Chapter 767

767.511 Cross-reference Cross-reference: See also ch. DCF 150, Wis. adm. code.

767.511 Cross-reference Cross-reference: See also Wisconsin Administrative Code Citations published in the Wisconsin Administrative Code for a list of citations to cases citing chs. DCF 150, HSS 80, HFS 80, and DWD 40, the child support percentage of income standard.

767.511 Cross-reference Cross-reference: See also notes to s. 767.59 for decisions regarding postjudgment modifications.

767.511 Annotation A provision in a judgment as to the education of children past the age of majority, inserted pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, cannot later be challenged and can be enforced by contempt proceedings. Bliwas v. Bliwas, 47 Wis. 2d 635, 178 N.W.2d 35 (1970).

767.511 Annotation When parents each own a one-half interest in future proceeds of real estate and the state contributes to child support, the court may not order the custodial parent to pay child support in the form of an accumulating real estate lien in favor of the state. State v. Reible, 91 Wis. 2d 394, 283 N.W.2d 427 (Ct. App. 1979).

767.511 Annotation The trial court abused its discretion by setting child support payments without considering the needs of the children or the payer’s ability to pay. Edwards v. Edwards, 97 Wis. 2d 111, 293 N.W.2d 160 (1980).

767.511 Annotation A personal injury damage award to a noncustodial spouse can be considered as a change of circumstances justifying increased support. Sommer v. Sommer, 108 Wis. 2d 586, 323 N.W.2d 144 (Ct. App. 1982).

767.511 Annotation Sub. (6) imposes interest on arrearages existing on July 2, 1983, as well as on those accruing afterward. Greenwood v. Greenwood, 129 Wis. 2d 388, 385 N.W.2d 213 (Ct. App. 1986).

767.511 Annotation Federal Supplemental Security Income may not be considered to be an economic resource for purposes of computing a child support obligation. However, a seek-work order may be appropriate. Langlois v. Langlois, 150 Wis. 2d 101, 441 N.W.2d 286 (Ct. App. 1989).

767.511 Annotation Educational grants and loans, AFDC, and other child support are not economic resources for purposes of computing a child support obligation. Thibadeau v. Thibadeau, 150 Wis. 2d 109, 441 N.W.2d 281 (Ct. App. 1989).

767.511 Annotation Consideration of expenses incurred by a child as an adult, including education expenses, is error. Resong v. Vier, 157 Wis. 2d 382, 459 N.W.2d 591 (Ct. App. 1990).

767.511 Annotation A divorce stipulation waiving or setting a ceiling on child support and preventing modification is against public policy and will not be enforced. Ondrasek v. Tenneson, 158 Wis. 2d 690, 462 N.W.2d 915 (Ct. App. 1990).

767.511 Annotation The trial court’s use of a computer program to analyze financial evidence was not error. Bisone v. Bisone, 165 Wis. 2d 114, 477 N.W.2d 59 (Ct. App. 1991).

767.511 Annotation In a joint custody situation, the parent with primary physical custody may be ordered to pay child support. Matz v. Matz, 166 Wis. 2d 326, 479 N.W.2d 245 (Ct. App. 1991).

767.511 Annotation A stepparent has no legal obligation to support a stepchild. Under appropriate circumstances the theory of equitable estoppel may apply to cases involving child support. Ulrich v. Cornell, 168 Wis. 2d 792, 484 N.W.2d 545 (1992).

767.511 Annotation The absence of a mortgage obligation is relevant to the assessment of a party’s economic circumstances but does not translate into imputed income under the applicable administrative rule. Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 169 Wis. 2d 516, 485 N.W.2d 294 (Ct. App. 1992).

767.511 Annotation A support order against actual AFDC grants is prohibited by Thibadeau, 150 Wis. 2d 109 (1989), but an order against earned income of one who also receives AFDC is not. State v. Rose, 171 Wis. 2d 617, 492 N.W.2d 350 (Ct. App. 1992).

767.511 Annotation No matter how corporate income is labeled, a family court may pierce the corporate shield if it is convinced the obligor’s intent is to avoid financial obligations. Evjen v. Evjen, 171 Wis. 2d 677, 492 N.W.2d 361 (Ct. App. 1992).

767.511 Annotation The parties’ extrajudicial agreement that child support payments be discontinued was enforceable via the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Harms v. Harms, 174 Wis. 2d 780, 498 N.W.2d 229 (1993).

767.511 Annotation Discussing the “serial family payer” rule adopted under the percentage standards referred to in sub. (1) [now sub. (1j)]. Brown v. Brown, 177 Wis. 2d 512, 503 N.W.2d 280 (Ct. App. 1993).

767.511 Annotation The mandatory percentage standards for determining support do not allow for deferred payments. Kelly v. Hougham, 178 Wis. 2d 546, 504 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1993).

767.511 Annotation An AFDC recipient assigns all rights to child support payments to the state. As such the payments may not be held in trust for the child under sub. (2). State v. William W., 180 Wis. 2d 708, 510 N.W.2d 718 (Ct. App. 1993).

767.511 Annotation A lump sum separation benefit received upon termination of employment was properly considered to be income subject to the percentage standards for support. Gohde v. Gohde, 181 Wis. 2d 770, 512 N.W.2d 199 (Ct. App. 1993).

767.511 Annotation In deciding not to apply the percentage standard, the court erred when it compared the parties’ available incomes after deducting the percentage amount from the payer’s income, but failed to consider the assumed contribution of the same percentage by the payee. Kjelstrup v. Kjelstrup, 181 Wis. 2d 973, 512 N.W.2d 264 (Ct. App. 1994).

767.511 Annotation A trial court could not set child support at zero, convert post-divorce income to marital property, and order that income to be held in trust to be distributed to the child when AFDC benefits ended. Luna v. Luna, 183 Wis. 2d 20, 515 N.W.2d 480 (Ct. App. 1994).

767.511 Annotation If the interests of the children and custodial parent are protected, parties are free to contract in a settlement agreement that the primary custodian will not have spending discretion over child support. Jacquart v. Jacquart, 183 Wis. 2d 372, 515 N.W.2d 539 (Ct. App. 1994).

767.511 Annotation An asset and its income stream may not be counted both as an asset in the property division and as part of the payer’s income from which support is paid. State v. Maley, 186 Wis. 2d 125, 519 N.W.2d 717 (Ct. App. 1994).

767.511 Annotation A minimum fixed child support amount, rather than the percentage standard, based on the payer’s “potential income” was appropriate when the court found that the payer had a substantial potential to manipulate the amount of support. Doerr v. Doerr, 189 Wis. 2d 112, 525 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1994).

767.511 Annotation Trust income that is income to the beneficiary under federal tax law is subject to a child support order regardless of whether a distribution is made to the beneficiary. Grohmann v. Grohmann, 189 Wis. 2d 532, 525 N.W.2d 261 (1995).

767.511 Annotation The trial court may consider the amount of time a child is placed with the paying parent and that parent’s second family in setting support. Molstad v. Molstad, 193 Wis. 2d 602, 535 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1995).

767.511 Annotation The percentage standards may be used to generate future as well as present support. Mary L.O. v. Tommy R.B., 199 Wis. 2d 186, 544 N.W.2d 417 (1996), 93-1929.

767.511 Annotation The percentage standards presumptively apply in the case of a high income payee absent the payer’s showing of unfairness by the greater weight of the credible evidence. Luciani v. Montemurro-Luciani, 199 Wis. 2d 280, 544 N.W.2d 561 (1996), 93-2899.

767.511 Annotation Sub. (6) makes interest on child support arrearages mandatory. A trial court has no discretion in awarding interest, even if it determines that to do so would be inequitable. Douglas County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Fisher, 200 Wis. 2d 807, 547 N.W.2d 801 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1960.

767.511 Annotation A court may consider earning capacity rather than actual earnings in determining child support and maintenance if it finds a parent’s job choice voluntary and unreasonable. Sellers v. Sellers, 201 Wis. 2d 578, 549 N.W.2d 481 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2730.

767.511 Annotation The fact that a party, by deliberate conduct, frustrates an accurate calculation of the party’s income does not prevent the trial court from making the appropriate finding of fact. The court may make its findings based on the available evidence. Lellman v. Mott, 204 Wis. 2d 166, 554 N.W.2d 525 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0618.

767.511 Annotation The court did not abuse its discretion in ruling against a request in a high income payer case for an increase in support according to the percentage standards when the court believed that the request was really a disguised claim for extra money to support the custodial parent’s own lifestyle. Nelsen v. Candee, 205 Wis. 2d 632, 556 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2208.

767.511 Annotation In certain cases, such as with military retirement pay, an asset may be divided in the property division and its income stream considered as income in determining child support. Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997), 95-1963.

767.511 Annotation When a noncustodial parent seeks to impose a trust on arrearages owed under a pre-August 1, 1987, support order, that parent must demonstrate that the trust is in the child’s best interest and, when the custodial parent does not agree to the trust, that the primary custodian is unwilling to or incapable of managing the support money. Cameron v. Cameron, 209 Wis. 2d 88, 562 N.W.2d 126 (1997), 95-0311.

767.511 Annotation Income disparity resulting from applying the percentage standards is only relevant if the payer can show inability to pay or that the income disparity will adversely affect the children or payer. Equalizing lifestyles between parents is not a support objective. The amount of discretionary income either parent will have to spend on their children is a secondary consideration. Raz v. Brown, 213 Wis. 2d 296, 570 N.W.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1997.

767.511 Annotation The repayment to the payer spouse of a loan made by him to a company that he owned was a proper addition to the payer’s income available for support. It was properly found to be deferred compensation, which is included within the applicable definition of income. Raz v. Brown, 213 Wis. 2d 296, 570 N.W.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1997.

767.511 Annotation A stipulation for child support with no time limit or opportunity for review was against public policy, and the payer was not estopped from seeking a modification due to a material change in circumstances. Krieman v. Goldberg, 214 Wis. 2d 163, 571 N.W.2d 425 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3489.

767.511 Annotation Absent a finding that an individual partner has authority to unilaterally control a partnership asset, partnership assets will be imputed as available income only in accordance with the partnership agreement. Health insurance premiums paid by a partnership are included in the partners’ income available for child support. Weis v. Weis, 215 Wis. 2d 135, 572 N.W.2d 123 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3576.

767.511 Annotation The trial court properly exercised its discretion under sub. (1m) (i) by excluding from the application of the percentage standards the value of nonassignable trips received by the paying spouse as employment bonuses although the trips constituted taxable income. State v. Wall, 215 Wis. 2d 595, 573 N.W.2d 862 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0826.

767.511 Annotation In concluding that a deviation from the percentage standards is warranted, all listed factors need not be applied. State v. Alonzo R., 230 Wis. 2d 17, 601 N.W.2d 328 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3333.

767.511 Annotation The percentage standards under sub. (1j) include the shared-time payer formula in s. DWD 40.04 (2) [now s. DCF 150.04 (2)], Wis. Adm. Code, as well as the straight percentage standards in s. DWD 40.03 (1) [now s. DCF 150.03 (1)]. The shared-time formula applies if the payer will be assuming costs in proportion to the number of days the court is ordering placement with the parent. Randall v. Randall, 2000 WI App 98, 235 Wis. 2d 1, 612 N.W.2d 737, 99-0531.

767.511 Annotation Incarceration is a valid factor for a court to consider in setting child support because of the impact it may have on the payor’s employability due to what may be voluntary and unreasonable acts. It was proper to base child support on earning capacity and to provide for an offset against the payor’s property division payout to provide for payment of the support obligation. Modrow v. Modrow, 2001 WI App 200, 247 Wis. 2d 889, 634 N.W.2d 852, 00-1868.

767.511 Annotation Subs. (1j), (1m), and (1n) give the court authority to determine and order some amount for child support. While that authority implicitly includes the authority to determine the amount to be zero, it does not implicitly include the authority to order the parents to divide expenses for the children among themselves in particular ways as an alternative to ordering one parent to pay child support to the other. Zawistowski v. Zawistowski, 2002 WI App 86, 253 Wis. 2d 630, 644 N.W.2d 252, 01-0655.

767.511 Annotation This section makes no provision as to splitting child care costs beyond what is provided in the child support payments. The trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when, without addressing the sub. (1m) factors, it deviated from the child support percentage standards by ordering one party to pay one-half of the daycare expenses in addition to support required by the percentage standards. McLaren v. McLaren, 2003 WI App 125, 265 Wis. 2d 529, 665 N.W.2d 405, 02-2451.

767.511 Annotation A trial court may establish a trust from funds paid for child support for the purpose of funding a child’s postminority educational expenses. Because the percentage standards presume a higher standard of living commensurate with the payer’s higher income, a child is entitled to the money over and above the child’s needs. A trust is in the child’s best interests and puts the child in the same position as if in an intact high-income family. Further, consideration of “educational needs” under sub. (1m) (g) is broad enough to encompass the higher educational needs of the child. Kowalski v. Obst, 2003 WI App 218, 267 Wis. 2d 400, 671 N.W.2d 339, 03-0573.

767.511 Annotation Sub. (6) does not limit the authority a trial court would otherwise have to consider imposing interest on unpaid maintenance arrears. Cashin v. Cashin, 2004 WI App 92, 273 Wis. 2d 754, 681 N.W.2d 255, 03-1010.

767.511 Annotation When a spouse presented a challenge to the application of the percentage standards on fairness grounds and presented a developed argument based on evidence in support of that challenge, the trial court was required to perform the analysis of the relevant statutory factors in answer to that challenge. Maritato v. Maritato, 2004 WI App 138, 275 Wis. 2d 252, 685 N.W.2d 379, 03-2074.

767.511 Annotation When information the payer spouse supplied did not permit more than an approximate determination of the payer’s true gross income, the court was not required to precisely subtract the amount the payer alleged the payer would have to pay to service a new debt. Derr v. Derr, 2005 WI App 63, 280 Wis. 2d 681, 696 N.W.2d 170, 03-2181.

767.511 Annotation The trial court erred when it ordered that child support be held open based upon the asset of the wife’s Ph.D. in psychology and upon her imputed enhanced education income upon her expected, but as yet unattained, licensure to practice. Child support determinations are to be made upon the basis of the circumstances existing at the time of the divorce and a held-open determination indicates that an order for child support is not necessary based upon current circumstances. Weiler v. Boerner, 2005 WI App 64, 280 Wis. 2d 519, 695 N.W.2d 833, 03-2606.

767.511 Annotation When undistributed company earnings are at issue, the court must: 1) ascertain whether the child support payer has the ability to individually control or access the undistributed earnings; and 2) determine whether there is a valid business reason for the company’s decision to retain the earnings. If the payer has the ability to individually control or access earnings and the company has no valid reason for retaining its earnings, the undistributed income can be considered when calculating the payer’s child support obligation. Winters v. Winters, 2005 WI App 94, 281 Wis. 2d 798, 699 N.W.2d 229, 04-0747.

767.511 Annotation A lump sum payment as the result of a pension plan enhancement was gross income subject to the child support standards. There is no windfall exception to the application of child support to gross income. Absent a finding of unfairness, grounded in the specific facts of the case, and after considering all enumerated factors in sub. (1m) and any other factors relevant to the particular case, a trial court is not authorized to deviate from the percentage standards. Winkler v. Winkler, 2005 WI App 100, 282 Wis. 2d 746, 699 N.W.2d 652, 04-1231.

767.511 Annotation The circuit court erred when it upheld the court commissioner’s decision to exclude overtime pay as a general policy without exception when applying the percentage standard. Overtime income clearly constitutes a portion of salary and wages, and Wisconsin law does not exclude overtime income in the application of the percentage standard. Jarman v. Welter, 2006 WI App 54, 289 Wis. 2d 857, 711 N.W.2d 705, 05-1616.

767.511 Annotation A provision providing that neither parent could request a change in the amount of child support payments for a period of at least seven years from the date of the judgment entered, except in catastrophic circumstances, was unenforceable. As is implicit from Ondrasek, 158 Wis. 2d 690 (1990), any marital settlement agreement entered into by divorcing parties that purports to limit a child support payee’s ability to seek a support modification upon a substantial change in circumstances is against public policy and cannot provide a basis to estop the payee from seeking a modification. Ondrasek is not limited to unilateral waivers of a payee’s right to obtain increased child support. Wood v. Propeck, 2007 WI App 24, 299 Wis. 2d 470, 728 N.W.2d 757, 05-2674.

767.511 Annotation In not revealing that he was a trust beneficiary, a father failed to make proper financial disclosure at the time of a divorce as was required by s. 767.127. The rationale of Grohmann, 189 Wis. 2d 532 (1995), is applicable to both grantor and nongrantor trusts if there is an obligation to report that trust’s income as one’s own because it is the obligation to report the income that makes the income reachable for calculations of a child support obligation. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 2009 WI App 29, 316 Wis. 2d 442, 765 N.W.2d 811, 07-2143.

767.511 Annotation There is no basis upon which a trial court can reduce that support owed to a payor spouse’s marital child based on nonchild-support amounts paid to the payee spouse’s nonmarital child. However, the benefit received by the nonmarital child for amounts received from the payor spouse would be appropriately accounted for in the maintenance award or property division. Ladwig v. Ladwig, 2010 WI App 78, 325 Wis. 2d 497, 785 N.W.2d 664, 09-1202.

767.511 Annotation Ordinarily bonus income should be considered income when setting a child support order. In this case, the trial court made the necessary findings to deviate from the child support guidelines when the court awarded a percentage of a future bonus to make up for a gap in support when no order was in effect, rather than applying the bonus to current support. Tierney v. Berger, 2012 WI App 91, 343 Wis. 2d 681, 820 N.W.2d 459, 11-0565.

767.511 Annotation While the statute suggests that child support orders be expressed as a fixed sum, it does not completely prohibit percentage orders. Permitting percentage orders on unknown future bonus income is an exception to the preferred method of having percentage orders expressed as a fixed sum. Tierney v. Berger, 2012 WI App 91, 343 Wis. 2d 681, 820 N.W.2d 459, 11-0565.

767.511 Annotation Federal preemption doctrine does not prohibit states from requiring payment of child support out of veterans’ disability benefits. Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S. Ct. 2029, 95 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1987).

767.511 Annotation Poor Little Rich Kids: Revising Wisconsin’s Child Support System to Accommodate High-Income Payers. Dodd. 83 MLR 807 (2000).

767.511 Annotation No-Fault Divorce: Tax Consequences of Support, Maintenance and Property Settlement. Case. WBB Dec. 1977.

767.511 Annotation A practitioner’s approach to child support. Bailey. WBB June 1987.

767.511 Annotation HSS 80: New Rules for Child Support Obligations. Hickey. Wis. Law. Apr. 1995.

767.511 Annotation Which Came First? The Serial Family Payer Formula. Stansbury. Wis. Law. Apr. 1995.

767.513 767.513 Child health care expenses.

767.513(1) (1) Definition. In this section, “health insurance” does not include medical assistance provided under subch. IV of ch. 49.

767.513(2) (2) Responsibility and payment. In addition to ordering child support for a child under s. 767.511 (1), the court shall specifically assign responsibility for and direct the manner of payment of the child’s health care expenses. In assigning responsibility for a child’s health care expenses, the court shall consider whether a child is covered under a parent’s health insurance policy or plan at the time the court approves a stipulation for child support under s. 767.34, enters a judgment of annulment, divorce, or legal separation, or enters an order or a judgment in a paternity action or in an action under s. 767.001 (1) (f) or (j), 767.501, 767.804 (2), or 767.805 (3), the availability of health insurance to each parent through an employer or other organization, the extent of coverage available to a child, and the costs to the parent for the coverage of the child. A parent may be required to initiate or continue health care insurance coverage for a child under this section. If a parent is required to do so, he or she shall provide copies of necessary program or policy identification to the custodial parent and is liable for any health care costs for which he or she receives direct payment from an insurer. This section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the court to enter or modify support orders containing provisions for payment of medical expenses, medical costs, or insurance premiums that are in addition to and not inconsistent with this section.

767.513(2m) (2m) Health insurance identification card.

767.513(2m)(a) (a) The court shall order a parent who is required to provide health insurance coverage for a child under this section to provide to the other parent a health insurance identification card evidencing the child’s health insurance coverage.

767.513(2m)(b) (b) If the parent ordered to provide a health insurance identification card for the child fails to do so, the other parent may attempt to obtain a card for the child by presenting to the health insurance provider or to the employer through which the insurance is provided a copy of the order requiring the provision of a card.

767.513(2m)(c) (c) If the other parent is unable to obtain a health insurance identification card for the child in the manner provided in par. (b), the intentional failure to comply with the order to provide the card by the parent so ordered constitutes a contempt of court, punishable under ch. 785.

767.513(3) (3) Income withholding and assignment.

767.513(3)(a) (a) In directing the manner of payment of a child’s health care expenses, the court may order that payment, including payment for health insurance premiums, be withheld from income and sent to the appropriate health care insurer, provider, or plan, as provided in s. 767.75 (3h), or sent to the department or its designee for disbursement to the person for whom the payment has been awarded if that person is not a health care insurer, provider, or plan. If the court orders income withholding and assignment for the payment of health care expenses, the court or county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5) shall send notice of assignment in the manner provided under s. 767.75 (2r) and may include the notice of assignment under this paragraph with a notice of assignment under s. 767.75. The department or its designee shall keep a record of all moneys received and disbursed for health care expenses that are directed to be paid to the department or its designee.

767.513(3)(b) (b) If the court orders a parent to initiate or continue health insurance coverage for a child under a health insurance policy that is available to the parent through an employer or other organization but the court does not specify the manner in which payment of the health insurance premiums shall be made, the court or county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5) may provide notice of assignment in the manner provided under s. 767.75 (2r) for the withholding from income of the amount necessary to pay the health insurance premiums. The notice of assignment under this paragraph may be sent with or included as part of any other notice of assignment under s. 767.75. A person who receives notice of assignment under this paragraph shall send the withheld health insurance premiums to the appropriate health care insurer, provider, or plan, as provided in s. 767.75 (3h).

767.513(4) (4) Health benefit plan; employer obligation. If the court orders a parent to provide coverage of the health care expenses of the parent’s child and the parent is eligible for family coverage of health care expenses under a health benefit plan that is provided by an employer on an insured or on a self-insured basis, the employer shall do all of the following:

767.513(4)(a) (a) Permit the parent to obtain family coverage of health care expenses for the child, if eligible for coverage, without regard to any enrollment period or waiting period restrictions that may apply.

767.513(4)(b) (b) Provide family coverage of health care expenses for the child, if eligible for coverage, upon application by the parent, the child’s other parent, the department, or the county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5), or upon receiving a notice under sub. (6) (a).

767.513(4)(bm) (bm) Notify the county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5) when coverage of the child under the health benefit plan is in effect and, upon request, provide copies of necessary program or policy identification to the child’s other parent.

767.513(4)(c) (c) After the child has coverage under the employer’s health benefit plan, and as long as the parent is eligible for family coverage under the employer’s health benefit plan, continue to provide coverage for the child unless the employer receives satisfactory written evidence that the court order is no longer in effect or that the child has coverage of health care expenses under another health insurance policy or health benefit plan that provides comparable coverage of health care expenses.

767.513(5) (5) Recovery by state of 3rd party payments.

767.513(5)(a) (a) If a parent who has been ordered by a court to provide coverage of the health care expenses of a child who is eligible for medical assistance under subch. IV of ch. 49 receives payment from a 3rd party for the cost of services provided to the child but does not pay the health care provider for the services or reimburse the department or any other person who paid for the services on behalf of the child, the department may obtain a judgment against the parent for the amount of the 3rd-party payment.

767.513(5)(b) (b) Section 767.75 (4) applies to a garnishment based on a judgment obtained under par. (a).

767.513(6) (6) Change of employment; notice.

767.513(6)(a) (a) If a parent who provides coverage of the health care expenses of a child under an order under this section changes employers and that parent has a court-ordered child support obligation with respect to the child, the county child support agency under s. 59.53 (5) shall provide notice of the order to provide coverage of the child’s health care expenses to the new employer and to the parent.

767.513(6)(b) (b) The notice provided to the parent shall inform the parent that coverage for the child under the new employer’s health benefit plan will be in effect upon the employer’s receipt of the notice. The notice shall inform the parent that he or she may, within 10 business days after receiving the notice, by motion request a hearing before the court on the issue of whether the order to provide coverage of the child’s health care expenses should remain in effect. A motion under this paragraph may be heard by a circuit court commissioner. If the parent requests a hearing and the court determines that the order to provide coverage of the child’s health care expenses should not remain in effect, the court shall provide notice to the employer that the order is no longer in effect.

767.513 History History: 2005 a. 443 ss. 104, 220; 2007 a. 96; 2019 a. 95.