The Arkansas Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision regarding health insurance coverage for the children of Quinn and Kelsey Schratz, who are navigating post-divorce arrangements. The ruling, issued on October 21, 2026, centers on whether Quinn should take over the responsibility for the children's health insurance from Kelsey. This decision impacts their three children, ages 16, 12, and 3, and highlights the complexities of child support and insurance obligations in divorce cases.
The dispute arose after Quinn filed a petition to modify the existing child support order, claiming a material change in circumstances due to Kelsey’s increased income. He argued that Kelsey’s health insurance premiums were unreasonable and requested that he be allowed to provide coverage through his employer instead. The case has drawn attention to how courts evaluate health insurance costs in relation to child support obligations.
Background
Quinn and Kelsey Schratz were married in 2007 and divorced in 2020. The divorce decree awarded Kelsey primary custody of their three children and mandated that she maintain health insurance for them, as long as it was available through her employer at a reasonable cost. At the time of the divorce, Kelsey was paying $332 a month for the children’s health insurance, while Quinn's income was significantly higher at $8,543 per month compared to Kelsey’s $4,223.
In November 2024, Quinn filed a petition to modify child support, arguing that Kelsey’s income had increased and that the health insurance premiums she was paying were excessive. Kelsey responded by asserting that her insurance plan, although more expensive, provided better coverage for their children. The case was presented to the Washington County Circuit Court, which ruled on the matter without a hearing, based solely on the parties’ briefs.
The Ruling
The Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision to deny Quinn's request to change the health insurance payor from Kelsey to himself. The court noted that Kelsey’s health insurance premium of $492.56 was 8.1 percent of her gross income, which technically exceeded the 5 percent threshold outlined in Arkansas Administrative Order No. 10. However, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Kelsey’s insurance was still reasonable.
The court ruled, "The evidence is indisputable that insurance is available through [Kelsey’s] employer. The Court finds that the amount is reasonable based on the current economy and benefits provided under the plan."
The judges emphasized that the insurance coverage provided by Kelsey was comprehensive, including a $0 deductible and better overall benefits than Quinn's proposed plan, which had a much higher deductible. The court also highlighted that both parents had previously agreed to Kelsey maintaining the health insurance, which was an important factor in their decision.
Impact
This ruling reinforces the importance of evaluating health insurance costs in the context of child support obligations during divorce proceedings. It illustrates that courts may consider not only the percentage of income spent on insurance but also the quality and comprehensiveness of the coverage provided. The decision could serve as a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing that the best interest of the children, including the quality of health care, remains a priority in custody and support decisions.
The outcome of this case affects not only the Schratz family but also sets a standard for how courts may interpret reasonable health insurance costs in future divorce cases. Parents seeking modifications to child support or health insurance responsibilities must now consider both the financial aspects and the quality of coverage when presenting their cases.
What's Next
Quinn has the option to appeal the decision, but it is unclear if he will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing. The court's ruling stands as the final decision on this matter unless challenged further.