Child Support Mod

[smofJ]

My boyfriend has recently experienced an extreme cut in pay due to his work.  They have cut off all overtime and bonus.  This has resulted in about $2000 less per month.  This has been going on for about 3 months now.  He can no longer pay his bills and child support both.  He is current and pays child support first before he worries about his bills.

He went to the child support office to try to get a reduction.  They keep saying the only go by last year's gross income.  Last year was a lot different pay was much better.  He took them paycheck stubs since November thru this week and they will still not consider a reduction.  They told him to wait until the end of June and if his pay remains the same they will consider.

He will not make it financially until June.  He is currently paying more than 50% of his take home pay.  Is there anything he can do?  Do you think getting a lawyer would make any difference?

[Ref]

But in DH's location, he was entitled retroactive adjustment for CS to the time he filed for the decrease. If he waited months to file, it would have seriously hurt us.

I say, call some laywers that are father's rights lawyers or at least family law and get some free consultations. Couldn't hurt. Then, figure out the attorney costs vs how much you would expect the decrease in CS to be to see if it make financial sense.

What is the jurisdiction?

Ref

[Jade]

>My boyfriend has recently experienced an extreme cut in pay
>due to his work.  They have cut off all overtime and bonus.
>This has resulted in about $2000 less per month.  This has
>been going on for about 3 months now.  He can no longer pay
>his bills and child support both.  He is current and pays
>child support first before he worries about his bills.
>
>He went to the child support office to try to get a reduction.
> They keep saying the only go by last year's gross income.
>Last year was a lot different pay was much better.  He took
>them paycheck stubs since November thru this week and they
>will still not consider a reduction.  They told him to wait
>until the end of June and if his pay remains the same they
>will consider.
>
>He will not make it financially until June.  He is currently
>paying more than 50% of his take home pay.  Is there anything
>he can do?  Do you think getting a lawyer would make any
>difference?


If he can prove that it was his employer who cut off overtime, then he should be able to file for a modification based on change of circumstance.  The child support office just goes by court orders.  He will have to go to court to do this.  A lawyer would be better able to advise you.

[cinb85]

The child support caseworker just says no?  I'm confused.  I thought that anyone could file a mod, but then the judge decides, not the child support worker.

[smofJ]

Ok he called his lawyer and she said the same thing.  She said the only thing the judge will look at is six months worth of pay.  She said the only thing that will help is if someone from his work comes in and testifies that this is permanent.
He works at a large factory.  Orders are low right = no overtime.  Scrap rate is very high = no bonus/incentive.  No one can come in and say that this is permanent. But no one knows that this won't last for a long time.
So I am new at being on this end of the spectrum.  I am a single mom who gets child support.  My Ex and I when ever there is a change in circumstances, sign an agreed mod. and turn it into the child support office. No questions asked, no problem.
His ex will not do this.  She lives off of her child support from him and another man.  She supports her boyfriend who lives with her and also does not have a job.  When he asked her about lowering the child support she said there was no way she could make it with less money.  
So I read on Soc's board that it is illegal for child support to be more than 50% of your take home pay, but how can they say he isn't entitled to a reduction?

[leon]

and its right they cannot take more than 50% of his pay, in cases  like that where his newer income does not match his old, and they can only take x amount, the rest just accumalates in back support, There alleged phyloshofy is that it needs to be more than a tempory reduction, hence the 6+month drag out, of course the NCP"Obligor" is getting behind dureing that time, "which the states absilutely love" Now is this an Administrative hearing youre trying to get, or are you /he trying to get a court hearing.?

[Jade]

>and its right they cannot take more than 50% of his pay, in
>cases  like that where his newer income does not match his
>old, and they can only take x amount, the rest just
>accumalates in back support, There alleged phyloshofy is that
>it needs to be more than a tempory reduction, hence the
>6+month drag out, of course the NCP"Obligor" is getting behind
>dureing that time, "which the states absilutely love" Now is
>this an Administrative hearing youre trying to get, or are you
>/he trying to get a court hearing.?
>

You may want to reread the law.  It's a max of 50% for a married person with an additional 5% for arrears should there be any.  For a single person, it is 60% with an additional 5% for arrears should there be any.

Also, just because they don't take out the full amount due to this law, doesn't mean that it isn't owed.  

 

[leon]

federal law under title 42 U.S.C is 50%, this is compiled with the Cooperative agreements under title IV-d of the Social Security Act, sub sec 651-669, and title 45 CFR's 301-, and under the Federal Administrative Procedures ACt, for which all agencies must comply, and finialy and further bonded under the Compact Caluse"Cooperative Federalism"
And I dont beleive I was talking about what was or was not owed.
And the issue still stands, was it an Admin hearing or a judicial Hearing they were trying to get, even though under the Cooperative Agreements the outcome would by contract still be the same

[Ref]

Is go straight to the top of his company and ask the CFO to put something down on paper stating that the pay limitiation is going to be a long-term policy. They might just have the policy already on paper. If he feels that this person is too highup and is intimidated, have him talk to HR or payroll. They might have a memo that you need.

I can't see why he needs the person to testify. It might make it easier, but how about a sworn statement?

Also, has there been any publicity about this in the local paper? If it is a large employer, there might be a chance that it was covered. Call the local paper and see if they ran an article on it.

Best luck
Ref

[Jade]

>federal law under title 42 U.S.C is 50%, this is compiled
>with the Cooperative agreements under title IV-d of the Social
>Security Act, sub sec 651-669, and title 45 CFR's 301-, and
>under the Federal Administrative Procedures ACt, for which all
>agencies must comply, and finialy and further bonded under the
>Compact Caluse"Cooperative Federalism"
>And I dont beleive I was talking about what was or was not
>owed.
>And the issue still stands, was it an Admin hearing or a
>judicial Hearing they were trying to get, even though under
>the Cooperative Agreements the outcome would by contract still
>be the same

You may want to do some more research.  Because that isn't what the child support office gave me.  

And my ex is paying almost 60% of his income (originally, it was supposed to be less of a percentage, but he willingly and substantially lowered his income) in child support.  And the entire amount is automatically garnished from his wages.  And is within the Federal Law since he is single.

[Jade]

>Is go straight to the top of his company and ask the CFO to
>put something down on paper stating that the pay limitiation
>is going to be a long-term policy. They might just have the
>policy already on paper. If he feels that this person is too
>highup and is intimidated, have him talk to HR or payroll.
>They might have a memo that you need.
>
>I can't see why he needs the person to testify. It might make
>it easier, but how about a sworn statement?
>
>Also, has there been any publicity about this in the local
>paper? If it is a large employer, there might be a chance that
>it was covered. Call the local paper and see if they ran an
>article on it.
>
>Best luck
>Ref

To prove that he didn't willingly lower his income by not working overtime.  

If I were the CP, I wouldn't just take his word for it.  

[mistoffolees]

It may be that he's paying more because he voluntarily lowered his income. Was he paying less than 50% before that?

[mistoffolees]

Might be worth a shot, but as a company president, I'd never sign anything like that.

What happens if they get a huge order tomorrow and have to add overtime and fill the plant up again? He could argue that he signed the paper in good conscience based on known circumstances, but he's likely to get some heat either from the state or the ex-spouse. It's not worth putting yourself into a situation where you could spend legal expenses to defend yourself - particularly since there's nothing to gain by doing so.

[Ref]

that does make sense. The situation I am picturing is if they put a policy (maybe during a board meeting) that states that overtime will be suspended until X. X could be a date or until further notice.

Just a thought.

Ref

[leon]

As much as I appreciate youre candidness in the matter, the problem with me is that I dont need to research anymore, I already have to much info. Libraried, I am well aware of what CSED says, i am also very well aware they dont want to talk about the cooperative agreements or " Cooperative Federalism" either, and yes I have no doubt that they garnish his wages at whatever amount they please, for that is what they do untill someone catches them, and imputs the correct law, in this case federal law, U.S.C, and the Corresponding CFR's, as mandated under the Federal Administartive Procedures Act, and mandates, which are all fall under  the Compact clause, hence forth youre federal law.

Go Ask CSED, or the Judge"assuming this isn;t an Administartive order" to disclose the Cooperative Agreements, they WONT, but I have them, for Two States and soon I will have more.

[Jade]

>Ok he called his lawyer and she said the same thing.  She
>said the only thing the judge will look at is six months worth
>of pay.  She said the only thing that will help is if someone
>from his work comes in and testifies that this is permanent.
>He works at a large factory.  Orders are low right = no
>overtime.  Scrap rate is very high = no bonus/incentive.  No
>one can come in and say that this is permanent. But no one
>knows that this won't last for a long time.
>So I am new at being on this end of the spectrum.  I am a
>single mom who gets child support.  My Ex and I when ever
>there is a change in circumstances, sign an agreed mod. and
>turn it into the child support office. No questions asked, no
>problem.
>His ex will not do this.  She lives off of her child support
>from him and another man.  She supports her boyfriend who
>lives with her and also does not have a job.  When he asked
>her about lowering the child support she said there was no way
>she could make it with less money.  
>So I read on Soc's board that it is illegal for child support
>to be more than 50% of your take home pay, but how can they
>say he isn't entitled to a reduction?
>

As long as he isn't married, it is legal to garnish up to 60% of his wages for child support.  

[Jade]

>It may be that he's paying more because he voluntarily
>lowered his income. Was he paying less than 50% before that?

With the alimony, it was roughly 50%.

But even though he willingly reduced his income, if the Federal Law actually limited it to 50% for single people, the probation dept. would not be able to garnish the entire amount.  He would have to send in the rest via a personal check.  

The child support office gave me a copy of the federal law.  And it clearly states:

60% for single ncp's with an additional 5% for arrears, should there be any.

50% for married ncp's with an additional 5% for arrears.  

[Jade]

>
>As much as I appreciate youre candidness in the matter, the
>problem with me is that I dont need to research anymore, I
>already have to much info. Libraried, I am well aware of what
>CSED says, i am also very well aware they dont want to talk
>about the cooperative agreements or " Cooperative Federalism"
>either, and yes I have no doubt that they garnish his wages at
>whatever amount they please, for that is what they do untill
>someone catches them, and imputs the correct law, in this case
>federal law, U.S.C, and the Corresponding CFR's, as mandated
>under the Federal Administartive Procedures Act, and mandates,
>which are all fall under  the Compact clause, hence forth
>youre federal law.
>
>Go Ask CSED, or the Judge"assuming this isn;t an
>Administartive order" to disclose the Cooperative Agreements,
>they WONT, but I have them, for Two States and soon I will
>have more.


Don't need to.  The child support office gave me a copy of the law that backs up what I have stated.  Apparently, the info you have isn't as complete.  

[leon]

 its youre world not mine, Ime not loseing anything, nor is it costing me, nor do I gain or charge anything contrary or not, Peace.