Amy, my apologies if you feel I did not fully address your situation. Please allow me to do so now.
When I talked with the clerk at the district court (I know they are not lawyers) they made it sound like it wound NOT be a garnishment but a notice to pay, and would thus be ordered by the district clerk sent to his employment, Not by me.
The form above is completed by the "court" and sent to the employer of the person whom owes the debt. since it has a box for other, and that this is part of the divorce decree?
It is NOT part of the divorce decree, it is a separate motion. If you are seeking payment, it is not a divorce order, it is an attempt to compel compliance, which is something you would need to pursue personally. This form is part of the judgment that you obtain if you prevail once the order is domesticated.
The way I understand garnishments is that they are time sensitive and they would have to be extended if the person is unable to pay in 90 days then you extend for additional 90 days.
I don't understand why day care expenses are pursued the same way as child support because one can not work if you don't have daycare provider for the children. The system is very screwed up if I have to pursue day care expenses on myself, like if i was a business, and the person owed me money for non payment.
If I collected welfare, doesn't the courts go after the non custodial parent for all daycare expense but not if you make enough to were you are not on welfare.
I not sure you answered my question.
My apologies but I did not create the system, and I do understand it has many short-comings. But the reason child support and day care are treated differently in this case is two-fold. First, a child care expense is an additional assessment that is NOT part of the regular and general collection for support. Because it is an additional assessment, it is not an ongoing obligation but is instead based on a court order or decree. Second, as you yourself waived that obligation for a time, pursuing it now would require a court order--the courts and the agencies assumed in the past that this obligation was covered since you never claimed those funds before as a violation or obligation from him. This is why now an additional step is required showing that he is in contempt and owed the funds--then the amounts could be pursued.