When 2 CS orders are competing...

[concerned dadto2]

Dear Soc,
 I live in Georgia.  I have 2 separate income deduction orders against me - one was a private order during a divorce the other is through CSE by default.  

I have 2 kids - a son with my current wife and a girl with my X.  When I was younger the CSE sent me a paper to go to court.  I never rec'd and thus was ordered to pay for a child that we later determined through testing that is not mine - this is the CSE IDO.

In Georgia we use the guideline system thus my XW receives 24.5% of my gross wages.  I have no problem w/ this as I want to support my daughter.

The company where I work has recently received the second IDO from
CSE.  The payroll clerk has since reduced, by over half, the amount my daughter is getting in order to comply w/ the CS IDO - and the child is not even mine

Iam aware I have to pay CS due to default, but I would atleast like my daughter to get the total amount that the court ordered in the D (24.5%) and then let the other child have the difference in what Ga guidelines use for example 28% - 24.5%.

The payroll clerk stated she was reducing the IDO for XW as she felt the CSE's IDO was more important as it came from a state agency.

1.  Is it legal for them to not comply with the first IDO in an effort to satisfy the second IDO?

2.  If not, what can I do to see that my employer satisfies the IDO for my daughter first?  Thanks.

[socrateaser]

>1.  Is it legal for them to not comply with the first IDO in
>an effort to satisfy the second IDO?

Yes, they must apportion the garnishments equally.

>
>2.  If not, what can I do to see that my employer satisfies
>the IDO for my daughter first?  Thanks.

I don't know enough about your case. Others have tried and failed to overcome this utterly nonsensical situation of being ordered to pay support for a child not theirs, after not receiving notice.

I think I could make a case that this represents a private taking prohibited by the 5th Amendment, but, it's probably been so long since the CSE order was made that it would be impossible to have it set aside now.

[concerned dadto2]

Dear Soc,
 I live in Georgia.  I have 2 separate income deduction orders against me - one was a private order during a divorce the other is through CSE by default.  

I have 2 kids - a son with my current wife and a girl with my X.  When I was younger the CSE sent me a paper to go to court.  I never rec'd and thus was ordered to pay for a child that we later determined through testing that is not mine - this is the CSE IDO.

In Georgia we use the guideline system thus my XW receives 24.5% of my gross wages.  I have no problem w/ this as I want to support my daughter.

The company where I work has recently received the second IDO from
CSE.  The payroll clerk has since reduced, by over half, the amount my daughter is getting in order to comply w/ the CS IDO - and the child is not even mine

Iam aware I have to pay CS due to default, but I would atleast like my daughter to get the total amount that the court ordered in the D (24.5%) and then let the other child have the difference in what Ga guidelines use for example 28% - 24.5%.

The payroll clerk stated she was reducing the IDO for XW as she felt the CSE's IDO was more important as it came from a state agency.

1.  Is it legal for them to not comply with the first IDO in an effort to satisfy the second IDO?

2.  If not, what can I do to see that my employer satisfies the IDO for my daughter first?  Thanks.

[socrateaser]

>1.  Is it legal for them to not comply with the first IDO in
>an effort to satisfy the second IDO?

Yes, they must apportion the garnishments equally.

>
>2.  If not, what can I do to see that my employer satisfies
>the IDO for my daughter first?  Thanks.

I don't know enough about your case. Others have tried and failed to overcome this utterly nonsensical situation of being ordered to pay support for a child not theirs, after not receiving notice.

I think I could make a case that this represents a private taking prohibited by the 5th Amendment, but, it's probably been so long since the CSE order was made that it would be impossible to have it set aside now.