Can a Creditor Garnish Child Support Deposited in a Bank Account?

Florida law does not expressly exempt child support payments from garnishment after they have been received and deposited into a bank account. Chapter 222 of the Florida Statutes lists specific exemptions for wages, Social Security, disability benefits, retirement funds, and other categories, but child support does not appear in the statute. The standard Claim of Exemption form that judgment debtors receive after a writ of garnishment is served similarly omits child support from its enumerated exemptions.

Despite this statutory gap, there are strong legal arguments that child support funds deposited in a bank account should be protected from creditors. Florida courts have recognized public policy protections for alimony and support payments, and several legal doctrines may extend that reasoning to child support. The question rarely produces a clean answer, which makes how the recipient handles these funds critically important.

The Statutory Gap in Chapter 222

Florida’s debtor exemption statutes in Chapter 222 protect a specific list of assets from creditor collection. Section 222.11 protects head of household wages. Section 222.14 protects the cash surrender value of life insurance policies and annuity contracts. Section 222.21 protects funds in qualified retirement accounts. Social Security benefits carry federal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 407 and the automated bank review process in 31 CFR Part 212.

Child support is absent from all of these protections. No provision in Chapter 222 states that child support payments received by a custodial parent are exempt from the claims of that parent’s creditors. The Claim of Exemption form provided to garnished debtors under Florida’s garnishment statute allows the debtor to check boxes for wages, Social Security, disability, retirement, and several other categories. There is no box for child support. A debtor asserting that deposited child support is exempt must write the claim in manually and rely on legal argument rather than a clear statutory citation.

The Public Policy Argument

Florida courts have developed a public policy doctrine that protects certain support-related income from creditors even without an explicit statutory exemption. In a line of cases including decisions from both state courts and federal bankruptcy courts sitting in Florida, courts have held that alimony payments cannot be garnished by a creditor of the recipient spouse.

The reasoning is straightforward. Florida’s debtor protection framework reflects a legislative policy of protecting families and dependents. Alimony exists to support a former spouse who lacks sufficient independent income after dissolution of marriage. Allowing a creditor to intercept that income would undermine the family court’s support order and harm the person the order was designed to protect.

Courts that have addressed the question have generally extended this reasoning to child support, although no published Florida appellate decision has squarely held that child support deposited in a bank account is exempt from garnishment by a third-party creditor. The argument for protection is arguably even stronger than for alimony. Child support exists to provide for the basic needs of a minor child. Permitting a parent’s judgment creditor to garnish those funds is inconsistent with the broad equitable powers Florida courts exercise to ensure that children receive adequate financial support after a divorce.

Distinguishing Two Different Garnishment Questions

An important distinction exists between garnishing child support as an offensive collection tool and protecting received child support from a third party’s garnishment action. These are separate legal questions that are frequently confused.

Florida Statute § 61.12 authorizes courts to garnish the wages and income of a parent who owes child support. This statute allows the custodial parent or the Florida Department of Revenue to use garnishment as a mechanism to enforce a child support order against a non-paying parent.

The wage garnishment limits for child support enforcement are significantly higher than for ordinary debts. Federal law under the Consumer Credit Protection Act permits garnishment of up to 50% of a parent’s disposable income for current child support obligations, increasing to 60% if the parent is not supporting another spouse or child, and an additional 5% if payments are more than 12 weeks in arrears.

The separate question addressed in this article is whether a third-party creditor—such as a credit card company or medical provider holding a judgment against the custodial parent—can garnish child support that the custodial parent has already received and deposited into a bank account. Section 61.12 does not answer this question because it deals with enforcement of support orders, not with the exempt status of support payments in the hands of the recipient.

Bankruptcy Code § 522(d)(10) and Its Limits

The Bankruptcy Code provides a potential statutory basis for exempting child support funds, but its application outside of bankruptcy is limited. Section 522(d)(10) exempts from the bankruptcy estate any payment that is reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor. Federal courts have interpreted this provision to encompass child support payments received by a debtor.

Florida has opted out of the federal bankruptcy exemption scheme, meaning Florida debtors generally must use state exemptions listed in Chapter 222 rather than the federal exemptions in § 522(d). However, Florida Statute § 222.201 specifically permits Florida debtors to claim the exemptions in § 522(d)(10) even though the state has otherwise opted out of federal exemptions.

The practical limitation is that this exemption is available only to debtors who have filed for bankruptcy. A custodial parent who has not filed bankruptcy cannot invoke § 522(d)(10) in response to a creditor’s writ of garnishment in state court. Outside of bankruptcy, the parent must rely on the public policy argument or another applicable exemption.

Head of Household Overlap

A custodial parent receiving child support may also qualify for the head of household exemption under Florida Statute § 222.11. This exemption protects the wages and salary of any natural person who provides more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent. The exemption applies to the debtor’s own earned income, not to child support received from an ex-spouse.

The overlap matters when a custodial parent deposits both their own wages and child support payments into the same account. The wages may be exempt under § 222.11 if the parent qualifies as head of household, and the child support may be independently protected under the public policy doctrine. Commingling these two income streams in a single account creates a tracing burden that complicates both exemptions. The debtor must demonstrate which portion of the account balance originated from exempt wages and which portion came from child support deposits.

Commingling and the Tracing Problem

The practical strength of any exemption argument for child support depends heavily on the recipient’s ability to trace the funds. Florida courts have held that exempt assets retain their protected status after being deposited into a financial account, but only if the debtor can identify which funds in the account are traceable to the exempt source.

A custodial parent who deposits child support payments into a dedicated, segregated account and makes no other deposits into that account will have the clearest evidentiary path. Each deposit can be matched to a specific child support payment from the state disbursement unit or directly from the paying parent. If the entire balance is traceable to child support, the parent can assert that the full balance should be protected.

The tracing argument weakens significantly when child support is deposited into the same account that receives wages, tax refunds, gifts, or other income. Once funds are commingled, the court must determine which dollars in the account belong to which income stream. If the debtor cannot provide clear bank statements and deposit records showing the source of each transaction, the court may treat some or all of the account balance as non-exempt.

Comparison to Federally Protected Benefits

The absence of an explicit statutory exemption for child support stands in contrast to the robust protections available for federal benefits like Social Security. When a creditor serves a writ of garnishment on a bank, the bank is required under 31 CFR Part 212 to conduct an automated review of the account’s deposit history for the prior two months. If the review reveals direct deposits from federal benefit programs, the bank must automatically protect the lesser of the account balance or two months’ worth of federal benefit deposits, without any action by the account holder.

No equivalent automated protection exists for child support. Even if every dollar in the account originated from child support payments, the bank has no regulatory obligation to shield those funds from a garnishment writ. The account will be frozen, and the custodial parent must affirmatively assert an exemption and provide documentation to support it. This procedural asymmetry places a significant burden on child support recipients who may not understand their rights or act within the statutory deadlines.

Practical Steps to Protect Child Support Deposits

The most effective approach for a custodial parent concerned about creditor garnishment is to maintain a separate bank account exclusively for child support deposits. No wages, tax refunds, or other income should be deposited into this account. The child support payments should arrive through identifiable channels, preferably through the Florida State Disbursement Unit, which creates a clear paper trail showing the source and nature of each deposit.

If a garnishment writ is served and the dedicated child support account is frozen, the parent should immediately file a Claim of Exemption. Although child support is not listed on the standard form, the parent can assert the exemption in writing and cite the public policy doctrine recognized in Florida case law protecting support payments from creditor claims. The parent should attach bank statements demonstrating that every deposit in the account originated from child support.

The custodial parent should also consider whether they qualify for the head of household exemption for their earned income. If so, keeping wages in one account and child support in another ensures that each exemption can be asserted independently without the commingling problems that arise when multiple income streams share a single account.