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

[leon]

and once again like every other entity with a enterest in the outcome of other peoples cases you avoided the facts,
You avoided 42- 1301"d"
the Cooperative agreements, however I wasn't here to argue with entities, I was here to simpily advise this person there is always different alternatives when presented with the ultimate facts, they cannot be denied,
But then again I dont have an Pecuinary enterest in this case, or any other, nor do i profit or gain in any manner from the advice I give, nor is the advice restricted to one gendor.

[2weary]

>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
>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.

I understand that it is possible they might impute income at 40 hours. At any rate, the issue has not come up as of yet.

My primary concern is their claim that the need standard not applying to me because I live in another state. From the responses I have recieved and Socrateaser's response, it seems that the law is clear on this issue and the need standard should have been considered in the calculation.

Thanks for all of your help and feedback.

 

[4honor]

Almost every CS modification in WA is handled by special prosecutors, since the use of the Washington State Support Registry is MANDATED by state statute unles the receiving parent or child would be harmed by the use of the WSSR.

The question is, why were you not at the hearing?

When DH and I SHOWED up to the hearing with documentation in hand, the prosecuting attorney looked at the information and agreed that DH was paying MORE than his fair share of SS's support. We brought proof of the transportation costs, the clothing costs, the medical costs (BM never sent either).

Dh's support was LOWERED by over a hundred dollars a month. DH's income was $2553 and BM's was $2570 a month. BM was getting state medical at that time for SS, but DH was paying for insurance for SS. DH's CS order dropped from $363.53 to $250.00 a month.

[2weary]

>Almost every CS modification in WA is handled by special
>prosecutors, since the use of the Washington State Support
>Registry is MANDATED by state statute unles the receiving
>parent or child would be harmed by the use of the WSSR.

It is my understanding that the Prosecutors Office is only involved if the Support Order is 1) not Administrative and 2) the request for a review was made and approved via DCS.

This the first time my case has been sent to the Prosecutor's office, even though it has been reviewed by DCS several times and the mother once filed a request for modification via an attorney (this is when the Order went from being Administrative to Court Ordered.)

>The question is, why were you not at the hearing?

I will be at the hearing, if there is one. I didn't clarify before: The order has not been modified - yet. I recieved the Petition for Modification from the Prosecutor requesting I pay significantly more money than what DCS had come up with during their review. This was a big shock to me. So I still have a chance to respond to the Petition before the SO is modified.

Thanks for the response.

[Jade]

>>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
>>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.
>
>I understand that it is possible they might impute income at
>40 hours. At any rate, the issue has not come up as of yet.
>
>My primary concern is their claim that the need standard not
>applying to me because I live in another state. From the
>responses I have recieved and Socrateaser's response, it seems
>that the law is clear on this issue and the need standard
>should have been considered in the calculation.
>
>Thanks for all of your help and feedback.
>
>

When determining the need standard, imputed income counts towards that.  Which means that with the imputed income, you may not qualify for it anyway.  

[leon]

you were paying more than what they thought you should be, through there review.
Bad news,, to many times, and more often than not, they claim that since you were able to do such, that it should be of no consequence for you ti continue, and of course there other claim of fortune is, it would destitut the child, if such was to receive a lessor amount.
Personaly I hope it works for you, just depends how this special Prosecutor and the Associate Judge want to be.