PLEASE Help - CS Modification

[DLO_FL]

CP is in state of Tx, -- NCP is in state of Fla. -- In 2000, Fla. issued the support order on behalf of Tx. - Fla.'s order is the ONLY order Tx has and order was based on FLA. guidelines. NCP was injured on job, which required surgery and Doctor's order of 6 months of no work status. NCP lost job due to injury, and is working temp positions currently under Dr's orders and 2 year work restrictions.

NCP can't return to normal work industry and is incapable of making same amount of money due to injury so in March, NCP filed for a modification to lower his support in Fla. - Fla. CSE sends NCP a letter and current employer stating Fla. case was closed resulting in employer having NO order to deduct support from NCP's pay.

NCP contacts state of TX, sends a certified letter with pay stubs, copy of petition to modify, and employer information., Tx says FLA. must modify the order, as Tx won't assist. NCP then receives "a motion to withdraw as a party"... from FLA. AG office . NCP went to hearing with Fla. AG and they confirmed case was officially closed. NCP received a court date to proceed to modify support in Fla. on June 28.    

Tx AG then sends NCP and employer "a order/notice to withhold income for CS based on Fla.'s order, BUT amended the notice to withhold, without a court order and raised CS, even though NCP is making less. Fla.'s order is $103.57 weekly, $20/weekly for retro/arrears for the total of $494/mo. The amended order to deduct is $448.00 monthly, plus $125./monthly for retro/arrears for the total of $573.80/mo

In addition, TX ordered that employer enroll NCP's child on health insurance. NCP lost insurance when NCP lost job and can't afford insurance now. NCP's children who reside in the home are on State aid insurance and welfare.

Original FLA. Order reads:

INSURANCE:
 
NCP shall provide insurance coverage in the following matter:
(a) NCP shall maintain private health insurance or group health coverage currently provided for the dependant child, if reasonably available, and shall further give written proof of coverage to Department of Revenue, as hereinafter provided. NCP shall be responsible for one half of the minor child. The hereinafter required written of coverage or non-availability of coverage shall be provided within (30) days of the entry of this judgment, or upon a receipt hereafter made by the D.O. Revenue.  

JURISDICTION:

This court (Fla) has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause and over NCP.

RESERVATION OF JURISDICTION:

This court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the executory provisions hereof and to enter such order other and further orders affecting child support and enforcement thereof.

1. Legally, should or can this court (Fla) modify child support, even though Fla. AG & CSE withdrew from case?

2. Legally, can Tx AG send employer a amended notice and order to deduct raising support without the court's involvement?

3. If No, what can NCP do?

4. CP has insurance on child, how does NCP get CP to turn over information, along with W2's when NCP literally can't afford to subpeona records, and cse in both states aren't helping to obtain info?

5. In regards to 4, can NCP send certified letter with request to information, and give 20 or 30 days to comply, would that be a legal avenue instead of the subpeona?

6. NCP's child will be 18 next year, does Fla. control at which age CS terminates?
 
7. Any additional advise that you can offer NCP on what to do?

Thank you

[socrateaser]

>1. Legally, should or can this court (Fla) modify child
>support, even though Fla. AG & CSE withdrew from case?

You are mistaking the FL AG and CSE offices for the courts. Just because the administrative agencies withdraw from the case, does not mean that the FL courts have lost jurisdiction -- FL retrains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify support.

>
>2. Legally, can Tx AG send employer a amended notice and order
>to deduct raising support without the court's involvement?

Yes. And you have the legal right to file a motion in a FL court to quash the order. Better move fast to do this, or the TX order will be presumed correct.

>
>3. If No, what can NCP do?

Irrelevant.

>
>4. CP has insurance on child, how does NCP get CP to turn over
>information, along with W2's when NCP literally can't afford
>to subpeona records, and cse in both states aren't helping to
>obtain info?

You have a separate  obligation to provide insurance regardless of whether CP maintains insurance on the child. If you are suffering a hardship, you must file a motion to modify support with the FL court.

>
>5. In regards to 4, can NCP send certified letter with request
>to information, and give 20 or 30 days to comply, would that
>be a legal avenue instead of the subpeona?

No.

>
>6. NCP's child will be 18 next year, does Fla. control at
>which age CS terminates?

The law of the state where the original order/judgment of child support was entered controls. If that court order states an express termination (e.g., "Support will terminate when the child reaches 18 and is graduated High School, or reaches 19, whichever occurs first."), then the state statute controls the date at which support terminates.

In most states, you must file a motion for an order expressly terminating support, regardless of any other statutory provisions.

 
>7. Any additional advise that you can offer NCP on what to do?

Your situation is typical. FL administrative agencies won't get involved unless there is an easy and certain means of obtaining support from you. You now need to proceed via the courts or TX will just bully your employer into witholding an unreasonably large amount of your pay.

If you do nothing you will lose. If you hire an attorney, well, you'll lose again, just in a different way. You can try to defend your own interests, if your county court has a family law facilitator's office, they can help you file a motion to quash.

The law isn't fair with regard to child support. If you don't like it, write your legislative representatives and congresspersons and tell them that unless they return some equity to the family law system, you will vote them out of office on this single issue -- and that you don't care how they vote on any other issue. That's the only way to get the message across.

[DLO_FL]

Thank you Soc, for your time and help. Move fast?... that's scaring me. I don't understand this legal stuff, but I think I understand what you said. We filed to modify before Tx did this and have a court date on the 28 of June to modify.

1. Can we get into court before then to quash it (I'm take quash means modify) or do we have to wait for the court date?  

2. Does motion to Quash, mean the same as motion to modify?
Thank you

[socrateaser]

>Thank you Soc, for your time and help. Move fast?... that's
>scaring me. I don't understand this legal stuff, but I think I
>understand what you said. We filed to modify before Tx did
>this and have a court date on the 28 of June to modify.
>
>1. Can we get into court before then to quash it (I'm take
>quash means modify) or do we have to wait for the court date?

Yes, you can go to court and move for an emergency ex-parte order to quash the out of state earnings assignment order, on grounds that a hearing is currently pending on the issue of support modification in a FL court, and that you will suffer irreparable harm because the support obligation on the face of the wage assignment does not accurately reflect your current actual income or earning capacity.

You are undoubtedly in possession of a copy of the garnishment/assignment order. The order states the time in which you have to move to quash. In my experience, the time limit is 10 days from the date that your employer gave you a copy of the wage assignment order. If you exceed the 10 days, you will lose, and althought the FL court may later lower your obligation, even retroactive to a date prior to that of the wage assignment, you may nevertheless never recover your money from the CP and TX, or spend so much in costs attempting to do so, that your attempts will be useless.

>2. Does motion to Quash, mean the same as motion to modify?

No, quashing an order means that the court renders a specific court order unenforceable, thus your employer will not have to comply with its terms and conditions until the court makes a new order. Modifying is the act of redeterming the correct amount of support owed, and making a new order under which your employer will then have to comply.

[DLO_FL]

- Thanks so MUCH!

[1angrystepmom]

DH filed for a CS mod in March of '03, the case is similar to your (BM in CA, FL order, DH in FL) **DH is NCP
 
The State of FL, is now representing DH, BM failed to provide Financial Affadavit, (for Mod) and FL AG has asked the Court to award them atty fees, costs etc.  from BM

Contact CSE, I don't know what county you are in, but there is a form on the FL CSE website for modifications.

http://www.state.fl.us/dor/childsupport/modification.html

Do what Soc says about the quashing the motion, but the Mod needs to be filed too!!!

Good Luck!
Amber