State Collection of Child Support

[Gracie3787]

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.

Gatorguy,
Your situation is as bad as my husband's was, he too had several weeks where he had $0 paychecks because they took it all for CS. We solved that little problem by taking his employer a copy of the IDO that clearly states that they cannot deduct more than the amount allowed under the Consumer Protection Act, and a copy of the Consumer Credit Protection Act. At first they didn't want to listen, (he worked for the County) but when we finally got through to them that this was FEDERAL LAW and the County could be in big trouble, they finally started deducting only 55% percent of whatever amount he made each individual pay period.

Most NCP's don't know about the Consumer Credit Act, and one of the reasons that I post on this site is to help NCP's and CP's alike, because the courts and CSE sure as hell doesn't do anything to inform people of the laws and thier rights under those laws.

For a long time Florida was lax about enforcing support orders, but in the last 5 -8 yrs they have gone too far in the other direction, to the point that they have forced so many NCPs into homelessness that they are defeating the purpose of enforcement- to ACTUALLY collect money for THE KIDS. Maybe some day it will change.
Gracie

 

[gatorguy3]

re: state collection of child support

I can certainly understand the other side as there are guys who do not wish to have anything to do with their children following divorce but I would say that is a small percentage at best.

Many fathers see the road is too long and hard and they are forced to disappear because of the system. I am a firm believer the system creates Deadbeats. It is entirely a sad situation.

 

[howamidoing]

I can certainly understand the other side as there are guys who do not wish to have anything to do with their children following divorce but I would say that is a small percentage at best.

Many fathers see the road is too long and hard and they are forced to disappear because of the system. I am a firm believer the system creates Deadbeats. It is entirely a sad situation.

Actually, my oldest son's father simply says he doesn't want to be a father.. BUT, he pays his support faithfully....(so far). There are far more deadbeat dads than you think..yes I am going to get a lashing for this one....from my experience in the social services field, its typically guys between the ages of say as young as 15 to around mid twenties. That, I think is because they either were never taught how to be a father or simply dont have the maturity. It could also be because women (typically) in that age bracket dont know how to be a woman and be with one man. Yes I am in that age bracket....but I know who the father of my children is. This generation is lacking a lot in responsibility I must admit...so while I do agree that the system screws it up for the good ones it also has a lot to do with the kind of people they are. Yes there are fathers out there who are loving, caring fathers who struggle to make ends meet and be responsible. There are equally if not more loving, caring single mothers who struggle to make ends meet....Its a no win situation..... I can see it from both sides of the fence..Ok go ahead and let me have it yall!

 

[gatorguy3]

That, I think is because they either were never taught how to be a father or simply dont have the maturity. It could also be because women (typically) in that age bracket dont know how to be a woman and be with one man.

Then, do you think it can be at least "assumed" that not having a father in their lives is affecting how they are mothers and fathers? Yes, the age of a parent makes a huge difference but young boys need to learn to be a man from a man (their father) and young girls need to have a man's love (their father's) so they can know how to love and be loved.

 

[howamidoing]

Then, do you think it can be at least "assumed" that not having a father in their lives is affecting how they are mothers and fathers? Yes, the age of a parent makes a huge difference but young boys need to learn to be a man from a man (their father) and young girls need to have a man's love (their father's) so they can know how to love and be loved.

Oh of course, If you have no example to go by then you will have to learn on your own. If you have a bad example then you have to relearn what you have been taught.I agree that fathers...and mothers need to both raise their children equally and well, unfortunately this often doesnt happen.

 

[gatorguy3]

re: state collection of child support

The truth of the matter is that if the courts would work as hard to ensure a child has both their bioligical mother and biological father in the child's life as they do searching for the "deadbeat dads" of the world then children would grow up knowing right from wrong, and boys would know how to be men and little girls would know how to handle relationships to the fullest extent.

 

[linm]

the other side of the coin

Just for reference, over 300 members of the CPU would strongly disagree that Florida is tough on CS enforcement. They have a saying around DOR and it is roughly, "not deadBEAT, deadBROKE." The people that pay support are usually the "citizens," the stand up people like those that are posting here and they would have paid anyway. The ones that have no intention of paying, well, way too often, they flatly get away with it.

Our group spent two weeks before Thanksgiving rounding up donations and resources to save the home of a disabled CP with two children. They were about to be evicted because the NCP flat out doesn't pay. DOR won't even TRY to find NCP. When bugged by CP, DOR said CP had to provide current address and CP doesn't have resources to find. It's been only 18 mos since order was entered. No payments ever made. The home is a single wide mobile home, btw, just so no one freaks about "lexus payments" all CP's make with CS.

So, hats off to all of you "citizens" because you take those form letters seriously and more importantly, take the support of your children seriously. But please do not assume it's that way in all cases. The DOR opens over 250,000 cases per year. That's cases, not the number of children. According to Florida's own records, only around 26% of NCP's pay in full and on time. http://www.myflorida.com/dor/childsupport/works.html#income

So, my new friends, you are indeed rare, being the 1 out of 4.

Happy New Year All!

 

[gatorguy3]

Hmmmmmn, 26%.

I wonder in how many of those cases the CP is witholding visitation. Better yet, how many of those 74% might pay, even a little, if they were afforded more time with the children they helped create and raise?

You see, sometimes it is not about the money. Sometimes, it is about fairness, and I can assure you our lovely system is anything but fair. Our system doesn't think of "the best interest" of the child. They think only of the kickbacks and special interest moneys they will get in light of a certain situation. They take dad out of the equation. Then, you are left with a child. A desperate young child who grows up and decides to either commit to a life of crime or decides to enter into the military. Either way, wouldn't you say the government wins.

In a life of crime, the child gets drugged and diagnosed and all sort of other things.

In the military, the Government now has a soldier to go and die for some stupid ass cause.

Either way...the child loses and the Government wins.

 

[howamidoing]

Hmmmmmn, 26%.

I wonder in how many of those cases the CP is witholding visitation. Better yet, how many of those 74% might pay, even a little, if they were afforded more time with the children they helped create and raise?

You see, sometimes it is not about the money. Sometimes, it is about fairness, and I can assure you our lovely system is anything but fair. Our system doesn't think of "the best interest" of the child. They think only of the kickbacks and special interest moneys they will get in light of a certain situation. They take dad out of the equation. Then, you are left with a child. A desperate young child who grows up and decides to either commit to a life of crime or decides to enter into the military. Either way, wouldn't you say the government wins.

In a life of crime, the child gets drugged and diagnosed and all sort of other things.

In the military, the Government now has a soldier to go and die for some stupid ass cause.

Either way...the child loses and the Government wins.

Thats such a mature perspective to withold money, because mommy or daddy isnt playing fair. Go ahead tell your children,"Your only worth the money if I have the time to see you."I agree that BOTH parents should have a right to have equal time with their children, but you cannot make the child suffer for their parents actions. The parents couldnt get along and work it out so the child pays the price. Thats so nice isnt it? That child may not always grow up to be a criminal or a soldier, but they most likey will grow up to hate their parents!

 

[Gracie3787]

Just for reference, over 300 members of the CPU would strongly disagree that Florida is tough on CS enforcement. They have a saying around DOR and it is roughly, "not deadBEAT, deadBROKE." The people that pay support are usually the "citizens," the stand up people like those that are posting here and they would have paid anyway. The ones that have no intention of paying, well, way too often, they flatly get away with it.

Our group spent two weeks before Thanksgiving rounding up donations and resources to save the home of a disabled CP with two children. They were about to be evicted because the NCP flat out doesn't pay. DOR won't even TRY to find NCP. When bugged by CP, DOR said CP had to provide current address and CP doesn't have resources to find. It's been only 18 mos since order was entered. No payments ever made. The home is a single wide mobile home, btw, just so no one freaks about "lexus payments" all CP's make with CS.

So, hats off to all of you "citizens" because you take those form letters seriously and more importantly, take the support of your children seriously. But please do not assume it's that way in all cases. The DOR opens over 250,000 cases per year. That's cases, not the number of children. According to Florida's own records, only around 26% of NCP's pay in full and on time. http://www.myflorida.com/dor/childsupport/works.html#income

So, my new friends, you are indeed rare, being the 1 out of 4.

Happy New Year All!

Why do you think the people at DOR have that saying, "notDEADBEAT, deadBROKE??? It is because, unlike alot of CP's, they recognize the laws and the realities of trying to collect CS from a NCP who just doesn't have anything for DOR to take. To illustrate:
DOR can have a stack of 200 cases where the NCP has a job and enough income to attach, and at the same time have a stack of 500 cases where the NCP doesn't have a job, or cannot be located, and another stack of 300 cases where the NCP is unemployed, disabled or unable to pay and has proven so to the DOR by meeting with them and giving documentation.
Now, which of those stacks do you think that they are going to work the hardest on? The first stack, at the same time they are suspending DL's for the second stack, and the third stack? Well, they recognize the reality that they have to be able to PROVE the NCP DOES have the ABILITY to pay, but isn't.

As for the case of the disabled CP, IF there is an order to pay CS, maybe DOR isn't enforcing because they CAN'T, not because they don't have a current address. Once an order is established neither the DOR nor the CP has to have current address to ENFORCE. The ONLY time a current address is needed is when CP/DOR is going to ESTABLISH an order for support.

I have said this before, and I'll continue to say it- All CP's have the responsibility to do everything they can to assist DOR and make sure thier children recieve support. Too many of them just leave it all up to the CSE agency, which is wrong. A CP has many ways of at least trying to locate NCP: they can do an on-line search, using NCP's name and SS#. alot of sites give basic addresses at no cost.(if CP doesn't have a computer, almost all public libraries have them now).

Did you or your group know that any Cp, even ones who have IV-D cases, can at any time file a pro-se Motion for contempt/enforcement, mail it by certified mail to LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, set a hearing date, then take motion and notice of hearing to DOR- guess what- DOR HAS TO follow through and go to court on it.

All I am saying is that alot of times (even tho CP's swear it's not true) when the NCP simply cannot pay. And a CP should take some responsibility too, and please remember that leaving all up to DOR (a gov. agency) is akin to letting the gov. dictate what you eat and wear. Alot of CP's claim the NCP is working under table, etc. my advice is, don't just say it, find a way to prove it then take it to DOR.

 

[Gracie3787]

Hmmmmmn, 26%.

I wonder in how many of those cases the CP is witholding visitation. Better yet, how many of those 74% might pay, even a little, if they were afforded more time with the children they helped create and raise?

I disagree with your philosophy that the gov. wins. And other than being dead, or living off welfare while waiting for SS disability to begin. there is no excuse whatsoever for any NCP to make no payments at all.
Alot of NCP's would pay something (even if it isn't the court ordered amount) if they knew about the Consumer Credit protection Act. But the way the system is set up when a Judge orders an unfair (too high) amount the NCP sees that the whole paycheck is gone, so they quit thier job, and stop paying anything at all, which doesn't help anyone, NCP, CP or kids.

The system, AND CP's need to recognize that a NCP is a human being and deserves to be allowed to have the neccessities of life- shelter, food, a car to get to work, health care and medications. When the CP's and Judges ignore the needs of the NCP, quite often the NCP rebels, runs and doesn't pay at all anymore. Or worse- after my husband was jailed for non payment, he filed for a modification because oldest was 20 yrs old. From that point on he tried to do everything "the right way". When the Judges ordered 3/4 of his income to be paid for ongoing and arrears instead of quitting his job and running, my husband stayed, kept trying to get court to rehear case (to no avail) paid all that was ordered, plus his tax refunds. By doing that he went without his BP meds quite often because we didn't have enough money. (in his case, the ex earned thousands more than he did and was collecting CS from 3 fathers). The end result of my husband doing things "the right way" was that on the morning that a mod. hearing was to be held, he suffered a massive heart attack and needed emergency heart surgery. So as you can see, ignoring NCPs' rights can have dire cosequences for evryone. (sorry, mainly just venting).
Anyway, you are very wrong- a NCP has the responsibility to pay CS even when CP denies visits. The same thing goes for them- do something to enforce visitation order while paying.

I wish you the best with your situation.

 

[Rushia]

I disagree with your philosophy that the gov. wins. And other than being dead, or living off welfare while waiting for SS disability to begin. there is no excuse whatsoever for any NCP to make no payments at all.
Alot of NCP's would pay something (even if it isn't the court ordered amount) if they knew about the Consumer Credit protection Act. But the way the system is set up when a Judge orders an unfair (too high) amount the NCP sees that the whole paycheck is gone, so they quit thier job, and stop paying anything at all, which doesn't help anyone, NCP, CP or kids.

The system, AND CP's need to recognize that a NCP is a human being and deserves to be allowed to have the neccessities of life- shelter, food, a car to get to work, health care and medications. When the CP's and Judges ignore the needs of the NCP, quite often the NCP rebels, runs and doesn't pay at all anymore. Or worse- after my husband was jailed for non payment, he filed for a modification because oldest was 20 yrs old. From that point on he tried to do everything "the right way". When the Judges ordered 3/4 of his income to be paid for ongoing and arrears instead of quitting his job and running, my husband stayed, kept trying to get court to rehear case (to no avail) paid all that was ordered, plus his tax refunds. By doing that he went without his BP meds quite often because we didn't have enough money. (in his case, the ex earned thousands more than he did and was collecting CS from 3 fathers). The end result of my husband doing things "the right way" was that on the morning that a mod. hearing was to be held, he suffered a massive heart attack and needed emergency heart surgery. So as you can see, ignoring NCPs' rights can have dire cosequences for evryone. (sorry, mainly just venting).
Anyway, you are very wrong- a NCP has the responsibility to pay CS even when CP denies visits. The same thing goes for them- do something to enforce visitation order while paying.

I wish you the best with your situation.

That is exactly what happened with my X. He has an older daughter with another woman and she wants to "take him for everything she can". He quits his jobs, doesn't pay, doesn't see his daughter so he doesn't have to deal with mom, etc etc. Because of the animosity and his failure to pay he may end up with jail time in the next couple of weeks. When I divorced him, I said that I didn't want support cause I knew that I'd never see it. The courts said too bad and he was ordered to pay 50 a month. I wish he'd help somehow, but I know it's useless. I still send the kids to see him though. My kids'll remember that Mom was nice to Dad and that we all get along.

 

[LdiJ]

That is exactly what happened with my X. He has an older daughter with another woman and she wants to "take him for everything she can". He quits his jobs, doesn't pay, doesn't see his daughter so he doesn't have to deal with mom, etc etc. Because of the animosity and his failure to pay he may end up with jail time in the next couple of weeks. When I divorced him, I said that I didn't want support cause I knew that I'd never see it. The courts said too bad and he was ordered to pay 50 a month. I wish he'd help somehow, but I know it's useless. I still send the kids to see him though. My kids'll remember that Mom was nice to Dad and that we all get along.

Its great that you are able to support your children without any help from dad. Unfortunately that isn't always possible...nor is it actually fair. I also thinks its great that you and dad get along. I get along great with my ex too, its honestly like having another brother...LOL. However, again, that isn't always possible either....even if the CP really WANTS to "all get along".

 

[linm]

Hmmmmmn, 26%.

I wonder in how many of those cases the CP is witholding visitation. Better yet, how many of those 74% might pay, even a little, if they were afforded more time with the children they helped create and raise?

You see, sometimes it is not about the money. Sometimes, it is about fairness, and I can assure you our lovely system is anything but fair. Our system doesn't think of "the best interest" of the child. They think only of the kickbacks and special interest moneys they will get in light of a certain situation. They take dad out of the equation. Then, you are left with a child. A desperate young child who grows up and decides to either commit to a life of crime or decides to enter into the military. Either way, wouldn't you say the government wins.

In a life of crime, the child gets drugged and diagnosed and all sort of other things.

In the military, the Government now has a soldier to go and die for some stupid ass cause.

Either way...the child loses and the Government wins.

Look, gatorguy, I'm sorry if you got a raw deal. I was trying to let you know the grass isn't always as green on the other side as you may think it is. I can't really improve upon what howamidoin already said, so let me just add this:

If your ex withholds visitation, wouldn't a better idea be to enforce your rights, for the sake of your child, to ensure regular contact, rather than withhold support which in some instances equates FOOD, from your child?

 

[linm]

Why do you think the people at DOR have that saying, "notDEADBEAT, deadBROKE??? It is because, unlike alot of CP's, they recognize the laws and the realities of trying to collect CS from a NCP who just doesn't have anything for DOR to take. To illustrate:
DOR can have a stack of 200 cases where the NCP has a job and enough income to attach, and at the same time have a stack of 500 cases where the NCP doesn't have a job, or cannot be located, and another stack of 300 cases where the NCP is unemployed, disabled or unable to pay and has proven so to the DOR by meeting with them and giving documentation.
Now, which of those stacks do you think that they are going to work the hardest on? The first stack, at the same time they are suspending DL's for the second stack, and the third stack? Well, they recognize the reality that they have to be able to PROVE the NCP DOES have the ABILITY to pay, but isn't.

My Response:

So what you're saying is, if the NCP can't afford to pay, then they shouldn't have to pay, regardless of whether the CP can pick up the tab. And if the CP can't, then we'll relegate those children to the taxpayers collective pockets, rather than the NCP's. The quote from an admin at DOR was to illustrate their attitude in some cases, with which you seem to agree. Florida has guidelines which our legislature has determined to be fair, based on the incomes of both parties. Guideline should be it and BOTH parents have to adjust their lifestyles accordingly to make sure the needs of the children are met. IF the CP is not using the CS to provide for the needs of the child, then the NCP really has a duty to sue for custody to make sure the child's needs are met.

Gracie3787 wrote:

As for the case of the disabled CP, IF there is an order to pay CS, maybe DOR isn't enforcing because they CAN'T, not because they don't have a current address. Once an order is established neither the DOR nor the CP has to have current address to ENFORCE. The ONLY time a current address is needed is when CP/DOR is going to ESTABLISH an order for support.

My Response:

Please let me know your extension at the DOR because I bet you'll have 20 calls tomorrow from people I know who have been told differently by other DOR staff. See, they were told we can't collect what we can't find and can't collect from someone we can't find.

Gracie3787 wrote:

I have said this before, and I'll continue to say it- All CP's have the responsibility to do everything they can to assist DOR and make sure thier children recieve support. Too many of them just leave it all up to the CSE agency, which is wrong. A CP has many ways of at least trying to locate NCP: they can do an on-line search, using NCP's name and SS#. alot of sites give basic addresses at no cost.(if CP doesn't have a computer, almost all public libraries have them now).

My Response:

Please provide the site that will provide FREE address of someone that does not have a telephone in their name. Again, I know lots of people that would be very greatful.

Gracie3787 wrote:

Did you or your group know that any Cp, even ones who have IV-D cases, can at any time file a pro-se Motion for contempt/enforcement, mail it by certified mail to LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, set a hearing date, then take motion and notice of hearing to DOR- guess what- DOR HAS TO follow through and go to court on it.

My Response:

Did you know that DOR tells their clients if they take any such action they will drop the case? That they have to choose between DOR CSE and pro se? At least that's what they tell the people I know. And, um, exactly what good would that default order be, IF granted, when no one knows where NCP is?

Gracie3787 wrote:

All I am saying is that alot of times (even tho CP's swear it's not true) when the NCP simply cannot pay. And a CP should take some responsibility too, and please remember that leaving all up to DOR (a gov. agency) is akin to letting the gov. dictate what you eat and wear. Alot of CP's claim the NCP is working under table, etc. my advice is, don't just say it, find a way to prove it then take it to DOR.

My response:

All I'm saying is, ALL OF THE TIME, both parents have a moral and legal obligation to support their child. What would the NCP who can't afford to kick in for support do if the CP turned over the child because they couldn't feed it either? How would NCP feed the child if suddenly confronted with custody? Why is CP left with all of the responsibility? If the child lived with NCP, then NCP would have to do whatever was necessary to get the child's needs taken care of, like take a second job, reduce lifestyle, etc. I know more than 10 CP's working two and three jobs to put food on the table because NCP's won't pay.

And where do we draw the line on when they can afford to kick in? What is a "necessary and reasonable expense" and what is a "luxury" at the expense of the child? Oh, wait, I know where we draw the line---we have statutes that cover it very clearly so we don't have to go line by line like that; we have the guideline amounts and judges have the discretion to deviate +/- 5% depending on the circumstances.

And before we even go there, I have no problem with a CP that stays home with their child and gets their share of support provided by their spouse and just to be equal and fair, I have absolutely no problem with NCP's spouse kicking in their share of support either.

I absolutely know how tough it is to make those support payments but that's the choice we all made when we created a child. That the marriage doesn't work out doesn't lessen either parent's duty to their child. Both necessarily kicked in while together and both legally and morally must continue to provide for their child in whatever ways they can.

And besides, remember that Hallmark quality sentiment you posted in another thread:

"...CS ends. Then ALL his money can be for the two of you."