HAHA! I love this so much, I am just going to copy and paste! DH just has to sign and send it back to our lawyer today! (Sorry to blog hog!)

1.         The Proposed Order is not ripe for a Rule 170 filing. In the Order filed November 29, 2021, this Court states in paragraphs five (5) and six of the same, that “[i]f the parties fail to agree upon an arrearage amount that may be owed, the matter shall be set for hearing on that issue”, and “[i]f the parties fail to agree upon the issues regarding medical expenses, including how they are to be paid and by whom, the matter shall be set for hearing on that issue”, respectively. The Petitioner has not set a hearing date, but instead filed a Journal Entry pursuant to Rule 170 alleging this Court has already ordered on a calculated arrearage and medical expense.

2.         The Respondent does not object to Petitioner’s Paragraph 1 in the “Proposed Order 170”, as such is essentially a restatement of this Court’s Order from November 29, 2021.

3.         The Respondent objects to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5, all regarding calculation of alleged arrearage and medical expenses, as well as a proposed income withholding order due to alleged arrearages and medical expenses.

4.         Respondent attaches his calculations hereto and notates the same as “Respondent’s Expenses Chart”. Further, Respondent objects to this Court making findings of arrearages and medical expenses without hearing, as this Court orders a hearing occur on these issues in its Order from November 29, 2021.  

5.         Pursuant to Respondent’s calculations based on this Court’s order, he has arrearages of child support totaling $14,868.03; however, other considerations exist that may affect the amount of that arrearage.

6.         Pursuant to Respondent’s calculations and receipts, he has unpaid medical expenses in the amount of $51.00. Respondent has paid each and every medical bill he has received from Petitioner, except for one, which totals $51.00.

7.         Respondent requests the Petitioner provide proof of transmission of medical bills to Respondent, as well as receipts and proof of payment for each and every bill. As this Court is aware, Kansas Child Support Guidelines requires any party seeking reimbursement of medical bills from the other party “shall within 30 days provide receipt of said billing statement from provider. Submit to the other party a copy of the billing statement along with proof of the expenditure, proof of payment of the uninsured portion and proof of having submitted the claim to the insurance provider.” Kansas Child Support Guidelines, Section IV.D.4.b(3).

8.         Respondent further argues that the bulk of the alleged medical bills are unnecessary, and if he would have been informed of medical appointments, could have set appointments up through an Armed Forces Base, where the treatment would have been at no cost with Respondent’s healthcare coverage through the United States Navy.

9.         Respondent references Petitioner’s claims that he has not paid orthodontics bills from (SS's Orthodontist) in her “Medical Bill Summary”. Respondent attaches hereto as “Exhibit A”, a copy of a checking account statement which evidences payment of the (Orthodonstist) bill. Respondent requests Petitioner be held to strict proof of all medical expenses claimed herein, and requests that the same occur at a formal hearing on the matter, which this Court required in its order on November 29, 2021.

10.       Several factors require special consideration to Respondent’s alleged arrearages, including past tax information, contempt actions regarding visitation with the minor child and costs stemming therefrom, and long-distance visitation.

11.       The Respondent was not allowed to claim the minor child for tax purposes in 2015 due to Petitioner’s claiming of the minor child against the order of the Court, which changed the timeline of tax allocation, and barred the Respondent from claiming the child for 2021 tax purposes. This error caused a loss of $6,872 in tax reimbursements to Respondent.

12.       The Respondent has readily paid for airfare and travel for the minor child to visit the Respondent in Virginia for his parenting time. In the recent past, this airfare and travel expense has gone unused, as Petitioner has failed to follow the parenting plan. This is evidenced by multiple contempt filings against the Petitioner, as well as a finding in contempt. Respondent would produce the cost of all wasted travel expense at hearing on these issues, as was ordered by this Court in its November 29, 2021 Order.

13.       The Respondent requests a hearing on these matters, as was ordered by this Court in its November 29, 2021 Order.  

WHEREFORE, Respondent submits his Objections to Petitioner’s Proposed Order 170 hereto, and requests this Court follow its Order and set hearing on the issues of child support and medical expenses.