Help! Am I "in arrears 60 days"
divorced dad
things to me. But, you don't want to know the sheer hell I have been
through the last 5 years, so my question:
My obligation is about $160 a week. At present I owe about $1,200, I've
had arreages that I have difficulty resolving. Child support enforcement
is perfectly happy to tell me they think I have acted in good faith
trying to pay this, but for some reason (ex-wife) they are bringing the
hammer down on me. I expect *no* mercy.
State staute provides:
"Compliance with a support order. "Compliance with a support order"
means that the support obligor is no more than 60 days in arrears in
making payments in full for current support, in making periodic payments
on a support arrearage pursuant to a written agreement with the
department or in making periodic payments as set forth in support order
and has obtained or maintained health insurance coverage if required by
a support order."
Well, at $160 a week, 60 days gives me $1,280. Since I owe $1,200, I
will suggest that I am "in compliance" with the support order since I am
not "60 days in arrears".
Support Enforcement will say I have been "in arrears" for 60 days.
Hearing officer *will* uphold SE, and then we go to Superior Court.
Please, just a simple request.
Can *anybody* give me a workable cite to define "in arrears" as
described above? Black's Law or US Code?
I plan on bringing my toothbrush to court, BTW.
Best - Dad
Bob Stock
>Child support wants to pull my driver's licence and do all kinds of bad
>things to me. But, you don't want to know the sheer hell I have been
>through the last 5 years, so my question:
>
>My obligation is about $160 a week. At present I owe about $1,200, I've
>had arreages that I have difficulty resolving. Child support enforcement
>is perfectly happy to tell me they think I have acted in good faith
>trying to pay this, but for some reason (ex-wife) they are bringing the
>hammer down on me. I expect *no* mercy.
>
>
>State staute provides:
>
> "Compliance with a support order. "Compliance with a support order"
>means that the support obligor is no more than 60 days in arrears in
>making payments in full for current support, in making periodic payments
>on a support arrearage pursuant to a written agreement with the
>department or in making periodic payments as set forth in support order
>and has obtained or maintained health insurance coverage if required by
>a support order."
>
>
>Well, at $160 a week, 60 days gives me $1,280. Since I owe $1,200, I
>will suggest that I am "in compliance" with the support order since I am
>not "60 days in arrears".
>
>Support Enforcement will say I have been "in arrears" for 60 days.
>Hearing officer *will* uphold SE, and then we go to Superior Court.
Why do you say that SE will say you've been in arrears if you don't
believe you've been in arrears based on the language of the statute
(what state, anyway?)?
(BTW, it's unlikely to matter what Black's says. More important is
how the statute has been interpreted in your jurisdiction.)
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
divorced dad
Because they told me, and because I have been dealing with them for 5
years. It has been a nightmare. The only hope I see is to get the thing
in front of a judge.
> (BTW, it's unlikely to matter what Black's says. More important is
> how the statute has been interpreted in your jurisdiction.)
Yeah, couldn't find anything at the state supreme court level, and the
child support laws have been re-written the last few years. I have
plenty of mitigating circumstance stuff. I just need to be able to pin
down this definition, state my case, and hope the appeals drags out long
enough so I have another year or two of freedom, and a chance to get
caught up. I am very pessistic about a long-term resolution, but my kids
will grow up eventually, and I won't have to deal with this anymore. The
punch line is I am paying child support on a period of time when one of
my kids was living with me. Common sense does *not* apply, nor has the
agency or judges been even close to reasonable with this.
I think I am right according to the law. But, as I have learned, that
has nothing to do with it. The only hope I have is that the process will
give me some time.
To confound the search engines - the state spelled backwards is: eniaM.
I would gladly accept *any* solid support on this. I don't think it
would be a difficult question, but who knows.
Need some help. Support for definition of "in arrears for 60 days" as
described. Please.
Dad
Ray Gordon, GENIUS
Don't forget the other guys who didn't get the sex you are now expected to
pay for. Those promises served you well when you needed to make them.
"divorced dad" <d...@broke.com> wrote in message
news:3C7928...@broke.com...
divorced dad
>
> Did you get your wife into bed with promises you now cannot keep?
No!!! She left *me*! I kept *every promise* I ever made!
> Don't forget the other guys who didn't get the sex you are now expected to
> pay for. Those promises served you well when you needed to make them.
They can have her. I guess she didn't like being married to an honest
man. I guess I wasn't exciting enough for her.
>"Ray Gordon, GENIUS"
Hey, are you the same Ray (or was it Roy?) Gordon who gave me a blowjob
in that bathhouse in New Jersey?
You know, I got herpes from that. Thanks, pal.
And your check bounced, you still owe me $50.
Dad
Ray Gordon, GENIUS
>
> No!!! She left *me*! I kept *every promise* I ever made!
If someone told you the night before your wedding she'd turn out like that,
how would you have reacted?
> > Don't forget the other guys who didn't get the sex you are now expected
to
> > pay for. Those promises served you well when you needed to make them.
>
>
> They can have her. I guess she didn't like being married to an honest
> man. I guess I wasn't exciting enough for her.
self-reported honesty.
> >"Ray Gordon, GENIUS"
>
> Hey, are you the same Ray (or was it Roy?) Gordon who gave me a blowjob
> in that bathhouse in New Jersey?
Shocking she left you......maybe you're not as impressive to her as you
thought?
> You know, I got herpes from that. Thanks, pal.
>
> And your check bounced, you still owe me $50.
So shocking she left you.....
divorced dad
>
> > > Did you get your wife into bed with promises you now cannot keep?
> >
> > No!!! She left *me*! I kept *every promise* I ever made!
>
> If someone told you the night before your wedding she'd turn out like that,
> how would you have reacted?
I don't know how I would have reacted. No one told me, so at best I can
only guess.
> > > Don't forget the other guys who didn't get the sex you are now expected
> > > to pay for. Those promises served you well when you needed to make them.
> >
> >
> > They can have her. I guess she didn't like being married to an honest
> > man. I guess I wasn't exciting enough for her.
>
> self-reported honesty.
Well, that's all I have for distribution, today.
> > >"Ray Gordon, GENIUS"
> >
> > Hey, are you the same Ray (or was it Roy?) Gordon who gave me a blowjob
> > in that bathhouse in New Jersey?
>
> Shocking she left you......maybe you're not as impressive to her as you
> thought?
No idea. How impressive did I think I was? Do you think my dingie is too
small? You seemed to enjoy it.
> > You know, I got herpes from that. Thanks, pal.
> >
> > And your check bounced, you still owe me $50.
>
> So shocking she left you.....
Well, you were *so* insistent, as I recall - if that was you - you
*sound* like the guy, from what I can gather from your typing.
And I thought I could use the $50 to pay my child support! What do *you*
give me instead - a rubber check and herpes! Gawd, you're awful!
Next time it'll be cash, and the only rubber will be the one you put on
my shlangie!
So, when you going to be in New Jersey again? I need the money.
dad
tomG
I think that your interpretation is possible, but to me, "60 days
in arrears in making payments _in_full_ for current support" means
60 days since the most recent date as of which you were paid up.
"divorced dad" <d...@broke.com> wrote in message
news:3C7928...@broke.com...
divorced dad
>
> Sorry, I don't have any relevant cite, but . . .
>
> I think that your interpretation is possible, but to me, "60 days
> in arrears in making payments _in_full_ for current support" means
> 60 days since the most recent date as of which you were paid up.
*sigh* That's what the agent said at the hearing.
I have trouble understanding how they apply payments - they said they
apply it first to "current support" then to the arrears. I don't know if
that means that one full payment would make a payment_in_full for
current support or not...
tomG
Courts have -inherent- power (the limits of which may vary from
state to state and court to court) to impose contempt sanctions.
If your interpretation of the statute is adopted, then the court
would not be able to impose whatever specific sanctions the
statute provides _to_the_extent_ that the court would not have had
the power to impose those sanctions in the absence of the statute.
The court will -still- be able to impose contempt sanctions -if-
the court finds that you are "willfully" late in making payments.
Your argument as to statutory interpretation might, if you are
not careful, may hurt you on the contempt issue, whether you
win or lose your argument as to statutory interpretation.
"divorced dad" wrote
> My obligation is about $160 a week. At present I owe about $1,200
>
divorced dad
>
> There is another problem, that you may not be aware of . . . .
>
> Courts have -inherent- power (the limits of which may vary from
> state to state and court to court) to impose contempt sanctions.
>
> If your interpretation of the statute is adopted, then the court
> would not be able to impose whatever specific sanctions the
> statute provides _to_the_extent_ that the court would not have had
> the power to impose those sanctions in the absence of the statute.
>
> The court will -still- be able to impose contempt sanctions -if-
> the court finds that you are "willfully" late in making payments.
> Your argument as to statutory interpretation might, if you are
> not careful, may hurt you on the contempt issue, whether you
> win or lose your argument as to statutory interpretation.
Yeah, well, I've read the law up and down, and no one at the hearing
could understand the law either.
I think I'm just going to have my ass dragged into court, and the judge
is not going to be interested in law, interpretation of law, or the
history of child support since the 1700's.
He's just going to say "Haven't paid your child support? Well, maybe a
weekend in the Grey Bar Hotel will help convince you to make a greater
effort to stay up to date."
dad
tomG
"divorced dad" wrote
> I think I'm just going to have my ass dragged into court, and the judge
> is not going to be interested in law, interpretation of law, or the
> history of child support since the 1700's.
>
> He's just going to say "Haven't paid your child support? Well, maybe a
> weekend in the Grey Bar Hotel will help convince you to make a greater
> effort to stay up to date."
No. He's going to say -why- haven't you paid your child support?
It's the answer to -that- question that will decide where you spend the
weekend.
divorced dad >
Ooooo. You may be right. I'm likin' this a lot better.
You're a smart guy.
Best - Fido
Jon Beaver
>Child support wants to pull my driver's licence and do all kinds of bad
>things to me. But, you don't want to know the sheer hell I have been
>through the last 5 years, so my question:
>
>My obligation is about $160 a week. At present I owe about $1,200, I've
>had arreages that I have difficulty resolving. Child support enforcement
>is perfectly happy to tell me they think I have acted in good faith
>trying to pay this, but for some reason (ex-wife) they are bringing the
>hammer down on me. I expect *no* mercy.
In most states, it is possible for you to get the judge to let you
keep your license while you "in compliance" with a NEW order setting
the arrears and establishing a payment plan. Unless the enforcement
agency convinces the judge that you have a long history of willful
noncompliance, there is no reason why a judge wouldn't give you a
break if you are there, in front of him, with a sincere desire to do
the right thing.
The problem that most people have is that they expect the support
enforcement agency to be fair, impartial and helpful. They won't be.
Don't expect them to be. They are what they are. Don't be angry over
the lion eating the lamb; it's just in his nature. Find the way to
the courthouse, find out how to file motions, and file them whenever
there's a dispute -- THEN discuss it with the agency. Yeah, it's
tough. You have to play on their turf, and the rules assume they are
the good guys ding God's work. Keep your cool.
- Jon Beaver
divorced dad
>
>
>
> In most states, it is possible for you to get the judge to let you
> keep your license while you "in compliance" with a NEW order setting
> the arrears and establishing a payment plan. Unless the enforcement
> agency convinces the judge that you have a long history of willful
> noncompliance,
They are trying to show that. They are suggesting I only pay when faced
with punative measures. I won't bore you with the details - but that is
going to be a pissing contest. I have seasonal work, and pay when the
funds are available. They say that I only pay when they are threatening
me. Since they are always threatening me, of course that is the only
time I pay. :-)
> there is no reason why a judge wouldn't give you a
> break if you are there, in front of him, with a sincere desire to do
> the right thing.
>
> The problem that most people have is that they expect the support
> enforcement agency to be fair, impartial and helpful. They won't be.
> Don't expect them to be. They are what they are. Don't be angry over
> the lion eating the lamb; it's just in his nature. Find the way to
> the courthouse, find out how to file motions, and file them whenever
> there's a dispute -- THEN discuss it with the agency. Yeah, it's
> tough. You have to play on their turf, and the rules assume they are
> the good guys ding God's work. Keep your cool.
Yeah, they ding God's work, alright.
Thanks,
dad
>
> - Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
It's all sophistry -- a word game. Don't play. If you are in a
technical battle with them, you lose. Offer the judge a practical
solution to the problem and you might be surprised how often he/she
backs the bureaucrats down.
- Jon Beaver
Jon Beaver
>Jon Beaver wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In most states, it is possible for you to get the judge to let you
>> keep your license while you "in compliance" with a NEW order setting
>> the arrears and establishing a payment plan. Unless the enforcement
>> agency convinces the judge that you have a long history of willful
>> noncompliance,
>
>They are trying to show that. They are suggesting I only pay when faced
>with punative measures. I won't bore you with the details - but that is
>going to be a pissing contest. I have seasonal work, and pay when the
>funds are available. They say that I only pay when they are threatening
>me. Since they are always threatening me, of course that is the only
>time I pay. :-)
Either you are not entitled to a break or you are not getting your
point across to the judge. Here is where consulting an attorney is
helpful. He/she can give you perspective. Maybe you really are not
taking your responsibilities seriously enough. Maybe it's YOU who
doesn't get it. On the other hand, an attorney's stock in trade is
presenting an effective case to the judge, sticking to the relevant,
and keeping it interesting so the judge stays awake.
Remember that there are some things that sound soooo reasonable to a
non-lawyer that is just bullshit in a courtroom. That "seasonal work"
argument is one of them. If you make $2,000 per month for half of the
year, support is set as though you made an average of $1,000 per
month. Don't be standing there in front of a judge arguing that you
can't pay one month's support during a month you didn't work if you
didn't pay TWO months support during a month when you did work.
>> there is no reason why a judge wouldn't give you a
>> break if you are there, in front of him, with a sincere desire to do
>> the right thing.
>>
>> The problem that most people have is that they expect the support
>> enforcement agency to be fair, impartial and helpful. They won't be.
>> Don't expect them to be. They are what they are. Don't be angry over
>> the lion eating the lamb; it's just in his nature. Find the way to
>> the courthouse, find out how to file motions, and file them whenever
>> there's a dispute -- THEN discuss it with the agency. Yeah, it's
>> tough. You have to play on their turf, and the rules assume they are
>> the good guys ding God's work. Keep your cool.
>
>Yeah, they ding God's work, alright.
That's what I mean about "relevance." Spelling flame, sheesh! And
cynical, too. It's okay here, but don't be making fay remarks like
that to a judge.
- Jon Beaver
divorced dad
>
>
> Either you are not entitled to a break or you are not getting your
> point across to the judge. Here is where consulting an attorney is
> helpful. He/she can give you perspective. Maybe you really are not
> taking your responsibilities seriously enough. Maybe it's YOU who
> doesn't get it. On the other hand, an attorney's stock in trade is
> presenting an effective case to the judge, sticking to the relevant,
> and keeping it interesting so the judge stays awake.
Heh.
Thanks for your note.
I am not trying to be flip, but I went through a four-year "divorce from
hell", have been dealing with the goons at support enforcement for five
years, and excuse me if I am not particularly tactful in my
descriptions, but I swear, sometimes it is all I can do to keep my
sanity.
I commute about 4 hours a day so I can live near where my kids are, and
still manage to spend a fair amount of time with them. I figured my
total time during 2001 worked out to be from 30% to about 45% for each
of my three kids. Direct kid expenses I paid were about $1,500 or so for
clothes, medical, etc. In *addition* to that - rent, food, utilities for
the substantial time they are with me.
Don't tell me to get a deviation to my child support - I have been
there, and ain't going there again. I *am* entitled to one. I will *not*
be granted one. Judge XXXX just doesn't do that.
Over the last year, despite this, I have made a full year's worth of
child support payments. I work. I commute. I spend time with my kids. I
sleep - anywhere from 4 to 9 hours a day - usually closer to 4. :-) I
have *no more money* to send to the child support agency. I have *done
everything I can* for my kids.
I absolutely do not care who or what thinks I am "taking my
responsibilities seriously". I know I am, and I have the worst possible
expectations related to how the court will handle this. That is based on
years of experience.
All I am trying to do is forestall the inevitable steamroller that is
going to crush me. It is not a legal thing, it is purely a basic
survival function.
> >Yeah, they ding God's work, alright.
>
> That's what I mean about "relevance." Spelling flame, sheesh! And
> cynical, too. It's okay here, but don't be making fay remarks like
> that to a judge.
:-) I thought it was cute, no flame intended.
I appreciate your advice. I *am* getting some desperately needed
perceptive on what has been a long, exhausting and emotionally draining
endless nightmare.
Thanks - dad
Jon Beaver
>I commute about 4 hours a day so I can live near where my kids are, and
>still manage to spend a fair amount of time with them. I figured my
>total time during 2001 worked out to be from 30% to about 45% for each
>of my three kids. Direct kid expenses I paid were about $1,500 or so for
>clothes, medical, etc. In *addition* to that - rent, food, utilities for
>the substantial time they are with me.
In most states, the above is utterly irrelevant to the question of
arrears. If you argue this way, you WILL put the judge to sleep.
>
>Don't tell me to get a deviation to my child support - I have been
>there, and ain't going there again. I *am* entitled to one. I will *not*
>be granted one. Judge XXXX just doesn't do that.
Judge: What's a "deviation to child support [snore]?
>
>Over the last year, despite this, I have made a full year's worth of
>child support payments. I work. I commute. I spend time with my kids. I
>sleep - anywhere from 4 to 9 hours a day - usually closer to 4. :-) I
>have *no more money* to send to the child support agency. I have *done
>everything I can* for my kids.
>
>I absolutely do not care who or what thinks I am "taking my
>responsibilities seriously". I know I am, and I have the worst possible
>expectations related to how the court will handle this. That is based on
>years of experience.
>
>All I am trying to do is forestall the inevitable steamroller that is
>going to crush me. It is not a legal thing, it is purely a basic
>survival function.
>
>
>
>> >Yeah, they ding God's work, alright.
>>
>> That's what I mean about "relevance." Spelling flame, sheesh! And
>> cynical, too. It's okay here, but don't be making fay remarks like
>> that to a judge.
>
>
>:-) I thought it was cute, no flame intended.
>
>I appreciate your advice. I *am* getting some desperately needed
>perceptive on what has been a long, exhausting and emotionally draining
>endless nightmare.
>
>Thanks - dad
- Jon Beaver