Who Gets Paid First When Paying Down Child Support Arrears?

[LP]

If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to two
sources, who gets paid first?

Example:

* One component of the arrears is $2000 principal with $2000 interest for
the REIMBURSEMENT OF WELFARE FUNDS collected by the custodial parent.

* Another component of the arrears is $16,000 principal with $4000 interest
for the SUPPORT OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (okay, child).

Payments start out at $300/month (the amount beyond current support
available to pay down arrears).

Which amount gets deducted FIRST (i.e., who gets paid first?).

One thing I can guess: first payments apply ONLY to interest, which when
paid down, starts applying to principal.

The laws of the state of California apply here.

Grazi

[Arthur L. Rubin]

LP wrote:

> If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to two
> sources, who gets paid first?

As a payor of "garnished" child support, all I know is that CURRENT
support is paid first. (Also in California.)

[Arthur L. Rubin]

LP wrote:

> If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to two
> sources, who gets paid first?

As a payor of "garnished" child support, all I know is that CURRENT
support is paid first. (Also in California.)

[Bob Whiteside]

"LP" > wrote in message
...
>
> If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to two
> sources, who gets paid first?
>
> Example:
>
> * One component of the arrears is $2000 principal with $2000 interest for
> the REIMBURSEMENT OF WELFARE FUNDS collected by the custodial parent.
>
> * Another component of the arrears is $16,000 principal with $4000
interest
> for the SUPPORT OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (okay, child).
>
> Payments start out at $300/month (the amount beyond current support
> available to pay down arrears).
>
> Which amount gets deducted FIRST (i.e., who gets paid first?).
>
> One thing I can guess: first payments apply ONLY to interest, which when
> paid down, starts applying to principal.
>
> The laws of the state of California apply here.

The hierarchy for how post-TANF support is distributed is regulated at the
federal level. Post-TANF distribution is:

a. Current support to the custodial parent
b. Post-TANF arrearage to parent
c. Unreimbursed assistance to state (38%) and to federal government (62%)
d. Excess to custodial parent

But if pre-TANF arrearages exist the state pays the pre-TANF assistance to
the family first, before repaying itself and the federal government.

Related to c. above, the federal government is in line for repayment of
their share before the state can start to repay itself.

[Bob Whiteside]

"LP" > wrote in message
...
>
> If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to two
> sources, who gets paid first?
>
> Example:
>
> * One component of the arrears is $2000 principal with $2000 interest for
> the REIMBURSEMENT OF WELFARE FUNDS collected by the custodial parent.
>
> * Another component of the arrears is $16,000 principal with $4000
interest
> for the SUPPORT OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (okay, child).
>
> Payments start out at $300/month (the amount beyond current support
> available to pay down arrears).
>
> Which amount gets deducted FIRST (i.e., who gets paid first?).
>
> One thing I can guess: first payments apply ONLY to interest, which when
> paid down, starts applying to principal.
>
> The laws of the state of California apply here.

The hierarchy for how post-TANF support is distributed is regulated at the
federal level. Post-TANF distribution is:

a. Current support to the custodial parent
b. Post-TANF arrearage to parent
c. Unreimbursed assistance to state (38%) and to federal government (62%)
d. Excess to custodial parent

But if pre-TANF arrearages exist the state pays the pre-TANF assistance to
the family first, before repaying itself and the federal government.

Related to c. above, the federal government is in line for repayment of
their share before the state can start to repay itself.

[LP]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in inimitable style:

>
> "LP" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to
>> two sources, who gets paid first?
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> * One component of the arrears is $2000 principal with $2000 interest
>> for the REIMBURSEMENT OF WELFARE FUNDS collected by the custodial
>> parent.
>>
>> * Another component of the arrears is $16,000 principal with $4000
> interest
>> for the SUPPORT OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (okay, child).
>>
>> Payments start out at $300/month (the amount beyond current support
>> available to pay down arrears).
>>
>> Which amount gets deducted FIRST (i.e., who gets paid first?).
>>
>> One thing I can guess: first payments apply ONLY to interest, which
>> when paid down, starts applying to principal.
>>
>> The laws of the state of California apply here.
>
> The hierarchy for how post-TANF support is distributed is regulated at
> the federal level. Post-TANF distribution is:
>
> a. Current support to the custodial parent
> b. Post-TANF arrearage to parent
> c. Unreimbursed assistance to state (38%) and to federal government
> (62%) d. Excess to custodial parent
>
> But if pre-TANF arrearages exist the state pays the pre-TANF
> assistance to the family first, before repaying itself and the federal
> government.
>
> Related to c. above, the federal government is in line for repayment
> of their share before the state can start to repay itself.

In a conversation I had with a DCSS officer, she told me that amounts paid
in excess of current support get paid to the custodial parent first (these
are applied to interest and then to principal on arrearages). Then the
government agencies (for reimbursement of welfare funds) get paid, first
outstanding interest, then principal on the arrearages.


-----------------
Best way: TRY TO NEVER GET BEHIND. You get a better deal with a loan
shark.
-----------------
Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as a
single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.

The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.

[LP]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in inimitable style:

>
> "LP" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> If payments are being made slowly to pay down interest + principal to
>> two sources, who gets paid first?
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> * One component of the arrears is $2000 principal with $2000 interest
>> for the REIMBURSEMENT OF WELFARE FUNDS collected by the custodial
>> parent.
>>
>> * Another component of the arrears is $16,000 principal with $4000
> interest
>> for the SUPPORT OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT (okay, child).
>>
>> Payments start out at $300/month (the amount beyond current support
>> available to pay down arrears).
>>
>> Which amount gets deducted FIRST (i.e., who gets paid first?).
>>
>> One thing I can guess: first payments apply ONLY to interest, which
>> when paid down, starts applying to principal.
>>
>> The laws of the state of California apply here.
>
> The hierarchy for how post-TANF support is distributed is regulated at
> the federal level. Post-TANF distribution is:
>
> a. Current support to the custodial parent
> b. Post-TANF arrearage to parent
> c. Unreimbursed assistance to state (38%) and to federal government
> (62%) d. Excess to custodial parent
>
> But if pre-TANF arrearages exist the state pays the pre-TANF
> assistance to the family first, before repaying itself and the federal
> government.
>
> Related to c. above, the federal government is in line for repayment
> of their share before the state can start to repay itself.

In a conversation I had with a DCSS officer, she told me that amounts paid
in excess of current support get paid to the custodial parent first (these
are applied to interest and then to principal on arrearages). Then the
government agencies (for reimbursement of welfare funds) get paid, first
outstanding interest, then principal on the arrearages.


-----------------
Best way: TRY TO NEVER GET BEHIND. You get a better deal with a loan
shark.
-----------------
Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as a
single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.

The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.

[Najena]

LP > wrote in :

> Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as
> a single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
> monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.
>
> The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.
>

I remember reading once in a PA Rule of Civil Procedure that it is possible
for a person to be left with $500 a month.

[Najena]

LP > wrote in :

> Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as
> a single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
> monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.
>
> The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.
>

I remember reading once in a PA Rule of Civil Procedure that it is possible
for a person to be left with $500 a month.

[Gini]

"Najena" > wrote in message
...
> LP > wrote in :
>
> > Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as
> > a single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
> > monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.
> >
> > The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.
> >
>
> I remember reading once in a PA Rule of Civil Procedure that it is
possible
> for a person to be left with $500 a month.
==
Sort of--The guidelines provide that $500. should be deducted from the NCP's
net
prior to CS calculation to ensure his "basic sustenance" or some such.
==

[Gini]

"Najena" > wrote in message
...
> LP > wrote in :
>
> > Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as
> > a single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
> > monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.
> >
> > The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.
> >
>
> I remember reading once in a PA Rule of Civil Procedure that it is
possible
> for a person to be left with $500 a month.
==
Sort of--The guidelines provide that $500. should be deducted from the NCP's
net
prior to CS calculation to ensure his "basic sustenance" or some such.
==

[AZ Astrea]

"Gini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Najena" > wrote in message
> ...
> > LP > wrote in :
> >
> > > Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as
> > > a single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
> > > monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.
> > >
> > > The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.
> > >
> >
> > I remember reading once in a PA Rule of Civil Procedure that it is
> possible
> > for a person to be left with $500 a month.
> ==
> Sort of--The guidelines provide that $500. should be deducted from the
NCP's
> net
> prior to CS calculation to ensure his "basic sustenance" or some such.
> ==
>
----------------
In Washington state they're much more generous. They allow a $797 "needs
standard" for one person. They supposedly have to leave that much to the
ncp in order to live. Sooo generous.

~AZ~

>

[AZ Astrea]

"Gini" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Najena" > wrote in message
> ...
> > LP > wrote in :
> >
> > > Then there is the issue of whether one can live on $1500 per month as
> > > a single person anywhere in the state of California: that's $2000 net
> > > monthly income less $500 for current support for one 14-year old.
> > >
> > > The people of the state of California have gone mad. Truly.
> > >
> >
> > I remember reading once in a PA Rule of Civil Procedure that it is
> possible
> > for a person to be left with $500 a month.
> ==
> Sort of--The guidelines provide that $500. should be deducted from the
NCP's
> net
> prior to CS calculation to ensure his "basic sustenance" or some such.
> ==
>
----------------
In Washington state they're much more generous. They allow a $797 "needs
standard" for one person. They supposedly have to leave that much to the
ncp in order to live. Sooo generous.

~AZ~

>