Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Jun 17, 2024, 12:42:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Back Child Support

Started by concerned_stepmom, Sep 17, 2007, 02:26:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


As for ordering a minor to pay support, It sounds to me like the father was no longer in school.

If he was in high school, I'm guessing that he might not be required to pay support, or they would impute support based on less than full time work. If he were NOT in school, they'd assume he's capable of earning minimum wage (which was $5.25 per hour or $210 per week back then). $242 sounds like about the right percentage for a minimum wage, full time job.

And, of course, there's absolutely no question that he should have been paying support after he turned 18.

leon clugston

There is two parts to this, for which some will argue, but cannot back up as usual.
A 16 year old can not by law, nor by deffinition of law be held for a liability of contract, "Child support" is a legal contract, however after said time of such child reaching the age of "Adult" by legal deffinition in whatever state he was resideing in, then such child/ Adult, can be held liable forward. Now of course, this means that the parents of the said obligor could have been held responsible for said support untill said child had become of age, however this can "NOT" be applied retroactively, so there for for two years you have an argument, after that, there is a loss, but then there also is the matter of did he have an Administartive Order, or a Court Order, this difference in process has meanings to, and was this case closed and not being enforced? or was it simpily sitting on the side for vindication?


As far as I know. He was served papers before he was 17. They stopped enforcing the order in 2001. The case was closed or set-aside. She contacted them a couple of months ago and asked to re-open the case. They sent her some paper work... she sent it back.. they sent my husband a bill for over $33,000 in back support. I am not saying she doesn't deserve to have support. It just the way the State went about garnishing the money. They started at $500 a month and they said they thought he was making $30 an hour.. it takes 1 week for them to start garnishing.. and to have it changed takes 4 paychecks!!!


I doubt if you're right. If they thought he was making $30 per hour ($60 K per year), they'd be garnishing a LOT more than $500 per month.


It was not for CURRENT child support this was only for BACK child support. At that time the balance was about $10,000. The case was set-aside at that time and not being enforced but only for the prior back child support. I am correct at what I stated directly from the case workers mouth in Washington State!

After they started the $500 a month back child support garnishment they re-opened the case changed it to only $100 a month for back support and added current support with it to make it about $350 a month.  It took them 1 week notice that it was going to happen and 6 weeks to correct it. My husband couldn't even afford to live with what is left over by himself.


How about the mom and the child for the last however many years- were they able to live off the 'nothing' that he was paying to support them? I just don't feel sorry for someone who very well KNEW they had an order and just didn't pay it. Just because they aren't actively coming after you, doesn't mean you don't owe it. It's not as if paying $500 a month was overparying by any means- yes, it was a hit to his pocket- but think of all the diapers, wipes, winter coats, medical co-pays, food, water, electric, clothing, shoes-medicine..that he didn't help to pay for all of these years- quite frankly- I think they were being kind at only ordering a $500 a month payment. They should also be taking all of his tax money and any lump sums he receives. SIOunds like he needs a 2nd job.


and be pointless.  I had a CS order for one child, at the time, about 10 years old, living in SC.  The order totaled $1800 a month.  I paid my CS (which is something Dad didn't do, the entire time I had all three of our kids living with me), until the dot.com bust.  I tried to get a reduction in support, but the judge wouldn't hear because I wasn't make *less* money...I wasn't making *ANY* money.

So my arrears grew....and I finally got a little job where I could prove less income and a dear friend and advocate for NCP's helped me get the support order reduced.

The child came back to live with me a few years ago.  The judge wouldn't force the ex pay anything, but he did stop the ongoing order for *me* to pay.  Funny thing is, the IRS and franchise tax board *would* snag my returns and send it on to the loser in SC, even though the kid is here...but I make sure that I owe, so I take care of that one.  It's not automatic that they take the income tax refunds, that has to filed in the system.  It also has to be filed that they are going to report to the credit reporting agencies.  

I.m not saying people shouldn't pay their support..but I am telling you this story so you know, what is said isn't always what it seems.


they can garnish of to 55% of the wages, including arrears.


> Second job would raise his cs... and be pointless.

Depends on your view.

CS can only take a certain percentage of your income. If you make more income, you take more home - and your arrears get paid off sooner.

If you're interested in actually supporting your children, the more income you have, the better you're able to do that. If you're interested in getting out of supporting your kids, then you're right - you don't want to make more than minimum wage.


The more money you make, the more CSE you get to pay.  In example, if my fiance works an hour of OT, his ex gets 28.9% of that money, for CS and alimony...and of course, it gets taxed at a higher rate. Keep in mind, this man owes NO arrears. If he did, more money would not mean paying off the arrears quicker...not a chance. More money would equal more base CS and arrears would be paid off at about 20% of the total child support order.

 If a child lived and was supported on $500 a month, why would they need the extra money the poor guy made in OT?  

Where did you get the idea that the more you make, the better off the kids would be?  Seems absurd.