Child Support Mod

[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.