VELASQUEZ v. RUEDA

HARRIS, J.

The issue in this case involves the responsibility established by a settlement agreement incorporated in a dissolution of marriage judgment of one parent to contribute to the medical expenses of a child. In this case, the agreement required that each parent must jointly approve "major medical, dental, institutional, psychiatric or other care." The agreement provided that should the parents not agree, the issue should be submitted to the court. Each parent would be responsible for 50% of the medical expenses not covered by insurance.

The father filed a petition to collect the mother's share of past medical bills going back to a period shortly after the divorce. The mother objected to some of the bills because there was no showing that she had agreed beforehand to the medical treatment (particularly the psychological treatment which she believed was to support the father's effort to change custody), but the court, while stating that it understood her "objection," ignored it and ordered reimbursement. We reverse.

It was not contended that all these expenses were for emergency care or that the bills were for such routine matters that the mother's prior approval was unnecessary. There was simply no explanation why evidence of the mother's prior agreement, particularly for psychological treatment, was not required. Her prior approval, or a court order authorizing such treatment, was a condition precedent to the mother's obligation to contribute to certain medical expenses. It was the obligation of the person seeking reimbursement to show that the obligation to share the expenses existed. The father failed to do so in this case and he should bear the expenses.

We reverse and remand to the trial court for a determination as to which of the bills required the mother's prior approval and to assess only such portion of the medical expenses against her as contemplated by the settlement agreement.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.