Summary
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed a final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage. The court held that the judgment was deficient because it did not require payment of health insurance for the minor children or apportion noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a final judgment dissolving a marriage must include a provision requiring health insurance for the minor children when the insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible.
- Whether the final judgment must apportion the cost of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the minor children.
- Whether the omission of those provisions was harmless because the Husband was already paying for the children's health insurance.
Holdings
- A final judgment dissolving a marriage must include a provision for health insurance for the minor children when health insurance is reasonable in cost and accessible, including language making the responsible parent's payment a legal obligation.
- The final judgment must address and apportion between the parties the cost of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the minor children.
- The omission of the required health-insurance provision was not harmless merely because the Husband was voluntarily paying for the children's health insurance.
Key quotations
“We reverse the final judgment because it does not include a provision for health insurance for the minor children and it also does not include a provision addressing the cost of any non-covered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses of the children.” (1095-96)
“We do not agree that the error is harmless because as this court stated in Butler v. Butler, 622 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), “[ejven if the husband is providing insurance, this does not abrogate the requirement of making it a legal obligation pursuant to the final judgment.”” (1096)
Factual background
The parties' marriage was dissolved and they had minor children. The final judgment did not address the children's health insurance or the allocation of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses. Although the child-support worksheet reflected that the Husband paid for the children's health insurance, the judgment did not legally require him to continue doing so.
Procedural history
The trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. The Wife appealed, and the Second District reversed in part because the judgment omitted required provisions concerning the children's health insurance and allocation of noncovered medical expenses, while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Remand instructions
The trial court must amend the final judgment to state that the Husband is required to pay for health insurance for the minor children and to apportion between the parties the cost of noncovered medical, dental, and prescription medication expenses. The dissolution judgment is affirmed in all other respects.