ER visits cost more in the long run, I think.

Answer: I would support it if and only if it were paid for entirely through patient premiums. If it's solely for young people they should be pretty low (to borrow from your argument) and if you remove the profit motive then it will also lower costs (at least according to a lot of arguments I've heard from those who support this). So give them one year of SCHIP funding to start off, which will make it revenue neutral, and then fund it entirely from the premiums people using it will pay. I would not have a problem with that.

Question: How can anyone NOT support Universal Health Care? Please take a few moments to watch this debate clip featuring a Emergency Department doctor Art Kellerman supporting Universal Health Care (UHC) administered by the federal government before answering my question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VR2yh3-tlM Now, with all the evidence that exists and UHC working so well in so many countries globally... France, Canada, Norway, Australia, UK, Hong Kong, India and many more why would anyone in the US be against some form of Universal coverage for all citizens? Clearly, many doctors and nurses would prefer UHC - it means a lot less paperwork and they can see (and help) more patients. An overwhelming majority of people who live in these countries with UHC will sing the praises of world class health care (including preventative medicine) for what amounts to only a small compulsory tax offset. What happens if something horrific happened to you or your family, and even with private cover and a HMO, your request for payment of a hospital bill and treatment is declined? What happens if you lose your job (and employer health benefits) tomorrow? None of this happens with UHC, you will always know that you are covered. A good government wants you to get better and be a contributing member of society as soon as possible, not lose your home on medical bills. I find it surprising the attitude of many responses here on YA already on this issue. Like it's "their fault they didn't have health cover" and "I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else" which seems quite selfish and most ridiculous! You already pay (through taxes) for roads, law enforcement and emergency services, defense and many other things you may never use - yet the most important of all, health, is something that people actually don't care about anyone else? I don't expect people to accept and support Obama's plan for healthcare, but surely there is a government option that will include every single man, woman and child when the chips are down. This is people's lives here and you could be one of the unlucky ones - even if you DO have insurance, to go bankrupt next. Nobody deserves that. I do not believe UHC is about socialized medicine either, that's just a stupid right wing scare campaign. No government bureaucrat decides under UHC if you get the operation your doctor decides you need, whereas under the current system your HMO can refuse to pay for it using loopholes and "pre-existing condition" clauses. I'm sure there is a place for HMO's and private funds, but not at the expense of turning the profit making medical profession into a universal and caring profession. Please don't block UHC in America, at this point.... it's sorely needed! What do you think? I am Australian and (like all Australians) covered by Medicare here. Just curious for some global responses and, in particular, those from the US? Hey all, thanks for the answers so far I appreciate it. Oh, and Sean... I don't think anyone is stupid I'm sorry if it sounded that way. As I understand it, Medicare (and Medicaid) in the US is not universal and only covers about 27% of the population. I suppose the main benefit of Universal Health Care is that it means nobody (including you) misses out on cover if your HMO doesn't (or refuses to) cover it. Your insurance is a profit driven company who earns more money by collecting premiums and refusing claims in any way that they can. Lord George, I understand that no counties with their constitution specifies the governments responsibility to health care, including mine. It's was legislation to create a "safety-net" for all citizens started in much the same way as Obama's plan for America (if it's passed). I happen to care about all people, in all countries. Friends of mine who live in the US have been curious about how it all works here, and seem to support it.

Answer: As you can see it is really difficult to get this across, the madness of having a for profit system run by insurance companies is so stupefyingly crazy that you would think any normal rational thinking person would see this. It unfortunately comes down to one thing, and yes you have guessed it MONEY!!! The scare tactics, the lies, the selfish ideology, the waste, and unregulated pricing of treatments and drugs is just one big money machine, and god help anyone who tries to put the skids on this baby!!! Hence the very successful attempt at brainwashing a whole nation into believing that health care is not a right but a privilege, and the rubbish about the constitution, that it is some holy grail to be abided by even over two hundred years later in 2009 The fact that just about all Americans are one serious illness away from bankruptcy gets totally ignored, most foolishly think that their insurance no matter how crap will be there for them if anything bad happens, yeah right!!! But as that person said in his/her post ''why should you care" I think that sentiment sums this country up in a nutshell!!!

Question: Government vs Pregnancy........? * single mom syndrome * pre existing dysfunctional families * abusing social welfare system * unpaid child support * destruction family values do you think the Government should step down in order to stop irresponsible people to bring new life in this world without thinking about the long term consequences for the children?????

Answer: people are responsible of their own decisions

Question: do you support Republicans promise to return Insurance denial of coverage and policy cancellation? THIS WILL END JUST WHEN IT STARTS IF THEY GET THEIR WAY Name: Bob and Michelle Cunningham Ages: Both age 42 Home: Plano, Texas Problem: Son uninsurable because he's a cancer survivor. How law will help: Insurers can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Freedom - you must be in a group plan - you would not likely have been able to buy an affordable individual plan. My brother-in-law had to close his business while being treated for cancer and was quoted $1,600 a month for individual family coverage.

Answer: No. If we're such a rich nation, we should be able to provide for the care citizens need. If it means I have to get coverage to help offset the costs, so be it. Getting health insurance is the responsible thing to do anyway.

Question: Will Catholics Vote for Obama? What Barack Obama Will Do An Obama administration will do more than a McCain administration for the cause of life, by drastically reducing abortions through giving women and families the support and the tools they need to choose life. Barack Obama will continue to strive to make a life with dignity for all from the beginning to the end of life possible - by making sure health care is affordable, combating poverty, providing good paying jobs, and ensuring security in life's final years. Support for Women and Families Sen. Obama supports paid maternity leave to make sure families won't lose their employment and much needed income from having a child. Sen. Obama supports legislation to allow 'sick-leave' to also cover one's sick children. Expand programs like the successful Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers. The Nurse-Family Partnership provides home visits by trained registered nurses to low-income expectant mothers and their families. Sen. Obama has committed to making investment in affordable daycare and supports a refundable Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would allow families to receive a 50 percent credit on up to $3,000 of childcare. Sen. Obama will cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families and will cut middle class taxes three times as much as Sen. McCain. Fatherhood and Responsibility Obama is a cosponsor of the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act, which encourages personal responsibility and includes provisions for domestic violence prevention and improved collection and distribution of child support. Listen to Senator Obama's groundbreaking Father's Day speech on fatherhood and personal responsibility here. Health Care Obama is committed to signing health legislation by the end of his first term in office that will guarantee affordable healthcare for every American. Under the Obama health plan, no one would be denied health care coverage because of a pre-existing condition. He would change the bizarre practice of pregnancy being listed in many health coverage plans as a "pre-existing condition." Sen. Obama is a strong advocate for the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health care to children in low-income families. Tackling Poverty Obama will expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to help lift many families out of poverty. His plan will increase the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increase the benefit available to parents who support their children through child support payments, and reduce the EITC marriage penalty. Obama supports Catholic Charities USA's stated goal to cut domestic poverty in half in ten years. Obama will make sure that full-time workers can earn a wage that allows them to raise their families and live with dignity. Obama will raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and index it to inflation. Senator Obama supports the expansion of the leading program that provides nutritional support for low-income pregnant women and their infants and children (WIC). Supporting Adoption Sen. Obama has been a proponent of increased support for adoption agencies and an expanded adoption tax credit. Late-Term Abortion Obama opposes late term abortions, with a clear exception for the mother's life and health: "I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term." - Senator Obama in an interview with Relevant magazine, July 1, 2008 Sen. McCain has voted against measures that would support pregnant women and families that need it most: McCain voted against extending Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and infants up to one year of age with incomes below the Federal poverty line. Senator McCain voted twice against the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), one of the largest support programs for pregnant women and poor children, which would have provided health care to an additional 3.2 million children and continuing coverage for the more than 6 million children already dependent on the care. Senator McCain has opposed increases in funding to nutritional support program for pregnant women and infants (WIC) that has proven to be one of the most effective programs in supporting women to carry their pregnancies to term. McCain voted against increased funding for child care and does not have a plan to help families make child care affordable. Sen. McCain has voted to increase taxes on local small business nurseries and childcare providers. He has voted against minimum wage increases at least 19 times and voted to completely repe

Answer: Good grief, edit your copy/paste once in a while. Are you working for Doug Kmiec? I am a Catholic. Early last summer I e-mailed Sen. Obama's campaign. I asked them to please give me a solid reason that a pro-life Catholic could in good conscience vote for him. I got a lengthy reply that used a lot of great words and said exactly nothing of substance. Ever heard of the Family and Medical Leave Act? FMLA has been in place since 1993. Sick leave has been extended to care for one's children for quite a while, and taking a maternity leave without fear of losing one's job has, too. This is all smokescreen. These great-sounding words stack up to exactly nothing when weighed against Sen. Obama's statement to a Planned Parenthood meeting last summer in which he stated the FIRST act of his presidency, should he be elected, would be to sign into law the "Freedom of Choice Act" -- which would abolish ALL restrictions and limitations on obtaining an abortion (ALL -- including parental notification for minors), whether at the State or Federal level. If that's his Numero Uno priority, fine. I have a #1 priority of my own, as a faithful Catholic. And I am in much greater agreement with Abp. Charles Chaput than our thoroughly sold-out brother Kmiec. My pro-life vote doesn't mean I think McCain would "do something" as in single-handedly revoke Roe v Wade. It does mean that I see through the smoke and mirrors of the party which has stated it is not only in support of abortion at any time for any reason, but also "regardless of ability to pay". Meaning my tax money gets to pay for abortions, according to them. I'll stop being a much-derided "single issue Catholic voter" when the Democrats modify their position on abortion. Bottom line.

Question: health insurance for pregnant women? what type insurance is good for pregnant women? i think i might be pregnant and don't have any health insurance. if i apply for insurance now then find out i am pregnant by going to the doctor will they count that as pre-existing since i dont know that i am pregnant right now. if i get on medicaid will they make fiance pay child support. i really dont want him to because he give me money now out his pocket

Answer: no medicaid is for pregnant women who dont have insurance it ends after you leave the hospital but your fiance wont pay child support unless you get on other gov't programs like FOOD STAMPS,TANF AND i believe thats it YOU DONT NEED TO TELL THEM YOU DONT KNOW WHO THE DAD IS ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GO DOWN TO YOUR LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT THEY WILL GIVE YOU A PREG TEST,AND YOU CAN GET MEDICAID FOR BEING PREGNANT POINT BLANK

Question: I have been married for 15 years--separated once, and reconciled the marriage in 2009...Help!? My situation may or may not be unique, when you are faced with adversity you always feel like the 'lone ranger'....my husband and I married Christmas Eve of 1994, we remained married until 1999 when I decided not to "legally" separate but leave him. My mother died of cancer in 1996, I was 28 years old, and had been traumatized by her death. I decided to enter college--I entered earned a full academic scholarship and went on to earn 2 degree's....my estranged husband and I remained in touch off and on throughout the years--and I decided in 2009 that with the economy being in such a flux, I would enter the military....my husband located me on "FACE BOOK" and I was so happy to hear from him--we each decided after many conversations via e-mail and phone to "reconcile"--I told him of my plans to enter the military and he was quite supportive. I had been living in one state, he in another, I had been finishing up my "physical" with the military and because I am 40 needed to do "extra" physical testing to out rule any pre-existing conditions. I asked the Sgt. whom I had been reporting to would it be possible to "ship" from my husband's home state--I was so elated we were going to reconcile and the military stated that this was okay. I packed, paid movers and relocated to the state where my husband had been---he had a daughter during the course of the separation that I embraced as "my own"--an extension of my husband. I was able to secure housing in the new state, get everything moved, and then ALL the problems started---it seems once the Dept, of Defense notified me to tell me I had an abnormal EKG reading and this medically disqualified me from the military, my husband's demeanor began to change---he stopped communicating with me, no sexual relations, he seemed to be sabotaging the marriage. He only seemed interested in television. I could not understand. We were together 2 months and with arguing--I asked that he leave our home and he left.....but days later, I asked WHEN he would be returning home and he exclaimed 'if he were coming back, he would've been back'--such nerve! I have spent money moving, setting up "house"---I even decorated a bedroom for his daughter and it seems because I could not enter the military, he changed his mind about being married--he has left me with bills from our first month of living together, all of which I've had to manage and juggle--our landlord has removed his name from my now *new* lease agreement--and I am one person now stuck in a 12 month lease in a 3 bedroom home-- In summary, he says because he already pays child-support, he WON'T have to pay "maintenance/alimony" to me because of the child support order, is this true? Am I legally "assed" out because he has 1 child and he does not make a ton of money, OR can a child support order be reduced for spousal support---so frustrated and broke! Thanks for any help--Happy New Year!!

Answer: Every time I read one of these rekindled love stories, I have to ask why anyone has any faith or trust in another human being at all. I say the above out of pure compassion for you because the fact of the matter is, people are totally fickle. The only thing I can address here is the situation with him enticing you to move, embrace his daughter as your own; and then abandon you emotionally and then permanently. This man has serious commitment issues, whereas I see you as a stable, strong and determined individual. He, on the other hand is weak, non-committal and from what I can see, immature. The bottom line here is, emotionally this guy is poison. Point blank. Now as far as what will happen with spousal support vs. child support? No one knows. We don't know what state you moved to, whether you're a lawful resident of that state entitling you to the protection of that state, or whether your original state of residence is the proper jurisdiction to file. What I can tell you is that he may not go to jail for not paying spousal support to you, but he certainly will owe it to you on paper. Most courts will probably find a way to back-assess him for any prior support that he owes you, including probably the cost of your education. A really good lawyer, who believes in your case, will get you a nice, tidy judgment that you will be entitled to enforce against him somehow. Now as far as the daughter is concerned, well she's somewhere between 1 and 10 years old which means somewhere in the next 8 to 17 years, depending on when she becomes an adult, your soon to be ex husband will have a major bullseye on his back. And ... if he earned pension benefits or retirement benefits, you're probably entitled to those and his social security since the marriage is over 10 years. In sum, I would consult a lawyer in your old state, your new state, and then decide which jurisdiction provides you with the better options here. Ordinarily I would not advise raking a guy over the coals legally, but it just seems to me that this man had something really special here, and whatever his stupid expectations were (like a military spouse far from home over time would be really cool for a philanderer), but it seems clear to me he was going to use you like a finger puppet. From my perspective, I think he's a user and loser, probably an abuser and you need to lose this joker pronto! Otherwise, you seem like a very nice, decent and loving person. Hence you shouldn't have any trouble finding a real good guy. Try and find a guy that will make your life easier and better for you, and then you'll know the difference.

Question: Should my soon to be EX pay 1/2 of our family med. plan until the divorce?? Long story short.....wife left me for another guy and we have two kids. We are separated, but not divorced yet. She has physical custody of the kids. Since the day she had me leave, I have been paying her 25% of my gross income for child support and also paying 100% of my company's deluxe health insurance plan ($813./mo.) for them. It will be months until the divorce and I'm having a tough time with the medical premium expenses. It seems that since she is on the plan that I should deduct half of the cost of the plan from her support check. I would, of course, pay half of any non-insurance covered expenses, too. That's fair, isn't it?? If you agree, would you help me write a note explaining this to her. I still love her and the kids and don't want to go to have lawyers and go to court. Also, changing insurance is out of the question if you know anything about group plans due to pre-existing conditions and such. (I live in Nevada) Also, when the divorce goes through I will be be more than happy to pay the full premium for my 2 kids and half of any non-covered expenses, too. I understand thats my responsiblility.

Answer: Yep, until you are completely divorced, she should be paying half the expenses. However, if you didn't ask for it or it wasn't brought up in the separation agreement you are sort of out of gas in regards to the legalities of it. If you need to write a letter, try this: Dear______, Although I understand the separation is only temporary until the divorce, there are some issues that I need to discuss regarding the insurance. I have no problem paying to cover the children, but if you remember, my insurance has extremely high rates for the family coverage. I don't mind sharing the expense and splitting the bills from what insurance does not cover, but I can't financially afford to keep the plan on my own. I'd like to reach a compromise, and understand you need insurance, however I am just not able to keep you on the plan if we can't work something out. I'm not doing this out of spite. I am doing this for financial reasons only. The $814 a month, plus child support and the basic cost of living has me sinking into debt. I don't want to fall behind on any obligations. Please let me know if you want to work with me on this to keep you insured, or let me know if you've found other insurance so I can cancel the family plan and just cover the kids.

Question: Order to Show Cause-Family Law-Alameda County, CA? I have a pre-existing case with my daughter’s mother. She is the Petitioner I am the Respondent. My daughter is living with me as of July 2008. I am about to file an Order to Show Cause, to obtain Child Support from her mother, and to get my garnishment to her mother stopped. I know what paper work to fill out, but I didn’t know if I had to serve her before I file, or do I have to wait until the clerk stamps it and then I send it out? Please help

Answer: I don't know the procedural rules for where you live. I do know that the court clerk can answer your questions about procedure (but not the law). Call and ask the clerk and she will tell you exactly what must be done procedurally.

Question: How can a pregnant woman with no insurance get medical treatment during her pregnancy? I have a friend who is in a bit of a predicament--- she is a single mom of a 9 year old boy. She makes decent money--- about $40,000 a year. That sounds like a lot, but between receiving no child support from the old deadbeat dad, putting herself through school while working full time (she doesn't receive any financial aid cuz of her income so she pays the full amount), paying out the nose for health insurance for her little boy.... there's really not anything left over. Unfortunately, she is pregnant again--- her fiance/new dad is sweet and supportive, but broke. Does anyone have ANY ideas on how she can get affordable prenatal care? She has a pre-existing condition from her first pregnancy and really wants to get an ultrasound/bloodwork. Like I said, she doesn't qualify for WIC or MediCal because she's got an okay job. Any ideas you guys have would be WONDERFUL!

Answer: healthquotes.awardspace.info - try this one. My sister had no problem with her insurance coverage while being pregnant.

Question: DO any of you REALLY think that the GOVERNMENT will give up their power? The ONLY entity that can garnish wages is the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE! Or the STATE attorney general for child support (and they need to cooperation of the business owner) DO any of you ACTUALLY think the GOVERNMENT would pass any healthplan allowing wages to be garnished? NO WAY! Remember a resolution has to pass BOTH the house and the senate! I am amazed how people try and give the President power they don't have! For healthcare to work it has to be taxpayer funded and without red tape (pre-existing conditions) also it has to have a general fund, OBAMA and HILLARY'S plans are CLOSE to indentical! my avatar is me, I use to be over weight, I am now a personal trainer

Answer: Define which part of the "Government" would be preventing this from happening? The IRS exists solely as a division of the Department of Taxation. This is not the department that controls the Government. "Remember a resolution has to pass BOTH the house and the senate!" And? No President can enact law, but they can have a hand in making sure it's done right to get something done now. An example is the tax 'refund' pushed out by the House and co-written by GWB. No President can wave his or her hands and make change. They have to do a little bit of politicking first. However, I'm really unsure what you're trying to get at with this.

Question: Liberals, do you still think Obamacare is a good idea? Health insurers drop coverage for children ahead of new rules Health plans in at least four states have announced they're dropping children's coverage just days ahead of new rules created by the healthcare reform law, according to the liberal grassroots group Health Care for America Now (HCAN). The new healthcare law forbids insurers from turning down children with pre-existing conditions starting Thursday, one of several reforms Democrats are eager to highlight this week as they try to build support for the law ahead of the mid-term elections. But news of insurers dropping their plans as a result of the new law has thrown a damper on that strategy and prompted fierce push-back from the administration's allies at HCAN. The announcement could lead to higher costs for some parents who are buying separate coverage for themselves and their children at lower cost than the family coverage that's available to them. "We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds and decided to refuse to sell child-only coverage," HCAN Executive Director Ethan Rome said in a statement. "The latest announcement by the insurance companies that they won't cover kids is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/119823-insurers-drop-childrens-insurance-plans-ahead-of-new-rules IndianaJohn - Next time read the story before answering, you wont look dumb. Carole - did you even read the story? Dem Spin - yes they can simply reapply, at a higher rate! Spin that!

Answer: The health insurance industry's reaction to not insuring children at all is completely predictable by anyone with any knowledge whatsoever of business and economics. There is no free lunch but unfortunately liberals will never understand that. Why would any insurer insure a child with a preexisting condition that potentially could cost them millions of dollars in claims? Let's say the parents can afford to pay $400 or $500 a month in insurance premiums for the child. That doesn't even begin to cover the costs that these companies would have to pay for. These costs would have to be passed on to the people who have insurance and then a lot of them could not afford coverage. So you insure one child with a preexisting condition and thousands more can no longer afford their coverage.

Question: What Other Disappointments Does the New Health Care Law Contain? 'If it seems too good to be true, it probably is' has never been a truer statement than it is about the new health care law. As the Father of a fantastic 4th grade daughter with a life-long pre-existing condition, disappointment doesn't express the sorrow that the promise made by President Obama when he said last Saturday "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions". Now, we all know this was a giant hoax to gather support for his bill, using disabled kids as a prop. I still cannot believe someone could be so heartless. What other significant and substantial "accidental omissions" or additional lies have been discovered, now that they've "passed the bill, so that we can see what's in it."? Ally, thanks for your charitable remarks. For your edification, I do have a charming 4th grade daughter who has quadriplegic infantile cerebral palsy diagnosis code 343.2 with a secondary diagnosis of alternating esotropia. Sorry Ally, but I have forgotten the diagnosis code. Ally, she uses a wheel chair and forearm crutches at school. Your remarks win the sensitivity prize of the year. Yes, Ally, I spend virtually every hour when I am not working researching this very situation and yes, I have done my best to read the bill, but 2700 pages is a bit daunting when it was released less than 72 hours. Ally, Yes, it is true that Obama either forgot the centerpiece of his bill, or LIED to ALL parents of kids who are un-insurable. Ally, if you have any information to the contrary, or anything useful to say. I'm all ears.

Answer: No one knows how good or bad this bill is. Not you or anyone else here has read the bill. This question was meant for nothing but to try to stir people up. Mr Obama has said over and over again that NO ONE WILL BE LEFT OUT BECAUSE OF A PRE EXISTING CONDITION. This bill is over a 1000 pages of legal jargon that i would bet no one here has read much less understands. That includes me and you. Quit trying to stir up trouble. If your going to try to stir up trouble at least have some idea of what your talking about before YOU try to stir up a hoax.

Question: Why do some people with disabled children oppose a government option to health care? Don't these people know that once their disabled child turns 18 (an adult) the child will be uninsurable and/or their disability will be excluded by their health insurance company as a pre-existing condition? Wouldn't it make sense for them to support health care reform so that their child will have the ability to get life long care for their disability? Mark J: Not all of them can get jobs with private companies. Companies don't want to shoulder the burden of their health care costs. A good friend of mine has cerebal palsy and cannot walk, but is mentally capable of holding and maintaining a job. No private company will hire her for a desk job, so she is forced to work for government agencies. When in reality, she would prefer to work for a private company. But it is the costs for the insurance that prevent her from getting a job with a private company.

Answer: Really this is a complex question. When disabled children turn 18, they sometimes can get in state programs, and other things. If they can get a job, eventually they might be able to get SSI, or SSD. As to government health care, I am sitting on the fence on that one. I know it is working in Canada, as I have friends and relatives there. I want to hear exactly what is offered before I go around cheering or yelling!