--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Bob W" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
OK boys and girls, here's today's question..

What is the law that allows states to garnish wages or otherwise
snatch-up your cash and make life hell for you? (OK, this isn't
the real question, but I gotta start somewhere..)

Any one?
Any one?

OK, it's 42 USC section 666 (a very aptly numbered statute I must
admit). It's part of the Social Security updates that came out a
few years back. Now for the real question..

What's the implementing regulation? You know, the law that gives
42 it's teeth.

Here's a hint.. you won't find it in 42USC. Hell, it's not even
in the USC-book! (ha!)

I am unsure why you are asking this question. Are you seeking the
answer or just trying to figure out if anyone else knows what you
already know?

42 USC 666(b)(3)(A) authorizes withholding of CS from wages,
unemployment compensation, and workers compensation.

45 CFR 303.100(b) authorizes immediate withholding and the
procedures to be followed.

15 USC 1673(b) sets the withholding limits consistent with the
Consumer Credit Protection Act.

Quite true, Bob. But none of the answers above is the one that adds
the "teeth" to 42, 666. Unfortunately, the courts only use the
first of 4 sections of this regulation and ignore the rest. Which
is unfortunate for NCP's because there's a major leash attached to
42, 666... Title 5 CFR, section 581.

The section every state loves to jump on is 581.103. 103 says what
monies can be used to get an NCP's cash from. The list is fairly
extensive, too. Here's the leash to 42, 666 - 5CFR sections 581.104
and 105! They have got to be the single most ignored sections of
law ever seen. Here's why - 104 covers money NOT subject to
garnishment and 105 covers money that is EXCLUDED from garnishment.

So, in effect, if your state says it uses something called "gross
income", guess what? No, they can't.

Unfortunately, there is a catch to it though.. you must be an
employee of the Federal government, or in the military.

Check it out: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

5 C.F.R. PART 581-PROCESSING GARNISHMENT ORDERS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
AND/OR ALIMONY

I must be missing your point. As I read it 5 CFR 581 includes the
federal government's procedures for handling garnishment orders
received which apply to federal civil servants. I don't understand
where the states would have any reason to use the federal
government's internal personnel procedures. If anything, 5 CFR 581
basically outlines how federal civil service employees will be
subjected to state court garnishments.

Sort of.. Yes, it applies to federal employees, it also binds the
states by spelling out what they can and cannot do to garnish wages of
the employee.

For example: Say you are an E3 in the military. Your monthly pay is,
before taxes, insurance and the like, all of, say: $1800. Your court
order says you need to pay $1200 in C$ taken from gross income. 5CFR
581 says no, you must deduct state and federal tax, SS/Medicare, fines
& forfeitures, SGLI (insurance) and one or two other things -before-
the garnishment can happen.

The E3 in question also gets BAS (food $), another $260 and BAH
(housing allowance) (if overseas it would be COLA or OHA). 5CFR 581
says that these are things that must be removed and are to be
disregarded from the service member's pay. What the court is left to
work with is Base Pay (minus deductions) and not a whole lot else.

What is important to recognize is states can use either gross income or
net income to establish CS guidelines and the resultant CS orders.
Personally, I object that the majority of states use gross incomes to
establish CS orders because that implies income tax "assumptions" are
used to reach a net CS amount. The guidelines are supposedly based on
adjustments to take into consideration both parent's federal and state
income tax liabilities. I challenge anyone to explain how each
parent's income tax situation can be determined before a CS guideline
is established. The guidelines assume both parents have identical tax
positions (or eaqualized tax positions) which is BS.

Mothers who are CP's have head of household filing status, dependent
exemptions, various tax credits and other court awarded tax deductions.
Fathers have single filing status, rarely any dependent exemptions, no
dependent related tax credits, and none of the tax deductions the
mother gets. When PSI claims they take all that into consideration
when setting CS guidelines it is bogus.


Then there's the thing about 15USC 1673, which says the states can
only take 50% (+5% for arrears) if you have a second family to support
or up to 60% (+5% for arrears) if you do not have a second family to
support.

In the end, you have cause to file for a modification of C$ due to a
change of circumstances - especially if it was set when the person was
a civilian when the amount was set. And you're left with a little bit
more to live on then your civilian counterpart would be in the same
situation.

I only wish it applied to everyone, not just civil servants.

Withholding amounts have nothing to do with where CS orders are set.
CS orders can be made in excess of the withholding statutory limits.
If withholding is insufficient to collect the amount ordered the
withholding order causes the obligor to fall into arrears unless he
pays more than the withholding order voluntarily.

Yeah, OK, I know from past personal expierance that the courts can just
about do whatever tey damned well feel like. What I'm saying above is
that, for at least some citizens, there is a way to put the brakes on
this rollercoaster ride from hell.

And the best part is there isn't a bloody thing that the states can do
about it.

I have had personal experience with how this crapola works. My CS and SS
order took 55% of my net income and the life insurance/medical insurance
premiums took another 2-3%. I was really struggling to stay current with
the court's order.

My ex's attorney filled for "wage withholding by an attorney" which was
limited by state law to 50%. The wage withholding caused my payments
(the ones I was making) to be reduced from 55% to the statutory limit of
50% (the amount they asked for). Then they were really ****ed because
the wage withholding made my payments go down.

So they filled for a contempt of court citation for failing to pay the
court ordered amount. I told the judge it was their actions and order
that caused an arrearage to build up. The judge told me I was in
contempt because I didn't make up the difference between the 50% withheld
and what the court order said.

My situation was no different than an E3 called up for active duty whose
CS order is based on earnings from a civilian job. The court order
states the amount to be paid based on the civilian job. The laws limit
withholding levels to a percentage of the E3 pay. The difference becomes
an arrearage.

Right, and if you don't file for a modification, then they have you by the
short hairs.

As I see it, the big thing to do is make certain you don't get the same
judge again (yea, yea, I know, they call it "judge shopping" - something
my X's attorney did all the time) so they can pick up right from where
they left off the last time. Judges do have memories, and they fully
remember the people that **** in their cheerios . They have a tendency
to try to get the better of you /teach you a lesson the next time you're
standing in front of them.

Then there's always bumping it up to the next level. Appeal the judges
decision and move it up a notch.

Failing that, write the Inspector General's office, show them what they
did and ask for help. If their hands are tied, then go to state Senators
and such. And then go to the Federal level, take it as high as you can.

There's an axiom the courts go by - If the people don't ask for it, they
don't get it.

The point is, just because some clod behind a counter in your home town is
an ass and tells you "No", does not mean you have to sit there and take
it.

It all depends on how big a stink you want to make - something that judges
and politicians really can't stand.

So go make the biggest stink you can!

It really doesn't matter if you/they "win" or not. It's about who's got
the bigger set of balls to stand out in the open and expose the lies, bias
and money laundering that is really going on at the courthouse while
getting pelted with rocks from every angle.

Bear in mind that even though you may "win" by continuing to play their
game, you can never REALLY win (meaning defend your inherent rights) because
they have BIGGER guns. Needless to say, it's extremely dangerous to
appeal/challenge any judge's decision simply becaues (as you stated) one may
find themself facing such judge once again; and vengence is a terrible
thing! Even if you never again stand before that particular judge, their
brotherhood is such that they make sure you pay the price by informing the
new judge of your defiance. Usually, paying now is far better than paying
later. Not unlike the guy in Tijuana who says he will guard your parked
vehicle for a small fee. Think about it.