James Bolles v. Catherine Bolles (2011)

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION (Correction to Memorandum of Decision dated November 30, 2011 Correction made was re error of Contempt Citation # 153, not # 150 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING CONTEMPT CITATION (# 153)

A review of the record reveals that the parties were divorced on February 6, 2003.   Relevant to this proceeding, the parties were ordered to share unreimbursed medical expenses for the minor children with the father paying 59% and the mother paying 41%.   Moreover, the father was ordered to provide health insurance for the minor children as available through his employment.

The parties appeared before the undersigned on November 28, 2011 to argue the pending contempt motion.

The court finds the following facts to be proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence:

1. The parties were divorced on February 6, 2003.

2. The parties were ordered to share unreimbursed medical expenses for the minor children with the father paying 59% and the mother paying 41%.

3. The father was ordered to provide health insurance for the minor children as available through his employment.

4. Sometime around 2007 or 2008, the father voluntarily terminated his employment, thus losing his health insurance for the children.

5. The parties met and agreed that the mother would change her employment to one with a lower salary which included health insurance benefits.   As a result, the parties agreed that the father would pay two-thirds of the health insurance premiums for the children.

6. The parties adhered to this agreement through and including 2010.

7. The father made a partial payment for his share of the health insurance premiums in the amount of $976.15.

8. There remains due from the father to the mother the sum of $976.15 for his share of the health insurance premiums for 2010.

9. The father's share of the insurance premiums for the children from January until November 2011 total $2,263.95.

10. On December 1, 2011, the children will have new insurance through their mother's husband's insurance.

11. The son required braces on his teeth, just as his sister had previously, at a total cost of $4,880.   The father's 59% share is $2,879.20.

12. The father argued, unconvincingly, that the child should not have gotten braces without his permission although he acknowledged that his son's teeth are crooked and in fact, the entire family had crooked teeth.   It appears that he was more perturbed that the mother had gone ahead and purchased the braces and grudgingly admitted that his son needed braces.

13. As a result of the father's failure to maintain health insurance, paid the agreed upon share of the insurance premiums and the court ordered 59% of the braces, the mother was forced to retain counsel and institute these proceedings.

14. As a result, the mother expended $1,800 in attorneys fees and $50.44 in marshal fees.

ORDERS:

1. The father is found in contempt.

2. The father is ordered to reimburse the mother the sum of $976.15 in 2010 insurance premiums, $2,263.95 in 2011 insurance premiums, $2,879.20 as his share of his son's braces, $50.44 in marshal's fees and $900 in attorneys fees for a total of $7,069.74 at the rate of $50 per week commencing December 15, 2011.

Shluger, J.

Shluger, Kenneth L., J.