Question about CSE NJ enforcement

[JenG99]

 I was wondering if anyone could help DH and I because we are confused about enforcement actions being taken against the BM NCP in our case.

 We recieved a notice from our caseworker stating that they are filing to 'enforce litigants rights' based on wage garnsihement and fraud. Also there is a strict one payment missed probation order in effect against the Bm stating that if she misses just one payment CSE can file for a warrant.

 We are confused because for the most part she had been making payments on time. The problem is they are often incomplete or short payments ( even though there is a granishment order in effect).

  Also she pays bi-weekly on a weekly order. Apparently, all of these desprepancies have caused $800 worth of payments to be missed since the strict order was set forth last year. Subsequently this caused the arrearage balance to stay the same rather than being paid down.

 Bm says she isn't going to the hearing because she thinks nothing will happen because she " pays MOST of the time anyway".

 She has failed to apear at SEVERAL hearings in the past and when given strict CO's she pushes the limits and takes things to the extreme before paying. She was arrested just last year for violating the one payment missed order and she STILL skips payments all of the time.

Doesn't this mean that a bench warrant will be issued for failure to appear?

 Can they raise her arrearage payments as a sanction if she doesn't appear?

 We were just wondering because usually its impossible to get CSE to do anything and now they are going after the BM for only $800 in missed payments?

 We are only left to assume that CSE MUST have a pretty decent case against her otherwise they wouldn't bother filing.
Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

[combokid]

Having waged numerous battles as a pro se litigant in NJ, I consider myself well-versed in this subject.

First, this situation depends entirely on the county in which the divorce judgment was entered. There are counties where one could amass tens of thousands of dollars in arrears with no substantive action being taken. There are also a few counties in which missing 2 or 3 payments could result in a motion to enforce litigant's rights being filed by the probation department, which is what is happeining in your case. I think I know which county this is taking place.

Second, the BM is not very smart and will definitely be arrested again if she continues in her delinquent payment habits.

Third, the fact that wages are being garnished and she still is not keeping up on her payments tells me that the garnishment is less than the weekly support amount due.

Fourth, what is the fraud allgation? That sounds like a specific matter; probation almost always initiates a motion to enforce litigant's rights based on failure to pay only. BM must have done something wrong in addition to not making her payments. Or, her employer could be tied into the action if the garnishment order is not followed. Also, the fact that there is a CO stating one missed payment results in a warrant tells me she has a long history of failing to pay regularly. And that she would miss a court appearance tells me that BM is either foolish or does not grasp the seriousness of such an action. Judges, especially in the more rural and affluent counties, take it as a personal affront when a respondent fails to appear.

Last, why do you care what happens to BM? Consider yourself lucky that the action is being enforced. The majority of NJ counties would not take the action to enforce as your caseworker has. The fact of the matter is she owes the father the money. If the CO is unfair, or the CS amount is not correct, she must file a motion to modify support like all of us have to.

[JenG99]

 Thanks for responding. It is being intiated by Camden County Probation. The letter referenced "Enforcing Litigants Rights in accordance with  R.  5: 7-5. (this is in regards to income withholding.)

 This has happened in the past with two other employers over the past three years. She is a very sneaky and clever one, she always works for very small family owned businesses. They fail to garnish her checks consistently and rondomly skip payments or make incomplete payments.

  During one of the enforcement hearings last year we noticed that while she was working she had skipped thousands of dollars worth of payments. She stated that her checks were garnished weekly and it was her employer who didn't send the payments due to a "misunderstanding" but they sent the other payments on time?

 While reviewing her checkstubs there is a category for (garnishments to date) THOSE figures were consistent with the arrears. YET she had copies of checks stubs showing garnished wages even when we recieved nothing. Honestly, I believe they were forged.

 This isn't happening as often as it used to in the past but it IS happening once a month on the average. Over ten months she skipped another $800 worth of payments. Maybe that is probations case against her?

 Last summer she took an old agreement that DH never signed alleviating her CS obligation and filed it with the court. She is always pulling things like this.

 I am curious as to what will happen to her because if she gets arrested again, she'll be angry and we will be back in court.

[combokid]

1. BM's current and/or prior employers can expect problems with the State of NJ if they do not follow the CO verbatim. It is surprising that this is occuring; employers are generally fearful of state action and usually comply with any order directed at them. From the NJ State Legislative website: "Appropriate enforcement methods" means mechanisms such as income withholding, withholding of civil lawsuits, and execution of the assets of the obligor which can result in immediate payment of the child support arrearage when available.  In appropriate cases, the license revocation process may be used as an alternative to Rule 5:7-5 of the court rules.
2. The fraud allegation I still do not understand. Perhaps that allegation stems from an alteration of the check stubs submitted in a previous court action as you suggest. If that is true and the the Judge is informed of this, she may face additional complications to her already mounting list of troubles.
3. I am surprised that Camden County is taking this action. They are not known for strict enforcement. BM's CS account is probably being watched more carefully than others by her caseworker. It sounds like it has been red-flagged. That is probably a result of her failure to comply with a prior order of the court.
4. BM is not as clever and sneaky as you think; the fact is she is digging a hole for herself and losing friends fast in the judicial system. In NJ, the "obligor" is viewed as the antagonist, the "deadbeat", the father neglecting support of his children. In your case it is the rare occurence of the mother paying support. I believe, based on her track record of non-compliance, that she is due to be read the riot act along with her employer if the employer failed to comply with a CO. Keep me posted. I'm interested.

[combokid]

for your information, here is the wbsite that contains the entire Rule 5:

http://www.njlawnet.com/njcourtrules/5-7.html

[JenG99]

 Thanks again for responding.  I have more questions.

Does probation usually notify the obligor and the employer (as a warning) prior to filing to enforce?

 Do they usually give the obligor a chance to voluntarily straighten out the problem with garnishment BEFORE taking them to court?

  It seems bizarre to me that they would watch this account so closely, especially with such a low arrearage. Maybe the caseworker knows something we don't? If the payments missed were consecutive it would make more sense.

 You would think that a judge would dismiss this motion to enforce because as most Judges say "Well, the obligor is at least TRYING." Why would the caseworker waste their time unless they have sufficient evidence that something shady is going on?

 A quick review of the casefile will show duplicates of checkstubs in an attempt to make it look like payments were being made by her former employer.

 Interesting case, I wonder what will happen?

 
 Hearing is January 13th, I will keep you posted.

[combokid]

Probation , by law, MUST notify both the obligor and the obligee of any Notice of Motion to Enforce Litigant's Rights filed by them. Remember, Probation is filing this action on your husband's behalf. Your husband is seen as the victim here. The fact that the employer is now tied into this action shows that the employer has failed to execute the garnishment order as stipulated in the court order.

Probation does not issue "warnings" as you asked but does issue notices of failure to pay. Surely, both BM and her employer were sent such notices. The obligor and/or the obligor's employee has up to the time of the hearing to pay any outstanding support amount due. If the balance is zero, the case will be dismissed prior to a hearing taking place. However, if there have been prior support enforcement hearings (and in this case there have been) there may be a hearing anyway because the obligor has failed to uphold a prior determination from a prior hearing. Hearings are generally heard by a hearing officer, not a judge, unless the circumstances are of a magnitude requiring that it go before a Superior Court Judge. Hearing Officers do not order punitive actions or jail time, only judges do that.

If this matter is scheduled to go before a Superior Court Judge, and there is an allegation of fraud included in the action filed, then this would be a more serious matter than an ordinary enforcement hearing. Perhaps BM falsely certified facts and/or documents in prior actions that the County Probation Dept. has discovered. The fraud allegation is what makes this case uncommon.

[wendl]

well in my state if an employer does not garnish the checks, then they can be liable for all monies owed, I had a problem with my sons dads employer he would garnish the monies from the my ex's check or not garnish at all, I finally called the employer and threatened him if the garnishments were not being done or if he was holding the monies that I would be contacting my atty and he would be liable for all the monies and arrearage (my ex was 23K in arrears) let me tell you his employer sent the payment to cse the next day LMAO.

As for weekly deductions etc, at least in my state the employer can wait til the end the month etc to send all garnishments to ose, however most mail them right away.

Hope this helps a little.

[combokid]

You said you had a court appearance on this matter January 13. So, how did it go?

[JenG99]

 I am sorry for not responding sooner. DH was diagnosed with a rare inflammatory disease of his peripheral nervous system in the middle of all of this. GOOD GREIF, he woke up one day ( hes only 31) and he couldn't talk or feel his arms!! He is starting to recover now and he is home. Full recovery is expected!!!! All the more reason for the EX to make sure she helps out with the kids.

 He spoke to the EX BM NCP, while in the hospital.  She tried to have her employer call and excuse her from the hearing and the officer said " No way". She attended the hearing , here is what happened according to the flighty EX:

 Several months ago she was notified by CSE to submit her employer info and she IGNORED the notification letter. She made payments on her own ( which explains all of the short payments throughout November and December) She was just sending in whatever she felt her children deserved from week to week so she could have more cash for her wedding.

 After both she and her employer received this summons they started garnishing her paychecks. The Judge gave her a firm warning to make sure she follows CSE orders and her employers follow the garnishment order. The Judge dismissed the Motion because the employer had began garnishing two weeks ago.

 What a pain in the rear. After all of this she still thinks she can blow off the courts orders and pay on her own whatever she feels like paying!! Now we don't have to worry about short payments anymore.

 Thanks for all of the advice and info.