Dads Alert: Child Support Enforcement Scams

Be aware that rogue agencies exist that mislead NCPs into believing
they are a state enforcement agency when they are a private for-profit
collection business.
This Florida business had an elaborate collection scheme that re-routed all
payments made to
the state child support enforcement by NCPs to its private business account
where they would deduct 35% of the payments
and forward the remainder to the client custodial parent. This was done for
current payments as well as arrearage payments.
The agency also presented employers with phoney income deduction orders with
payments going directly through the agency
leaving NCPs with arrearages, license revocation, and jail for nonpayment.
(PDF File, 28 pgs)


http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JFAO-6NSMST/$file/Child_Support_complaint.pdf

And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
Gini wrote:
Be aware that rogue agencies exist that mislead NCPs into believing
they are a state enforcement agency when they are a private for-profit
collection business.
This Florida business had an elaborate collection scheme that re-routed all
payments made to
the state child support enforcement by NCPs to its private business account
where they would deduct 35% of the payments
and forward the remainder to the client custodial parent. This was done for
current payments as well as arrearage payments.
The agency also presented employers with phoney income deduction orders with
payments going directly through the agency
leaving NCPs with arrearages, license revocation, and jail for nonpayment.
(PDF File, 28 pgs)


http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JFAO-6NSMST/$file/Child_Support_complaint.pdf

"John Meyer" wrote
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
==
You don't get credit for payments made...ever.
==
Gini wrote:
Be aware that rogue agencies exist that mislead NCPs into believing
they are a state enforcement agency when they are a private for-profit
collection business.
This Florida business had an elaborate collection scheme that re-routed
all
payments made to
the state child support enforcement by NCPs to its private business
account
where they would deduct 35% of the payments
and forward the remainder to the client custodial parent. This was done
for
current payments as well as arrearage payments.
The agency also presented employers with phoney income deduction orders
with
payments going directly through the agency
leaving NCPs with arrearages, license revocation, and jail for
nonpayment.
(PDF File, 28 pgs)


http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JFAO-6NSMST/$file/Child_Support_complaint.pdf

On May 19, 7:37?pm, John Meyer wrote:
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)



Gini wrote:
Be aware that rogue agencies exist that mislead NCPs into believing
they are a state enforcement agency when they are a private for-profit
collection business.
This Florida business had an elaborate collection scheme that re-routed all
payments made to
the state child support enforcement by NCPs to its private business account
where they would deduct 35% of the payments
and forward the remainder to the client custodial parent. This was done for
current payments as well as arrearage payments.
The agency also presented employers with phoney income deduction orders with
payments going directly through the agency
leaving NCPs with arrearages, license revocation, and jail for nonpayment.
(PDF File, 28 pgs)

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/JFAO-6NSMST/$file/Child_Sup...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They pretended they were the state and payments that should of gone
through the state were rerouted through them instead and the NCP's
didnt get credit and were arrested.

Gini wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
==
You don't get credit for payments made...ever.

You don't get any credit with the CSE either . . .that is, if you try to
act adult about the whole situation and settle it between you and the ex
rather than going straight to the courts. All you did was just "gift"
the person you can't stand enough to live in the same household as.

On May 19, 8:08�pm, John Meyer wrote:
Gini wrote:
"John Meyer" *wrote
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
==
You don't get credit for payments made...ever.

You don't get any credit with the CSE either . . .that is, if you try to
act adult about the whole situation and settle it between you and the ex
rather than going straight to the courts. *All you did was just "gift"
the person you can't stand enough to live in the same household as.

I didnt use CSE. We had an amount ordered and a garnishment order
entered and it went directly to her from my employers

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 19, 8:08?pm, John Meyer wrote:
Gini wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies
that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
==
You don't get credit for payments made...ever.

You don't get any credit with the CSE either . . .that is, if you try to
act adult about the whole situation and settle it between you and the ex
rather than going straight to the courts. All you did was just "gift"
the person you can't stand enough to live in the same household as.

I didnt use CSE. We had an amount ordered and a garnishment order
entered and it went directly to her from my employers

-------------

I may be an exception, but when CSE got involved in my case, and the state
started doing CS accounting, collections, and disbursements, all the false
claims of non-payment of support stopped. The game in my case was to switch
how payments were applied from CS, to SS, to attorney fees. That allowed
her to collect disputed attorney fees using the CS enforcement laws.

When I paid directly, and later when I through a Garnishment By Attorney
where my employer sent her the CS payments, it was always my word against
her word. Guess who always won that discrepency? I ended up paying over
$13,000 more than the court ordered just because she couldn't keep track of
what I paid. Believe it or not, at one point she complained I was sending
her too many checks to deposit, and that was causing her to lose some of the
checks.

Once the state started doing the CS accounting all the games stopped.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 19, 8:08?pm, John Meyer wrote:
Gini wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies
that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
==
You don't get credit for payments made...ever.

You don't get any credit with the CSE either . . .that is, if you try to
act adult about the whole situation and settle it between you and the ex
rather than going straight to the courts. All you did was just "gift"
the person you can't stand enough to live in the same household as.

I didnt use CSE. We had an amount ordered and a garnishment order
entered and it went directly to her from my employers

-------------

I may be an exception, but when CSE got involved in my case, and the state
started doing CS accounting, collections, and disbursements, all the false
claims of non-payment of support stopped. The game in my case was to
switch
how payments were applied from CS, to SS, to attorney fees. That allowed
her to collect disputed attorney fees using the CS enforcement laws.

When I paid directly, and later when I through a Garnishment By Attorney
where my employer sent her the CS payments, it was always my word against
her word. Guess who always won that discrepency? I ended up paying over
$13,000 more than the court ordered just because she couldn't keep track
of
what I paid. Believe it or not, at one point she complained I was sending
her too many checks to deposit, and that was causing her to lose some of
the
checks.

Once the state started doing the CS accounting all the games stopped.

Except for one; the game of blackmail.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 19, 8:08?pm, John Meyer wrote:
Gini wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote
And the difference between them and the REAL child support agencies
that
scam off the non custodial parents is. . .?;-)
==
You don't get credit for payments made...ever.

You don't get any credit with the CSE either . . .that is, if you try
to
act adult about the whole situation and settle it between you and the
ex
rather than going straight to the courts. All you did was just "gift"
the person you can't stand enough to live in the same household as.

I didnt use CSE. We had an amount ordered and a garnishment order
entered and it went directly to her from my employers

-------------

I may be an exception, but when CSE got involved in my case, and the
state
started doing CS accounting, collections, and disbursements, all the
false
claims of non-payment of support stopped. The game in my case was to
switch
how payments were applied from CS, to SS, to attorney fees. That
allowed
her to collect disputed attorney fees using the CS enforcement laws.

When I paid directly, and later when I through a Garnishment By Attorney
where my employer sent her the CS payments, it was always my word
against
her word. Guess who always won that discrepency? I ended up paying
over
$13,000 more than the court ordered just because she couldn't keep track
of
what I paid. Believe it or not, at one point she complained I was
sending
her too many checks to deposit, and that was causing her to lose some of
the
checks.

Once the state started doing the CS accounting all the games stopped.

Except for one; the game of blackmail.

I didn't consider paying lower CS amounts under the guidelines and only
having to pay the amount ordered, not some phoney-baloney arrearage amount
added on, to be blackmail.

Where CS orders become blackmail is when the awards are inflated by imputed
incomes, false claims of arrearages are allowed to be included by converting
money already paid to gifts, arbitrary additions are made for time lags in
implementing modifications, and guideline amounts are inflated by basic
award additions for things like healthcare, childcare, etc. before they
occur instead of being paid when those expenses can be documented.

Bob Whiteside wrote:


I may be an exception, but when CSE got involved in my case, and the state
started doing CS accounting, collections, and disbursements, all the false
claims of non-payment of support stopped. The game in my case was to switch
how payments were applied from CS, to SS, to attorney fees. That allowed
her to collect disputed attorney fees using the CS enforcement laws.

When I paid directly, and later when I through a Garnishment By Attorney
where my employer sent her the CS payments, it was always my word against
her word. Guess who always won that discrepency? I ended up paying over
$13,000 more than the court ordered just because she couldn't keep track of
what I paid. Believe it or not, at one point she complained I was sending
her too many checks to deposit, and that was causing her to lose some of the
checks.

Once the state started doing the CS accounting all the games stopped.


I don't doubt it. And to a certain degree I can even comprehend fathers
actually going to CSE and demanding formal child support agreements.
What happened to me, was slightly different. Because I voluntarily
signed myself and my kids up for health insurance, the company involved
calculated the child support in the wrong manner (child support then
health insurance, as opposed to child support then health insurance when
the health insurance is ordered by the court). Had I not caught the
error in time (I checked online the day before the checks were to be
printed) I would have had to have gone two weeks without any sort of
pay. Then end result, however, was that I didn't have three full
"months" of payment until four months later, thereby delaying a
reinstatement of my driver's license. In short, I was punished for
voluntarily getting health insurance for my kids.
You may ask you why I didn't just wait for the health order to sign me
and my kids up (and I just loved the violation of the First Amendment in
this; you are forced to associate with a business if the health
insurance company makes it impossible for them to sign up the kids
without the adult)? Well, from a discussion with an HR rep, if that had
gone through, HR would have simply blindly signed me up for any
insurance. They strongly hinted that they might sign me up for the most
expensive insurance, which would have cost me $50 per month. Not to
mention the fact that the CSE order wouldn't have reflected what I was
paying out, just the fact that I owed this amount of child support +
health insurance. By the time I straightened this out through the
courts, I could have been working months on end as a slave.