Job Loss/Child Support Update: 4/28/2009 - The Conference
Have your own psycho ex? Get a FREE Report on "Why Co-Parenting Doesn't Work", or learn how to win child custody with a custody coach.
You didn’t really think I was going to come back to the blog after the Child Support Conference and post that everything went as it I believe it should have, did you? Well, the conference was yesterday and today is the continuation from our last installment: Job Loss/Child Support Update: 4/3/2009. An excerpt:
Long-story short, barring a change on the job front, PEW will have to pay child support to me for the time being. This assumes that neither the conference officer or subsequently the judge (if it comes to a hearing) deviates from the state statutes - always a possibility.
Or perhaps they may not even know that the hell the statutes are. That’s how it appeared from today’s experience, but there is always a chance that I am wrong.
The conference started normally enough, with each of us entering the conference room representing our own interests. I learned fairly soon after incredible expense that taking an attorney to sit and await being called into a conference where one party will object and schedule a hearing was a tremendous waste of money. I wonder if it’s a coincidence that, without representation, we typically are seen within 30-minutes of our arrival? Not so when I’ve been there with a lawyer. When you check-in, they ask, “Do you have an attorney with you today?” Hmmm… Another observation: Anytime PEW and I have been there with attorneys, they are called in without us and conference for a while, then we are called. I think I’m onto something here. Don’t you? But, back to the topic at hand…
We go through the normal process of turning in our paystubs, W-2s, other mindless paperwork that serves no apparent useful purpose in the process. She asks the usual questions… Are you actively seeking employment? Do you have any other sources of income? Any rental income? Nothing too earth-shattering. Yes, I am actively seeking employment. No, I don’t have any other sources of income. PEW has her, well, “PEW face” on. That red-faced, obstinent, indignant look of utter disgust that always precipitates a meltdown. I’m stoic and just looking at the Support Master, who we’ll refer to as Lacey. For the record, of the combined net income, my unemployment is approximately 45% and PEW’s 55%.
- Assumption bias #1: At no time did she ask PEW if she had any other sources of income. At no time did she ask PEW if she had any rental income… or any of the other items that escape my mind at the moment. Lacey only asked me.
Lacey runs the numbers through her program and out it spits the data. She turns to us and says, “Mister-M, your child support is actually going to go up. To $600/month.” (Rounded to make typing easier). I look at her and say, calmly, “Lacey, how is that even possible? She is making more money that I am at the moment and we’re in a shared custody situation - 50/50. That simply can’t be correct.”
- Assumption bias #2 - She didn’t ask who had custody. I could have been the primary custodial parent. It could be a 50/50 situation. Nope, she just plugged the data in as if I were the classic non-custodial parent in a mom-as-primary custody situation, the norm in this country.
Surprised, she exclaims, “Oh! You guys are doing 50/50? I didn’t know that! Let me make some adjustments here.”
I temporarily breathe a sigh of relief, but PEW already starts to chirp, “Are you thinking that *I* am going to have pay *YOU* child support? You’re joking, right?” I ignore her. I know you can hear her tone and see the smug look on her face, so I’ll dispense with writing a description.
After making the appropriate adjustment, Lacey turns to us and, to my amazement, says, “Mister-M, the child support figure will go down to $100.”
This is where the mini-fireworks display starts. No, I didn’t lose my cool. PEW did. A couple of times, without losing her composure, Lacey seemed to contribute in a couple of weird ways. I light the fuse by saying calmly, “Lacey, I don’t understand. We’re in a 50/50 custody situation, I’m currently making less money than her, and I’m not sure I understand how I should be paying anything under the circumstances. Can you help me understand?”
PEW interrupts with a similar comment as before, “Are you expecting me to pay you child support? No way. That will never happen!” In addition, she started to go into one of her mindless rants, which included comments as follows, in no particular order, but still one after the other:
- Why are you doing this to us?
- You have other hidden income that I already know about and I have an attorney that is going to investigate you fully for me and do it for free!
- I’ve already faced foreclosure once and it’s not fair that I could be facing that again because you can’t keep a job.
- You should just move back to [home-state] and I’ll take care of the kids. My house is better than your 2-room apartment anyway. You can just pay your child support and I’ll let you see them anytime you want.
- More…
My only reply to PEW was, “None of that stuff is relevant. Must you always go through such an embarrassing display when we have to come to events like this?” She replied in the affirmative, like a petulant child. Lacey chimes in and the rest of the discussion goes something like this…
“Mister-M, you’re not seriously expecting that PEW is going to pay you child support, are you? Because that’s not going to happen.”
- Assumption Bias #3: How dare a father expect a mother to pay child support! The woman will never have to pay child support and my mere implication that a woman may actually have to pay garnered a reaction as if I had just spontaneously grown another head right there in the room.
Mister-M: “Lacey, I’m not an attorney and I’m not fully versed on the exact language of the statutes, but I’ve read them very closely and that is simply not my understanding of how things work in a 50/50 custody arrangement. In fact, I’m pretty convinced that the statutes expressly state that under no circumstances in a 50/50 shared custody arrangement will the lower wage earner ever pay the higher wage earner child support.”
Lacey: “Mister-M, that’s not correct. PEW will not ever pay you child support. That’s not the way it works. Are you expecting her to pay child support? I mean, this figure of $100 isn’t even child support, it would just be your percentage of the childcare.
Mister-M: “Lacey, I’m expecting nothing more right now than to understand the child support guidelines and statutes for a 50/50 shared custody arrangement. If I’m misunderstanding the language of the statutes, I would greatly appreciate you setting me straight on what the rules are in such a situation where one parent is making less money than the other.”
I will take a time-out here to share with you some of the language in our statutes so that you can see what I have studied with inconsequential sections removed:
(D) Reduced Income.
(2) Involuntary Reduction of Income. Appropriate adjustments will be made for substantial continuing involuntary decreases in income, including but not limited to the example 1, example 2, lay-off, termination, job elimination or other employment situation over which the party has no control.
That covers the situation I am currently in with regard to the involuntary job loss. However, there is more…
(c) Substantial or Shared Physical Custody.
(1) When the children spend 40% or more of their time during the year with the payor, a rebuttable presumption arises that the payor is entitled to a reduction in the basic support obligation to reflect this. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) below, the reduction shall be calculated pursuant to the formula set forth in Part II of subdivision (a) of this rule. For purposes of this provision, the time spent with the children is figured by the number of overnights they spend during the year with the payor.
Example: Where the payor and the payee have monthly net incomes of $5,000 and $2,300 respectively, their combined child support obligation is $1,548 for two children. Using the income shares formula in Part I, the payor’s share of this obligation is 68%, or $1,053. If the children spend 40% of their time with the payor, the formula in Part II applies to reduce his or her percentage share of the combined support obligation to 58%, or $898. If the children spend 45% of their time with the payor, his or her percentage share of the combined obligation is reduced to 53%, or $820. If the children spend equal time with both parents, the payor’s percentage share is reduced to 48%, or $743.
(2) Without regard to which parent initiated the support action, when the children spend equal time with both parents, the Part II formula cannot be applied unless the payor is the parent with the higher income. In no event shall an order be entered requiring the parent with the lower income to pay basic child support to the parent with the higher income. However, nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the entry of an order requiring the parent with less income to contribute to additional expenses pursuant to Rule 1910.16-6. Pursuant to either party’s initiating a support action, the trier of fact may enter an order against either party based upon the evidence presented without regard to which party initiated the action. If application of the formula in Part II results in the payee receiving a larger share of the parties’ combined income in cases in which the parties share custody equally, then the court shall adjust the support obligation so that the combined income is allocated equally between the two households.
Example 1. Mother and Father have monthly net incomes of $3,000 and $2,700 respectively. Mother has filed for support for the parties’ two children with whom they share time equally. Pursuant to the Basic Child Support Schedule at Rule XXXXX, the support amount for two children at their parents’ combined net income level is $1,302 per month. Mother’s share is 53% of that amount, or $690. Father’s share is 47%, or $612. Application of subdivisions a. and b. of the Part II formula results in a 20% reduction in support when each parent spends 50% of the time with the children. Because the parties share custody equally, Mother cannot be the payee for purposes of the Part II calculation because she has the higher income of the two parents. In these circumstances, although Mother initiated the support action, she would become the payor even if Father has not filed for support. Father cannot be an payor in the Part II calculations nor can the amount of support Mother is obligated to pay to Father be offset by calculating Father’s adjusted amount of support under Part II because a support order cannot be entered against the parent with the lesser income. Using Mother as the payor, her adjusted percentage share of the basic support amount is 33% (53%-20%=33%). Her adjusted share of the basic support amount is $430 (33% of $1,302). However, instead of $430 per month, Mother’s support obligation would be adjusted to $150 per month to allocate the parties’ combined income equally between the two households. This is the presumptive amount of basic support payable to Father under these circumstances.
I might add that the very first example given is practically identical to the situation we’re in now. The statute appears to be very clear. Not only should I not be paying child support, using the state’s own example (which is a blessing as the figures are so darn close to what we’re dealing with and the genders are in the same position respectively) - the state will automatically switch the mother to being the payor, regardless of who initiated the support modification!
Now, ask me what packet of documents I failed to bring with me to the conference? My state statutes with reasonable examples of just what I was implying. Would it have made a difference in that room yesterday? I don’t think so, because PEW would have contested it for as long and as loud as she could. No, I won’t forget it for the forthcoming hearing.
Now, would it surprise you that the Support “MASTER” could not (or would not) look up the state statutes to see if what I was telling her was true? Nope. She did pick up the book for a moment and weakly feign as if she were going to, but she put it back down while repeatedly answering my questions with a negative response.
PEW continues to interject more thoughts on my financial situation, including…
- More false claims of my hidden income.
- The fact that I have partial ownership of the home in [home-state] along with DW in addition to the rental in [custody-state].
- The she had previously “cut me a break and gave up $200/month in child support out of the goodness of her heart!” (An exact quote and not true.)
- He told Judge Contempt that he was selling his house and moving up here and he never did. He lied in court.
Lacey: (non-answering my last question and beginning to sound defensive): “Mister-M, that just doesn’t happen.”
Mister-M: “Lacey, I’m not being adversarial here, I’m just trying to understand the statutes and they appeared to be clear, maybe I’m mistaken.”
Lacey, hearing all of the rantings of PEW begins to digress, saying things like:
- Are you going to sell your house in [home-state]?
- I don’t understand how you lose your job and get an apartment here in [custody-state]?
- I just don’t understand the two-house thing, that really has me upset. I don’t get how you’re managing that without a job.
- Assumption Bias #4: Allowing things unrelated to the matter at hand influence your attitude. Typically, this will only ever happen to a father. Why in the hell should Lacey be “upset?”
Incredulous, I explained to Lacey (for a second time) that the house in [custody-state] was necessary to obtain the employment in [custody-state] and secure shared custody of the children and that I didn’t “just get it” - I got it back in 2007. I further explained, “Who said we’re managing it? We’re struggling right now. We can’t sell the house if we wanted to because we’re so upside on it in this economy.” I added, “Does anybody care that the children and their father are seriously struggling or does that only matter when the mother is at risk of losing her home?”
Mister-M: “Lacey, aside from the fact that none of that is relevant to the issue of determining child support in this state, I want to ask you, is there any situation whereby the mother will pay the father child support? Let’s put the unemployment and the fact that I own a home aside for the moment. If PEW made $60,000 and I made $40,000, would the mother be required to pay child support?”
Lacey: “No, not necessarily.”
Mister-M: “Seriously? What if there were no exceptional circumstances. It was a straight-up net-income and childcare situation, in a 50/50 custody arrangement. Would the mother pay child support?”
Lacey: “Uh, no, I don’t think so, Mister-M. The incomes might be so close that no child support would change hands. I would have to run the numbers.”
Mister-M: (with an obvious look of disbelief on my face): “Really? Okay, let me make this simpler. If PEW made $1-million dollars and I made $10,000, would the mother have to pay child support?”
Lacey: “I guess I should just schedule this for a hearing?”
Mister-M: “Yes, I think you should, because it’s obvious I’m not going to find out the reality of the state statutes in this meeting.”
With that, Lacey shuffled together the paperwork and left the rooom to go prepare notices for the hearing and hand-serve us to appear, much to my surprise, in two-weeks.
What happens next is what prompted me to click the check-box for the label “dog” for this post. We’re in the conference room alone and there is a short-stack of children’s books on the table. On top of the stack is a book titled: If Dogs Could Talk. On the cover is a puppy that looks a lot like Fido, whose life and death I’ve previously summarized. With Lacey out of the room, PEW picks up the book and says, “Yeah, if dogs could talk. If Fido could talk, but he can’t because you KILLED HIM! Poor, poor Fido.” I told her to grow-up.
Well, Lacey was walking into the room and heard PEW and said, “Awww… what happened to Fido?” That prompted PEW to launch into a completely fictional account of how Fido was perfectly healthy and I had him put to sleep because his existence cramped my ability to date DW and all sorts of other bullshit.
I laughed and said, “Good grief, PEW, can we dispense with the fiction? Your revised account of history is not of any interest to Lacey.”
Much to my surprise, Lacey started laughing out loud, saying, “Dispense with the fiction! I really like that! I’m going to have to use that one in the future!” I thought that rather unprofessional of her and just sat there in stunned silence for a moment before explaining very briefly the circumstances surrounding putting the dog to sleep.
During a short period of uncomfortable silence, PEW bursts forth with, “MURDERER! You’re a murderer.” I looked at Lacey who was looking at PEW, eyebrows raised, mouth agape, in what appeared to me to be complete disbelief. I told PEW to “please stop it.”
With that, Lacey gave each of us our summons to appear for the Support Hearing, we signed them, and we departed. Now, I’m sure that there are some other inconsequential details that I’ll post in the comments section as they come to me, but that wouldn’t be the end of the activity for the day.
Next installment: You’ve Been Served.
April 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Wow!! I’m really at a loss for words. I read the statues just as you did Mr. M.
It was very apparent that PEW knew that you would have to pay you support, and in an effort to ‘deal with that reality’, she lost her sense of self and lashed out.
I think you handled yourself very well.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Mister-M - My husband went through a very similar experience last week. He was laid off March 6, and filed for review the next business day. His hearing was last week. The ref would not listen to anything he had, nor would she even look at any of the tax forms or paperwork he provided. His ex claimed only $900/mo income, and did not bring any tax returns or any proof of income (or lack of). When my husband started to try and quote the current support guidelines and pulled out his copy of the manual, the ref would not listen and just told him none of that applies. The end was that she said she would send her recommendation in the mail in 3 weeks, so we didn’t even get to see what kind of numbers she was looking at. I already put in a call to our lawyer as I expect his case will also go to hearing once we see the recommendation. Going to cost us more in legal fees just to get them to follow their own laws. Just like you, they always side with the mother no matter what. His ref actually told him he shouldn’t even be asking for a reduction, because he should just pay the money for the sake of his kids. I guess the 3 out of 4 nights a week they have dinner with us don’t count as requiring money ‘for the sake of the children’. The whole thing makes me sick. At least you only have to wait 2 more weeks. We have 3 weeks to wait to even schedule a hearing. During all of this, they are taking the full support amount right from his pay.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Coincidentally, I had a conversation very similar to your conversation with Lacey yesterday, however it was with a police officer. I really don’t think they ever expect someone to be informed of the laws! And what is really sad, is it is their job, and they don’t even know it. I’m not suggesting every court official/police officer has to have all the statutes of the state memorized. They clearly deal with a multitude of issues, where we usually are just concerned with one issue and research the hell out of it.
But for pete’s sake, at least be willing to look at the statutes when they are brought to your attention.
The officer I dealt with was very Lacey-ish, condescending at first and just tried to shut me down right away. Like you, I continued to ask questions. I also read to him directly from the statutes, and eventually, he realized I knew what I was talking about, went to talk to his supervisor, called the DA, and came back and actually thanked me for not giving up questioning him, he just had never come across that statute in 16 years, but was happy that he found out about it and actually was very helpful from that point forward.
Clearly, from both of our examples, one must go in assuming that the person “in charge” knows nothing, and be prepared to instruct them on the verbiage of the law.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
You are totally admirable in that not only do you continue to talk sense, but don’t lose your cool (which would have been completely justified) with both those abject idiots.
Basically, Lacey is an intellectually-challenged robot, who is accustomed to handling the same sort of case again and again: anything different “does not compute.”
And as for PEW…words fail me–could she even muster a bit of dignity? I had to laugh that she brought up the dog story AGAIN–how totally PEWish– why doesn’t she change the bloody record…
April 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Silly us to believe that statutes and laws, when printed in black and white, should be followed by not only patrons but also by the government that writes them. The double standard does not stop at mom vs dad.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Well done PEW, a very competent performance!
An Officer of The Court that did not know the law, could not cite the law, and would not even physically open the book and show it to you when asked… and of course did not ask the questions relevent to her computer program…hmmmm…I wonder why…total incompetance or maybe a different agenda than applying the law!
The Master’s job is to #1) avoid a hearing at all costs and #2) whenever possible increase the child support awards so that the state gets more fed money in reimbursements. Without attorney’s this is gonna be easy for her well honed master skills…so let’s review how the Family Courts “Master Conference” works.
Tactic #1 Put it in the all knowing computer….here is what the unbiased, smarter than the rest of us computer says is FACT…I know you don’t like the answer, but you will have to accept this…this probably works >80% of the time with no attorney’s.
OOOOOPS you were too smart for that little trick….quick recovery….
“OH you have 50/50 I was not aware”….uhhhhh you do this everyday all day and when the computer program asks for custody percentage (a meaningful lever) rather than read the filing or ask the parties, just default to the number that gets the award the highest…best position for the state to maximize the award and a good place to start negotiating from if you don’t catch it.
and on to tactic #2…
Focused simply on avoiding a conference she re-runs the numbers and tries to make it sound so good that you won’t be able to refuse it….shucks only $100 and it isn’t even really support…When you balk again she tries to just be firm and say NEVER to everything hopefully you will bend to her absolute statements…after all isn’t she part of this unbiased court system. This is where it is comical really…I laughed out loud at your questioning her, no matter how extreme the case….any chance the sun will come up tomorrow “NEVER!”
OK now she is getting desperate and “upset,” this is a total loss for her, so let’s try the Hail Mary Pass AKA Tactic #3 — FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt). Maybe she can make you think that some of this irrelevant stuff is actually relevant and scare you into paying the $100/month.
No deal….total defeat…she completely failed at her job as a Master — she has to schedule a hearing and use a judge’s time for a case where there is a negative financial consequence for the state (one way or the other the support award is going down). The best Masters have the highest settle percentage AND the highest total support awarded. Noticeably absent are any metrics on “best interest of the child” or actually knowing or applying the law correctly.
Now the attorney’s get involved and it is round 2 of “brow beat them into settlement.”
Welcome to Family Courts, you won’t believe any of this unless you’ve been there!
On a lighter note: on the dog thing, my attorney would have told me to not even acknowledge that comment from PEW and if the Master said/asked something, to take it to the complete other extreme of denying it….like “Of course I had that dog put to sleep, it was preventing me from having mind blowing sex with my new girlfriend on a regular basis.” What is PEW gonna say to that, that doesn’t make her look even more like a pscycho — and no matter what you say it is still irrelevant.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Precisely where I was going with my comments, Schotts… and you so perfectly detailed exactly what I implied.
The moment she wasn’t getting me to buckle-down… she quit. Just went ahead and scheduled for a hearing.
I might add that she said, specifically, “Also, I’m not even going to make a recommendation, you guys can just make your arguments in court.”
Hindsight being what it is, I now believe I should have insisted on her making a recommendation. The reason she didn’t… is due to what you wrote above. She would have been flat-out wrong and likely not doing her job… at least not the legal and above-board way.
Damn.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Schottsax - Exactly, you nailed it all. And I would totally say something like that to PEW at the end, I’m kinda like that.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Yup, sounds about right. We had the same issue, DH and PEGF shared 50/50 custody, DH made X amount and PEGF made X amount + 2.00 more per hour. We thought for sure PEGF was going to be paying us support, in fact DH was so sure cause she made so much more than him that he and I had already decided we would waive it just to be done with it. But nope in the end he was still ordered to pay her support. State laws be damned, he’s a man, he must pay because dont you know men all have what we like to call “Evil Penis Syndrome”
April 28th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I would have said, regarding the dog “I told you the dog was sick and offered him to you but you refused. I took him to the SPCA and they said he was too sick and old to be adopted so I did the only humane thing and had him put to sleep”
Lies and embellishments? Yes, but it would have been worth it to see her melt down in the court house, she might have even been arrested for disorderly conduct.
After reading that I’m glad I left your home state.
Still waiting on that Italian Hoggie(wink)
April 28th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
After re-reading about the dog I see that what I said is the truth. It still might have pushed her over the edge.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Good grief, L! Clearly PEW is farther off her rocker than I thought. I see what she’s trying to accomplish, but to compromise her own DIGNITY to get it done?!?!?! Man, she’ll stop at NOTHING….and that’s really quite scary. As for your argument? It’s clear, it’s law, and I would appeal all the way to Washington if I were you. Then you can write a book, become the subject of a made-for-TV movie, collect your royalties and retire a happy man. How’s that for a “Fuck You Very Much?” Jesus Christ, would PEW go bananas then! Can you say “Bellevue?” LMAO!!!
April 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
~lol~ have to love it! When we got custody of the boyo, our PEW thought she would get child support for the girlie that she has. She said ‘He makes more than I do’…of course, our lawyer shot her down and told her straight up that there would be no such thing, as she had a child and he had a child. He is 100% responsible for the boy, and she 100% responsible for the girlie. Of course, she’s still miffed, saying that my husband makes more than she does, which actually, is not true. Truth is, I’m the one that makes the most and where the majority of our money comes from. And she can’t touch that money…~heh~
April 29th, 2009 at 8:35 am
I feel for you, but in this case, I pay support to my PEH. When we went through all of this mess, it was clearly shown that we had 50/50 custody, that I was paying for the children’s healthcare, activities, tuition, everything, and he was not contributing to the expenses at all. He also did not produce ANY documentation of his income. He just wrote down a number, no W2s, nothing. He owns his business and takes a smaller paycheck (does this on purpose), but then uses his business debit card to pay for gas, groceries, meals, whatever. I’m not making this up! I’ve seen it all! He did it when we were married. I can’t (and still don’t) understand how the court can simply take someone’s word at his/her income, and not enforce the requirement for documenting it. So I pay him $1300/mo, when I know it should be far less. But unless I pay tens of thousands of dollars for a forensic accountant to go through his business books, I will continue to be the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. My lawyer tried to argue the support award with the magistrate, to no avail. And to cap it all off, all the money I gave him ($32,000 over the course of a year) was viewed as a “gift” because we had not formally filed for separation, and the magistrate awarded him ARREARS! Gah! It is not always the men who get screwed.
April 29th, 2009 at 9:42 am
MG… that, we do know.
April 29th, 2009 at 10:31 am
MG-
“can’t (and still don’t) understand how the court can simply take someone’s word at his/her income, and not enforce the requirement for documenting it.”
Simple, put away the idea that this is about fairness and now assume it is about the state maximizing their child support awards and collections….the federal reimbursements are based on incenting the states to collect as much child support as possible…it actually makes some logical sense, the more successful they are at collection the less people end up on welfare collecting money from the tax payers….everyone can get behind this concept right…make the parents support their children, not the taxpayers.
The system is being gamed though. The federal reimbursements are revenue to the states….want to pay your people more, want new computers, want to hire more people, collect more support and therefore more federal reimbursements. So the courts are not stupid they are gaming the system.
three examples
- used to be if you paid child support you did not have your wages garnished, no more in PA, now your wages are garnished no matter what..hmmm seems strange right, if someone is paying why spend the money to run through the garnishment program…that costs the state money right?….cause that increases both the amount collected and the % collected/awarded and that = more federal $ which more than offset the cost of garnishment.
- the better job someone has, maximize the award, it is easy money, 100% of awarded is collected, and therefore more federal reimbursements (this also drives custody bias)
- in NY State they are routinely handing out child support awards of $25 per month to low income individuals. You might think hmmm shouldn’t someone at least be required to maintain a minimum wage job, and if they want to maximize the amount of support collected why the $25 AND doesn’t this pretty much guarantee the receiving party is gonna end up on federal assistance….again if they aren’t good bet for payment (job, employment history), give a low award and if they can pay give a high award = maximize % collected to % awarded and bingo more federal money. Who cares if they also end up on federal assistance, that is someone else’s problem.
And helping enable all of this..the well oiled machine against one person at a time….you see from Mister-M’s experience this week how sophisticated they are at trying to apply enough pressure to break people one at a time into agreeing….once you agree then the law means nothing, you can’t appeal, there is no accountability for anyone but you.
FOLLOW THE MONEY and it all makes perfect sense.
Fairness, best interest of the kids,…all a big emotional smoke screen to transfer more money into the pockets of the people that “work” in this cartel.
April 29th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Schottsax - I totally agree. In my state, they also make wage garnishment mandatory. They also assume a payer is in arrears when they set up the initial order, and take too much from the payer. They don’t return the overpayment either, they call it a ‘credit’ and say it will all work out at the end of the case. This happened to my husband when his youngest was 6, so he has to wait 12 years to get his ‘credit’ back. In the mean time, the state can show they collected $x amount of money, and get that matched by the federal program, even though the actual support award is less. They have over-collected on my husband so many times so that his account was more than a month overpaid. The state law says they can’t hold more than 1 month of overpayment, but they found some way around it.
Our case is similar to Mister-M in that my husband was laid off and requested a reduction, only to be bullied by the referee, trying to get him to withdraw his request. The comment made was that he should just pay the higher amount ‘for the sake of the kids’. That does not make sense at all because how does it benefit the kids when their father can’t afford to feed them when they are with him?
It all has nothing to do with what the kids need, and everything to do with getting more money for the system.
April 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
2 years ago my hubby’s request for cs was DENIED! He has physical custody during the school year and was still denied!
April 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
The current economic situation is really outing them… they try everything they can to prevent/minimize the reduction in orders….a significant reduction in collection is less federal dollars and then they are faced with cut backs and layoffs.
It is almost laughable if you compare this to the opposite — modifications for increase.
In some states the courts effectively solicit payees through the mail every two years letting them know that they can come in for a review for (upward) modification without either party having asked for this, making a legal filing, or any change in circumstance. They are betting that the payor is making more than you did two years ago. No lawyer needed, just check the box and mail back and they will schedule a conference….which will then consist of Tactics 1-3 as experienced by Mister-M.
Add to this recent developments like AUTOMATIC increases shrouded in “cost of living” adjustments that they calculate and you MUST go to court to rebutt to prevent them from just happening.
Then there is imputed income — child support based on what you “should” be making, not what you actually are making. Used everyday to make awards beyond what the formula would recommend and irrespective of the payor’s financial needs.
How long till we are automatically increasing support based on imputiung career/salary advancement (whether it happens or not) and cost of living increases?
It is the family court’s wet dream.
April 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Add to the deal that my husband had to pay $60 for the ‘review’, which resulted in NOTHING. Oh wait, we will get the recommendation in the mail in 3 weeks, then we can pay our lawyer to object and pay another $100 for the objection hearing. That doesn’t include legal fees. Hmm…we did try to negotiate with his ex, but she refused. If we ‘win’ in the end, we are still going to be worse off financially. If this was anything other that family court, we could sue her (and win) for court and legal costs.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:02 am
[...] us on Twitter or get a FREE Divorce Evaluation. Thanks for visiting!Following-up the 4/28/2009 Job Loss & Child Support Modification Update - the conference was completed and I made a beeline for the van. There was more work to [...]
May 5th, 2009 at 7:15 am
[...] an hour consulting with my attorney about the current circumstances and the experience at the support conference. In addition to some positive information, the consultation ended with her telling me, [...]
May 14th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
[...] my chair. The only thought swirling through my head at that moment was that this wasn’t how Lacey did the calculations. This wasn’t how D-Mac did the calculations. It was simply how many weeks did you get [...]