You are not an attorney, you are not giving legal advice.
True story:
“Joe” pays his ex-wife a certain percentage of his income for child support.
Joe is also behind a couple thousand for some that he didn’t pay a few years ago.
Recently Joe got hit by a car while walking across the street. The car owners insurance paid for Joes medical expenses, time off of work, and an additional 25k for pain and suffering.
Question:
*Does he have to pay a percentage in child support off that 25k? Or are insurance payouts exempt?
*Can his ex-wife go to court and get him to pay his back support off that 25k?
I’m not Joe, so I’m not going to talk to a lawyer. Personally, knowing Joe as I do I think getting run over by a car is what some would call Karma (or carma, if you prefer. )
You are not an attorney, you are not giving legal advice. If anything I’m looking for some state statutes on-line that may answer this. This happened in Florida.
This is highly variable depending on your state, even moreso than many other areas of law, and I am not familiar with Florida. I am also not a lawyer. And if Joe were to read this, I am not his lawyer specifically. And he would be stupid to take my advice.
That said my understanding, here in Colorado, is that it is based on ongoing income. So a onetime payout, is unlikely to be considered for child support calculations. In an injury case or the like I believe that this doesn’t count as taxable he is basically being repaid to restore things to their previous condition. That includes the pain and suffering bit. Basically if the govenment wouldn’t tax it, it isn’t true income.
However the $2000 he is already in the hole? That the state can and will go after. Likewise any interest he earns on the $25000? That would be considered income and thus would have to have the appropriate child support paid for it.
The father of my children received annuity payments from a personal injury settlement that was considered income in NJ when our support order was put in place 20 years ago.
This scenario, more or less, was the basis of an episode of Grace Under Fire. Grace’s ex was way behind on support payments, got injured, and then showed up in an ad for the ambulance-chasing law firm. You know the kind: “I got $25,000 in my injury claim with Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe!”
Grace got a young lawyer, right out of law school, and went to court to get a piece of the settlement. The judge listened to the lawyer’s argument, and asked, “Your first case, son?”*
The judge then explained exactly why the lawyer’s legal theory wasn’t valid, more or less on the lines described above, and then ruled for Grace anyway.
(This isn’t cited as any kind of legal evidence, it was just a cute episode.)
It was. The kid’s parents were in the courtroom to watch, and the judge invited them down to the front so they’d have a good view. Cute.
In my state, the fact of a personal injury settlement would not, in and of itself, affect exisiting child support obligations. However, depending on the nature of the injury and amount of the settlement, there may be a basis to seek modification of the existing order upwards or downwards.
For past-due support, the settlement proceeds are fair game, and may be sought in a variety of ways. With Worker’s Comp, the child support creditor can place a lien for the amount owed with the Worker’s Comp Commission. Otherwise, a contempt action can be brought, and the defendant will likely have to pay over at least a portion of the settlement towards support arrears or go to jail.
What’s Joe got against supporting his own kids? This stuff drives me insane! Child support is not for the mom, but for the children! He doesn’t owe the mom, he owes his children! Does he really need an order from a court to catch up on his payments? If he has the money, why would he not get current on his child support? Joe sounds like a real dick.
One scenario: “Joe” has to choose between paying his own rent, putting gas in his car to get to work, or eating, and his ex-wife being able to get some new outfits at Abercrombie & Fitch, getting her hair dyed, and taking her whole family out to Olive Garden.
This may not be how it is for every situation, but it is definitely how it is for some - child support income is many times the ONLY income a woman gets, so of course she is going to use it to feed and clothe herself and her additional children by a different man (who doesn’t pay support because he is in jail for child molestation). And guess what, judges and the courts can’t do shit - they cannot make the woman account for how she spends the support. She can spend it however she sees fit. So don’t automatically think Joe is a dick for wanting to be able to pay for a roof over his own head.
No, it’s for the woman. The courts don’t care if it’s spent on the kids; they’ve been known to decide it doesn’t matter if the kids are actually his. It’s mainly an excuse to take money from a man, and give it to a woman.
nyctea scandiaca, I know your BF’s situation and I am genuinely sorry for his children. How’s that custody battle going?
But you and Der Trihs should re-read the OP. Nobody said anything about Joe trying to pay his own rent, or that the ex is frivolously spending on herself what should be spent on the children. And I promise you: for every woman spending the child support on trips to Vegas, and for every man struggling to just get by under the burden of paying child support, there are 20 women who cannot afford to get their children shoes because the ex-h is way, way behind on court-ordered child support.
Joe here has suddenly got $25,000 that he did not have before and he owes a just debt - to his children. If he needs a court to order him to get current on his support, he’s a dick.
Are you suggesting that a father should not provide support for his own children or that the father should give the money directly to the children? Are you saying that because the money goes to the mother that the children do not get fed, have no place to live, no clothes, no shoes, no hot water for baths?
All family law is decided on a case-by-case basis, with the bottom line being “what’s in the best interest of the child.” If you don’t get a result you like, your view of the court system will be colored against it. If you “win,” you will believe the judges to be geniuses. But either way, at the end of the day, someone will not be happy. Unfortunately, it is all too often the children, but that’s not the court’s fault.
Dang! I wish I had known this when I (a woman) was ordered to pay child support to my former husband (a man.) It’s too bad when legal and moral obligations get in the way of a silly meme…
In my state, however, it’s my understanding that a settlement that’s not considered “income” by the IRS/state revenue service is not considered when adjusting child support obligations. However, the state can and will attach the funds to satisfy previous past-due child support, and any interest income earned from a settlement can be considered toward future payment levels. (Standard disclaimers, YMMV, IANAL, etc.)
I’m saying that it should matter if the woman spends all the money on herself, and leaves the kids in old clothes with little food. And it should matter if the “father” in question actually IS the father. And it should matter which parent treats the children better, instead of the courts just handing the children over to the mother.
Why does a man owe “child support” for children that aren’t his, to a woman who is spending it on herself, and teaching the children in question to hate him ?
No, it’s not; the courts care very little for the child.
Ah, yes, the old argument that one odd case disproves an entire trend. It’s rare for a man to get custody at all.
As a child support paying dad until recently I think the premise of this question is a bit off in terms of how child support is actually paid operationally IRL. The “percentage” a man pays in CS is typically calculated as part of the divorce settlement via a formula that takes into account the mother and father’s respective incomes and custody time splits. If this is set at say, $ 1,000 a month, for the father it will stay there despite income variations until one ex-spouse or the other applies to the court to change it. If the father has an commission based or related performance based income that varies wildly it would (usually) be impractical to yank the CS around year to year unless the wife is extraordinarily determined to litigate and has an endless supply of free legal horsepower.
Unless there is a REALLY substantial bump in income and the wife is determined to get a piece of it CS IRL tends to stay where it was originally set.
While the initial amount may well be set as part of a divorce settlement (or in connection with legal separation), it’s not uncommon for it to be adjusted by court order after a hearing, from what I’ve been given to understand as regards parents who are no longer couples. As astro says, the amount set stays constant until altered by such an order – which either party may request if their circumstances change. It’'s not uncommon for it to be paid through a local agency, which typically will front the money to the custodial parent (mother, usually) and then collect it from the non-custodial parent.
Two points:
Courts tend to regard the support of minor children as an obligation coming ahead of anything but the necessities of life. Non-custodial parents often disagree with this view.
The person receiving the support is expected to account for the use of the money for the support of the child – rent and household expenses count in this regard, as does a vacation with the children and other non-essential purchases typically expended on behalf of a child. Spending money on herself (or himself, if a male custodial parent) does not – but typically the custodial parent has another source of income to attribute such expenses to: “I had to buy a new wardrobe for my new job, but that came out of my money, so I paid the rent out of the child support.”
)