please HELP... question about "Need Standard" in Washington State

[2weary]

I have 2 children, who live with their mother in WA state. I live approximately 100 miles away, in OR, and make about $1350 a month after taxes. Mother is (and has been for a very long time) on TANF and other public assistance. She has not held a job in 5 years. Because she is on public assistance, the state does an automatic review of CS ever 3 years. Last year, DCS did a review and determined my support should be $470 but after the adjustment to the Washington State Need Standard (line 15b of the WA state CS Worksheet) my support would actually only be $320.

Then, the case was referred to the Prosecuting Attorney's office in the county where my ex & kids live. After many months of hearing nothing, I get a notice that my support is being raised to over $500 a month - primarily because "Washington State Need Standard does not apply because Father resides in Oregon." Which leaves me with approximately $850 to live on each month.

Every time my support has been reviewed in the past, DCS (and even my ex's attorney) have used the Washington State Need Standard to calculate my child support, even though I am a resident of Oregon. The issue of my living in OR has never come up. The Washington Support Worksheet doesn't say anything about the Need Standard only applying to Washington residents.

My question is: should I try to fight this and insist the Need Standard applies? Do I have a leg to stand on here? Or am I screwed because this case is being handled by the Prosecuting Attorney's office? Do I need to find an attorney?

[Jade]

>I have 2 children, who live with their mother in WA state. I
>live approximately 100 miles away, in OR, and make about $1350
>a month after taxes. Mother is (and has been for a very long
>time) on TANF and other public assistance. She has not held a
>job in 5 years. Because she is on public assistance, the state
>does an automatic review of CS ever 3 years. Last year, DCS
>did a review and determined my support should be $470 but
>after the adjustment to the Washington State Need Standard
>(line 15b of the WA state CS Worksheet) my support would
>actually only be $320.
>
>Then, the case was referred to the Prosecuting Attorney's
>office in the county where my ex & kids live. After many
>months of hearing nothing, I get a notice that my support is
>being raised to over $500 a month - primarily because
>"Washington State Need Standard does not apply because Father
>resides in Oregon." Which leaves me with approximately $850 to
>live on each month.
>
>Every time my support has been reviewed in the past, DCS (and
>even my ex's attorney) have used the Washington State Need
>Standard to calculate my child support, even though I am a
>resident of Oregon. The issue of my living in OR has never
>come up. The Washington Support Worksheet doesn't say anything
>about the Need Standard only applying to Washington residents.
>
>
>My question is: should I try to fight this and insist the Need
>Standard applies? Do I have a leg to stand on here? Or am I
>screwed because this case is being handled by the Prosecuting
>Attorney's office? Do I need to find an attorney?
>
>
>
>
>
Where is the original court order?  If it is in your state and not Washington, your chances of getting it changed to Washington while you still live in the Oregon isn't very good.  IMO.  

[mistoffolees]

You're dealing with some fairly specific technical issues and you'll need someone who's very familiar with the specifics of the law in WA. You should talk with an attorney - many of them will give you an initial consultation for little or no charge.

Also, get a copy of the exact wording of the standard. I did a quick Google on it and didn't find anything that would lead me to believe that it only applies to parents living in Washington state. They way interstate issues typically work, Washington should not be able to collect any more from an out of state parent than they could from an in state parent.

Now, if the divorce agreement was in OR, the mother could go after you in OR to collect the difference, but WA should have absolutely nothing to do with that.

That's my view on it, but I'm not an attorney. Get some valid legal advice.

[2weary]

The original order is in Washington State.

I have done a thorough search on the exact wording of the standard ( I think I could probably recite the entire standard from memory!) and there is NOTHING about it only applying to WA state residents. The last time the order was modified, I even discussed the standard with an attorney and she agreed it applied. What's concerning me now is that this action is being filed by a County Prosecutor who does this all the time, and it seems he would know exactly what they could and couldn't get away with in regards to the Need Standard... has anyone here ever dealt with a County Prosecutor? How is it different than a regular old attorney?

Thanks for your replies, I suppose I'd better find a good (and cheap!) attorney fast.

[leon]

The Ag office is supporting the Agency, however, what you are not being told is what is happening in the background, ude to what is called Cooperative Federalism, "Cooperative Agreements" which is where the AG, the state Agency and the courts have all contracted  together to derive the highest amount possible from a person. The standard of living is technicaly interpretive, so be carefull how much you try to rely on what it says, it could backfire upon you.
But better yet, being that the AG has trespassed in this case now would be the time to encite Title 42 U.S.C & 1301"d"
 
42 U.S.C. 1301 (d): "Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing any federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child."

 

The United States Constitution also clarifies my right to this federal provision, stating:

 

14th Amendment, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

[mistoffolees]

None of which is going to help him in this case.

Like it or not, the courts have consistently ruled that the states have a right to intervene. Wishing won't change that.

[Jade]

>I have 2 children, who live with their mother in WA state. I
>live approximately 100 miles away, in OR, and make about $1350
>a month after taxes. Mother is (and has been for a very long
>time) on TANF and other public assistance. She has not held a
>job in 5 years. Because she is on public assistance, the state
>does an automatic review of CS ever 3 years. Last year, DCS
>did a review and determined my support should be $470 but
>after the adjustment to the Washington State Need Standard
>(line 15b of the WA state CS Worksheet) my support would
>actually only be $320.
>
>Then, the case was referred to the Prosecuting Attorney's
>office in the county where my ex & kids live. After many
>months of hearing nothing, I get a notice that my support is
>being raised to over $500 a month - primarily because
>"Washington State Need Standard does not apply because Father
>resides in Oregon." Which leaves me with approximately $850 to
>live on each month.
>
>Every time my support has been reviewed in the past, DCS (and
>even my ex's attorney) have used the Washington State Need
>Standard to calculate my child support, even though I am a
>resident of Oregon. The issue of my living in OR has never
>come up. The Washington Support Worksheet doesn't say anything
>about the Need Standard only applying to Washington residents.
>
>
>My question is: should I try to fight this and insist the Need
>Standard applies? Do I have a leg to stand on here? Or am I
>screwed because this case is being handled by the Prosecuting
>Attorney's office? Do I need to find an attorney?
>
>
>
>
>

I read your post on Socrateaser's board.  You provided a little more info over there.  Such as you only work part-time.  

The courts can and probably are imputing income to you as you are underemployed.  While they can't make you work 40 hours a week (and even if your current job doesn't offer full-time hours, you can always find a job that does or get a second job to make up the difference in hours), they can treat you like you are.  

[leon]

They have where the state has shown an enterest, "a valid enterest," however 42 usc. & 1301 "D" kinda ends that now doesn't it.
More importantly a legislative action has to show a valid govermment enterest, and that has not yet been established.

[Jade]

>They have where the state has shown an enterest, "a valid
>enterest," however 42 usc. & 1301 "D" kinda ends that now
>doesn't it.
>More importantly a legislative action has to show a valid
>govermment enterest, and that has not yet been established.

Uh, you may want to reread his post again.

The CP is on TANF.  The way child support works when the CP is on TANF is that the CP gets $50 (at least, this is the way it worked when I was working in a welfare office) and the state (you can read that as government) gets the rest for reimbursement.  

The government has an interest in recouping its money.

[mistoffolees]

Once again, you're tilting at windmills. The courts have consistently ruled that the states have an interest in the well-being of children.

You may not like it, but that's the law (as interpreted by the courts in every state in the nation). While I can appreciate your efforts to change the situation, that is useless to someone who has an immediate issue.

If he walks into court and tells them they have no right to do anything involving custody or child support, he's either going to get laughed out of there or slapped with contempt. Your advice is just not practical in the real world.

I'm simply pointing that out to the OP so he doesn't get himself in trouble.