Change On Federal Benefits Payments Could Leave Child Support Debtors With No Income

[happyslug]

53. Lets understand the problem,

First NO ONE IS CHANGING THE LAW as to how much attachment can be made, it will remain at 65%. This rule will remain the same once the US Treasury REQUIRES all benefits to have bank accounts for direct deposit of those benefits (including Social Security)

The problem is under a DIFFERENT US Treasury rule passed last year, the States can ATTACH those bank accounts if the person owes any Child Support.

i.e. The US Treasury sends to the bank a person's Social Security Check, less the 65% attachment, then the State can grab the remaining 35% after it is deposited into the account of the recipient. Thus the Social Security recipient will have Zero Dollars, 65% taken by the Federal Government, the remaining 35% taken by the State AFTER the Check is deposited.

Presently People can avoid the State's attachment of their bank accounts, by NOT having one. i.e. the recipient gets a PAPER CHECK and just cashes the Check instead of depositing it into a bank account. This option will disappear when the Treasury Department REQUIRES everyone to have a bank account.

Note the problem is what will someone lives on when the STATE order for attachment of wages exceeds someone's income? In many of these cases the State that is different state then the recipient lives in..

I had three cases, all three involved people who have lived in Johnstown Pa since the 1970s, but for two of them New York State had issued a Child support order in the 1970s that still had arrears outstanding. Do to that outstanding Child Support arrears they recently found that their Social Security was attached and the only way to get the attachment reduced to so that the Social Security they would get would be equal to what they would get if they were on SSI, was to petition the New York Courts, and they could NOT do that by mail or phone, they had to appear personally. It was a pain, nothing I could do for them from a SSA point of view.

I did discuss the possibility of changeling this on Constitutional grounds, i.e. how can a New York Order be valid on someone living in Pennsylvania WHEN New York always had the ability to "Transfer" the case to Pennsylvania for enforcement, but Pennsylvania would NEVER have required that the Social Security they received would ever drop below the SSI level. I advised them that given the back log as to SS appeals its would take a year and a half to get in front of an Administrative Law Judge, then another two years to get to a Federal Court Judge, I advised them go to New York and file the paperwork needed to have a hearing to reduce the attachment to leave them the Federal "Standard of Need" (i.e. the SSI amount). Such a hearing would be over and done with in about three months. After a couple of Months both went and had their payment ordered reduced.

The third client had an order from California. Ask yourself how can a person living on the East Coast and have no money for most of it was attached, could travel to California to ask for a reduction? Again the State would NOT accept a phone call for a reduction, but he told me he could live on what he was getting and never returned to my office.

I point these client out, for the problems was Arrears (Arrears to the State Welfare Department, the custodian parent and the child had been on Welfare thus any support was assigned to the Department of Welfare) and excessive withholding of Social Security to pay those arrears. The fast way is to reduce the Order to just above the "Standard of Need", that gives you just under $700 a month to live on. I just see this becoming more and more of a mess do to attachment of Federal Benefits to reimburse states for Welfare costs.