= new reply since forum marked as read
than on the kid. Damn us vindictive sluts anyway! All we wanted to do was get someone else to support us!
Yes, I did get that from my ex. He'd make pointed comments on my new free used couch, showing me how I wasn't spending "his" $50 on our child. Yeah, that $50 goes partway to being able to rent an apartment with a bedroom for our child, of some food, or maybe part of the school supplies. I'm getting rich, spending in ALL ON MYSELF Bwahahahahahahahahaha.
$30? That is something. I appreciate the fact that there are formulas rather than having to prove need like it used to be.
support to help the kids.
Yup, that $50/month sure as shit paid for sooooooooooooo much of my child's financial costs that I inncured. I was SOOOOOOOO much better off financially, trying to pay for everything for me and our child with that $50/month.
Be careful what precedents you set.
This entire nation is drowning in debt, because the system has been rigged that way. Don't set dangerous precedents just because you think child support is in a different category. The government should not be in the business of garnishing ALL of what anyone depends on to live.
then maybe they should have held an aspirin between their knees. 
If the case is under the Federal IV-D program, it is relatively easy to do things by mail, but the cases I was involved with were cases FILED before Welfare Reform of the mid 1990s AND the latest change in the Federal IV-D program. Since these were older cases, dating from the 1970s, the States Courts I mentioned were NOT set up to handled request for reductions in attachments. My clients HAD to go to the Courts directly. I even tried to do it via the mail, but the courts REFUSED to do anything given how old the cases were WITHOUT the claimant being present.
Most cases are handled through the State Domestic Relations Programs funded by the Federal Government as part of the Welfare Reform Package of the mid 1990s. When Welfare Reform was started in the mid 1990s, the GOP found out that the Federal government had NEVER provided any welfare assistance to any families that did NOT have minor Children in the family. i.e. Adults NEVER received a cent of US Federal Welfare assistance (Such adults can get FOOD STAMPS, but that is a different program, run by the Agricultural Committees of the House and Senate and the GOP chairman of those Committees absolutely opposed Welfare Reform so no change came to Food Stamps exempt as part of the Budget Process).
Side Note: As part of the GOP attack on Government Benefits, Food Stamp law was changed, but only as part of the Budget NOT the underlying law. i.e. had to be passed each year, or the law reverted to the underlying law. One aspect of this was payment of over-payments of Food Stamps. Until the mid 1990s, such over-payments, if NOT the fault of the recipient (i.e. told the truth but received to much food stamps), could be ordered BUT only if the recipient agreed. If the food stamp recipient said they could not afford to pay the over payment back, future food stamps could NOT be reduced to off set the over-payment. This all changed in 1995, Food Stamps were made to follow the same rule as Welfare, any over-payment, no matter who was at fault, had to be paid back 100% AND the State could reduce future food stamps to off set the over-payments. This had long been the rule as to Welfare, but only from 1995 onward was it made the law as to Food Stamps. Now, as I said, this change was opposed by the Agricultural committees of the House and Senate, thus the change was done in the Budget NOT the underlying law. Every year since then, the law has been re-passed as part of the budget. The Democrats did the same when they controlled the house and Senate after the 2008 election.
Anyway, back to the topic, Child Support. In child support cases since the mid 1990s, states can take two options, first option is permit the non-custodian parent to participate via phone in support hearings, the other option is the IV-D program. Roughly the IV-D program permits a state where the child is living, to take the evidence of the parent living with that child, then transfer the case to the county where the non-custodian parent lives. In that later state, that state applies its laws to how much the non-custodian parent must pay (and remember this is all driven by Welfare Reform, so Congress REQUIRED the payments to be high for low income people, to keep children off the welfare rolls).
Some more background on the IV-D program:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/citc/files/title-iv-d.pdf
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/tribal/OCSEcomparisonsIV-D.pdf
Thus Congress has made it easier to do Support cases between the States since the mid 1990s. Furthermore, many cases pre-date that change. especially when it comes to the issue of arrears (i.e. a non-custodian parent received welfare, and the support obligations was transferred to the Welfare Department in exchange for Welfare). Now, 20-30 (and in some cases 40-50 years) later the State is going after these "Dead-beats" by attaching their Social Security. I have NO problem with that, but I have seen cases where a person's had so much of his Social Security taken, that the amount her received is below the SSI amount.
Second Side Note: Social Security stated out as a strictly old age pension when passed in the 1930s. In 1954, as part of a long awaited reform of Social Security, do to the fact that the old age program was finally paying most people who were over age 65 were on Social Security. As part of this reform, Social Security Disability was added, i.e. if you had a work history and then became unable to work, then you could get your full Social Security amount, as Social Security Disability instead of being over age 65.
Third Side note as to Social Security: Social Security was phased in, with some people getting full Social Security as early as the late 1930s after paying into it for just a few years. Older people received nothing. Many of those older people found that they would be eligible for Social Security if they were born in some year AFTER they had been born. Since many of these same people were born when they were NO birth Certificates issued, the only record of their birth was the Family Bible. Social Security were accept family bible entrances of birth-date if they was no other evidence of the year of birth. Many a family bible had the birth year changed, the story was my grandfather, who controlled his family bible, changed several relatives year of birth so they could get Social Security.
Back to Second Side note: In 1974, Congress created the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program and told Social Security to run it. Congress defined disability for SSI as the same for Social Security Disability (i.e. the inability to do work) BUT did NOT require a work history. SSI was designed to help those people who had NEVER been able to work for any reasons, AND those people whose work history was so spotty that the amount of Social Security they were receiving was below what Congress determined to be the bare minimum someone needs to receive to survive (This is referred to as the "Standard of Need"
.
Today, in most states, Domestic Relations will NOT order a Support Order so large that it forces someone's income below the "Standard of Need". Which in 2012 is $697,00 per month. This is also the amount someone receives if all they get is SSI (IF they have any other source of Income, including any Social Security, their SSI is reduced by the amount that person received from that other source of Income). The rationale is simple, the "Standard of Need" is the amount Congress has determined one needs to survive.
The problem in these older cases, the arrears are quite large, often 18 years worth of welfare. The States holding these welfare arrears inform the Federal Government, who then informs SSA to reduce the Social Security by the amount set by the State court, in the cases I had to advise people on, by an amount that reduced their Social Security below the "Standard of need", i.e the amount the people would be getting if the only thing there were getting was SSI.
Worse, under Social Security Law as to attachments, such large attachments are permitted as to Social Security BUT NOT TO SSI. i.e. Two people getting about the same amount per month, but one is getting SSI, the other Social Security Disability. No attachment is permitted as to the person on SSI, but the person on Social Security can lose a good portion of his check. For this reason, a good rule is no Social Security check should be subject to attachment if that would drop the recipient below the "Standard of Need". At present that is NOT the law, and could become worse if this demand that everyone gets direct deposit to get Social Security becomes the law WITHOUT a rule that any attachment can NOT drop a person below the SSI amount.
As I said in my original post, most states will accept the "Standard of Need" as amount the payer MUST be left with, but in the cases I had to deal with, these older cases, the courts would NOT co-operate with my clients until they came to the state to request a decrease in the amount being taken.
Please note. the Cases I was involved in, all three of the Cases involved people who have been on Social Security since the 1970s. Thus NEVER had an ability to support their child except by the Survivor's amount given to that Child under the Social Security program. Now, after 30 years, the amount of their Social Security is being reduced for the first time AND then by an amount that puts them below the "Standard of Need". All three had a good relationship with they now adult child, one was actually living with the Child, but no money was to go to the child or the former custodian parent, but the money was to go to Welfare to reimburse Welfare. Welfare has waited this long, they could at least agree to permit the payee to keep at least the "Standard of Need", till the arrears are re-paid in full.
