Child Support

Parental Accountability Courts May Help Those Behind on Child Support Payments

Published on: April 5, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, parents who are delinquent on their child support payments in Georgia have reason to hope that they’ll see their children rather than the inside of a jail cell thanks to a new program instituted by courts in the state.

The reason for the change is the introduction of an innovative program in Georgia called parental accountability court. Thanks to the program, parents can avoid jail and instead chip away at their back child support.

Parental accountability courts have lately been popping up across the state. They are the product of a joint effort by Georgia’s Child Support Services department and local court systems and designed to offer an alternative to jail. Using resources that exist in the county the courts address specific problems of each person including unemployment, drug use, lack of transportation, etc. that prevent them from making regular child support payments.

“There’s a lot of guys sitting in jail before this program came and they were getting further and further behind,” Smith said of other fathers late with support payments. “If it weren’t for this program, I’d probably still be sitting in jail wondering how I was going to get out.”

In Georgia the problem is massive with a recent report from the Department of Human Services indicating that four out of every 10 parents required to pay child support are delinquent. In child-support cases, the parent that’s behind on the payments can wind up in jail for up to three months, costing the taxpayers $1,500 per month. Moreover, when they’re released they have the same problem as before, no job and no money to pay support with. As a result, many constantly circulate between jail and court with no problems being solved all the while.

Of the programs that have been started across the state there appears to be tremendous potential. In the Smith’s home of Hall County, the court’s first year of operation saw child support payments from non-custodial parents grow by $45,000. Simultaneously, the cost of incarcerating non-paying parents fell by $178,000 as the program helped people find work.

Big Child Support Change Brewing in South Carolina

Published on: March 13, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article by The State, a single South Carolina mother occupied with running a day care and raising two sons won a South Carolina Supreme Court case recently that may end up requiring divorced parents who pay child support to also pay for their kids to go to college.

The woman, Kristi McLeod said she was so shocked she had to stop by her lawyer’s office to ensure that she had heard the news correctly. The justices voted 3-2 in her favor, ruling that college education is now so critical to success in today’s world that the state has an interest in ensuring that it is paid for.

McLeod and her husband divorced in 1993. His income subsequently skyrocketed from $29,000 to almost $250,000 a year by 2008. Despite this vast increase child support for Kristi McLeod stayed at $175 a week for the two children. The whole time she never made more than $40,000 running a day care.

When McLeod’s son decided to go to college his father agreed via email to repay student loans and pick up miscellaneous expenses. The father also unilaterally decided to reduce his child support payments for his other son to $100 per week.

The father ultimately failed to hold up to his end of the bargain and McLeod decided to sue. A Family Court judge ruled in the father’s favor, saying he wasn’t required to pay college costs. The lower court judge also reduced how much support McLeod collected and refused to require her ex-husband to pay her attorney.

But the South Carolina Supreme Court decided to hear the case and reversed all previous lower court decisions on the subject.

In her majority opinion, Justice Kay Hearn wrote that, “Although the decision to send a child to college may be a personal one, it is not one we wish to foreclose to a child simply because his parents are divorced.”

The son has since graduated from college and is working as a fingerprint analyst for the FBI.

Two justices dissenting, citing current state law which specifically mentions paying support until a child finishes high school but does not mention college costs at all. “Had the Legislature intended for a parent to pay college expenses as an incident of continuing child support, I believe it would have specifically included the phrase ‘college graduation.'”

Change to Federal Benefits May Leave Those Behind on Child Support with No Money at All

Published on: March 1, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

According to a recent article in the Charlotte Observer, an important change could soon have an unexpected impact relating to child support debts. The change has come about as an attempt to reduce money spent by the federal government in mailing out paper checks. The Treasury Department has decided to begin making government benefits payments electronically in March of 2013. This will put a stop to the paper checks that many rely on to shield a portion of their monthly income from states that attempt to collect back child support.

States have the power to put a freeze on bank accounts of those who owe child support. A relatively recent ruling by the Treasury Department now authorizes states to freeze Social Security, disability and veterans’ benefits that appear in bank accounts. Once the decision to eliminate paper checks is implemented some 275,000 people could lose access to all of their income.

This presents huge problems for a certain segment of the population, the often poor men behind on their child support. There are many instances where these back payments are decades old and concern child who are long since grown. Much of the money owed is for interest and accumulated fees.

Of the money that is collected most will go to governments, not to the children of the men who were owed the money. States are permitted to keep this money as repayment for money they spent on providing welfare services for these children.

Though the goal is a good one, cracking down on deadbeat dads not paying the money they owe to their children. Unfortunately, the method of going about this will likely produce complicated and even counterproductive effects. Many of the men on the receiving end of this new collection practice are already facing financial ruin in the form of eviction, foreclosure and inability to pay other bills. By allowing states to seize federal benefits, these men may very well be left penniless.

Beginning next march the Treasury Department will deposit all federal benefits directly into bank accounts or load them onto prepaid debit cards. Regardless of the chosen method state governments will be allowed to reach the money. According to the Treasury Department these electronic payments are expected to save the government $1 billion over the next 10 years. The savings result from the shipping costs: about $1 to mail a check compared with about 10 cents for an electronic transfer.

States are currently only permitted to garnish only 65% of the benefits an individual is entitled to before they are disbursed. This same limit does not apply once the money is in an account and states are then allowed to have banks freeze it.
Other federal agencies are calling the practice into question, starting with the Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS does not want states to collect child support so aggressively that poor people are left with nothing, spokesman Ken Wolfe says. Though details are scarce, Wolfe said HHS is developing guidelines for states to “make sure we’re not putting someone into deep poverty as a result of an automatic collection.”

DHHS says they have research indicating that the policy could make life harder for people collecting government benefits. People who owe large amounts of child support are almost exclusively poor. The figures are stark: among those owing $30,000 or more, three-fourths had no reported income or income of less than $10,000.

Charlotte, North Carolina Divorcing Couples Should Beware of Snooping Spouses

Published on: February 23, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

As a recent article on USAToday.com points out, more and more divorces in the modern age involve electronic bad acts. As couples store and transmit increasing amounts of information electronically, through email, social media and text messaging, spouses are increasingly spying on each other’s communications, sometimes even illegally. Because of the speed with which this happened the law has found itself unable to keep up which has left many unanswered questions about what kind of behavior is acceptable.

A judge in Nashville, Tennessee notes that technology has “has resulted in a lot of evidence, not only of romantic involvement of one spouse with someone else, but it can also result in proof of undisclosed assets or responsibilities, financial misconduct.”

As this new type of information proliferates judges find themselves having to sort out subtle nuances. For example, how much of a shared computer is one spouse permitted to access? What if one party knew another’s e-mail password before divorce proceedings began? And what are the repercussions for breaking those rules?

The thorniest issues by far involve email and social media communications. Attorneys have had to adapt to the issues too and an experienced Charlotte divorce attorney would recommend that you chance your passwords when you begin divorce proceedings. One Nashville attorney is quoted as saying that “If you don’t change your passwords, you left them the key to the house.”

If one party knows another party’s password before the divorce proceedings, it’s possible that he may legally be able to read and save her e-mails during the proceedings. However, more extreme examples of snooping behavior, such as spyware or methods aimed at intercepting emails, are more legally troublesome. By going after all emails it can include confidential communications with attorneys and, as such, can result not only in civil liability, but also a criminal offense.

Even if criminal charges are not filed, the information obtained from snooping software could ultimately prove useless. Attorneys are able to object if certain documents have been obtained illegally and avoid having the evidence entered into the record.

Most attorneys also advise clients to avoid discussion of any sensitive matters that could become relevant in a divorce proceeding while on social media sites. Email communications might be protected due to the expectation of privacy, putting comments online on Facebook is certainly not private and the law would likely recognize no protection for such remarks.

Claiming Dependent Children on Taxes in North Carolina

Published on: February 14, 2012 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Many people going through a divorce have questions come tax time as the financial changes their family has gone through become clear. When and how a person can claim a child following a divorce can depend on a number of factors. The first step before you claim a child as a dependent is to make sure he or she fulfills certain basic criteria, all of which are set forth in IRS regulations.

First, and most obviously, the child in question must actually be your child or a descendent of your child. This does not mean the child must biologically be yours. It can mean either through birth, adoption or foster parenting. The child in question is also allowed to be a sibling, half-sibling or step-sibling, or a descendant of any of these.

The child being claimed must also be younger than 19, or 24 if he or she is a full-time student, and must also be younger than you (something that shouldn’t be much of a problem). The only caveat to the age requirement is if your child is permanently disabled, in which case you can claim him as a dependent regardless of his age.

Beyond these two fairly simple factors, the IRS also looks to the child’s residency throughout the year. Typically, you are permitted to claim a child as a dependent if he or she resided with you for more than half of the year. Of course, in shared custody situations, this can become tricky. The residency requirement means that parents with primary custody of their child will be the ones that are able to claim the kids as dependents.

There are, however, situations where a non-custodial parent can claim a child as a dependent if several additional factors are met. First, the parents must be legally divorced, separated under a written separation agreement, or living separately for at least the past six months. Second, the child must have received more than half of his financial support over the year from either one or both parents. Third, the child must have been in the custody of one or both of the parents for more than half of the year. Fourth, the custodial parent who would typically be able to claim the child must sign a form declaring that they will not claim that child as a dependent for that year’s taxes. The non-custodial parent must then attach this declaration to her tax return.

Registration and Modification of Foreign Child Custody and Child Support Order in Mecklenburg County Case

Published on: October 25, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals entered a ruling in the case of Crenshaw vs. Williams which came out of Mecklenburg County Family Court. This case involved a motion to modify child custody and a motion to modify child support. This case involved the registration of a foreign child custody and child support order in North Carolina for modification. This case illustrates important differences between North Carolina’s jurisdiction to register and modify a child custody decree and jurisdiction to register and modify a child support decree.

In this case, the parties had a prior Order from Michigan which addressed child custody and child support of the parties’ minor children. Ultimately, Father and the minor children lived in North Carolina with Father’s new wife while Mother lived in Georgia. Father registered the Michigan child custody and child support order in North Carolina and made a motion to modify child custody and a motion to modify child support. The trial court entered an order modifying child custody and modifying child support. Mother appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

With respect to the modification of child support, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) required that Father register the Michigan Order in Georgia to seek a modification. Since Mother was the obligor (the party who had to pay child support under the Michigan Order), UIFSA required that the Michigan Order be registered in Georgia. Georgia would then have the authority to modify the child support obligation, if it was appropriate.

With respect to the modification of child custody, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the registration was appropriate under North Carolina General Statutes Section 50A-203(2) and that the North Carolina trial court, therefore, had subject matter jurisdiction to modify the foreign child custody Order from Michigan. Since North Carolina was the “home state” of the minor children, it was appropriate to register and modify that child support order in North Carolina. North Carolina law dictates that the “home state” of a minor child is the state in which the children have resided for the six months immediately prior to the filing of the action.

Mother attempted to argue that the child custody and child support determinations were too closely intertwined to be determined separately and, therefore, the trial court should not have determined the modification of child custody issue since it did not have jurisdiction to determine child support. The North Carolina Court of Appeals considered this argument and rejected it because there was ample evidence that the trial court considered beyond the respective financial positions of the parties which related to the best interests of the minor children.

The North Carolina trial court awarded the Father primary custody of the parties’ minor children. There were numerous findings of fact which demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances affecting the wellbeing of the minor children since the prior child custody order was entered in Michigan. The trial court also found numerous facts which supported its finding that awarding primary custody of the minor children to Father was in the best interests of the minor children.

Child Custody and Child Support Appeal Denied

Published on: August 25, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Moore v. Onafowora, the trial Court granted Mother sole child custody and determined an appropriate amount of child support to be paid to Mother by Father. Father appealed the child support award and the sole child custody determination. With respect to child support, Father contended that the Court erred by imputing income to him for prospective child support based on past years bank account statements. The North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial Court did not actually imput income to Father. Rather, the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial Court determined Father’s income from all available sources. So, that part of the appeal was denied.

Post Separation Support and Child Support Case Appealed

Published on: August 15, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In the case of Davis vs. Davis, Husband appealed an order which addressed the family financial matters (child support and post separation support). He challenged the trial Court’s ruling by contending that the Court had made inconsistent findings of fact about his income and that the findings of fact did not support the award. In short, the trial Court found as fact that Husband’s business grossed $11,000 per month, that Husband testified that the business was suffering from financial difficulty, that Husband had the ability to pay Wife $4,130 per month in post separation support, and that Husband’s child support obligation was $1,490 per month.

Child Support Arrears Case

Published on: January 14, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

The North Carolina Court of Appeals considered State v. Bryant. This case was on appeal to address the issue of Father’s child support arrears. The case involved the registration of a foreign judgment for divorce which also contained provisions for child custody and child support. The foreign judgment was orginally entered by a trial court in Michigan. The foreign judgment called for Father to pay $486 per month to Mother for child support.

North Carolina Child Support Guidelines Changes – Child Care, Health Insurance, and Health Care Costs

Published on: January 3, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Child care costs for employment or job search are included in the calculation. Child care costs for other purposes (such as for education) may formulate a basis for deviating from the child support guidelines. Also, the child support guidelines have been updated to include the income levels at which the child care tax credits provide a benefit to the custodial parent.