According to a recent Harvard study, the #1 indicator of risk of divorce is whether or not the husband has a full time job.

Many issues can contribute to conflict within a marriage, including long-term sickness or disability, differences in handling money, and division of household chores.

However, according to a study recently published in the American Sociological Review, with information obtained from 6,300 married couples interviewed between 1968 and 2013, couples faced a 32% higher divorce risk when the husband was unemployed versus marriages where the husband had a full-time job and was contributing to the family’s finances.

Alexandra Killewald, the study’s author and a professor of sociology at Harvard suggested that for men a sense of identity and worth may be tied to their job, which could have a long-term impact on the health of a marriage.

“I could speculate that losing a job might bring with it depression or some other kinds of mental health issues,” Alexandra Killewald said on the Today show. This could also further explain why some marriages don’t survive this impact.

What does this mean for stay-at-home-dads? There wasn’t enough data to accurately say, but Killewald suggests that this sort of circumstance is usually pre-planned and therefore exempt from the same consequences.

Texas Child Custody and Geographic Restrictions

Whether it is a divorce case or if you were never married, if both parents can reach an agreement that no geographic restrictions are to be included in the Order, then there will likely be no problem with a move away from Texas with the kids. Of course, this assumes that the Order provides that you are the conservator with the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the children.

Such an agreement could include a geographic restriction that restricts you, for example, to living within certain designated counties within Texas. Or the geographic restriction could be to certain other states.

If you cannot reach an agreement on this issue, the other parent will likely be able to significantly restrict where you are able to live with the children. If a geographic restriction is entered, you must either obtain the agreement of the other parent to remove it, or file a Petition to Modify the Order and ask the Court to remove or modify the restriction.

The Texas Family Code addresses issues related to geographic restrictions as follows:
Section 153.001(a) of the Texas Family Code provides that:

“The public policy of this state is to:

(1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child;
(2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and
(3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.”

When the Court enters an Order that appoints parents as joint managing conservators, the court is required to designate one conservator to have the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the child.
In conjunction with this, the Court will do one of two things: (1) designate restrictions on the geographic area(s) where the primary conservator can establish the child’s primary residence; or (2) the Court can leave the Order silent on the issue so that the primary conservator can designate the primary residence of the child without a geographic restriction.

Some factors that can influence a Court’s decision on whether to enter a geographic restriction (or lift a geographic restriction) include:

• Job opportunities of the primary conservator;
• Re-marriage of the primary conservator;
• Extended family relationships / support in other jurisdictions;
• History of the possessory conservator’s visitation and communication with the child; and
• The age and maturity of the child.

To learn more about geographic restrictions in Texas, contact Erik Larson or Diana Larson at The Larson Law Office at 713-221-9088.

Texas child support orders often provide that the parent with visitation rights is ordered to provide a health insurance policy for the child.

However, what happens when the parent with visitation rights (NPC – non-possessory conservator) fails to obtain the health insurance policy when ordered to do so? If the possessory conservator (PC) then puts the child on the PC’s health insurance policy so that the child has health insurance, can the PC seek reimbursement of the child’s health insurance premium from the NCP? If the PC has a claim, how is this calculated?

In this example, the PC has a potential claim for reimbursement for premiums under Section 154.182 of the Texas Family Code. So, the Texas Family Code does allow the PC to seek reimbursement for the costs of insuring the child NPC failed to cover, if the NPC was ordered to obtain coverage and failed to do so.

Many times the parent stepping in to cover the child has an insurance plan that covers the entire family, regardless of how many children are covered by the policy. Does this have an effect on the PC’s potential claim? In this circumstance the PC may not have incurred any additional out of pocket expense to obtain the child’s health insurance coverage. Does the PC still have a claim for reimbursement in this situation?

In Bird v. O’Donnell, 03-04-00603, Austin 2006, the court of appeals ruled that the PC must show an increase in actual incurred cost due to adding the child to that insurance policy. The court held that there could be no reimbursement of the premiums in that case, because the premiums did not increase when the child was added to the policy. Because the premiums did not increase, there was no additional out of pocket expenses incurred by PC by adding the child to the policy.

Therefore, in these kinds of reimbursement cases under Bird v. O’Donnell, the PC has the additional burden to show that adding the child to the policy caused a specific increased out of pocket expense to the PC that was not present previously.

To speak with Diana Larson or Erik Larson about your case, call us at (713) 221-9088.