--
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth,
and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man,
but only to have the law of nature for his rule.
-Samuel Adams


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JSW" wrote in message
...

I realize this may not be the exact best newsgroup for this, but I
couldn't
find one dedicated just to father's rights, specifically dealing with
child
support.

I'm in Texas and have been paying (overpaying, actually) for the last
5.5
years. However, I have been making these payments directly to my ex as
we
agreed to that in the beginning. However, due to some recent events I
filed
with the Attorney General's office to have them start garnishing my
wages
so everything would be "by the book", and to get it reduced to what it
rightly
should be. Now, of course they have established a case and show that I
owe
$45,000 because nothing shows up "in the system".

They are telling me I have to go back and get copies of all those
checks.
Yes, I know I should have kept them...but, I can get them it's just
that
it will take time and probably $200-$300 by the time it's all said and
done.

If you're familiar with child support options in Texas, is there
another
possible solution? They mentioned that she could come in and sign an
"Affadavit
of Direct Payment" stating that I was current and had been paying her
directly,
but they said she would have to provide the dates, $$$, etc...and I
know
she doesn't have that either.

Help!!!

You are faced with the "game" CSE plays all the time. When they start a
case file they plug in prior CS payments retroactively as "previously
billed." They then plug in amounts for "previously paid" and "previously
satisfied." What they are doing is including amounts already accrued and
paid so they can take credit for collecting the money.

The problem you have is CSE has placed the burden of proof onto you to
show
you don't owe the erroneous amount they have plugged into your file as the
"previously billed" amount. It's BS, but that's how they do it. By
providing proof of your payment history you will be giving them the amount
to use for "previously paid." If the child's mother provides the
affidavit
she will be providing the amount to use for "previously satisfied."

You may be able to shorten up the time frame you need to go back to prove
your payments. If the $45,000 represents CS accruals from the original
order, and you have had a modification since the original order, you can
show no arrearages were alleged at the time of modification and just show
your payment history from that point forward.

Also, I would challenge CSE to justify how they came up with the $45,000
"previously billed" amount for time periods before they actually set up
the
case file. Ask for their legal authority to use this accounting practice
to
establish erroneous "amounts billed" before they took on the file.

Here's how this played out in my case several years ago. CSE plugged in
an
amount "previously billed" at over $23,000. (I have no idea how they came
up with that amount.) They plugged in over $17,000 for the amount
"previously paid." (I have no idea how they came up with that amount.)
They plugged in $5,500 as the amount "previously satisfied" because I
produced a "partial satisfaction of judgment" for that amount. So CSE
took
credit for collecting $23,000 they really didn't collect to pad their
results and rip off the Federal CSE for added collection-to-cost bonus
money
for an amount they really never collected.


Hey! Sounds like they have a better scam than Enron had. Does Arthur
Anderson do their books?;-)
But seriously, something similar happened to me.
JSW, did your ex collect any Public Assistance? If she did, they might be
charging you with repaying those monies. You should probably go ahead and
get the checks copied for your own protection. I know it's expensive, but it
may save your posterior when all is said and done. Me? I initially paid $230
in check-copying fees to exonerate myself from a $5000 arrearage amount, but
I managed to get some of that back by telling them the copies were to be
entered as evidence.
Good luck!