Child Support NC

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

Ok folks, I'm trying to help out one of my friends here. This is the situation:

Bio mom and dad never married, no longer together. The bio mom's STEP mother has primary custody of child.

At one point in time, the bio mom paid some support, and the bio dad paid some support. The bio dad then lost his job, I do not know why, but the end result is that bio dad no longer pays any support, even though he is capable of working.

Even tho the child was receiving medicaid, court ordered bio mom to obtain health insurance, which she did, through work. As crazy as it is, the health insurance has a $3000.00 yearly deductable.  Why a court would order that insurance vs. medicaid is beyond me. At any rate...

The bio mom is now being sued for the full amount of support. Bio dad is sitting somewhere not paying a dime. Is the court "right" in persuing bio mom for the full amount of child support?

[jenjen]

not sure about carolina but, in florida they can go after one or both parents , although both have a obligation to pay support. My guess is that the state will go after who ever has money and in this case it sounds like the bio mom, leaving the bio mom with the burden of recouping the other half from the father...think of them like a collection agency even though both have there name on the credit card they will go after who is the easiest to collect from or most likely to pay.

[mistoffolees]

>Even tho the child was receiving medicaid, court ordered bio
>mom to obtain health insurance, which she did, through work.
>As crazy as it is, the health insurance has a $3000.00 yearly
>deductable.  Why a court would order that insurance vs.
>medicaid is beyond me.

Because under the law, Medicaid is only for those who can not obtain insurance. If one parent can get insurance at work, applying for Medicaid would be fraudulent.

Yes, the deductible is high, but if they had a lower deductible, the copay would be higher - it tends to come out fairly even in the end, particularly if they also offer flex spending accounts.

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

I understand this.......to a point.

My question being...where's the imputed income from dad? I learned today that he was fired. So he choses not to get another job. If that's the case, I'll fire her tomorrow....not only is my friend, she's my employee. She'd be better off on welfare than what she's left with after paying support.

Don't get me wrong, she already does pay support, and does so willingly. But they're taking her to the cleaners.

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

I appreciate your response, tho, the insurance isn't really the point of my post. And if you truly mean co-pay in your response, there is NO co-pay with this insurance. And by that I mean.....if you are prescribed an 80 dollar prescription, you pay that 80 dollars until the 3 grand is met. Not the greatest of insuance, but good for something major.

And with all due respect, I believe you are off the mark regardless. Let me tell you MY personal account. My children live with their father who makes 35K a year. He is offered insurance through his work. I make more than dad, am single, (and I am offered the same insurance as my employee), and am offered insurance through my work. Dad's wife makes 50K+ a year as an RN and the children could be put on her insurance at a VERY nominal fee, truly less than what it would cost either me or dad on our respective insurances.

My son, 13 who has ADHD, Bipolar, and Depression has been on both Blue Chip through the state of Pennsylvania and is now on ACCESS, which is Welfare insurance in Pennsylvania. My Daughter,16, is still on the Blue Chip, (no medical issues outside of a severe hatred of her home placement).

Domestic Relations does not make either one of us obtain insurance. Both Blue Chip and ACCESS are well aware of what dad makes and step mom makes and I make. Why? Because I was afraid I'd be responsible if there was fraudulent charges made and told them. And NO WAY IN HELL was I going to be accountable for this.

So again, with all due respect...

[Jade]

Why isn't the mother going for custody of her child?  She is the parent here.   The stepmother is not.  

[mistoffolees]

'Co-pay' includes deductibles, so you've got essentially $3 K in deductibles which amounts to the same thing. The point I was making is that many companies have raised their deductibles on health insurance instead of making the employee pay a larger portion of the premium. The argument is that they could raise the deductible to $3 K per year or raise the employee contribution to the premium by $250 per month ($3 K per year). If you use the full amount, then it costs you the same (except that out of pocket medical expenses are deductible). If you don't use the full amount, the employee comes out ahead with the high deductible scheme.

As for the rest, it's sad, but is irrelevant. Medicaid is for people with extremely low income. The plans you're talking about are not Medicaid - and they have different rules. If you have access to other insurance and are filing claims under Medicaid (which is what you claimed in the original post), that's fraud and you could go to jail. Whether you think it's fair is irrelevant. Whether you have high expenses is irrelevant. Whether some completely unrelated plan (ACCESS or Blue Chip) allows it is irrelevant. If you're filing claims under Medicaid when you have access to other insurance, it's wrong. Period.

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

Apparently you can have both. She files with the insurance, which is denied as part of the deductible, and then she sends the denial to medicaid which in turns pays it. So IMHO, it is assinine to make someone who is  low income/medicaid eligible pay a couple hundred dollars a month for insurance which doesn't relieve medicaid of anything, and only makes the low income person even lower income.

And that is what I intended to express in my original post regarding the insurance, expeciailly in light of my own situation. I did not claim that anyone was filing under medicaid fraudulently.

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

I do not know the whole situation involved in her losing her child. All I know is that she was 17 at the time, and that CYS was involved. She's offered nothing more so I've not asked.

She's moved on and now has another happy healthy child. As I stated, she pays child support willingly, but it just seems wrong not to go after dad to pay a portion of it. All I can do is presume that she feels it's in the best interest of the child to remain with her step mom and dad.

[gmad]

Let me preface this by saying I am NOT an attorney or anything near it.
NC has IMHO one of the most aggressive support enforcement systems....especially it seems if you DO try to pay your support.
I do understand that your are not privy to all the particulars so I will try to keep things general as well but understand that the particulars may very well be what makes a difference between one case and another.
If you will look at the dhhs website you will find that support is very structured.
Some of the things that might help you to understand is who exactly is asking for the increase...the custodian or the state... either way your friend is entitled to have her day in court to explain why she shouldnt be paying more.

You can estimate that her portion of support is going to be approximately 30% of her pretax income.  Yes that's right...what she makes before taxes.
They also have to leave her a minimum each month to live on.  At last count that was only about $800 a month. (which isn't squat)
The court also has to take into account that she has to raise another child.  If she receives support for that child or if she has a spouse she only recieves half of the credit.
As to the insurance.... if her income after her support has been paid and taxes taken out would be less than the 800 a month cost of living amount then the insurance would be deemed as unreasonable. Bear in mind the only amount that is looked at is the cost of the "child's" insurance.
The whole catch to this is the system will only take...it doesn't give back.  What I mean by this is after looking at everything if she believes that paying the insurance is cost prohibative or the support is excessive and wants it lowered she is going to have to ask for it...they aren't going to call her up and say...hey I noticed that you don't have enough money after paying support to live off of.. she has to be proactive and that's not easy.

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

I appreciate your response. Your statements make me feel a bit better, as they concur with what I did manage to locate over the weekend. I had limited time to research NC laws, as I'm a Yankee, but felt that she was being "taken to the cleaners", simply from personal experience.

She brought me her paperwork from the courts. They had her gross monthly income listed based on a 40 hour work week. I'm not sure where they got their figures from, but NOBODY at our place of work gets 40 hours, due to an unpaid 1/2 hour lunch which makes an average full time week at 37 1/2 hrs.

So I printed up her time card since the first of the year to show her hours. This will definitely lower her gross monthly income from their calculations.

Next I noticed what they were crediting her for insurance. They were dividing her insurance payments by 3. So I printed all the paperwork for the insurance premiums. Our place of business covers her individual insurance, and lists the rate. So, her insurance premium is strictly the difference between her individual insurance and the family plan.

At best, they should only be dividing the premium by 2 instead of 3, which still should lower the support payment. I don't know if it will help her or not, but I told her to take all the proof she could that she and her second child were on medicaid and had no need to aquire the insurance, so perhaps they would credit her the full amount of the insurance premium that she pays.  I don't know...

I also printed off for her a copy of the Self-Support Reserve (It's $816.00 for one person in NC, you were close  :-) It's going to be borderline. I don't know if they will consider TWO people for that SSR, or if they make adjustments accordingly.

Her hearing is in the morning. I'll let you know what transpired, but thanks again, for the input.

[Jade]

>I appreciate your response. Your statements make me feel a
>bit better, as they concur with what I did manage to locate
>over the weekend. I had limited time to research NC laws, as
>I'm a Yankee, but felt that she was being "taken to the
>cleaners", simply from personal experience.
>
>She brought me her paperwork from the courts. They had her
>gross monthly income listed based on a 40 hour work week. I'm
>not sure where they got their figures from, but NOBODY at our
>place of work gets 40 hours, due to an unpaid 1/2 hour lunch
>which makes an average full time week at 37 1/2 hrs.
>
>So I printed up her time card since the first of the year to
>show her hours. This will definitely lower her gross monthly
>income from their calculations.
>
>Next I noticed what they were crediting her for insurance.
>They were dividing her insurance payments by 3. So I printed
>all the paperwork for the insurance premiums. Our place of
>business covers her individual insurance, and lists the rate.
>So, her insurance premium is strictly the difference between
>her individual insurance and the family plan.
>
>At best, they should only be dividing the premium by 2 instead
>of 3, which still should lower the support payment. I don't
>know if it will help her or not, but I told her to take all
>the proof she could that she and her second child were on
>medicaid and had no need to aquire the insurance, so perhaps
>they would credit her the full amount of the insurance premium
>that she pays.  I don't know...
>
>I also printed off for her a copy of the Self-Support Reserve
>(It's $816.00 for one person in NC, you were close  :-) It's
>going to be borderline. I don't know if they will consider TWO
>people for that SSR, or if they make adjustments accordingly.
>
>Her hearing is in the morning. I'll let you know what
>transpired, but thanks again, for the input.


It may not lower the monthly gross income as the courts can (and have in the past) imputed income to a full 40 hours for parents who don't work or who aren't working a full 40 hours a week.  

[gmad]

"So I printed up her time card since the first of the year to show her hours. This will definitely lower her gross monthly income from their calculations."

If your print-off also shows what her base wages are per hour then that should be sufficient to accurrately show her true income.  It would be best if she can have the total per month ready.  You have to figure it this way:

$/hr X # hours worked per week X 52 weeks / 12

or

$/hr x # hours worked per week X 4.3

I have personally seen DSS use the later formula most often but she should figure which one will give her the lowest amount.  It will be pretty close.

This is her monthly gross.
Her annual gross is the amount before the division or multiplication (I'm sure you knew that, just keeping myself in line)

They will only make sure that they leave her the reserve amount listed as 816 but they do take into account that she has to care and support another child.

To figure that amount is kinda tricky.  You have to use the worksheet for the appropriate custody arrangement she has with that child's father.  If she lives with the child's father then it is joint custody with time factored at 50% each and you have to then figure the percentage of total income she contributes and look it up on the chart.  If she has sole custody and cares for the child then you use that sheet and unless she knows what he earns (and has a way to prove it) then his income will be deemed at minimum wages.

Now be sure to check the income guidelines and see if she falls in the shaded area (before subtracting anything) if she does then there is a default support amount.

If her gross income is higher than that in the shaded area she will have to fill out the appropriate worksheet based on the custody arrangement.

In the sole custody where she is the non custodial parent (in this case custody means physical custody only) her income and expenses are the only ones that matter.
In short  the formula is :
gross pay - child care costs - costs of other children - extrordiany expenses (if the child had to have specialized schooling or such) - cost of child's share of insurance ( since what she pays for insurance is the cost of having the family plan vs only having herself covered she would be able to take a credit here for half.  The other half for the other child would be calculated in the contribution to care of other children)=

income used to calculate support *look on support guidelines to determine the support obligation for one child based on her income.

her income alone will be used to determine her support obligation, there will be no consideration in regards to the other absent parent as that is really a seperate issue. (his income would determine his own support obligation)

They do not have to allow the insurance deduction but if it puts her below that SSR or really close they usually do.

This SHOULD be the way it works.  

If she is offered to have an attorney appointed to her case she should NEVER give up that right.  Yes it will cost her $50 even if she meets indengency criteria (which she probably would) but some legal advice is better than none and the attorneys generally try to do what is right and explain it to the client.  Since this in not a show cause case it is not likely she would have that offered and if she cannot afford to hire an attorney she will have to sign that she understands that she has that right but choses to proceed without an attorney.

I don't know if this will help much as her hearing is in the morning but I hope so.  I wish her the best and my hat is off to you for being a good friend.

D

[gmad]

>
>It may not lower the monthly gross income as the courts can
>(and have in the past) imputed income to a full 40 hours for
>parents who don't work or who aren't working a full 40 hours a
>week.  

At the surface that is true.  When it can be shown that the peson is deliberately keeping hours down so as to diminish support then income will be deemed at the number of hours that would constitute a full work week for that job.  
Another exception to this woudl be if, for example, the person is trained as say a nurse but is working in a convenience store.  Unless good reason can be shown for that person to be working at half (or more ) the pay than the person could be earning in a job they are already trained for, then income may be deemed at whatever the going rate is for a nurse of that experience for a full week (generally 36 hours) regardless of what the actual income is.

As this number of hours is the norm for everyone working there and it is over 36 hours a week (which is considered full time for most folks in NC) then actual income is most likely to be what is used.  This is particularly true as she has another younger child to care for.
That said, it is going to come down to that particular judge's interpretation on what constitutes a full work week.  From the information given, it appears that the person is "on the job" 40 hours but is only paid for 37.5 due to the amount being reduced by lunch which is "off the clock".  This is something which is beyond her control. IMHO, This should be deemed as full time and actual income should be used. Were it my hearing I woudl certainly argue it. Now' whether or not the judge would see it the same way is an alltogether different matter. :)

D

[Jade]

>
>>
>>It may not lower the monthly gross income as the courts can
>>(and have in the past) imputed income to a full 40 hours for
>>parents who don't work or who aren't working a full 40 hours
>a
>>week.  
>
>At the surface that is true.  When it can be shown that the
>peson is deliberately keeping hours down so as to diminish
>support then income will be deemed at the number of hours that
>would constitute a full work week for that job.  
>Another exception to this woudl be if, for example, the person
>is trained as say a nurse but is working in a convenience
>store.  Unless good reason can be shown for that person to be
>working at half (or more ) the pay than the person could be
>earning in a job they are already trained for, then income may
>be deemed at whatever the going rate is for a nurse of that
>experience for a full week (generally 36 hours) regardless of
>what the actual income is.
>
>As this number of hours is the norm for everyone working there
>and it is over 36 hours a week (which is considered full time
>for most folks in NC) then actual income is most likely to be
>what is used.  This is particularly true as she has another
>younger child to care for.
>That said, it is going to come down to that particular judge's
>interpretation on what constitutes a full work week.  From the
>information given, it appears that the person is "on the job"
>40 hours but is only paid for 37.5 due to the amount being
>reduced by lunch which is "off the clock".  This is something
>which is beyond her control. IMHO, This should be deemed as
>full time and actual income should be used. Were it my hearing
>I woudl certainly argue it. Now' whether or not the judge
>would see it the same way is an alltogether different matter.
>:)
>
>D
>
>

Can she get the company policy on lunches?  That would help her.