Child Support NC

[I cry_ in_the_dark]

I appreciate your response. Your statements make me feel a bit better, as they concur with what I did manage to locate over the weekend. I had limited time to research NC laws, as I'm a Yankee, but felt that she was being "taken to the cleaners", simply from personal experience.

She brought me her paperwork from the courts. They had her gross monthly income listed based on a 40 hour work week. I'm not sure where they got their figures from, but NOBODY at our place of work gets 40 hours, due to an unpaid 1/2 hour lunch which makes an average full time week at 37 1/2 hrs.

So I printed up her time card since the first of the year to show her hours. This will definitely lower her gross monthly income from their calculations.

Next I noticed what they were crediting her for insurance. They were dividing her insurance payments by 3. So I printed all the paperwork for the insurance premiums. Our place of business covers her individual insurance, and lists the rate. So, her insurance premium is strictly the difference between her individual insurance and the family plan.

At best, they should only be dividing the premium by 2 instead of 3, which still should lower the support payment. I don't know if it will help her or not, but I told her to take all the proof she could that she and her second child were on medicaid and had no need to aquire the insurance, so perhaps they would credit her the full amount of the insurance premium that she pays.  I don't know...

I also printed off for her a copy of the Self-Support Reserve (It's $816.00 for one person in NC, you were close  :-) It's going to be borderline. I don't know if they will consider TWO people for that SSR, or if they make adjustments accordingly.

Her hearing is in the morning. I'll let you know what transpired, but thanks again, for the input.

[Jade]

>I appreciate your response. Your statements make me feel a
>bit better, as they concur with what I did manage to locate
>over the weekend. I had limited time to research NC laws, as
>I'm a Yankee, but felt that she was being "taken to the
>cleaners", simply from personal experience.
>
>She brought me her paperwork from the courts. They had her
>gross monthly income listed based on a 40 hour work week. I'm
>not sure where they got their figures from, but NOBODY at our
>place of work gets 40 hours, due to an unpaid 1/2 hour lunch
>which makes an average full time week at 37 1/2 hrs.
>
>So I printed up her time card since the first of the year to
>show her hours. This will definitely lower her gross monthly
>income from their calculations.
>
>Next I noticed what they were crediting her for insurance.
>They were dividing her insurance payments by 3. So I printed
>all the paperwork for the insurance premiums. Our place of
>business covers her individual insurance, and lists the rate.
>So, her insurance premium is strictly the difference between
>her individual insurance and the family plan.
>
>At best, they should only be dividing the premium by 2 instead
>of 3, which still should lower the support payment. I don't
>know if it will help her or not, but I told her to take all
>the proof she could that she and her second child were on
>medicaid and had no need to aquire the insurance, so perhaps
>they would credit her the full amount of the insurance premium
>that she pays.  I don't know...
>
>I also printed off for her a copy of the Self-Support Reserve
>(It's $816.00 for one person in NC, you were close  :-) It's
>going to be borderline. I don't know if they will consider TWO
>people for that SSR, or if they make adjustments accordingly.
>
>Her hearing is in the morning. I'll let you know what
>transpired, but thanks again, for the input.


It may not lower the monthly gross income as the courts can (and have in the past) imputed income to a full 40 hours for parents who don't work or who aren't working a full 40 hours a week.  

[gmad]

"So I printed up her time card since the first of the year to show her hours. This will definitely lower her gross monthly income from their calculations."

If your print-off also shows what her base wages are per hour then that should be sufficient to accurrately show her true income.  It would be best if she can have the total per month ready.  You have to figure it this way:

$/hr X # hours worked per week X 52 weeks / 12

or

$/hr x # hours worked per week X 4.3

I have personally seen DSS use the later formula most often but she should figure which one will give her the lowest amount.  It will be pretty close.

This is her monthly gross.
Her annual gross is the amount before the division or multiplication (I'm sure you knew that, just keeping myself in line)

They will only make sure that they leave her the reserve amount listed as 816 but they do take into account that she has to care and support another child.

To figure that amount is kinda tricky.  You have to use the worksheet for the appropriate custody arrangement she has with that child's father.  If she lives with the child's father then it is joint custody with time factored at 50% each and you have to then figure the percentage of total income she contributes and look it up on the chart.  If she has sole custody and cares for the child then you use that sheet and unless she knows what he earns (and has a way to prove it) then his income will be deemed at minimum wages.

Now be sure to check the income guidelines and see if she falls in the shaded area (before subtracting anything) if she does then there is a default support amount.

If her gross income is higher than that in the shaded area she will have to fill out the appropriate worksheet based on the custody arrangement.

In the sole custody where she is the non custodial parent (in this case custody means physical custody only) her income and expenses are the only ones that matter.
In short  the formula is :
gross pay - child care costs - costs of other children - extrordiany expenses (if the child had to have specialized schooling or such) - cost of child's share of insurance ( since what she pays for insurance is the cost of having the family plan vs only having herself covered she would be able to take a credit here for half.  The other half for the other child would be calculated in the contribution to care of other children)=

income used to calculate support *look on support guidelines to determine the support obligation for one child based on her income.

her income alone will be used to determine her support obligation, there will be no consideration in regards to the other absent parent as that is really a seperate issue. (his income would determine his own support obligation)

They do not have to allow the insurance deduction but if it puts her below that SSR or really close they usually do.

This SHOULD be the way it works.  

If she is offered to have an attorney appointed to her case she should NEVER give up that right.  Yes it will cost her $50 even if she meets indengency criteria (which she probably would) but some legal advice is better than none and the attorneys generally try to do what is right and explain it to the client.  Since this in not a show cause case it is not likely she would have that offered and if she cannot afford to hire an attorney she will have to sign that she understands that she has that right but choses to proceed without an attorney.

I don't know if this will help much as her hearing is in the morning but I hope so.  I wish her the best and my hat is off to you for being a good friend.

D

[gmad]

>
>It may not lower the monthly gross income as the courts can
>(and have in the past) imputed income to a full 40 hours for
>parents who don't work or who aren't working a full 40 hours a
>week.  

At the surface that is true.  When it can be shown that the peson is deliberately keeping hours down so as to diminish support then income will be deemed at the number of hours that would constitute a full work week for that job.  
Another exception to this woudl be if, for example, the person is trained as say a nurse but is working in a convenience store.  Unless good reason can be shown for that person to be working at half (or more ) the pay than the person could be earning in a job they are already trained for, then income may be deemed at whatever the going rate is for a nurse of that experience for a full week (generally 36 hours) regardless of what the actual income is.

As this number of hours is the norm for everyone working there and it is over 36 hours a week (which is considered full time for most folks in NC) then actual income is most likely to be what is used.  This is particularly true as she has another younger child to care for.
That said, it is going to come down to that particular judge's interpretation on what constitutes a full work week.  From the information given, it appears that the person is "on the job" 40 hours but is only paid for 37.5 due to the amount being reduced by lunch which is "off the clock".  This is something which is beyond her control. IMHO, This should be deemed as full time and actual income should be used. Were it my hearing I woudl certainly argue it. Now' whether or not the judge would see it the same way is an alltogether different matter. :)

D

[Jade]

>
>>
>>It may not lower the monthly gross income as the courts can
>>(and have in the past) imputed income to a full 40 hours for
>>parents who don't work or who aren't working a full 40 hours
>a
>>week.  
>
>At the surface that is true.  When it can be shown that the
>peson is deliberately keeping hours down so as to diminish
>support then income will be deemed at the number of hours that
>would constitute a full work week for that job.  
>Another exception to this woudl be if, for example, the person
>is trained as say a nurse but is working in a convenience
>store.  Unless good reason can be shown for that person to be
>working at half (or more ) the pay than the person could be
>earning in a job they are already trained for, then income may
>be deemed at whatever the going rate is for a nurse of that
>experience for a full week (generally 36 hours) regardless of
>what the actual income is.
>
>As this number of hours is the norm for everyone working there
>and it is over 36 hours a week (which is considered full time
>for most folks in NC) then actual income is most likely to be
>what is used.  This is particularly true as she has another
>younger child to care for.
>That said, it is going to come down to that particular judge's
>interpretation on what constitutes a full work week.  From the
>information given, it appears that the person is "on the job"
>40 hours but is only paid for 37.5 due to the amount being
>reduced by lunch which is "off the clock".  This is something
>which is beyond her control. IMHO, This should be deemed as
>full time and actual income should be used. Were it my hearing
>I woudl certainly argue it. Now' whether or not the judge
>would see it the same way is an alltogether different matter.
>:)
>
>D
>
>

Can she get the company policy on lunches?  That would help her.