ILNews

Court: child support can include medical costs

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Parents can be ordered to pay medical expenses for college students as part of child support obligations, even past age 21, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

All five justices agreed in Michael Cubel v. Debra Cubel, 32S04-0707-CV-283, which is authored by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and involves two conflicting rulings from the state's appellate court on this issue.

The Hendricks County case involves the two parents who divorced in 2005, but have a daughter attending college in the state. She is currently 21 years old, past the age when child support is generally cut off. Hendricks Superior Judge David Coleman ordered that father Michael Cubel maintain medical, dental, and optical insurance for his daughter until age 23 or she's otherwise emancipated.

But the father argued those insurance payments should be considered child support that ceases at age 21, rather than educational expenses that can be extended past that age. He cited as authority Sebastian v. Sebastian, 798 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), where the appellate court held that health insurance is in the nature of child support, not educational expenses, and should be terminated at age 21.

However, an earlier appellate decision conflicts with that authority. In Schueneman v. Schueneman, 591 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), the court held that a trial court can include health insurance payments in a post-secondary educational order, even if those payments continue beyond the child's 21st birthday.

Chief Justice Shepard wrote, "In this case, we are asked to determine whether the General Assembly intended the child support statutes to include insurance coverage for children during college, in accordance with the Schueneman holding, or whether it did not intend to provide for a child's health care costs beyond age twenty-one regardless of whether the child is attending college, in accordance with the Sebastian holding."

Nothing about the history of the educational support statute suggests that the legislature intended to end a child's medical insurance because of college, Chief Justice Shepard wrote, citing Indiana Code 31-16-6-2(a)(2) that provides orders can include "special" medical, hospital, or dental expenses.

"We do not interpret the inclusion of the word 'special' as a constraint on the court's authority to order payment for medical insurance while a child is attending college," he wrote. "If we interpreted the inclusion.... To preclude the trial court (from doing that), many full-time college students would be unable to obtain or afford medical insurance. Our interpretation is further enforced by the practices of the insurance industry that commonly permit a child to remain on a parent's health insurance plan until the time he or she finishes college."

Lower courts can use discretion to establish whether this is appropriate for specific cases, the decision says. The Supreme Court affirms Judge Coleman's decision, except for remanding the case so that the court can consider the child's ability to contribute to her college education and directing that any post-age 21 medical coverage provisions be worked into part of the decree on educational expenses.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT