Who Is Legally Responsible for the Debts of a Minor Child??

[stokely]

Question at bottom.

Here are the facts:

* The state is California.

* The father of a child born out of wedlock stipulated to paternity to this
child and is under an order of support that includes providing HEALTH
insurance with all reasonable effort and also to "pay...one-half of any
uninsured health care costs incurred for the minor child." He is a non-
custodial parent (NCP) with no visitation and who makes no effort at
visitation.

* The child was taken by her mother, the custodial parent (CP), to an oral
surgeon and later to an orthodontist. She informed the NCP of her
intention to do so, and made an arrangement to split costs not reimbursed
by insurance. NCP was agreeable.

* The costs paid by insurance were through the employer-provided dental
health plan of the NCP.

* After several months, CP urgently informs NCP that the oral surgeon is
due $70-some, which is now $105 because the debt was referred to a
collector.

* NCP is given a letter of intention to take legal action and is SHOCKED to
learn that the action is being taken against NCP. The name of the billing
party is not the exact name of the NCP, but it is possible the collection
agency has true and correct identifying information for the NCP (social
security number, etc.) The address of the person targeted for legal action
is not the legal address of the NCP, and the NCP never resided at this
address. In fact the address is of the CP, who claims she notified the CP
of this debt, but who never said to the NCP that the billing party was the
NCP.

* NCP was just about to call the district attorney to report a possible
identity theft and damage to his credit rating until the CP revealed her
deceitfulness. NCP believes he has no criminal case anyway, and will not
pursue it. NCP also believes D.A. would consider this "small potatoes."

======

NCP has agreed to pay the oral surgeon's debt through the collection
agency, because NCP will get something in trade from the CP (not specified
here). NCP has said in letters to the collection agency (CC: to oral
surgeon and CP). In a separate letter to oral surgeon, NCP has threatened
conditionally to sue the business of the oral surgeon and has criticized
the business practices of the oral surgeon for not verifying the identity
of billing party.

QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by the
minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY between
the NCP and the health service provider. For the simple reason that the
NCP does not take the child to the doctor or oversee its care, and so
cannot know if a legal contract for debt is being created and the billing
information correctly entered.

The NCP is obligated to pay half of uninsured costs----yes! But that is
between the CP and the NCP. Correct?? At least the NCP, upon
notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his obligation
for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
being trashed????

[Paul Fritz]

"stokely" > wrote in message
...
> Question at bottom.
>

>
> QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by the
> minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY between
> the NCP and the health service provider.

This is correct. The party signing for medical/dental is the party
accepting the debt obligation, regardless of insurance involved.

> For the simple reason that the
> NCP does not take the child to the doctor or oversee its care, and so
> cannot know if a legal contract for debt is being created and the billing
> information correctly entered.
>
> The NCP is obligated to pay half of uninsured costs----yes! But that is
> between the CP and the NCP. Correct??

Yes, as a last resort, the CP would have to file a motion through the court
to recoup the balance of the money.

> At least the NCP, upon
> notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
> arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
> health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his obligation
> for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
> being trashed????

The NCP has no obligation to the provider, I've been down that road
before. You sometimes have to threaten them. Many
mistakenly/intentionally chase the holder of the insurance, NOT the person
that is legally obligated for the debt. You sometimes have to goe high up
the food chain of supervisors to get it corrected.

>

[Paul Fritz]

"stokely" > wrote in message
...
> Question at bottom.
>

>
> QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by the
> minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY between
> the NCP and the health service provider.

This is correct. The party signing for medical/dental is the party
accepting the debt obligation, regardless of insurance involved.

> For the simple reason that the
> NCP does not take the child to the doctor or oversee its care, and so
> cannot know if a legal contract for debt is being created and the billing
> information correctly entered.
>
> The NCP is obligated to pay half of uninsured costs----yes! But that is
> between the CP and the NCP. Correct??

Yes, as a last resort, the CP would have to file a motion through the court
to recoup the balance of the money.

> At least the NCP, upon
> notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
> arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
> health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his obligation
> for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
> being trashed????

The NCP has no obligation to the provider, I've been down that road
before. You sometimes have to threaten them. Many
mistakenly/intentionally chase the holder of the insurance, NOT the person
that is legally obligated for the debt. You sometimes have to goe high up
the food chain of supervisors to get it corrected.

>

[Arthur L. Rubin]

Paul Fritz wrote:

> "stokely" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Question at bottom.
> >
>
> >
> > QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by the
> > minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY between
> > the NCP and the health service provider.
>
> This is correct. The party signing for medical/dental is the party
> accepting the debt obligation, regardless of insurance involved.

USUALLY. If the provider has a contract with insurance, then
the party signing may only have responsibility for the uninsured
balance.

....

> At least the NCP, upon

> > notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
> > arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
> > health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his obligation
> > for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
> > being trashed????
>
> The NCP has no obligation to the provider, I've been down that road
> before. You sometimes have to threaten them. Many
> mistakenly/intentionally chase the holder of the insurance, NOT the person
> that is legally obligated for the debt. You sometimes have to goe high up
> the food chain of supervisors to get it corrected.

Again, if there is a contract between the provider and insurance, then
INSURANCE may be legally obligated, rather than the holder of
the debt -- and the holder of insurance may have a legal obligation
to assist the provider in dealing with insurance....

[Arthur L. Rubin]

Paul Fritz wrote:

> "stokely" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Question at bottom.
> >
>
> >
> > QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by the
> > minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY between
> > the NCP and the health service provider.
>
> This is correct. The party signing for medical/dental is the party
> accepting the debt obligation, regardless of insurance involved.

USUALLY. If the provider has a contract with insurance, then
the party signing may only have responsibility for the uninsured
balance.

....

> At least the NCP, upon

> > notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
> > arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
> > health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his obligation
> > for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
> > being trashed????
>
> The NCP has no obligation to the provider, I've been down that road
> before. You sometimes have to threaten them. Many
> mistakenly/intentionally chase the holder of the insurance, NOT the person
> that is legally obligated for the debt. You sometimes have to goe high up
> the food chain of supervisors to get it corrected.

Again, if there is a contract between the provider and insurance, then
INSURANCE may be legally obligated, rather than the holder of
the debt -- and the holder of insurance may have a legal obligation
to assist the provider in dealing with insurance....

[Arthur L. Rubin]

Paul Fritz wrote:

> "Arthur L. Rubin" > wrote in message
> ...



>
> > Again, if there is a contract between the provider and insurance, then
> > INSURANCE may be legally obligated, rather than the holder of
> > the debt -- and the holder of insurance may have a legal obligation
> > to assist the provider in dealing with insurance....
>
> That is a big MAY.
> The person signing for the service is still the one that is obligated for
> the debt.

If the contract between the provider and insurance so provides
(and many of them DO so provide), the person signing is only
obligated for the copayment specified in THAT contract.

[Arthur L. Rubin]

Paul Fritz wrote:

> "Arthur L. Rubin" > wrote in message
> ...



>
> > Again, if there is a contract between the provider and insurance, then
> > INSURANCE may be legally obligated, rather than the holder of
> > the debt -- and the holder of insurance may have a legal obligation
> > to assist the provider in dealing with insurance....
>
> That is a big MAY.
> The person signing for the service is still the one that is obligated for
> the debt.

If the contract between the provider and insurance so provides
(and many of them DO so provide), the person signing is only
obligated for the copayment specified in THAT contract.

[Paul Fritz]

"Arthur L. Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> > "stokely" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Question at bottom.
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by
the
> > > minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY
between
> > > the NCP and the health service provider.
> >
> > This is correct. The party signing for medical/dental is the party
> > accepting the debt obligation, regardless of insurance involved.
>
> USUALLY. If the provider has a contract with insurance, then
> the party signing may only have responsibility for the uninsured
> balance.

Which could be up to 100% of the cost.....DUH. The signing party is the one
obligated for the debt.


>
> ...
>
> > At least the NCP, upon
>
> > > notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
> > > arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
> > > health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his
obligation
> > > for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
> > > being trashed????
> >
> > The NCP has no obligation to the provider, I've been down that road
> > before. You sometimes have to threaten them. Many
> > mistakenly/intentionally chase the holder of the insurance, NOT the
person
> > that is legally obligated for the debt. You sometimes have to goe high
up
> > the food chain of supervisors to get it corrected.
>
> Again, if there is a contract between the provider and insurance, then
> INSURANCE may be legally obligated, rather than the holder of
> the debt -- and the holder of insurance may have a legal obligation
> to assist the provider in dealing with insurance....

That is a big MAY.
The person signing for the service is still the one that is obligated for
the debt.

The holder of the insurance may be obligated to assist in dealing with
whatever insurance MAY cover, but the person signing is still the one
obligated to the provider.


>

[Paul Fritz]

"Arthur L. Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> > "stokely" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Question at bottom.
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > QUESTION: The NCP has claimed to all parties that debts incurred by
the
> > > minor child cannot possibly legally create an obligation DIRECTLY
between
> > > the NCP and the health service provider.
> >
> > This is correct. The party signing for medical/dental is the party
> > accepting the debt obligation, regardless of insurance involved.
>
> USUALLY. If the provider has a contract with insurance, then
> the party signing may only have responsibility for the uninsured
> balance.

Which could be up to 100% of the cost.....DUH. The signing party is the one
obligated for the debt.


>
> ...
>
> > At least the NCP, upon
>
> > > notification of the CP, and by his signature create a direct legal
> > > arrangement for billing with the health service provider. But if the
> > > health service provider gives no notification to the NCP of his
obligation
> > > for debt, how can the NCP know that his identity and credit rating are
> > > being trashed????
> >
> > The NCP has no obligation to the provider, I've been down that road
> > before. You sometimes have to threaten them. Many
> > mistakenly/intentionally chase the holder of the insurance, NOT the
person
> > that is legally obligated for the debt. You sometimes have to goe high
up
> > the food chain of supervisors to get it corrected.
>
> Again, if there is a contract between the provider and insurance, then
> INSURANCE may be legally obligated, rather than the holder of
> the debt -- and the holder of insurance may have a legal obligation
> to assist the provider in dealing with insurance....

That is a big MAY.
The person signing for the service is still the one that is obligated for
the debt.

The holder of the insurance may be obligated to assist in dealing with
whatever insurance MAY cover, but the person signing is still the one
obligated to the provider.


>