If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
New Wrinkle
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
New Wrinkle
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! :-) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Question about statute...GARNISHMENT
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is there a federal statute on how to apply payments? | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | May 16th 06 12:49 PM |
Does anyone know about California bank account garnishment? | Steve Dorsey | Child Support | 13 | June 25th 05 03:11 AM |
Federal statute against jailing for child support? | [email protected] | Child Support | 1 | January 9th 05 12:22 AM |
SSDI and child support garnishment | Ekaterina Sugareva | Child Support | 3 | December 2nd 04 01:15 PM |
Potty Training Question (Cloth undie question) | Tori M. | General | 4 | July 21st 04 05:46 AM |