Question

~August wrote:

So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
(make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)

The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
"Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
the right thing.

"~August" wrote in message
...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
news
~August wrote:

So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
(make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)

The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
"Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
the right thing.

I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
actually owed.

~August
===
My opinion is that it is done that way because if the money doesn't go
through
CSE, it cannot be counted as collected for the purpose of federal block
grant funds.
===
===

"~August" wrote in message
...
"The Dave©" wrote in message
news
~August wrote:

So... either wait for them to tell you what you owe and pay it or
pay it voluntarily and you'll likely be told you didn't make the
voluntary payments and you'll have to offer proof that you did
(make any payments via check with "child support" witten in the
memo line to make sure they don't classify it as a "gift".)

The "gift" thing is absurd (on the part of the courts), but you're
right, the OP needs to be aware of it.

I learned from this board about the "gift" factor and also find it to
be goofy. But when i paid my ex CS for summer, i not only wrote
"Child Support" in the memo line, i also wrote "this is not a gift".

I wonder if that would fly? For example, you cannot legally write a
check of $200 to your credit card company and say "payment in full"
when the legitimate balance is $750. It's clear what your intention
is, and I agree with you, but I have no trust that "the system" will do
the right thing.

I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
actually owed.

~August
===
My opinion is that it is done that way because if the money doesn't go
through
CSE, it cannot be counted as collected for the purpose of federal block
grant funds.
===
===

~August wrote:

: I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
: considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as CS
: unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
: to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
: courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that was
: actually owed.

The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child Support
Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the time).
The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
being forwarded by the DA's office.

Essentially, they're justifying their existance.

b.

~August wrote:

: I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
: considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as CS
: unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being able
: to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through the
: courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that was
: actually owed.

The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child Support
Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the time).
The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
being forwarded by the DA's office.

Essentially, they're justifying their existance.

b.

wrote in message ...
~August wrote:

: I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
: considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
: unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being
able
: to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through
the
: courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
: actually owed.

The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child
Support
Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the
time).
The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
being forwarded by the DA's office.


And hopefully (if it ever comes into question) a check made out for the
amount owed and marked as CS and specifically marked as "not a gift" will be
proof enough. I also have emails between me and my ex saying that is how we
would handle it (him paying the full amount and me re-imbursing him). We
did it this way because even though our county states that summer CS is
pro-rated, there was nothing specific written up in our decree about it.
The order says a wage garnishment was ordered but would not be put into
effect unless he went into arrears and we didn't want trouble for him for
not sending the full amount ordered.

~August

wrote in message ...
~August wrote:

: I don't understand why the money has to go through the courts to be
: considered CS. I can understand not being able to prove it was meant as
CS
: unless it goes through the courts, but I cant understand it not being
able
: to be proven that it is meant as CS just because it didn't go through
the
: courts. Especially since the amount I paid was equal to the amount that
was
: actually owed.

The money doesn't go through the courts. It goes through the Child
Support
Enforcement agencies (the SF District Attorney's office for me at the
time).
The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
parent. If one does this, they must later prove that they satisfied the
support order by providing proof that child support was paid without
being forwarded by the DA's office.


And hopefully (if it ever comes into question) a check made out for the
amount owed and marked as CS and specifically marked as "not a gift" will be
proof enough. I also have emails between me and my ex saying that is how we
would handle it (him paying the full amount and me re-imbursing him). We
did it this way because even though our county states that summer CS is
pro-rated, there was nothing specific written up in our decree about it.
The order says a wage garnishment was ordered but would not be put into
effect unless he went into arrears and we didn't want trouble for him for
not sending the full amount ordered.

~August

wrote:
: The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
: the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
: If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
: even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
: parent.

Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
the DA's office *expects* payment.

In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child support
from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
Support for child's name).

I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I had
done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).

Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.

On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard procedure
now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.

The title company needed
a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to deposit
the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I called
up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after the
3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he obtained
another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was current
in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to voluntarily
indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
a second written request from them.

I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
once for a refinance.

Idiots!

wrote:
: The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
: the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects* payment.
: If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
: even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the custodial
: parent.

Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
the DA's office *expects* payment.

In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child support
from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
Support for child's name).

I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I had
done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).

Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.

On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard procedure
now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.

The title company needed
a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to deposit
the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I called
up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after the
3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he obtained
another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was current
in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to voluntarily
indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
a second written request from them.

I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
once for a refinance.

Idiots!

wrote in message ...
wrote:
: The DA's office "assists children" (sic) in getting child support. From
: the time the order for support is made, the DA's office *expects*
payment.
: If payment isn't received, their little minds consider it in arrears,
: even if payment was made around the DA's office directly to the
custodial
: parent.

Clarification: Should be "from the time a request for support is made",
the DA's office *expects* payment.

In my case, there was a delay (about 3 months) between the time in which
the CP requested the DA's office to process a Child Support order and when
my employer was actually served with a wage garnishment to pay child
support
from my salary. I voluntarily paid CS to the mother beginning a month
before the child was born until my wage was actually assigned. The time
between when the mother requested the Child Support and when the support
was collected via wage assignment was termed "in arrears" even though
I paid the support directly to the mother (labeling the checks "Child
Support for child's name).

I made copies of the checks and sent them to the DA's office to prove
that the CP had been paid child support. They eventually agreed that I
had
done so and erased the debit from my account. However, in the interim,
they served my employer with another garnishment to "pay the amount in
arrears" (which were in fact, already paid directly to the mother).

Bureaucracy and mindlessness at its best. San Francisco DA's office.

On another note, I recently refinanced my home. My deed has a lien on
it for Child Support just in case I don't pay it. This is standard
procedure
now in California if one is liable for Child Support and owns real estate.

The title company needed
a clearance and requested it from them. DA's office waited 3 days to
deposit
the funds my company sent them and noted I was 2 weeks "in arrears". I
called
up the guy, he checked the computer and noted I was then current (after
the
3 day delay). However, he would not voluntarily tell my tiitle company
I was paid up. He whined "we'll have to draft another form and have
it notarized" to indicate I was current. He wouldn't do it until he
obtained
another request. His suggestion (get this) was that "I should pay them
another $598.00, they'd send a fax indicating I was current, then refund
the money to me as an overpayment" (yes, even though he told me I was
current
in paying my CS obligation). He just couldn't bring himself to
voluntarily
indicate to my title company that my CS payments were current without
a second written request from them.

I went through this twice. Once for a Home Equity Line of Credit and
once for a refinance.

totally frickin amazing!
thats one of the reasons i keep up on this board. i dont really expect
problems with me and my ex but i want to keep informed on what can go wrong
with my husband and his ex.


Idiots!

That's putting it gently.