In the News 2000
1998 Developments
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION
PROGRAM
 The Orange County Superior Court has
now adopted a position that all individuals accused of Domestic Violence can be required
to attend 52 weeks of batters treatment. These programs are designed to be low cost and
spread out thorough the county. However, not all programs are created equal, and we do
have the current list, and, based upon client satisfaction, can advise you about the
programs.
1999 Developments
CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION A BUST
 On Sunday October 11, 1998, the Los Angeles
Times began a three part series entitled "L.A. Failing in Pursuit of Deadbeat".
These articles departed from the traditional "let's hassle the deadbeats"
approach and confirms what our clients have been saying for years; that the current
computer generated system treats both the custodial and non-custodial parent without
dignity. In fact, as a follow up, in January 1998, the same paper did a follow up on
hearings underway in Sacramento looking into replacement of the DA as the agency
responsible for collecting child support.
It confirms what our clients have been
observing for sometime: even if you pay the money off, once you get into the system, it is
nearly impossible to get out. It also confirms what the custodial parents we represent in
enforcement actions have found out: that even if you leave a message as about the new
location of the obligor, the DA office does not have the capacity to follow through with
enforcement.
A reprint of this series is available through
the times themselves at The LA Times web site.
There are several good web sites available
which can help you make your own protest to the appropriate individuals in Sacramento and
Washington DC responsible for this fiasco. One is Alliance
for Non-Custodial Parents Rights 9903 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 267 Beverly Hills,
CA 90212.
They are asking everyone who has had these same
problems to sent a letter to your local state senator in protest and tell your own horror
story. This organization was involved with the recent hearings conducted in Sacramento
regarding an proposed overall of the child support enforcement agencies.
Maybe if enough people protest, someone will
listen and dump this 55 million computer turkey. Just think, with that much money, every
child in who did not receive support statewide could (should have) received something.
Did you?
PENDING FAMILY LAW
LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA
 AB 53 - Income taxes: exemption credit: child
This bill would allow the parent who is not the custodial parent to claim the credit
if that parent pays child support, as
specified.
This bill would also allow the custodial parent
to claim the credit, as provided. This bill would amend California Tax Code Section 17054
to provide that people who pay their child support get a tax credit beginning in the year
2000.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding Section 152(e) of the
Internal Revenue Code, a parent who is not the custodial parent of a child, as defined by
Section 151(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, shall be allowed the credit allowed by
paragraph (1) for that child if that parent pays all child support ordered by a court, but
only if that child support is paid by December 31 of the year for which the child support
is owed.
(B) In addition to the credit allowed by
subparagraph (A), the credit allowed by paragraph (1) for a child shall be allowed to a
custodial parent if the child resides with the custodial parent for at least 50 percent or
more of the taxable year.
(C) The credits allowed under this paragraph
shall be considered by courts in determining appropriate amounts of child support based on
existing guidelines.
It is still pending in the legislature.
These provisions of the Family Code were
modified and are significant. The changes are italicized for easier reading.
Section 3653 of the Family Code is amended to
read:
3653. (a) An order modifying or terminating a
support order may be made retroactive to the date of the filing of the notice of motion or
order to show cause to modify or terminate, or to any subsequent date, except as provided
in subdivision (b) or by federal law (42 U.S.C. Sec. 666(a)(9)).
(b) If an order modifying or terminating a support order is entered due to the
unemployment of either the support obligor or the support obligee, the order shall be made
retroactive to the later of the date of the service on the opposing party of the notice of
motion or order to show cause to modify or terminate or the date of unemployment,
subject to the notice requirements of federal law (42 U.S.C. Sec. 666(a)(9)), unless the
court finds good cause not to make the order retroactive and states its reasons on the
record.
(c) If an order decreasing or terminating a
support order is entered retroactively pursuant to this section, the support obligor shall
nevertheless not be entitled to, and the support obligee shall have no obligation to
repay, any amounts previously paid by the support obligor pursuant to the prior order that
are in excess of the amounts due pursuant to the retroactive order.
SEC. 4. Section 5235 of the Family Code is
amended to read:
 5235. (a) The employer shall continue to
withhold and forward support as required by the assignment order until served with notice
terminating the assignment order. If an employer withholds support as required by the
assignment order, the obligor shall not be held in contempt or subject to criminal
prosecution for nonpayment of the support that was withheld by the employer but not
received by the obligee. If the employer withheld the support but failed to forward the
payments to the obligee, the employer shall be liable for the payments, including
interest, as provided in Section 5241.
(b) Within 10 days of service of a substitution
of payee on the employer, the employer shall forward all subsequent support to the
governmental entity or other payee that sent the substitution.
(c) The employer shall send the amounts
withheld to the obligee within the time frame specified in federal law and shall report to
the obligee the date on which the amount was withheld from the obligor's wages.
(d) The employer may deduct from the earnings
of the employee the sum of one dollar ($1) for each payment made pursuant to the order.
(e) Once the Child Support Centralized
Collection and Distribution Unit as required by Section 11475.4 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code is operational, the employer shall send all earnings withheld pursuant
to this chapter to the Child Support Centralized Collection and Distribution Unit instead
of the obligee.
What does this mean?
(1) If your employer withholds the support and
does not forward it, you are not liable.
(2) That eventually all support will be paid to
a central collection agency and no longer to the obligee if the DA is involved. So,
custodial parents beware, if you think six weeks is a long time to wait for the county to
pay you, wait until the check goes from Orange County to Sacramento and then back to
Orange county again.
|
Family Law in California
|
