What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? DE
My nephew's ex has been obligated to pay support since May 2010. At the time the Order was issued, ex worked as a part-time waitress with most of her income coming from tips. The Judge found that she was voluntarily underemployed and told her to find suitable employment. Wage attachments from the waitress job have paid only 36% of her obligation and arrears have been mounting. Three months ago ex got another job. DCSE began attaching wages from this new job which by itself provided 100% of the support order. Ex continued to work the waitress job. We asked DCSE to terminate the wage attachment from the waitress job but they said only the obligor can do that. For three months DCSE has been attaching wages from both jobs providing 136% of the support order. Overall, ex is still $3600 in arrears.
Ex's lawyer just filed a Motion asking the Court to terminate the wage attachment from the "100% job" calling it her secondary part-time job. Motion says that only her primary job (waitress) should have wage attachment because it provides "substantially all of the support obligation" and the balance can be paid directly by obligor. I don't know the legal definition of substantial, but I don't think 36% is substantial.
I can not find the definitions of primary and secondary employment in the Del code. However, how can anyone conclude that a job that provides 36% of the support obligation is primary and a job that pays 100% of the support obligation is secondary?
DCSE says that they will not terminate the wage attachment from the 100% job without a Court order and do not understand why ex's lawyer would file this motion. From their perspective, it is self-evident that the job which provides 100% of the obligation is primary and the job that provides 36% is secondary.
Ex's motion seems to be totally without merit. Are we missing something? Thanks.
My nephew's ex has been obligated to pay support since May 2010. At the time the Order was issued, ex worked as a part-time waitress with most of her income coming from tips. The Judge found that she was voluntarily underemployed and told her to find suitable employment. Wage attachments from the waitress job have paid only 36% of her obligation and arrears have been mounting. Three months ago ex got another job. DCSE began attaching wages from this new job which by itself provided 100% of the support order. Ex continued to work the waitress job. We asked DCSE to terminate the wage attachment from the waitress job but they said only the obligor can do that. For three months DCSE has been attaching wages from both jobs providing 136% of the support order. Overall, ex is still $3600 in arrears.
Ex's lawyer just filed a Motion asking the Court to terminate the wage attachment from the "100% job" calling it her secondary part-time job. Motion says that only her primary job (waitress) should have wage attachment because it provides "substantially all of the support obligation" and the balance can be paid directly by obligor. I don't know the legal definition of substantial, but I don't think 36% is substantial.
I can not find the definitions of primary and secondary employment in the Del code. However, how can anyone conclude that a job that provides 36% of the support obligation is primary and a job that pays 100% of the support obligation is secondary?
DCSE says that they will not terminate the wage attachment from the 100% job without a Court order and do not understand why ex's lawyer would file this motion. From their perspective, it is self-evident that the job which provides 100% of the obligation is primary and the job that provides 36% is secondary.
Ex's motion seems to be totally without merit. Are we missing something? Thanks.