S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: Iowa Child Support Matter  (Read 7497 times)

timtow

  • New Arrival
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Iowa Child Support Matter
« Reply #10 on: Oct 24, 2006, 09:31:34 PM »
Yeah.  What I'm trying to tell you is that even if she were imputed at fulltime at that wage, it wouldn't make a lot of difference in your numbers.  CS in IA is based primarily on NCP's wage, not CP's wage.  See what a lawyer says.



timtow

  • New Arrival
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Iowa Child Support Matter
« Reply #11 on: Oct 24, 2006, 09:58:31 PM »
JVondrak, I'm not trying to put down your support, but I am saying that if you look at what it costs, $250/mo per can't be the whole show or anywhere near.  They raise their food; well, that's not free.   The meat doesn't put itself in a freezer, and the veg doesn't grow itself.  I also get hand-me-downs for my daughter, but I do find myself at Target buying her underwear, shoes, pj's, other things you don't want pre-worn, and that stacks up fast.  A house costs money to maintain and heat, and usually if you've got kids living with you, you're paying more than you would if you were on your own.  It's great you pay for the activities, but there's also gas to get there, food and drink, equipment, etc.  

What does CPS say about the complaints?

I'm all for being able to make sure the money has some benefit for the kids, but I disagree about the x's husband's income.  He may be deciding to support the x, but he still has no obligation to either her or the kids; they've already got a dad who's obliged.    

I don't think this is going to win me any friends here, but I don't believe the "but we have a child too" argument is a big winner.  It seems to me there are foreseeable liabilities attached to having a family with a divorced parent who has minor children, even if the divorce is a beautiful one, and usually divorce is not beautiful.  Again, not to judge your situation, but I just don't think it's a compelling reason for why NCPs shouldn't pay support by the tables.  

About childcare: It doesn't sound like this makes any practical difference for you right now, but keep in mind that if she were working fulltime, unless there's someone else around to care for them, you'd likely be paying for before/after-school care.  Around here that runs a couple hundred a month per kid, so frankly it could be that you're better off with her home.

leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Iowa Child Support Matter
« Reply #12 on: Oct 24, 2006, 10:17:52 PM »
I know what LAWYERS say, and I know non of them will admit that under the Compact clause for those that are bright enough to study, will find under title IV-d the states have to by federal law, and under the Federal Administrative Procedures act follow the guidelines and stipulations set forht in the state plan and all corresponding U.S.C's and CFR's.
The basis of Support is still founded under the resposnibility of both parents period. Only those that play at the state level(Admin courts) are the ones who lose most.
The state plan opens a whole new door,,it is a public document that has been hidden from most of the public, for if the public as a mass got there hands on it, there would be hell to pay, especialy for the legislatures and the courts.
The Ultimate facts will come out, sometime, and boy its going to be great.

IceMountain

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: I'm from Iowa, too............
« Reply #13 on: Oct 25, 2006, 09:14:02 PM »
I disagree that inputing the ex's income will not make a difference in the child support calculation as a previous poster stated.  I had my ex's income imputed and it did make a difference in the amount I pay.  A few percentage points can make a big difference.  Also, if the ex's income is zero then you will be responsible for 100% of uncovered medical.  If her earning potential is imputed, then the uncovered medical is based on the percentages of income for each of you.

CSRU told me that they will NOT impute a parent's earning potential.  They claim only a judge can do that, even though it is in Iowa code.  Even after a judge entered the ex's earning potential, CSRU claimed they didn't have to impute because it was done in a private action and not in an action started by their office.  They also claimed they could review again even though it had only been 5 months since the last review, again because the prior review was done in a private action.  I got pushy and didn't back down and it was not reviewed again.

I agree that the money you would pay for a lawyer will save you in the long run.

When you go to court, take documentation with you of what a Legal Secretary makes in her area.  You can do a search and print the info from the Iowa Workforce Development website.  

How much custody do you have?  If you pass the required 127 overnights, make sure you take documentation of that.  Also, make sure you get the credit for uncovered medical ($25/month).  Do you pay medical insurance?  If so, figure what the children's portion is because that is another deduction.  Union dues?

Has your husband's income increased so much that support is doubled?  Or is the difference solely due to the ex not working?  

Kitty C.

  • Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2612
  • Karma: 938
    • View Profile
Wrong...............
« Reply #14 on: Oct 25, 2006, 10:55:14 PM »
CS in Iowa is calculated on BOTH parents' incomes, not just the NCP's.  I was the CP for 9 years and was specifically told by judges in 2 states that I could not, under any circumstances, quit my job or lessen my income in any way just to get an increase in CS.
Handle every stressful situation like a dog........if you can't play with it or eat it, pee on it and walk away.......


Kitty C.

  • Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2612
  • Karma: 938
    • View Profile
Good points, Ice...............
« Reply #15 on: Oct 25, 2006, 11:19:09 PM »
The original poster said that 'CSRU' would not inpute income, but then they are not the ones to make the final decision.  That is up to a judge.  The way it works with CSRU in IA is that they will review CS obligations every 2 years and will recommend a hearing for evaluation if there's been a 10% change in either parents' incomes.  But ONLY the judge has the right to inpute wages if one parent is not working to their ability.

I also agree that you MUST stick with your guns with CSRU.  BM tried to claim that DH was behind on his CS at the end of the year, entitling her to claim SS on her taxes.  Since DH's wages were being garnished and CSRU hadn't notified us of the matter, we didn't believe her, but she pressed the issue.  (Come to find out, CSRU never deposited her checks in a timely manner........all they cared about was when they got the money from DH, not when BM received it!)

So DH asked CSRU for a notarized statement outlining everything he'd paid that year.  They tried to stonewall him, but he persisted enough that they finally gave in.  The only problem was that by the time we finaly got the notarized statement from CSRU, BM had already claimed SS on her taxes, when we already had 3 months earlier and legally!  After that, it was a case for the IRS.........

I don't know about the 'private action' thing. tho.  If CSRU does the review and it has to go before a judge to rule (CSRU cannot make a new CS ruling), it's no longer 'private'.  If they instigate it with the court, it's their doing, not the CP or NCP's.

Ice, I think their claim that they could review after only 5 months was just a scare tactic with you.  Legally, the ONLY way they can instigate a review is either every 2 years and/or and 10% change in either parent's income.  Only if you'd had that kind of change would they legally have been able to review again.

But then again, they collected from DS's dad for 5 years on a legally non-existant CS order. Long story!  At least we got along well enough that DS's dad willingly paid me without an order after that.  So they don't 'automatically' review orders, one parent has to ask for it.  I guess in our case, they were just reviewing accounts and found the 'discrepancy'.  CSRU isn't as tough in IA as some other states are, but their accounting procedures aren't much different, LOL!
Handle every stressful situation like a dog........if you can't play with it or eat it, pee on it and walk away.......

leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Wrong...............
« Reply #16 on: Oct 25, 2006, 11:48:06 PM »
well Kitty you just helped the first poster, and thank you, I realy didn't want to have to look up the law for Iowa,,,by the way for clearing of record,, are you referring to family code, implemented by the legislature, or is it admin code.

IceMountain

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 160
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Good points, Ice...............
« Reply #17 on: Oct 26, 2006, 08:44:40 AM »
The review was considered a private action because it was done during a modification of visitation.  It went completely through the courts and lawyers, and CSRU was not involved.  5 months later the ex tried to do another review and modification.  When I called CSRU they claimed that since the earlier review was done as a 'private action' that they had authority to review it again.  When it was reviewed by the court, it was found that there was not a change so CSRU was not notified and the judge's decision was not sent to them, but was filed in the case file.

When I questioned them about the legality of them reviewing again they claimed they could do it, they didn't have to impute the ex's income and that my expense reimbursements could be treated as income.  I asked for documentation of the laws that governed what they claimed.  I spoke to a supervisor that directed me to the CSRU website for the laws, to which I explained were not there.  He said he didn't know the laws that governed what I was asking him.  I then questioned him as to how he could be a supervisor if he didn't know the rules, and he replied that he 'only worked in the call center' so he didn't need to know the laws because they didn't do the actual orders.  That blew my mind!  I always knew they seemed like they didn't know wtf they were talking about, now I have proof!!!  :)

In the end the supervisor had the actual case worker call me.  By this point I was so ticked and was ready to do battle again.  When she called I started to state my case when she politely stopped me to inform me that she pulled the hard copy from our case file and found that the review was indeed done and that it was not appropriate to do it again.  We never received any documentation from CSRU saying the review was denied so a couple weeks later I called again and asked for a copy of the denial.  (I wanted to make sure nothing got screwed up)  The rep said they would send it to me, but wanted to make sure it was 'just for my own records'.  About an hour later the case worker called me directly to confirm the denial was done.  I wonder if she will handle me every time now???  :)

timtow

  • New Arrival
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Good points, Ice...............
« Reply #18 on: Oct 26, 2006, 09:15:51 AM »
WOW, that all sounds totally illegal.  How skeezy.  I'm sorry you had to go through that.

About the dollar difference in support after imputation: If you go by the tables, assuming they've got your husband's net income correct, then even if she's imputed at fulltime at that wage, the support's not going to be knocked down by more than $125/mo or so.  (946 / .357=2738, 2738*.3= 821)  You have to think about the worksheet deductions, and no doubt she'll find some beyond taxes (don't forget that if she were working fulltime, childcare would be an issue).  So if it's worth it to you to fight about that, you need to think about what representation would cost and where the break-even is, keeping in mind that she can look for another review in two years.

If they don't have your husband's net income correct, then that's another story.

Kitty C.

  • Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2612
  • Karma: 938
    • View Profile
Way to go!
« Reply #19 on: Oct 26, 2006, 08:54:36 PM »
You're damn right they couldn't review it again, because there hadn't been a 10% change in income!  Talk about intimidation tactics!  What a maroon!  

DH gets reimbursements checks, too, and they'd have to fight both of us to get that considered as income.  DH works for a railroad and has put on over 50,000 miles on his diesel truck just in the 17 months, then when you consider what it costs him to eat, he's gotten some pretty hefty expense checks.  But at the peak of fuel prices, it also cost him over $100 to fill the tank and sometimes he could go thru 2 tanks a week.............if they tried to take that, I'd bring charges of theft against them!

Guess you will only be dealing with a case worker from now on, right?  After our last debacle, we've also learned that you have to press them hard for any documentation they've done on your case.  Just goes to shoe that you literally have to know the law so you'll know if they're trying to screw you!
Handle every stressful situation like a dog........if you can't play with it or eat it, pee on it and walk away.......

 

Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.