Hello all,
I'm an NCP Dad in NC. When my child support was first set 6 years ago my ex's attorney specifically asked the court that I pay my ex directly, rather than having my wages garnished by Child Support Enforcement.
I'm trying to understand why it is to my ex's benefit that I pay her directly.
Does Child Support Enforcement take a cut of the cs they collect?
Or does Child Support Enforcement require financial disclosures from the cp, that my ex and her attorney might want to avoid?
Thanks for any responses.
It is possible that there is nothing underhanded in it - they saw you were good for the payments on time and figured she would receive the payments quicker without the thrid party intervention (which can delay things as much as a week or more).
There could be also some fraud invovled - at some point they may intend to say you never paid and get you for back support (it has been done). However, an attorney would have to be stupid with a capital S to plan this one in advance.
OR
If NC has income shares (payment is based on a percentage determined by each parent's income in relation to the other parent) then they may be trying to sidestep any decreases over time based on increases in the CP's income over time with little chance for increase over time of the NCP's income (thus increasing the CP's share of the total amount and decreasing the payment transfer.)
In DH's case (state of WA), the use of support enforcement meant the state paid for a periodic review and acted as a third party at the court proceedings. That meant a reduction for DH in CS when BM'c income increased and Dh's stayed basically static (and DH has additional children).
>Hello all,
>
>I'm an NCP Dad in NC. When my child support was first set 6
>years ago my ex's attorney specifically asked the court that I
>pay my ex directly, rather than having my wages garnished by
>Child Support Enforcement.
>
>I'm trying to understand why it is to my ex's benefit that I
>pay her directly.
>
>Does Child Support Enforcement take a cut of the cs they
>collect?
>
>Or does Child Support Enforcement require financial
>disclosures from the cp, that my ex and her attorney might
>want to avoid?
>
>Thanks for any responses.
>
>
When you pay directly, there isn't a wait time. My ex has child support taken out of his paycheck and I receive it a week later.
But having it taken directly out of your paycheck by a third party means that you can prove that you pay your child support every time.
And having it directly taken out of the ncp's checks means that the ncp can't just unilaterally reduce said child support.
I am not saying you will do this. I am just pointing out the pros and cons to both ways.
Thanks for both responses. I appreciate it.
"If NC has income shares (payment is based on a percentage determined by each parent's income in relation to the other parent) then they may be trying to sidestep any decreases over time."
Bingo. I believe this is the reason -- though not because of my ex's increase in income, but because she stopped working.
CS was originally set via NC Guidelines (which I believe is income shares based) when my ex was working full-time and had full-time daycare. *Both* these factors *increased* my cs. When she started working, a larger percentage of our joint income was earmarked for our children -- and my cs went up.
Now she has remarried, has voluntarily stopped working, and no longer has work-related daycare expenses. I've petitioned to modify cs, asking the court to (a) impute to my ex her former salary, (b) recalculate with no work related child care expenses, and (c) award me the tax deduction for our children, given that my ex does not have wage income.
I may also see if I can have my payments made through child support enforcement going forward. I have no concern that she'll claim nonpayment, and she has no concern that I will skip paying what's ordered. But I might like a third party reviewing my payment -- and I would like to get reductions I am entitled to without incurring huge legal fees or spending a lot of time learning the intricacies of our legal system myself.
Thanks again.
DElay of time to receive, keeps CSED from unilateraly making increases in support without anyone imputting in for a modification(she or you have to do it) leaves CSED powerless without a court order to modify, and just gives more NCP's a feeling of meaning. For CSED to collect, she either has to be on some sort of assistance(state assistance) or she or you have to enter a application of aid for them to collect, for which they charge a processing fee, that either ways gets charged back to the NCP.
In MT the CP has to pay the CSED "application processing fee" unless they are on public assistance, in which case it is waived entirely. There is no provision here to split that fee equally or to charge it to the NCP.
The CP simply has to pay it via certified check or money order at the time they submit their application or it will not be processsed.
to the person requesting assistance and is not charged to anyone other than the person requesting assistance. If one is on public assistance, CSE is automatically involved in the case.
collect your CS, and also review your CS if there has been a 15% change in CS calculation or 3 years since last review. The judge will likely imput income and recalculate CS on new figures, however, will probably not award tax deduction since she is remarried and her DH is working, thus using the exemptions. The deduction is automatically figured in the CS as going to CP. If you want the deduction, you will likely see an increase in CS (deviation), or you can have your ex's income set at $0 and you would likely be able to claim that you deserve the exemptions and receive them.
http://www.ncchildsupport.com/parents.jsp
>collect your CS, and also review your CS if there has been a
>15% change in CS calculation or 3 years since last review.
>The judge will likely imput income and recalculate CS on new
>figures, however, will probably not award tax deduction since
>she is remarried and her DH is working, thus using the
>exemptions. The deduction is automatically figured in the CS
>as going to CP. If you want the deduction, you will likely
>see an increase in CS (deviation), or you can have your ex's
>income set at $0 and you would likely be able to claim that
>you deserve the exemptions and receive them.
According to the IRS, the custodial parent is the one who gets the exemptions for the children if there is no court order stating otherwise.
If the exemptions aren't addressed in the current order, then the ncp can't claim them without a form signed by the cp.
with the judge when recalculating CS.
yes, but it can be charged back to the NCP.
Ever read or heard of the Cooperative Agreements
I am not aware of the cooperative agreements.
I am only going by my personal experience that the MT CSED, our judge, and my attorney told me: that the CP requesting the CSED's involvement is solely responsible for the application fee. If these coop agreements state differently, they appear to be ignored in MT.
very well aware CSE is involved automaticly if one is on assistance, and the processing fee can be charged back to the NCP, boy I wish more peolpe would read the cooperative agreements. As a mater of fact there is a statuatory regulation just for tthe NCP to be charged by the state for the FEE. of processing
regarding this fee in NC. Thanks.