Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice
Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice
Child Custody And Divorce: Free Legal Advice
- - - - - - - - - -
All family law attorneys (I was worried that I was the only one, so I checked with all the others....No, it's not just me. It's all of us.) get the questions about putting the braces on kids' teeth. These questions break down into several categories, which is to say, the same dozen or so questions keep coming up, again and again. And, of course, we family law attorneys keep providing the same answers to the same questions, again and again. I will try to list all of the answers in this chapter, in hopes of avoiding, to some extent, the repetition....
I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to list the questions. Just the answers.
The answers are more or less, but not necessarily, in order.
1. Yes, I remember your case.
2. Yes, it has been a long time.
3. Yes, I remember that your child was a lot younger then (or at least, when I think about it carefully, it seems quite reasonable, so I'm comfortable with the answer).
4. Yes, the issue of braces for the child comes up, every now and then.
5. Yes, I know how expensive braces are. In fact, I have paid myself for one set of braces, on my oldest, and my youngest is not yet (as of this writing) to that age yet, but, truth be told, my assumption is that he'll get there....and, by way of correction, I didn't actually pay for the braces, it would be more correct to say that I paid my proportionate share of the braces, as did my Ex, but yes, braces can be pretty expensive.
6. Yes, braces cost more than they used to.
7. Yes, braces really are, actually, addressed in your judgment of divorce or support. It comes under the paragraph entitled 'Unreimbursed Medical Expenses', that part that we've talked about before, even though it's been a while, it works like this: when there's a medical bill, that bill gets submitted to one parent's health insurance carrier (Blue Cross, HMO, etc.), and that company will pay whatever the company usually pays. On a four thousand dollar bill for braces, the company will probably pay about twelve hundred bucks. No, hold on, we're not done yet...then, the same submission gets made, to the other parent's health insurance carrier, assuming that there is one, and that carrier ALSO will pay whatever that carrier usually pays, maybe up to another twelve hundred bucks. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't, another insurance carrier. But if there is, the submission gets made, and if there isn't, then obviously, no submission gets made. In either event, we arrive at this point:
Whatever insurance is available, from either or both sides, has been fully exhausted. The bill has been reduced, in some amount, but there is a balance left, isn't there? Since that balance will not be reduced any further, since this part of the bill is not subject to any further insurance reimbursement, then this last portion of the bill will be referred to as "un-reimbursed". Sure enough, the judgment provides that unreimbursed medical expenses are to be divided, by you and your Ex, in the same ratio as your incomes: if you have half of the income (which is to say, your Ex makes the same amount that you do) then you and your Ex will divide the unreimbursed medical in a 50/50 ratio, and each of you will be responsible for half of the remaining bill. If, however, one of you makes $700 a week, and the other of you makes $300 a week, then the math is fairly simple: one of you will pay 70%, and the other will pay 30%, of all unreimbursed medical. The unreimbursed medical is divided, between you, in the ratio of your incomes. Simple? Yes, with one small addition: nobody gets a 'zero'....the maximum division, the maximum fraction, is 90/10. An unemployed person will still be responsible for ten percent, and the fully employed person will only be responsible for ninety percent, even though one person clearly has a 'zero' in the income department. So that's how braces are dealt with by the courts, by the judge, if this should go to court.
8. Yes, there is a balance left, that insurance doesn't pay. There usually is. Even if, between you and the Ex, there are two insurance carriers, and, you should understand, frequently there is only one insurance carrier, and in many instances, there is no health insurance carrier at all. I understand that this means that there are some serious bucks left to pay in this situation.
9. Yes, I do know that it doesn't grow on trees. Not in my yard, either.
10. Yes, I understand that the doctor wants to be paid each and every month. Written contract, yes. Actually, the way it was presented to me, personally, was that I didn't actually have to sign some contract, nor make those monthly payments. No. I could just write the good doctor a check, and pay in full, if I preferred. Anyway, I opted for the payment plan. Which did you prefer?
11. Yes, there is a requirement that these things be "medically necessary" rather than "cosmetic". If these braces on the child's teeth (and we might just as well start saying 'teenager's teeth' at this point, don't you think?) are purely cosmetic, and not medically necessary, then no, these things are not covered by your judgment. Only if the braces are "medically necessary". Well, the final decision, if the issue is contested, gets made by the judge. Yes, the same judge that granted your judgment in the first place. The judge that has the job of deciding everything about the support in this case. The money, the medical, the child care, the abatement credits, everything. Same judge.
But you have to know a couple of things, and this is where I have to jump in and tell you. First, in order for someone to contest this thing, in order to contest it and actually WIN, one would have to be able to show the judge that the braces were not "medically necessary", that the braces were, actually "only cosmetic". You would need a doctor's testimony. Well, we've been using the term "doctor" because it's convenient, and it's easy to spell. Actually, one would have to come up with an Orthodontist who would testify that, in his or her professional opinion, these particular braces, on this particular teenager, had no medical value. No indeed, no medical value at all, of any kind, and that these braces were merely for "cosmetic" reasons. These braces would not possibly improve the bite of the child, could not possibly, by improving the alignment, make the teeth last longer by wearing less, hadn't a chance of improving the facial lines, nor of improving speech and diction, and would never give the child more self confidence, and even a better life, because when the child became a young adult, and smiled, the whole room (or yard, depending on where the child was standing) would be a little brighter, a little more pleasant, both for the child and for humanity as a whole.
No. One would, in order to win at court, have to find (at one's own expense) an Orthodontist who would take the stand and say, in effect, "The teeth would look a little more straight, and that's about it. It's for cosmetic reasons only." That can be a little difficult. I won't go into what page 232 of the Orthodontic Student Manual (yes, I have seen a copy) says about this subject, but, suffice to say, if one didn't think that braces could greatly improve a child's whole life, in many ways, in addition to improving the child's appearance, one would not go into that particular professional field. Or, I suspect, pass the final exam.
In addition, there's the aspect of the judge. Family Court judges have to deal with disagreeing parents every day, at least eight hours a day, every day, for a long, long time, before a judge can retire, and do something else, like go fishing. During their professional career on the bench, the judges really do get a feel for what is important, and what is not very important. They develop a feel for what is, and what is not, a sincere disagreement, between sincere people, on an important point, as opposed to one party attempting to bully the other over money, or access, or control. In addition, Family Court judges don't get the job because they are known as uncaring demagogues...they get the job because they are known as, and are, experienced lawyers who care about people, especially children. If there were to be a hearing, and one fully qualified Orthodontist testifies that the braces are medically necessary, and another Orthodontist testifies that the braces are only cosmetic, which way would you expect the judge to jump?
If Family Court judges were, theoretically, to simply rule, in every single case supported by an Orthodontist's testimony, that the kid is going to get the braces, and that each of the kid's parents were going to pay their proportionate share, what would be the result? Well, first and foremost, there would be a bunch of smiling kids running around, and when they smiled, the whole room (or yard, depending on where the child was standing) would be a little brighter....well, you get the idea. The downside? Hmmmm. Let me think....
12. Yes, it could happen.
(This is where the advice has to split, depending on which side of the dispute you are on....)
A. (If you are the parent who wants the braces for the child). I think you should confer with the Orthodontist, and advise the good doctor that you need a note, on letterhead, that these braces are medically necessary. The doctor will understand. These notes get written in many cases, it's not an unusual request. I understand that the other side is blustering, and threatening, but a letter will be written, by me, to the other side, and a motion in front of the judge will be scheduled, if necessary, and we'll explain it to the judge, and show the judge the letter, and you shouldn't worry about this. No, don't delay the child's appointments.
B. (If you are the parent who opposes the braces, or opposes paying your proportionate share). I think you should come into the office, and by all means bring your checkbook, and we'll discuss what this will cost, for the hearing, and what you'll have to do to find an Orthodontist who supports your side of the case (there are five in town, and you can make appointments with about four of them, and go in and discuss the case with them, probably an hour with each one), and if that doesn't work, there are two in the next county over, you can talk to them as well, while I prepare the petition, and schedule some time so we can get to court, to explain this to the judge. Well, yes, kind of expensive, when you add it all up, well, no, I can't be sure, it's up to the judge, isn't it?
Good luck with it.