-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
State Collection of Child Support
- Thread starter Rescuer
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
It all depends
What the state can do and what the state will do doesn't always match. Florida Statute 856.04 describes abandonment of one's children without paying support as a felony of the third degree which is punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5000. Florida Statute 827.06, (under child abuse statutes), requires mandatory sentencing for even a misdemeanor first offense conviction and a fourth nonsupport conviction or owing at least $5000 for at least one year is again, a third degree felony.
See Chapter 61 for general provisions and collection info:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...htm&StatuteYear=2004&Title=->2004->Chapter 61
and F.S. 827.06:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...27/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0827->Section 06
While these statutes CAN be enforced, it is not common to see someone jailed under either.
What is much more common is an income deduction order, or IDO, which is almost automatically served to the payor's employer to require deduction of support from the payor's earnings. If this doesn't work, there are many other remedies including suspension of driving or professional licenses or certificates, and motor vehicle registrations; federal income tax refunds may be intercepted; property can be seized; etc.
In general, up to 55% of pay can be withheld to provide ongoing support and cure arrearages. However, it is possible that 100% will be awarded under unusual circumstances.
"Where a former husband has an ability to earn if he so desires, the trial
judge should impute an income to him according to what he could earn
by the use of his best efforts to gain employment equal to his
capabilities, and on that basis enter an award of alimony as if the
husband were in fact earning the income so imputed. In such a situation,
an award of alimony entirely exhausting the husband's actual income may
be a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion. Maddux v. Maddux,
495 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Avery v. Avery, 548 So. 2d
865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Id. at 716. See also Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d
177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)." Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2001)
You don't mention whether you're trying to collect or someone is trying to collect from you. If it's the latter, start paying now, before you get to court, and keep all receipts to show payment because you will end up having to pay, depending on the circumstances, from the date of the petition; from the date of separation; or even from the date of birth, in a paternity case. You're not only going to look a lot better in court if you voluntarily pay up front, but it's just plain and simple the right thing to do. Your child needs to eat prior to the entry of an order too. If you're trying to collect, file as soon as you can. Either way, contact an attorney and make sure both sides get a fair deal. It's for the child, right?
The Florida Bar Referral Service will find a local attorney for you and the first 1/2 hour consulation is only $25 if referred by the bar.
http://www.flabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum...EC2322E512B83D1E85256B2F006CC812?OpenDocument
Good luck to you and your family.
What the state can do and what the state will do doesn't always match. Florida Statute 856.04 describes abandonment of one's children without paying support as a felony of the third degree which is punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5000. Florida Statute 827.06, (under child abuse statutes), requires mandatory sentencing for even a misdemeanor first offense conviction and a fourth nonsupport conviction or owing at least $5000 for at least one year is again, a third degree felony.
See Chapter 61 for general provisions and collection info:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...htm&StatuteYear=2004&Title=->2004->Chapter 61
and F.S. 827.06:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...27/SEC06.HTM&Title=->2003->Ch0827->Section 06
While these statutes CAN be enforced, it is not common to see someone jailed under either.
What is much more common is an income deduction order, or IDO, which is almost automatically served to the payor's employer to require deduction of support from the payor's earnings. If this doesn't work, there are many other remedies including suspension of driving or professional licenses or certificates, and motor vehicle registrations; federal income tax refunds may be intercepted; property can be seized; etc.
In general, up to 55% of pay can be withheld to provide ongoing support and cure arrearages. However, it is possible that 100% will be awarded under unusual circumstances.
"Where a former husband has an ability to earn if he so desires, the trial
judge should impute an income to him according to what he could earn
by the use of his best efforts to gain employment equal to his
capabilities, and on that basis enter an award of alimony as if the
husband were in fact earning the income so imputed. In such a situation,
an award of alimony entirely exhausting the husband's actual income may
be a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion. Maddux v. Maddux,
495 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). See also Avery v. Avery, 548 So. 2d
865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Id. at 716. See also Kovar v. Kovar, 648 So. 2d
177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)." Bronson v. Bronson, 793 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2001)
You don't mention whether you're trying to collect or someone is trying to collect from you. If it's the latter, start paying now, before you get to court, and keep all receipts to show payment because you will end up having to pay, depending on the circumstances, from the date of the petition; from the date of separation; or even from the date of birth, in a paternity case. You're not only going to look a lot better in court if you voluntarily pay up front, but it's just plain and simple the right thing to do. Your child needs to eat prior to the entry of an order too. If you're trying to collect, file as soon as you can. Either way, contact an attorney and make sure both sides get a fair deal. It's for the child, right?
The Florida Bar Referral Service will find a local attorney for you and the first 1/2 hour consulation is only $25 if referred by the bar.
http://www.flabar.org/tfb/TFBConsum...EC2322E512B83D1E85256B2F006CC812?OpenDocument
Good luck to you and your family.
before you even start...
Before someone jumps on me for the quote referring to alimony rather than child support, please read the cases cited; the overall schemes include child support. I just had that particular case handy and it backed up what I was saying, in general.
Maddux v. Maddux, 495 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) -- Child Support and Alimony amounting to 108% of income upheld
Saporta v. Saporta, 766 So.2d 379 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000) -- Voluntarily remains without adequate remuneration. No credible reason for maintaining a business that operates at severe losses. "A claim that a payor spouse has arranged his financial affairs or employment situation so as to short change the payee spouse is a valid matter to be explored in determining the payor's real ability to pay."
Hayden v. Hayden, 662 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) -- Caused own termination; income imputed.
Before someone jumps on me for the quote referring to alimony rather than child support, please read the cases cited; the overall schemes include child support. I just had that particular case handy and it backed up what I was saying, in general.
Maddux v. Maddux, 495 So.2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) -- Child Support and Alimony amounting to 108% of income upheld
Saporta v. Saporta, 766 So.2d 379 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000) -- Voluntarily remains without adequate remuneration. No credible reason for maintaining a business that operates at severe losses. "A claim that a payor spouse has arranged his financial affairs or employment situation so as to short change the payee spouse is a valid matter to be explored in determining the payor's real ability to pay."
Hayden v. Hayden, 662 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) -- Caused own termination; income imputed.
Gracie3787
Senior Member
linm,
While you are correct on some things, you are incorrect on others and may be either giving OP false hopes (if trying to collect) or Scaring them into just running (if supposed to pay).
You stated GENERALLY up to 55% can be garnished from wages. The consumer credit protection act sets the MAXIMUM at 55% or 65%(without second family). That is FEDERAL law which supercedes state laws.
You told OP that a court can order more than 100% of earnings for CS and cited cases.
However, the cases you cited are EXTREMELY RARE and were EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.
ALL statutes and MOST case law shows that the ABILITY TO PAY is paramount when deciding CS awards. (I can't cite any right off hand because alot of my prior legal notes from research were destroyed by hurricanes.)
The bottom line is that a court can ORDER anything it wishes, but FEDERAL LAW says that no more than 65% can be LEGALLY GARNISHED.
To OP,
I agree with linm that if you are supposed to be paying, do it now. If you are collecting, go to DOR and DEMAND that they enforce order (thier normal 1st step is to send letter to obligor with notice of suspending DL in 30 days if arrangements to pay aren't made).
I almost forgot to add that you can take a copy of the order and IDO to the obligor's employer for them to begin garnishment.
While you are correct on some things, you are incorrect on others and may be either giving OP false hopes (if trying to collect) or Scaring them into just running (if supposed to pay).
You stated GENERALLY up to 55% can be garnished from wages. The consumer credit protection act sets the MAXIMUM at 55% or 65%(without second family). That is FEDERAL law which supercedes state laws.
You told OP that a court can order more than 100% of earnings for CS and cited cases.
However, the cases you cited are EXTREMELY RARE and were EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES.
ALL statutes and MOST case law shows that the ABILITY TO PAY is paramount when deciding CS awards. (I can't cite any right off hand because alot of my prior legal notes from research were destroyed by hurricanes.)
The bottom line is that a court can ORDER anything it wishes, but FEDERAL LAW says that no more than 65% can be LEGALLY GARNISHED.
To OP,
I agree with linm that if you are supposed to be paying, do it now. If you are collecting, go to DOR and DEMAND that they enforce order (thier normal 1st step is to send letter to obligor with notice of suspending DL in 30 days if arrangements to pay aren't made).
I almost forgot to add that you can take a copy of the order and IDO to the obligor's employer for them to begin garnishment.
Last edited:
To Gracie
Sorry that my response offended you and also sorry to OP if my response misled you in any way. I did note that it would be unusual circumstances and went on to add the case note to show what that unusual circumstance might be, like if the payor spouse so arranged their financial circumstances as to shortchange...real ability to pay... but you already read that part. So I'll stand corrected that I probably should have described it as "rare cases" instead of "unusual circumstances."
However, honestly, other than using all caps to emphasize, I don't see enough difference between saying "up to 55%" or "maximum 55%" to get all worked up about.
PS
Within the last year, I was a party to a case with just such circumstances and although not more than 55% was ordered in the IDO, assets were ordered to be sequestered and used to pay support in full. In two other cases in my county within the last year in which I was helping out, assets were ordered seized and sold but in both cases, the payor spouse managed to come up with the cash rather than lose the assets. So, while it is indeed rare, comparatively speaking, it is not unheard of, at least in my county, for the court to collect more than 100% of income if the circumstances warrant it, such as in these egregious cases. OP was asking about collection in general, not just about garnishment, so I wanted to clarify this point for OP.
Sorry that my response offended you and also sorry to OP if my response misled you in any way. I did note that it would be unusual circumstances and went on to add the case note to show what that unusual circumstance might be, like if the payor spouse so arranged their financial circumstances as to shortchange...real ability to pay... but you already read that part. So I'll stand corrected that I probably should have described it as "rare cases" instead of "unusual circumstances."
However, honestly, other than using all caps to emphasize, I don't see enough difference between saying "up to 55%" or "maximum 55%" to get all worked up about.
PS
Within the last year, I was a party to a case with just such circumstances and although not more than 55% was ordered in the IDO, assets were ordered to be sequestered and used to pay support in full. In two other cases in my county within the last year in which I was helping out, assets were ordered seized and sold but in both cases, the payor spouse managed to come up with the cash rather than lose the assets. So, while it is indeed rare, comparatively speaking, it is not unheard of, at least in my county, for the court to collect more than 100% of income if the circumstances warrant it, such as in these egregious cases. OP was asking about collection in general, not just about garnishment, so I wanted to clarify this point for OP.
Last edited:
Gracie3787
Senior Member
linm said:
Apparently you are confusing assets with wages.
Assets are not wages. No matter what other actions a court or DOR takes, the fact is that no more than 65% of wages can begarnished .
OP asked how much can be garnished and the correct answer is the above.
Op also asked what enforcement action can the state take, and you are correct, Assets can be "sequestered" or seized, or have liens placed on them.
It isn't unheard of, but usually other enforcement actions work faster and better. (Suspend DL, contempt, jail).
I don't know what Judicial circuit you are in, but I do know that the 9th and 10th circuits, while a lttle slow, are very good about taking enforcement actions. Non payors lose thier DL real fast and a whole lot go to jail until they pay purges.
No, you didn't offend me, nor did I get worked up.There is very little info available to people about family law, and personally I believe the info/advice given should be as accurate as possible.
Gracie3787 said:Apparently you are confusing assets with wages.
Assets are not wages. No matter what other actions a court or DOR takes, the fact is that no more than 65% of wages can begarnished .
OP asked how much can be garnished and the correct answer is the above.
Op also asked what enforcement action can the state take, and you are correct, Assets can be "sequestered" or seized, or have liens placed on them.
It isn't unheard of, but usually other enforcement actions work faster and better. (Suspend DL, contempt, jail).
I don't know what Judicial circuit you are in, but I do know that the 9th and 10th circuits, while a lttle slow, are very good about taking enforcement actions. Non payors lose thier DL real fast and a whole lot go to jail until they pay purges.
No, you didn't offend me, nor did I get worked up.There is very little info available to people about family law, and personally I believe the info/advice given should be as accurate as possible.
Clearly, on the face of it, citing a case wherein 108% was upheld should not be misconstrued to assert 108% of wages were withheld as that is, quite simply, impossible. I have not disputed and clarified that up to 55% can be withheld or "garnished," if you prefer. I also explained to OP and clarified for your benefit, there are other collection methods which may amount to more than 100% of one's income being used to provide support, such as with sequestration or seizure. I even used the word "rare" just to please you. So let me restate that, since we're playing semantics here: There are other collection methods which in addition to up to 55% of paycheck may add up to the equivalent of over 100% of a month's earnings. Is that accurate enough for you?
So far, while you continue to claim I am giving bad information, the best you have come up with are semantics and capital letters. I am not confusing assets with income and if you carefully read my initial response, I did not claim that 100% could be withheld, just ordered. Ok? I have not yet made any statement from which I meant for anyone to infer that 100% or impossibly even more of one's paycheck may be withheld to provide support, yet you continue to either state or imply that is my meaning and/or that I do not know the difference between assets and income.
So please, if you really feel the need to "correct" me again, find something about which I was wrong before flatly stating that I was wrong. And you know what? Even if you do, I'm not going to respond cos I really do have better things to do than play semantics. I came here looking for help with 11 USC and felt since I was looking for help, I should try to give some. Members helping members. If in so doing, I have somehow rocked your world with different opinions and ideas, I do sincerely not apologize. Oops, wait, not so different cos we're basically playing semantics while you restate what I wrote and at the same time claim I was wrong. Just cos I'm a newbie doesn't mean I'm the village idiot and I really don't appreciate the implication. Not a nice way to greet new guests, Gracie.
OP, to you, I do apologize for tying up your thread with this nonsense. Best of luck to you and yours.
To Rescuer
Your bf is doing the right thing. I know it can be tough at times, but maybe he can get the arrearage payment set at a reasonable amount and be able to keep up from now on. Please check out BethM's posting in this thread and pass it on to your bf:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=807045#post807045
Best of luck to you and your family.
Your bf is doing the right thing. I know it can be tough at times, but maybe he can get the arrearage payment set at a reasonable amount and be able to keep up from now on. Please check out BethM's posting in this thread and pass it on to your bf:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=807045#post807045
Best of luck to you and your family.
Gracie3787
Senior Member
Rescuer said:
Your BF should go to the DOR CSE office and talk to them before they take any action. He can take his last several months paystubs and (if needed)any medical papers with him.
They will talk with him and if he has a legitimate reason for not being able to pay the full amount, they will work with him on getting it caught up. Most of the CSE workers will be very helpful when dealing with a NCP who is really trying to pay.
I hope that you BF has been paying something toward support, even if it is less than the ordered amount. That will help a whole lot.
Good luck to you.
re: state collection of child support
I live in florida and this is my situation:
Because my ex filed for Welfare upon leaving me, even though we were still married, six months to the date she left there was a hearing to initiate child support.
Without getting too deeply into my situation, following my wife's departure my performance at work declined heavily. Because I was in sales, my higher ups continued threatening to demote me. Because I was concerned for the well-being of my son, I stepped down to keep from being demoted. After stepping down, after all was deducted from my pay (before CS was determined) I was clearing $400 a month. Previous to voluntarily stepping down I made $40k plus a year.
During the hearing for CS the (General Master) set the support based on the $40k plus. I told him of the situation and about the wife disappearing with my son and harboring a convicted felon but they would not hear it. When he told me my support amount would be $500 plus and an arrears of about $2k I explained I was only clearing $400 a month and that was with my sleeping on a couch at a friend's and didn't give consideration to auto insurance, food, or otherwise. That was just my pay after taxes and all were taken out.
He said "tough" and "the step down was voluntary" so the amount would be $500 plus. I replied that I would be seeing him again really soon because it wasn't going to happen. I said you cannot get $500 plus out of $400 a month.
The arrears was issued based on the 6 months of separation before the hearing.
Florida has to be one of the toughest states on CS issues.
I live in florida and this is my situation:
Because my ex filed for Welfare upon leaving me, even though we were still married, six months to the date she left there was a hearing to initiate child support.
Without getting too deeply into my situation, following my wife's departure my performance at work declined heavily. Because I was in sales, my higher ups continued threatening to demote me. Because I was concerned for the well-being of my son, I stepped down to keep from being demoted. After stepping down, after all was deducted from my pay (before CS was determined) I was clearing $400 a month. Previous to voluntarily stepping down I made $40k plus a year.
During the hearing for CS the (General Master) set the support based on the $40k plus. I told him of the situation and about the wife disappearing with my son and harboring a convicted felon but they would not hear it. When he told me my support amount would be $500 plus and an arrears of about $2k I explained I was only clearing $400 a month and that was with my sleeping on a couch at a friend's and didn't give consideration to auto insurance, food, or otherwise. That was just my pay after taxes and all were taken out.
He said "tough" and "the step down was voluntary" so the amount would be $500 plus. I replied that I would be seeing him again really soon because it wasn't going to happen. I said you cannot get $500 plus out of $400 a month.
The arrears was issued based on the 6 months of separation before the hearing.
Florida has to be one of the toughest states on CS issues.
re: state collection of child support
Moreover,
When because I didn't volutarily pay, they began garnishing my wages at work. In 12 months, I took home voided stubs all but 2 separate 2 week periods when I took hom less than $90 each period. So, in a year, I took home about $180.
I have proof of all of it but, my attorney has explained to them as well. They do not care. All they want to know is that if you have $5 that you will send it to your ex. It doesn't matter what she spends that $5 on either.
Moreover,
When because I didn't volutarily pay, they began garnishing my wages at work. In 12 months, I took home voided stubs all but 2 separate 2 week periods when I took hom less than $90 each period. So, in a year, I took home about $180.
I have proof of all of it but, my attorney has explained to them as well. They do not care. All they want to know is that if you have $5 that you will send it to your ex. It doesn't matter what she spends that $5 on either.
howamidoing
Member
they take 50% of my husbands and he has a second family...thats missouri for ya.Gracie3787 said:
howamidoing
Member
Try living in Missouri, my husband makes 850 a month and pays 500 in support plus insurance for his daughter. He works to pay child support I work to take care of our family. We have two children and he gets no credit for that at all. The Child support worker.....on the record said it was their job to make him pay out his ears and get in arrears..She stated it was her job to screw him over....The big kicker is we have the child most of the time. When asking child support about that they say as long as the mom has the daughter one more day per month than we do we cant do a thing about it.Child support is so unfair to the men. My ex pays for my son and doesnt even see him, I cut him a brake for the sake of his other child. They took his license away for being 2000 behind. Thats the dumbest thing, how do they expect you to get to work and pay that child support without a licensegatorguy3 said:
...Stupidity...re: state collection of child support
I agree. My license is suspended also and has been since August.
I applied for a job paying $30k a year plus, before I knew of my license being suspended. Needless to say, I was denied employment souley because of my license. They already had me hired but the job required driving regularly.
I agree. My license is suspended also and has been since August.
I applied for a job paying $30k a year plus, before I knew of my license being suspended. Needless to say, I was denied employment souley because of my license. They already had me hired but the job required driving regularly.