Unemployment, CS, and lack of seeking work

[jbentley22]

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

Me and my ex-wife have 2 children together. She has 1 and I have the other. Last year when we were at a review I was working and she was collecting unemployment.
Now we are both collecting unemployment have shared legal custody and she has physical custody of 1 child and I have physical custody of the other. My ex has a new boyfreind with a very well paying job living with her and has made comments to my child that as long as she has him paying the bills she refuses to go back to work- Thus ensureing that I will be paying her support.

I dont want her to pay me I just want the case dropped and shes unwilling. I have to live off food stamps and she's collecting my support. I know I cant request a new reveiw for another 2 years but what can be done in the meantime to rectify this situation ? Should I just get a job "under the table" ? Is there a motion i can file with the court regarding her clear lack of interest in finding employment ?

 

[Proserpina]

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

Me and my ex-wife have 2 children together. She has 1 and I have the other. Last year when we were at a review I was working and she was collecting unemployment.
Now we are both collecting unemployment have shared legal custody and she has physical custody of 1 child and I have physical custody of the other. My ex has a new boyfreind with a very well paying job living with her and has made comments to my child that as long as she has him paying the bills she refuses to go back to work- Thus ensureing that I will be paying her support.

I dont want her to pay me I just want the case dropped and shes unwilling. I have to live off food stamps and she's collecting my support. I know I cant request a new reveiw for another 2 years but what can be done in the meantime to rectify this situation ? Should I just get a job "under the table" ? Is there a motion i can file with the court regarding her clear lack of interest in finding employment ?

Her boyfriend's income is completely irrelevant.

If you're barred from a review for 2 years, you're pretty much stuck unless something changes (a change in circumstance).

I'm not going to advise you to circumvent the law.

 

[jbentley22]

Would a change in circumstance include employment status ? If she gets a job , then we can review the CS per the enforcement officer. If I lose a job, no review ?? Is that standard practice ?

 

[Ohiogal]

Would a change in circumstance include employment status ? If she gets a job , then we can review the CS per the enforcement officer. If I lose a job, no review ?? Is that standard practice ?

Why didn't you go back when you lost your job?

 

[LdiJ]

Would a change in circumstance include employment status ? If she gets a job , then we can review the CS per the enforcement officer. If I lose a job, no review ?? Is that standard practice ?

If you legitimately lose your job, through no fault of your own, that is a change in circumstances.

However, if your job loss is in any way voluntary, or your own fault, then a judge would be unlikely to change your child support. The judge would likely leave it the same. So whatever you do, don't play games with your job.

 

[Alex1176]

If you legitimately lose your job, through no fault of your own, that is a change in circumstances.

However, if your job loss is in any way voluntary, or your own fault, then a judge would be unlikely to change your child support. The judge would likely leave it the same. So whatever you do, don't play games with your job.

If he is collecting UI benefits, we can assume that it's not his fault.

 

[Proserpina]

If he is collecting UI benefits, we can assume that it's not his fault.

I would not make that assumption at all.

 

[gam]

Your entitled to a review every 3 years, and in some counties you can have them sooner and in some counties, each party can have a review every 3 years. You would have to look up your Friend of Court by county and read the handbook, to find your rules for your court.

But a review does not mean you can't file yourself for a modification of Child Support. You have a change of circumstance with your loss of job. It does not matter that the job was lost a year ago, you can still file. If your collecting unemployment benefits(you still can be, cause there are many extensions for Mi residents, or there were several months ago), those benefits will be counted as your income. Not much you can do at this time with the court doing anything though about mom not getting a job. She will just say she is trying and can't find anything, very believable in Mi. Mi can and will impute an income, but doubtful they will at this time, since a year with no job is the norm in Mi.

Understand though that by filing this modification, you will now delay your every 3 year review. That review counts from the last CS court order.

You can file the modification one of 2 ways. You can file the mod through FOC, it waives the filing fee, but it takes longer. Many FOC's though will tell you that you have to file yourself or that they can't do it because your not yet entitled to a review, you need to know that FOC rules in that handbook, to get them to do their job. You can also file directly with the circuit court clerk in the county the case is in, this will cost a fee. However if you have zero income(unemployment counts as income), on food stamps, you can fill out the paperwork to waive the fee. It usually is faster filing through the circuit court then going through FOC.

It matters none that mom is living off some other guy, that will not come into the Mi child support formula. He has no legal obligation to support your children, you do and mom does. She is technically supporting her children through the boyfriend, as I assume they are housed, clothed and fed, cause you never said they were not.

Also read the Mi CS formula manual at the following link
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2008MCSFmanual.pdf

 

[Alex1176]

I would not make that assumption at all.

"In fault" it means that the person lost his job as a result of misconduct. (And reducing your productivity to get fired is misconduct).
In which scenario (except fraud) a person can collect UI benefits if he was fired for misconduct in Michigan?
As far as I know, if a person collects UI benefits it means that he was laid off or fired for anything except misconduct.

 

[cbg]

Don't know specifically about Michigan, but in MA you can get unemployment even if fired for misconduct (as opposed to gross misconduct) if the employer did not specifically warn you that your job was in jeopardy. And in a state neighboring MI a friend of mine, also in HR, lost two unemployment cases; one when the employee was caught redhanded stealing and the other when the employee got drunk at a company function and made inappropriate suggestions to the CEO's wife, because they didn't have specific policies stating that you could be fired for these things. I believe at least one of them was eventually overturned but you can't assume that unemployment benefits means anything to do with fault.

 

[Proserpina]

"In fault" it means that the person lost his job as a result of misconduct. (And reducing your productivity to get fired is misconduct).
In which scenario (except fraud) a person can collect UI benefits if he was fired for misconduct in Michigan?
As far as I know, if a person collects UI benefits it means that he was laid off or fired for anything except misconduct.

You're assuming that the employer would contest UI.

Even if it's blatant misconduct, some employers won't contest.

(My husband's is one)

 

[commentator]

Either way, whether or not he was approved for unemployment benefits because someone didn't contest, or whether he was fired unjustly or laid off because the company closed, unemployment insurance assumes lack of malignant will to become unemployed. And the situation of being on u.i. benefits is contingent upon searching for other work. And the unemployment benefits are very finite, as in, they will end, and the person will be off unemployment within a prescribed time.

With such a change to his income status, that might be a factor in getting a re-appraisal of his ability to pay child support. I know that in my state, it happens automatically based on a percentage of the support one was paying when employed.

But I am not understanding why this guy thinks that he will, if he gets a review, be relieved of child support for the child that is not living with him simply if his wife gets a job. Tisn't necessarily so. The courts may think he should help support both kids, not split it even-steven because they divided up the children and he nobly didn't give her both kids to raise. I would suspect very strongly that his wife's unemployment benefits are exhausted by now anyway.

And as for the idea of his getting work under the old table, what with getting unemployment insurance and food stamps, he's about to get in a world of trouble by trying that. Even if those wages don't cross match with other programs because it's unreported, you can bet your biffy that ex wife will be hot on the phones keeping that unreported income reported to everybody who might be interested. So thats a very stupid idea.

 

[gam]

As I have stated before on here, you don't need to prove your change of circumstance to file or get a hearing in Mi, your required to list the change on the modification, but when you file, your modification is stamped with a hearing.

OP has enough to file, he also has enough of a change in circumstance for the court to recalculate the support. The courts are well aware of the unemployment rate in Mi, it's been high long before the nation had their crisis. It's not automatic, but not likely a court won't listen and rerun the numbers here in Mi, based on a person collecting unemployment. There is not much hope in Mi for one to quickly get off unemployment.

Commentator made some good points. Mom could no longer at this time be collecting unemployment. It's possible though she still is, Mi did have some extra extensions, not sure if they are still running them or not. We also had some federal ones, which I know expired, but not sure if they did some more or extended those. So it was possible to get extensions and go beyond a year close to 2 collecting unemployment here in Mi.

Another point was why this guy thinks he will be relieved of CS by getting a review or mom getting a job. They each have a child, they each were getting unemployment benefits. MI'S CS FORMULA IS BASED ON SHARED INCOME, HE/SHE WHO MAKES MORE PAYS CS, EVEN IN 50/50, EVEN WHEN EACH HAS A CHILD. Now if he still has unemployment benefits, and they impute mom with income cause hers ran out and she has no job, that imputing income could be less then his unemployment benefits, he still would pay her.

The courts are likely to at this time to hold off imputing an income as the state of Mi still has high unemployment, just cause her benefits ran out, does not mean she can find employment. I don't see them imputing her just yet, maybe another year out. But then by that time, dads benefits will be gone, and they can impute him to.

Best dad can hope for, is a reduction here, based on his lower income. But even then it might not become a reduction if mom no longer has benefits and is not imputed.

The last point by Commentator about getting a job under the table is very good. It would be contempt of his current CS order, as you must notify FOC on any new job and on new income, under the table included, failure to do this is contempt. Further it would be fraud, as he must report that to DHS because he is receiving food stamps, this under the table income could be enough for him to no longer receive food stamps. The guy is lucky he is getting those food stamps, because I know many collecting unemployment who don't qualify for those food stamps. Not only can you bet your biffy that your ex wife will be hot on the phones reporting, but you can bet your biffy that just about anybody else in Mi that knows you maybe hot on those phones to.

We all got sob stories in Mi, but we all are not cheating the system, so rethink that poster.

 

[jbentley22]

Going under the table is an unrealistic option- its a desperate act. Does anyone else notice that as long as mom sits on her bum and dad is working, she gets to collect a check as long as she just sits there? Its a reward! CS is the right of the child, and I respect that, make no mistake.
The enforcement officer said when she finds work, then they will review. When dad loses his job however, they refuse to review or adjust - this came right from the enforcement officers mouth. Isnt this a form of discrimination ? Both situations are changes in circumstances.
So, if im reading this correct, I should end my unemployment & cancel the food stamps & not seek employment so that me and the mom will be on equal footing when/if a review should appear.
Bear in mind, I pick up my children every 2 weeks, share holidays, show up at games/events, pay my CS and any rearage ( there is none btw ), and totaly love my kids. Im not out to attack her, Im just tired of being jerked around.
& I qualify for UIA benefits based on the fact (1) the employer didnt contest it and (2) the position was dissolved due to a lack of work and he wanted to see me get some benefit until I could find new employment ( he knew I had kids and didnt want us on the street). It was NOT for misconduct or attendance (i.e. not my fault).

 

[Alex1176]

Going under the table is an unrealistic option- its a desperate act. Does anyone else notice that as long as mom sits on her bum and dad is working, she gets to collect a check as long as she just sits there? Its a reward! CS is the right of the child, and I respect that, make no mistake.
The enforcement officer said when she finds work, then they will review. When dad loses his job however, they refuse to review or adjust - this came right from the enforcement officers mouth. Isnt this a form of discrimination ? Both situations are changes in circumstances.
So, if im reading this correct, I should end my unemployment & cancel the food stamps & not seek employment so that me and the mom will be on equal footing when/if a review should appear.
Bear in mind, I pick up my children every 2 weeks, share holidays, show up at games/events, pay my CS and any rearage ( there is none btw ), and totaly love my kids. Im not out to attack her, Im just tired of being jerked around.
& I qualify for UIA benefits based on the fact (1) the employer didnt contest it and (2) the position was dissolved due to a lack of work and he wanted to see me get some benefit until I could find new employment ( he knew I had kids and didnt want us on the street). It was NOT for misconduct or attendance (i.e. not my fault).

Why can't you file for modification in court? It not depends on the EO, it depends on the judges decision.