CS and garnished wages

I think one of the best ways to strike this down is to start pushing
language that makes service of a subpoena in all child support cases a
"strict reporting" requirement, that the document must be placed in the
hands of the NCP by a process server or be witnessed by one other person
that he refused service (preferably a sheriff). The document should
advise the NCP of his/her rights. Also, absent a clear custody order,
any child support shall be based upon an assumption of 50/50 "shared
custody", and that it is the responsibility of the CP and the custodial
parent alone to prove otherwise. The CSEAs should not be allowed into
this fight: by their own mouths they have said that they take no side in
the court. Finally, the use of imputed incomes should be strictly
limited, and no retroactive child support amount shall be made when the
paying parent has no idea of the existence of the child or when the
custodial parents own actions have prevented the person from knowing
that the child is theirs.
I know, I'm an idealist, but you need idealists to define your goals.

DB wrote:
"Jaguar" wrote in message
oups.com...
No. He has only one job from which is the only source they are
collecting from and yes he does make enough money to pay it although I
dont know how the court came to that amount. There is absolutely
nothing that states he makes that kind of money. I'm assuming that when
the hearing was called we weren't notified as we were moving around a
lot at the time.


Ah yes, the old decision by default trick!

They don't have to personally notify you that there is a hearing!
All that is required is they publish a notice in local paper and that
qualifies as you being served.

You not being at the hearing allows them to impute your income based on what
ever information his ex tells them.

So she can say that your Husband is a qualified Electrician making $27/hr
and the court will use that to base their judgment and the arrearage begins.
Not only will you pay a high monthly rate, but also arrearage percent in
addition to the high monthly the rate.

They usually demand the arrearage is paid off in 5 years, so it's very easy
for an NCP to be paying $1200/mth in total.

It's a racket that has to be stopped!

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
I think one of the best ways to strike this down is to start pushing
language that makes service of a subpoena in all child support cases a
"strict reporting" requirement, that the document must be placed in the
hands of the NCP by a process server or be witnessed by one other person
that he refused service (preferably a sheriff). The document should
advise the NCP of his/her rights. Also, absent a clear custody order,
any child support shall be based upon an assumption of 50/50 "shared
custody", and that it is the responsibility of the CP and the custodial
parent alone to prove otherwise. The CSEAs should not be allowed into
this fight: by their own mouths they have said that they take no side in
the court. Finally, the use of imputed incomes should be strictly
limited, and no retroactive child support amount shall be made when the
paying parent has no idea of the existence of the child or when the
custodial parents own actions have prevented the person from knowing
that the child is theirs.
I know, I'm an idealist, but you need idealists to define your goals.


What you have stated exists in civil cases, don't know why family law is
exempt from such procedures?

Gini wrote:
"DB" wrote

"Jaguar" wrote
No. He has only one job from which is the only source they are
collecting from and yes he does make enough money to pay it although I
dont know how the court came to that amount. There is absolutely
nothing that states he makes that kind of money. I'm assuming that when
the hearing was called we weren't notified as we were moving around a
lot at the time.


Ah yes, the old decision by default trick!

They don't have to personally notify you that there is a hearing!
All that is required is they publish a notice in local paper and that
qualifies as you being served.
==
Well, not really. That's only if they have tried and failed to locate.
Notice must be sent to the last
known address.

They sure didn't send anything to our last known address. They just
issued a default decision, published in a paper we hadn't even read
when we did live there 2+ years before, and started collecting.

wrote in

They sure didn't send anything to our last known address. They just
issued a default decision, published in a paper we hadn't even read
when we did live there 2+ years before, and started collecting.

Civil Law is very specific about making sure subpoenas are served directly
to defendants.
If a defendant is absent on the day of court, evidence of proof of service
must be shown to get a default judgment.

I could have been reached any time in Canada where I was previously
contacted by the mother to have the child's middle name changed. Don't know
why they didn't notify me of the court date at the same address, maybe
family court doesn't have any jurisdiction in another country or something.

This is a pretty small world in terms of locating people thru computer
information, there is no excuse why fathers can't at least be properly
notified that they are being taken to court. it would at least help to avoid
these large arrearages!

DB wrote:

This is a pretty small world in terms of locating people thru computer
information, there is no excuse why fathers can't at least be properly
notified that they are being taken to court. it would at least help to avoid
these large arrearages!

I think you've hit the nail on the head about why the effort ISN'T made
to locate the fathers!

- Ron ^*^

Jaguar wrote:
Maybe I worded it wrong. What I mean is they are already garnishing his
wages for the cs order but it just seems so unfair. I wish their was a
way to stop it. This B*!%* is getting $381 a week and she doesn't even
have a job of her own. She's just sitting around on her ass collecting.
As a woman I am disgusted by the actions of single mothers who see a
child as a lottery ticket and a pawn. Even if I were a single mother my
PRIDE would stop me from collecting a dime! Mothers who are single
should go out and get their own career and stop this damn "victimized"
attitude!

I hear what you are saying! My husband pays child support to his ex.
She doesn't work. She and their 3-year old son live with her parents
who are very well off, but she uses every means possible to suck us dry
financially. She uneccessarily takes him from to doctor to doctor, she
refuses to use the medical insurance we provided for the child, she
enrolled him in a specialized private school costing almost $2600/month
- self-pay - and on top of all this, she will not let my husband see
his child - unless he pays for a specialized doctor to supervise,
costing nearly $100 per hour. Mind you, there was never a court order
stating visitations had to be supervised!

I WAS a single mom, of two children. I had to work full time to take
care of my children, and work a second job, and I have many friends who
still do it. What my husband's ex is doing angers me, but it has also
opened my eyes. I had no idea this stuff is so common. Some women are
single mothers by choice, some not, irregardless of the reason, they
need to take responsibility and grow up! The children should never be
used as a "lottery ticket" as you put it.

Jaguar wrote:
Maybe I worded it wrong. What I mean is they are already garnishing his
wages for the cs order but it just seems so unfair. I wish their was a
way to stop it. This B*!%* is getting $381 a week and she doesn't even
have a job of her own. She's just sitting around on her ass collecting.
As a woman I am disgusted by the actions of single mothers who see a
child as a lottery ticket and a pawn. Even if I were a single mother my
PRIDE would stop me from collecting a dime! Mothers who are single
should go out and get their own career and stop this damn "victimized"
attitude!



Hey Jaguar, if you like, I have an e-mail list where somebody told me
that being a stay at home parent was not a unilateral decision where
somebody didn't just park their ass on the couch (they called it the
hardest job ever). I guess standing in line at the check cashing place
is hard on people nowadays.

John Meyer wrote:
Jaguar wrote:
Maybe I worded it wrong. What I mean is they are already garnishing his
wages for the cs order but it just seems so unfair. I wish their was a
way to stop it. This B*!%* is getting $381 a week and she doesn't even
have a job of her own. She's just sitting around on her ass collecting.
As a woman I am disgusted by the actions of single mothers who see a
child as a lottery ticket and a pawn. Even if I were a single mother my
PRIDE would stop me from collecting a dime! Mothers who are single
should go out and get their own career and stop this damn "victimized"
attitude!



Hey Jaguar, if you like, I have an e-mail list where somebody told me
that being a stay at home parent was not a unilateral decision where
somebody didn't just park their ass on the couch (they called it the
hardest job ever). I guess standing in line at the check cashing place
is hard on people nowadays.


That would be awesome.
Thanks
Jag