Question about statute...GARNISHMENT

On Aug 17, 7:33 am, " wrote:
FWIW--When my husband's income withholding order went to his employer, there
were all kinds of violations with it.
I filed a motion to toss it out. It was tossed and a proper order was
promptly issued. I think, after all these years of fighting this beast, you
are certainly at a point
of diminishing returns.

I don't disagree with you, Gini, but if I can't mount a fight where I
can, others will just be walked over.

DHs stupid ex went to CSE and his wages began to be garnished
without ANY notice last year. He had always paid and on time.
However, she didn't want the money a couple of days AFTER he was paid,
she wanted it ON THE DAY he got paid. So, it seems that she told them
that he had not been paying regularly, just so that she could get them
to garnish his wages and send them to her. Fact is, he always paid,
but that's how she got around it...at the end, she messed up his
credit, etc.
by stating he hadn't been paying (that's how she was able to get the
garnishment), but then at some point, because DH threatened to sue
her in civil court for lying about him not paying, etc...she signed
papers
stating he had indeed been paying...by that time, they were already
garnishing wages and there was nothing he could do...although she
lied,
they never went back. Well, she actually got the payments, but of
course,
even later than she received them when DH sent them directly...haha,
serves her right...

But at the end, the garnishment continues although based on a LIE from
the CP.

The states couldn't care less...it makes it look like they are
collecting more money
from NCPs if they garnish, otherwise, they don't know the numbers and
can't make
others believe they are going after deadbeat...when actually, they're
only going
after people who always paid...

"whatamess" wrote
........................

The states couldn't care less...it makes it look like they are
collecting more money
from NCPs if they garnish, otherwise, they don't know the numbers and
can't make
others believe they are going after deadbeat...when actually, they're
only going
after people who always paid...
==
Yep. They go after the quick and easy ones.

Folks, this one is weird.

My employer got a call this morning from the Clerk of a Juvenile Court
where my case has never been litigated, but where my attorney
practices...the Clerk asked my employer to tell me to BACK OFF of
DCSE.

I've never heard of such a thing.

wrote in

Folks, this one is weird.

My employer got a call this morning from the Clerk of a Juvenile Court
where my case has never been litigated, but where my attorney
practices...the Clerk asked my employer to tell me to BACK OFF of
DCSE.

I've never heard of such a thing.


Nows the time to turn up the heat! :-)

On Aug 15, 8:53 pm, " wrote:
The operational court order DCSE here in Virginia is operating under
is from last year, and makes no provision for wage withholding...less
than 24 hours after I posted their salaries up on the net, my boss (a
lawyer) received a garnishment order from DCSE.

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

§ 20-79.2. Immediate income deduction; income withholding.

Every initial order entered on or after July 1, 1995, directing a
person to pay child support shall include a provision for immediate
withholding from the income of the obligor for the amount of the
support order, plus an amount for the liquidation of arrearages, if
any, unless the obligor and either the obligee or the Department on
behalf of the obligee, agree in writing to an alternative payment
arrangement or one of the parties demonstrates and the court finds
good cause for not imposing immediate withholding. In determining
whether good cause is shown, the court shall consider the obligor's
past financial responsibility, history of prior payment under any
support order, and any other matter that the court considers relevant
to the likelihood of payment in accordance with the support order. An
alternative payment arrangement may include but is not limited to, a
voluntary income assignment pursuant to § 20-79.1 or § 63.2-1945.

An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding.

The total amount withheld shall not exceed the maximum amount
permitted under § 34-29.

A withholding order issued to an obligor's employer pursuant to this
section shall conform to § 20-79.3. The rights and obligations of the
employer with respect to the order are set out in § 20-79.3. The order
shall direct the employer to forward payments to the Department for
recording and disbursement to the obligee, or as otherwise required by
law. The Department shall not charge a fee for recording and
disbursing payments when it is providing support enforcement services
to the obligee pursuant to § 63.2-1904 or § 63.2-1908.

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

This is the phrase that seems, to me, like they cannot garnish until
such a provision is in the Order they're operaiting under:

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

THOUGHT??


"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

That is my laymans opinion. I am not a lawyer.

wrote in message
ups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that run
counter to federal laws.

Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 666(b)(2) in effect since 1988 has language stating
no amendment is necessary to initiate withholding. The applicable law
language says "...such withholding must occur without the need for any
amendment to the support order involved or for any further action (other
than those actions required under this part) by the court or other entity
which issued such order." The allowable actions of the court are to suspend
the need for withholding due to mutual agreement between the parties or a
court approved alternative payment plan.

On Aug 23, 3:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that run
counter to federal laws.

Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 666(b)(2) in effect since 1988 has language stating
no amendment is necessary to initiate withholding. The applicable law
language says "...such withholding must occur without the need for any
amendment to the support order involved or for any further action (other
than those actions required under this part) by the court or other entity
which issued such order." The allowable actions of the court are to suspend
the need for withholding due to mutual agreement between the parties or a
court approved alternative payment plan.

While I'd like to agree with the party you responded to, Bob, I'm
inclined to have to have to agree with you based on the foregoing,
EXCEPT, I must also add that Virginia routinely violates federal and
Virginia laws relating to the retroactive modification of years-old
court orders....and if you have an arrearage, you're screwed by the
court's Order unless you have the ability to post a cash bond for the
arrearage within 30 days of the issuance of the illegal order.

On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 666(b)(2) in effect since 1988 has language stating
no amendment is necessary to initiate withholding. The applicable law
language says "...such withholding must occur without the need for any
amendment to the support order involved or for any further action (other
than those actions required under this part) by the court or other entity
which issued such order." The allowable actions of the court are to suspend
the need for withholding due to mutual agreement between the parties or a
court approved alternative payment plan.

That language in that section says that in order to meet some
requirement that either directly or indirectly allows the state to
receive federal funds. If you read 42 U.S.C. 652 that should clear up
the role of federal law in child support. This is about spending. It
does not directly affect state procedural law. Virginia may not be in
technical compliance with the federal requirements, this does not
invalidate Virginia law. I am sure that the federal offical that
approves these plans has determined that Virginia is in substantial
compliance or some BS like that, so Virginia gets the matching
funds.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

States have the decision making autonomy to adopt the entire federal
legislative scheme or none of it. Every state decided to adopt the federal
family law provisions in what is commonly referred to as Welfare Reform to
continue receiving federal revenue share money for welfare and CS
adminisrtation. The states have no legal right to pick and choose which
federal laws they adopt - It's all or nothing.


Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 666(b)(2) in effect since 1988 has language
stating
no amendment is necessary to initiate withholding. The applicable law
language says "...such withholding must occur without the need for any
amendment to the support order involved or for any further action (other
than those actions required under this part) by the court or other entity
which issued such order." The allowable actions of the court are to
suspend
the need for withholding due to mutual agreement between the parties or a
court approved alternative payment plan.

That language in that section says that in order to meet some
requirement that either directly or indirectly allows the state to
receive federal funds. If you read 42 U.S.C. 652 that should clear up
the role of federal law in child support. This is about spending. It
does not directly affect state procedural law. Virginia may not be in
technical compliance with the federal requirements, this does not
invalidate Virginia law. I am sure that the federal offical that
approves these plans has determined that Virginia is in substantial
compliance or some BS like that, so Virginia gets the matching
funds.
..
So what. Virginia took the federal money and that obligates the state to
comply with federal statutes related to taking the money.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:WfRwi.4812$%55.577@trnddc04...

wrote in message
ups.com...
The operational court order DCSE here in Virginia is operating under
is from last year, and makes no provision for wage withholding...less
than 24 hours after I posted their salaries up on the net, my boss (a
lawyer) received a garnishment order from DCSE.

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

§ 20-79.2. Immediate income deduction; income withholding.

Every initial order entered on or after July 1, 1995, directing a
person to pay child support shall include a provision for immediate
withholding from the income of the obligor for the amount of the
support order, plus an amount for the liquidation of arrearages, if
any, unless the obligor and either the obligee or the Department on
behalf of the obligee, agree in writing to an alternative payment
arrangement or one of the parties demonstrates and the court finds
good cause for not imposing immediate withholding. In determining
whether good cause is shown, the court shall consider the obligor's
past financial responsibility, history of prior payment under any
support order, and any other matter that the court considers relevant
to the likelihood of payment in accordance with the support order. An
alternative payment arrangement may include but is not limited to, a
voluntary income assignment pursuant to § 20-79.1 or § 63.2-1945.

An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding.

The total amount withheld shall not exceed the maximum amount
permitted under § 34-29.

A withholding order issued to an obligor's employer pursuant to this
section shall conform to § 20-79.3. The rights and obligations of the
employer with respect to the order are set out in § 20-79.3. The order
shall direct the employer to forward payments to the Department for
recording and disbursement to the obligee, or as otherwise required by
law. The Department shall not charge a fee for recording and
disbursing payments when it is providing support enforcement services
to the obligee pursuant to § 63.2-1904 or § 63.2-1908.

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

This is the phrase that seems, to me, like they cannot garnish until
such a provision is in the Order they're operaiting under:

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."


THOUGHT??


In all probability, Virginia adopted "child support" withholding
requirements because of provisions in the federal Family Support Act of
1988. This act opened the door to the imposition of wage withholding at
the time a child support order is established, without any requirement
that fathers first get behind on their payments to the mothers of their
children. So you may find that Virginia has had this power to garnishee
your income for quite some time, even though it wasn't used in your case
until now.

At the time the universal withholding rule was adopted, I mistakenly
thought it would trigger a rebellion by fathers throughout the U.S. After
all, what would happen if utility companies were able to tell the federal
government that some people don't pay their utility bills, and so the
money should in all cases be withheld from the incomes of those who have
electricity, telephone, or gas service? However, nothing happened in
regard to the withholding of CS -- thus proving once again that government
can do ANYTHING to fathers, however unfair, without causing any backlash.

There's another current example of how the system works. The U.S.
government is denying passports to those who owe more than $2,500 in
so-called "child support" (see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/...ild_support_9).
Contrast what happens when a custodial mother wants to remove the children
thousands of miles from their father. If the father tries to prevent
this, some judge will likely tell him that the mother has a
constitutionally protected right to travel (ignoring, of course, the fact
that the real issue is whether she has the right to take the children with
her when she travels). Why is it that mothers have a constitutionally
protected right to travel -- and take the children with them -- but
fathers don't?

I just hope that young men considering marriage and families realize
they will be subjecting themselves to this kind of treatment.

This is assuming the the Mother is the Custodial Parent. Fathers if they
know how the system works BEFORE this "****" hits the fan have an equal
chance of getting custody but they can NOT waiver on getting it taken care
of at the begining of the "sepperation" or "divorce". I walked away with
FULL legal and physical custody of my children almost 5 yrs ago.