Question

[Simpledog]

Long story short. My ex and I 'renegotiated' CS based upon guidelines (I
was paying less but saving for their college, etc.), we both signed the
County's paperwork, sent it in. She also put in to 'garnish' my wages,
which, although irritating, saves me the step of having to send her a check,
so no big deal. However, we're in California......we turned the paperwork
in 2 months ago, and they haven't modified the CS out, at least as far as
what is being taken out of my check. How long does this take, generally?
And, can they go back and say "Hey, you signed this on 1 May, you owe the
extra money for the past 3 months!"....or do I have to wait for them to
formally tell me, and/or just start taking it out of my check? Like I said,
we both signed and agreed to the new amount on or about 1 June.

[Chris Owens]

Simpledog wrote:
>
> Long story short. My ex and I 'renegotiated' CS based upon guidelines (I
> was paying less but saving for their college, etc.), we both signed the
> County's paperwork, sent it in. She also put in to 'garnish' my wages,
> which, although irritating, saves me the step of having to send her a check,
> so no big deal. However, we're in California......we turned the paperwork
> in 2 months ago, and they haven't modified the CS out, at least as far as
> what is being taken out of my check. How long does this take, generally?
> And, can they go back and say "Hey, you signed this on 1 May, you owe the
> extra money for the past 3 months!"....or do I have to wait for them to
> formally tell me, and/or just start taking it out of my check? Like I said,
> we both signed and agreed to the new amount on or about 1 June.

You need to get in touch with the relevant office and find out
what has happened to the paperwork. It should have been
processed by now.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Chris Owens]

Simpledog wrote:
>
> Long story short. My ex and I 'renegotiated' CS based upon guidelines (I
> was paying less but saving for their college, etc.), we both signed the
> County's paperwork, sent it in. She also put in to 'garnish' my wages,
> which, although irritating, saves me the step of having to send her a check,
> so no big deal. However, we're in California......we turned the paperwork
> in 2 months ago, and they haven't modified the CS out, at least as far as
> what is being taken out of my check. How long does this take, generally?
> And, can they go back and say "Hey, you signed this on 1 May, you owe the
> extra money for the past 3 months!"....or do I have to wait for them to
> formally tell me, and/or just start taking it out of my check? Like I said,
> we both signed and agreed to the new amount on or about 1 June.

You need to get in touch with the relevant office and find out
what has happened to the paperwork. It should have been
processed by now.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Tracy]

"Simpledog" > wrote in message
...
> I've sent them 3 letters.
>
> Nothing.


Call. Walk in and visit them.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


>
>
> "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Simpledog wrote:
> > >
> > > Long story short. My ex and I 'renegotiated' CS based upon guidelines
> (I
> > > was paying less but saving for their college, etc.), we both signed
the
> > > County's paperwork, sent it in. She also put in to 'garnish' my
wages,
> > > which, although irritating, saves me the step of having to send her a
> check,
> > > so no big deal. However, we're in California......we turned the
> paperwork
> > > in 2 months ago, and they haven't modified the CS out, at least as far
> as
> > > what is being taken out of my check. How long does this take,
> generally?
> > > And, can they go back and say "Hey, you signed this on 1 May, you owe
> the
> > > extra money for the past 3 months!"....or do I have to wait for them
to
> > > formally tell me, and/or just start taking it out of my check? Like I
> said,
> > > we both signed and agreed to the new amount on or about 1 June.
> >
> > You need to get in touch with the relevant office and find out
> > what has happened to the paperwork. It should have been
> > processed by now.
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

[Tracy]

"Simpledog" > wrote in message
...
> I've sent them 3 letters.
>
> Nothing.


Call. Walk in and visit them.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


>
>
> "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Simpledog wrote:
> > >
> > > Long story short. My ex and I 'renegotiated' CS based upon guidelines
> (I
> > > was paying less but saving for their college, etc.), we both signed
the
> > > County's paperwork, sent it in. She also put in to 'garnish' my
wages,
> > > which, although irritating, saves me the step of having to send her a
> check,
> > > so no big deal. However, we're in California......we turned the
> paperwork
> > > in 2 months ago, and they haven't modified the CS out, at least as far
> as
> > > what is being taken out of my check. How long does this take,
> generally?
> > > And, can they go back and say "Hey, you signed this on 1 May, you owe
> the
> > > extra money for the past 3 months!"....or do I have to wait for them
to
> > > formally tell me, and/or just start taking it out of my check? Like I
> said,
> > > we both signed and agreed to the new amount on or about 1 June.
> >
> > You need to get in touch with the relevant office and find out
> > what has happened to the paperwork. It should have been
> > processed by now.
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

[The Dave©]

> wrote:

>
> I dealt with the San Francisco Child Support office (then part of the
> DA's Office).
>
> If you pay in advance, they'll likely later claim you didn't pay and
> attempt to say you are in arrears. That is what the DA's office in
> S.F. did to me. Unless they receive the payment, it's as if it
> wasn't made.
>
> I did show them canceled checks and eventually they corrected the
> problem (and sent me a small refund).
>
> So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or pay
> it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did (make
> any payments via check with "child support" witten in the memo line
> to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)

The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

> Also note that if you own real estate in California, the DA's office
> will place a lein on the property "just in case" you don't pay your
> child support. It's the standard mode of operation. You are not
> "innocent util proven guilty". You are "guilty even if innocent"
> with this procedure (I have never been behind in my child support.)
>
> It's a corrupt and inefficient system but unfortunately, you have no
> choice but to deal with it.

They (the government) like it when we roll over and say 'nothing can be
done'.

[The Dave©]

> wrote:

>
> I dealt with the San Francisco Child Support office (then part of the
> DA's Office).
>
> If you pay in advance, they'll likely later claim you didn't pay and
> attempt to say you are in arrears. That is what the DA's office in
> S.F. did to me. Unless they receive the payment, it's as if it
> wasn't made.
>
> I did show them canceled checks and eventually they corrected the
> problem (and sent me a small refund).
>
> So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or pay
> it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did (make
> any payments via check with "child support" witten in the memo line
> to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)

The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

> Also note that if you own real estate in California, the DA's office
> will place a lein on the property "just in case" you don't pay your
> child support. It's the standard mode of operation. You are not
> "innocent util proven guilty". You are "guilty even if innocent"
> with this procedure (I have never been behind in my child support.)
>
> It's a corrupt and inefficient system but unfortunately, you have no
> choice but to deal with it.

They (the government) like it when we roll over and say 'nothing can be
done'.

[~August]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>

> > So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or pay
> > it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> > voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did (make
> > any payments via check with "child support" witten in the memo line
> > to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)
>
> The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
> right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to be
goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote "Child
Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

~August

[~August]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>

> > So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or pay
> > it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> > voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did (make
> > any payments via check with "child support" witten in the memo line
> > to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)
>
> The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
> right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to be
goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote "Child
Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

~August

[The Dave©]

~August wrote:

> > > So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
> > > pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> > > voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
> > > (make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
> > > memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)
> >
> > The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
> > right, the OP needs to be aware of it.
>
> I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
> be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
> "Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
the right thing.

[The Dave©]

~August wrote:

> > > So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
> > > pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> > > voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
> > > (make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
> > > memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)
> >
> > The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
> > right, the OP needs to be aware of it.
>
> I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
> be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
> "Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
the right thing.

[gini52]

"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ~August wrote:
> >
> > > > > So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
> > > > > pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> > > > > voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
> > > > > (make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
> > > > > memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)
> > > >
> > > > The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
> > > > right, the OP needs to be aware of it.
> > >
> > > I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
> > > be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
> > > "Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".
> >
> > I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
> > check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
> > when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
> > is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
> > the right thing.
>
> I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
> considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
> unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
> to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
> courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
> actually owed.
>
> ~August
===
My opinion is that it is done that way because if the money doesn't go
through
CSE, it cannot be counted as collected for the purpose of federal block
grant funds.
===
===
>
>

[gini52]

"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ~August wrote:
> >
> > > > > So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
> > > > > pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
> > > > > voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
> > > > > (make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
> > > > > memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)
> > > >
> > > > The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
> > > > right, the OP needs to be aware of it.
> > >
> > > I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
> > > be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
> > > "Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".
> >
> > I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
> > check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
> > when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
> > is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
> > the right thing.
>
> I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
> considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
> unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
> to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
> courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
> actually owed.
>
> ~August
===
My opinion is that it is done that way because if the money doesn't go
through
CSE, it cannot be counted as collected for the purpose of federal block
grant funds.
===
===
>
>

~August > wrote:

: I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
: considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as CS
: unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
: to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
: courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that was
: actually owed.

The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child Support
Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the time).
The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
being forwarded by the DA's office.

Essentially, they're justifying their existance.

b.

~August > wrote:

: I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
: considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as CS
: unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
: to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
: courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that was
: actually owed.

The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child Support
Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the time).
The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
being forwarded by the DA's office.

Essentially, they're justifying their existance.

b.

[~August]

> wrote in message ...
> ~August > wrote:
>
> : I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
> : considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
> : unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being
able
> : to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through
the
> : courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
> : actually owed.
>
> The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child
Support
> Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the
time).
> The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
> the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
> If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
> even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
> parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
> support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
> being forwarded by the DA's office.


And hopefully (if it ever comes into question) a check made out for the
amount owed and marked as CS and specifically marked as "not a gift" will be
proof enough. I also have emails between me and my ex saying that is how we
would handle it (him paying the full amount and me re-imbursing him). We
did it this way because even though our county states that summer CS is
pro-rated, there was nothing specific written up in our decree about it.
The order says a wage garnishment was ordered but would not be put into
effect unless he went into arrears and we didn't want trouble for him for
not sending the full amount ordered.

~August

[~August]

> wrote in message ...
> ~August > wrote:
>
> : I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
> : considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
> : unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being
able
> : to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through
the
> : courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
> : actually owed.
>
> The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child
Support
> Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the
time).
> The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
> the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
> If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
> even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
> parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
> support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
> being forwarded by the DA's office.


And hopefully (if it ever comes into question) a check made out for the
amount owed and marked as CS and specifically marked as "not a gift" will be
proof enough. I also have emails between me and my ex saying that is how we
would handle it (him paying the full amount and me re-imbursing him). We
did it this way because even though our county states that summer CS is
pro-rated, there was nothing specific written up in our decree about it.
The order says a wage garnishment was ordered but would not be put into
effect unless he went into arrears and we didn't want trouble for him for
not sending the full amount ordered.

~August

wrote:
: The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
: the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
: If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
: even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
: parent.

Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
the DA's office *expects* payment.

In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child support
from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
Support for <child's name>).

I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I had
done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).

Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.

On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard procedure
now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.

The title company needed
a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to deposit
the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I called
up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after the
3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he obtained
another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was current
in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to voluntarily
indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
a second written request from them.

I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
once for a refinance.

Idiots!

wrote:
: The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
: the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
: If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
: even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
: parent.

Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
the DA's office *expects* payment.

In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child support
from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
Support for <child's name>).

I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I had
done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).

Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.

On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard procedure
now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.

The title company needed
a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to deposit
the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I called
up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after the
3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he obtained
another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was current
in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to voluntarily
indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
a second written request from them.

I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
once for a refinance.

Idiots!

[~August]

> wrote in message ...
> wrote:
> : The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
> : the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects*
payment.
> : If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
> : even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the
custodial
> : parent.
>
> Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
> the DA's office *expects* payment.
>
> In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
> the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
> my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child
support
> from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
> before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
> between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
> was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
> I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
> Support for <child's name>).
>
> I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
> that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I
had
> done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
> they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
> arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).
>
> Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.
>
> On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
> it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard
procedure
> now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.
>
> The title company needed
> a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to
deposit
> the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I
called
> up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after
the
> 3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
> I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
> it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he
obtained
> another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
> another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
> the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was
current
> in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to
voluntarily
> indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
> a second written request from them.
>
> I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
> once for a refinance.

totally frickin amazing!
thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go wrong
with my husband and his ex.

>
> Idiots!

That's putting it gently.

[~August]

> wrote in message ...
> wrote:
> : The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
> : the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects*
payment.
> : If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
> : even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the
custodial
> : parent.
>
> Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
> the DA's office *expects* payment.
>
> In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
> the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
> my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child
support
> from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
> before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
> between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
> was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
> I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
> Support for <child's name>).
>
> I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
> that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I
had
> done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
> they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
> arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).
>
> Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.
>
> On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
> it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard
procedure
> now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.
>
> The title company needed
> a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to
deposit
> the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I
called
> up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after
the
> 3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
> I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
> it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he
obtained
> another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
> another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
> the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was
current
> in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to
voluntarily
> indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
> a second written request from them.
>
> I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
> once for a refinance.

totally frickin amazing!
thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go wrong
with my husband and his ex.

>
> Idiots!

That's putting it gently.

[gini52]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> gini52 wrote:
>
> >
> > My opinion is that it is done that way because if the money doesn't go
> > through
> > CSE, it cannot be counted as collected for the purpose of federal
> > block grant funds.
>
> So, because the government can benefit finacially, in spite of the fact
> that the people involved did the right thing. And they wonder why we
> hate them so.
==
Yeah, I think it's time for men to figure out how to have children without
involving women ;-). (Not that women are inherently evil but rather to keep
the government
out of it altogether--You know, if there isn't a woman involved, the state
doesn't give a damn.)
==
==

[gini52]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> gini52 wrote:
>
> >
> > My opinion is that it is done that way because if the money doesn't go
> > through
> > CSE, it cannot be counted as collected for the purpose of federal
> > block grant funds.
>
> So, because the government can benefit finacially, in spite of the fact
> that the people involved did the right thing. And they wonder why we
> hate them so.
==
Yeah, I think it's time for men to figure out how to have children without
involving women ;-). (Not that women are inherently evil but rather to keep
the government
out of it altogether--You know, if there isn't a woman involved, the state
doesn't give a damn.)
==
==

[The Dave©]

"~August" wrote in
> totally frickin amazing!
> thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
> problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go
wrong
> with my husband and his ex.
>
> >
> > Idiots!
>
> That's putting it gently.

Sometimes the ex isn't the problem at all. It's the system.

[The Dave©]

"~August" wrote in
> totally frickin amazing!
> thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
> problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go
wrong
> with my husband and his ex.
>
> >
> > Idiots!
>
> That's putting it gently.

Sometimes the ex isn't the problem at all. It's the system.

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> "~August" wrote in
> > totally frickin amazing!
> > thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
> > problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go
> wrong
> > with my husband and his ex.
> >
> > >
> > > Idiots!
> >
> > That's putting it gently.
>
> Sometimes the ex isn't the problem at all. It's the system.

You are right about that. The Oregon State Justice Department Division of
Child Support filed two full satisfactions of judgment in my case certifying
my CS obligation had been paid in full. They provided full satisfactions
and certifications as the state's legal custodian of child support accounts
based on Oregon law using my affadavit and another satisfaction signed by my
ex. The local county clerks have told me the Justice Department doesn't
know what they are doing, so they regularly ignore their full satisfactions.
More IDIOTS in action!

My latest CS reform campaign is to get the Justice Department to support
changes to state law that require consistency in how the satisfaction laws
are applied and not allow local jurisdictions to use their interpretation of
the law to suit their local agenda -or- in the alternative to force the
local DA's who are familiar with local "customs" to file full satisfactions
that the court clerks will accept instead of blindly forwarding paperwork to
the court clerks they know won't close out cases.

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> "~August" wrote in
> > totally frickin amazing!
> > thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
> > problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go
> wrong
> > with my husband and his ex.
> >
> > >
> > > Idiots!
> >
> > That's putting it gently.
>
> Sometimes the ex isn't the problem at all. It's the system.

You are right about that. The Oregon State Justice Department Division of
Child Support filed two full satisfactions of judgment in my case certifying
my CS obligation had been paid in full. They provided full satisfactions
and certifications as the state's legal custodian of child support accounts
based on Oregon law using my affadavit and another satisfaction signed by my
ex. The local county clerks have told me the Justice Department doesn't
know what they are doing, so they regularly ignore their full satisfactions.
More IDIOTS in action!

My latest CS reform campaign is to get the Justice Department to support
changes to state law that require consistency in how the satisfaction laws
are applied and not allow local jurisdictions to use their interpretation of
the law to suit their local agenda -or- in the alternative to force the
local DA's who are familiar with local "customs" to file full satisfactions
that the court clerks will accept instead of blindly forwarding paperwork to
the court clerks they know won't close out cases.

[The Dave©]

"frazil" wrote
> Lousy analogy. You made a legally binding agreement (established
intention)
> to pay for any legitimate charge on the credit card at the time of
purchase
> (when your intention was made known). Thus your your statement "payed in
> full" carries no legal significance.
>
> In the OP's scenario, the agreement between him and the ex becomes legally
> binding when the court approves the agreement, and they can make it
> retroactive to the date the agreement was filed. The upside is that you
owe
> nothing until the court says you owe, any retroactive obligation the court
> orders you to pay is not considered arearages for the purposes of
> establishing willful non-payment on your part, or for charging interest or
> penalties. So, don't pay the higher amount until the court tells you to,
> but be prepared to pay the incremental difference between the payments,
for
> the time elapsed between the filing date and the court's decision.

Lousy comprehension. You re-stated my point, but you were far more wordy
then I was.

[The Dave©]

"frazil" wrote
> Lousy analogy. You made a legally binding agreement (established
intention)
> to pay for any legitimate charge on the credit card at the time of
purchase
> (when your intention was made known). Thus your your statement "payed in
> full" carries no legal significance.
>
> In the OP's scenario, the agreement between him and the ex becomes legally
> binding when the court approves the agreement, and they can make it
> retroactive to the date the agreement was filed. The upside is that you
owe
> nothing until the court says you owe, any retroactive obligation the court
> orders you to pay is not considered arearages for the purposes of
> establishing willful non-payment on your part, or for charging interest or
> penalties. So, don't pay the higher amount until the court tells you to,
> but be prepared to pay the incremental difference between the payments,
for
> the time elapsed between the filing date and the court's decision.

Lousy comprehension. You re-stated my point, but you were far more wordy
then I was.

[frazil]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> "frazil" wrote
> > Lousy analogy. You made a legally binding agreement (established
> intention)
> > to pay for any legitimate charge on the credit card at the time of
> purchase
> > (when your intention was made known). Thus your your statement "payed
in
> > full" carries no legal significance.
> >
> > In the OP's scenario, the agreement between him and the ex becomes
legally
> > binding when the court approves the agreement, and they can make it
> > retroactive to the date the agreement was filed. The upside is that you
> owe
> > nothing until the court says you owe, any retroactive obligation the
court
> > orders you to pay is not considered arearages for the purposes of
> > establishing willful non-payment on your part, or for charging interest
or
> > penalties. So, don't pay the higher amount until the court tells you
to,
> > but be prepared to pay the incremental difference between the payments,
> for
> > the time elapsed between the filing date and the court's decision.
>
> Lousy comprehension. You re-stated my point, but you were far more wordy
> then I was.

Then you missed your own point. Succinctly stated: You can legally write
whatever you want on the check. The opening premise for your analogy was
flawed from the start.

[frazil]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> "frazil" wrote
> > Lousy analogy. You made a legally binding agreement (established
> intention)
> > to pay for any legitimate charge on the credit card at the time of
> purchase
> > (when your intention was made known). Thus your your statement "payed
in
> > full" carries no legal significance.
> >
> > In the OP's scenario, the agreement between him and the ex becomes
legally
> > binding when the court approves the agreement, and they can make it
> > retroactive to the date the agreement was filed. The upside is that you
> owe
> > nothing until the court says you owe, any retroactive obligation the
court
> > orders you to pay is not considered arearages for the purposes of
> > establishing willful non-payment on your part, or for charging interest
or
> > penalties. So, don't pay the higher amount until the court tells you
to,
> > but be prepared to pay the incremental difference between the payments,
> for
> > the time elapsed between the filing date and the court's decision.
>
> Lousy comprehension. You re-stated my point, but you were far more wordy
> then I was.

Then you missed your own point. Succinctly stated: You can legally write
whatever you want on the check. The opening premise for your analogy was
flawed from the start.

[frazil]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> "frazil" wrote
> > Lousy analogy. You made a legally binding agreement (established
> intention)
> > to pay for any legitimate charge on the credit card at the time of
> purchase
> > (when your intention was made known). Thus your your statement "payed
in
> > full" carries no legal significance.
> >
> > In the OP's scenario, the agreement between him and the ex becomes
legally
> > binding when the court approves the agreement, and they can make it
> > retroactive to the date the agreement was filed. The upside is that you
> owe
> > nothing until the court says you owe, any retroactive obligation the
court
> > orders you to pay is not considered arearages for the purposes of
> > establishing willful non-payment on your part, or for charging interest
or
> > penalties. So, don't pay the higher amount until the court tells you
to,
> > but be prepared to pay the incremental difference between the payments,
> for
> > the time elapsed between the filing date and the court's decision.
>
> Lousy comprehension. You re-stated my point, but you were far more wordy
> then I was.

The you missed your own point, because your opening premise was flawed.
There is nothing illegal with writing "payed in full" on your check.

[frazil]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> "frazil" wrote
> > Lousy analogy. You made a legally binding agreement (established
> intention)
> > to pay for any legitimate charge on the credit card at the time of
> purchase
> > (when your intention was made known). Thus your your statement "payed
in
> > full" carries no legal significance.
> >
> > In the OP's scenario, the agreement between him and the ex becomes
legally
> > binding when the court approves the agreement, and they can make it
> > retroactive to the date the agreement was filed. The upside is that you
> owe
> > nothing until the court says you owe, any retroactive obligation the
court
> > orders you to pay is not considered arearages for the purposes of
> > establishing willful non-payment on your part, or for charging interest
or
> > penalties. So, don't pay the higher amount until the court tells you
to,
> > but be prepared to pay the incremental difference between the payments,
> for
> > the time elapsed between the filing date and the court's decision.
>
> Lousy comprehension. You re-stated my point, but you were far more wordy
> then I was.

The you missed your own point, because your opening premise was flawed.
There is nothing illegal with writing "payed in full" on your check.