• 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.

Marrying my child's father who owes back child support on our child to our state.

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.

msleigh

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

California

I have a complicated situation and haven't been able to find any similar questions in the archives. I apologize in advance if this question has already been answered.

I am now marrying my 4 year old son's father. There was a period of time (roughly two years) in which we weren't together that I received welfare, food stamps and medical coverage for myself and our son through the state of California. During that time, my now-fiance was ordered by the state to pay $500 per month, which covered child support for me and reimbursed the state for the public assistance we were receiving. However, he did not pay this because he felt it was unfairly high based on his income at the time (which it was). So, of course it accumulated each month.

My fiance, son and myself are now living together and neither of us (nor our son) are receiving any type of public assistance, and there is no longer any form of child support order in place. We earn only enough income to afford basic living expenses in Southern California, yet my fiance is being harassed by child support services to fork over just under $10,000 in back child support payments (again, for our own son who we now support together). Last week, they seized his bank accounts and took every penny ($2,700) in his checking and savings -- money that was supposed to be for food and rent. It's to the point that we might not be able to provide for our child and ourselves *without* going on public assistance! Pretty absurd.

Everyone we talk to over the phone at child support services is incredibly rude (we have literally been "hung-up" on), unhelpful and unwilling to work out a reasonable payment plan or reduce the principle. We can't afford our own lawyers right now, which is why I am asking for advice here.

What can we do? Is there any way this debt can be lowered or excused? What's ironic is that child support services supposedly exists to "help families," yet our family is being hurt!

Help! :confused:

Thank you,
Leigh
 


Proserpina

Senior Member
The State will not waive arrears owed to them.

The State is also not hurting your family - the person responsible for the hurt you're in now is your fiance.

You fiance needs to actually go there in person and see if he can arrange a payment plan.

They will, however, get their money one way or the other.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
yet my fiance is being harassed by child support services to fork over just under $10,000 in back child support payments (again, for our own son who we now support together)
what they are seeking is not due to the current situation. It is for a debt he owes them for the past failure to make proper payments.

However, he did not pay this because he felt it was unfairly high based on his income at the time (which it was)
well, what he felt was right or wrong does not mean he didn't have to pay it.

Pretty absurd.
that is exactly what I thought too when I read he refused to pay his child support payments simply because he felt they were unfair.
 

msleigh

Junior Member
How is it his fault when the DCSS was unreasonable from the beginning? The amount of money they asked for was never within his capability of paying -- then, or now. The money they seized from his bank account is going to put us (and or son) at risk of being homeless -- in which case, we would get assistance again and the state would lose more money.

We are actually low-income enough to get public assistance if we want it -- yet we scrimp and do everything possible to avoid it. If he was currently receiving aid, would he be required to make the monthly payments? If so, perhaps that's what we'll do -- use the state's own money in the form of cash aid to pay off the state. How absurd is that?

By the rules of the DCSS, he could just as easily leave me right now, go on assistance, and I would be ordered to pay *him* child support due to his "low income" (by their standards). Yet, somehow, they feel his income is high enough to pay $500 per month?

Why is it that the custodial parent who received assistance (myself) doesn't have to repay the state for the aid received, yet, the noncustodial parent does? Since spouses assume each other's debts, they would be forcing me to repay my own public assistance debt -- how is that fair, by their own standards?

How is financially punishing a child's parents when they are trying to get on their feet and support said child conducive to healthy families? I think our case is very unique. There must be some sort of legal loophole to get around this situation that doesn't require us to use cash aid to pay back child support or some other absurd situation.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
How is it his fault when the DCSS was unreasonable from the beginning? The amount of money they asked for was never within his capability of paying -- then, or now. The money they seized from his bank account is going to put us (and or son) at risk of being homeless -- in which case, we would get assistance again and the state would lose more money.

We are actually low-income enough to get public assistance if we want it -- yet we scrimp and do everything possible to avoid it. If he was currently receiving aid, would he be required to make the monthly payments? If so, perhaps that's what we'll do -- use the state's own money in the form of cash aid to pay off the state. How absurd is that?

By the rules of the DCSS, he could just as easily leave me right now, go on assistance, and I would be ordered to pay *him* child support due to his "low income" (by their standards). Yet, somehow, they feel his income is high enough to pay $500 per month?

Why is it that the custodial parent who received assistance (myself) doesn't have to repay the state for the aid received, yet, the noncustodial parent does? Since spouses assume each other's debts, they would be forcing me to repay my own public assistance debt -- how is that fair, by their own standards?

How is financially punishing a child's parents when they are trying to get on their feet and support said child conducive to healthy families? I think our case is very unique. There must be some sort of legal loophole to get around this situation that doesn't require us to use cash aid to pay back child support or some other absurd situation.


Your case is not unique at all.

But, since I'm curious - how much was he ordered to pay, when was it ordered and what was he earning?
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
How is it his fault when the DCSS was unreasonable from the beginning?
It is his fault that he didn't do anything about it - other than refuse to pay.

If they were really asking for unreasonable amounts, then he could have appealed it rather than letting the debt pile up.

Not to mention, of course, that you haven't established that he was asked to pay unreasonable amounts. What was his income? How much was he asked to pay? It's amazing how many people go from "that's not enough child support to live on" to "it's ridiculous how much they want someone to pay" when they go from one side of the fence to the other. The rules don't change.
 

msleigh

Junior Member
My fiance was grossing approximately $1,600 per month when they ordered him to pay $540 per month. His then-employer (who the DCSS also harassed) actually wrote the DCSS a letter explaining that they were requesting too high of a payment/garnishment. You have to take into account that we live in one of the most expensive areas of the country -- had he paid the amount they asked, he would have been homeless (even motels around here are $900 per month). In case your interested, my fiance now makes less than that (he works as a private contractor and business has been slow).

So, you know of other low-income, reunited families who have used state-issued cash aid payments to repay debt owed to the state (originally accrued by cash-aid payments)?

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul! If this is as wide-spread a practice as you say, perhaps it's time for the state to reform it's laws.

Sometimes, the DCSS gets it wrong, as they did in our case. They don't seem to understand that some people (such as private contractors) have incomes that fluctuate month to month. Yes, it is unfair to demand a monthly child support payment based on one month of high income.

Again, I feel our case is unique and that there must be a way to modify the principle.
 

msleigh

Junior Member
It varied based on his income (which also varied). They were never able to get a wage garnishment, but have seized his tax refunds and any bank account he opens for the last two years. This has given them plenty of money in repayment (although it comes at a cost to our son).

How much toward the $500 was he paying?
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
My fiance was grossing approximately $1,600 per month when they ordered him to pay $540 per month. His then-employer (who the DCSS also harassed) actually wrote the DCSS a letter explaining that they were requesting too high of a payment/garnishment.
Why did his employer do that? It's absolutely nothing to do them. The employer does what they're told to do.

Why didn't your fiance question or appeal the amount?

You have to take into account that we live in one of the most expensive areas of the country -- had he paid the amount they asked, he would have been homeless (even motels around here are $900 per month). In case your interested, my fiance now makes less than that (he works as a private contractor and business has been slow).

Time to relocate somewhere cheaper then.

So has he filed to modify?

So, you know of other low-income, reunited families who have used state-issued cash aid payments to repay debt owed to the state (originally accrued by cash-aid payments)?

There are hundreds - nay thousands - of people in the same situation.


Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul! If this is as wide-spread a practice as you say, perhaps it's time for the state to reform it's laws.
Why? Do you expect the taxpayers to support you? Your fiance is - and rightfully so - paying back what WE basically provided you during that time of hardship.

Sometimes, the DCSS gets it wrong, as they did in our case. They don't seem to understand that some people (such as private contractors) have incomes that fluctuate month to month. Yes, it is unfair to demand a monthly child support payment based on one month of high income.

Again, I feel our case is unique and that there must be a way to modify the principle.

Again, your case is not unique at all.

What IS he paying? Anything?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Why is it that the custodial parent who received assistance (myself) doesn't have to repay the state for the aid received, yet, the noncustodial parent does?
because your income was considered when the state aid was determined. It was accepted that your income was going to provide for the child. He still was required to pay to support his child.
 

msleigh

Junior Member
If you actually knew me, you would know that I never complained about lack of child support. Quite the opposite, in fact -- I didn't even WANT the state to go after him for child support, and regretted that his name was even on the birth certificate.

I'm not some uneducated welfare mama who stalks potential baby-daddies in a ploy to sit on my a-- at home and collect child support checks. That is, however, the type of parent that the state actually awards with the system set up as it is now...

Yes, I actually believe that the state laws regarding child support and welfare hurt families (fathers, specifically) almost as often as they help. Not every case is so clear-cut as to who is "responsible." I think the DCSS needs to look at each case individually (or at least do so when a parent is requesting they do so) in order to do what is right for the children involved. That is all I am saying (and hoping can be done in our case).


It is his fault that he didn't do anything about it - other than refuse to pay.

If they were really asking for unreasonable amounts, then he could have appealed it rather than letting the debt pile up.

Not to mention, of course, that you haven't established that he was asked to pay unreasonable amounts. What was his income? How much was he asked to pay? It's amazing how many people go from "that's not enough child support to live on" to "it's ridiculous how much they want someone to pay" when they go from one side of the fence to the other. The rules don't change.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
What is right for the children is to have two parents supporting them.

He chose not to do that and instead let the State support them.

Now he must repay the State.
 

CourtClerk

Senior Member
If you actually knew me, you would know that I never complained about lack of child support. Quite the opposite, in fact -- I didn't even WANT the state to go after him for child support, and regretted that his name was even on the birth certificate.
If you didn't want them to go after him for the money I put out to support you and your kid, then you shouldn't have taken my money. Very easy concept.

However, explain this to me:

Why am I, a single parent who has raised my child from birth virtually solo, without taking one single red cent of welfare money responsible for contributing one red cent towards the support of YOU AND YOUR CHILD? Why don't I deserve to be paid back?

How much are you contributing to MY household?
 

>Charlotte<

Lurker
I didn't even WANT the state to go after him for child support
You didn't want the state to go after the father for support, but you didn't have a problem with the state going after the other taxpayers for support?

Not every case is so clear-cut as to who is "responsible."
Yes. Every case is extremely clear cut as to who is "responsible". The man and the woman who created this child are "responsible". If you cannot take care of the children you create, the State will step in and take care of them for you--on an emergency basis, because that infant isn't going to wait to be hungry until you have enough money to feed him. Once that is out of the way, the State expects the parents to repay that debt.

Look, this whole thing started waaaaaaaaay back one night about five years ago when you and your boyfriend decided sex was a pretty good idea. If you had given two minutes worth of thought to how broke you were and how "unfair" the State of California is back then you wouldn't be in this mess. Governor Schwarzenegger sure as heck isn't the one that got you pregnant.

Between the two of you, you are assuming a debt of $1000 a month to provide housing, food, clothing, medical care, and other expenses for a small child. In California? That's one hell of a deal. If you had been denied assistance it would have cost you a lot more to provide all of that on your own.

I think the DCSS needs to look at each case individually
His individual sperm fertilized your individual egg which created an individual child. You need to recognize the simple logic of this issue instead of ranting and raving about how the State of California is screwing you over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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