Wage withholding order

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WY

I am receiving conflicting information from several different sources in regards to the wage withholding order in my child support order.

State statute 20-6-204. Entry of income withholding order.



(a) Upon entry or modification of any support order, the court shall also enter an income withholding order which shall take effect immediately, unless the parties agree otherwise, or unless one (1) of the parties demonstrates, and the court finds, that there is good cause not to require immediate income withholding. When the parties agree to an alternative arrangement, the arrangement shall be in writing, signed by the parties and reviewed and entered in the record by the court. The court shall include in the record its findings of good cause, including a statement explaining why implementation of immediate income withholding would not be in the best interests of the child and, in cases involving modification of child support, proof of timely payments.

Wyoming Rules and Regulations 6757 states:

Section 3.
CSED upon entry or modification of any support order shall request the court to issue an immediate income withholding order

My question involves the identification of the term "parties". Does this term include myself and my ex or does this mean the department of family services, child support enforcement and my ex?
It is stated that the wage witholding order may be suspended if the parties agree in writing. I haven't agreed to this. Am I missing something here?

 

[Zephyr]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WY

I am receiving conflicting information from several different sources in regards to the wage withholding order in my child support order.

State statute 20-6-204. Entry of income withholding order.



(a) Upon entry or modification of any support order, the court shall also enter an income withholding order which shall take effect immediately, unless the parties agree otherwise, or unless one (1) of the parties demonstrates, and the court finds, that there is good cause not to require immediate income withholding. When the parties agree to an alternative arrangement, the arrangement shall be in writing, signed by the parties and reviewed and entered in the record by the court. The court shall include in the record its findings of good cause, including a statement explaining why implementation of immediate income withholding would not be in the best interests of the child and, in cases involving modification of child support, proof of timely payments.

Wyoming Rules and Regulations 6757 states:

Section 3.
CSED upon entry or modification of any support order shall request the court to issue an immediate income withholding order

My question involves the identification of the term "parties". Does this term include myself and my ex or does this mean the department of family services, child support enforcement and my ex?
It is stated that the wage witholding order may be suspended if the parties agree in writing. I haven't agreed to this. Am I missing something here?

That is only the wage withholding order the cs order remains in effect. The parties generally mean mom and dad, usually when one of the parents is on aid of some sort it no longer becomes and option to have wage withholding. One of the good cause reasons is someone being self employed- there is no "employer/payroll dept" to withhold wages.

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

That is only the wage withholding order the cs order remains in effect. The parties generally mean mom and dad, usually when one of the parents is on aid of some sort it no longer becomes and option to have wage withholding. One of the good cause reasons is someone being self employed- there is no "employer/payroll dept" to withhold wages.

Being that my case is an interstate issue, DFS and CSE were the initiating entity of the original court order for child support. The wage withholding order was entered within that court order, but the CSE case worker assigned said that they like to give the NCP the "opportunity to do the right thing". In this case, he continues to fall further behind and still they do nothing to uphold their own order.

What would be the proper way (considering there are two states and two agencies involved at this point) to push the wage withholding order? I have written a letter to the court, as detailed within the court order of my employment status and health insurance, in this letter I requested that considering the increase in not only daycare but in health insurance premiums, that there be a review of my case even though it has not been three years. I have not heard back from the court, though I suppose I did not expect to. I did hear back from the CSE, I was told that they would not review until the case was three years old. That is another two years from now.


Thanks Zephyr

 

[Zephyr]

I found this: If your income or the custodial parent’s income changes radically, your case may qualify for an adjustment in the monthly support obligation. Under Wyoming’s presumptive child support guidelines, either parent may request a review of your case for adjustment when you believe your circumstances may cause your obligation to increase or decrease by 20 percent of the monthly obligation.

here: CHILD SUPPORT

but it is from several years ago, I don't think you can trigger a review just by writing to the court, you would need to submit the appropriate motion. If ncp has not been paying, then a motion for contempt might be in order.

 

[Zephyr]

day care and health insurance both changed that drastically in the last 12 months?

 

[Artemis_ofthe_Hunt]

day care and health insurance both changed that drastically in the last 12 months?

When I 'applied' for CS, I was not working, therefore I was not paying daycare or health insurance. He was under a year old and was covered by Wyoming CHIPs and then MN. I was imputed an income, approximately the same amount I was making previous to the birth of my son. However, there were no expenses to report. So, I am now making approx. 1/3 more than my imputed income and also paying $240 a month to health and dental insurance and $600 a month to daycare for the full time position. So, yes, in a nutshell... it has changed that drastically.
I attempted to push the '20% difference' clause and was knocked down by the initiating state saying that I would have to make approx 1/3 more than I am now before that would occur.