You are utterly confused. If the health insurance available to the mother is through her husband, falls within the criteria under which she is required to provide coverage, then there is nothing wrong with it being the husband's insurance not hers. This has no impact on each of your duties to pay your pro rata shares of uncovered medical. It may, if you also have health insurance for the kids, reduce the amount of uncovered expenses. Nor does this have any impact on decision making as that is a parenting plan issue not a child support issue and covered by a different body of law. If she is in arrears, and the husband works and she doesn't you may be able to persuade the court to order that their bank account be garnished. You can also do that through support enforcement, which will garnish any bank account that has her name on it. It doesn't require a court order. If she is working, DCS should be garnishing her wages. You are right, her husband has no standing in this case, but his insurance is available and usable by the mother for the children and therefore the court would find it acceptable to meet her obligation for coverage.
Answered on May 12th, 2014 at 2:40 PM