Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Notice of [incorrect] Income Withholding - Marion County Prosecuting Attorney

I am often the recipient of the rants of parents proclaiming their denial of due process, unfair judgments, various other rights violations, and the manifest corruptness of the judicial system. Nearly ubiquitous in this onslaught is the common thread of parents who are impatient agitators. However, I have received a piece of mail that, after an initial chuckle, led me to wonder; is Marion County Prosecuting Attorney Terry Curry actually this stupid.

It came from a rare gem of a parent who patiently endures the litigation process. Subsequent to a petition to modify child support payment obligation of $83.00 per week a hearing was held and Father's obligation was "hereby modified to $0.00 per week, effective April 4, 2017." Additionally, "Arrearage is set at $16,438.44 as of May 3, 2017." Finally, "the noncustodial parent will pay $35.00 per week toward the arrearage."

"Approved and Ordered: Date: June 15, 2017".

For quick review, current support was ordered reduced to ZERO DOLLARS on 15 June 2017 but $35 per week was to be paid toward an arrears.

A copy of the ORDER was sent to Father by the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney. The PA also sent a copy of Notice of Income Withholding dated "June 15, 2017". That should be a familiar date to you by now.

That Notice of Income Withholding is directed to the "SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION" who is "ordered to withhold: . . . $83.00 per week, plus . . . $35 per week for the additional past due amount . . ."

Father may contest this order based upon either or both of two reasons provided under 45 C.F.R. 303.100(c)(2) being either an error in the amount of current or past support due or that he is not the named individual to whom the order applies.

May first though about the second reason of not being the person to whom it applies is SO WHAT. This notice would get the same treatment as would a notice delivered to me from Rent-A-Center indicating that my neighbour is past due on her couch rental. I am not going to waste my time with it.

However, in this case the ordered withholding amount is clearly $83 above what was ordered by the court. That may merit some consideration for contesting. Alas though, because the prosecutor - who is such a moronic imbecile who doesn't track with simple mathematical story problems - chose to direct the withholding order to the Social Security Administration, who is not the employer of Father, it is rather moot.

Maybe 45 C.F.R. 303.100(c)(2) should be amended to include a third option: "The idiot prosecutor directed the income withholding order to an entity to which you are not an employee."

In all seriousness though an income withholding order that exceeds the court ordered amount should be contested if the money is withheld. Generally, overpayment of a child support payment obligation is considered a gratuity [Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d 610, 615-16 (Ind. 2006)] unless it is pursuant to an income withholding order which is contested [Drwecki v. Drwecki, 782 N.E.2d 440].

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Make a suggestion for me to write about.

Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.

Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.

View Stuart Showalter's profile on LinkedIn

Subscribe to my child custody updates

* indicates required
©2008, 2014 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.


No comments: