Messages

Kinda contradicts all other laws though doesn't it.? A child who is no longer a child at the age of 18 can tell you to get bent, can vote, can serve in the military, can move out, can get a license without youre consent and can be convicted as a adult,,,,and yet here we have the state claiming  you have to be responsible for there monetary needs if the state opts to demand you pay support a benefit by deffinition, a debt that the state creates against you....sounds slightly ambiguous and shows no true state compelling enterest....might add though it doesn't comply with the terms set out in the federal register.
However its his game so he alone has to figure out how he wishes to proceed, but either way, people have the right to know where they realy stand..

if all else fails, file a Writ of Mandamus into federal court,,,,,its a command that they follow there own regs, laws and procedures,,,it levels the playing field and gets rid of interpretive regs.

She is 18 not a child, 2 hrs do not make full time status, and stopping to later restart does not constitute a continuing full time status

The problem here, is the same problem with many states and the way they worded you legislation. 1st- "may" is not commanding in law, its optional. 2nd "guidelines" are only procedures, a direction if you will, they can be ignore, followed, or twisted, they are interpretive, and like interpretations and opinions every one has one, and so the result is seldom the same, ie...why orders vary so much, different judge, different day, different attitude.
The one key you have to remember no judge,Associate, CSSD,CSED, CPS office or magistrate.etc..can demand an amount more than you make, nor can any of they above demand you get a second or third job...

Standards set forth for child support mandate youre ability to make at youre potental...however in youre case, not being willfully underemployed, being on disability mandates a reduction in support....
this is a federal guideline, and is held in the federal register,,which is a mandated law that the states cannot circumnavigate..and this all can be reconfirmed under title 42 U.S.C 654-669, and title 45 CFR's

if they follow the state guidelines, and the cooperative agreements "contracts" as they openly agreed to and signed, then it should keep you out of jail. But stranger things have happened, but at least if they do take you, then you have youre constitutional seizure, and youre entry to federal court.
The key like so many other things is to be able to produce the essential fact that you are not willfully underpaying"underworking" ie. in youre case as you say you have a physical ailment "health" as long as its medicaly reconized then you should be saved.
I personaly though would move for a modification if the above is true,
for one being that is what the state will use against you, is that you did not exercise due dilligence to try to resolve the situation, in which case if you were detained then you can show you willfully tried with due dilligence to resolve the situation.

be carefull, there mistakes are at youre cost, and in the end youre still held accountable.

The jail law, like some others is dependant upon willfull failure.
If you willfully fall behind, or willfully dont pay then you can go to jail"so they say" but it is still dependant upon youre intent, no person can be held if they are trying to pay. That was at least one thing the feds got right in there regulations.

I may be wrong for youre state, but in most, by federal mandate they have to have in a statute for "Potental" income which can be distinguished easy by there license and what field of work they can be in.
Since said person is now holding a license to work in a filed of higher income, then the potental is there to make such.

an enteresting cenario. It was written under the federal guidlines, if such child is retained under gaurdianship of the state, then said support goes to the state, in this case, it could be both of you to pay to the state. You might want to inquire upon this, to avoid in possible back support acruing. Since the Custodial parent no longer retains the said child in there custodial care, then by law you are repreived of paying them,,but like I said it may require you to pay the state.