A child support order must include provisions for how health insurance and non-covered medical expenses are shared between the parties, the Court of Appeals says in Elliott v. Wendell, 12/20/2016.
An absence of evidence does not negate a court’s statutory responsibility to ensure that a dependent child’s health care needs are met by making provisions for the same in an order of support. Zubricki v. Motter, 12 Va. App. 999, 1002, 406 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1991); see also Whitney v. Whitney, No. 2192-06-2, 2007 Va. App. LEXIS 203, at *14 (Va. Ct. App. May 15, 2007) ... In Zubricki, we found “no merit” in a father’s argument that a trial “court erred in ordering him to pay health insurance or health expenses without any evidence as to their cost.” 12 Va. App. at 1002, 406 S.E.2d at 674. Noting that a “court is not required under the statute to determine the amount of coverage that will be necessary as there is no way for the court to predict the costs,” we nonetheless recognized that “[u]nder Code § 20-60.3, a child support order must contain a provision for health care coverage.” Id.
Ordering a party to provide health insurance does not require any evidence or findings; making the exception, for when it's not available at reasonable cost, does.
The sole statutory exception to the requirement that health care coverage be addressed in a child support order is when there is a showing that coverage is not available at “reasonable cost.” Absent such a showing, the order must contain a provision for health care coverage. Here, the absence of sufficient evidence prevented the circuit court from finding that the exception applied. In the absence of such evidence, the default rule is that “a child support order must contain a provision for health care coverage.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the circuit court erred when it failed to include a provision regarding health care coverage in the order.
When a court does conclude from the evidence that no coverage at a reasonable cost is available, the court still must include a written statement to that effect in the order.
On non-reimbursed medical expenses, the trial court did not order anything, because the only evidence was about incomes, and that there was no evidence about what the medical expenses were. But
Code § 20-108.2(D) ... establishes a default method by which a minor child’s uncovered medical expenses are to be allocated between the parties. Absent “good cause shown or the agreement of the parties,” “the parents pay in proportion to their gross incomes.” The only evidence needed to determine the relative amounts each party is responsible for is the parties’ gross incomes.
The Court also reminds us why it can cite unpublished opinions, and what they're worth:
Unpublished opinions of this Court, while having no precedential value, are nevertheless persuasive authority. Otey v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 346, 351 n.3, 735 S.E.2d 255, 258 n.3 (2012).