Texas - Child Support Expert Advice Pls? (Child is now 18)

[kimdy]

What is the name of your state? Texas

Hi all...

Kind of a three part, related question. Somewhat urgent.

We are the NCP's, and we live in California. The CP and the now graduated 18 1/2 yo child lives in Texas.

What is the process to stop child support as quickly as possible? The OAG is of no help whatsoever in this (of course). We have asked our daughter to send a copy of her diploma, but we're not sure from that point what to do. I have searched the web, and can't seem to find the right word combinations to get the proper answer.

Second question, we do have an arrearage - It's a good sized one. Background: We're aware of the amount, and believe that some portion of it was assigned to the state as the ex went on TANF for a short time, until it dawned on her she wasn't going to get BOTH support AND TANF. We admit freely that we haven't paid as well as we should, but for the most part it was a desperation measure. The child was being shuttled to various relatives homes while the ex shacked up with various boyfriends for two years. We decided to send the support directly to the child during this situation, not through the state, as it was the only way she would get any of it. We know none of this will be credited to us. And we know we could have pushed for a change of custody, but the child had a nervous breakdown (not exaggerating) at the thought of being taken from her school, friends, older sisters, and entire extended family. She wasn't being mistreated, or neglected, she just didn't have her mom living with her, and her mom was spending her child support on her boyfriends, so in the interest of her peace of mind, we decided to leave her in Texas, at her request.

The question relating to the above is... Will Texas continue to collect the arrearage itself? Or will it now be assigned to a collection agency because the child is emancipated?

In order to get the most money possible directly to the child, we have considered asking the ex to go in and sign a waiver of arrearage with the promise of a lump sum payment, or an offer to voluntarily continue support until the child is 21 so long as she signs a waiver for the arrearage that applies to her. She's just greedy enough to do it, without thinking it through first. Only a small portion of the arrears belong to the state because of the TANF, we're happy to pay this off. The remainder is what we'd ask the ex to waive. This way ALL money could go directly to the child, and not to the ex's and her boyfriends drug habits. Is this practical/possible based on the question asked in the last paragraph? For example, if the state reassigns to collections on emancipation, then would she no longer be able to sign a waiver? Are we in a time crunch here?

Additional note... If we were to pay the arrearage in a lump sum in full, the ex has already stated her intention to keep it for herself, and feels no need to share any of it with the child. Her quote: "The state won't make me give any of it to her, so why should I? You guys will pay whatever bill she has, so why should she get MY money?"

Hope this is relatively understandable. If clarification is needed, please reply, and I'll fill in any holes.

Thanks in advance...

Kim

 

[LdiJ]

Legally the arrearage is NOT due to the child, its due to the parent who supported the child without assistance while the arrearage accrued.

Therefore it has to be paid to the parent, not the child.

 

[kimdy]

Missing the point...

Legally the arrearage is NOT due to the child, its due to the parent who supported the child without assistance while the arrearage accrued.
Therefore it has to be paid to the parent, not the child.

We're well aware of what the legalities are - Thoroughly educated on them. Our current knowledge ends at this point however: We're trying to find out if the state will be the one collecting arrearage, or if they assign it to collections, and if we should go ahead and lump sum the ex in exchange for a waiver of the majority of it so that the child CAN get benefit from all future available money. The child has gotten no benefit from support for the last 5 years. The ex spends it on drugs, boyfriends and Victoria's Secret, and did not even live with the child (pawned her off to relatives). In addition to child support, we paid ALL expenses directly to the child over that time period because the CP was not living with, nor supporting the child - That means all food, clothing, allowance, incidentals, medical, contacts, tampons, make up, entertainment, car insurance, cell phone, school fees, SAT's, etc.. The ex, the "CP" did not contribute in any way, physically or financially to her support the entire time. Nor will she work. She lives off support, drug sales, and the good graces of the occasionally well off boyfriend. I personally don't much care WHAT the legalities are, child support is for "the SUPPORT of the child" - Whether that's rent, food, clothing, whatever, it still should benefit her in some way.

Seems like you didn't read the original post very well. But that's just my opinion.

Thanks for replying.

Cheers!

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

The money goes to the CP, regardless who collects it from the NCP. Pay up.

When the child was living with other family members, those family members could have petitioned for guardianship and been entitled to collect child support from NCP.

You are not the collective NCPs. Only the father of the child is the NCP. The NCP owes the CP the court ordered amount of child support. The fact the child has reached the age of 18 does not remove the obligation to pay child support arrears or is it a time to renegotiate what the NCP owes in arrears.

 

[kimdy]

Still missing the point -

When the child was living with other family members, those family members could have petitioned for guardianship and been entitled to collect child support from NCP.

Not sure how everyone keeps missing the point of the original post. For the third time:
We're aware of who the support is due to.
We're aware that the arrearage is still due, even tho' the child is emancipated.
We'd like to find a equitable solution in order to get money to the child, rather than to the drug habit and boyfriends of the mom.

We're also aware that the various family members "could", in a perfect world, have petitioned for guardianship. Without knowing the dynamics of the family, that's too easy of an assumption to make. Had they attempted to follow through with doing so (the initial attempt was made), the ex and her "posse", all hard core dealers let them know in no uncertain terms that they would be "dealt with". I'm sure someone will say "they should have just told the police... In the real world, it doesn't work out that way very well. Restraining orders are only effective AFTER they've beaten you with a baseball bat within an inch of your life, or after you've been shot in a dark alley. It's a long and complex story and dynamic. Not everything is black and white.

Please trust that none of this is trying to avoid getting the child what she needs. Hard to believe, I know, and I'm fighting an uphill battle, but we're trying to clear a path for her to get DIRECT payment of any and all extra monies we can spare. It does her no good whatsoever to have all of our available funds supporting her mom's habits, and leaving nothing for her. She has collected far more in direct payments, for every aspect of her support since she was 13, than the mom was ordered to receive, so she's definitely NOT being neglected by us. We know, very well that we will get credit for none of it so far as the state goes, but our child loves us, and she is humble, and smart, and grateful. The occasional payments that were skipped to the mom were not vicious in nature, and were only (as stated in the first post), out of desperation, they occurred only when the child's needs were great, a hospitalization, schooling needs beyond the norm, etc.

As far as

You are not the collective NCPs

- Be legalistic all you want, but I have been far more her mother over the last 5 years that the "mom" ever was... "I" was the one holding her hand through her first period, "I" was the one comforting her again and again while her heart was breaking that "mom" didn't care, "I" was the one working a second and third job (as was he) to get her what she needed, "I" was the one (as was he) who flew to her bedside in the hospital while "mom" never came once, "I" was the one who gave a shoulder about boyfriends, and school, and best friend spats, and growing pains, "I" was the one calming her down after the third time her front door was hammered down by police with a battering ram while they were looking for one of the dealers - I AM A PARENT. Sorry to disagree.

Thank you most courteously for your answer, and willingness to take the time, but can anyone address the actual questions asked?
How do we go about stopping support because she has now graduated? What is the actual process?
Does the state continue to collect arrears themselves (so we can at the minimum, make a payment arrangement with them), or do they assign it to a collection agency?
And is it practical to pay the "mom" a lump sum in exchange for a waiver so the child can get the money she needs to make a life for herself.

She is a GREAT kid, and oddly well adjusted, considering, and deserves the best she can get, and I'm damned if she's not going to get it, one way or the other.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

You are still missing the legal point.

Legally, the CP is entitled to both the CS payments and the arrears. So, you have money to pay a lump sum to the CP and provide CS directly to the child, but are not complying with court order to pay child support to CP. In other words, you express contempt for the legal system by being in contempt of a court order.

If this seems unjust, remember it could have been fixed legally within the court system. The NCP should have sought full custody in the best interest of the child. Your description of the child's life says the stability of moving to California away from the dealers and boyfriends outweigh the child's own interests.

Contact the court holding jurisdiction to file a petition to end support given the child is an adult and has graduated from high school.

 

[kimdy]

You are still missing the legal point.

Not really. I've addressed each of them.

Legally, the CP is entitled to both the CS payments and the arrears. So, you have money to pay a lump sum to the CP and provide CS directly to the child, but are not complying with court order to pay child support to CP. In other words, you express contempt for the legal system by being in contempt of a court order.

Kind of... I can see the "contempt" point, somewhat. However, you're somehow missing in the lengthy posts that we have been paying support, AND arrears, AND direct payments to the child. The only arrears that built up were when emergencies happened. And I'm quite sorry, but having to make the decision to pay for her hospitalization at a GOOD hospital, vs letting her go to a welfare hospital so mom could get her scheduled support for a little while was a no brainer. Remember, "mom" didn't live with her, and didn't even visit her in the hospital. If dad hadn't had joint/shared custody, we'd have been in a pickle, as decisions needed to be made. Thankfully he was able to make them.

As far as having the money to do all of the above... Kind of. Not because we're rich, or sitting on investments, but because of sheer determination to put the child's interests above all else, and right or wrong, WELL above a mom who didn't live with her, didn't support her, and wasn't there. We've done it all along because she requires it. She deserves it. Each of us work more than one job to be able to do this, going without ourselves. That's ok.

If this seems unjust, remember it could have been fixed legally within the court system. The NCP should have sought full custody in the best interest of the child. Your description of the child's life says the stability of moving to California away from the dealers and boyfriends outweigh the child's own interests.

It doesn't make it better, per se, but for some little reassurance, she was only around the dealers/boyfriends when trying to visit with or connect with her mom. Unfortunately the timing stunk in each case. The only GOOD thing about the whole situation was that she was away from the mom 99% of the time, even tho' mom was collecting welfare (remember, she collected only long enough to realize she didn't get both welfare and support - This shows that we were paying, as always) under the guise of needing it for her "poor child". The best part was that she was within the better embrace of her extended family, including adult sisters, aunts, uncles, best friends she been at school with since kindergarten, etc. Both (unaffiliated) psychiatrists we met with in Texas (one was our daughters', and one was referred by the OAG) while working on a plan to move her to Cali told us that yanking her from this large, extended family situation would have been severely damaging, even with the mom having druggies and the lot around all the time. Remember, the mom didn't even live in the same city as our daughter. The extended family did a great job, and while they were intimidated into not trying for custody, they also got any spare money we could give. So they weren't left out either.

Contact the court holding jurisdiction to file a petition to end support given the child is an adult and has graduated from high school.

Thank you for that. I will have the dad do so again. They are distinctly uncooperative with the NCP unfortunately, but we'll keep at it, now that we know they're at least "supposed" to be the ones to do it.

In the meantime, the large family law practice in Dallas we retained were the original suggesters of the waiver idea, it seems to be somewhat common practice there, so we'll probably allow them to go on with the idea and see how it goes. I came here for advice because I was uncertain that this is the way we wanted it to go, so thought I'd get a cross sampling of opinion. The mom is already in very deep trouble with the state for claiming food stamps and welfare and direct payments (TANF) while not physically living with the child for well over two years, so the attorneys' say this is the best way to go to be sure the child is taken care of and not the mom, who could be in prison soon.

I do appreciate you taking the time to address and readdress the issue.

Cheers!

 

[Accountable]

I personally know of a case in Fort Worth where the AG and the court both approved a reduction of an arrearage payable to the CP, when the CP agrees. So, give it a whirl.

 

[kimdy]

I personally know of a case in Fort Worth where the AG and the court both approved a reduction of an arrearage payable to the CP, when the CP agrees. So, give it a whirl.

Thanks.

After the firm suggested it to us, I did some research, and it does seem to happen a bit. I'm going to let them do what they do and see what happens.

She's the best kid ever, and deserves the world. The coolest part is, she has a sense of responsibility rather than privilege or entitlement, and takes great pride recently in saving, and/or paying for half of what she needs from her own income (She's worked longer at just 18 than her mom has in her whole life, cumulatively), instead of keeping it for "fun" stuff like we've always insisted. In this day and age, I think that's cool.

We'll see...

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

I personally know of a case in Fort Worth where the AG and the court both approved a reduction of an arrearage payable to the CP, when the CP agrees. So, give it a whirl.

I don't see this happening.

 

[fairisfair]

I don't see this happening.

It is quite possible, and actually does occur frequently, but generally ONLY when the NCP is able to offer a lump payment.

And to the poster, yes CSE or "the state" will continue to collect on the arrearages, quite possibly in conjunction with private collection agencies who are contracted with the state to collect on past due child support.

 

[kimdy]

It is quite possible, and actually does occur frequently, but generally ONLY when the NCP is able to offer a lump payment.

Thanks... That goes along with everything I've been reading, and with everything the firm put forth. I sincerely appreciate you addressing the question.

And to the poster, yes CSE or "the state" will continue to collect on the arrearages, quite possibly in conjunction with private collection agencies who are contracted with the state to collect on past due child support.

Thanks again... Just to clarify, as I apparently didn't make myself very clear to the other poster, I asked on this point only to know if I should have the firm rush the proceedings if it is SOP to have an agency take it over from the state. The reasoning was, if the state is still doing all the grunt (collecting) work, they would (possibly?) be more willing to work with both the CP and the NCP, whereas if the arrearages were sold off to an agency, they wouldn't be able to make any agreements, nor would they have any incentive to do so... Right?

Thanks again for the straighforward, and even more importantly, the non-judgmental answers.

I appreciate you.

Cheers!

 

[meanmike]

dad is the parent not dad and stepmom

.

As far as - Be legalistic all you want, but I have been far more her mother over the last 5 years that the "mom" ever was... "I" was the one holding her hand through her first period, "I" was the one comforting her again and again while her heart was breaking that "mom" didn't care, "I" was the one working a second and third job (as was he) to get her what she needed, "I" was the one (as was he) who flew to her bedside in the hospital while "mom" never came once, "I" was the one who gave a shoulder about boyfriends, and school, and best friend spats, and growing pains, "I" was the one calming her down after the third time her front door was hammered down by police with a battering ram while they were looking for one of the dealers - I AM A PARENT. Sorry to disagree.

you may be a parent-but YOU ARE NOT this child's parent.

 

[kimdy]

you may be a parent-but YOU ARE NOT this child's parent. and as another poster stated, dad is the only ncp here. you are nothing legally.

Thanks for taking time out of your busy day to point that out, again. And despite the fact that I've acknowledged the point a few times already.

What in the world does this contribute to the questions asked or the conversation at hand? Maury hasn't come on yet and you're bored?

The law states it, and enforces it one way, and again, I clearly acknowledge it - I am nothing. I choose to see it, and live it, another way. I may be "nothing" as you so gleefully say, but you know what? Without MY income, without MY support, and without MY voluntary and gladly given love, this child would have had far less. Dad would have worked his @ss further to the bone than he has, and she still would not have had as much as she did/does. And she would have had NO mother love whatsoever - Sisters are great, and they've been great, but they're not moms...

Considering the absolutely cr@ppy step-parents that are out there, the ones that fight every penny going to a child that's not theirs, the ones that hate the child or hurt the child, the ones that favor biological over step, the ones that just don't care, I'd think someone could step up and realize or acknowledge my efforts on behalf of, and my love of, this child...

Even tho', in the eyes of the law, I'm "nothing".

Her opinion matters more to me than the states'.

 

[Just Blue]

Too funny!! Kelly reported my post, explaining meanmike was Kelly the troll to Kim, to Admin...and Admin banner HER!!! Bahahahahahahahah!! Karma ...gotta love it!!