I-864 and welfare

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

Hi.  I've been sued for the I-864 in divorce court in California.  My ex has been collecting welfare in California

for a long time now.  Does anyone know if the State aid she receives counts towards calculating what my

contractual obligation is?  Right now I am being billed for $1443/mo by the State, but I think/hope it should be much less.

For example, if she is receiving $1000/mo, then maybe I'm only responsible for $443?

It's so complicated and the Courts don't seem to know anything, just what lawyers (often crooked) tell them.  My ex has a seek work order,

but I believe she is discouraged from working by her lawyers so they can double-dip the system.

I'm familiar with the Greenleaf case (Michigan Court of Appeals) that discusses this a little, but wondering if there are others.

Thanks a lot.

[TBoneTX 45,329]

I have no answers, but sorry to hear that you're still going through this.

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

Thanks

[Ash.1101 1,756]

On 4/28/2019 at 12:30 AM, HawaiiFarmer said:

Hi.  I've been sued for the I-864 in divorce court in California.  My ex has been collecting welfare in California

for a long time now.  Does anyone know if the State aid she receives counts towards calculating what my

contractual obligation is?  Right now I am being billed for $1443/mo by the State, but I think/hope it should be much less.

For example, if she is receiving $1000/mo, then maybe I'm only responsible for $443?

It's so complicated and the Courts don't seem to know anything, just what lawyers (often crooked) tell them.  My ex has a seek work order,

but I believe she is discouraged from working by her lawyers so they can double-dip the system.

I'm familiar with the Greenleaf case (Michigan Court of Appeals) that discusses this a little, but wondering if there are others.

Thanks a lot.

This is actually the first time I've seen this.

Is she stating that by you signing the I-864 that you have to basically pay the amount to her every month to keep her above the poverty line?

When you are being billed by the state is that because the state is wanting payback for the money she is getting off Welfare?  Is this alimony going through the general attorney? 

I don't believe the state aid she receives counts towards the obligation because based on the I-864 you should be providing her with enough funds to keep her off state aid. Not 100% sure but Even if you only paid 443$ out of the 1443$ you would eventually still owe that 1000$ to the state because the state shouldn't be paying her anything.

With that the seek work order can go on forever. I've seen someone who had been leeching off the system for yeeaaars with multiple kids by multiple dads and every time she got a seek work order she would apply for places, go to interviews, and then work for a month or so before finding some reason it couldn't work and then just get back on the system until the next work order. 

I remember seeing the paper once and she had a good 10 places written down that she applied to and they were all marked as non-interview because she'd apply to things outside of her skillset. Never would apply to a McDonalds, but would apply for like a construction secretary job with no experience in either fields.

I'm curious if anyone else has seen this or has any ideas for this.  @geowrian @Boiler @missileman @username_taken @Ben&Zian @payxibka
 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Ash.

[Ben&Zian 4,398]

Interesting. Haven't seen any other threads that I can recall about something like this. Normally people don't get sued to fulfill the obligations. I guess the state of CA is that strapped for cash they have to... but then again your ex-spouse asking for welfare when they could work is definitely leaching the system. Hopefully someone else has more information to assist or guide you.

 

But will agree with @Ash. , there are so many people in this country who play the system when they could legally and fully capable to work. They do under the table pay type jobs and don't report the money, live in government assistance housing or receive housing assistance payments, have 4-5 kids to claim extra for food and tax returns even though they don't pay taxes, then you see them driving in a brand new Lexus. Go figure right...

Edited May 5, 2019 by Ben&Zian

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

4 hours ago, Ash. said:

Thanks much for your replies.

Is she stating that by you signing the I-864 that you have to basically pay the amount to her every month to keep her above the poverty line?

Yes, that is what her lawyers are saying. But her lawyers are also very upset because the money they won for the I-864 isn't going to them, but to the State (that's why they also tried to sue me in Federal court).   In California, there is a separate department in Family Court for Mom's taking welfare, the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS).  DCSS has the authority to collect all child and spousal support to repay the Dept of Social Services for what Mom is taking.  DCSS is saying that my contractual obligation is spousal support, so that is why they are billing me for it.  I think it's a scam, the Greenleaf paper I cited earlier also talks a bit about this.  DCSS has already emptied my entire retirement account, and I'm many thousands more in arrears and growing every month.

When you are being billed by the state is that because the state is wanting payback for the money she is getting off Welfare?  Is this alimony going through the general attorney?   All the money goes to DCSS.  I don't know how much DCSS gives my ex.

I don't believe the state aid she receives counts towards the obligation because based on the I-864 you should be providing her with enough funds to keep her off state aid. Not 100% sure but Even if you only paid 443$ out of the 1443$ you would eventually still owe that 1000$ to the state because the state shouldn't be paying her anything.  I don't agree that the State shouldn't be paying anything.  The welfare tempted her to live here.  They just gave it to her, no questions asked.   I even reported her to the Medi-Cal fraud department before our son was born and they chose not to do anything about it.  She was using Medi-Cal even though I already had Obamacare health insurance for her.    If anyone remembers my story, my wife secretly left our home in Hawaii one month after getting her conditional green card (and 3 months pregnant).  Our son was born in California.  She's been collecting welfare for 3 years, the first year I didn't even know about it.  I left my home and moved to California for my 50% child custody, family court wouldn't let me bring our son back to Hawaii.
 

I'm curious if anyone else has seen this or has any ideas for this.  @geowrian @Boiler @missileman @username_taken @Ben&Zian @payxibka
 

 

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

I'm actually being billed $1729/mo by DCSS, $1443/mo for the contractual obligation and $286/mo for child support.

I don't have income, all income is unfairly imputed to me by the Court.

[geowrian 22,337]

2 hours ago, Ben&Zian said:

Interesting. Haven't seen any other threads that I can recall about something like this. Normally people don't get sued to fulfill the obligations. I guess the state of CA is that strapped for cash they have to... but then again your ex-spouse asking for welfare when they could work is definitely leaching the system. Hopefully someone else has more information to assist or guide you.

It sounds like they're being sued by the ex under the I-864, not the government directory for repayment of benefit funds.

While the I-864 is a legal contract between the sponsor and US government, the intending immigrant being sponsored is also a party for private suits to fulfill the 125% income level. The state's financial status or priorities have no bearing on it (although what federal district court covers your area may impact it).

[Ash.1101 1,756]

12 hours ago, HawaiiFarmer said:

I'm actually being billed $1729/mo by DCSS, $1443/mo for the contractual obligation and $286/mo for child support.

I don't have income, all income is unfairly imputed to me by the Court.

Is she getting all of that money you’re being billed? 

 

That should put her income well over what allows her to receive welfare...

 

 

also when i said the state shouldn't be paying her it’s because of the I864. The whole purpose of the i864 is for you to ensure she doesn’t become a public charge.

 

you would think that the courts would just order you to pay her a certain amount of money that has her reach over the welfare threshold so she couldn’t use the benefits.

 

it sounds like both her and her lawyers know how to play the system and it’s very hard to beat this system. She could leech it for YEARS.

 

do you have a lawyer as well? 

[Boiler 45,559]

I have seen the I 864 arise in Divorce proceedings, but enforcement I thought would be an issue for the Federal Courts.

 

I have no idea how CA could sue you when you are not even in that State and the I 864 is a Federal issue.

 

Being billed and having a court order is different. I thought you had the child?

 

 

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

23 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have seen the I 864 arise in Divorce proceedings, but enforcement I thought would be an issue for the Federal Courts.

 

I have no idea how CA could sue you when you are not even in that State and the I 864 is a Federal issue.

 

Being billed and having a court order is different. I thought you had the child?

 

 

We have joint custody.  I'm living in California now, although I don't want to be living here. 

I would probably like to go back to Federal court.  Although they sued me in Federal court, it

was dismissed on the grounds that they already sued me in State court. I have a lawyer now

in Family court.  That has helped me retain my 50% custody, but it hasn't helped with financial matters,

on the contrary, it has only pushed me further into debt.

[Boiler 45,559]

Sadly I see more and more cases like this, even without the complication of Immigration, I remember a discussion about the rapid marriage and it a very high risk thing to do, goes wrong and many will be taken to the cleaner.

[Ash.1101 1,756]

3 hours ago, HawaiiFarmer said:

We have joint custody.  I'm living in California now, although I don't want to be living here. 

I would probably like to go back to Federal court.  Although they sued me in Federal court, it

was dismissed on the grounds that they already sued me in State court. I have a lawyer now

in Family court.  That has helped me retain my 50% custody, but it hasn't helped with financial matters,

on the contrary, it has only pushed me further into debt.

 

 

I mean I think you should try to take it higher, if she is getting all of the money the state is billing you for then she is getting an incredible amount of money a month for one person that doesn’t work. I can’t believe that she would qualify for welfare if she’s getting 3458$ a month, that’s 41k a year...

 

you said that you’re paying the state, paying the obligation, and paying child support. Is paying the state paying them back for what they have paid, or are you paying them money to give to her?

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

7 hours ago, Boiler said:

Sadly I see more and more cases like this, even without the complication of Immigration, I remember a discussion about the rapid marriage and it a very high risk thing to do, goes wrong and many will be taken to the cleaner.

Yes, it was a rapid marriage

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

4 hours ago, Ash. said:

 

 

I mean I think you should try to take it higher, if she is getting all of the money the state is billing you for then she is getting an incredible amount of money a month for one person that doesn’t work. I can’t believe that she would qualify for welfare if she’s getting 3458$ a month, that’s 41k a year...

 

you said that you’re paying the state, paying the obligation, and paying child support. Is paying the state paying them back for what they have paid, or are you paying them money to give to her?

No, she's not getting that much.  The state payment is the obligation payment, and I'm barely paying it due to lack of funds. Yes, paying the State is paying them back for what Social Services gives to her, even though she sued me, not the State