GM bonuses cut because of child support

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
**Same to you ... you need to talk to people on the other side of the
issue
before you make judgements or anyone else here does.

I don't see where I made a judgement, TJ.

Just suggesting that BEFORE you make judgements to look at the other side.
I wasnt saying that you did, im saying BEFORE you do please look at the
other side. Thats all.


Perhaps they could keep their records up to date just a bit better.

I dont know any employer that gets something in the mail saying this person
owes $20,000 in arrears. Most employers get a garnishment of wages notice
for certain amount, like $100.00 per month. How would GM know that they
were behind in support payments ?? They just were acting on the side of
caution since the transaction happened so fast, to ensure that "IF" these
people where behind they wouldnt be in violation of any laws.

"T.J." wrote in message
...
Actually you dont know anything about what happen and why my ex and I got
divorced and why he refused to pay support and refuses to see his children
==
So why does he refuse to pay support or see his children?
==

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"T.J." wrote in message
...
Actually you dont know anything about what happen and why my ex and I
got
divorced and why he refused to pay support and refuses to see his
children
==
So why does he refuse to pay support or see his children?
==

My son has a developmental disability and my ex, in his own words, "couldnt
handle having a defective child" and left. He stood in front of the judge
and threw his wallet at him and said in court, "there is no way im going to
pay support for a child thats defective". He refused to visit them BOTH
and didnt want anything to do with them. He asked the court if he could
release his parental rights because "he didnt want anything to do with his
son or his daughter". The judge told him he could release his rights but he
would still have to financially support his children. He never finished
the paperwork for releasing his rights so his visiation still stands to this
very day. He doesnt contact his children and hasnt for the entire time.
Not because im a vicious mother who doesnt want him to, but because he
doesnt choose to.

I have not asked for any additional money to support my sons disability,
just basic support which he hasnt paid very often. I get it every so often,
like 3 months out of the year. Then it all stops. I get it is through an
IRS intercept or wage garnishment. He has figured out that if he jumps from
job to job he can beat the system and avoid paying anything. The CSE office
is worthless and does nothing at all.

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Where I am, (and where others in this group are, from what I've read)
unless
the laid off person is out of work for a very long time, or spends a
very
long time at a lower salary, no modification is permitted. Which means
that
arrearages continue to accrue until the judge finally decides that the
former salary is just not coming back. But the NCP is still stuck with
all
the arrearages and the penalties and interest. And is labeled
"deadbeat"
by
the system.

My husband found out a couple of years ago that he has a 13 year old
daughter that he never knew about. He pays child support now--has never
missed a payment, but also has arrearages to pay off. He is labeled as
a
deadbeat. Do you think he deserves that label?

How could he have arrearages to pay off? Did they go all the way back to
the childs birth??? Clarification please.

They wanted to go back to birth, but, since my husband demanded a paternity
test, they could only go back to 2 years before the test. So he owes 2
years of back support. Not so long ago, they COULD have forced him to pay
all the way back to the child's birth AT HIS CURRENT SALARY, plus hospital
costs. Thank goodness that particular law was made more fair, although
still not totally fair. How could anyone be expected to pay for a child
they never even knew existed?


**How can someone who makes $40,000 not be able to make ONE payment of
650.00 for one child??? Dont get defensive im just asking. **

$40,000 gross, not net. I live in a very high cost-of-living area. Out
in
the rural area I live in, a one bedroom apt would run you $800 per
month.
In the nearby city, it is far higher than that. $40K gross doesn't go
very
far. You didn't mention mom not working. Don't you think that she
should
be required to contribute financially for her own child, too? Or is it
ok
for her to not work? (I'm really trying to discuss this with you--no
put-downs intended)

Dont they take out the child support before taxes and doesnt this person
get
to claim it on his taxes??

No, the NCP does not get to claim the child support on his taxes. The NCP
PAYS taxes on his gross earnings, then the child support is taken out and
sent to the CP tax free. On top of that, the CP gets to claim the children
on her taxes (gets all the child tax credits, etc) and only pays taxes on
what she actually earns--child support not included.


Well I guess it would depend on the situation, but im assuming that there
are no special circumstances involved then yes she should at least be
computed in at what she can potentially earn. I know that my state does
this unless their is special circumstances involved. She should have at
the
very least be computed to make minimum wage

Not all states are so generous. Some of the folks here can tell you about
exes who have graduate degrees who do not work and are not imputed their
earning potential, so the NCP bears the burden of financially supporting the
child, even though mom could bring in a chunk of change with very little
effort.

The system is not set up to be fair right at this moment. States want to
collect as much child support as possible because of federal monies attached
to successful collections. I know deadbeats who are ignored by the system
because the cost of forcing them to pay would be more than the system would
make from the collection. (My step-nephew happens to be one of them) I
guess "for the good of the children" goes out the window when it would cost
the system money. You haven't mentioned why your child's father seems to be
getting away with not paying. Is the system serving your needs well?

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"T.J." wrote in message
...
Actually you dont know anything about what happen and why my ex and I
got
divorced and why he refused to pay support and refuses to see his
children
==
So why does he refuse to pay support or see his children?
==

My son has a developmental disability and my ex, in his own words,
"couldnt
handle having a defective child" and left. He stood in front of the judge
and threw his wallet at him and said in court, "there is no way im going
to
pay support for a child thats defective".
==
If this is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it), it is inexcusable.
However, the anger you obviously have isn't good
for you or the child/children. You should know that most men are not like
your ex
and most do care about their kids. Many of the dads here have fought for
years trying to get access to their kids
and get visitation enforced. Very few, if any, are "deadbeats." The system
has glaring errors in its unfairness to devoted dads
and its laziness at going after the ones who are truly jerks. The courts
have found that rather than spend the effort chasing down dads like your ex,
it can triple its child support collections (and hence, its federal grant
money) by tripling the amount of money the working/paying dads have to pay.
This has resulted in a lot of fathers barely able to support themselves. I
would like to ask you to calm down your rhetoric in ACS and listen to how
the system miserably fails fathers and more significantly, children. I can
assure you there are *no* dads in this group like your ex--Well, at least
not at the present. One does straggle in
once in a while but usually doesn't stay long.
==
==

Sorry, But you are wrong. When I met my husband, he didn't even own a car.
Was staying with a friend, because all of his money went to child support.
He has been pushed out of his older childrens lives by his ex. And to say
that he shouldn't pay for my dead ass. You don't even know me, I have run
into some serious medical problems, and am now just getting back into the
work force. And as far as buying a car, or a house. Yaw gotta be making more
than about 30,000 a year. And if you are the custodial parent, you must
have a pretty damn good job, or your screwing some one with money then. Yeah
these kids are his first priority, but when they were turned against him,
and the ex still wants more and more what ya suppose to do? And you can't
tell me that the money all goes for or too the kids I have seen first hand
my self growing up where the money goes, in the custodial parents pockets to
screw around and party on. And I see alot of it being done now with people I
see every day.
It is the custodial parents who are being selfish. My husbands ex is married
to a man who is very well to do now and these kids have better clothes and
cars than what we do. I drive an old car that the exhaust has needed fixed
for months, the door handle broke and needs back brakes. I bet you drive a
better car than me and probably eat better also. You need to get your head
out of your ass and see that all people need a chance to survive.
Angel
"T.J." wrote in message
...
Im not a dickhead. If I buy a car and get behind on my payments it gets
taken away. How about my house, I get behind on my payments then no more
house for me. As teh custodial parent if I dont pay for food my children
starve, I dont get a break from anything and cant fall behind on paying
bills or my children suffer. Grow up and be responsible..

I do know what its like to be down on my luck thank you very much. But i
still supported my children ALONE with no help from anyone else and
certaintly not from their deadbeat asswipe. They were MY FIRST priority.
If I go without food in order for my children to have it then Ill do that.

Dont feed me this crap about someone being down on their luck and not able
to pay support for their children. Its calle d they are too selfish. If
your husband cant support his children he sure the hell shouldnt support
your dead ass.

"Angel" wrote in message
...


"T.J." wrote in message
...
GOOD FOR GM!!!!!

They should take deadbeat's bonuses away from them if they arent
current
on
their child support!!!!

TJ
You know what TJ your a dick head.....I don't know what your opinion is
on
deadbeat, but some people are working and doing all that they can do to
pay
support and keep food on the table and pay bills for themselves. It is
easy
to get behind in childsupport. Don't you ever send me another email to
my
account. Obiviously you have no idea how it is to be down on your luck
and
have nothing.
At least my husband is making an attempt, even as small as it is. He is
trying! My uncle died owing his grown children that have children
$70,000.
And another person that I know owes his grow children more than $150,00.
So don't even f**kin talk to me about deadbeat.
Angel
"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
It has not been easy always being a buy American car kind of guy.
But
this
pushes it over the top for me. I will never own another GM product.

Me either and I love camaro's!

"Angel" wrote in message
...
I think that this is going way to far, Corporations should keep
their
noses
to them selves. I mean what the hell are NCP supposed to do live
in
a
freaking box. Regardless if the are paying on time or have
arrears.
I
am
glad that my husband doesn't work for GM. We don't have enough
money
now.
Angel


Published October 17, 2003
Child support cuts GM bonuses
Many workers angry as they weren't past due


By John Schneider
Lansing State Journal


Thousands of GM employees who pay child support in Michigan and
other
states
found their $3,000 bonuses cut by $900 or withheld entirely this
week.

Ingham County Friend of the Court Donald Rei-sig called it a
"unilateral
and
premature seizure" by General Motors Corp.

But GM officials say federal law, and the time constraints of the
labor
contract employees recently ratified - which included the
bonuses -
forced
them to err on the side of excess.

About two-thirds of the money taken from 572 GM workers in Ingham
County
alone - with the blessing of the state Office of Child Support -
came
from
people who are current in their payment or no longer under
financial
obligation at all.

"This has to be illegal," said Allen McDaniel, a material handler
at
the
Lansing Car Assembly plant, who completed his support obligations
a
year
ago.

His bonus check was $900 short: "How can you take money from
somebody
just
because he might owe something?"

McDaniel said GM officials assured him he would get his money
eventually.

Since Tuesday, when GM employees learned about the 50 percent
shortages -
about $900 in most cases - the Ingham Friend of the Court office
has
been
swamped by calls from outraged clients.

"People are as irate as hell," said Reisig.

The bonuses - lump-sum wage increases established in the labor
contract
ratified Oct. 6 - started out at $3,000. Most employees took home
about
$1,800 after taxes.

In the case of employees in Michigan with "active child or spousal
support
deductions," GM held half the $1,800, as specified by Michigan
law.

That varies from state to state. In Ohio, for example, GM withheld
the
entire amount.

Federal law requires GM to help county and state officials enforce
child-support orders through payroll deductions and diverting
lump-sum
payments to cover arrears.

But in the cases of the bonuses distributed this week, GM
(including
Saturn), took 50 percent from all Michigan employees with active
support
deduction orders, regardless of whether they were behind in their
payments.

GM spokesman Tom Wickham acknowledged that it was an "unfortunate
situation." But the terms of the new contract between GM and the
United
Auto
Workers forced GM payroll officials to use a broad net, he said.

Bonuses for child-support payers typically are handled like this:

GM, anticipating the distribution of bonus checks, asks county or
state
officials to identify support payers behind in their obligations.
GM
uses
that information to determine which bonuses get diverted.

"Normally, we have 45 days to do this," Wickham said. "In this
case,
the
contract was ratified Oct. 6, and we were contractually obligated
to
distribute the bonuses this week."

Given that, Wickham said, GM officials decided to deduct 50
percent
from
the
bonuses of all employees with support orders.

As for why employees no longer under court orders got caught in
the
net,
Wickham said, "We need to update our lists."

GM will start releasing the money as it gets those updated lists,
Wickham
said. He declined to say when that will happen.

Maureen Sorbet, spokeswoman for the state Family Independence
Agency,
said
GM's action was proper.

"We believe GM was honoring the language and intent of the
agreement
between
the employer and the Office of Child Support," Sorbet said.

Today that office will supply GM with a list of support payers who
aren't
behind in their payments, she said.

"For anybody not in arrears, the money will be released," Sorbet
said.
"As
for how quickly, you'll have to check with GM."

On Thursday, in a blistering letter to GM, Reisig wrote: "Your
payroll
department withheld ... bonus payments, without regard to whether
or
not
any
support arrearage was owed."

The letter continued: "Your action of prematurely seizing these
funds
and
holding them, even for a relatively short period of time, does a
disservice
to your many employees, who both give to you their services, and
who
diligently pay their child support on behalf of their children."

Of the 572 GM employees in Ing-ham County who received half their
bonuses,
191 are behind in their support payments.

"It sucks," said Doug Grace of Lansing, an Assembly plant worker
who
came
up
$900 short. "I go out of my way to make sure I don't fall behind."

Contact John Schneider at 377-1175 or .

TJ
You did say that your childs mother was an asswipe!
And you did send me an email also to my user account.
"T.J." wrote in message
...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
.net...

"T.J." wrote in message
...
Melvin,

Ive never been here before in my life. Furthermore im not a "him" im
a
"her". I think you have the wrong person dumbass.

Well, Mel was right about one thing - you send people personal emails in
attempts to intimidate them off-line.

What?? I dont think ive ever sent anyone an email off line. If I did it
was an accident because I hit reply instead of reply to group. My
apologies
if I did.

Thanks for sending me the private email to explain you have a dick.
I havent sent you any emails to explain I have a dick, I have no clue what
the hell you are talking about. If you could please foward the email I
sent
that tells you I have a dick????

It's
comforting to know a poster like you has a dick. Like I was really
worried
about your sexuality!

Sorry but I dont think I ever sent anything to you saying im male or that
I
have a dick.

Now how about explaining for all of us why you refer to your child's
mother
as "asswipe."

Well considering I am my childs mother, I didnt. I have referred to my
sons
father as a deadbeat piece of **** and an asswipe.

Listen dick head, it that makes no sense to punish 97% of all fathers for
the actions of the dead beat 3%, who mind you if they want to be dead beats
and evade no matter what laws are on the books these guys will find away out
it.

Go back and read my post to try an understand what so called today's child
support is all about.

"T.J." wrote in message
...
Dave you are so full of ****!!!

You know in alot of cases the father doesnt want to be present. They are
to
wrapped up in their own egos and concerns about their money to even have
any
concern about their own children.

Child support in my household goes to help pay for my childrens needs. As
a
matter of fact I have a seperate account that all the child support goes
into so the money is used soley for my children.

Paying support has everything to do with supporting children, children
dont
raise themselves and pay for their own expenses. The only people who
erradicate men from their childrens lives are the ones who arent present.
Stop blaming everyone else for the fact men cant grow up and be
responsible.

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Perhaps you should read the recent statement from Lowell at ANCPR for a
little enlightment:

"Paying child support has nothing to do with supporting your children.
Child support is a policy that is fundamentally flawed, since it is
based
on
the assumption that you can replace a parent with money. Child support,
then, is not for children. It is for the custodial parent. It is a
reward
paid to the custodial parent for being successful in cutting you, the
ncp,
out of your child's life. Child support is a social policy that was
specifically designed to enable single parent households. This has
primarily, in well over 90% of contested cases, meant single mother
households (as the program was designed explicitly to do). Therefore,
when
ever you hear the term single mother, you are actually hearing,
"fatherless
child". If you are paying child support, you are supporting this
system.
You are saying, with your money, "Yes, this makes sense to me."

The only changes I would make to the above is wherever you see child
support, replace it with "lifestyle child support" and that there is no
accountability or requirement that it is used for the children.


"T.J." wrote in message
...
GOOD FOR GM!!!!!

They should take deadbeat's bonuses away from them if they arent
current
on
their child support!!!!

TJ
"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
It has not been easy always being a buy American car kind of guy.
But
this
pushes it over the top for me. I will never own another GM product.

"Angel" wrote in message
...
I think that this is going way to far, Corporations should keep
their
noses
to them selves. I mean what the hell are NCP supposed to do live
in
a
freaking box. Regardless if the are paying on time or have
arrears.
I
am
glad that my husband doesn't work for GM. We don't have enough
money
now.
Angel


Published October 17, 2003
Child support cuts GM bonuses
Many workers angry as they weren't past due


By John Schneider
Lansing State Journal


Thousands of GM employees who pay child support in Michigan and
other
states
found their $3,000 bonuses cut by $900 or withheld entirely this
week.

Ingham County Friend of the Court Donald Rei-sig called it a
"unilateral
and
premature seizure" by General Motors Corp.

But GM officials say federal law, and the time constraints of the
labor
contract employees recently ratified - which included the
bonuses -
forced
them to err on the side of excess.

About two-thirds of the money taken from 572 GM workers in Ingham
County
alone - with the blessing of the state Office of Child Support -
came
from
people who are current in their payment or no longer under
financial
obligation at all.

"This has to be illegal," said Allen McDaniel, a material handler
at
the
Lansing Car Assembly plant, who completed his support obligations
a
year
ago.

His bonus check was $900 short: "How can you take money from
somebody
just
because he might owe something?"

McDaniel said GM officials assured him he would get his money
eventually.

Since Tuesday, when GM employees learned about the 50 percent
shortages -
about $900 in most cases - the Ingham Friend of the Court office
has
been
swamped by calls from outraged clients.

"People are as irate as hell," said Reisig.

The bonuses - lump-sum wage increases established in the labor
contract
ratified Oct. 6 - started out at $3,000. Most employees took home
about
$1,800 after taxes.

In the case of employees in Michigan with "active child or spousal
support
deductions," GM held half the $1,800, as specified by Michigan
law.

That varies from state to state. In Ohio, for example, GM withheld
the
entire amount.

Federal law requires GM to help county and state officials enforce
child-support orders through payroll deductions and diverting
lump-sum
payments to cover arrears.

But in the cases of the bonuses distributed this week, GM
(including
Saturn), took 50 percent from all Michigan employees with active
support
deduction orders, regardless of whether they were behind in their
payments.

GM spokesman Tom Wickham acknowledged that it was an "unfortunate
situation." But the terms of the new contract between GM and the
United
Auto
Workers forced GM payroll officials to use a broad net, he said.

Bonuses for child-support payers typically are handled like this:

GM, anticipating the distribution of bonus checks, asks county or
state
officials to identify support payers behind in their obligations.
GM
uses
that information to determine which bonuses get diverted.

"Normally, we have 45 days to do this," Wickham said. "In this
case,
the
contract was ratified Oct. 6, and we were contractually obligated
to
distribute the bonuses this week."

Given that, Wickham said, GM officials decided to deduct 50
percent
from
the
bonuses of all employees with support orders.

As for why employees no longer under court orders got caught in
the
net,
Wickham said, "We need to update our lists."

GM will start releasing the money as it gets those updated lists,
Wickham
said. He declined to say when that will happen.

Maureen Sorbet, spokeswoman for the state Family Independence
Agency,
said
GM's action was proper.

"We believe GM was honoring the language and intent of the
agreement
between
the employer and the Office of Child Support," Sorbet said.

Today that office will supply GM with a list of support payers who
aren't
behind in their payments, she said.

"For anybody not in arrears, the money will be released," Sorbet
said.
"As
for how quickly, you'll have to check with GM."

On Thursday, in a blistering letter to GM, Reisig wrote: "Your
payroll
department withheld ... bonus payments, without regard to whether
or
not
any
support arrearage was owed."

The letter continued: "Your action of prematurely seizing these
funds
and
holding them, even for a relatively short period of time, does a
disservice
to your many employees, who both give to you their services, and
who
diligently pay their child support on behalf of their children."

Of the 572 GM employees in Ing-ham County who received half their
bonuses,
191 are behind in their support payments.

"It sucks," said Doug Grace of Lansing, an Assembly plant worker
who
came
up
$900 short. "I go out of my way to make sure I don't fall behind."

Contact John Schneider at 377-1175 or .

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"T.J." wrote in message
...


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
What would you say about a man earning $48,000 per year who pays $650
per
month for one child, faithfully. He loses his job due to layoff, and
can't
find another in his field. So he takes a job for $30,000 and
petitions
for
a modification in support. The judge says "No. Get a job at your
previous
rate."

** Not if he was laid off and couldnt find anything else, no I dont.
However, im sure that many of these judges get sick and tired of all the
men
who come in and claim the have a lower paying job as an excuse for
lowering
their support. In my state they use an average of the last three years
of
earnings to determine the amount. Not what the highest paying job is.**

Where I am, (and where others in this group are, from what I've read)
unless
the laid off person is out of work for a very long time, or spends a very
long time at a lower salary, no modification is permitted. Which means
that
arrearages continue to accrue until the judge finally decides that the
former salary is just not coming back. But the NCP is still stuck with
all
the arrearages and the penalties and interest. And is labeled "deadbeat"
by
the system.


Due to the 1986 Bradley amendment a Judge cannot eliminate those arreages
even if the man is disabled or dieing. T.J is one sick **** for supporting
crimes like this.


My husband found out a couple of years ago that he has a 13 year old
daughter that he never knew about. He pays child support now--has never
missed a payment, but also has arrearages to pay off. He is labeled as a
deadbeat. Do you think he deserves that label?


Even with a second job, he can only get up to $40,000. He falls
behind in his support because he just can't keep bills paid on this
new
salary.

**How can someone who makes $40,000 not be able to make ONE payment of
650.00 for one child??? Dont get defensive im just asking. **

$40,000 gross, not net. I live in a very high cost-of-living area. Out
in
the rural area I live in, a one bedroom apt would run you $800 per month.
In the nearby city, it is far higher than that. $40K gross doesn't go
very
far. You didn't mention mom not working. Don't you think that she should
be required to contribute financially for her own child, too? Or is it ok
for her to not work? (I'm really trying to discuss this with you--no
put-downs intended)

Is he an asswipe? A deadbeat?



Now, add to it that mom doesn't work. She lives with hubby #2, who
supports
her on his $60,000 per year job. She's not hurting because he isn't
sending
his usual amount. But she fights modification anyway. Who would you
scold
if you could talk to both of them? And why?

**Her new hubbies income doesnt make any difference.**

Legally, no, it doesn't. Morally, mom could simply not fight the
modification, since they are doing ok anyway. But the question is, would
you call that dad a deadbeat?