• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Husband trying to avoid support

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the name of your state? Mississippi

It seems as though, if it is not one thing it is another. I have posted on this site before and always found that the advice has proven very insightful and imformative. I thank the people who frequent these forums provide much needed legal (and often times, just plain old common sense) to those seeking answers.

My problem now is this, after getting all the necessary paperwork together and ready to proceed with the divorce...husband was in agreement with all the terms. Now that he has been served with the papers he is now backing out, refusing to sign. I know that the issue is that he is now trying to avoid is child support for the three children in which we both have together. In Mississippi three children equals to 22% of his take home pay. Being that he has two pre-existing child support orders for three other children (before we met) the amount that will be awarded to our three will be barely enough to begin a college fund.

We are not talking about a substantial amount, I am looking at just a little over $300 for the children--a month. But when you add the other orders, and the fact that the husband owes a year in back support to our children, he will be bringing home maybe $300 a month himself for himself. He is currently living with another woman and they split the bills of the household. My husband has not seen the kids but twice this year, once for a weekend, and another for two hours. The woman lost custody of her children and informed me that she does not want my children in her home.

Now, husband is trying to find an attorney to get the child support lowered or to avoid it all together. He states that he cannot maintain a living if I am granted support for the children. It is my belief that he should have thought of that before he proceeded to produce children he was incapable of providing for. After all, I am not alloted the priviledge of saying that I have no money to care for them. I have been granted the responsibility of forfeiting any minor extras so that I can provide my children with a decent living.

Is there any way he can get out of paying the support, or any way he can have the payments reduced from the measly $300 a month? The child support case has already been referred to the state attorney, but I have yet to be rewarded an amount for the children.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
 


NotSoNew

Senior Member
no the guidelines are the guidelines for a reason, they dont care how much you have left to live on (unfortantly) they take their percentage and thats it.
 
NotSoNew said:
no the guidelines are the guidelines for a reason, they dont care how much you have left to live on (unfortantly) they take their percentage and thats it.
Is that true? I thought that in some states child support can't be over 50% of your income. Can they really leave someone with only $300 to live on?
 

NotSoNew

Senior Member
AmarieNorton said:
Is that true? I thought that in some states child support can't be over 50% of your income. Can they really leave someone with only $300 to live on?
well i was ASSuming that she came up with 22% including the previous support orders.

OP did you run a calculator for your state? how much are his previous CS orders?

they will take his previous orders into account and you will get a precentage based on his income AFTER those are taken.
 
After taxes and the other support orders, my husband brings home between 400 and 350 a week. Not much. The Mississippi Law states that 1 child is 14%, 2 is 17% and 3 is 22% of the money after taxes and pre-existing orders. ( one order is for one child which is set at $200/month. The other is for two children that came after the first, so they get together $200/month. So right now, he is paying $400 a month in support.) He makes about 5-600 a week before taxes and support, about $2000 a month gross...Last year he grossed an income of $28,000.

So I would receive 22% of $350 for the children. They would also take out an additional for back support owed. So I should receive about $700 a month until he is caught up. I may be mistaken about this, but from what the attorney and Child Support Enforcement explained, this would be how they set everything up. Being that they will basically take out 2 payments for our children, that would leave him with maybe about $500 a month... I was miscalculating when I stated three. But he works at a place where he can make more in bonuses. So he can easily bring home more with bonuses...so he can possibly bring home $600 a week, before they take out for our children but after the other two orders.

I am just worried that going weekly, it will appear that he has little money left over to survive on, and that may be a case for him to receive reduced payments. Or woud the court not order back support out of his weekly check? Then would I have to wait until he files his tax return?
 
Last edited:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
ever_learning said:
After taxes and the other support orders, my husband brings home between 400 and 350 a week. Not much. The Mississippi Law states that 1 child is 14%, 2 is 17% and 3 is 22% of the money after taxes and pre-existing orders. ( one order is for one child which is set at $200/month. The other is for two children that came after the first, so they get together $200/month. So right now, he is paying $400 a month in support.) He makes about 5-600 a week before taxes and support, about $2000 a month gross...Last year he grossed an income of $28,000.

So I would receive 22% of $350 for the children. They would also take out an additional for back support owed. So I should receive about $700 a month until he is caught up. I may be mistaken about this, but from what the attorney and Child Support Enforcement explained, this would be how they set everything up. Being that they will basically take out 2 payments for our children, that would leave him with maybe about $500 a month... I was miscalculating when I stated three. But he works at a place where he can make more in bonuses. So he can easily bring home more with bonuses...so he can possibly bring home $600 a week, before they take out for our children but after the other two orders.

I am just worried that going weekly, it will appear that he has little money left over to survive on, and that may be a case for him to receive reduced payments. Or woud the court not order back support out of his weekly check? Then would I have to wait until he files his tax return?
How did you get the idea that he will be forced to pay FULL payments to make up back support? good grief. I have never heard of a state doing that. he will be required to pay towards the back support/arrearages however it will NOT be a full payment. It might be 10 or 20$ maximum.
 

NotSoNew

Senior Member
yeah ohiogal is right, arrearages would be a small amount in addition to his CS order, not the full amount! they cant legally take that much from him, arrears or not.

also if his weekly income left falls below poverty level then they can deviate from the guidelines.
 

Whyte Noise

Senior Member
Some states will tack on 1/2 of the monthly amount if there are arrearages, but they will not make him "double up" and pay that $300 amount twice.

For example: If his monthly CS amount is $300, they can tack on additional $150 (which is 1/2 of $300) to go towards arrearages if your state is one that is allowed to do that. This is something you'd have to check into though.

In my husband's case, his monthly CS amount is $316, and his state tacked on an additional $158 (half of $316) for arrearages, which makes his total monthly CS payment $474.
 
Okay, I understand now.

I guess this is why I am not a lawyer, huh?

Thanks for the replies, I feel a little bit better. No matter what happens, I will still do whatever it takes to take care of the children.
 

aud

Member
Federal Law not state

Actually it is the Federal Government that sets an absolute limit on witholding.

"You may not withhold more that the lesser of 1) the amount allowed by the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1673(b)) or 2) the amounts allowed by the state of the obligor's principal place of employment. The Federal limit applies to the aggregate disposable Weekly Earnings. ADWE is the amount left after mandatory deductions such as: State, Federal and Local taxes, Social Security taxes, Statutory Pension Contributions and Medicare taxes. Under law, the amount witheld from the employee's check, including the optional Empkloyer Witholding Fee may be in excess of, in 50% in support and alimony cases, which can be increased by 1) 10% if the obligor does not support a second family and 2) 5% if the arrears is greater than 12 weeks."

Probably where the "50%" figure came from. In addition, if the NCP has to pay for health insurance, some judges will allow a credit for that as well (usually prorated from the ADWE) and it is not unheard of for a judge to give credit for tools if the NCP can prove that they are a requirement for the NCP to do his job (mechanic's, machinists, welders...ect) The last one is kind of "iffy" though.
 

Mediate This!

Junior Member
AmarieNorton said:
Is that true? I thought that in some states child support can't be over 50% of your income. Can they really leave someone with only $300 to live on?
You're thinking of garnishment.
 

CJane

Senior Member
NotSoNew said:
no the guidelines are the guidelines for a reason, they dont care how much you have left to live on (unfortantly) they take their percentage and thats it.
Are you sure that's accurate? I know in my state, the NCP can request a hearing at which they can claim that the amount is too high (for a variety of reasons) and the judge can choose to negate the CS order due to the amount being 'unjust and unfair'. I'm betting Missouri isn't the only state this can happen in.
 

Mediate This!

Junior Member
aud said:
Actually it is the Federal Government that sets an absolute limit on witholding.

"You may not withhold more that the lesser of 1) the amount allowed by the Federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1673(b)) or 2) the amounts allowed by the state of the obligor's principal place of employment. The Federal limit applies to the aggregate disposable Weekly Earnings. ADWE is the amount left after mandatory deductions such as: State, Federal and Local taxes, Social Security taxes, Statutory Pension Contributions and Medicare taxes. Under law, the amount witheld from the employee's check, including the optional Empkloyer Witholding Fee may be in excess of, in 50% in support and alimony cases, which can be increased by 1) 10% if the obligor does not support a second family and 2) 5% if the arrears is greater than 12 weeks."

Probably where the "50%" figure came from. In addition, if the NCP has to pay for health insurance, some judges will allow a credit for that as well (usually prorated from the ADWE) and it is not unheard of for a judge to give credit for tools if the NCP can prove that they are a requirement for the NCP to do his job (mechanic's, machinists, welders...ect) The last one is kind of "iffy" though.
OK to clarify.

Federal law on garnishments (for each):
- if you're single: no more than 60% of your weekly take-home (including mandatory deductions)
- if you're married or supporting another: no more than 50% of your weekly take-home.

If you're 12 weeks or more in arrears, then an addition 5% is allowed to be added.

And this is for EACH garnishment...so if someone has two child support orders being garnished, then the first one is 50/60 and the second is 50/60 of what's left.
 

NotSoNew

Senior Member
CJane said:
Are you sure that's accurate? I know in my state, the NCP can request a hearing at which they can claim that the amount is too high (for a variety of reasons) and the judge can choose to negate the CS order due to the amount being 'unjust and unfair'. I'm betting Missouri isn't the only state this can happen in.
I have only heard of that if there is extreme circumstances, like medical bills or something, not just because the amount is too high! please my husbands amount is too high, and if he doesnt work overtime moms child support is more then what he brings home a week!
 

CJane

Senior Member
NotSoNew said:
I have only heard of that if there is extreme circumstances, like medical bills or something, not just because the amount is too high! please my husbands amount is too high, and if he doesnt work overtime moms child support is more then what he brings home a week!
I dunno. The information I gave is based on 2 things.

1) In my original divorce decree, my ex was assessed an amount of child support ($350/month) but claimed that due to self-employment and retaining the family home, he could not afford that amount (nevermind that he has a trust fund in excess of $1M). The child support was declared unfair and unjust and not ordered.

2) I spoke w/child support enforcement re: my infant's father last week. I was told that information will be sent to him regarding the amount of the judgement, at which time he will be given an opportunity to request a hearing if he chooses to, so that he can dispute the amount as being unfair and unjust.

Now, I don't know how often that declaration is made, or how many states it applies in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top