Q: Question about court order

A: This is not an easy question. Pennsylvania judges all too often shoot from the hip, and they can either contempt a parent or not based on what is written or what is not written in a court order.

Here, the order appears to provide that "dad offers" which is not an order at all. The mere offer is not a binding command to provide. One judge can agree this is not enforceable while another judge can say we must all use common sense and the order does command the father to provide.

For the best answer, the asker should see an attorney with her order.

A: From the way the Order is written, it does not appear to bind Father into placing the child on his medical insurance. It merely states that Father "offered" to place the child on his insurance, not that the Court mandates him to do so. However, there may be a creative legal argument that there is a binding oral agreement between the parties, based on contract law principles. If Father offered to put the child on his insurance; you accepted; and there was "consideration" supporting the exchange (meaning you were giving something up and Father was getting something in exchange for placing the child on his insurance), you may be able to show the existence of a binding agreement or contract. You would likely need to pull a transcript of the proceedings to prove the existence of a contract. Moreover, enforcement mechanisms under contract law are not the same as enforcement pursuant to a Court Order.

However, beyond this potential argument under contract law principles, it may simply be in Father's interest to place the child on his health insurance, particularly if these are child support proceedings. Under the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines (see Rule 1910.16-6), Father may be entitled to a reduction in child support if he is paying the child's health insurance premium. On the flip side, Father may be required to contribute to unreimbursed medical expenses incurred on the child's behalf (such as the costs of therapy). Therefore, it may make economic sense for Father to place the child on his health insurance as opposed to incurring unnecessary unreimbursed costs.

Lastly, though the Court Order itself is vaguely worded and does not necessarily bind Father to place the child on his insurance, I will note that under Pennsylvania law, the obligor (person paying child support) "bears the initial responsibility of providing the child’s health care coverage if it is available at a reasonable cost". Reasonable cost is further defined as "an amount that does not exceed 5% of the obligor’s monthly net income and, when added to the basic child support obligation plus additional expenses the obligor is ordered to pay, does not exceed 50% of the obligor’s monthly net income." So, regardless of what the Order says, it may be that Father is initially responsible for covering the child anyway, depending on the cost of insurance and which party is paying child support.

I would strongly recommend scheduling a consultation with a child support/family law attorney in your area for more guidance on this issue and to get legal advice tailored to your particular situation.