Child Custody - parent's name not on birth certificate.

Dusty wrote:

Beverly, you couldn't be more wrong. C$E agencies use FEDERALLY MANDATED
license revocation (drivers and professional) as a main method in attempting
to collect C$ arrears. Neither the states, the courts, or even the CP need
do anything at all to set the majority of these collection methods in
place - they are done AUTOMATICALLY when an arrears reaches $5000. USC
Title 42, section 666 states this in no uncertain terms. So, you are
patently wrong in your assumption that an application for state aid is
necessary to start the process.

No I can't see that being the case... How is the Gov going to know
that Joe Blow hasn't paid his support payments unless the CP makes a
claim. Once an order from the court is produced to pay money. It is
then left between the 2 parties to decide how it will be paid. If the
CP is not collecting anything, they may then approach the courts to ask
for a method to ensure these funds are paid.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dusty wrote:

Beverly, you couldn't be more wrong. C$E agencies use FEDERALLY
MANDATED
license revocation (drivers and professional) as a main method in
attempting
to collect C$ arrears. Neither the states, the courts, or even the CP
need
do anything at all to set the majority of these collection methods in
place - they are done AUTOMATICALLY when an arrears reaches $5000. USC
Title 42, section 666 states this in no uncertain terms. So, you are
patently wrong in your assumption that an application for state aid is
necessary to start the process.

No I can't see that being the case... How is the Gov going to know
that Joe Blow hasn't paid his support payments unless the CP makes a
claim. Once an order from the court is produced to pay money. It is
then left between the 2 parties to decide how it will be paid. If the
CP is not collecting anything, they may then approach the courts to ask
for a method to ensure these funds are paid.

Are you stoned or just stupid, Spider? When a court orders a C$ payment to
be made, they use wage garnishment to collect the cash. The states do this
because they don't have any trust in the parents to collect, keep track of
and make payments to the receiving (CP) parent. This way the state becomes
the parents book keeper. But the states have (especially MA) a notoriously
bad track record in keeping their books up to date, much less keep track of
the proper amounts paid in or out, or even interest, fees and penalties
collected.

It's a rare thing these days for a court to leave the details up to parents
anymore.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

But I can also assure you that using child support enforcement is not
always the best route to take for a CP trying to collect child
support. Just heading down that road can ensure a CP never sees a
penny. As much as it angered me that my ex was subsidizing his
existence for having sired children (taking tax benefits while paying
nothing), the best interests of my children were never going to be
served by child support enforcement and its collection methods.
Hence, my ex husband will never be in danger of having to experience
such tactics DESPITE the fact that he is well over the "threshold" in
arrears.

Immediate wage withholding has been federally mandated on IV-D CS orders
entered or modified after October 3, 1989, and non-IV-D CS orders entered or
modified after November 4, 1993. There are a couple of exceptions but they
all require no arrearages to be owed. It is my personal experience every
modification I faced created an arrearage so there was never any opportunity
to use one of the exceptions.

You did make several comments about not using the state for enforcement
because that was not in the best interests of the children. The law, in
fact, states just the opposite. The law says immediate wage withholding IS
in the best interest of the children if the obligor has ever paid 7 days
after the due date in 3 of the last 12 months, or the obligor has had a
delinquency at the end of any month. A good cause exception is allowed if
neither of those circumstances have occurred.

BTW - The other two exceptions in the law are an alternative payment method
which by definition is electronic fund transfer is approved in writing by
both parents and the court, or the child is in foster care or incarcerated
by the youth authority and the obligor applies in writing for a waiver after
paying all arrearages.

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

Bullocks. I suggest that you take a look at both STATE and FEDERAL C$
laws.
They clearly state that a parent that is behind in their C$, for
whatever
reason, opens themselves up to loss of their drivers and professional
licenses; revocation of their passport; massive IRS interventions;
intrusive
wage garnishment programs and a whole host of other draconian measures
that
are all in place thanks to our buddies, the rad-fems.

And these measures have a fairly low threshold, they kick in when an NCP
hits $5k in arrears. Something that, when coupled with imputed income
(something commonly applied by "Family Courts" all across the globe),
this
amount becomes extremely easily achieved in very short order.

But of course, these laws only apply to NCPs, not any other type of
parent
(least of all married or cohabitating parents). I'd love to see these
same
laws applied to married parents, too. Then we'd see some real fast
changes
to the C$ laws...

If you doubt me, just run a search on USC Title 42, section 666. You'll
find it all right there in black and white.

I don't doubt you... Nor did I say I do... but what does CS have to
do with Parental rights.. they are 2 exclusive issues, and never should
the 2 be mixed. As a parent you have a right to have access to your
child, regardless of what the other one thinks, or if you've paid your
support or not.

C$ has everything to do with parental rights. The two are so closely
intertwined it's almost impossible to find a judge that can tell the
difference between the two - even though they claim, repeatedly, that they
are seperate issues.

Think of it this way.. You are ordered to pay C$. This works fine for a
number of years, then the economy tanks, you loose your job and seek
employment in another, lower paying job. You go to court to get your C$
lowered to accommodate your new, lower earnings. The judge doesn't believe
you, imputes your income to an amount that, even with a second or third job,
you'd never be able to pay. You fall behind in your C$. The state takes
your drivers license. Now you have to take a cab to get to work, or walk,
or ask for a ride every day. Your kids live 50 miles away. How do you get
to see them if you can't drive and public transportation is a nonentity in
your area.

This is how I see C$ and Parental Rights as two components of the same
issue. They are, IMO, extremely close subjects and should be dealt with at
the same time. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.

But at the same time, if you are going to be a parent, then you need
to hold up your end of bargin and support your child. You can't just
be a parent when it's convient for you. If your going to be a parent..
guess what there is alot of responsibility that goes along with it.

I agree, but consider your statement from the stand point of the NCP that
the CP and the courts have repeatedly run roughshod over. Consider how they
feel at being ostracized and pushed to the fringes of their children's
lives. Consider the NCP that is only seen as a walking wallet and has their
time with their kids shortened by the courts because the judge has a bad
hair-day.

So, while I agree it is of the utmost importance for parents to support
their children, there are always other factors that need to be taken into
consideration before branding any non-paying NCPs as deadbeats. If the NCP
isn't paying, there's probably a damned good reason, not an excuse, as to
why they can't pay.

And part of the problem is the fact downward modifications can't be made
thanks to the Bradley Amendment. Because once an arrears is in place, the
NCP is stuck with it and there's no way the courts can (much less will)
lower the C$ owed.

This starts a viscous circle - the NCP can't get their C$ lowered and an
arrears starts to pile up. Once that arrears reaches $5000, they loose
their drivers license. Now, unless the NCP lives in a big city, this won't
necessarily be a problem. It becomes a major problem for those that don't
live in NY, Boston, LA Houston, etc.. where public transportation is sparse
at best, worse, it doesn't exist at all.

So then the NCP can't get to work. Why? the State took the only means to
keep their job away from them. How is this in the "best interests of the
child"???

Now, without a job, the NCP falls further behind, gets arrested on "failure
to pay" charges, gets tossed into jail - all the while they're arrears keeps
building, getting bigger and bigger. The NCP gets out of jail, finds some
work after moving to a city (placing them farther from their kids and making
visitation nearly impossible), but is arrested again for "failure to pay"
because the arrears is now to such an amount, that unless the NCP hits
Powerball they never have a chance of paying off.

Eventually, the NCP will either commit suicide (very common), move to
another state and change their name, or leave the country.

This is how I warrant the two being intertwined and inseparable. They're
the C$ equivalent of a Reese's cup. You can't have one without having to
deal with the other.

[snip]

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 16:03:31 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:50:15 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:

Bullocks. I suggest that you take a look at both STATE and FEDERAL C$
laws.
They clearly state that a parent that is behind in their C$, for whatever
reason, opens themselves up to loss of their drivers and professional
licenses; revocation of their passport; massive IRS interventions;
intrusive
wage garnishment programs and a whole host of other draconian measures
that
are all in place thanks to our buddies, the rad-fems.

And these measures have a fairly low threshold, they kick in when an NCP
hits $5k in arrears. Something that, when coupled with imputed income
(something commonly applied by "Family Courts" all across the globe),
this
amount becomes extremely easily achieved in very short order.

But of course, these laws only apply to NCPs, not any other type of
parent
(least of all married or cohabitating parents). I'd love to see these
same
laws applied to married parents, too. Then we'd see some real fast
changes
to the C$ laws...

If you doubt me, just run a search on USC Title 42, section 666. You'll
find it all right there in black and white.

I feel the need to clarify something so both you and others know that,
while it is true that all NCPs can be subject to all the collection
methods you describe, most are only applicable if state aid (either
financial or collection) is sought. A child support order, in and of
itself, does not default to such collection measures at ANY threshold
of arrearages.

Beverly, you couldn't be more wrong. C$E agencies use FEDERALLY MANDATED

Do you see what you just wrote? You say I am wrong and the very next
phrase begins with child support enforcement agencies. I am telling
you that few of these collections measures are available UNLESS child
support enforcement is involved. As you understand the law as you
write right here, it is applicable when child support agencies are
involved.

license revocation (drivers and professional) as a main method in attempting
to collect C$ arrears. Neither the states, the courts, or even the CP need
do anything at all to set the majority of these collection methods in
place - they are done AUTOMATICALLY when an arrears reaches $5000. USC
Title 42, section 666 states this in no uncertain terms. So, you are
patently wrong in your assumption that an application for state aid is
necessary to start the process.

If an application for state aid is made prior to the arrears reaching $5k,
then things like NCP wage garnishment (unless it's already been ordered by a
court) kicks in - to pay back the money that the state is (or has) paying
out to the CP. Besides wage garnishment, there is also state and federal
income tax seizure.

The vast majority of nastiness (on top of, and including, the bull sh*t a
court can order) that can happen to NCP's comes directly from USC 42, 666.
Go read it and learn the truth.

I've not only read it, but understand that it is a) applicable in
regard to child support enforcement agencies and b) is a law requiring
the use of certain procedures to increase the effectiveness of the
program. Nowhere that I could find did it mandate equal use of the
procedures for every child support arrearage... just that the
procedures are in place and used. I'm telling you that, in my small
sample of CPs getting "help" from child support enforcement, no NCP of
a working CP has had problems with the "draconian measures" these
procedures dictate. I am willing to admit that my sample is too small
for statistical analysis and that it is skewed in that my friends
prefer to work rather than live on welfare; however, it does prove
that states do not apply these tactics uniformly nor automatically.
Heck, the state can't even FIND the father of one of my friend's
children despite the fact she has given them a current address for
him!


My experience, both as a CP and as an employer required to withhold
child support from an employee's wages, tells me that using state
services is, perhaps, the best way for a CP to ensure that child
support dollars are never seen by the child(ren) NOR by the CP in many
cases. I can't imagine any intelligent CP using such services unless
there is nothing less to lose.

Your experience is, obviously, not the norm.

[snip]


Beverly

Dusty wrote:

Are you stoned or just stupid, Spider? When a court orders a C$ payment to
be made, they use wage garnishment to collect the cash. The states do this
because they don't have any trust in the parents to collect, keep track of
and make payments to the receiving (CP) parent. This way the state becomes
the parents book keeper. But the states have (especially MA) a notoriously
bad track record in keeping their books up to date, much less keep track of
the proper amounts paid in or out, or even interest, fees and penalties
collected.

It's a rare thing these days for a court to leave the details up to parents
anymore.

Okay find me documented proof this happens to the majority of people
who have CS payment dictated by the courts. Because if this were the
common place thing, then every single NCP in the country would have
his/her wages garnished right from the get go according to you.

In order to have a garnishment put in place it has to first be shown
that the payor has made no attempts to pay it on ther own, and it
supposed to be used a last resort type measure.

I'm sure if we do a polling of the majority of NCP's they will tell
you that they pay their child support, and it's not automatically
withdrawn from their paycheques. If you can find me documented proof
that more then 50% of the time, as a Court orders a CS payment to be
made, the courts then automatically order the agencies to take over and
give a garnishment order.

I know from personal experience this not to be the case through
friends in WA state. They had the courts levy a CS payment of X number
of dollars per month, and they started paying it. No where along the
line did they ever have to deal with money being pulled from their
cheques, or Gov cronies knocking on their door.

Garnishment of wages have to be ordered by the court, thats simple
law. An agency can't just at a whim decide to garnish your wages..
they have to get a judges approval, and you have to be given a chance
to explain otherwise. You may not win, but they can't just randomly
select people to withdraw money from.

But think of all the people who pay CS in the country... Probably
close to 100 Mill, if not more. So if you can find documented proof on
at least more then 50mil cases of a CS order being made, and then at
the same time the NCP automatically has his/her wages garnished, well
you might have an argument to make.

You seem to have the idea of the Courts and the State mixed up. They
are different entities. They may both be collecting a paycheque from
the Pubilc coffers.. but they are still run independly of each other.

Hence why Courts can strike down a law that the Gov makes.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

Are you stoned or just stupid, Spider? When a court orders a C$ payment
to
be made, they use wage garnishment to collect the cash. The states do
this
because they don't have any trust in the parents to collect, keep track
of
and make payments to the receiving (CP) parent. This way the state
becomes
the parents book keeper. But the states have (especially MA) a
notoriously
bad track record in keeping their books up to date, much less keep track
of
the proper amounts paid in or out, or even interest, fees and penalties
collected.

It's a rare thing these days for a court to leave the details up to
parents
anymore.

Okay find me documented proof this happens to the majority of people
who have CS payment dictated by the courts. Because if this were the
common place thing, then every single NCP in the country would have
his/her wages garnished right from the get go according to you.

Come on. Your B.S. is getting old! The immediate withholding law has been
cited here once by Dusty and once by me. How much freakin' proof do you
need? Go look up 42 U.S.C. Chapter 666(b)(3)(A). Immediate withholding has
been the law in the U.S. since 1993.

U.S. employers have been forced to become the CS collection mechanism for
the states' CS administrators so the states can be guaranteed to earn
collect bonuses in the form of federal pass-through dollars without having
to lift a finger.


In order to have a garnishment put in place it has to first be shown
that the payor has made no attempts to pay it on ther own, and it
supposed to be used a last resort type measure.

Not in the U.S.


I'm sure if we do a polling of the majority of NCP's they will tell
you that they pay their child support, and it's not automatically
withdrawn from their paycheques. If you can find me documented proof
that more then 50% of the time, as a Court orders a CS payment to be
made, the courts then automatically order the agencies to take over and
give a garnishment order.

I know from personal experience this not to be the case through
friends in WA state. They had the courts levy a CS payment of X number
of dollars per month, and they started paying it. No where along the
line did they ever have to deal with money being pulled from their
cheques, or Gov cronies knocking on their door.

Garnishment of wages have to be ordered by the court, thats simple
law. An agency can't just at a whim decide to garnish your wages..
they have to get a judges approval, and you have to be given a chance
to explain otherwise. You may not win, but they can't just randomly
select people to withdraw money from.

Yes they can. The states use computerized "sniffer" programs to monitor
assets of CS obligors. In my state a checking account with a balance over
$500 will be seized (in addition to garnishments on wages) if an arrearage
exists.


But think of all the people who pay CS in the country... Probably
close to 100 Mill, if not more. So if you can find documented proof on
at least more then 50mil cases of a CS order being made, and then at
the same time the NCP automatically has his/her wages garnished, well
you might have an argument to make.

It doesn't matter how many CS orders there are. Virtually 100% of them are
garnished automatically. And the law says if for some reason an older IV-D
case order was not set up for garnishment, the state can garnish the obligor
when one month of CS falls into arrears.

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

Are you stoned or just stupid, Spider? When a court orders a C$ payment
to
be made, they use wage garnishment to collect the cash. The states do
this
because they don't have any trust in the parents to collect, keep track
of
and make payments to the receiving (CP) parent. This way the state
becomes
the parents book keeper. But the states have (especially MA) a
notoriously
bad track record in keeping their books up to date, much less keep track
of
the proper amounts paid in or out, or even interest, fees and penalties
collected.

It's a rare thing these days for a court to leave the details up to
parents
anymore.

Okay find me documented proof this happens to the majority of people
who have CS payment dictated by the courts. Because if this were the
common place thing, then every single NCP in the country would have
his/her wages garnished right from the get go according to you.

OK, since I'm not about to make a boatload of phone calls to, or spend the
next 6 months searching the web for, state and private agencies or much less
visit each and every "family" court office and request to see their dockets
to get you that info.. what I can do is state for the record that each time
I was in court (watching my brother get screwed) to support my brother, I
saw case after case ahead of us that the judge ordered, with no fault of
finding to authorize or justify each NCP to have their pay checks garnished.

I also know that, after the judge imputed increasingly high income on at
least four (4) different occasions upon my brother - when he was there
requesting a reduction! And had the proof in his hands to show the judge he
didn't make the money they claimed, much less that he could pay their
increasingly erroneous C$ amounts.

So from my stand point, the answer I stand by is YES, garnishment does happe
n on a regular basis - and C$E will make such requests exparte (not sure of
the spelling). I've seen them sitting in the court room, just waiting for
the place to clear out, so they can get at the judge. Then that judge will
rubber stamp their requests, no questions asked.

In order to have a garnishment put in place it has to first be shown
that the payor has made no attempts to pay it on ther own, and it
supposed to be used a last resort type measure.

Not true. All you need is a judge with an axe to grind.

I'm sure if we do a polling of the majority of NCP's they will tell
you that they pay their child support, and it's not automatically
withdrawn from their paycheques. If you can find me documented proof
that more then 50% of the time, as a Court orders a CS payment to be
made, the courts then automatically order the agencies to take over and
give a garnishment order.

Well, then, let's do a poll and find out.

I know from personal experience this not to be the case through
friends in WA state. They had the courts levy a CS payment of X number
of dollars per month, and they started paying it. No where along the
line did they ever have to deal with money being pulled from their
cheques, or Gov cronies knocking on their door.

Good for them, they got lucky.

Garnishment of wages have to be ordered by the court, thats simple
law. An agency can't just at a whim decide to garnish your wages..
they have to get a judges approval, and you have to be given a chance
to explain otherwise. You may not win, but they can't just randomly
select people to withdraw money from.

As I said before, the courts can do whatever the hell they want. And wage
garnishment is SOP in MA, CA, MI, FL... It's hardly random. The courts
wanted, and states set it up, so that they don't have to deal with the
hassle of CPs running to their offices and bitching about the check they
didn't get last Friday because the PO was closed.

But think of all the people who pay CS in the country... Probably
close to 100 Mill, if not more. So if you can find documented proof on
at least more then 50mil cases of a CS order being made, and then at
the same time the NCP automatically has his/her wages garnished, well
you might have an argument to make.

There's only 250 odd million people in the US... your telling me that
nearly half of them are paying C$??

You seem to have the idea of the Courts and the State mixed up. They
are different entities. They may both be collecting a paycheque from
the Pubilc coffers.. but they are still run independly of each other.

I know the courts and the states are separate. They may be separate, but
they hold hands and make out on a regular basis. And the slut of the bunch
is the so-called Family court.

Hence why Courts can strike down a law that the Gov makes.

Very true, but not when it's Family court.

On 1 Jan 2006 18:39:40 -0800, "SpiderHam77"
wrote:


Dusty wrote:

Are you stoned or just stupid, Spider? When a court orders a C$ payment to
be made, they use wage garnishment to collect the cash. The states do this
because they don't have any trust in the parents to collect, keep track of
and make payments to the receiving (CP) parent. This way the state becomes
the parents book keeper. But the states have (especially MA) a notoriously
bad track record in keeping their books up to date, much less keep track of
the proper amounts paid in or out, or even interest, fees and penalties
collected.

It's a rare thing these days for a court to leave the details up to parents
anymore.

Okay find me documented proof this happens to the majority of people
who have CS payment dictated by the courts. Because if this were the
common place thing, then every single NCP in the country would have
his/her wages garnished right from the get go according to you.

Actually, the court system in my state has been ordering wage
withholding at the time of the child support order as a matter of
course since at LEAST1994. Unfortunately, signing up for child
support enforcement is necessary when the NCP changes jobs and the CP
can't get the information because the databanks of new hires are not
accessible otherwise. The system is designed to make people use child
support enforcement when the NCP avoids paying and, as I have said
before, it really should only be used as a last resort.


In order to have a garnishment put in place it has to first be shown
that the payor has made no attempts to pay it on ther own, and it
supposed to be used a last resort type measure.

I'm sure if we do a polling of the majority of NCP's they will tell
you that they pay their child support, and it's not automatically
withdrawn from their paycheques. If you can find me documented proof
that more then 50% of the time, as a Court orders a CS payment to be
made, the courts then automatically order the agencies to take over and
give a garnishment order.

This is quite possible. It was up to me to enforce the order by going
to courthouse and filling out forms when my ex changed jobs.
Sometimes, CPs are not even aware that the NCP has changed jobs and is
paying it without withholding. In my case, when child support stopped
coming, I knew my ex was no longer working where the order was sent.

I know from personal experience this not to be the case through
friends in WA state. They had the courts levy a CS payment of X number
of dollars per month, and they started paying it. No where along the
line did they ever have to deal with money being pulled from their
cheques, or Gov cronies knocking on their door.

Garnishment of wages have to be ordered by the court, thats simple
law. An agency can't just at a whim decide to garnish your wages..
they have to get a judges approval, and you have to be given a chance
to explain otherwise. You may not win, but they can't just randomly
select people to withdraw money from.

Child support enforcement retains lawyers to draw up the necessary
documents and slip it under a judge's pen.


But think of all the people who pay CS in the country... Probably
close to 100 Mill, if not more. So if you can find documented proof on
at least more then 50mil cases of a CS order being made, and then at
the same time the NCP automatically has his/her wages garnished, well
you might have an argument to make.

You seem to have the idea of the Courts and the State mixed up. They
are different entities. They may both be collecting a paycheque from
the Pubilc coffers.. but they are still run independly of each other.

Hence why Courts can strike down a law that the Gov makes.

SpiderHam77

Beverly

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
. net...

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:

Are you stoned or just stupid, Spider? When a court orders a C$
payment
to
be made, they use wage garnishment to collect the cash. The states
do
this
because they don't have any trust in the parents to collect, keep
track
of
and make payments to the receiving (CP) parent. This way the state
becomes
the parents book keeper. But the states have (especially MA) a
notoriously
bad track record in keeping their books up to date, much less keep
track
of
the proper amounts paid in or out, or even interest, fees and
penalties
collected.

It's a rare thing these days for a court to leave the details up to
parents
anymore.

Okay find me documented proof this happens to the majority of people
who have CS payment dictated by the courts. Because if this were the
common place thing, then every single NCP in the country would have
his/her wages garnished right from the get go according to you.

Come on. Your B.S. is getting old! The immediate withholding law has
been
cited here once by Dusty and once by me. How much freakin' proof do you
need? Go look up 42 U.S.C. Chapter 666(b)(3)(A). Immediate withholding
has
been the law in the U.S. since 1993.

It was 1989 in Michigan :-(


U.S. employers have been forced to become the CS collection mechanism
for
the states' CS administrators so the states can be guaranteed to earn
collect bonuses in the form of federal pass-through dollars without
having
to lift a finger.


In order to have a garnishment put in place it has to first be shown
that the payor has made no attempts to pay it on ther own, and it
supposed to be used a last resort type measure.

Not in the U.S.

Absolutely...........withholding / garnishment is automatic.




I'm sure if we do a polling of the majority of NCP's they will tell
you that they pay their child support, and it's not automatically
withdrawn from their paycheques. If you can find me documented proof
that more then 50% of the time, as a Court orders a CS payment to be
made, the courts then automatically order the agencies to take over and
give a garnishment order.

I know from personal experience this not to be the case through
friends in WA state. They had the courts levy a CS payment of X number
of dollars per month, and they started paying it. No where along the
line did they ever have to deal with money being pulled from their
cheques, or Gov cronies knocking on their door.

Garnishment of wages have to be ordered by the court, thats simple
law. An agency can't just at a whim decide to garnish your wages..
they have to get a judges approval, and you have to be given a chance
to explain otherwise. You may not win, but they can't just randomly
select people to withdraw money from.

Yes they can. The states use computerized "sniffer" programs to monitor
assets of CS obligors. In my state a checking account with a balance
over
$500 will be seized (in addition to garnishments on wages) if an
arrearage
exists.

I've even heard of accounts of kids (with the parent as a cosigner) being
seized.

They will even force foreclosure on a house to get their "pound of flesh"



But think of all the people who pay CS in the country... Probably
close to 100 Mill, if not more. So if you can find documented proof on
at least more then 50mil cases of a CS order being made, and then at
the same time the NCP automatically has his/her wages garnished, well
you might have an argument to make.

It doesn't matter how many CS orders there are. Virtually 100% of them
are
garnished automatically. And the law says if for some reason an older
IV-D
case order was not set up for garnishment, the state can garnish the
obligor
when one month of CS falls into arrears.