child support. The garnishment exceeded 50% of his disposable income. He argued that this violated the Consumer Credit Protection Act. However, the court noted that the obligor voluntarily minimized his earnings. The court held that an obligor could not rely on the Consumer Credit Protection Act provision prohibiting garnishment of wages exceeding 50% of his disposable income since such reliance would allow him to circumvent his legal obligation due to his own act. The court concluded, “Respondent will not be allowed to thwart both Federal and New York State policy to assure support of dependents by perverting the Consumer Credit Protection Act.” Carol J., 464 N.Y.S.2d at 638; cf. Slivka v. Slivka, 1996 WL 100854, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 873 (Ohio Ct.App., Cuyahoga County Mar. 7, 1996) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 18 The court in New York interpreted the
holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts and under contract principles payments survive obligors death absent agreement to contrary shown by provisions of contract or surrounding circumstances holding that an obligors voluntary unemployment would not affect his child support payments holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments holding that assistance payments could not be considered for the purpose of requalifieation for unemployment insurance