BAPCPA did not upset the holding in Florida Department of Revenue v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez), No. 09-13222, 2010 WL 597224 (11th Cir. Feb. 22, 2010) (unpublished) (Dubina, Pryor, Anderson): State of Florida is in contempt for violating confirmation order by intercepting a payment to the debtor to collect a child support arrearage that was provided for through the plan. Confirmed plan included payment of ongoing child support and payment to cure a $2,400 child support arrearage. After confirmation, the State of Florida intercepted a travel reimbursement check from the Department of Treasury to the debtor. Debtor brought contempt action for violation of the confirmation order. “[T]he decision of the DOR to allow the interception of the expense reimbursement as a method for payment of the arrearage was contrary to the express provisions of the Debtor’s Plan, which provides that the arrearage of $2,400 will be paid in full . . . . [T]he changes in BAPCPA do not change the Rodriguez holding. . . . [E]ven if an action taken by the DOR in connection with its enforcement obligations is not a violation of the automatic stay, it may, nonetheless, be a violation of a confirmation order. . . . This Court agrees with Rodriguez that both domestic support creditors and debtors are bound by the terms of a chapter 13 plan . . . . [S]o long as the Debtor is meeting his obligations under the Plan, the DOR may not take any action inconsistent with the Plan. . . . [T]he DOR [is] in contempt for violating this Court’s Confirmation Order. . . . [T]he Debtor is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.”