We discovered this evening that our bank accounts were frozen by child support. We have had no notification of this from anyone.

My husband has 3 children from his previous marriage About 2.5 years ago my husband lost his job due to serious illness when he got a new job the salary was significantly lower so the he requested a reassessment and the rate was lowered. However his former wife contested the amount so the state would not lower the amount until a court hearing could be held, we've just had mediation in lieu of that and the amount was indeed lowered.

But now we are faced with our bank accounts frozen, we can't even pay rent from our bank account. Can they do this? Do we have any recourse? We have a toddler and I'm concerned that thanks to this mess up we could find ourselves homeless within in a very short time.

We can't afford a lawyer, not even milk for the toddler so once we run out we're sunk.

Any advice? Sorry if this is so jumbled, but I'm not really sure how we fix this.

Many thanks

First, you have obviously had notification. You apparently knew that the amount of support was being questioned. You also knew that he was in arrears. You will never receive prior notification of a garnishment or attachment of assets. That would allow you to hide those assets.

I'm wondering if the ex is on public assistance. Usually the state will attach assets (and can do so without a judgement hearing) to reimburse monies spent to support the kids.

So lets now deal with what to do next. The first thing you do is go to the bank to get a copy of the garnishment order. This will tell you what court or agency ordered the freeze. You can then go to that court or agency to petititon for the account to be unfrozen.

The main thing that bothers me here is that this happened while you were still in negotiation for a modification of the support agreement. But I ssupect this issue was over the arrears and not future paytments.

Thank you for your response. We have contacted the agency responsible but are awaiting a response.

So it was a family services agency? Did you receive any notice that there was an arrears?

Child support collection methods are downright unjust!. Depends on what state your in far as how bad it can get. You can be on payment plan determined by a judge and paying both current and arrearage amounts on time yet the collection divisions will abuse the system and take funds over and beyond that in whatever methods they can beyond and put people in positions to where families suffer true hardship. Tax refunds, bank levy, garnishment of accounts, job withholding, license revoking, etc. can kill a families ability to sustaqin itself and is no joke.. Stopping such certainly is not a playing field for passive folks. The amount of hoops and red tape that would have to be jumped through is serious challenge. Garnishment is one thing, lien is another, and frozen accounts another as well. Every time a demand for funds is submitted by lien the bank will charge a $100 processing fee. Think they can do every month if they choose or are hounded into such. With checks bouncing all over and the fees associated ones credit worthiness for banking can be in jeopardy if account are left in the negative.
My suggestion is to close that account and open sepperate accounts elsewhere. (what with investigators offering searchs for ex's at a fee perhaps account across state borders is not bad idea).. But do not keep funds in his account other than for him to clear the checks or cash them. If he can set himself up as a sole proprietor that is better. If his account is at same banking institution as employer or client than it is easier to do. Such decisions to cash versus forcing check holds is usually left to the discression of a perticular bank manager. So shop around and find these managers hip to the silly game but that still have a heart.

What is truly unjust is not providing financial support to a chiuld you bought into the world. Maybe some agencies do go overboard and I won't dispute that often fathers who want to support their kids are given the short end of the stick. But to make a blanket statement like; "Child support collection methods are downright unjust!!.." is off base.

Sorry Scott but you're the one "off base". In this specific topic it plainly can be seen that the METHODS are truly unjust if not draconian. There is absolutely no valid reasoning in this families case that their ability to sustain their financial life is pretty much put in jeopardy in the fasion that it has been with account freezing. You ever heard of being innocent until proven guilty? Well it does not work that way neither in family law or criminal law in many places. You in fact must prove your innocents or these type things can have at you hook and claw.. To be clear I also believe that your being abit too assuming if not judgemental on what might or might not be facts in texasmoms case. What you have done in essence is to do the same thing the impersonal system does to people when they call in for help. You insult her and call her situation her own fault basically out of a laziness as if she had to know the reprocutions. Get in the real world and make a note of it that people are on fixed incomes and have true hardships and that yes indeed the METHODS are unjust and go unchecked. A simple reason of why one can be suddenly thrown into a bad way would be when a case comes to the end and judge aggrees to retro arrears. Bamn, folks can be hit with thousands of dollars of new amounts due...
Perhaps the methods in your state are more friendly... fill us in on those and what you've experienced yourself if you can..
I can guarantee you from experience that it isn't friendly everywhere.
Regardless of the state... Child Support is just. Methods used aren't.

A attachment of a bank account just does not happen without a court hearing, and the person who has their account attached knows they are not paying the bill ( if it ic child support in this case, or a credit card bill, or for a new TV) So while they were aware of the situation, I am not sure why it took so long to get something done on it.

And in this case, they only used legal means to attach money. They could have revolked his drivers license ( done in many states) locked him in jail, ( I have a co worker who just did 30 days for being behind)

The problem is that far too many fathers just don't want to or try to refuse to pay, So the inforcement has become tought in the name of protecting the child

To be clear... Chuck your referring to garnishment/attachment through a court hearing rather then a lienfor lump sum down the road correct? Lien for arrears and attempted wage attachements is done in Cali all the time without anything but the order by the judge that they need to pay up support dues regularly when parties get divorced and custody issues are handled. I think it clear she said "...our bank accounts were frozen by child support. We have had no notification of this from anyone.". So I hope people stop calling her a liar is my feeling... That is what is in question. All it takes is the left hand not knowing what the right is doing in the support collection scheme or a lousy ex to give bad information to court, etc. and then you have processes happening without you there.
What you said is in conflict to what Scott said "You will never receive prior notification of a garnishment or attachment of assets. That would allow you to hide those assets. " .
Your referring to garnish and but he should be referring to lump sum lien...
In Cali, the judge says how much to pay and sets up ongoing and arrearage payment schedule. Then regardless if it is paid manually on time or not stuff will get garnished or lump sum assets taken based on the FSB case amounts and lack of respect between branches of government. In a Cali FSB case they just do what they want based on their interpritation that they can take up to so much or a percentage of income as well as lump sum amounts in savings or tax refunds...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darntootin

Sorry Scott but your the one "off base". In this specific topic it plainly can be seen that the METHODS are truly unjust if not draconian.

---

You seem to like to take things out of context. You made a BLANKET statement; "Child support collection methods are downright unjust!!..." My response was; "But to make a blanket statement like; "Child support collection methods are downright unjust!. " is off base." You ignore the fact that I also said; "often fathers...are given the short end of the stick".

You also took my statement about "prior notification" out of context. One will know they owe money, they will usually know that a judgement has been entered against them. But the judgement holder is not going to warn them that their bank account is going to be frozen.

There are often two sides to any story. Sometimes, we have to read between the lines to provide the most accurate answers. For example: If someone complains about collection tactics it has to be remembered that defaulted on a debt in the first place. And making generalized statements that are not necessarily factual doesn't help.

They sure can do that as well I am sure you know your tax returns also. You must have got a notice sometime back pay up or else.

I do feel sorry for your child going without and you can go to local food distribution places for help with groceries.

I also feel sorry though for those children he had before and he should have made sure back when work was good there would be an account in case of emergencies like this to pay his support.

Quote:

---

You seem to like to take things out of context. You made a BLANKET statement; "Child support collection methods are downright unjust!!..." My response was; "But to make a blanket statement like; "Child support collection methods are downright unjust!. " is off base." You ignore the fact that I also said; "often fathers...are given the short end of the stick".

---

Don't need a recap. I can read thank you... if you want to label my way as being out of context then go for it but it won't change fact that your comprehension is far from being complete here. You won't even admit your calling her a liar will you? Sounds like all you got all sorts of issues in saying anything about "fathers".. who care about fathers in this topic? Why mention them? You're the one generalizing by saying people have to know they are in default or know they owe money.

"For example: If someone complains about collection tactics it has to be remembered that defaulted on a debt in the first place. And making generalized statements that are not necessarily factual doesn't help."
That isn't true. You must be living on another planet or never really delt with any FSB cases and how people go about collections. You in essence are calling everyone that ever had money seized something out their name.

p.s.- oh and what's yer issue with people stating simple opinion as something being unjust? The whole topic of what is unjust or not is and always has been a subjective thing up for interpritation or debate in America. You attacking it and calling it BLANKET to the point of OFF BASE is aggressive. But if you want to debate it and label go for it..

I called no one a liar. I will also say I worked several years as a skip tracer. You know nothing about me yet you have no compunction to say things about my background that you haven't a clue about. My comments were directed specifically to things that you said. I confined my comments to what you said. I stand by those comments.

Didn't say things about your background but for leaving door ajar for you to offer up info or basis as to your opinion through simple question. No real need to ask of your background though...
In you saying you didn't call anyone a liar I would ask "how does one call another a liar without actually saying "hey yer a liar".."
If you apparently have real need to label my opinion with comments of being "off base" I would ask what is your problem?. or like what is your goal in making comment on anothers opinion? If such is your opinion your welcome to it but you fail to explain why it is off base.. I contend that if there is a base it is right here in this very topic. Where else would such opinion of methods being unjust belong than a place like this where the methodolgy itself creates the grave circumstances described by Texasmom?
The collection METHODS are unjust ( in my humble opinion) and way more then just potentially harmful in keeping ongoing flow of current support payments flowing let alone feeding their toddler.
It is contradictory to common sense these practices of taking funds without compassionate dealing prior to them being inacted. This case is not the only one on this board that can be used as basis for an opinion of unjust practices and it is about sick to hear every other fella making imply that these type folks did something wrong or had too much to do with letting their houses get out of order. But hey regardless of my opinion, I got no issue with myself in making a blanket statement when it is true. Did you folks know that the sun will indeed rise tomorrow and the fed government will be wanting tax monies from people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darntootin

If you apparently have real need to label my opinion with comments of being "off base" I would ask what is your problem?...or like what is your goal in making comment on anothers opinion? If such is your opinion your welcome to it but you fail to explain why it is off base.. I contend that if there is a base it is right here in this very topic. Where else would such opinion of methods being unjust belong than a place like this where the methodolgy itself creates the grave circumstances described by Texasmom?
The collection METHODS are unjust ( in my humble opinion) and way more then just potentially harmful in keeping ongoing flow of current support payments flowing let alone feeding their toddler.

---

My "problem" has to do with the quality of advice offered here. Blanket statements like the one you made are neither factual or accurate. They do not help since they present a false impression. One you continue to foster. SOME collection methods are unjust. SOME agencies go overboard in coillections. But many do the best they can to balance the needs of the child, the parents and the taxpayers. That's why its wrong to make such blanket statements. And its not an issue of opinion. You have no facts to support such blanket statements. Maybe you have had a bad experience, but that doesn't mean everyone has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

My "problem" has to do with the quality of advice offered here. Blanket statements like the one you made are neither factual or accurate. They do not help since they present a false impression. One you continue to foster. SOME collection methods are unjust. SOME agencies go overboard in coillections. But many do the best they can to balance the needs of the child, the parents and the taxpayers. That's why its wrong to make such blanket statements. And its not an issue of opinion. You have no facts to support such blanket statements. Maybe you have had a bad experience, but that doesn't mean everyone has.

---

Scott, you are off base and over the top in chastising me over nothing and now relating it to quality of advice. No need to be anal... give folks some credit. They can read and understand something is opinion and/or subjective when they see it without you telling them.
Who would read a fella using the term "unjust" along with context presented and think it is some fact they must live by?. (oops sorry, Musta been you)
Comes down to it perhaps you want no one on here making any opinionated statements perhaps but for yourself. You can't say the system is any more just then I can say it unjust. If that the way you like to play it then have at it. Not I though... I don't sit on fence using SOME words to the point of exhaustion or indecision. I use a full spectrum of communication skills to convey both opinion and a point of feeling. The original feeling of the word "unjust" was not directed towards you but apparently has insulted your cathexis of either the system or of how you believe helping people should be. That in itself is subjective and up for opinion. If you want to just make empathetic statements or opinion here and there to specific entities (like about "fathers") without sharing your overall position of an issue then that is you. Plenty of others are willing to say what is black or white, or right and wrong without skirtin things. Maybe not here or where you hang though..

"They do not help since they present a false impression."
That is about the most opinionated, self indulgent/narsistic thing I read today.. thanx heaps.
Complete belief systems and countries been forged by blanket statement inspiration/motivation yet your concerned over the impression a forum might be portraying to the point of you not using them... That is richness beyond this relm..

"often fathers...are given the short end of the stick".. . prove it's often and you'll have proved your own right to a current stance on the issue as a whole and to be accurate in your own mind as I am..

Facts are, I've lived and breathed not only my own experiences of the system but plenty of others experiences as well.
I have every right to make my own belief and to state it.

Here I'll restate my opinion to try and please you:

I contend that I myself believe that for most part the methods used to collect support are overwhelmingly aggressive, or "unjust" to the spirit the law intended in SOME states and more often then not they can be in direct conflict with continuing ability of paying party to provide ongoing support of children and adults involved on either side of child suppport cases... oh but wait, didn't I in essence already say that somewhere directly following my original blanket statement?. Perhaps not..

Quote:

---

Rules
Ask Me Help Desk insists that members abide by the rules and policies detailed below:
1. Post only questions or answers to questions. Miscellaneous statements and general conversations belong in the Member Discussions board.
2. Do not disparage any member publicly on the forums. If you state that you disagree with the answer of another member, please explain why politely.
...
... etc.

What is disparaging?
Disparaging is to speak of or treat slightingly; depreciate; belittle.

It's quite all right to say (in a post or comment to a post)
"The above will not work because...", or
"I disagree; here is how I would handle it...", or
"Here is an answer/solution that I believe is more accurate/effective..."
... or similar.

It's not acceptable to say
"so and so does not know what he's talking about", or
"I guess so and so did not care about checking the accuracy of his answer", or
"again, so and so, you've posted in error", or
"so and so's answer is baloney"
... or similar.

If you can't say something nice to or about another member, then don't say it at all.

---

Could be argued that either myself or Scott is guilty of offering more then disagreement of each others way and I for one made misc. statement so with that said I appologize to this forum for my part. In future I will try to simply agree to disagree rather than calling anothers advice as being off base.. . God Bless :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darntootin

Could be argued that either myself or Scott is guilty of offering more then disagreement of each others way and I for one made misc. statement so with that said I appologize to this forum for my part. In future I will try to simply agree to disagree rather than calling anothers advice as being off base. ..God Bless :)

---

As I said previously, all my comments were directed specifically to things you posted. I was critical only of things you said and did in this thread. I did not get into personalities. You stepped over the lines with your comments, which is why they were edited out.

I stand by my comments.

Quote:

---

I was critical only of things you said and did in this thread. I did not get into personalities. You stepped over the lines with your comments, which is why they were edited out.

---

What comments over a line were edited out and by who? And why are you mentioning some such thing now at this point? With this last post of yours it seems your continuing to try and insight something if not actually make imply now that I might have wrote something really bad or questionable warranting edit which I did not. I know you're a mod here but I request someone else like the admin to review what was removed and consider the overall disparaging treatment to my person in this thread. It is not at all friendly from the get go... I'll take your thougts on pm as none of this is appropriate in a open thread meant as informative... over and out... God Bless.

I personally didn't make any edits. I reported your post amd another mod (I don't know who) edited it. Apparently s/he felt the same way I did about the wording that was edited.

End of story.