Q: Order states support is to credit me for overpayment made to other party but support is refusing to comply. What to do?

A: This question reveals a classic "pro se runaround" that all levels of government give to citizens of this nation. Just as police can lie to a citizen, so can any branch of government lie to a citizen.

As for this question, we really cannot answer it because we cannot see the order from the support magistrate (SM). The SM may have said that support collections must "credit" something something, but may have failed to include it in the order. Support collections only looks at orders. This is why support collections refers a troublesome order back to the SM.

We also do not understand what "refusing to comply" means. If indeed the order instructs support collections to credit a sum of money, they must comply. They are part of the executive branch which means they execute laws. An order of support is a "law" that they cannot ignore. They also cannot send the asker to a small claims court because no support issue is ever a matter for small claims. There may be an exception for money ordered paid erroneously, but those cases are very rare. SMs do not enter orders for non-parties.

We cannot opine as to "violations" and money owed. We cannot see the asker's violation petitions and we do not have transcripts of the SM's reactions. Ordinarily, a violation petition includes requests for counsel fees which the SM must enter. Case law provides that counsel fees must be paid even if the asker did not actually retain counsel. Other than that, the SM is authorized to enter judgment for child support amounts owed, and not for punitive awards which are not authorized by statute (Article 4 of the Family Court Act).

The family court does not "collect." The SM enters orders of support and the support collections ensures its payment to the custodial parent. If the order of support is not paid by the non-custodial parent, then the SM can enter a money judgment against the non-custodial parent. The family court is not authorized to enter money judgments for any other reason.

The asker appears to refuse to see an attorney. Family court is not a do-it-yourself project based on common sense. It is a rigid structure with clearly defines lines of authority hell bent on fulfilling public policy that a mother has to come to a court to get the deadbeat to pay. It's a one-size-fits-all apparatus as all men are presumed to be deadbeats. A lawyer can clear up ambiguity and set matters straight. In the U.S. today, making a baby means having an account set up to pay attorneys. We're a nation of laws and life without a lawyer will be unsuccessful.