This isn't funny, but it kind of made me laugh -
" Between October 2005 and March 2006, there were a total of only 307 complaints filed and recorded out of the approx 1.7 million open child support system."
Orange County has 97,792 open child support cases - 7 complaints
http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/pub/reports/2007/semiannual2007-09.pdf
Why aren't we complaining more? When they don't file a lien on real property - we should be filing a complaint. When they don't enforce the support order, fill out a complaint form - when they don't issue contempt paperwork when they should - FILL OUT A COMPLAINT FORM.
http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/complaints.asp
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Letter from Maja Rater
Divorce, rising health-care costs or a sudden job loss or disability can shred the safety net. Some families might be one car wreck or medical emergency away from hunger.
No mentioning of nonsupport of children. When I was divorced we were doing fine. Not before the child support stopped coming did we have problems. When I confronted Governor Tom Vilsack about it I was told that "it is not Iowa's fault that you married a jerk."
Prior to Governor Tom Vilsack, Governor Terry Branstad told me the state was doing a great job (the song they are still singing with over one billion dollars owed to children and families in Iowa. $110 billion across the nation), and Governor Robert Ray told me that "it is not the government's problem. It is between husband and wife."
All these people who are wringing their hands in public telling us how concerned they are about the plight of the poor are the ones who are making sure that nothing changes for them as they need the plight of the poor to further their own careers, foundations etc!
I was watching Governor Chet Culver last night on tv beaming when he pronounced "Shawn Johnson Day" and it was a joy to watch. However, I could not help thinking that October is also child support month and no one cares about those children!! No mentioning of these children's plight. All those children who cannot do things they want to because of nonsupport.
What came to mind was my daughter having to return her trumpet because we could not keep up the payments (we had $136 left to pay and had paid over $1,600), and seeing her in the marching band with pants too short as she is very tall. No, my children never went hungry for food but went hungry for other things needed in order to participate in events they wanted to join--because of nonsupport.
I just heard from a mother who has a son who is nearly 17 years old. CSRU would do noting for her although she has named the father on the applications for FIP etc as was required by law. They kept on telling her they had lost the paperwork!! When she contacted me a few months ago ( I contacted the governor's office and CSRU) they finally got around to establishing a child support order and she received her first child support payment for $35 and she was ecstatic. What about arrears? No response from CSRU so I sent her to the Citizens Ombudsman because she does not have any money for an attorney. She needs to sue the state for this neglect. But who cares?
So what are you all doing that is meaningful and will make a difference in the lives of these people outside of wringing your hands in "despair" in front of a camera??
It is the responsibility of the governor to see to it that the laws of the state are enforced and in Iowa it is the law that both parents support their children. Nonsupport is even a felony class-D but in spite of the law being on the books for 25 years only one case has been prosecuted under this law (while thousands of cases qualify). As the Register Editorial states, in 1999, $826 billion dollars were owed to children, and now 7 years later, over one billion dollars is owed to children by parents. Yet every time child support is mentioned in the news (not often) Roger Munns, the mouth piece for Iowa DHS, steps up to the camera telling us "Iowa is doing a great job!!
Collecting on these orders would eliminate a lot of needs--especially hunger needs!! But who cares? Not the people in charge of enforcement, not the people in the media (except FOX News at Nine who is covering the second criminal nonsupport trial in Iowa's history. Thanks KDSM!)!!
Congress cut the funding for child support enforcement in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. Senator Charles Grassley and his republican friends in Iowa, Reps Tom Latham, Jim Nussle, Steven King, voted for it. All democrats and a few republicans voted against it. Since it was a tie and Vice President Cheney had to cast the deciding vote in the Senate I hold Senator Charles Grassley responsible for the passing of this bill in the Senate, which will make even more children not getting their court ordered child support (and medical support); besides having to pay $25 in yearly fees for the CSRU services. Bills have been introduced to restore the funding and eliminate the $25 fees (some states are absorbing this fee but Iowa is not among them) but where are the democrats now? From Iowa only Senator Tom Harkin and Rep Bruce Brayley are co sponsoring these bills (S 803, HR 1386). The cuts went into effect October 1st, 2007.
Maja Rater
Iowa
No mentioning of nonsupport of children. When I was divorced we were doing fine. Not before the child support stopped coming did we have problems. When I confronted Governor Tom Vilsack about it I was told that "it is not Iowa's fault that you married a jerk."
Prior to Governor Tom Vilsack, Governor Terry Branstad told me the state was doing a great job (the song they are still singing with over one billion dollars owed to children and families in Iowa. $110 billion across the nation), and Governor Robert Ray told me that "it is not the government's problem. It is between husband and wife."
All these people who are wringing their hands in public telling us how concerned they are about the plight of the poor are the ones who are making sure that nothing changes for them as they need the plight of the poor to further their own careers, foundations etc!
I was watching Governor Chet Culver last night on tv beaming when he pronounced "Shawn Johnson Day" and it was a joy to watch. However, I could not help thinking that October is also child support month and no one cares about those children!! No mentioning of these children's plight. All those children who cannot do things they want to because of nonsupport.
What came to mind was my daughter having to return her trumpet because we could not keep up the payments (we had $136 left to pay and had paid over $1,600), and seeing her in the marching band with pants too short as she is very tall. No, my children never went hungry for food but went hungry for other things needed in order to participate in events they wanted to join--because of nonsupport.
I just heard from a mother who has a son who is nearly 17 years old. CSRU would do noting for her although she has named the father on the applications for FIP etc as was required by law. They kept on telling her they had lost the paperwork!! When she contacted me a few months ago ( I contacted the governor's office and CSRU) they finally got around to establishing a child support order and she received her first child support payment for $35 and she was ecstatic. What about arrears? No response from CSRU so I sent her to the Citizens Ombudsman because she does not have any money for an attorney. She needs to sue the state for this neglect. But who cares?
So what are you all doing that is meaningful and will make a difference in the lives of these people outside of wringing your hands in "despair" in front of a camera??
It is the responsibility of the governor to see to it that the laws of the state are enforced and in Iowa it is the law that both parents support their children. Nonsupport is even a felony class-D but in spite of the law being on the books for 25 years only one case has been prosecuted under this law (while thousands of cases qualify). As the Register Editorial states, in 1999, $826 billion dollars were owed to children, and now 7 years later, over one billion dollars is owed to children by parents. Yet every time child support is mentioned in the news (not often) Roger Munns, the mouth piece for Iowa DHS, steps up to the camera telling us "Iowa is doing a great job!!
Collecting on these orders would eliminate a lot of needs--especially hunger needs!! But who cares? Not the people in charge of enforcement, not the people in the media (except FOX News at Nine who is covering the second criminal nonsupport trial in Iowa's history. Thanks KDSM!)!!
Congress cut the funding for child support enforcement in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. Senator Charles Grassley and his republican friends in Iowa, Reps Tom Latham, Jim Nussle, Steven King, voted for it. All democrats and a few republicans voted against it. Since it was a tie and Vice President Cheney had to cast the deciding vote in the Senate I hold Senator Charles Grassley responsible for the passing of this bill in the Senate, which will make even more children not getting their court ordered child support (and medical support); besides having to pay $25 in yearly fees for the CSRU services. Bills have been introduced to restore the funding and eliminate the $25 fees (some states are absorbing this fee but Iowa is not among them) but where are the democrats now? From Iowa only Senator Tom Harkin and Rep Bruce Brayley are co sponsoring these bills (S 803, HR 1386). The cuts went into effect October 1st, 2007.
Maja Rater
Iowa
Sunday, October 14, 2007
32 year battle for child support
http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?ArticleID=1809
Good for her!
Good for her!
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Criminal Non Support
From an email received -
Criminal Non-Support of Dependents Under State Laws
Child Support Enforcement
Criminal non-support state laws apply when both parents live in the same state and in some interstate cases.
In many states willful failure to pay child support can be a misdemeanor offense (less serious, like a parking ticket) or a felony offense (more serious, like robbery). Often the dollar amount of support not paid determines if the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. To file criminal charges, non-support must be willful. An investigation should be done to determine whether or not the non-paying parent had the money and the ability to pay the obligation but chose not to pay or that the non-paying parent voluntarily and intentionally did not have the funds to pay child support.
Procedure:
File a police report or provide county attorney information about arrears due and income/assets of non-paying parent.
If adequate evidence is present and county attorney determines non-paying parent has violated state non-support laws, a warrant will be issued.
A warrant will be issued and the sheriff or local police should arrest the non-paying parent, paying parent on-paying parent can be released on bond ( ask for this to be forfeited to you for the support owed rather than to the paying parent or the non-paying parent maybe release on their own recognizance.
An arraignment will be held. At the hearing, the non-paying parent enters a plea.
paying parent. If the Plea is Guilty: non-paying parent is sentenced, this can be jail time, fines or both. You can ask for probation with to revoke a support payment reason enough to revoke probation or Work Release Program.
If the plea is Not Guilty: a trial date is set. It can be a jury trial or heard by a Judge. The County Attorney must prove willful the plea on-support
If the plea is no contest (not admitting guilt, but go ahead and punish me) the outcome should be the same as being found guilty.
Criminal Non-Support of Dependents Under State Laws
Child Support Enforcement
Criminal non-support state laws apply when both parents live in the same state and in some interstate cases.
In many states willful failure to pay child support can be a misdemeanor offense (less serious, like a parking ticket) or a felony offense (more serious, like robbery). Often the dollar amount of support not paid determines if the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. To file criminal charges, non-support must be willful. An investigation should be done to determine whether or not the non-paying parent had the money and the ability to pay the obligation but chose not to pay or that the non-paying parent voluntarily and intentionally did not have the funds to pay child support.
Procedure:
File a police report or provide county attorney information about arrears due and income/assets of non-paying parent.
If adequate evidence is present and county attorney determines non-paying parent has violated state non-support laws, a warrant will be issued.
A warrant will be issued and the sheriff or local police should arrest the non-paying parent, paying parent on-paying parent can be released on bond ( ask for this to be forfeited to you for the support owed rather than to the paying parent or the non-paying parent maybe release on their own recognizance.
An arraignment will be held. At the hearing, the non-paying parent enters a plea.
paying parent. If the Plea is Guilty: non-paying parent is sentenced, this can be jail time, fines or both. You can ask for probation with to revoke a support payment reason enough to revoke probation or Work Release Program.
If the plea is Not Guilty: a trial date is set. It can be a jury trial or heard by a Judge. The County Attorney must prove willful the plea on-support
If the plea is no contest (not admitting guilt, but go ahead and punish me) the outcome should be the same as being found guilty.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Orange County Child Support
So, it's always interesting how many people you can talk to in a single day at OC's child support services. I called yesterday and figured out what I've been told for the last 4-8 weeks was incorrect and something has once again slipped through the cracks.
I asked for the complaint resolution packet, but honestly - it does nothing except document that there are issues and that they have been "resolved" there is no resolution, they just say what they've done and you're supposed to think that is resolved.
So today I decided to go above the ombudsman unit. But you know, it's pretty hard to get ahold of anyone outside of the ombudsman unit.
Here's the process from today.
Called the orange county directory number - explain that I want to speak to the director of the agency (Jan Sturla), I get put through to an "Annette" - Annette's voice mail comes on, refers another number, call that number, its the lobby receptionist, they put me through to "Monie" - another voice mail, I call back, they explain they are facilities, not child support - and tell me they will put me through to Robin who is a supervisor for the complaints. I get Robin's voice mail and it's an outdated message, she indicates she's the supervisor for the Ombudsman unit. I call the lobby receptionist again - I tell her that I don't want the ombudsman unit, they are part of the issue, I want Jan Sturla's office. I'm put on hold again for about 5 minutes this time. Jessie answers. I ask Jessie who she is and what department she's in - OH, imagine that she's in the ombudsman unit - and who I spoke to yesterday when I requested the complaint resolution packet. She says I can talk to Karen - apparently Karen is also a supervisor in the Ombudsman unit but with someone - while I'm on hold with them, I find the Deputy Director Steve Eldred's email from a previous meeting with him and send him an email that I would like to speak to someone TODAY about this.
Ultimately, I want the notes from my case file. They seem to think I can't have them, but I believe because they are a public agency, I should have access to when I've called in ad who I've talked to, what they've put down as the reason for my call. I'd like to x check that with my notes and find out where the break down in communication is.
A representative called me by about 10:30 who had received the email from the assistant director. What a crock!
a) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect individual rights of privacy, and to facilitate and enhance the effectiveness of the child and spousal support enforcement program, by ensuring the confidentiality of support enforcement and child abduction records, and to thereby encourage the full and frank disclosure of information relevant to all of the following:
(1) The establishment or maintenance of parent and child relationships and support obligations.
(2) The enforcement of the child support liability of absent parents.
(3) The enforcement of spousal support liability of the spouse or former spouse to the extent required by the state plan under Section 17604 and Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 4900) of Part 5 of Division 9.
(4) The location of absent parents.
(5) The location of parents and children abducted, concealed, or detained by them.
(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), all files, applications, papers, documents, and records established or maintained by any public entity pursuant to the administration and implementation of the child and spousal support enforcement program established pursuant to Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and this division, shall be confidential, and shall not be open to examination or released for disclosure for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the child and spousal support enforcement program. No public entity shall disclose any file, application, paper, document, or record, or the information contained therein, except as expressly authorized by this section.
(2) In no case shall information be released or the whereabouts of one party or the child disclosed to another party, or to the attorney of any other party, if a protective order has been issued by a court or administrative agency with respect to the party, a good cause claim under Section 11477.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code has been approved or is pending, or the public agency responsible for establishing paternity or enforcing support has reason to believe that the release of the information may result in physical or emotional harm to the party or the child. When a local child support agency is prohibited from releasing information pursuant to this subdivision, the information shall be omitted from any pleading or document to be submitted to the court and this subdivision shall be cited in the pleading or other document as the authority for the omission. The information shall be released only upon an order of the court pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (c).
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a proof of service filed by the local child support agency shall not disclose the address where service of process was accomplished. Instead, the local child support agency shall keep the address in its own records. The proof of service shall specify that the address is on record at the local child support agency and that the address may be released only upon an order from the court pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (c). The local child support agency shall, upon request by a party served, release to that person the address where service was effected.
(c) Disclosure of the information described in subdivision (b) is authorized as follows:
(1) All files, applications, papers, documents, and records as described in subdivision (b) shall be available and may be used by a public entity for all administrative, civil, or criminal investigations, actions, proceedings, or prosecutions conducted in connection with the administration of the child and spousal support enforcement program approved under Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and to the county welfare department responsible for administering a program operated under a state plan pursuant to Part A, Subpart 1 or 2 of Part B, or Part E of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
(2) A document requested by a person who wrote, prepared, or furnished the document may be examined by or disclosed to that person or his or her designee.
(3) The payment history of an obligor pursuant to a support order may be examined by or released to the court, the obligor, or the person on whose behalf enforcement actions are being taken or that person's designee.
(4) Income and expense information of either parent may be released to the other parent for the purpose of establishing or modifying a support order.
(5) Public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of the Government Code) may be released.
(6) After a noticed motion and a finding by the court, in a case in which establishment or enforcement actions are being taken, that release or disclosure to the obligor or obligee is required by due process of law, the court may order a public entity that possesses an application, paper, document, or record as described in subdivision (b) to make that item available to the obligor or obligee for examination or copying, or to disclose to the obligor or obligee the contents of that item. Article 9 (commencing with Section 1040) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Evidence Code shall not be applicable to proceedings under this part. At any hearing of a motion filed pursuant to this section, the court shall inquire of the local child support agency and the parties appearing at the hearing if there is reason to believe that release of the requested information may result in physical or emotional harm to a party. If the court determines that harm may occur, the court shall issue any protective orders or injunctive orders restricting the use and disclosure of the information as are necessary to protect the individuals.
(7) To the extent not prohibited by federal law or regulation, information indicating the existence or imminent threat of a crime against a child, or location of a concealed, detained, or abducted child or the location of the concealing, detaining, or abducting person, may be disclosed to any district attorney, any appropriate law enforcement agency, or to any state or county child protective agency, or may be used in any judicial proceedings to prosecute that crime or to protect the child.
(8) The social security number, most recent address, and the place of employment of the absent parent may be released to an authorized person as defined in Section 653(c) of Title 42 of the United States Code, only if the authorized person has filed a request for the information, and only if the information has been provided to the California Parent Locator Service by the federal Parent Locator Service pursuant to Section 653 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
(d) (1) "Administration and implementation of the child and spousal support enforcement program," as used in this division, means the carrying out of the state and local plans for establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations, enforcing spousal support orders, and determining paternity pursuant to Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and this article.
(2) For purposes of this division, "obligor" means any person owing a duty of support.
(3) As used in this division, "putative parent" shall refer to any person reasonably believed to be the parent of a child for whom the local child support agency is attempting to establish paternity or establish, modify, or enforce support pursuant to Section 17400.
(e) Any person who willfully, knowingly, and intentionally violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel the disclosure of information relating to a deserting parent who is a recipient of aid under a public assistance program for which federal aid is paid to this state, if that information is required to be kept confidential by the federal law or regulations relating to the program.
They are trying to say I can't see the notes on MY file from phone call I'VE made because of privacy concerns. We'll see....
I asked for the complaint resolution packet, but honestly - it does nothing except document that there are issues and that they have been "resolved" there is no resolution, they just say what they've done and you're supposed to think that is resolved.
So today I decided to go above the ombudsman unit. But you know, it's pretty hard to get ahold of anyone outside of the ombudsman unit.
Here's the process from today.
Called the orange county directory number - explain that I want to speak to the director of the agency (Jan Sturla), I get put through to an "Annette" - Annette's voice mail comes on, refers another number, call that number, its the lobby receptionist, they put me through to "Monie" - another voice mail, I call back, they explain they are facilities, not child support - and tell me they will put me through to Robin who is a supervisor for the complaints. I get Robin's voice mail and it's an outdated message, she indicates she's the supervisor for the Ombudsman unit. I call the lobby receptionist again - I tell her that I don't want the ombudsman unit, they are part of the issue, I want Jan Sturla's office. I'm put on hold again for about 5 minutes this time. Jessie answers. I ask Jessie who she is and what department she's in - OH, imagine that she's in the ombudsman unit - and who I spoke to yesterday when I requested the complaint resolution packet. She says I can talk to Karen - apparently Karen is also a supervisor in the Ombudsman unit but with someone - while I'm on hold with them, I find the Deputy Director Steve Eldred's email from a previous meeting with him and send him an email that I would like to speak to someone TODAY about this.
Ultimately, I want the notes from my case file. They seem to think I can't have them, but I believe because they are a public agency, I should have access to when I've called in ad who I've talked to, what they've put down as the reason for my call. I'd like to x check that with my notes and find out where the break down in communication is.
A representative called me by about 10:30 who had received the email from the assistant director. What a crock!
a) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect individual rights of privacy, and to facilitate and enhance the effectiveness of the child and spousal support enforcement program, by ensuring the confidentiality of support enforcement and child abduction records, and to thereby encourage the full and frank disclosure of information relevant to all of the following:
(1) The establishment or maintenance of parent and child relationships and support obligations.
(2) The enforcement of the child support liability of absent parents.
(3) The enforcement of spousal support liability of the spouse or former spouse to the extent required by the state plan under Section 17604 and Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 4900) of Part 5 of Division 9.
(4) The location of absent parents.
(5) The location of parents and children abducted, concealed, or detained by them.
(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (c), all files, applications, papers, documents, and records established or maintained by any public entity pursuant to the administration and implementation of the child and spousal support enforcement program established pursuant to Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and this division, shall be confidential, and shall not be open to examination or released for disclosure for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of the child and spousal support enforcement program. No public entity shall disclose any file, application, paper, document, or record, or the information contained therein, except as expressly authorized by this section.
(2) In no case shall information be released or the whereabouts of one party or the child disclosed to another party, or to the attorney of any other party, if a protective order has been issued by a court or administrative agency with respect to the party, a good cause claim under Section 11477.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code has been approved or is pending, or the public agency responsible for establishing paternity or enforcing support has reason to believe that the release of the information may result in physical or emotional harm to the party or the child. When a local child support agency is prohibited from releasing information pursuant to this subdivision, the information shall be omitted from any pleading or document to be submitted to the court and this subdivision shall be cited in the pleading or other document as the authority for the omission. The information shall be released only upon an order of the court pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (c).
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a proof of service filed by the local child support agency shall not disclose the address where service of process was accomplished. Instead, the local child support agency shall keep the address in its own records. The proof of service shall specify that the address is on record at the local child support agency and that the address may be released only upon an order from the court pursuant to paragraph (6) of subdivision (c). The local child support agency shall, upon request by a party served, release to that person the address where service was effected.
(c) Disclosure of the information described in subdivision (b) is authorized as follows:
(1) All files, applications, papers, documents, and records as described in subdivision (b) shall be available and may be used by a public entity for all administrative, civil, or criminal investigations, actions, proceedings, or prosecutions conducted in connection with the administration of the child and spousal support enforcement program approved under Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and to the county welfare department responsible for administering a program operated under a state plan pursuant to Part A, Subpart 1 or 2 of Part B, or Part E of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
(2) A document requested by a person who wrote, prepared, or furnished the document may be examined by or disclosed to that person or his or her designee.
(3) The payment history of an obligor pursuant to a support order may be examined by or released to the court, the obligor, or the person on whose behalf enforcement actions are being taken or that person's designee.
(4) Income and expense information of either parent may be released to the other parent for the purpose of establishing or modifying a support order.
(5) Public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of the Government Code) may be released.
(6) After a noticed motion and a finding by the court, in a case in which establishment or enforcement actions are being taken, that release or disclosure to the obligor or obligee is required by due process of law, the court may order a public entity that possesses an application, paper, document, or record as described in subdivision (b) to make that item available to the obligor or obligee for examination or copying, or to disclose to the obligor or obligee the contents of that item. Article 9 (commencing with Section 1040) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of the Evidence Code shall not be applicable to proceedings under this part. At any hearing of a motion filed pursuant to this section, the court shall inquire of the local child support agency and the parties appearing at the hearing if there is reason to believe that release of the requested information may result in physical or emotional harm to a party. If the court determines that harm may occur, the court shall issue any protective orders or injunctive orders restricting the use and disclosure of the information as are necessary to protect the individuals.
(7) To the extent not prohibited by federal law or regulation, information indicating the existence or imminent threat of a crime against a child, or location of a concealed, detained, or abducted child or the location of the concealing, detaining, or abducting person, may be disclosed to any district attorney, any appropriate law enforcement agency, or to any state or county child protective agency, or may be used in any judicial proceedings to prosecute that crime or to protect the child.
(8) The social security number, most recent address, and the place of employment of the absent parent may be released to an authorized person as defined in Section 653(c) of Title 42 of the United States Code, only if the authorized person has filed a request for the information, and only if the information has been provided to the California Parent Locator Service by the federal Parent Locator Service pursuant to Section 653 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
(d) (1) "Administration and implementation of the child and spousal support enforcement program," as used in this division, means the carrying out of the state and local plans for establishing, modifying, and enforcing child support obligations, enforcing spousal support orders, and determining paternity pursuant to Part D (commencing with Section 651) of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code and this article.
(2) For purposes of this division, "obligor" means any person owing a duty of support.
(3) As used in this division, "putative parent" shall refer to any person reasonably believed to be the parent of a child for whom the local child support agency is attempting to establish paternity or establish, modify, or enforce support pursuant to Section 17400.
(e) Any person who willfully, knowingly, and intentionally violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to compel the disclosure of information relating to a deserting parent who is a recipient of aid under a public assistance program for which federal aid is paid to this state, if that information is required to be kept confidential by the federal law or regulations relating to the program.
They are trying to say I can't see the notes on MY file from phone call I'VE made because of privacy concerns. We'll see....
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Deadbeat ex-JUDGE
Deadbeat dad ex-judge Reynold Mason, jailed for four months for failing to pay $250,000 in back child support, was freed yesterday after his ex-wife accepted $30,000.
"I am not making any comment whatsoever," said the former Brooklyn Supreme Court justice after hugging his daughter and blinking in the sunlight outside Manhattan Supreme Court.
Mason, who was booted from the Brooklyn bench in 2003, was ordered to surrender his passport and report back to court in six weeks to show efforts at finding a job.
"I don't feel victory. I feel tired," said Tessa Abrams Mason, who fought four years to get her ex to support their three children - ages 17, 15, and 9. "We shouldn't get tired. We shouldn't settle for less. But I settled because I'm desperate."
Mason, who once earned $136,700 a year on the bench, was thrown in jail in May for owing more than $250,000 and failing to appear in court.
He has said he couldn't pay because he only made $68,000 in 2005 and 2006 as a Georgia Realtor and had to declare bankruptcy to survive.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis initially ordered Mason to pay $75,000 and commit to a payment plan to leave jail. But Mason refused, saying he could only raise $30,000.
"I've been called all sorts of names. Vindictive! Bitter! Gold digger!" she said. "All I'm doing is protecting my kids.
"If he doesn't show up in court again, I will hunt him down again!" she vowed.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/18/2007-09-18_deadbeat_exjudge_reynold_mason_pays_chil.html
I have a feeling there's a little more to this story than is being reported. But I always find it interesting that people can come up with 30k but NO more...where did he get the 30K?
"I am not making any comment whatsoever," said the former Brooklyn Supreme Court justice after hugging his daughter and blinking in the sunlight outside Manhattan Supreme Court.
Mason, who was booted from the Brooklyn bench in 2003, was ordered to surrender his passport and report back to court in six weeks to show efforts at finding a job.
"I don't feel victory. I feel tired," said Tessa Abrams Mason, who fought four years to get her ex to support their three children - ages 17, 15, and 9. "We shouldn't get tired. We shouldn't settle for less. But I settled because I'm desperate."
Mason, who once earned $136,700 a year on the bench, was thrown in jail in May for owing more than $250,000 and failing to appear in court.
He has said he couldn't pay because he only made $68,000 in 2005 and 2006 as a Georgia Realtor and had to declare bankruptcy to survive.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Lobis initially ordered Mason to pay $75,000 and commit to a payment plan to leave jail. But Mason refused, saying he could only raise $30,000.
"I've been called all sorts of names. Vindictive! Bitter! Gold digger!" she said. "All I'm doing is protecting my kids.
"If he doesn't show up in court again, I will hunt him down again!" she vowed.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/18/2007-09-18_deadbeat_exjudge_reynold_mason_pays_chil.html
I have a feeling there's a little more to this story than is being reported. But I always find it interesting that people can come up with 30k but NO more...where did he get the 30K?
Monday, September 17, 2007
September 17th
Today my dad would have been 72 years old. He passed away 2.5 years ago.
He was a real man, a real dad. He loved us all, he sacrificed to make a life for all of us, without complaint, without strings, he did it because it was his job and his pleasure.
RIP Dad!
He was a real man, a real dad. He loved us all, he sacrificed to make a life for all of us, without complaint, without strings, he did it because it was his job and his pleasure.
RIP Dad!
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Thought of the day
If you don't accept responsibility for your own actions, then you are forever chained to a position of defense.
Holly Lisle, Fire In The Mist, 1992
Holly Lisle, Fire In The Mist, 1992
More from California
I was told today by the ombudsman unit at Orange County Child Support Service that they regularly review non custodial parents who are in arrears for bank accounts. I seriously doubt this, but that's what was said. They also said they submit each month to the DMV and the DMV sends out a letter that gives the "deadbeat" a 6 month deadline to get it situated with child support before licenses are suspended.
6 months leeway - interesting.
6 months leeway - interesting.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Phantom Child - NM
Child support fraud case lands in 2 courtrooms
The woman who made-up a baby to collect child support is back in court for her crimes, while the man who paid child support for that made-up baby is in another courtroom suing the DNA testing company.
Viola Trevino didn't say much in court Monday as she pleaded not guilty to 24 criminal charges that ranged from fraud to kidnapping.
The charges stem from her creation of a fake child to collect child support and when she lured a girl into a courtroom, so she could try to fool a judge into believing that she did have a daughter.
Trevino is already locked up on federal charges for lying about her phantom baby on tax forms.
And while she stood before a judge on Monday, in another courtroom sat Steve Barreras, the man forced to pay out $20,000 in child support for Trevino's make-believe baby.
So far Barreras hasn't been reimbursed a dime.
But that could change after a big trial that is now underway.
Barreras is suing Mobile Blood Services. The company was used to collect the sample that would eventually convince the court that the phantom baby was real.
Former employee, Pamela Flores is accused of taking DNA from Barreras' real adult daughter, Eve Barreras, and passing it off as the phantom child's DNA, creating a positive match.
Both Pamela Flores and Eve Barreras are facing fraud charges.
An attorney for Mobile Blood Services said the director of the company is not responsible for the DNA scam.
The trial is expected to last four days.
http://kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml?cat=500
Ugh, this is wrong on so many levels. Throw the book at her, and may he recover damages and then some.
The woman who made-up a baby to collect child support is back in court for her crimes, while the man who paid child support for that made-up baby is in another courtroom suing the DNA testing company.
Viola Trevino didn't say much in court Monday as she pleaded not guilty to 24 criminal charges that ranged from fraud to kidnapping.
The charges stem from her creation of a fake child to collect child support and when she lured a girl into a courtroom, so she could try to fool a judge into believing that she did have a daughter.
Trevino is already locked up on federal charges for lying about her phantom baby on tax forms.
And while she stood before a judge on Monday, in another courtroom sat Steve Barreras, the man forced to pay out $20,000 in child support for Trevino's make-believe baby.
So far Barreras hasn't been reimbursed a dime.
But that could change after a big trial that is now underway.
Barreras is suing Mobile Blood Services. The company was used to collect the sample that would eventually convince the court that the phantom baby was real.
Former employee, Pamela Flores is accused of taking DNA from Barreras' real adult daughter, Eve Barreras, and passing it off as the phantom child's DNA, creating a positive match.
Both Pamela Flores and Eve Barreras are facing fraud charges.
An attorney for Mobile Blood Services said the director of the company is not responsible for the DNA scam.
The trial is expected to last four days.
http://kob.com/article/stories/S190773.shtml?cat=500
Ugh, this is wrong on so many levels. Throw the book at her, and may he recover damages and then some.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
unwilling dads
From http://www.mlive.com/news/saginawnews/index.ssf?/base/news-24/1189333339167600.xml&coll=9
AMY PAYNE
THE SAGINAW NEWS
The case nicknamed "the Roe vs. Wade for Men" is heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Saginaw Township resident Matt Dubay, a 26-year-old computer programmer for Yeo & Yeo Computer Consulting, sued his his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells, in March 2006 to try to avoid paying child support, saying Wells knew he did not want a child and had assured him that she could not get pregnant.
U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson threw out the case in July 2006, calling it "frivolous" and ruled that Dubay must continue to pay $500 a month for child support.
Dubay is appealing the ruling. Oral arguments will begin at 1:30 p.m. Monday before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The Saginaw News could not reach Dubay or Wells for comment Saturday.
Dubay's Southfield-based attorney, Jeffery A. Cojocar, has said he intends to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
If a pregnant woman can opt out of motherhood through abortion or adoption, a man who causes an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial burden of fatherhood, Dubay has said, leading the Long Island, N.Y.-based National Center for Men to dub the lawsuit "the Roe vs. Wade for Men," referring to the 1973 case that legalized abortion.
State courts have ruled that society's interest in ensuring that children receive financial support from two parents outweighs any inequity men might face.
The suit, originally filed in U.S. District Court in Bay City, also names Saginaw County Prosecutor Michael D. Thomas and State Attorney Mike Cox as defendants, as Dubay has claimed Thomas and Cox are upholding a paternity law that is unconstitutional because it requires the father to pay child support even if he did not want the child to be born.
Wells, also a Saginaw Township resident, is raising their 2-year-old daughter, Elisabeth, while working and attending school.
The case gathered national media attention and generated vigorous discussion on the Internet. Phil McGraw -- better known as television psychologist Dr. Phil -- hosted Dubay on his nationally syndicated show in April 2006. McGraw said the problem stems from "young people having sex in uncommitted relationships, where these things haven't been discussed in advance."
So, they knew he didn't want kids, but he apparently didn't do anything to protect from that risk? Two words - Condom or Vasectomy! Otherwise, you play you pay!
AMY PAYNE
THE SAGINAW NEWS
The case nicknamed "the Roe vs. Wade for Men" is heading to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Saginaw Township resident Matt Dubay, a 26-year-old computer programmer for Yeo & Yeo Computer Consulting, sued his his former girlfriend, Lauren Wells, in March 2006 to try to avoid paying child support, saying Wells knew he did not want a child and had assured him that she could not get pregnant.
U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson threw out the case in July 2006, calling it "frivolous" and ruled that Dubay must continue to pay $500 a month for child support.
Dubay is appealing the ruling. Oral arguments will begin at 1:30 p.m. Monday before the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The Saginaw News could not reach Dubay or Wells for comment Saturday.
Dubay's Southfield-based attorney, Jeffery A. Cojocar, has said he intends to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.
If a pregnant woman can opt out of motherhood through abortion or adoption, a man who causes an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial burden of fatherhood, Dubay has said, leading the Long Island, N.Y.-based National Center for Men to dub the lawsuit "the Roe vs. Wade for Men," referring to the 1973 case that legalized abortion.
State courts have ruled that society's interest in ensuring that children receive financial support from two parents outweighs any inequity men might face.
The suit, originally filed in U.S. District Court in Bay City, also names Saginaw County Prosecutor Michael D. Thomas and State Attorney Mike Cox as defendants, as Dubay has claimed Thomas and Cox are upholding a paternity law that is unconstitutional because it requires the father to pay child support even if he did not want the child to be born.
Wells, also a Saginaw Township resident, is raising their 2-year-old daughter, Elisabeth, while working and attending school.
The case gathered national media attention and generated vigorous discussion on the Internet. Phil McGraw -- better known as television psychologist Dr. Phil -- hosted Dubay on his nationally syndicated show in April 2006. McGraw said the problem stems from "young people having sex in uncommitted relationships, where these things haven't been discussed in advance."
So, they knew he didn't want kids, but he apparently didn't do anything to protect from that risk? Two words - Condom or Vasectomy! Otherwise, you play you pay!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
WLOX Report
"Ocean Springs resident Tracie Hicks juggles a heavy workload. She works full time and is raising two sons. On Wednesday, she was shocked when she read a letter she received from the Department of Human Services.
"This is a letter that came to me from DHS stating that I owe the state a $25 fee for collection of child support being that I do not draw any type of assistance from the state, such as welfare," Hicks said.
According to the letter, a federal law went into effect in October of last year. The law requires a $25 annual fee be paid to the state when the Department of Human Services has to go after parents who have not paid child support. The parent who recieves child support is charged the fee.
"It's actually charging my child a fee, coming out of my child support. In fact, the bottom of the letter states that failure to pay this fee may result in law enforcement measures which may be a suspension of license, deduction of future support payments," Hicks said.
Gulfport resident Denise Pierce received the same letter.
"I was pretty shocked about it. I called my case worker, and of course, they weren't there. They left messages, and they never returned my calls," Pierce said.
Pierce is also a mother of two. She began collecting child support when her teenage daughter was three years old. Pierce says even to this day, every bit counts.
"It's only $25 to them, it doesn't come out of their pocket. It' comes out of hers, my daughters," Pierce said.
Both Pierce and Hicks agree that the $25 fee should be dropped or billed to the parents who the state must go after for child support.
We contacted the local Department of Human Services and were referred to the office in Jackson. Our calls there were not returned.
By Toni Miles"
I'm a little torn, of course I'd like to not spend $25.00 for a county to get the money from our deadbeat. BUT, I'd rather pay the money and get the assistance in collection, than file and have to do the court maze myself without their help. (At least for now.)
I will also say that although it took me being a major pain in the rear to the Orange County Child Support Services, I do ALWAYS et a call back and the information requested at this point. It wasn't always that way, but I do now always get a response, and when I've asked them to call the parent because of non-payment, they do, and they call me back with a status report. I'll pay the fee if requested.
from http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=7046078&nav=6DJI
"This is a letter that came to me from DHS stating that I owe the state a $25 fee for collection of child support being that I do not draw any type of assistance from the state, such as welfare," Hicks said.
According to the letter, a federal law went into effect in October of last year. The law requires a $25 annual fee be paid to the state when the Department of Human Services has to go after parents who have not paid child support. The parent who recieves child support is charged the fee.
"It's actually charging my child a fee, coming out of my child support. In fact, the bottom of the letter states that failure to pay this fee may result in law enforcement measures which may be a suspension of license, deduction of future support payments," Hicks said.
Gulfport resident Denise Pierce received the same letter.
"I was pretty shocked about it. I called my case worker, and of course, they weren't there. They left messages, and they never returned my calls," Pierce said.
Pierce is also a mother of two. She began collecting child support when her teenage daughter was three years old. Pierce says even to this day, every bit counts.
"It's only $25 to them, it doesn't come out of their pocket. It' comes out of hers, my daughters," Pierce said.
Both Pierce and Hicks agree that the $25 fee should be dropped or billed to the parents who the state must go after for child support.
We contacted the local Department of Human Services and were referred to the office in Jackson. Our calls there were not returned.
By Toni Miles"
I'm a little torn, of course I'd like to not spend $25.00 for a county to get the money from our deadbeat. BUT, I'd rather pay the money and get the assistance in collection, than file and have to do the court maze myself without their help. (At least for now.)
I will also say that although it took me being a major pain in the rear to the Orange County Child Support Services, I do ALWAYS et a call back and the information requested at this point. It wasn't always that way, but I do now always get a response, and when I've asked them to call the parent because of non-payment, they do, and they call me back with a status report. I'll pay the fee if requested.
from http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?S=7046078&nav=6DJI
Sacramento Bee Editorial
"Editorial: An opportunity remains
Legislature should revive child support bill
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 8, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6
Talk about punishing the poor! When a noncustodial parent in California, usually a father, pays child support for a child who is or was on welfare, only $50 goes to the child. The rest of the child support payment is used to reimburse the government for welfare payouts.
Because so little of the support money actually goes to children, the system discourages fathers from paying child support. And because it turns out to be better financially for their kids, many of these fathers work in the underground economy and slip money under the table to the mothers of their children. Because they get so little of the support payments, the mothers -- and the majority of custodial parents are mothers -- have little incentive to help the government find absent fathers or establish paternity.
But Congress changed the law, giving states authority to pass along more of the support payment absent fathers pay to their children. Under the new rules, the federal government would finance most of the cost. States can pocket the federal funds or pass the money on to poor children.
California still has an opportunity to do the right thing, and it should."
Here's a novel approach. Non Custodial parents need to pay their child support by the first of the month. No more allowing the department of child support services to say - "well of course the court order says it's due by the first, but we don't count it as not paid until the last day of the month." Immediate follow up when it's not paid.
If an employer can't get it right on their payroll system, let them pay a fine. If the non-custodial parent is unemployed, give them cuts in line at EDD to get help in finding a job.
If they are disabled and can't pay for some reason - then let them work it off in trade. There are several agencies contracted by each state for disabled people to get trained and work state jobs.
If they are being obnoxious and just don't want to pay, let them think about that in jail, or while they are performing serious community service.
If a custodial parent is on welfare, let them receive the full amount of any child support paid, and reduce the welfare payout that month to offset it.
Why are things so difficult? Oh yeah, because there are bureaucracies involved.
I think I'll start contacting the California Legislators this week and find out where they stand on child support legislation and why they have the stance they do. I'll report as I hear back from them.
Legislature should revive child support bill
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 8, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B6
Talk about punishing the poor! When a noncustodial parent in California, usually a father, pays child support for a child who is or was on welfare, only $50 goes to the child. The rest of the child support payment is used to reimburse the government for welfare payouts.
Because so little of the support money actually goes to children, the system discourages fathers from paying child support. And because it turns out to be better financially for their kids, many of these fathers work in the underground economy and slip money under the table to the mothers of their children. Because they get so little of the support payments, the mothers -- and the majority of custodial parents are mothers -- have little incentive to help the government find absent fathers or establish paternity.
But Congress changed the law, giving states authority to pass along more of the support payment absent fathers pay to their children. Under the new rules, the federal government would finance most of the cost. States can pocket the federal funds or pass the money on to poor children.
Here's a novel approach. Non Custodial parents need to pay their child support by the first of the month. No more allowing the department of child support services to say - "well of course the court order says it's due by the first, but we don't count it as not paid until the last day of the month." Immediate follow up when it's not paid.
If an employer can't get it right on their payroll system, let them pay a fine. If the non-custodial parent is unemployed, give them cuts in line at EDD to get help in finding a job.
If they are disabled and can't pay for some reason - then let them work it off in trade. There are several agencies contracted by each state for disabled people to get trained and work state jobs.
If they are being obnoxious and just don't want to pay, let them think about that in jail, or while they are performing serious community service.
If a custodial parent is on welfare, let them receive the full amount of any child support paid, and reduce the welfare payout that month to offset it.
Why are things so difficult? Oh yeah, because there are bureaucracies involved.
I think I'll start contacting the California Legislators this week and find out where they stand on child support legislation and why they have the stance they do. I'll report as I hear back from them.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
another email received
I'm Jackie and I have 2 wonderful daughters, 13 & 11. I've been divorced since October 1998. My kids and I live in the Portland, OR area and my ex-husband, their deadbeat dad, is somewhere on the eastern shore of Virginia. He's not worked for several years and hasn't contacted the girls in almost a year now. Last I heard, in the spring, he had to go to court on willful support evasion and was sentenced to 12 months, but the state won't give me any details on if he's actually in custody at this point. His arrears to date is $18,111, he's just over 3 years behind. I don't know how they found him but I'm thankful they did.
Again, if you want the name of your deadbeat published - email me for info
Again, if you want the name of your deadbeat published - email me for info
Privatization
I mentioned last week that I thought child support services should be privatized - based on a few observations - number one, the constitutionality of a new type of debtor prison we have instituted - but being a recipient of assistance by the child support department, I am happy to receive that assistance. Our deadbeat would never voluntarily pay, he only pays when the boot of the justice system is seemingly on his throat.
http://haloscan.com/tb/jverner/rw_unique_entry_id_41_page70 had an interesting post on this. "And therein lies the rub. As with any large, bureaucratic organization, efficiency frequently suffers. Private child support collection agencies often do a better job of collecting child support than does the AG's office. In a recent court hearing in Dallas, a judge scolded an assistant AG for allowing a child support obligor to fall tens of thousands of dollars behind. A private agency, the judge observed, would have stayed on top of the matter. In another case, a federal judge remarked that one private child support collection agency "has achieved an undisputed impressive rate of collection."
Private child support collection agencies charge fees, but they tend to produce better results than the AG's office. Why couldn't the AG's office do better? How comfortable would we be with privatizing child support collection altogether? Although the system would probably operate more efficiently, there is something about granting this much government power to a private company that gives me the willies.
"
Here's my take - if a private organization received the matching funds that the states currently do, and operated on grants and other funding options they wouldn't have to charge the custodial parents part of the child support proceeds.
My scoff is, if employees currently working for our lovely county employers, had their paycheck, bonuses, and job actually based on performance you'd see a huge increase in collection of past due amounts. The entire system needs an overhaul from ground up.
http://haloscan.com/tb/jverner/rw_unique_entry_id_41_page70 had an interesting post on this. "And therein lies the rub. As with any large, bureaucratic organization, efficiency frequently suffers. Private child support collection agencies often do a better job of collecting child support than does the AG's office. In a recent court hearing in Dallas, a judge scolded an assistant AG for allowing a child support obligor to fall tens of thousands of dollars behind. A private agency, the judge observed, would have stayed on top of the matter. In another case, a federal judge remarked that one private child support collection agency "has achieved an undisputed impressive rate of collection."
Private child support collection agencies charge fees, but they tend to produce better results than the AG's office. Why couldn't the AG's office do better? How comfortable would we be with privatizing child support collection altogether? Although the system would probably operate more efficiently, there is something about granting this much government power to a private company that gives me the willies.
"
Here's my take - if a private organization received the matching funds that the states currently do, and operated on grants and other funding options they wouldn't have to charge the custodial parents part of the child support proceeds.
My scoff is, if employees currently working for our lovely county employers, had their paycheck, bonuses, and job actually based on performance you'd see a huge increase in collection of past due amounts. The entire system needs an overhaul from ground up.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
General Musings
As I look at various articles, blogs, and opinions on child support - I'd like to make it clear that this blog in particular is not "anti-man" or "anti-father". My personal child support battle is with a non-custodial father. This only means that my perspective is a female perspective, and one that has to battle both the child support division and the non-custodial father.
Glenn Sacks has caught my eye with his very very bitter view of women, and that all things women must have an agenda - I believe that as much as I believe all men are deceitful, dishonest and cheaters. (It covers a few, but not all)
I absolutely believe that short of abusive behavior, or dangerous activities - Fathers should have the opportunity to be a father to their children. As frustrating as it is to seemingly be locked in a battle over financial responsibility, I personally believe it's separate and shouldn't impact a father's presence in a child's life. Likewise if it's the mother that is not paying, but can be in a child's life, that would be optimal. We choose the battles we fight with our children because we want to mold them and help them become the best adults that they can be, we need to give them character and a moral background. That can include fighting the child support battle -
I'm not anti-father's right; not pro-mother's rights. I am pro-child(ren) and feel like the system is broken. The whole child support system should probably be overhauled and taken out of public sector and into the private sector, still utilizing the court system as necessary.
More later....
Glenn Sacks has caught my eye with his very very bitter view of women, and that all things women must have an agenda - I believe that as much as I believe all men are deceitful, dishonest and cheaters. (It covers a few, but not all)
I absolutely believe that short of abusive behavior, or dangerous activities - Fathers should have the opportunity to be a father to their children. As frustrating as it is to seemingly be locked in a battle over financial responsibility, I personally believe it's separate and shouldn't impact a father's presence in a child's life. Likewise if it's the mother that is not paying, but can be in a child's life, that would be optimal. We choose the battles we fight with our children because we want to mold them and help them become the best adults that they can be, we need to give them character and a moral background. That can include fighting the child support battle -
I'm not anti-father's right; not pro-mother's rights. I am pro-child(ren) and feel like the system is broken. The whole child support system should probably be overhauled and taken out of public sector and into the private sector, still utilizing the court system as necessary.
More later....
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
More on Travis Henry
According to a Colorado Fox News Report
"Broncos running back Travis Henry won't face discipline from the NFL over his child support issues.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says the league's personal conduct policy "generally covers criminal violations, not civil matters" such as Henry's."
So the NFL cares about pit bulls, but not so much about children not being supported because of a technicality of civil vs. criminal? Way to go NFL!!
If you'd like to contact the NFL about this - here are a few ways to contact them.
212 450 2000 - NFL Headquarters.
Roger Goodell is the League Commissioner and Greg Aiello is the VP of Media/Spokesman
Just a note: Apparently Colorado doesn't have criminal options in child support until it reaches the federal level. I'll bet not all 9 children were conceived or reside in Colorado - maybe another state would look at it differently and maybe(?!?) the league would take a different look at it. Hard to know, since PETA isn't involved.
"Broncos running back Travis Henry won't face discipline from the NFL over his child support issues.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello says the league's personal conduct policy "generally covers criminal violations, not civil matters" such as Henry's."
So the NFL cares about pit bulls, but not so much about children not being supported because of a technicality of civil vs. criminal? Way to go NFL!!
If you'd like to contact the NFL about this - here are a few ways to contact them.
212 450 2000 - NFL Headquarters.
Roger Goodell is the League Commissioner and Greg Aiello is the VP of Media/Spokesman
Just a note: Apparently Colorado doesn't have criminal options in child support until it reaches the federal level. I'll bet not all 9 children were conceived or reside in Colorado - maybe another state would look at it differently and maybe(?!?) the league would take a different look at it. Hard to know, since PETA isn't involved.
Glenn Sacks Article
Glenn writes in mensnewsdaily.com "I've been hard on child support officials in the past for their ridiculous pretense that when fathers don't pay their child support, it means that they have the money but are being stingy with their kids. Research shows just the opposite--the fathers who can pay, do so. Most who don't pay, can't.
I want to commend child support enforcement in this blog post, so I won't belabor the point. To learn more about the problems with the child support system, see my co-authored column When Beating up on 'Deadbeat Dads' is Unfair (Houston Chronicle, 1/7/07), {snip}
In this article, David Engle, director of the Washington County Department of Social Services, explains that one of the biggest barriers to paying support is unemployment. He says:
"The No. 1 reason why people can't pay their support is they're not able to find a job, or a job doesn't give them sufficient funds to pay the support," he said."
While I can see where some parents who don't pay child support don't because they don't have the money; at the end of the day, I don't find that a valid excuse.
There is not extra money in our budget for anything, but if I didn't continue to pay my rent, pay my bills, buy my daughter clothes, make sure she was eating healthily, keep health insurance for her, and in general financially support my daughter - I'd be rightfully in trouble eventually with the law for child neglect. So why do we try to make excuses for non-custodial parents who have a difficult time paying child support. Seems like a slippery slope to me.
And by the way what research is he talking about anyway?
I want to commend child support enforcement in this blog post, so I won't belabor the point. To learn more about the problems with the child support system, see my co-authored column When Beating up on 'Deadbeat Dads' is Unfair (Houston Chronicle, 1/7/07), {snip}
In this article, David Engle, director of the Washington County Department of Social Services, explains that one of the biggest barriers to paying support is unemployment. He says:
"The No. 1 reason why people can't pay their support is they're not able to find a job, or a job doesn't give them sufficient funds to pay the support," he said."
While I can see where some parents who don't pay child support don't because they don't have the money; at the end of the day, I don't find that a valid excuse.
There is not extra money in our budget for anything, but if I didn't continue to pay my rent, pay my bills, buy my daughter clothes, make sure she was eating healthily, keep health insurance for her, and in general financially support my daughter - I'd be rightfully in trouble eventually with the law for child neglect. So why do we try to make excuses for non-custodial parents who have a difficult time paying child support. Seems like a slippery slope to me.
And by the way what research is he talking about anyway?
California DMV Information
One of the ways that the child support services department enforces past due child support, is by suspending drivers licenses when payment has not been received for more than 30 days.
It varies wildly when this is actually done. Assembly Bill 923 went into effect on
January 1, 1996. This law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to
suspend the license privilege of any individual not paying child support. This
includes all drivers’ license classifications (non-commercial and commercial).
The individual's driving privilege is suspended under Family Code Section 17520.
Here's the problem - Child Support Services won't actually tell you, if they know, if a suspension is in place. It's an automated system that doesn't always work. AND, the suspended licensee is actually given up to 150 days with a suspended license with a temporary license, while negotiations are going on to make the payments.
Here's the good news it is possible through the DMV to find out if the other parent's license has in fact been suspended, the DMV will notify the other person of the request, but still give you the information. This has to be done through the Sacramento office and normally takes about 2 weeks to find out. You can also find out what other vehicles are registered to the person at this time.
Here's the code allowing the request: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/inf/inf70_r8_2004.pdf
and here is the form to request the information: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/inf/inf70.pdf
For our situation, I'm thinking that a drivers license could be an important thing for a hauling and demo company owner.
It varies wildly when this is actually done. Assembly Bill 923 went into effect on
January 1, 1996. This law requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to
suspend the license privilege of any individual not paying child support. This
includes all drivers’ license classifications (non-commercial and commercial).
The individual's driving privilege is suspended under Family Code Section 17520.
Here's the problem - Child Support Services won't actually tell you, if they know, if a suspension is in place. It's an automated system that doesn't always work. AND, the suspended licensee is actually given up to 150 days with a suspended license with a temporary license, while negotiations are going on to make the payments.
Here's the good news it is possible through the DMV to find out if the other parent's license has in fact been suspended, the DMV will notify the other person of the request, but still give you the information. This has to be done through the Sacramento office and normally takes about 2 weeks to find out. You can also find out what other vehicles are registered to the person at this time.
Here's the code allowing the request: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/inf/inf70_r8_2004.pdf
and here is the form to request the information: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/inf/inf70.pdf
For our situation, I'm thinking that a drivers license could be an important thing for a hauling and demo company owner.
Denying passports helps secure back child support
From http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070815/news_1n15passport.html
The new passport requirements that have complicated travel this summer also have uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions. The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports."
I'm not totally sure how I feel about this. I'm all for collecting child support; I'm back to my original statement that it certainly at times seems to be unconstitutional the level that is reached. Passports are intended to show citizenship. Will they be denied for other collection purposes later?
The amounts listed above are outrageous!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Most Frustrating
I think what is most frustrating to parents that would like to receive regular child support is that we do abide by legal options available. We may send letters, or telephone our reminders to the non-custodial parents - but it seems as though the non - custodial parents are the ones that get to break all of the laws and there seems to be little more than a slap on the wrist.
Take this example:
Take this example:
George sent me an email today, he like a growing number of men, is the custodial parent. The non-custodial parent in this instance is Denise McKnight, current past due amount is over $69,000. She was last known to reside in
If you come across this blog and happen to know where either of these non-paying parents are, shoot us an email at shaylalalala@gmail.com.
If you’d like to profile someone – send an email to the same address.
an email I received
It's certainly not just my child's father that won't pay for child support. I was copied on an email this week.
"Broncos running back Travis Henry has a lot of money. Enough that he has a $100,000 car. Enough that he's spent $146,000 on jewelry. But not enough to take care of his kids. "
Shameful!
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/08/25/broncos-running-back-travis-henry-has-nine-children-by-nine-diff/
I'll be posting stories of real people, and the amounts owed, current legislation - lack of effort on child support services etc. in the days to come.
More soon......
Hat tip to Maja for the email.
"Broncos running back Travis Henry has a lot of money. Enough that he has a $100,000 car. Enough that he's spent $146,000 on jewelry. But not enough to take care of his kids. "
The blog entry continues, quoting the Atlanta Constitution "Henry, 28, has fathered nine children by nine women in at least four Southern states and has been ordered by various judges to provide child support for seven of them, according to court records involving one child living in DeKalb County.
DeKalb Superior Court Judge Clarence Seeliger this week ordered Henry to provide $3,000 a month for the Lithonia boy he fathered out of wedlock three years ago"
Nine children! What I saw of the article didn't indicate how current he was on the other support orders, but if he's having to provide a trust for this one, I'll take a guess not terribly current.Shameful!
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/08/25/broncos-running-back-travis-henry-has-nine-children-by-nine-diff/
I'll be posting stories of real people, and the amounts owed, current legislation - lack of effort on child support services etc. in the days to come.
More soon......
Hat tip to Maja for the email.
An interesting journey we take when we try to get child support enforced
It’s quite an odd thing, in my opinion, to have to fight for a parent to pay child support. While I’m not entirely sure that the system the way it is set up, is constitutional - or fair to any party - including the child(ren). It is in fact what we have to work with.
It’s odd that this is the only debtor’s prison system that our American Justice system has, yet without that threat, how many children would not get their child support payment from the non-custodial (or joint custodial) parent.
I’m chronicling my journey. I’ve tried to abide by the laws, and the child support system, I’ve attempted to be reasonable, to be firm, to be accommodating, but at the end of the day, if the other parent doesn’t want to pay, it’s pretty difficult to get him to pay.
So this time, there are no threats, there is no ultimatum, there was no warning of consequences, it is what it is. I no longer care that there are children involved in this situation that don’t know they have a younger sibling, or that there is a wife that resents that her husband has to pay child support.
I don’t care anymore about all of the lies and deceptions that got us to this point. I only care that my daughter is not receiving child support from her father. So, the journey begins to tell the story….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)