Iowa Child Support Matter

[JVondrak76]

I need some help.  My husband has been notified that a 252H review hearing has been set in his child support case.  His ex-wife is seeking an increase in support.  The CSRU's decision was to increase his support obligation from $502.40 per month (2 kids) to $946.00 per month.  The ex does not work (voluntarily quit her job as a legal secretary) but is remarried to a man that makes substantially more than my husband does.  The ex is claiming zero income – we are arguing that she should be imputed at the median wage for a legal secretary in this region ($13.46 per hour) since she is capable of working, and that was her last documented job.  CSRU refused to impute her, so we are having a hearing on Nov. 8.  We can't afford an attorney, so my husband has to represent himself.  We have no idea what to expect, or what documentation we should have with us.  Does anyone have any experience with this?  This is a Woodbury County, Iowa, court matter.

Thanks!

[timtow]

You can try IA's judicial branch website for legal aid clinics.  Also keep in mind that though her husband may make more than yours, her new husband's income is not at issue.  The kids aren't his, and are not his financial responsibility.  IA does not look at the spouse's income in calcs.  

You don't say why CSRU is increasing the support, but going by the tables, I don't think you're going to see a large change by imputing income to her.  At that wage, by the time you get to a net income for her, you might move from something like 36% of your husband's net to 31%, but that's about it.

Why was the order increased, if I may ask?

[reagantrooper]

Why are you complaining about an almost %100 increse in CS. You should be sending her much more free money each month. Why the hell should she have to provide any finacial support to the kids shes the mommy. You and your hubby should move to a smaller place and give up the new cars why do you have cars anyway you both should be on Fing bikes and why do you have a TV? Do you realy have time for that?Afterall I am sure she could use a few more Fing Bon Bons!!


End of rant!!!!!!!!

Good luck to ya!!

[timtow]

Well, that was vitriolic for no reason, but $250 apiece was not coming close to paying for  either kid's basics, unfortunately.  Likely not for half, either, once you figure up food, housing overhead, clothes, gas, non-covered med & dent and all the rest.  Somebody else really has been supporting those kids financially.  Taking care of kids is also work, even if you're a piss-poor parent.  But none of that is what the OP asked about.

[reagantrooper]

>Well, that was vitriolic for no reason, but $250 apiece was
>not coming close to paying for  either kid's basics,
>unfortunately.  Likely not for half, either, once you figure
>up food, housing overhead, clothes, gas, non-covered med &
>dent and all the rest.  Somebody else really has been
>supporting those kids financially.  Taking care of kids is
>also work, even if you're a piss-poor parent.  But none of
>that is what the OP asked about.

Whats it matter to you what I post?? I did not ask for your input to my reply to the poster nor did I offer YOU any on yours.

[leon clugston]

there is a few things, one would be the Iowa state child support plan, it is a state plan for which all states must have in place to be compiant with the mandations set forth by congress and enacted under title 42 U.S.C, child support act, Title IV-d, under the social Security Act,,A simple FOIA(Freedom of information Act) to youre closest child support office should work,,be ready for a shocker though,,what is in the plan will shock you.
Nest under U.S.C 5, all agencies must follow the Federal Administartive Procedures Act,,which binds them to the plan, and all corresponding regualtions under title 45 CFR's(Code of Federal regulations)
what does this all do for you,,it shows they are willfully and intentional operating outside there statuatory authorized authority,,and are not following the procedures set forht in the U.S.C's and the CFR's,,now unfortunately, her living with another gentalmen, and his income is not admitable,,for her debt or reponsibility is non applicable to him,,but her willingness to be unemployeed is,,for which the Child support office, and soon you will undoubtedly find, the hearing officer,will try to aid her in that, but if you get youre state plan,,they wont be as willing to assist her,,they dont like it when people can show they are bound by contract, and operating outside of there authority.

[JVondrak76]

I don't agree that "someone else has been supporting those kids."  My husband and I are very much involved in everything the kids do.  Besides the child support we pay, we pay 100% of their unreimbursed medical expenses.  And my step-son has ADHD, so he has substantial medical bills and prescriptions.  We also pay for extracurricular activities (sports, dance, etc.)  These kids are 7 and 9.  They don't have any daycare expenses (if they did, we'd be paying them anyway).  They live on an acreage.  They raise all their own vegetables.  They have chickens that provide eggs and meat, as well as turkeys.  They also raise goats for the milk.  They have hogs that they butcher as well.  They even buy a steer once a year to have butchered.  They don't buy any produce or meat in the store.  Their grocery bill is nowhere near mine.  Their mother buys all their clothes at garage sales or gets hand-me-downs from friends.  Now, don't think they are poor by any means.  They drive a new suburban and Honda Civic.  And, they just got back from a week long trip to Mexico, and a week long fishing trip to Canada.  I am not out doing these things, I can't afford to.  Another thing you aren't considering is the fact that while child support recovery unit won't look at her husband's income, they should be.  He is supporting the X since she won't work.  He is her income.  And, my husband and I have another child that we are trying to support at our house.  No one seems to care that we aren't going to be able to give her the things she needs.  And I've read some of your other posts wherein you think we should all work 2-3 jobs.  That's all fine and good, I've worked up to 3 jobs at one time while I was pregnant.  But if my husband works a part-time job, that money just goes in the X's pocket.  What good does that do us?  Child support isn't supposed to be a punishment for a failed marriage, but in this case, that's all it is.  The support my husband pays is basically welfare/alimony for his ex-wife.  The kids are no better for it.  They come to our house dirty, wearing holey clothes, in need of baths.   And if we paid $2000 a month, the situation would be the same.  We've been through the court system, we've done modifications, paid thousands to lawyers, called child protective services, etc.  Nothing ever comes from it.  So I don't buy in to your logic in this case.  I know child support is necessary, believe me.  I came from a divorced home where my father never paid a dime of support, and I suffered for it.  So I've been on both sides of the spectrum, and I can tell you, this situation is not right.

[JVondrak76]

She files for a review every two years, as per the statute.  She does it to be vindictive.  She told my husband she doesn't care about the support, she doesn't need it.  She just does it because "he's a bad person and he deserves whatever he gets."  It's her punishment to him for their divorce.

[JVondrak76]

Seriously, I just laughed outloud.  Thanks for that one.  It's very true.  Some cases are just ridiculously biased, and this is one of them.

[Kitty C.]

First thing to do is read the Iowa Code on CS.........one of the first things you will find is that in order for there to be a 'change' in any CS amount, there MUST be a minimum of 10% change (+ or -) in income of either parent.  There's a possibility that since BM is no longer working, that's where the '10%' comes in (10% decrease, that is).

Like it or not, you'd possibly 'save' more money by hiring an atty. than end up paying the additional CS they are elluding to.  They are presently stalling you by saying they will not inpute BM's income, as there is another section of the Iowa Code regarding CS that specifically states a parent canNOT 'voluntarily' quit their job just to have their obligation lessened or to get more CS.

The thing is, right now it's not necessarily you against the BM on this, it's you against CSRU.  The BM instigated it by asking CSRU for the review, which CSRU will only do every two years, unless there's been that '10% change in income'.  And if you've never dealt with CSRU before, I strongly recommend getting legal council, or they'll chew you up and spit you out.

Here's a link to the Iowa Code on CS:

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Current/tablesandindex/Index_D-F.htm

It's in alphabetical order, so just scroll down to 'Divorce' and find 'Child Support' under that.  Hope this helps..........