Opinion
No. 2020-CJ-00338
07-31-2020
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES IN THE INTEREST OF E.R. AND O.R. v. KIRK REDMANN
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson WEIMER, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) introduced evidence in the form of insurance premium statements and benefits costs calculations from the State of Louisiana, Office of Group Benefits (OGB) health insurance program. According to DCFS, the $165 amount on which the district court's reimbursement credit is based is several times greater than the amount of the monthly premium attributed to the children of defendant Kirk Redmann as evidenced by the documentation introduced by DCFS.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315(C)(4) provides:
"Health insurance premiums" means the actual amount paid by a party for providing health insurance on behalf of the child. It does not include any amount paid by an employer or any amounts paid for coverage of any other persons. If more than one dependent is covered by health insurance which is paid through a lump-sum dependent-coverage premium, and not all of such dependents are the subject of the guidelines calculation, the cost of the coverage shall be prorated among the dependents covered before being applied to the guidelines. [Emphasis added.]While DCFS's evidence did not definitely establish the actual amount of the premium paid by the father's former spouse, Terri Redmann, to the OGB on behalf of the children, such evidence calls into question the $165 amount relied on by the father in reimbursing Terri. Moreover, since Terri was not called as a witness by the father (the party seeking a credit against his support obligation for payment of his children's health insurance premiums), DCFS was denied any opportunity to cross examine Terri regarding the accuracy of the $165 amount.
Given the limited proof presented by the father, I am unable to find error in the court of appeal's determination that the father failed to present sufficient evidence of the "actual amount" of the premiums paid for purposes of La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4). While the father may be sincere in his assertion that he paid Terri $165 a month in premium reimbursements for the children, even the district court acknowledged there was a possibility of fraud in this arrangement, either with or without the father's knowledge. The father could have established the "actual amount paid" as statutorily required by introducing evidence from OGB or calling Terri as a witness.
The opposition of DCFS indicates that Terri had a daughter that was also covered under her policy and that the addition of the father's children did not affect Terri's premium. If supported by the record, the father did not prove any cost for his children's health insurance. --------