Child Support/Wage Garnishment

[jcsct5]

Soc-

State is California

Child Support is collected through DCSS and has been a wage garnishment. Ex just wuit his job and is starting a new one. We are in the process of determining a new support amount. Ex would like to make payments directly to DCSS rather than have a garnishment.  

I spoke to DCSS case worker who stated that she didn't believe that it is possible to pay them directly and that it needed to be a garnishment.  I am leery of closing my DCSS case and allowing him to pay me directly until he can show a pattern of paying timely.

Assuming we can come to an agreement on the amount of support, we hope to write up an agreement and file with the courts for the Judges signature.

1) Is there some wording that we can use that would make it so he could make direct payments to DCSS rather than a wage garnishment and have the courts and DCSS recognize this?

2) When calculating support in the section that asks for health insurance, do you include the cost for the entire household or just the children the support is calculated for?

3) Is it customary or common for hardships (new child of current marriage) to be calculated at 50% as there is another person (spouse) responsible for them as well?

4) If the answer to 3 is yes then could you give me an example of when one would use 100% for a hardship?


Thank you in advance

[socrateaser]

>1) Is there some wording that we can use that would make it so
>he could make direct payments to DCSS rather than a wage
>garnishment and have the courts and DCSS recognize this?

If you have NOT assigned your rights to support to the State, because you obtained welfare benefits that are being repaid through DCSS, then you can enter a stipulated (agreed) order between yourself and the other parent, and then obtain a wage assignment order from the court clerk to have the obligor's payments sent directly from his employer.

You would need to serve a copy of your stipulated order on DCSS and then see if they object to the arrangement. If they don't, then you can just cut them out of the picture. If they do, then the judge will have to decide.

>2) When calculating support in the section that asks for
>health insurance, do you include the cost for the entire
>household or just the children the support is calculated for?

Just the children for whom support is owed. Just divide the total cost of coverage by the total number of people covered and then multiply that amount by the number of children owed support. This is a workable method, unless there is someone who has some special coverage that makes them substantially more or less costly than the others covered by the policy.

>3) Is it customary or common for hardships (new child of
>current marriage) to be calculated at 50% as there is another
>person (spouse) responsible for them as well?

I don't understand your question. Please tell me the facts that lead you to conclude that a deviation from the guidelines due to hardship is appropriate.

>
>4) If the answer to 3 is yes then could you give me an example
>of when one would use 100% for a hardship?

N/A

[jcsct5]

In regards to #3&4 above:

When I entered a child of another relationship living with mother (me) the x-spouse software calculated a hardship deduction for that child.

My husband and myseld have a child together, x spouse calulates automatically a hardship at 100%. My ex states that the hardship should only be calclated at 50% as my spouse has 50% responsibility for supporting our new child. I can somewhat understand that logic but then it eludes me as to when a 100% hardship for a new child would be appropriate. There is a place to change the calculation to 50% in the software.

I hope that make it clearer as to what I am looking for.

1)  Do I calculate a hardship deduction for a child of another relationship at 50% or 100%?

In Regards to health insurance:

Ex pays $450 for medical that does not cover the kids, just himself and his wife. He pays $50 for the children to have dental insurance.

We pay $350 a month for health that covers the children, yet would cost the same if they weren't covered. There are 7 people covered by this insurance.

1) For my ex's : Would you take the total of his $450 and the children's dental of $50 and divide that by (the number of people in house or just the childrens dental since they are seperate?

2)  For ours: Would the fact the the costs is the same regardless of the children being covered change your earlier answer, or should we still use $100?

3) Should I include any amount not listed under health insurance under other medical expense, or again is that just expenses of the children support is calculated for?

Thanks again

[socrateaser]

>In regards to #3&4 above:
>
>When I entered a child of another relationship living with
>mother (me) the x-spouse software calculated a hardship
>deduction for that child.
>
>My husband and myseld have a child together, x spouse
>calulates automatically a hardship at 100%. My ex states that
>the hardship should only be calclated at 50% as my spouse has
>50% responsibility for supporting our new child. I can
>somewhat understand that logic but then it eludes me as to
>when a 100% hardship for a new child would be appropriate.
>There is a place to change the calculation to 50% in the
>software.
>
>I hope that make it clearer as to what I am looking for.
>
>1)  Do I calculate a hardship deduction for a child of another
>relationship at 50% or 100%?

The right to an offset for a child from a new relationship is up to the discretion of the court. The state uniform guidelines do not give ANY credit for a child of a new relationship, absent a showing that it would be unjust or inappropriate to impose the additional amount. Usually, unless you qualify for the low-income hardship deduction (i.e., paying parent earns less than $1,000 per month), or your new child requires special help because of some disability, the judge will not permit any hardship deduction for a child of a new relationship.

My point is, that this is all subject to making a convincing argument to the court, and that if the software is giving you 50%, consider it a gift, because if you go into court, you may get 0%.

>In Regards to health insurance:
>
>Ex pays $450 for medical that does not cover the kids, just
>himself and his wife. He pays $50 for the children to have
>dental insurance.
>
>We pay $350 a month for health that covers the children, yet
>would cost the same if they weren't covered. There are 7
>people covered by this insurance.
>
>1) For my ex's : Would you take the total of his $450 and the
>children's dental of $50 and divide that by (the number of
>people in house or just the childrens dental since they are
>seperate?

No. Just use the $50. The $450 is irrelevant.

>2)  For ours: Would the fact the the costs is the same
>regardless of the children being covered change your earlier
>answer, or should we still use $100?

$350 divided by 7 people = $50 per person. That's the amount actually paid for each child's healthcare coverage, so that's what you should use.

>3) Should I include any amount not listed under health
>insurance under other medical expense, or again is that just
>expenses of the children support is calculated for?

If you have unreimbursed heathcare expenses, and you expect that they will be ongoing (e.g., an uncovered prescription for a child that is reasonably necessary), then you should include these amounts. Otherwise, not.