i was just figuring out some numbers in a previous post <BR>and was told that there is a law that total cs cannot exceed 55% of net income<BR>Do you know is this state to state variable or not <BR>maybe a fed law????<BR>please tell me what you know this MAY sign. change our cs order<P>Thanks so much for your wisdom in advance

Dear NBS,<BR>Please check under the other post for some additional advice. Also, I thought I would mention that the law is (and again I don't know if it is state or federal) that the cs payee must retain at least $550 per month to live off of. It sounds to me that your h isn't even left with that. Look into this stuff right away. Call DR and ask them yourself if that is the law in your state. It's fine to write to your lawyer too, but with stuff like this every day counts.<BR>cd

Although I don't have bystander's expertise on these issues, I would highly doubt that this is a federal law.

c.d.,<BR>I am thinking its state. with love flowerseed

Even if it is just a state law, I would bet that all states have something like that buried deep in the cs guidelines. I know I had to search and search before I found it in ours. You better bet that nobody at DR volunteered that info to my h, not even when they knew that my cs and ow's child support totalled about 80-85% of h's net pay. They were perfectly content to sit back and watch him pay out that much. If nothing else, nbs, you should request a copy of cs guidelines for your state and look it over front to back.<BR>with love,<BR>cd

<BR>My understanding is that the 55% number derives from the federal fair credit act. The idea is that creditors may not take more than 55% of a person's net pay to fulfill debt obligations.<P>While some states may treat this 55% rule in the context of CS obligations, its not federal law. This is because CS is not considered debt, but support. In fact, CS (and alimony) actually take precedence over all other obligations under federal law. This means that if a person is ordered to pay CS, any *other* obligations are subject to the 55% of net pay rule, but not CS.<P>IIRC, states are supposed to have enacted a self-support reserve per federal law, but I don't know that they have all done that. Probably those that have not have case law to the same effect anyhow. The role of the CS "obligor" is little more than indentured slavery, but even the supposedly benevolent government realizes that slaves need to be fed at poverty level. If the take home pay of the obligor is less than poverty level, you have an extremely good case for a downward modification.<P>Bystander

Just looked it back up in our state's guidelines: Bystander is right on the mark about the FFCA. That's where PA derives it from. Apparantly in our state, they do consider cs a debt, as they use this to set the percentage. anyway, nsb, I hope you look into it, one way or another.<BR>cd