I missed it yesterday when Kos
wrote about Jim Galley's little problem with running on a pro-traditional family schtick, seeing as he was married to two women simultaneously. I was lucky enough to catch it linked on Buzzflash.
We know what Kos cited:
Republican Jim Galley, who is running for Congress as a "pro-traditional family" candidate, was married to two women at the same time, defaulted on his child support payments and has been accused of abuse by one of his ex-wives.
It makes great fodder for debate and ridicule, but reading a little more into the article, there was something that caught my attention even more than just the little polygamy thing he had going on.
Follow the hump...
I read Kos' diary, and saw most comments centering around his two wives, some about his military experience, or lack of, but what really caught my attention was what he said about his child support problem.
Terry said she went on welfare after she separated from Galley in July 1981. She provided Michigan court records to show Galley defaulted on support payments for their two children in the 1980s, which forced the Michigan welfare system to obtain the money through legal proceedings.
When asked about the child support, Galley first said he was only in default for several months because of a back injury. He later acknowledged that money was garnished from his paychecks for four years but said it was because of a billing mix-up and his money was ultimately refunded.
Something doesn't seem right here. I've been paying child support for 10 years now. At times I've fallen behind due to unemployment, under-employment, or willful neglect due to youth-based, misplaced priorities. When I first started paying child support, I mailed my payments in and later, opted for wage garnishment as this was easier than remembering to mail in a payment every week.
At times when I fell behind, the state would send me notices and ultimately, garnished tax returns, wages, and unemployment income. I even had a lien placed on my bank account once, while on vacation. They took all the money I had, 1000 miles from home.
Here's the thing. Wage garnishment is easy. You can opt for it, which is very, very convenient, or, in the event of continual non-payment, it can be ordered through a court ordered, wage garnishment order. Yes, they can look you up and find your current employer, so long as it's on the books. Otherwise, it's an electronic deposit, easily trackable, provides almost instant credit to your account, as well as your child's, and it provides a generally solid paper trail as your account can be accessed online, receipts can be printed, as well as your paystub will show the deduction.
In single state enforcement cases, with or without a court order, it typically goes from employer deduction against your pay, to state family court or child support enforcement/disbursement office, to payee, or most likely, custodial parent.
In the event of interstate cases, such as mine (PA/NJ), NJ (the state with the order), sends an enforcement order to PA, who contacts my employer and orders a wage garnishment against my weekly pay. This isn't the actual case with me; I opted for it after clearing up past arrears as I have a steady job once again, and make enough each week to cover my payments. But in my interstate case, it works as follows: My employer garnishes a certain amount from my pay each week, submits it to the PA-SCDU (state collection and disbursement unit) who in turn submits that payment electronically to the NJ Family Court Child Support Enforcement Department of Atlantic County Court, who I assume cuts a check to my son's mother.
So being that I've gone through the child support systems of not 1, but 2 states, and have had to deal with it for 10 years, I think I can say I know a little something about child support. And here's the thing. When Galley says:
He later acknowledged that money was garnished from his paychecks for four years but said it was because of a billing mix-up and his money was ultimately refunded.
I'm left to wonder what the four year mix-up was. See, if I'm making my payments myself, every week, while at the same time the state is garnishing my paycheck, unless I'm the type of person who blindly turns my paycheck over to one of my wives, and
she doesn't notice the automatic deduction on top of my hand payment, it's not going to be long before I realize I'm paying more into my child support than I'm legally obligated to. Perhaps if I had money to burn, I wouldn't care, as it'd be to my child's benefit. But as far as I'm concerned, there's no need to take double payments from me.
If I notice overpayments being made, which I have in the past, I investigate the mistake and bring it to the proper people's attention and have it fixed ASAP. None of this "oh, I'll let this go for four years" crap. Furthermore, had I been making double payments for 4 years, I'd have this huge credit on my account, and since credits are always a good thing when paying child support, I'd simply stop making my hand payments and let the credit take care of itself over time, checking my account balance periodically to make sure there was still money left in it to cover my order.
As for having it refunded, this makes no sense either, unless the child turned 18 in that period, declared him or herself emancipated, or for some other reason, such as death, made the situation as such that child support was no longer owed. The simple argument contradicts itself. Basically, it sounds as if he's saying:
"I fell behind for four months, but I had been making automatic payments via my paystub at x amount over x period of time. For four years, too.
Here's the problem with this statement. First off, if Galley had been unable to work, and therefore had no income to be garnished, what was he living off of? Was he making hand payments? Was he collecting unemployment? The reason I ask is that, unless he was flat broke, he was collecting income from something, be it litigation, nest egg, or unemployment. He could've had deductions taken from unemployment, or made payments via another source of income. Just because you don't work doesn't mean your off the hook with regards to your child support obligation.
If the four years of wage garnishment were in error, and ultimately refunded, than what was he paying for child support in the interim? If it was all refunded, he must've been making payments some other way, such as mailing a check every week, two weeks, or month because the state doesn't pay refunds on money it hasn't properly collected some other way.
So why let a wage garnishment go on for four years? It doesn't take 4 years to either notice a double payment going on, or to contact the appropriate people, have them look up your payment history, see that you're current, and either adjust your balance, stop your hand payments while continuing your wage garnishment, or vice versa.
It would seem to me that Galley is either lying, or lazy. It's either one or the other and if this guy is running for Congress, that has me concerned since he's going to eventually vote on or propose bills that could affect me financially. And since it seems that, at least in the past, he couldn't even keep his own personal finances, which affected his two children, in order, you should be concerned too.
My $0.02. Your thoughts on this different angle?