Mom Denies Dad's $21,000 Direct Payments for Child Support

Mom Denies Dad's $21k Direct Payments for Child Support

Judge (Associate Judge): Presides over the hearing, makes rulings, and issues orders.
Mr. Jeremy Jenkins (Obligor): The father, subject to child support orders. Represented by Attorney Eliansky.
Ms. Jessica Faulkner (Obligee/Mother): Mother of the child, receives child support. Representing herself.
Mr. Jeffrey Faulkner (Obligee/Grandfather): Grandfather of the child, also receives child support under a previous order. Representing himself.
AG Urban (Attorney for the State of Texas): Represents the state, seeking enforcement of child support orders and arrears owed to the state.
Mr. Eliansky (Attorney for Mr. Jenkins): Defends Mr. Jenkins, arguing for credit for direct payments and lack of ability to pay.
Key Issues and Motions:

Suit for modification of Child Support Order: The original child support order required Mr. Jenkins to pay both the grandfather (Mr. Jeffrey Faulkner) and the mother (Ms. Jessica Faulkner). Since the child is now with the mother, the order needs to be modified to reflect this.
Suit for Enforcement: The State of Texas is seeking enforcement of back child support (arrearages) that Mr. Jenkins owes.
Direct Payment Credit: Mr. Jenkins claims to have made substantial direct payments to both the mother and grandfather, instead of going through the official state registry. He seeks credit for these payments.
Inability to Pay: Mr. Jenkins claims that due to unemployment, mental health issues, and homelessness, he does not have the ability to pay the full amount of arrears.
Contempt: The state is seeking to hold Mr. Jenkins in contempt for not following the original child support orders, with the possibility of jail time.
Key Events and Testimony:

Swearing In: All parties were sworn in, promising to tell the truth.
State's Opening: AG Urban outlined the case, the amounts owed, and the primary issue of direct payments. He also mislabeled one of his exhibits.
.
Complex Case: This case demonstrates the complexity of child support issues, especially when dealing with direct payments and individual circumstances

Income Withholding or Wage Garnishment: Child support payments made via income withholding or wage garnishments provide a way for funds to be sent from one parent to another on a regular basis, but this is done through the help of a third party. The employer of the paying parent will take a particular amount from their paycheck, and those funds will be sent either from the employer to the other parent or to a state agency who will then send it to the other parent. Income withholding or wage garnishments help to ensure that payments are made in the correct amount and are paid regularly. They also provide a concrete way for parents to document their child support payments.

Making cash payments to your co-parent for child support sounds simple enough: hand over cash to the other parent, and it's done. What cash payments tend to lack is a concrete method of documentation, like a receipt. Without having some kind of hard documentation to prove that a payment was made, problems could arise in the future when you're trying to prove the fact that a particular payment was indeed made. Also, paying your co-parent directly in cash might call for a face-to-face meeting. For co-parents who are prone to hostility, meeting to exchange cash could be difficult.

Check or Money Order: Unlike with cash, people often feel more comfortable sending checks or money orders through the mail. This eliminates the face-to-face payment exchange, but you also run the risk of your check or money order getting lost in the mail or arriving late. On the other hand, checks and money orders leave tangible evidence of payment via bank records, cancelled checks or receipts. This information will help to demonstrate when payments were initiated, but it may be hard to tell when the payment is actually received and deposited by the other parent.