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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)