I didnt know he had more kids!!! Child Support

[longbeachmama]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I was just recently granted child support for my twins for $700/month but child support services says he(the twins father) has others cases that i was unaware of so my child support amount was reduced to $360. The father told the court in a written statement that our twins are his first born...Is there a way to get my kids full amount since he lied?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I was just recently granted child support for my twins for $700/month but child support services says he(the twins father) has others cases that i was unaware of so my child support amount was reduced to $360. The father told the court in a written statement that our twins are his first born...Is there a way to get my kids full amount since he lied?

The twins might be first born but that does NOT mean he doesn't have other child support cases. Maybe the other mothers were quicker than you were. Prove that dad lied and that the lie matters.

If dad has other cases, you are getting the full amount. Why do you believe that you deserve $700 a month?

 

[nextwife]

Maybe it would be wiser to actually know a person well and for a considerable period of time before having children with them.

As stated, birth order is irrelevent, it is filing order that matters.

 

[mistoffolees]

Maybe it would be wiser to actually know a person well and for a considerable period of time before having children with them.

As stated, birth order is irrelevent, it is filing order that matters.

In fairness, if the twins were first-born, then Mom may have known him well enough at the time they chose to have kids and he LATER had the other kids.

The real lesson here is not to mess around with the filing process. People should file for support and get a court order so that both parents are legally required to support their kids. Any time you play games like "he's giving me $xxx per month, but we don't have a court order", you run a risk of messing things up.

 

[strongbus]

OP did CSE say that they

1.had the courts lower the amount.
or
2. did they just say that they where only going send you 360 each month instead of the 700 the order states?

If it was the 1st you might be able to fight it.

If it was the 2nd one you might not be able to do anything. This would be because that the combined CS payments for your kids and the other kids you ex has is more then he makes or that CSE can take form his paycheck by law. In which case CSE has to split the amount they can take form him between all the kids. You would still get the full amount of 700 a month just that you still be getting smaller payments long after the kids turn 18 as CSE will let him go into arrears.

 

[stealth2]

OP did CSE say that they

1.had the courts lower the amount.
or
2. did they just say that they where only going send you 360 each month instead of the 700 the order states?

If it was the 1st you might be able to fight it.

If it was the 2nd one you might not be able to do anything. This would be because that the combined CS payments for your kids and the other kids you ex has is more then he makes or that CSE can take form his paycheck by law. In which case CSE has to split the amount they can take form him between all the kids. You would still get the full amount of 700 a month just that you still be getting smaller payments long after the kids turn 18 as CSE will let him go into arrears.

Is this based on CA information, or how it works in ME?

 

[strongbus]

quick google search(unless i saw wrong info) state that CA can take up to 60% of a person's paycheck for CS. Now if the total support owed for all the CS orders is over 60%, then that leaves CSE able to do one of two things.

1 pay the full amount owe to a few of the orders and nothing to the rest

or

2. split the amount that they get between all of the CS orders

 

[stealth2]

then that leaves CSE able to do one of two things.

1 pay the full amount owe to a few of the orders and nothing to the rest

or

2. split the amount that they get between all of the CS orders

Could you please post a cite for this info being valid in CA? Thanks.

 

[mistoffolees]

Could you please post a cite for this info being valid in CA? Thanks.

It's 50% rather than 60%.

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0/employer/docs/EmployerHndbk.pdf

"Generally, the maximum amount that can be withheld to satisfy an IWO is 50% of an employee’s net disposable income. Net disposable income is the wages left after taxes and mandatory fees, includes but is not limited to: income taxes, Social Security/Medicare (FICA), unemployment insurance, union dues and mandatory retirement deductions."

 

[stealth2]

I was more interested n whether CA CSE actually does things like strongbus said.

 

[strongbus]

I can't find anything online. I got a coworker who had 2 CS orders in CA and that what is taking out of him is lower then the 2 orders combined. He complains all the time how both the mothers are at him to send them more money cause CSE in CA is not giving them all of what the orders state.

 

[mistoffolees]

I can't find anything online. I got a coworker who had 2 CS orders in CA and that what is taking out of him is lower then the 2 orders combined. He complains all the time how both the mothers are at him to send them more money cause CSE in CA is not giving them all of what the orders state.

Sorry, but I can't take a third hand hearsay story very seriously.

The way it works in CA is:
1. If 50% of adjusted income is sufficient to cover all orders, then CSE withholds the full amount and everyone gets what they're entitled to.
2. If 50% of adjusted income is NOT sufficient to cover all orders, then CSE withholds the maximum amount and prorates it by the percentage of the total. That is, if there are two orders - one for $700 and one for $300 but they are only able to withhold $600 due to the maximum amounts, the larger order gets 70% ($420) while the smaller order gets 30% ($180).

Wage Withholding, Employers Corner, DCSS, County of Sacramento, California, USA
"Add together the amount of support due for each assignment. If 50% of the employee's net disposable earnings will not pay in full all of the assignments for support, prorate it first among all the current support assignments in the same proportion that each assignment bears to the total current support owed. Apply any remainder to the assignments for the arrearage support in the same proportion that each bears to the total arrearage owed."

That's Sacramento County, but I think it works the same way in most or all counties in CA.

 

[Just Blue]

I can't find anything online. I got a coworker who had 2 CS orders in CA and that what is taking out of him is lower then the 2 orders combined. He complains all the time how both the mothers are at him to send them more money cause CSE in CA is not giving them all of what the orders state.

Unless you can back up your "advice" with stat or case law for the state in question...do not post to another members thread. Thanks!!

 

[nextwife]

I can't find anything online. I got a coworker who had 2 CS orders in CA and that what is taking out of him is lower then the 2 orders combined. He complains all the time how both the mothers are at him to send them more money cause CSE in CA is not giving them all of what the orders state.

Perhaps this is a case in which income was imputed, a second income dropped, a voluntary reduction or change occurred. It is unlikely that two orders would take 50%. More likely, in this case, if the second order was not legally entitled to the amount awarded, as it failed to include a prior order, it will be adjusted to reflect the correct calculations.

It is not normally the case where orders are made that continue to put the payor into arrears when paying the max allowed. There are all sorts of work complications of doing this, as parties that must travel internationally for work would lose their passports even though paying, and then be further unable to pay.

 

[stealth2]

Sorry, but I can't take a third hand hearsay story very seriously.

The way it works in CA is:
1. If 50% of adjusted income is sufficient to cover all orders, then CSE withholds the full amount and everyone gets what they're entitled to.
2. If 50% of adjusted income is NOT sufficient to cover all orders, then CSE withholds the maximum amount and prorates it by the percentage of the total. That is, if there are two orders - one for $700 and one for $300 but they are only able to withhold $600 due to the maximum amounts, the larger order gets 70% ($420) while the smaller order gets 30% ($180).

Wage Withholding, Employers Corner, DCSS, County of Sacramento, California, USA
"Add together the amount of support due for each assignment. If 50% of the employee's net disposable earnings will not pay in full all of the assignments for support, prorate it first among all the current support assignments in the same proportion that each assignment bears to the total current support owed. Apply any remainder to the assignments for the arrearage support in the same proportion that each bears to the total arrearage owed."

That's Sacramento County, but I think it works the same way in most or all counties in CA.

And THAT, strongbus, is how one responds to a post such as OP's. Just as an FYI.