ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Gwendolyn McCray’s Motion for Relief from Stay, upon which a hеaring was held on June 26, 1986. This Court notes jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
The movant claims that since the debt involved and the garnishment being maintained is for past due child support, the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 do not apply because such obligations are exempt from stay undеr 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2). Movant’s counsel represented that the arrearages total approximately $7,400.00. He argued Congressional policy seeks to avoid hardships to children, and cited the cases of
In re Garrison,
*12 The debtor contends that actions to collect child support are subject to the automatic stay, and are not exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(2) if the support is drawn from the property of the estate, which includes debtor’s earnings. Debtor’s attornеy pointed out that the plan, which has not yet been confirmed, provides that the movant shall constitute a separate class of unsecured creditor, with the past due сhild support to be paid 100% plus 8% interest through the plan, in the amount of $9,093.37.
First, it is clear that the аutomatic stay applies to the action for past due child support. Since thе plan has not yet been confirmed, virtually all of the debtor’s property is propеrty of the estate. Judge Mabey noted in
In re Adams,
However, although the stay applies, this creditor must be granted relief from stay for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). There is no adequate protection for the creditor, nor can there be, because, under the persuasive reasoning of the cases cited by the creditor’s counsel, the debt for past due child suрport may not be provided for in a Chapter 13 plan.
In Garrison, supra, the court stated that marriagе and divorce were matters reserved to the states, and that bankruptcy courts werе not intended by Congress to become domestic relations courts. Similarly, the Fourth Circuit held “a federal court may not interfere with the remedies provided by a state court in these areas of particular state concern...” Caswell, supra at 610. That court went on to find that “[t]o рermit child support arrearages to be included in a Chapter 13 plan would invite a fеderal bankruptcy court to alter or modify a state court decision regarding the payment and discharge of the overdue debt.” Id. The debtor in Caswell, like the debtor in the instant case, sought to сreate a separate unsecured class for past due child support, which was to be paid 100% through the plan. The circuit court however, affirmed the bankruptcy cоurt’s denial of confirmation, and refused to allow the support obligation to be prоvided for in the plan. Id., at 611.
This Court agrees with the reasoning in Caswell, and holds that a debt for past due child support obligations may not be included in a Chapter 13 plan. The movant here will not have to object to confirmation, but will be awarded relief from stay immediately, as the bankruptcy code “may not be usеd to deprive dependents, even if only temporarily, of the necessities of life.” Caswell, supra at 610. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that the motion for relief from stay is granted, and the automatic stay is modified to permit movant Gwendolyn McCray to continue collection proceedings on her judgment against the debtor for past due child support. The parties will bear their own fees and costs with respect to this motion.