child support

Get financial tips on divorce and asset division including child support laws, property division, and divorce settlements.

Re: child support

Unread postby Fatheroffour » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:14 am

1. I was taken back when you indicated that the records need to be certified? So my monthly bank statements would not be good enough to prove I paid? If true, seems like any parent paying via this method is taking a huge risk. Why is everyone in my State advising me to avoid the agency?


My states policy is clear.


Any support NOT paid through Georgia DCSS will require a certified payment history.


I suspect most states are the same but if everyone in your state is saying to go your own way maybe your state is different. Or maybe they haven't considered or are familiar with what happens in 15 years when you can't get a certified payment history going back to day one.

Choose wisely.
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 36721
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: child support

Unread postby massdad1234 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:53 am

by not running it through the state, you assume all upside risks. By running it through the state, you not only put the onus on them, but you remove yourself from the equation.

You're not late with the check, the state is
You aren't setting the CS rates, the state is
The state is some faceless 3rd party that you can point to whenever CS comes up, you can essentially take all the wind out of the sails in terms of power/control/harassment
You aren't making it more difficult to give monies, you're making it more official.

You should ask yourself, why WOULDN'T someone want it run through the state?
massdad1234
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: child support

Unread postby dad2grls » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:13 am

massdad1234 wrote:You should ask yourself, why WOULDN'T someone want it run through the state?


Answers (which vary by state)

1- The State agency can make mistakes including improper calculation of arrears leaving the onus on the payer to get it all straightened out which might require expensive legal fees and time consuming court appearances to get a new order
2- Every time the child support changes- and it can- for a boatload of reasons- this requires going back to court and getting a new order and again risking someone in a cubicle 9-5 is going to screw it up in some way. If the payer and recipient have worked out a direct payment arrangement, the amount simply changes- as with my situation- we stipulated to a college credit against child support and I simply adjusted the amount based on our signed, notarized Stipulation- no court appearance, no additional legal fees, no risk of mistakes.
3- There can be service fees for using a state agency
4- Who wants a state agency dipping into your paycheck or bank account? What if you don't have the money available at the time? At least when you're paying direct you've got some slack to work with

Someone posted that it happens quite often that the payor cannot provide sufficient proof of back support payments so they have to pay all the unproven support TWICE. I have never heard of this happening and I've read a ton of case law. Could it have happened on rare occasion? Sure but it's not likely. Especially if you keep careful bank records, which isn't difficult in todays digital age when banks provide them in pdf format every month and of course we always backup our important data.

that much being said, it's fairly clear from this thread that in some cases it's better to leave it to the state- such as when you have to "certify" your payments, and also if the divorce was highly acrimonious and theres a good chance the recipient will come after the payor out of spite, or whatever. As compared to states that don't require something other than, say a copy of bank statements, and when the two parties are getting along reasonably well.

In my particular case my divorce was high conflict but after the divorce she completely changed, and signed off on every legal matter that came up,without even consulting her attorneys, including the child support college credit- where I gave myself full credit including tuition which a court probably would not have awarded me. She didn't question it or challenge me. It made things so much faster, easier, and cheaper.
Last edited by dad2grls on Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
dad2grls
100+ Posts
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:27 pm

Re: child support

Unread postby Fatheroffour » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:20 am

I have never heard of this happening and I've read a ton of case law.



Happens all the time.

Especially if you keep careful bank records,


As can be seen on the CS worksheet and website for my state, the state won't accept your records.
User avatar
Fatheroffour
Moderator
 
Posts: 36721
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:37 am
Location: Top of the world

Re: child support

Unread postby massdad1234 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:26 am

it just seems like a lot of risk to own when one could simply put that on the state agency. Not only that, but you have legal recourse by going this route, when you go direct, you put a lot of control back into your ex because, when you file with the state, your ex is working with them, not you. CS is simply formulaic.

I certainly can see both sides of the coin, but for me, only one eliminates any surprises down the line that requires the dad to own and to prove otherwise. If the two of you can work out an agreement without going to court, what is the hassle of having them bless the paperwork?

All i'm saying is have them process the payments, I still believe the two of you can agree to any deviation, you should just know, that it can be revisited at any time to bring it back to within guidelines, you would have to understand that as well.
massdad1234
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: child support

Unread postby dad2grls » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:38 pm

massdad1234 wrote:it just seems like a lot of risk to own when one could simply put that on the state agency.


Except in the few states that will accept "certified proof only" (whatever that is), there's no additional risk as long as the payer is able to download and save copies of bank statements.

massdad1234 wrote: Not only that, but you have legal recourse by going this route


There's always "legal recourse" regardless of how you pay. So what?

massdad1234 wrote:when you go direct, you put a lot of control back into your ex because, when you file with the state, your ex is working with them, not you.


I can't wrap my head around what you're saying there. Whether you transfer money from your account to your ex, or it's taken from your account by a 3rd party and placed into your wive's account, she has no "control" over any of it. If she wants to hassle you and pretend she didn't get it or didn't get enough of it, and go and sue you for nonpayment, she's going to do that regardless of where the money comes from. You still have to defend yourself, you still have to pay for an attorney, you still have to show up in court with whatever records, whether it's records that show it's going to a state agency or whether its bank records that show it goes from your bank account to hers.

massdad1234 wrote: CS is simply formulaic.


Yes, but so what? CS is also subject to change for a boatload of reasons, and when that happens if there's a 3rd party pulling money out of your accounts things can get a lot more complicated and more difficult to fix.

massdad1234 wrote:I certainly can see both sides of the coin, but for me, only one eliminates any surprises down the line that requires the dad to own and to prove otherwise.


Dude until your children are emancipated, you're going to have to keep one eye open. Especially if there's still ongoing conflict- she'll work the system simply to make you miserable and that will happen regardless of how strong your defense will be.

massdad1234 wrote:If the two of you can work out an agreement without going to court, what is the hassle of having them bless the paperwork?


I 'think' you're trying to say that even when the two parties are cooperative, and Stipulate to modifications without attorneys and court orders, then why not take the finished product to a state organization so they can take the new amounts out of your bank account, is that right? If not, please clarify, if so, I've already provided reasons why not to go through the state.

massdad1234 wrote:All i'm saying is have them process the payments, I still believe the two of you can agree to any deviation, you should just know, that it can be revisited at any time to bring it back to within guidelines, you would have to understand that as well.


Again, if the parties can agree without attorneys and court orders then why make things more complicated, subject to error, and require court appearances and probably more attorney fees to make "official" so the third party knows how much money to steal from you?
dad2grls
100+ Posts
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:27 pm

Re: child support

Unread postby massdad1234 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:47 pm

This reminds me of the people arguing that no seat belts is actually safer than wearing a seat belt.
massdad1234
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: child support

Unread postby Trevor » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:31 pm

In many/most states, redress for errors in CS calculations/records are handled by the agency auditors, not the courts. Just like it's your job to stay on top of your checkbook register, the onus is on you to ensure CS payments through the agency are current and accurate. After all, the money is coming out of either your paycheck or your bank account.

Some of you seem to think the agency is a bunch of bureaucrats handling paper checks and accounting ledger books. It's not. It's EFT between your bank/employer and the Agency.

My experience with the CS Agency in FL was good. I had adjustments made, up and down, and they got it right, once orders were updated. Payments were stopped on time when my CS obligation was finished.
"Personal density is directly proportional to temporal bandwidth."
Trevor
Moderator
 
Posts: 23657
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:55 pm

Re: child support

Unread postby Havalu7 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:05 pm

And OP you state that she is very cooperative post divorce; yet it was very high conflict between you prior.

Why would you take the risk that she would remain that way to save a 3$ service fee, and all of your other objections combined.

Seems like your leaning towards going the (IMHO) riskier route. Do a pro con CBA or side by side comparison.

If you go that route you can join what seems like the majority chipping in here (myself included) whom don’t even think about that support, nor any shenanigans on our kids mom’s part. Which in a lot of cases part of why we are not with them. So you can shovel gravel with new guys in the spot you are now; after you see how it works out for you.

MANY a guy here has gone against the common wisdom and strategy dealt out here to their own regret.
If it doesn’t work out you can go ahead and possibly pay that back support (again), and then arrange it with a state agency the next time.
"No." is a complete sentence.

Do not move out of your house.
User avatar
Havalu7
1K+ Posts
 
Posts: 1847
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:43 am

Re: child support

Unread postby dad2grls » Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:22 pm

Havalu7 wrote:And OP you state that she is very cooperative post divorce; yet it was very high conflict between you prior.


I believe you are referring to my situation which was extremely high conflict pre-divorce and virtually no conflict post divorce. I'm not the Op. According to the Ops first post, his exwife is trying to screw him any chance she gets. If he has to "certify" his proof of support, or if he cannot find a way to have his account automatically debited for the payments, then there is no question he should go through a state agency which will make the payments on his behalf.

massdad1234 wrote:This reminds me of the people arguing that no seat belts is actually safer than wearing a seat belt.


Wearing a seatbelt can be a hazard- say if you drive off a bridge and it jams and you're drowning and can't get out.
dad2grls
100+ Posts
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Finances & Divorce Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests