[Fwd: Unpaid child support tops $700 million, lawmakers told - CharlestonGazette (subscription)]

http://sundaygazettemail.com/section...News/200701226

you know the ground rules: Here’s my letter to the reporter.

I came across your story today and wanted to ask you about one section
that the CSE didn’t seem to respond on. Specifically, this:

Another problem is the spouse paying the support frequently does not
return to court when that person’s income level drops.

‘A bad situation’

State child support payments come from a formula based on the income of
the spouse paying it. To get that amount lowered, the person paying must
first obtain an attorney and return to court. Instead, Perry said they
frequently let the bill go up.

Whether or not you know it, whether or not you believe it, you have hit
upon the classic catch 22 of reduction of child support: in order to get
it, you have to get a lawyer and pay court fees. If you can pay a
lawyer a retainer and the court fees, then obviously you have money
lying around and therefore can AFFORD to pay child support. Has this
dawned on those geniuses at CSE? Have they thought about streamlining
the process so parents can go to a mediator, a “NCP advocate�, somebody
who would help them?
Nah, it’s all about the money and how far we can jack up that figure in
order to convince lawmakers to implement tougher figures.

"John Meyer" wrote in

Nah, it's all about the money and how far we can jack up that figure in
order to convince lawmakers to implement tougher figures.

That's the problem right there, it's strictly numbers these guys look at and
the larger the number the more authority they can grant themselves.

John Meyer wrote:

Whether or not you know it, whether or not you believe it, you have hit
upon the classic catch 22 of reduction of child support: in order to get
it, you have to get a lawyer and pay court fees. If you can pay a
lawyer a retainer and the court fees, then obviously you have money
lying around and therefore can AFFORD to pay child support.


John, don't be guilty of the type of exaggeration the "other side" uses
to push their agenda.

One doesn't HAVE to have a lawyer too request a mod. If one CHOOSES to
hire a lawyer, then you get the catch-22 of court saying, if you can
afford a lawyer, you an afford to pay the support. But one does not
HAVE to hire a lawyer.

Here in my county, you go to the DRO and pay $25 to fill out a simple
form with your reasons for requesting the mod. An informal conference
is scheduled with CP, NCP and caseworker. If no agreement can be
reached at that time, then it's scheduled for court in front of a
judge, at which point you still don't HAVE to have a lawyer (although
if you can overcome the catch-22, it wouldn't hurt to have one.)

Maybe it's different for direct-pay cases that stem from a divorce
decree that don't involve the state CS agency yet?

To me, the problem with the article's comment on NCPs needing to be
more active in seeking downward mods as if that's some simple
no-brainer cure is that - they're almost impossible to get due to a
little thing called "imputed income".
No need for a court to lower your CS when they have such a powerful
tool at their disposal.

And once you've been imputed an income it doesn't matter how much more
your income drops in the future after that, the court has already said
"you're able to earn this much so this is what you must pay". To lower
your CS after having imputed you before would be admitting they made a
mistake in judging your earning capability. And that just doesn't
happen, not to any male NCP I've ever known. Once you're imputed,
you're stuck, the "option" of a downward mod is pure fantasy.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Meyer wrote:

Whether or not you know it, whether or not you believe it, you have hit
upon the classic catch 22 of reduction of child support: in order to get
it, you have to get a lawyer and pay court fees. If you can pay a
lawyer a retainer and the court fees, then obviously you have money
lying around and therefore can AFFORD to pay child support.


John, don't be guilty of the type of exaggeration the "other side" uses
to push their agenda.

One doesn't HAVE to have a lawyer too request a mod. If one CHOOSES to
hire a lawyer, then you get the catch-22 of court saying, if you can
afford a lawyer, you an afford to pay the support. But one does not
HAVE to hire a lawyer.

Here in my county, you go to the DRO and pay $25 to fill out a simple
form with your reasons for requesting the mod. An informal conference
is scheduled with CP, NCP and caseworker. If no agreement can be
reached at that time, then it's scheduled for court in front of a
judge, at which point you still don't HAVE to have a lawyer (although
if you can overcome the catch-22, it wouldn't hurt to have one.)

Maybe it's different for direct-pay cases that stem from a divorce
decree that don't involve the state CS agency yet?

To me, the problem with the article's comment on NCPs needing to be
more active in seeking downward mods as if that's some simple
no-brainer cure is that - they're almost impossible to get due to a
little thing called "imputed income".
No need for a court to lower your CS when they have such a powerful
tool at their disposal.

And once you've been imputed an income it doesn't matter how much more
your income drops in the future after that, the court has already said
"you're able to earn this much so this is what you must pay". To lower
your CS after having imputed you before would be admitting they made a
mistake in judging your earning capability. And that just doesn't
happen, not to any male NCP I've ever known. Once you're imputed,
you're stuck, the "option" of a downward mod is pure fantasy.

You are correct in your assessment of how the judicial system works. At one
point I tried to get a modification based on the fact the court's imputed
income had been unattainable and I had not been able to find employment at
the imputed income level. The court's response was I had not proven a
change of circumstance from the way the last CS order had been calculated.

IOW - Once an imputed income is set that income becomes the determination
level for any future modifications of CS awards. The courts ignore the
statutory requirements to examine the employment conditions and prevailing
economic factors and just roll with an arbitrary prior decision not based on
the intent of the laws.

wrote:
John Meyer wrote:

Whether or not you know it, whether or not you believe it, you have hit
upon the classic catch 22 of reduction of child support: in order to get
it, you have to get a lawyer and pay court fees. If you can pay a
lawyer a retainer and the court fees, then obviously you have money
lying around and therefore can AFFORD to pay child support.


John, don't be guilty of the type of exaggeration the "other side" uses
to push their agenda.

One doesn't HAVE to have a lawyer too request a mod. If one CHOOSES to
hire a lawyer, then you get the catch-22 of court saying, if you can
afford a lawyer, you an afford to pay the support. But one does not
HAVE to hire a lawyer.



Actually, we're going on what the CSE caseworker has said, not what
necessarily may be true or not true in each and every case. What the
CSE is saying in the article are saying is that many ncps don't go to
court and lower the amount because they can't find an attorney. I was
trying to point out the absurdity and the irony of the quote, that
MAYBE, just MAYBE, you have the reason why that unpaid child support is
that high.

Bob Whiteside wrote:

You are correct in your assessment of how the judicial system works. At one
point I tried to get a modification based on the fact the court's imputed
income had been unattainable and I had not been able to find employment at
the imputed income level. The court's response was I had not proven a
change of circumstance from the way the last CS order had been calculated.

IOW - Once an imputed income is set that income becomes the determination
level for any future modifications of CS awards. The courts ignore the
statutory requirements to examine the employment conditions and prevailing
economic factors and just roll with an arbitrary prior decision not based on
the intent of the laws.


Sorry to hear you had that experience, I can understand where that
comes. Any time the courts use an imputed income, we can screw this
nonsense about child support not being a punishment because it is. Or
do the courts think that an insurmountable debt is a "prod" that they
can use to get the NCP to go into a Fortune 500 company and come out
with a 6 figure job?
Now, I was able to get mine lowered, and I think it was largely because
my ex was not pushing (she has gone on welfare); it was the state.
The big problem in my case is that it took from the middle of April to
July when the order went into effect. That was two whole months when
those arrears kept on stacking.
Basically, this article, along with the rest that I am posting, all
prove one thing: CSEAs are long on pushing "you must pay you must pay
you must pay", but as soon as somebody mentions the problems of the non
custodial parents in a way in which they can't argue about the fact that
it is, the CSEAs take the attitude of "ce serra serra" (sp?), what can
you do? A whole hell of a lot, but apparently these governmental
workers can't work up any sort of inertia to try something other than
threats and intimidation.

One doesn't HAVE to have a lawyer too request a mod. If one CHOOSES to
hire a lawyer, then you get the catch-22 of court saying, if you can
afford a lawyer, you an afford to pay the support. But one does not
HAVE to hire a lawyer.

Actually it's cheaper to hire an attorney to represent you in a modification
hearing of you are out of state.
It would cost me airfare, car rental, hotel, and time off work to attend.

Problem is, everytime you want a modification, it's costs about $400.

I had two hearings to get a downward motion which they granted, so it costs
me $800 to get $10 taken off my monthly payment. Just $57,000 more to go,
what was the point again?

"DB" wrote

One doesn't HAVE to have a lawyer too request a mod. If one CHOOSES to
hire a lawyer, then you get the catch-22 of court saying, if you can
afford a lawyer, you an afford to pay the support. But one does not
HAVE to hire a lawyer.

Actually it's cheaper to hire an attorney to represent you in a
modification hearing of you are out of state.
It would cost me airfare, car rental, hotel, and time off work to attend.
==
Not if you request/are granted a telephonic hearing. Very simple and cheap.
We did it several times. Filing fee was about 25.00.

"Gini" wrote in

Not if you request/are granted a telephonic hearing. Very simple and
cheap.
We did it several times. Filing fee was about 25.00.


Thanks, I'll look that up seeing as I don't have the authorization to work
anymore.

Wonder what they will say when Immigration does not concider CS a hardship
that justifies me working?