State-applied interest on child support arrearages.

I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link
(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...000-.html#21_a)
to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link
(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...000-.html#21_a)
to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

Ah, but there's always another way for the states to get around that issue
of the 6% cap.. It's (sometimes) called Penalties and Fees. If a state
wants to, they can add up an NCP's Interest, Fees and Penalties and far
exceed the 6% cap - and get away with it. The interest is straight up, it's
something that the states can't futz with much. they have all sorts of
creative fun with the Penalties and Fees bit though.. It's there that the
states can charge NCP's for all sorts of really goofy, off-the-wall B.S.

I kinda look at it like it's a Credit Card without an expiration date or a
max charge amount that you never get to use yourself, you just get the bill.

The state holds this CC for you, in your name. They then get to make all
sorts of charges on it. They can change the monthly (yearly) interest rates
on this CC whenever they so desire (which is usually the maximum amount they
can get you for). They can also hit you for untold amounts in late fees
that they can make up as they go along and tack on to your bill at any time
they like.

And if you don't like the way their accountant keeps the books - "Oh, well,
it sucks to be you." is about all the response you'll get from the wonderful
folks in their Customer Care Center. Because, in the end, you'll never get
to have any say in the matter (but they'll let you pretend that you are, so
keep dreamin').

And may God have mercy on your soul if you're ever late with a payment...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link

(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._42_00000654--
--000-.html#21_a)
to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9%
interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how
the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and
assesses 9% interest.

Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where
does the interest go? Who gets to keep it?

Bob Whiteside wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link


(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._42_00000654--
--000-.html#21_a)

to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?


My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9%
interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how
the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and
assesses 9% interest.

Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where
does the interest go? Who gets to keep it?

"Eh... It's for the, ah, children, so, ah, we figured we'd, you know,
invest it in fixing up our child support collection agency, you know,
to, ah, make it more efficient... you know, for the children."

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:g_INf.194658$oG.20082@dukeread02...



[snip]

"Eh... It's for the, ah, children, so, ah, we figured we'd, you know,
invest it in fixing up our child support collection agency, you know, to,
ah, make it more efficient... you know, for the children."

- Ron ^*^

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!

Technically speaking (and I speak as an accountant and not a CP),
interest is an entirely different thing than late fees. The way this
is written, states could conceivable charge a late fee (on top of
interest) of 3% every time a payment comes due. If payments are due
monthly, it could equate to 36% per year.

On 2 Mar 2006 09:51:41 -0800, "
wrote:

I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link
(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...000-.html#21_a)
to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

Beverly

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:07:50 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link

(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc..._42_00000654--
--000-.html#21_a)
to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9%
interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of how
the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and
assesses 9% interest.

Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about - Where
does the interest go? Who gets to keep it?


Depending on the law your state uses to determine the interest, it is
may also be possible for a non-TANF case to get interest. My state,
for example, uses the interest and the rate applicable to all
judgments of money. It is not just child support related. Although
interest is automatically computed by child support enforcement, any
child support case before a judge can have interest added on arrears.

Interest, in any case, goes to the CP in one way or another. In TANF
cases, they may keep all child support payments collected up to the
amount of support in which they provide the family. Most states,
allow a small pass-through, however. The reason the state keeps the
interest is because state support provided most often exceeds child
support paid. State support includes cash payments, food stamps,
medical, housing allowances, and other assistance which varies by
state. TECHNICALLY, the CP is getting the interest.

In my case, which was not a TANF case nor did it go through child
support enforcement, interest was added to the arrears at our last
hearing. The entire amount is payable to me. It is not unlike a
parent who uses loans or credit to pay for things associated with
their child's expenses. If the loan/credit was from a bank, interest
would be owed the bank. The courts see non-payment of child support
akin to securing a loan from the CP (or state, as the case may be)
because money for supporting the children obviously came from
somewhere.

For what it is worth, I could have earned/saved more in interest by
investing my discretionary income or paying down debt had I not had to
cover my ex's portion of child expenses with it. It's not like I am
making money because interest was applied.
Beverly

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:07:50 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link


(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...c_42_00000654-
-
--000-.html#21_a)
to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9%
interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of
how
the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and
assesses 9% interest.

Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about -
Where
does the interest go? Who gets to keep it?


Depending on the law your state uses to determine the interest, it is
may also be possible for a non-TANF case to get interest. My state,
for example, uses the interest and the rate applicable to all
judgments of money. It is not just child support related. Although
interest is automatically computed by child support enforcement, any
child support case before a judge can have interest added on arrears.

Interest, in any case, goes to the CP in one way or another. In TANF
cases, they may keep all child support payments collected up to the
amount of support in which they provide the family. Most states,
allow a small pass-through, however. The reason the state keeps the
interest is because state support provided most often exceeds child
support paid. State support includes cash payments, food stamps,
medical, housing allowances, and other assistance which varies by
state. TECHNICALLY, the CP is getting the interest.

Using this same logic, TECHNICALLY, the NCP is getting the interest too.
After all, the fact he is paying interest keeps the CS guideline awards down
and prevents future increases from occuring so he is paying less CS than if
he didn't pay interest.

Please explain how the welfare benefits are unchanged when interest is
accrued but the CP gets the interest from the state before it is paid.

BTW - The $50 pass-through was no longer funded by federal money after the
welfare reform of 1996. Most states dropped the pass-through when it
started coming out of state funds. My state hasn't paid it since 1997.

Beverly's correct. I spoke with someone in the Region 3 office of the
Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement who did advise me that the
3-6% amount is not interest, but is a late fee.

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:07:50 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...

I read Dusty's article from Men's News Daily and I read it thoroughly
and noticed the following sentence within a paragraph about my favorite
issue:

INTEREST ON CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Here's the sentence:

If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family
Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child
support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The cite of the statute sucks, (should be 42 U.S.C. 654(21)(a) but the
link


(http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...c_42_00000654-

-

--000-.html#21_a)

to the statute worked...and here's what the statute says:

"at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue
support (as defined in section 666 (e) of this title) under any
obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a
uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor
more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by
the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;..."

Meaning states must charge at least 3% but no more than 6% on
arrearages.

I've called my congressman's office to see exactly when that statute
was enacted because until about two years ago, Virginia charged 9% (and
they change the rate every time the law in Virginia governing "judgment
interest" is changed -- current it's 6%.

Take a look at this site:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/art...art200301.html

Notice that some (few) states have ZERO interest...others, like Maine
have as much as 15%...nearly all exceed the 6% maximum...

Why aren't the feds going after the states who exceed the 6%
mandate...and any ideas how we could get NCPs in existing states to try
and turn the tables on those states?

My state does not charge interest on non-TANF cases, but assesses 9%
interest if the CP does the calculations and provides an explanation of

how

the interest was determined. On TANF cases the state calculates and
assesses 9% interest.

Now for the elephant in the living room nobody wants to talk about -

Where

does the interest go? Who gets to keep it?


Depending on the law your state uses to determine the interest, it is
may also be possible for a non-TANF case to get interest. My state,
for example, uses the interest and the rate applicable to all
judgments of money. It is not just child support related. Although
interest is automatically computed by child support enforcement, any
child support case before a judge can have interest added on arrears.

Interest, in any case, goes to the CP in one way or another. In TANF
cases, they may keep all child support payments collected up to the
amount of support in which they provide the family. Most states,
allow a small pass-through, however. The reason the state keeps the
interest is because state support provided most often exceeds child
support paid. State support includes cash payments, food stamps,
medical, housing allowances, and other assistance which varies by
state. TECHNICALLY, the CP is getting the interest.


Using this same logic, TECHNICALLY, the NCP is getting the interest too.
After all, the fact he is paying interest keeps the CS guideline awards down
and prevents future increases from occuring so he is paying less CS than if
he didn't pay interest.

Please explain how the welfare benefits are unchanged when interest is
accrued but the CP gets the interest from the state before it is paid.

BTW - The $50 pass-through was no longer funded by federal money after the
welfare reform of 1996. Most states dropped the pass-through when it
started coming out of state funds. My state hasn't paid it since 1997.

True -- and my state dropped it a couple of years ago, amidst much
wailing and gnashing of feminist teeth.

- Ron ^*^