Conference quark::mennotes

    From what I've read (in Notes, mostly in the Digital conference),
    "each week of the package" is viewed by the state as being the
    equivalent of continued employment to the end of the package (it is,
    after all, the same dollar amount as the packagee's salary would
    have been for those weeks). For example, as I understood it,
    unemployment benefits don't start until the package lapses. (Someone
    else may have more current or accurate information; this is the
    impression I've picked up from reading.)
    
    Assuming the above to be accurate, it doesn't sound to me that
    continuing child support payments (which in theory at least are for
    your boyfriend's *children*, not his ex) while he's still collecting
    the same weekly check as when he was employed, is that unreasonable.
    
    This obviously begs any questions about the legitimacy of the amount
    he's paying in general, or the relationship between child support
    and ex-support, etc. etc. etc. 

    When the package runs out....:) He can and should file for a reduction
    in child support due to a change in employment status. Based upon that
    concept. Sometimes, not always, you might avoid even in the PRM to pay
    big bucks for such. As your trying to coast till the next job. 
    
    Mean time.... welcome to the real world of child support and custody!
    
    

    From what I've seen and heard, if there is an order to garnish his 
    wages, then they will take out the required percentage from the 
    "package".  From there it depends on how the "support" order is
    worded.  If it specifies a certain percentage of his salary, then
    he is sort of stuck.  Most orders are based on so-much-per week/month.
    If it is a fixed amount, then you can consider the payments just a 
    pre-payment of the next so many weeks/months since they consider the
    "package" a pre-payment of salary.  Unless he owes some back support.
    In that case the "package" money will be applied to the back support
    and the meter will keep running.

    Also, as George said, as soon as the "package" time runs out or 
    immediatly if the "package" money is applied to back support, he should
    file for a reduction in support based on change of circumstance.  Make
    sure they ask that the reduction be based on the time of filing the
    papers not on the time of the court date since there can be a
    significant time between the two.

    fred();

    As I think of the amont of money here. $2500 ususally is for a month or
    two. Not a weekly amount less your beau makes real fine money here. 
    
    So, based upon that guess-ta-ment. You probably got a bite off on the
    first shot. And thats it till the money runs dry. Still if the beau 
    hasnt filed for a change in employment status. He is not playing with
    the full deck of cards. And to get the filing in asap is in his best.
    
    The sad part is... if you were married to him.... in PRM... they take
    both your salary's. Your are considered a source of income. Reguardless
    if you work or he works or the ex works or doesnt work.

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






    When my ex-husband was layed-off from Digital, he received a package
    equal to  32 weeks pay.  Althoug his wages were garnisheed, the company
    did not take a  lump sum of money to send it to me for CS.  What my ex
    did was that he  continued to pay Child support out of the package
    money for a total of 32 weeks, and then he stopped.  He then started
    collecting unemployment, but did not send  me child support - not a
    cent! - because supposedly he was collecting less than  what he was
    bringing home when he was employed - I didn't get 1 cent for 7 1/2 
    months until he started working again.
    
    I think that you boyfriend should continue to pay the *weekly* child
    support  for the number of weeks as his package - instead of a lump
    sum.  Even if he  finds a new job soon, he shouldn't double pay.  If by
    the end of those weeks he  is still unemployed and starts collecting
    unemployment, he could then ask for a  modification of CS if he thinks
    is necessary based on that he is collecting.
    
    Hope this helps!
    
    Now, I have a question - Does anyone knows if I have the right to
    collect from  my ex-husband for those 7 1/2 months he didn't pay me
    child support? we are  talking about $7,000. and this happened in 1992.
    
    Thanks

    
        re .5

>    Now, I have a question - Does anyone knows if I have the right to
>    collect from  my ex-husband for those 7 1/2 months he didn't pay me
>    child support? we are  talking about $7,000. and this happened in 1992.

    Yes, unless he got a modification from the court on the amount
    of support he is supposed to be paying.  You can't just arbitrarily
    change court orders.  In most states, when "child support" becomes
    due, it becomes a debt payable and collectible as any other debt.

    That's why I recommend that on top 10 list of things a man should
    know (particularly a divorced man) is how to file for a modification
    of "child support".  If he gets "packaged" then the last thing
    on which he wants to spend what little hard-earned money he has left
    (if he has any left) is $500-$1000 for a lawyer to file a modification 
    of "child support", but if he doesn't, then he will end up paying a 
    _lot_ more.

    After I got custody of my kids, the first thing I did was file for
    a modification of support.   The state if Minnesota tried to tell
    me I still owed them 2 months support because she had continued to
    collect AFDC for 2 months after she lost the kids.  The were shocked
    *bleep*less when I sent them the papers canceling the child support.
    Don't know if Minnesota ever got her for the two months she collected 
    when she wasn't entitled to it.

    fred();

    	Thanks for the help. I noticed when I reread my note that I
    forgot to tell you that we get to start collecting right away.  
    That is why I thought my boyfriend would be paying twice. I thought 
    they would automatically deduct it from his package, and then from
    his new job when he got one, or unemployment.  Which ever one came
    first.  How DO you go about getting a child support modification?
    AND what are the "top 10 things a man should know"?  (Just curious)
    	Getting back on track...  None of this money is for back CS,
    he is totally up-to-date, and never has been behind.  The payments
    are high for 1 child, and sometimes she claims she needs more
    so she can pay for her house.  We don't see her spending too much
    money on the child.  Most of the time my boyfriend will have to call
    her and tell her to get his haircut, buy new shoes, clothes, and
    so on.  And she asks for additional money for these things. (NO
    she doesn't get it).  The other indication that we have about her
    spending the money on herself and new husband, is when his son
    wants something (it was a hat last month); he has to save his $1.00
    a week allowance for it.  Now I'm all for learning responsibility
    with money, but I think a 9 or 10 week wait for a baseball hat is
    too long(summers over!) and I think a slight raise in allowance is
    needed.  It's really too bad you can't find out exactly where the
    money goes, or even set-up some kind of trust fund so you know 
    the child(ren) are getting their do.
    	I guess the best way to do things would be 1- save package
    money. 2- file for reduction .  That way maybe the payments will 
    go down some.  IF they don't take one lump some out of the package.
    We'll see.  Thanks again for being so helpful, we're alittle lost
    when it really comes down to knowing the system.
    
    
    			Debbs         
                         

        re .7

    >first.  How DO you go about getting a child support modification?

    That is probably different in every state.  If you can't have a 
    lawyer do it, go to the local library or college library and find
    the reference section and the law books for that state.  Look
    for the "family law" section on child support.  You usually have
    to file a "REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT", an "AFFIDAVIT"
    explaining why you want the modification, and other supporting
    documents such as a copy of any paperwork notifying him that he
    is being laid off, possibly a tax return form, and a set of the
    forms filling out the "formula" (in most states) that is used to
    figure the new level of child support.  If you are "pro se" (acting
    as your own lawyer), the Clerk of the court can tell you the
    "process" (what papers to file and if you have them all filed).
    Don't let them tell you that they can't.  They can't advise you on
    _law_ but they can tell you how to comply with filing all the papers,
    and what forms to use.

    Make sure the request is to have change back-dated to the time of
    filing the papers, or you may have to keep paying the same amount
    until it comes up in court (which can take a while).  You will 
    probably have to pay until then anyway but should get credit later.

>    AND what are the "top 10 things a man should know"?  (Just curious)

    That was a kind of a joke, but there was a note in the old MENNOTES-V1
    about "things every man should know".  I think you can still access
    it readonly.

>    she doesn't get it).  The other indication that we have about her
>    spending the money on herself and new husband, is when his son

    There have been several attempts to make the CP (custodial parent)
    account for the (so-called) "child support".  Every time the femi's
    start screaming "invasion of privacy" and it gets shot down.  
    However, the states seem to have no qualms about invading the NCP
    (non custodial parent) privacy to make sure all those "dead beats"
    pay up every dime they can squeeze out.

    fred();

    If the divorce decree specifies $25 per week than that is all he has to
    pay. If he wishes to give her $2500 as a lump sum, then he will not be
    due another payment for 100 weeks. Might be a good idea if he can
    afford to do that. No payments for almost 2 years seems appealing. The
    unfairness of the whole situation is the ex-wife's salary  and her
    present husband's salary (if remarried) never enters into what the
    court determines your husband should pay. What I would like to see is
    once a person remarries the child support stops. Figure the odds on
    that.

    Oh! Contrair! The ex wife and the new husbands income, increase....And
    they can request an increase in percentages from him! Aint america
    wounderful!

re 147.9
>                                             What I would like to see is
>   once a person remarries the child support stops. Figure the odds on
>   that.

Seems to me there might be two sides to this one.  If YOU were to marry
a woman who was a custodial parent, do you think she should stop
receiving support for the kids ??   In the usual scenario you would have
fallen in love with the woman, not the kids.   Under ideal circumstances
you would like the kids, and be willing to help, but do you want a
legal obligation to put them through college ??   If child support
were to stop if she got remarried, I bet a lot of people wouldn't get
married.

This also touches on the issue of head of household.  One guy I know
may end up as a custodial parent, hence be able to files as head of
household, and his so is also a custodial parent and files as head of
household.   Result, they may decide to live together without benefit
of matrimony until the children are gone, thus preserving the head of
household status for each.   That's good old American family values !

re 147.10:
>   Oh! Contrair! The ex wife and the new husbands income, increase....And
>   they can request an increase in percentages from him! Aint america
>   wounderful!

I spoke with a lawyer from Concord NH who suggested this may be true in
the great state of New Hampshire, but I don't believe it holds elsewhere.

        re .11

>re 147.10:
>>   Oh! Contrair! The ex wife and the new husbands income, increase....And
>>   they can request an increase in percentages from him! Aint america
>>   wounderful!
>
>I spoke with a lawyer from Concord NH who suggested this may be true in
>the great state of New Hampshire, but I don't believe it holds elsewhere.

    We've had considerable discussion about this in the
    QUOKKA::Non_custodial_parents file.  In all but a very few states
    (if any) the second husband/wife's income is _not_ figured into
    the "child support" order.  

    However, a couple of things that can affect the amount of "contribution" 
    1)Having another child (in Colorado anyway) will reduce the gross
    earnings amount by the amount of support the new child would get in the
    formula.  Works for either parent. 2) If she is "unemployed" and
    decides to just be a "homemaker" then the courts seem very sympathetic
    about letting her get away with not paying (personal experience).  That
    works if she is the CP or NCP.  Most states base the "contribution" on
    the percentage of income of both parents.  If hers goes to zero, his
    goes up.


    fred();

    re .5
    
    Your husband may have gotten more from the state than you know.
    
    I was a Senior SW Eng Mgr in 92, got the package in about August of
    92. (now back as a contractor/consultant)
    
    After 19 years at DEC I got 54 weeks.
    
    I went to the unemployment office and filed claiming that 11 weeks was
    severence and that 43 weeks was contingent on me agreeing not to sue
    Digital.  They looked at the lump I got from DEC, rolled back their
    eyes and said we don't interpret it that way, you can leave now and
    come back after you have been out of DEC for 54 weeks.
    
    In the spring of 93 I received a letter from DET saying that I might
    want to contact them.  I did.  I kept asking, "What is the story?
    Did something change?"  They had me fill out some papers.  Two days
    later retroactive checks from Nov to Apr arrived in the mailbox.
    I never did find out why.
                             

    This "really" isn't the right place for this, but I've been having a
    heck of a time getting into NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.
    
    Has anyone out there ever had any luck getting any money back from the
    Department of Revenue (Child support enforcement devision) when they've
    taken too much?????????????
    
    In my case, support didn't stop when it was supposed to and the DOR,
    being the sweet people they are, ignored me while they continued to
    take $100 dollars a week for 4 more months. So "they owe me" about 
    $1600 dollars. The child support has finally been officially terminated
    but no one wants to hear about the excess they took.
    
    Steve