Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paying too much

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Tahari
    Telling someone to get a second job is just an asinine suggestion as that is counted as income in child support calculations too

    I think not. Due to the fact that the rate teh amounts are being deducted is based on his old salary. Just because he is making less money doesn't give him automatic outs of the obligation.

    If he was making 50k orginally....and now making 25k...do you think they would change his rate due to him picking up a lower paying job?
    I think this poster is simply pointing out that sometimes making less money won't reduce child support. Different factors are taken into consideration. Although you say that you did not take a lower paying job just to reduce child support (clearly you didn't otherwise you would have filed for a modification asap), some people do. Or some people take a lower paying job due to other reasons other than that's all they can get. In those cases, it may be determined that the person has the ability to make more money, therefore the cs will be calculated as such. But like other posters have pointed out, this really is not your main issue, the issue is that you should have filed for a modification as soon as your income dropped so that you didn't fall so far behind. Nothing you can do about the past now. What you need to do now is file asap for a modification. Your chances of having cs lowered are possible, especially if you state that you are making the maximum amount possible at this time.

    Oh, and I also wanted to add, that "telling someone to get a second job" is NOT assinine. Yes, they may use the second income and figure it into child support obligations, but the person is still making more money, they don't take 100% of the second income, only a portion of it. So while it is discouraging to work so many hours and have cs a big deduction, it is still a worthwhile option.
    Last edited by shedo; 01-25-2006, 07:10 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by shedo
      I think this poster is simply pointing out that sometimes making less money won't reduce child support. Different factors are taken into consideration. Although you say that you did not take a lower paying job just to reduce child support (clearly you didn't otherwise you would have filed for a modification asap), some people do. Or some people take a lower paying job due to other reasons other than that's all they can get. In those cases, it may be determined that the person has the ability to make more money, therefore the cs will be calculated as such. But like other posters have pointed out, this really is not your main issue, the issue is that you should have filed for a modification as soon as your income dropped so that you didn't fall so far behind. Nothing you can do about the past now. What you need to do now is file asap for a modification. Your chances of having cs lowered are possible, especially if you state that you are making the maximum amount possible at this time.

      Oh, and I also wanted to add, that "telling someone to get a second job" is NOT assinine. Yes, they may use the second income and figure it into child support obligations, but the person is still making more money, they don't take 100% of the second income, only a portion of it. So while it is discouraging to work so many hours and have cs a big deduction, it is still a worthwhile option.
      Yes it is asinine. Sure, they only take a portion of it, just like they only take a "portion" of your income when you're working only one job.

      If his current job has him making $1,200 a month and he takes a second job where he makes $1,000 a month, his child support will be calculated off of $2,200 a month income. $1,000 + $1,200 = $2,200. Using these figures and the ILL CS worksheet, he'd be paying:

      $440 a month for child #1
      $352 a month for child #2
      $282 a month for child #3

      Out of $2,200 a month income that would leave him $1074 a month after child support. Then, you figure taxes into the equation and deduct another 20% of that $1074 (roughly) he's left with $859.20 to live on for the month. He currently has $600 left after they take CS.

      Using his current amounts that he listed before in this thread, out of his $1,200 a month current income he pays a total of $600 per month in child support out of his $1,200 (he says they take half his pay). So, for working that 2nd job he'd be making a whopping $259.80 more a month. Work a second job for $1,000 more a month and out of that $1,000 he only actually ever sees $259 of it because of CS and taxes.

      And, you don't think that's asinine? Would YOU work a second full-time job for only $256 more a month?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by shedo
        I think this poster is simply pointing out that sometimes making less money won't reduce child support. Different factors are taken into consideration. Although you say that you did not take a lower paying job just to reduce child support (clearly you didn't otherwise you would have filed for a modification asap), some people do. Or some people take a lower paying job due to other reasons other than that's all they can get. In those cases, it may be determined that the person has the ability to make more money, therefore the cs will be calculated as such. But like other posters have pointed out, this really is not your main issue, the issue is that you should have filed for a modification as soon as your income dropped so that you didn't fall so far behind. Nothing you can do about the past now. What you need to do now is file asap for a modification. Your chances of having cs lowered are possible, especially if you state that you are making the maximum amount possible at this time.

        Oh, and I also wanted to add, that "telling someone to get a second job" is NOT assinine. Yes, they may use the second income and figure it into child support obligations, but the person is still making more money, they don't take 100% of the second income, only a portion of it. So while it is discouraging to work so many hours and have cs a big deduction, it is still a worthwhile option.
        Thank You Shedo!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Whyte Noise
          Yes it is asinine. Sure, they only take a portion of it, just like they only take a "portion" of your income when you're working only one job.

          If his current job has him making $1,200 a month and he takes a second job where he makes $1,000 a month, his child support will be calculated off of $2,200 a month income. $1,000 + $1,200 = $2,200. Using these figures and the ILL CS worksheet, he'd be paying:

          $440 a month for child #1
          $352 a month for child #2
          $282 a month for child #3

          Out of $2,200 a month income that would leave him $1074 a month after child support. Then, you figure taxes into the equation and deduct another 20% of that $1074 (roughly) he's left with $859.20 to live on for the month. He currently has $600 left after they take CS.

          Using his current amounts that he listed before in this thread, out of his $1,200 a month current income he pays a total of $600 per month in child support out of his $1,200 (he says they take half his pay). So, for working that 2nd job he'd be making a whopping $259.80 more a month. Work a second job for $1,000 more a month and out of that $1,000 he only actually ever sees $259 of it because of CS and taxes.

          And, you don't think that's asinine? Would YOU work a second full-time job for only $256 more a month?
          ugh yea...what do you think (responsible)moms have to do that are not making ends meet with their first jobs and the fathers are deadbeats?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Tahari
            ugh yea...what do you think (responsible)moms have to do that are not making ends meet with their first jobs and the fathers are deadbeats?
            But this guy is not a deadbeat. He is TRYING. Which is more than alot of NCP's. My ex is a deadbeat. But I did the responsible thing BEFORE I had my kids. I thought long and hard about whether or not I could afford to raise them alone without help from anyone else. Everyone considering parenthood needs to think about that. People die, divorce and walk out on their families every day and anyone that seriously believes that it could never happen to them is an idiot.

            The OP is in a difficult situation, getting a 2nd job is only going to make it worse.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Whyte Noise

              And, you don't think that's asinine? Would YOU work a second full-time job for only $256 more a month?

              Well I would weigh my options. If the extra $256 meant food for the table, then YES I would. Hey, it's a tough world out there, no one said it would be Easy.

              Comment


              • #37
                It isn't easy. No one said this was easy. And Whytenoise...256 more a month is more than 0 a month. A lot of NCPs do what they have to do for their kid's sake. That's what being a parent is all about. Making sacrifices and making sure that they are taken care of. Do you think it's right for NCPs to leave their children behind not pay support and go on and support other children, their own as well as their new parnters? It happens all the time unfortunately, which leaves the CP to fend for themselves. We don't live in a perfect society, but at least some NCPs can step up and own up to their responsibilities.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I AM a CP. I'm also an NCP. My ex husband I have have split custody of our 3 children. One lives with me, and 2 live with him. I know all about "sacrifices". I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and have been though hell and back with it. You don't have to tell someone who had to live behind a friggin convienance store and sleep beside a dumpster after her ex left her about "sacrifices" at all. You don't have to tell a mother who, instead of having her children sleep beside that dumpster with her, told her STBX to take the kids so they'd have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs, about sacrifices or what being a parent is about.

                  disavowed isn't a "deadbeat". He pays CS every month. It was set when he was making a higher amount of money than he is now. He was laid off from that job and the jobs he could find weren't at the same rate of pay as that good paying job. Just because you make $20 an hour at one job doesn't mean you'll find another job making that same amount of money, especially with today's job market and the economy. My own husband had a job making $12 in rural Missouri, but got laid off because of company cutbacks. He found a job, in the same industry, doing the same thing he was doing at that $12 an hour job, but you know what his pay was? Not $12 an hour... $7 an hour. A $5 an hour paycut. Why? Because he had over a year in at his $12 an hour job and had received raises... when he took the other job, he had to start at the bottom of the ladder again. It's not as cut and dried or black and white as some people like to think when it comes to CS and the NCP having a reduced pay. disavowed stated he lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying job, not that he quit the higher paying job just for the hell of it, but that's just what a lot of you "assumed" he did by your comments.

                  What I think NCP's should or shouldn't do isn't the issue Tahari. The NCP that started THIS post isn't one of those NCP's you speak of that just walks away, pays no support, and has other children plus a new partner he couldn't support. THIS NCP has been paying his support; half of his income. THIS NCP had a decent paying job, was paying his child support, and then he was laid off through no fault of his own. THIS NCP is owning up to his responsiblities for his children and paying. Yes, he should have done a modification sooner, but you know... not everyone knows their rights when it comes to doing that. Not everyone knows you can even raise or lower support or how to do it. That's why they come to boards like this... to get guidance, ask questions, and find out what they can do. Not to be labled as a deadbeat who must have quit their job and took a lower paying one to get out of paying child support.

                  So now, unless he takes a second job and has that income considered for CS purposes too, he's still a deadbeat? So, he takes a 2nd job working 30-40 hours more a week for $1,000 more a month in income, but only brings home $256 more every month after CS and taxes? He spends even MORE time way from his 2nd family (if he has one) he works even more hours so he gets to see his NC children even less... all for $256 a month and a raise in CS for the CP? And you all seem to think that is fair in some way?

                  I see both sides of the page becuase I live both sides of the page. But even as a CP I can't see how getting a second job, for them to take more money and him have even less time with his kids is a good or fair thing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Whyte Noise
                    I AM a CP. I'm also an NCP. My ex husband I have have split custody of our 3 children. One lives with me, and 2 live with him. I know all about "sacrifices". I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt and have been though hell and back with it. You don't have to tell someone who had to live behind a friggin convienance store and sleep beside a dumpster after her ex left her about "sacrifices" at all. You don't have to tell a mother who, instead of having her children sleep beside that dumpster with her, told her STBX to take the kids so they'd have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs, about sacrifices or what being a parent is about.

                    disavowed isn't a "deadbeat". He pays CS every month. It was set when he was making a higher amount of money than he is now. He was laid off from that job and the jobs he could find weren't at the same rate of pay as that good paying job. Just because you make $20 an hour at one job doesn't mean you'll find another job making that same amount of money, especially with today's job market and the economy. My own husband had a job making $12 in rural Missouri, but got laid off because of company cutbacks. He found a job, in the same industry, doing the same thing he was doing at that $12 an hour job, but you know what his pay was? Not $12 an hour... $7 an hour. A $5 an hour paycut. Why? Because he had over a year in at his $12 an hour job and had received raises... when he took the other job, he had to start at the bottom of the ladder again. It's not as cut and dried or black and white as some people like to think when it comes to CS and the NCP having a reduced pay. disavowed stated he lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying job, not that he quit the higher paying job just for the hell of it, but that's just what a lot of you "assumed" he did by your comments.

                    What I think NCP's should or shouldn't do isn't the issue Tahari. The NCP that started THIS post isn't one of those NCP's you speak of that just walks away, pays no support, and has other children plus a new partner he couldn't support. THIS NCP has been paying his support; half of his income. THIS NCP had a decent paying job, was paying his child support, and then he was laid off through no fault of his own. THIS NCP is owning up to his responsiblities for his children and paying. Yes, he should have done a modification sooner, but you know... not everyone knows their rights when it comes to doing that. Not everyone knows you can even raise or lower support or how to do it. That's why they come to boards like this... to get guidance, ask questions, and find out what they can do. Not to be labled as a deadbeat who must have quit their job and took a lower paying one to get out of paying child support.

                    So now, unless he takes a second job and has that income considered for CS purposes too, he's still a deadbeat? So, he takes a 2nd job working 30-40 hours more a week for $1,000 more a month in income, but only brings home $256 more every month after CS and taxes? He spends even MORE time way from his 2nd family (if he has one) he works even more hours so he gets to see his NC children even less... all for $256 a month and a raise in CS for the CP? And you all seem to think that is fair in some way?

                    I see both sides of the page becuase I live both sides of the page. But even as a CP I can't see how getting a second job, for them to take more money and him have even less time with his kids is a good or fair thing.

                    I'm sorry you had to go thru what you've gone thru. I guess being on both sides of the fence you can feel for the OP.
                    Have you asked what the OP was doing or how he was living in the four months that he wasn't working? He's not a deadbeat dad because they are garnishing him. Three different families are benefitting from the garnishment.

                    I have already said my piece in this whole thing. He is in knee deep, but you know what? He put himself there and he is aware of that. I am tired of hearing and reading about NCPs who are garnished and feel they are being wronged. Waht about the children they created? Don't they count?

                    I also told the OP that he might have overpaid as well, but if he's interested in knowing he'll go down to the courthouse or request of CSE a copy of his payments. This is nothing new WhyteNoise. I can't feel sorry for someone who doesn't feel sorry for themselves.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Tahari, the crux of the matter is that NCP's (and I mean as in a group, not each individual) will always feel as if they are paying too much, and CP's (again, as in a group and not each individual) will always feel as if they're not getting enough. Period. It's never going to change. Luckily I don't have to deal with that with my own case now. I am responsible for our oldest daughter that lives with me, my ex is responsible for our youngest daughter and son that live with him. Neither of us pay child support to the other. We're both responsible for getting insurance on the children that live with us, and we're each responsible for 50% of uncovered medical along with the standard 50% of educational, extracurricular activities, etc. of all our children, but neither pays child support.

                      No one ever said the children don't count, but what about the parents? Don't they count too? My current husband's CS order was outrageous. He was left with $92 a week to live on after CS and taxes. If it weren't for meeting me, he would have never made it. He wouldn't have made it on his own... he had less than $400 a month to live on. Could you do that? Rent, electric, food, car insurance, gas for the car to go to the job that paid the child support. Yes, the children deserve to be supported, but doesn't a human being (forget the title of NCP for a minute here) deserve to be able to live and support themselves as well? It was just he and I... my daughter wasn't with me at that time, my ex still had custody of all 3 children. My current husband and I have no children together. It was just the 2 of us. Him with his $92 a week bring home pay and my income that basically supported the household. Is $92 a week an income that any person, CP or NCP or a single person with no children at all could/should live on? No. But, because he was the NCP it didn't matter. As long as the child support was paid, that's all that mattered. As far as the court and his ex were concerned, he could be living in a cardboard box under a bridge as long as the CS was paid every week. That attitude and level of non-caring is just reprehensible to me. His ex lied in court, claimed expenses she didn't have, claimed daycare she didn't have, and the court set his CS above the guideline amount knowing what his income was because they had his paystubs and tax returns. They just didn't care. Missouri rules said you had to wait for 3 years before filing a modification, so he had to wait for 3 years. There wasn't an attorney around that would help him reopen the judgment. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

                      See... there are always exceptions to the rules. Not all NCP's are deadbeats that don't care about their kids when they try to get a CS downward modification. Not all CP's are vindictive ex wives who keep the children from their fathers or want to terminate parental rights or are money hungry when they try to get a CS upwward modification. The law is written in broad terms, but not everyone falls into those terms. There are those that fall into a grey area. I'll use GA's current CS guidelines as an example here. If an NCP makes $50,000 a year, that's $4167 a month in gross income. GA guidelines for 1 child is between 17 and 23% of the NCP's gross income, period. So, that NCP's CS amount would be roughly $718 a month at 17%, and $958 at 23%. That still leaves that NCP over $3,000 a month to live on. Take another NCP who makes minimum wage. That's around $10,000 a year, and $833 a month gross income. Apply those same guidelines... 17 to 23%. The NCP's CS amount would be $141 a month at 17%, and $191 a month at 23%. That would leave the NCP with less than $600 or $700 a month to live on. Do you see how the same exact guidelines affect 2 NCP's in totally different ways? Do you see why one would pay CS that is pocket change to them, and to the other one it could mean the difference between them eating or not? One is below poverty level to begin with and even further so after CS, the other is upper middle class before AND after CS.

                      The law doesn't care about "people", it's all about numbers. Period. It just cares that the guidelines say X percentage should be paid, so X percentage is what's ordered. The law doesn't care about the CP, the NCP, or the children, it just runs the numbers. To think any differently is fooling yourself.

                      CP's and NCP's as a group will never see eye to eye on CS, because CS laws affect each group differently. I see the OP's side, but there are some on this thread that don't. If you'll read some of my postings you will see that I'm neither pro CP nor pro NCP. As a matter of fact, I told an NCP in another thread that yes indeedy, his ex could come after him for contempt if he's not paying child support like his court order says. I've also told CP's that are denying visitation the same exact thing; that their ex could file contempt on them as well. Maybe not on this board (I can't recall if I've answered a post with that particular question) but on the other boards I go to I most certainly have. Like I said, people come to these type of boards looking for direction because they don't know what to do. I don't think that disavowed came here because he didn't want to help himself, it's because he didn't know how to. Many are ignorant of the laws so they come here looking for guidance. Maybe they only know what they've read in their court papers or don't even know how to interpret those papers, or had crappy attorneys (and yes.. they are out there in droves) that screwed them over and they don't even know it. One woman that posted here had a judge order CS beyond the age that she legally could and that overstepped her boundary in ordering other things as well. She didn't think there was anything her husband could do, just thought it was outrageous, until it was pointed out to her that what this judge did was illegal. Hopefully she's on her way to getting her husband's situation rectified in a legal manner.

                      Not knowing what to do or how to do it isn't the same as knowing and just being lazy and not acting. I think disavowed falls into the "not knowing what to do or how to do it" catagory. After posting here he did call to get a review done, but you can plainly see from his first post he had no clue what to do.

                      I just wish that every CP would see that when an NCP asks about getting a CS reduction they aren't automatically doing it to screw the kids or the ex. I wish that every NCP would see that when a CP asks about gettnng an increase theya ren't automatically doing it to screw the ex. Because you know what? At the end of the day, when you take away the "custodial" and "non-custodial" monkier that the court gave you, you're left with the word "parent" and we're all human beings. More of us should act like such.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Beautiful speech whytenoise. I hear what you're saying and I agree totally. NCPS and CPs will always have issues. I always say there will always be an ncp paying way too much and then therea re the ncps that go in hiding and work off the books.

                        Like I said before...the OP has 3 different children, 3 different orders. Who's fault is that? It's not the child's so why should they go without? NCPs who can't afford these children shouldn't go off and continue to have them. Yes I know i will get slammed for that. Yes I know there are mothers out there having children just for the extra income, but seriously...this man doesn't have one or two...he has three.this wasn't a problem that just arose. Like I said 4 mths had gone and he did absolutely nothing. How was he surviving? I guess the same way his kids were without their support.

                        Let me tell you, before I entered the cs system, I was so anti cs. I have males in my family being hit left and right with support, but you know what? They pay it. Well it's being garnished, but they are still working. I didn't see why women couldn't handle their situations like my mom did without involving the courts. But now I am here in the system, taking my son's father to court. And your **** right he's being garnished heavily. It's not the same as OP, my ex quit his job voluntarily. And he has other kids to feed as well, but I really don't care about his other kids now. They aren't mine and the fact that he has turned his back on our son, I can care less if he was living in a carboard box. He isn't tho. He's living in Georgia with a new house which most likely will go into forclosure due to him being so simple and trying to screw me. He's driving a new vehicle as well yet my son should be starving? I think not. So yes I do understan all NCPs are not alike, but it doesn't give them any outs of supporting their child. The child comes first. Just like you sacrificed, they do too.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Tahari
                          Beautiful speech whytenoise. I hear what you're saying and I agree totally. NCPS and CPs will always have issues. I always say there will always be an ncp paying way too much and then therea re the ncps that go in hiding and work off the books.

                          Like I said before...the OP has 3 different children, 3 different orders. Who's fault is that? It's not the child's so why should they go without? NCPs who can't afford these children shouldn't go off and continue to have them. Yes I know i will get slammed for that. Yes I know there are mothers out there having children just for the extra income, but seriously...this man doesn't have one or two...he has three.this wasn't a problem that just arose. Like I said 4 mths had gone and he did absolutely nothing. How was he surviving? I guess the same way his kids were without their support.

                          Let me tell you, before I entered the cs system, I was so anti cs. I have males in my family being hit left and right with support, but you know what? They pay it. Well it's being garnished, but they are still working. I didn't see why women couldn't handle their situations like my mom did without involving the courts. But now I am here in the system, taking my son's father to court. And your **** right he's being garnished heavily. It's not the same as OP, my ex quit his job voluntarily. And he has other kids to feed as well, but I really don't care about his other kids now. They aren't mine and the fact that he has turned his back on our son, I can care less if he was living in a carboard box. He isn't tho. He's living in Georgia with a new house which most likely will go into forclosure due to him being so simple and trying to screw me. He's driving a new vehicle as well yet my son should be starving? I think not. So yes I do understan all NCPs are not alike, but it doesn't give them any outs of supporting their child. The child comes first. Just like you sacrificed, they do too.
                          I'm not going to slam you. I'm not in the business of doing that. With any regularity anyways.

                          Yup, disavowed has 3 orders for 3 different children. I agree with that. I do disagree with your "NCPs who can't afford these children shouldn't go off and continue to have them" statement though because it seems as if you're lumping disavowed in with those NCP's. He was "affording" that child support amount just fine and they weren't going without until disavowed lost his job through no fault of his own and had to take a lower paying one. He COULD afford the ordered child support until that happened. Like you said, who's fault is that? Certainly not disavowed's, because he was laid off due to cutbacks. It's not his children's fault, but then again... it's not his either. He was part of downsizing and lost the job that the child support was ordered off of. He's not making that money anymore, and it's not through his own doing. Something unexpected has happened and he can no longer pay the current amount. Even garnishing 50% of his pay isn't meeting that obligation. So yes, since he is not "willfully" unemployed, he lost his job through no fault of his own, he most certainly is entitled to have the child support recalcualted. If that means a reduction in child support that the mothers will get, so be it.

                          When my husband was making $12 an hour, got laid off and went to making only $7 an hour we, as a family, had to cut back. Did it hurt? You betcha. But it wasn't his fault he was laid off. When an intact family takes a paycut though no fault of their own, you reorganise and cut down. When an NCP takes a paycut though no fault of their own, then why should it not be the same way? If the NCP got a raise in pay the CP would want the child support recalculated to reflect that, correct? An NCP asking for a reduction because their pay went down shouldn't be looked at any differently than a CP wanting an increase because the NCP's pay went up in my eyes. If the NCP gets a significant raise and it would make the child support go up, then of course the CP should ask for it. Along the same lines though, if the NCP's pay goes down significantly and it would make the CS go down, the NCP should ask for a reduction. There's nothing illegal or immoral about either scenario.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I feel your pain!

                            I am court ordered to pay $163.50 for one child to a guy how sits on his butt and lives with his mother (he is 37 by the way) is collecting state assistance but the state is taking $243.50 out of my barly $500 check each month which is leaving me with about $250 to live on each month. I can not afford to get a modification of my child support order. I would get a second job but I already have a disability and should not be working the job I have now. I am currently working at a school for 6 hours a day in a kitchen with heavy lifting and heavy cleaning.. I have several things wrong with my spine and a muscel disorder. I can not get disibilty cause I have to work to keep my lights and gas on so I can at least visit with my son on the weekends. I lost custody to this dead beat (who never paid me child support in 7 years) because his mommy works for the State Department of Juvinal Affiars in Oklahoma and "pulled every string she could"

                            I can certainly understand any non-custodial parents grip about the child support system. I have talk to them until I am blue in the face and they still won't listen to me screaming that I can't feed myself let alone my son when he is here for the summer!!

                            What am I to do?
                            Miss Ok

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by disavowed
                              For the record, I did not take a lower paying job to reduce my child support.

                              If I make more, pay more.
                              If I make less, too bad.

                              Is that how you see it?
                              Disavowed - I think that WhyteNoise has you along the right track. The child support should be based on all income minus state and federal taxes, social security and medicare payments, mandatory retirement cost, union dues, healthcare premiums and prior support obligations. Based on your situation though, it is possible that you might be able to get the court to take into consideration the income of the CP's when modifing the current order. It is not written that way in IL law so your best bet is to try and obtain a lawyer. Have you tried contacting your local legal aide office? There is a group of lawyers in IL that offer referrals and guidance about different matters. They have a website also. You may also try seeking out attorney's in your area that offer free consultations. This give you a start in learning some specific laws. Do as much research as you can first so that you can ask specific questions. I wish you the best.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I wanted to post a follow-up on this and will continue to do so as this develops. In the blue is the email I sent to the Chid Support Help Line in Illinois. I also sent the Regional office a letter like it in the mail. In the red is their response. (the ####'s represent the case numbers which I have omitted)

                                Description of Request: I am writing to you in reference to the following orders to withhold income for child support: Case Numbers ######, ######, and ######. I am currently paying child support on all three cases in an amount that far exceeds my ability to pay. The amounts that were withheld were determined long ago and, to my knowledge, were not based on a formula that considered the other child-support orders that were already in place. The amount is so extreme based on my current pay that it can not be completely paid out of my check. I do not know what the next step is to rectify this situation. I am writing to you to request a review and reduction of my child support. I hope that this is possible, as I am continuing to get even further and further behind in my payments. Please respond to this letter and let me know what I can do to help.

                                Your inquiry on case ###### has been forwarded to our contact person in the Marion Regional office for handling. In addition,
                                your inquiries on cases ###### and ###### have also been forwarded to them to investigate but our database indicates that the children involved in these two cases are over 17 and therefore, ineligible for a modification.

                                Customer Service Unit/rm
                                Division of Child Support Enforcement
                                Healthcare and Family Services


                                Only one of my children is 17. The others are 13 and 5. How could they mess this up when their date of birth is plainly printed on the child support order?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X