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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT