30 Jun Continuing Writs of Garnishment for Child Support and Alimony in Florida
Summary
Garnishing wages for child support in Florida allows courts to order employers to withhold support payments directly from a parent’s paycheck. This article explains the statutes, enforcement procedures, and employer responsibilities involved in wage garnishment for child support in Miami and throughout Florida.
Two different legal instruments get called “wage garnishment for child support” in Florida, and they are not interchangeable. Most parents who use the phrase are describing an income deduction order under section 61.1301, Florida Statutes, which is the ordinary way support is collected and which the court enters along with the support obligation itself. This page is about the other one: the continuing writ of garnishment under section 61.12, Florida Statutes, and chapter 77.
The distinction matters because the two instruments reach different obligations, issue on different showings, and fail for different reasons. A continuing writ will not collect an attorney’s fee award in Miami-Dade, and a Third District panel has reversed a trial court for trying.
Start With the Default: Income Deduction
If the question is how ordinary support gets paid, the answer is not garnishment. Section 61.1301(1)(a) requires the court to enter a separate income deduction order on entry of any order establishing, enforcing, or modifying alimony or child support, other than a temporary order, and section 61.1301(1)(c) makes that order effective immediately unless the court makes written findings of good cause to delay it. It is not a remedy that becomes available after a parent falls behind. It is the collection mechanism built into the support order from the start, and section 61.1301(3)(a) states the Legislature’s intent that it reach arrearages as well as current obligations.
Our guide to income deduction orders in Florida covers that mechanism in full, including the federal withholding ceiling, the employer’s duties, and the fifteen day window to contest.
A continuing writ of garnishment is the judicial alternative, used where income deduction is unavailable, insufficient, or already exhausted.
What Section 61.12 Authorizes
Section 61.12 is titled “Attachment or garnishment of amounts due for alimony or child support,” and it has two subsections that do different work.
Subsection (1) subjects money due to a person “whether the head of a family residing in this state or not” to attachment or garnishment to enforce orders and judgments for alimony, suit money, or child support, or other orders in dissolution proceedings. It also supplies the procedure where the money sought is the salary of a public officer.
Subsection (2) is the continuing writ provision. It states that “[t]he provisions of chapter 77 or any other provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the court may issue a continuing writ of garnishment to an employer to enforce the order of the court for periodic payment of alimony or child support or both.” The writ may run on a periodic and continuing basis for as long as the court determines or until further order.
Subsection (2) closes with a provision employers should read carefully. Any disciplinary action taken against an employee by an employer served with such a writ, solely because the writ is in effect, constitutes a contempt of court, and the court may enter such order as it deems just and proper. That is a stronger sanction than the parallel provision in the income deduction statute, which caps the penalty for retaliation at $250 for a first violation and $500 for subsequent ones.
The Head of Family Exemption Does Not Protect a Support Obligor
This is the most commonly misunderstood point in the area, and it is often stated imprecisely.
Section 222.11, Florida Statutes, exempts wages from garnishment for a head of family, defined as a person providing more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent. All disposable earnings of a head of family earning $750 a week or less are exempt from attachment or garnishment, and earnings above that threshold may be reached only where the debtor has agreed in writing in a separate document meeting the statute’s formatting requirements.
Section 222.11 does not itself contain a support carve-out. The override comes from elsewhere. Section 61.12(1) reaches money due to a person “whether the head of a family residing in this state or not,” and section 61.12(2) issues its continuing writ notwithstanding chapter 77 or any other provision of law to the contrary. Section 77.0305 supplies a parallel route by authorizing continuing writs against salary or wages to satisfy judgments generally.
The practical result is the one most people remember, which is that a support obligor cannot use the head of family exemption to defeat collection. The reasoning matters, though, because a client who is told the exemption “does not apply to child support” will sometimes assume the same is true of every family law judgment against him. It is not, as the next section shows.
What a Continuing Writ Cannot Collect in Miami-Dade
The Third District Court of Appeal, whose decisions control in Miami-Dade County, has drawn a firm line around section 61.12(2).
In Reyf v. Reyf, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the court held that a continuing writ of garnishment is not available under section 61.12 to satisfy a final judgment for attorney’s fees or suit money ancillary to a dissolution action. The reasoning turns on the difference between the two subsections. Subsection (1) speaks of “alimony, suit money, or child support.” Subsection (2), which is the only part authorizing a continuing writ, names only “alimony or child support or both.” Suit money and attorney’s fees are absent from subsection (2), and the court declined to read them in.
The Third District reaffirmed that holding the same year in Sachs v. Sachs, 623 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), reversing an order that granted a continuing writ against a husband’s salary solely to collect the former wife’s attorney’s fees.
For a Miami practitioner this is a live trap. A final judgment that awards support and fees together cannot be collected wholesale through a single continuing writ. The support component can be. The fee component has to be pursued through an ordinary writ of garnishment under chapter 77, a judgment lien, or another collection remedy.
Arrearages After the Duty of Support Has Ended
The second limit on section 61.12(2) is temporal, and it is where a statutory change in 1988 altered the answer.
Under section 61.12(2) alone, a continuing writ requires a current, continuing order for periodic support. In Goldstein v. Ginsberg, 399 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), the Third District affirmed the denial of a continuing writ where the husband’s obligation to make periodic alimony payments had ended fifteen years earlier. The Fourth District reached the same conclusion in Nichols v. Schwarz, 504 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
Then the Legislature enacted section 77.0305, which authorizes continuing writs of garnishment generally to satisfy judgments and operates as an exception to the head of family exemption. In Cooper v. Cooper, 546 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the court held that a judgment for child support arrearages may be enforced against wages by a continuing writ regardless of whether an ongoing duty of support remains, applying the new statute because an appellate court decides a case under the law prevailing at the time of its disposition.
The synthesis is straightforward. A continuing writ under section 61.12(2) needs a live periodic support obligation. A continuing writ under section 77.0305 needs a judgment, and an arrearage reduced to judgment qualifies even after the underlying duty has expired. A parent whose child reached majority years ago with support still owed is not without a remedy, but the remedy runs through the judgment rather than through section 61.12(2).
The Federal Ceiling Still Applies
Whichever instrument is used, the amount is capped by section 303(b) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1673(b): fifty percent of disposable weekly earnings where the obligor supports a second spouse or dependent child and sixty percent where he does not, each rising by five percentage points where the support is more than twelve weeks in arrears.
The Third District applied that ceiling to an income deduction order in Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), holding such an order is “in substance a continuing writ of garnishment” and therefore subject to the federal limits, and reversing an order that directed an employer to withhold one hundred percent of the obligor’s net pay. Because Garcia reasons from the garnishment character of the instrument, the ceiling applies with at least equal force to an actual continuing writ.
Choosing Between the Two
For current support, use income deduction. It is mandatory, immediate, and reaches arrearages as well.
Use a continuing writ where income deduction does not fit. The recurring situations are an arrearage reduced to judgment after the support obligation has ended, an obligor whose income is not wages payable by a conventional employer, and collection against a judgment debtor where the section 61.1301 machinery has already been tried.
Do not use a continuing writ for attorney’s fees or suit money in the Third District. Reyf and Sachs foreclose it.
Practical Notes for Miami-Dade
Two things are worth knowing about local practice. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit routinely enters income deduction orders at the time the support order is entered, so by the time a party is considering garnishment the income deduction route has usually been attempted and the question is why it failed. Where the obligor works for a family business or draws income as distributions and paid expenses rather than salary, there may be no payor to serve, and the analysis shifts to non-wage collection and contempt. That was the fact pattern in Garcia.
The Florida Department of Revenue also runs parallel administrative enforcement in Title IV-D cases, with tools that include license suspension, lottery intercept, federal offset, and passport denial. Those operate independently of a private continuing writ.
Speak With a Miami Family Law Attorney
Collecting a support judgment is a question of choosing the right instrument for the obligation you actually hold. The Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC handles support enforcement and collection in Miami-Dade and Broward County family courts. Call to discuss what you are owed and how to reach it.
Can wages be garnished for child support in Florida?
Yes. Section 61.12(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes a court to issue a continuing writ of garnishment to an employer to enforce an order for periodic alimony or child support, notwithstanding chapter 77 or any other law. In most cases, though, support is collected through an income deduction order under section 61.1301 rather than by garnishment.
Does the head of family exemption protect wages from child support collection?
No. Section 222.11 exempts the disposable earnings of a head of family earning $750 a week or less, but section 61.12(1) reaches money due to a person whether the head of a family or not, and section 61.12(2) issues its writ notwithstanding chapter 77 or any other provision of law. Section 77.0305 provides a parallel route for judgments.
Can a continuing writ collect attorney’s fees in a Florida divorce?
Not in the Third District. Reyf v. Reyf, 620 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), held that section 61.12 does not authorize a continuing writ for attorney’s fees or suit money, because subsection (2) names only alimony and child support. Sachs v. Sachs, 623 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), reversed an order that tried.
Can arrears be garnished after child support ends?
Yes, through the judgment. A continuing writ under section 61.12(2) requires a current periodic support obligation, Goldstein v. Ginsberg, 399 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), but section 77.0305 authorizes a continuing writ to satisfy a judgment, and an arrearage reduced to judgment may be collected that way even after the duty of support has ended. Cooper v. Cooper, 546 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
How much of a paycheck can be garnished for support?
The federal ceiling in 15 U.S.C. section 1673(b) applies: fifty percent of disposable weekly earnings if the obligor supports another spouse or child, sixty percent if not, each rising five points where support is more than twelve weeks in arrears.
Can an employer punish an employee for a garnishment order?
No, and the sanction is unusually strong. Section 61.12(2) provides that disciplinary action taken against an employee solely because such a writ is in effect constitutes a contempt of court.
