Messages

Thanks for the reply.  I'm actually considering doing just that.  I think I may file pro-se, submit my bank records and fight this bogus arrears and see what happens.  Can't be worse off than I am now, so why not?

Thanks again.

Not sure how many others out there are dealing with the state of MD, but this is happening to me and is down right scary, so I thought I'd share.

My ex and I have 50/50 split custody, but MD law says I still need to pay support.  Fine, no problem here.  Don't like it, but oh well.  So I pay.  And each month I pay.  

As per our agreement, for 5 years, I've been paying her directly.  Well, it just so happens that my employer recieves a court order to take a wage lien (at her request) and send it in.  Still no problem.

But...I look at the wage lien documentation and it's for $145 more per paycheck then my actual support order.  As it turns out, the support enforcement agency has an erroneous arrears of $6200 listed (because they didn't know, and she failed to tell them, that I had been paying her directly since the official date of the order, which was last April), so they're docking my check for that.  So I head down to the agency to show them each month's statement from my bank showing I've paid her and she's cashed the check.  Not good enough say they!  The ONLY way they will take the arrears off the record is if she gives them a notarized letter stating that the arrears is false.  

So I ask them, "You mean to tell me that her word means more than my documented bank records?"  Their answer, in short "Yes."

So, they call her and ask her for the letter, but she's so busy and doesn't have any idea when she could possibly do this, so for now, the extra money will be taken from me.

My options - wait until she writes the letter

-or-

hire an attorney, and spend thousands in court proving that there is no arrears.  

Pretty darn scary that the word of a hostile ex-spouse means more to the child support enforcement agency than actual bank records proving payment.  I understand that there are plenty of accounts out there that have legitimate arrears, but it should not be that the paying parent is at the complete mercy of the other.  

I think what Joni said was correct if you are not in a shared custody situation.  But in a shared custody situation such as mine, it can make a difference of two or three hundred dollars per month.  

I've just filed for a very similar situation.  I've got 50/50 shared custody of my 3 boys, and my ex works only about 20 hours per week as a nurse.  She's got time to volunteer at the local rescue squad (so much so that she's now their captain!) yet doesn't feel that she needs to work full-time to support her kids.  (Gee, I wonder if the court would accept that from me??)
She's been claiming to go to school for almost 8 years now (she's 31 years old) and that's always her reasoning for working less and needing more support.  Well, I've been going to college 3/4 time for two years now, yet I still work full-time and take care of my kids as well.

I've served her and am awaiting her answer.  I cited Maryland Family Law section §12-201.  This section clearly defines what is meant by the term "voluntary impoverishment", and I believe my ex falls into this definition rather clearly.  

I'm filing Pro-se, Maryland has a great pro-se assistance project, you may want to see if MA has one too.  I'll keep you posted on how my case goes and what the court requires of me if you'd like.

I've got a question and I'm curious what others think of this situation.

I've got 50/50 shared custody of my kids.  We switch out every-other week for a full week.  I live in MD, and here (as with most states) I've got to pay support with the 50/50 since I make more money than she does.  No problem there for me whatsoever.

Here's the problem.  My ex thinks I should buy a full wardrobe and keep it at my house for the kids so that she doesn't have to pack for them anymore.  I disagree, being that I'm paying her $775 per month, I think she should send them with clothes packed as she always has.

I'm interested to know if anyone else has dealt with this and how they handled it?  I haven't found any good legal references that define support issues with shared custody.

Thanks to all.

I live in MD.  The courts here go strictly by some guidelines that were written years ago, with NO deviation.  I pay $1388 every month for child support, plus cover medical, PLUS split any medical/dental that isn't coverd by insurance 50/50 with ex, PLUS I have to buy them clothes and shoes all the time because BM doesn't and I don't want my boys walking around looking in rags.  

All this while BM only works part time, goes to college full-time (for 3 years now) and is a volunteer at not one, but 2 rescue squads!  But hey, it's not in the "best interest of the child" for my kids to be with me.  

GO FIGURE

Thank you for the response.  I actually did file for the contempt  for two counts; one for not following the order and one for failure to pay support (she is required to pay 50% of the uncovered medical expenses - I provide the insurance) because she has not only refused to take them to the doctor or dentist, but she hasn't helped chip in to pay for it either.  Her hearing is on the 11th of April.  I agree with you though that although they may not grant my request, it will raise awareness in the court.

Thanks for the reply.  Sadly, I think you are correct.  It's a shame that the law doesn't consider a parent to be neglectful unless the child is dead or seriously hurt.  Unless you are a licensed pediatrician, I do not agree with anyone who says that they are capable of diagnosing their children's illnesses, both medical and dental, for five years and that going to a pediatrician and dendist is unecessary.  But that's the sad world we live in.  Nobody cares until somebody gets hurt or dies, and then we all gasp, act shocked, and use the gift of hindsight to judge what "should have been done".  

I'm my3sons new wife.  Was following what all had to say about the medical.  It's not that the 3 children are so healthy- she just lets it go till either my husband or myself takes the kids.  She is always either sleeping, has some event going on in her life to prevent her from going, etc.  As for the dentist...think she wanted us to start it back up so that she didn't have to hear all about the rotting teeth in their mouths.  We are the ones who had to explain the horrible condition of their teeth.  (and it was very embarassing- they had rotten roots that had broken off in their mouths)  She has shown no care for these children what-so-ever.  They are just a meal ticket to her.  She gets a check each month- which she has used for trips for herself, to by  a new car (it was not needed, just wanted), to go tanning, and to get things like her nails done.  She has even stated how they are out of "her" house when they turn 18.  Sorry know that I went off subject a bit but it seems to me that the courts want abuse to be proven, not neglect.  How much in danger of their health does it have to be to say enough is enough.  I have a child with an ex of my own and would never dream of putting my child at risk

thanks for letting me get that out.

tef

Thanks for the reply.   They got in to school because I took them to the doctor when they would come visit me in New York.  I eventually came to the conclusion that the only way they'd get the care they need is if I lived with/near them, so I moved down to Marlyland last year.

I agree with you, it is sad that animals seem to have better legal protection than children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a recommended schedule of pediatric care at:

http://www.aap.org/visit/prevent.htm

Thanks for the reply.  Luckily, although she refuses to take the kids herself, she has not attempted to stop me from doing so.  She's got a contempt hearing in April for this issue and for the fact that our court order states that although I am to provide medical insurance for the kids (which I do), we are to split uncovered medical expenses 50/50.  Not only does she not take them  for medical or dental care herself, but she also refuses to pay her share of the bills.  She's in the hole for a few hundred dollars, so we'll see what the judge thinks in April.