Child Support Matters

Judge denies challenge to child support rules

2009-01-08T00:54:00.000-05:00

By WHDH-TV Staff and Associated Press
WHDH-TV
updated 12:17 a.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 6, 2009
BOSTON - A federal judge on Monday rejected a bid to stop state family court judges from using new child support guidelines that a fathers' rights group claims are unfair.
Fathers and Families Inc., a Boston-based group that pushes for reform of child custody and support policies, last month sued the state's chief administrative Judge Robert Mulligan and state trial court judges over the new guidelines -- which the group claims are burdensome to fathers and do not take into account the costs of raising children.

What did you think was going to happen that a judge would allow this to happen, Please we all know how judges see fathers and child support, I believe that it is as a ATM machines..

FW: PWC JDR Court Judge declares EVERY SINGLE DCSE Order against me back to the beginning in 2001 to be VOID AB INITIO!!!

2008-10-11T23:02:00.000-04:00

Great News

From: David Briggman [mailto:briggman@gmail.com]

Subject: PWC JDR Court Judge declares EVERY SINGLE DCSE Order against me back to the beginning in 2001 to be VOID AB INITIO!!!

Folks,

I wanted to give you all an update onmy fight against DCSE and their NAZI tactics and void orders.

On Thursday, I was in JDR Court before former Fairfax County Judge Michael Valentine (this guy's got a cool and distinguished resumé) on a Rule to Show Cause for violating a 2005 order — which had been superceded numerous times — but the first order of business was the Demurrer I had filed.

DCSE filed not only a response to the Demurrer, but a motion for sanctions both against me, as well as John Bauserman should he have agreed to argue to the Demurrer on my behalf — which John did quite capably).

Let me preface this by stating I was 100% that Judge Valentine wanted to bury my sorry ass under the Prince William County jail back in February, but I elected to "come current" on DCSE's alleged arrearage prior to the hearing.

On Thursday, I had already prepared a Notice of Appeal (which I think is a good idea for anyone going through a show cause hearing in JDR Court)...but after about 15 minutesof preliminary matters, I had already concluded I wasn't going to need the Notice and I balled it up quietly and placed it beside me on the table.

The sole issue issue we orally argued from the Demurrer was the "non-attorney employee of DCSE" signing legal pleadings — the first they did on my behalf in 2002, which reduced my support obligations for a couple of months retroactively back to the date of filing in 2001. Our argument was that this order — and every single order based on this order were void ab initio on grounds that they were either based on a void order or were void themselves.

While the judge stated that he was in favor on the amended legislation so far as it permits non-attorney employees to practice law by signing these pleadings, he stated that "any first year [law student] would know that the retroactive application of this legislation (which is clearly written into the law) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Ultimately, the Judge sustained my Demurrer and dismissed the Rule to Show Cause. DCSE has 10 days to appeal to Circuit Court...John begged them to do so on my behalf and I ended up laughing my ass off all of the way out of the courtroom...the Judge denied DCSE's motion to reconsider, telling them to take it to Circuit Court.

Needless to say, both John and I were stunned, but we feel that this is the first post-enactment finding on the side AGAINST DCSE and will likely end up again back on the front cover of Virginia Lawyer's Weekly for all attorneys throughout the Commonwealth to read.

What does this mean for me? I think it'll mean an elimination of several thousands of dollars — if not the entire balance of the $13,000 arrearage...should any of you want what is known as the "Briggman defense" in it's complete form, simply email me.

It was a glorious day for non-custodial parents throughout Virginia and could be the beginning of the vacation of 1,000,000 child support orders throughout the Commonwealth.

Dave Briggman

Utah Woman Forced To Pay Child Support... But Has No Kids

2008-05-23T22:35:00.000-04:00

Debra Horton has a dog, but no children. So imagine her surprise when the Internal Revenue Service took $1,500 from her to pay child support.

The IRS deducted $1,525 from Horton's income tax refund to go toward the child support, but when she tried to explain to officials that she had no kids -- it didn't seem to change things.

"I have never had children," she said. "I know that I would have been there."

The order to intercept Debra's tax refund came from the Fairfax, Virginia division of child support enforcement -- and it even had a case number. But since she has never had children, there is no actual case.

But Debra's first attempt at resolving the issue was met with an audio recording. Eventually, we got involved and got Debra through to an actual person. But rather than sending the money back to her -- officials mistakenly sent it to another person's bank account.

Next, Debra called an official in Virginia and was referred to the Utah office. Someone in the Provo office then referred her to the Virginia governor's office.

But instead of calling the governor, we contacted officials at the Office of Recovery Services in Utah. Though they have nothing to do with Debra's problem, perhaps they could get officials in Virginia to hurry things up.

And apparently, it worked. Debra soon received a refund check from Virginia in the mail. Kathleen Taylor, at the Office of Recovery Services, put a stop to the nonsense.

"We were just able to follow up with the people from the other state... and we said 'let's just do it,'" Taylor said.

By the way, Debra did actually send an e-mail message to the governor's office in Virginia -- but never got a response.

Child Support Vs School

2008-05-23T22:28:00.001-04:00

By Andrew Scott

Pocono Record Writer

May 21, 2008

EAST STROUDSBURG — A ruling that could make it harder for Pocono area school districts to stop families from sending children here to be educated has been handed down by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

The ruling says a local resident raising a child is not violating state law by receiving child support from the child's parent if the parent lives outside the area. The decision stems from a 2006 case in the East Stroudsburg Area School District.

State law says a child can attend school in a district if the child lives in that district with a parent, legal guardian or caregiver raising the child "gratis" (free of compensation or personal profit), as if the child were their own. The child is ineligible to attend school in the district if the parent, legal guardian or caregiver receives compensation, the definition of which does not apply to child support.

Commonwealth Court Judge Doris Smith-Ribner said Monday that the law does not recognize child support as compensation and neither should school districts and their boards.

The East Stroudsburg Area School Board did just that when it voted in 2006 to remove student Jose Velazquez, now 17. Velazquez for most of his life has been raised in the Poconos by his grandmother, Renee Speaks-Velazquez. She has been receiving child support from his mother, who lives out of state, while his father is in prison.

Jose Velazquez was a sophomore during the 2005-06 school year when he was involved in an incident with a school resource officer. Velazquez said the officer harassed and used unnecessary excessive force to restrain him.

Monroe County Juvenile Court found Velazquez delinquent of disorderly conduct in connection with that incident and ordered him sent to a boot camp program.

The school district meanwhile learned he was being raised by his grandmother, that she is not his court-appointed guardian and that she receives child support for him. District staff advised the school board that he no longer was eligible to continue as a student and the board then voted to remove him.

Velazquez was allowed to finish out his sophomore year.

In October 2006, his grandmother filed a petition in county court to reverse the school board decision. President Judge Ronald Vican denied the petition, upholding the school board's vote, after which Speaks-Velazquez appealed in Commonwealth Court.

Meanwhile, Velazquez in December 2006 was charged with stabbing Joseph Paulino, 20, during an argument behind the East Stroudsburg Kmart. Velazquez said the stabbing was self-defense. Paulino was treated for injuries at the hospital and later released.

Velazquez turned himself in after the stabbing and was arrested and placed in Monroe County Correctional Facility to await future court proceedings. He was unable to post the required $50,000 bail and stayed in county jail for 15 months, more than the minimum amount of time to which he would have been sentenced if convicted.

He did, however, continue his high school education in jail while the appeal on his case with the school district was pending in Commonwealth Court.

He was released in March after his bail was reduced to unsecured status, which means he's free without having to post an amount as long as he shows up for all future court proceedings on the stabbing case. That case is still pending while the District Attorney's Office tries to locate Paulino, who reportedly has left the country.

Commonwealth Court on Monday ruled Vican had made "an error in law" when upholding the school board's decision to remove Velazquez.

The higher court ruled:

The school district, school board and county court should not have viewed the child support received by Velazquez's grandmother as compensation or used that as the basis for the decision to remove him from school.
His grandmother's failure to seek court-appointed guardianship is irrelevant since she has shown that she raised him as if he were her own child. She said she purposely exercised her right to not seek guardianship because she wants to preserve his relationship with his parents.

"This decision can have a big impact on Pennsylvania school districts," said Len Rieser, co-director of the Educational Law Center in Philadelphia. "Many districts interpret the law as East Stroudsburg did and make the error of viewing child support payments as compensation."

That error is on the side of caution in ensuring students truly are residents eligible to attend school in the district, said Eric Forsyth, director of administrative services for the East Stroudsburg Area School District.

Some parents living outside the area send their children here to live with relatives or others because they view this area's school districts as superior. But, if the people those children are sent to live with cannot prove they don't receive compensation or that they're raising the children as if they were their own, then the children are not district residents and legally cannot attend school here.

"As most people might know, the state provides less than 25 percent of the funding to educate each student in the district, with tax dollars providing the rest," said Forsyth. "Taxes continue to rise as more and more students keep coming into the district. So, yes, we do try to make sure all of our students meet the strict legal definition of being residents."

Forsyth said it's not known at this time if the school board will appeal Commonwealth Court's decision in state Supreme Court.

Calling the decision "a victory," Speaks-Velazquez said the next step at this point is getting her grandson back in school.

"Even though he's missed his junior year and most of his senior year, he should be able to graduate this year, since he's been on schedule with taking his courses," she said.

Would a father get the same deal

2008-05-23T22:21:00.001-04:00

MANCHESTER – A local woman was given a suspended sentence this week after admitting she did not pay $18,439.66 in court-ordered child support.

Samantha Bilodeau, 37, of Manchester was sentenced Wednesday in Hillsborough County Superior Court-Northern District. She pleaded guilty to a felony charge of criminal non-support.

Judge William J. Groff sentenced her to two to four years in prison, with all but time served - 208 days - suspended for five years.

The sentence includes five years probation, under the supervision of the state Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) Legal-Criminal Enforcement Unit. Bilodeau also had to sign a waiver of extradition.

Wayne Jeffrey, DCSS program specialist/criminal investigator, said today it is "not as uncommon" as in the past to find some women not paying their court-ordered child support. Another woman, he said, currently is being held in the Valley Street jail for not paying back child support.

"We try not to use that term 'dead beat,' but there are some dead beat moms," he said.

Bilodeau’s apprehension and prosecution is the result of the combinedefforts of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department, the Office of theHillsborough County Attorney, and DCSS.

This Cow Ann Heche get a pass on month of child.

2008-05-17T15:42:00.005-04:00

"My recurring business expenditures, household expenditures and support payments have nearly exhausted my financial resources...I am continuing to look for work but I have no offers pending and the impending strike by the Screen Actors Guild reduces my prospects for work even further."

Men in Trees has gone the way of the dodo. Unfortunately, Anne Heche's cash supply seems to be nearing extinction, as well.

After Heche claimed she'll be more than $6,000 in the hole if she's required to shell out any more money, a judge on Wednesday granted the actress' request to suspend child and spousal support payments to ex-husband Coley Laffoon for the month of July, according to court documents obtained by E! News. (View the docs.)

If it was the Husband the judge would have said NO Way, Pay or go to Jail.

I wonder what she did to get this order. I bet there was some knee work involve

This the Judge who allow this to happen. Would she done the same for a Father who fell on hard time. Hell No she wouldn't, Just goes to show that Men are the only one force to pay support even if they can't afford it, and mother don't have to, nor will be force too.

Every father in LA should call her and complain about her bias towards fathers.

This is a good quote

Strange...the courts don't take your financial situation into account when you are a MAN!!!! You have to pay even if it means you end up living in a refrigerator box under an overpass!!! Why is she getting special treatment?? Because she's a WOMAN??? I thought we were all equal now... This is b******t!

Judicial Officers · Permanent Assignments

Sort by: Department | Last Name

Name	Title	Location	Dept.	Phone
FEUER, GAIL R	Judge	Stanley Mosk Courthouse	67	(213) 974-4331

What,Where and How

2008-05-17T14:07:00.002-04:00

Bill would lengthen child support payments

2008-05-07T12:22:00.000-04:00

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Parents could be on the hook for child-support payments past their child's 18th birthday under a bill to be considered today in a Senate subcommittee.

That could cost a noncustodial parent an extra $3,000 if he or she was forced to pay an additional year of child support. But it would also ensure students who started school later than their peers would not have their financial support yanked while they were still in high school.

The bill says that if a child is still in high school, the parent would have to make child-support payments until the child graduated or until the youth turned 19, whichever occurred later.

The changes were proposed at the urging of South Carolina Department of Social Services officials who were beginning to see signs that more and more students were getting caught in a gap between their 18th birthday and graduation day.

"If you had a child whose birthday was in October and they turn 18 in their senior year, they are without child support for about 9 months," said Larry McKeown, director of DSS division of child support enforcement.

"This levels the playing field. There is nothing magical in the 18th birthday. The magic is in paying child support until they finish school as long as your child is making satisfactory progress," McKeown said.

Since 2003 the amount of child-support payments paid to parents caring for children has crept up steadily from $244 million to $254 million last fiscal year. The number of cases stayed about the same, while the collection amounts increased from $239 to $256 per month, according to DSS data.

The House approved the bill in February.

Federal rebates check

2008-04-29T15:22:00.000-04:00

GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - Many Wisconsinites will be getting long-promised federal tax rebates soon, but some of those payments are being diverted.

The state Department of Workforce Development says all or part of the economic stimulus payments to more than 171,000 people in Wisconsin will be intercepted because they're behind in child support payments.

the federal Bradley Amendment

2008-04-26T21:36:00.000-04:00

the federal Bradley Amendment for child support is unconstitutional:
1. violation of due process under the 4th and 5th Amendments
2. deprival of equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment

Write your Congress and Senate to repeal Bradley!

and more details at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com

Child Support Mess: The Bradley Amendment
Uploaded by repealbradley

Man get CS Back.

2008-03-21T22:53:00.001-04:00

Judge David Roper said he felt bad for Kenneth Samuels when he learned the child he had fathered for 11 years wasn't his.

Justice was also shortchanged, the judge said, because Mr. Samuels had been paying child support all of those years.

Last month, Judge Roper ruled that Jamie Hope, the child's mother, and Oba Wallace, the child's biological father, would have to repay Mr. Samuels $14,460 in child support he had paid since 1997.

Such an order is unusual, but not unique.

"We have seen it happen before," said Sandra Jarrett of the state's Child Support Recovery Unit.

Usually there is no intent to defraud, Ms. Jarrett said. Mothers who have had relationships with more than one man might not know who the biological father Is without a DNA test.
Read more here

Once again VA can't get it Right

2008-03-21T22:40:00.001-04:00

They claim it a name mixed up, bullshit, it would have to be a name an SSN # mix up , these thieves knows no end to the corruption that they swim in. VA DCSE would have to file a notice with IRS to take this money, That would have meant in October Ms Pyne would have to receive two notices by law, one from the IRS and other from VA DCSE. I bet neither happen. FACE it VA DCSE is full of thieves.

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Victories Pyne moved from Africa to America to become a part of the dream. Now she is part of a bureaucratic nightmare.

"They need to make it straight," says Pyne.

Pyne, a mother and a wife, filed her tax return and was expecting $5954. However, she received a letter from the Department of Treasury saying it will be less -- much less.

"I was so mad," says Pyne.

The letter stated they were deducting $2588 to reimburse Child Support Services in Virginia. Pyne says the problem is that she has never been in Virginia.

"I have never been there. I don't even know where it is," says Pyne.

She's doesn't know if it is a mix up in social security numbers, but she says she needs her full refund.

Pyne says, "I want it. I've got bills to pay. I wish I could get it today."

The State Of Virginia reviewed her case and says it is a situation where her name was mixed up with someone else, so they are going to refund her money.

Under federal law, if a taxpayer's refund is seized or garnished because of a delinquent student loan or child support services, the taxpayer has to resolve the issue through the reporting agency.

The IRS/Department of Treasury will not get involved.

Dads win in new child support appeals

2008-03-11T05:14:00.000-04:00

Finally NCp get some rights concerding thier child support case in Australia.

THOUSANDS of separated parents - generally fathers - are making use of new appeal rights against the Child Support Agency, with many overturning decisions on payments and income assessments.

A Daily Telegraph investigation can reveal that 1190 parents unhappy with Child Support Agency decisions lined up to use new hearing rights with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT) granted early last year.

In about half of valid appeals so far determined, Child Support Agency decisions have been modified, usually resulting in adjustments in payments.

The high number of challenges in the SSAT can be revealed as the agency begins sending out 1.5 million new payment assessments in the lead up to a new child support assessment system to take effect from July 1.

The new system is the biggest reform since the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act was passed by Federal Parliament in 1988, setting up the agency.

The existing fixed percentage payments regime will be dumped in favour of a more complex formula which takes into account both parents' incomes, higher expenses as children get older and the financial needs of children in second families.

Of the 581 valid appeals determined by the SSAT to date, about half, 280, resulted in the original Child Support Agency decision being changed. NSW parents have lodged 246 appeals with 107 decisions rebuffing the agency.

Both the Child Support Agency and the SSAT refused to state how many of the appeals were lodged by men but fathers are usually the paying parent so are more likely to lodge appeals.

Before the SSAT was given appeal powers, parents unhappy with decisions by the Child Support Agency had no recourse other than to pursue the expensive and time-consuming avenue of fighting it in the courts.

A spokesman for the Child Support Agency said the agency was prohibited by law from releasing any details on cases heard by the tribunal.

But he said more than half of all cases were disputes over assessment of child support payments, with the remaining 43 per cent concerning "care, the credit of non-agency payments and acceptance of estimated incomes".

Men's Rights Agency director Sue Price said it was good news that Child Support decisions were being successfully challenged, but she called upon the SSAT to make its decisions public.

Ms Price said present laws meant any identification of individual cases could lead to heavy fines or a jail sentence.

Judge Order Child Support in traffic Court Proceeding

2008-03-01T17:28:00.001-05:00

See the case below, where there was no child support, so the Judge decide that there should be an child support, so he took upon himself to order one.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and

Agee, JJ., and Lacy, S.J.

ANDREW JACKSON MARTIN

v. Record No. 070136 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS

November 2, 2007

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

In this appeal, we consider whether a court may require a defendant to submit to court-ordered child support as a condition of a suspended sentence. For the reasons stated below, the judgment of the Court of Appeals will be affirmed.

Facts and Proceedings Below

On October 23, 2005, at about 7:20 p.m., Officer Huffman of the Chesterfield County police observed Andrew Jackson Martin ("Martin") driving with a defective taillight. The Officer followed Martin into a service station and when Martin began walking towards the store, asked him to come back. Officer Huffman explained to Martin why he was being stopped and asked him for his driver's license and registration. When Martin responded that he did not have a license, Officer Huffman initiated a records check and found out that Martin's license was suspended. Martin had been adjudicated an habitual offender in 1997, and notified of this status in January of 1998. Upon presentation to the grand jury, Martin was indicted for driving after having been declared an habitual offender. Upon trial by the court without a jury, Martin was found guilty. At sentencing, it was determined that Martin had at least six similar offenses. The court stated that this was "not really a driving offense but a failure to obey the orders of the Court." Martin testified at sentencing about his children and indicated that he does "take care of [his] kids," but was not under a court order to do so. He was sentenced to five years in prison, but the trial court suspended three years and six months of the sentence upon condition that the defendant be of good behavior, submit to supervised probation, and pay the costs of the proceeding. Additionally, the terms of the suspended sentence included a requirement that Martin "report to the Division of Child Support Enforcement and submit to an order of support for any child that is not in the defendant's custody."

Martin objected to the condition relating to child support, stating that it was unrelated to the charge, and that it additionally imposes an obligation on a third party – the mother of his child – to cooperate. He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal by order, stating that the condition was within the trial court's discretion and was reasonable. Martin v. Commonwealth, Record No. 1598-06-2 (December 19, 2006). We awarded him an appeal upon two assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred by ordering as a condition of his suspended penitentiary sentence that the appellant submit to court ordered child support for any children for which he did not have legal custody.

2. The Court of Appeals of Virginia erred by finding that the order of the trial judge was within his discretion.

II. Analysis

The determination of sentencing lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See e.g., Lane v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 713, 719, 292 S.E.2d 358, 362 (1982) (citations omitted). A sentencing decision will not be reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion. See id.

Martin argues that the child support condition of the sentencing order is not reasonable and that it is not related to the underlying offense. He claims that child support has no connection to the commission of the crime, that there must be a nexus between the crime and the conditions placed on a suspended sentence, and that this condition was therefore unreasonable.

However, Code § 19.2-305(B) provides in relevant part that "[a] defendant placed on probation following conviction may . . . be required to provide for the support of his wife or others for whose support he may be legally responsible."

Therefore, the General Assembly has made it clear that the trial court may impose this condition. At the sentencing hearing, Martin stated that he has two children with different mothers. He also explained that he lives with one of the children, but not the other and that there was not a child support order in place requiring him to support either of them. By requiring Martin to submit to court-ordered child support, the trial court simply imposed the requirements authorized by Code § 19.2-305(B). We note that the General Assembly has adopted child support guidelines in Code § 20- 108.2 and has empowered the Division of Child Support Enforcement to supervise and enforce child support payments. Code § 63.2-1901 et. seq. In light of these Code provisions, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

III. Conclusion

The judgment of the Court of Appeals will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

DELAWARE: Funds sought to replace child support enforcement system

2008-03-01T14:34:00.001-05:00

DOVER, Del. (AP) _ Delaware's Child Support Enforcement Division wants more than $4 million to fund a new automated system for locating, processing and collecting payments.

Division Director Charles Hayward says the money would cover about one-third of the state's share of the $42 million cost. The federal government would pay most of the rest.

Hayward told state lawmakers at a budget hearing Thursday that replacing the current 20-year-old system is top priority.

The division is also seeking $161,400 as part of a federal match to hire six staff members for the new automated system, and $211,100 in contractual services for parts of the project.

The new system isn't expected to be online until 2011.

Ex-child support clerk pleads guilty

2008-02-25T14:58:00.000-05:00

MERIDIAN -- Former Lauderdale County child support clerk Cindy Truhett has pleaded guilty to embezzlement of $216,000.

Truhett, 40, was the clerk for the Bank Plan, set up in Lauderdale and Clarke counties to collect child support from noncustodial parents and transfer it to custodial parents.

In a plea agreement, Truhett was sentenced Friday to eight years in prison, with four years suspended. She is to serve four years probation after her release.

The attorney general's office said the embezzlement occurred over a five-year period from 2002 to 2007.

"She accepted full responsibility. She's ready to pay the price for that and resume her life," said Truhett's attorney, Terry Jordan.

A bonding company has already repaid Lauderdale County the $216,000 that was embezzled. An audit is ongoing to determine if more money was taken.

The charges levied against Truhett were the result of a contempt case filed by Laura Main on April 23, 2007.

Main claimed that she made several attempts to contact Truhett when Main fell behind in receiving her support payments. Main further stated Truhett misled her in saying the "checks were in the mail."

"I'm going to tell you, I get no pleasure ... to see her family suffer, but people have to answer," said Main, who said $1,500 of her child support was embezzled.

Va. sues Texas collection agency over child support payments

2008-02-11T15:41:00.001-05:00

By Elizabeth Simpson
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 9, 2008

Virginia is suing a private child-support collection agency based in Texas for interfering with the state's collection efforts.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine and Attorney General Bob McDonnell announced the lawsuit on Friday.

In a news release, the state officials said the organization Supportkids Inc. sends wage-withholding notices to employers of parents who owe child support payments, and directs the employer to send payments directly to the company's office in Austin, Texas, rather than to Virginia's Division of Child Support Enforcement.

The private company charges parents who have custody of the children a 34 percent fee before forwarding the remainder of the payment, according to the state's news release. Under Virginia law, child support payments must be routed through the Division of Child Support Enforcement, a state agency.

Messages and e-mails to the Supportkids company asking for a response to the lawsuit were not immediately responded to on Friday.

Families typically turn to a private, for-profit child-support collection agency when the state has not been successful in collecting payments.

According to the Supportkids' Web site, the company has collected more than $360 million since 1991 on behalf of clients, making it the largest private child-support collection company in the country.

In the news release about the lawsuit, Kaine said Virginia's Child Support Enforcement agency collected more than $608 million last year for 484,000 children who are owed money.

Some parents and coalitions support the efforts of private agencies, saying they give parents more options in collecting money for their children.

Nick Young, director of the state's Child Support Enforcement agency, said the state has received complaints from employers and non-custodial parents who confuse the private company with the state support enforcement division.

He said in some cases, parents and employers are getting notices from both the state and the private agency. "Employers are calling us saying, 'Which one do we send it to?' " Young said.

Young said some child custody cases involve several children, and the private company might pursue collection for only one of the children at the expense of the others, which creates inequities. He said other attempts have been made to try to get the private companies to follow the state's legal requirements for child support payments, but this is the first time the state has filed a lawsuit.

Elizabeth Simpson, (757) 446-2635, elizabeth.simpson@pilotonline.com

Judge dismisses suit over non-lawyers signing motions

2008-02-08T10:36:00.001-05:00

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the authority of non-lawyer staff members of the Division of Child Support Enforcement to sign motions to hold in contempt parents who are delinquent in their support obligations.

U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives him of jurisdiction to decide the issue because the Virginia State Bar's Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law had rejected David B. Briggman's contention that the practice is the unauthorized practice of law.

The committee was acting in its judicial capacity, and, under the doctrine, a federal court has no jurisdiction to review and reject a state court judgment.

Conrad noted in Briggman v. Commonwealth (VLW 008-3-003) that Briggman still has the opportunity to challenge show cause motions and other pleadings filed by DCSE employees who are not attorneys. Briggman said he intends to refile his challenge to the practice in Rockingham Circuit Court.

Briggman contended in the
federal suit that DCSE lacks the authority to enforce thousands of such
orders because their filing by non-attorneys rendered them void ab
initio.

Kimberly J. Daniel, a juvenile and domestic relations district judge in Fairfax County, dismissed such a motion in October because it was not signed by an attorney.

Craig M. Burshem, a senior assistant attorney general who represents DCSE, said he disagrees with Daniel but does not want to run the risk that a DCSE employee could be charged criminally with the misdemeanor of practicing law without a license. One of the 45 attorneys who routinely represents the division will sign such motions, he said.

Burshem said the attorney general's office is considering its options, including submission of legislation to the General Assembly or a request for an amended rule of court, to address Briggman's argument and Daniel's ruling.

Child Support Court May Be Link In Bomb Threats

2008-02-02T13:15:00.000-05:00

Sheriff Rollins said the call just before 9 a.m. was made from the pay phone at the southwest corner of Main and Front streets, in front of the Santina's restaurant, which is closed until Friday. The sheriff said the caller was a man who said a bomb was located somewhere in the building.

The sheriff said there are still no suspects.

"Of course we are still investigating it, but right now we haven't made an arrest," he said.

He said part of the investigation involves the possibility that the same person who made Monday's threats could have been involved in similar threats in the last several weeks. The courthouse was cleared for similar bomb threats on Jan 7 and Dec. 4.

"That is always something you look at," he said. "This is getting to be a big mess for all of us and it needs to stop."

Harnett County Clerk of Court Dianne Hatley said all of the threats have come on days when child support enforcement court was in session, which may help investigators.

"That was the only court that was in session on all of those days so maybe that narrows it down a little," she said. "I understand they are investigating that possibility."

She said she hopes knowing where the threat came from will also help.

"I hope some good citizen will remember that they saw someone at that phone during that time and we can catch whoever is making these threats this time," she said.

Court: Child support must be paid if graduation delayed

2008-02-02T13:08:00.000-05:00

PHOENIX - Parents ordered to provide can't escape their obligation simply because the youngster can't graduate from high school in four years, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.

In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the arguments by a father who said his financial responsibility ended when his youngest child should have graduated.

The father, not identified, acknowledged the requirement in state law for support through high school. But he argued that the law was not intended to provide an extra year of support for a child on the "five-year plan'' who did not graduate in four due to "failing grades and lousy attendance.''

But the judges said as long as the student appears to be making progress, the duty continues even into a fifth year of high school — and even if the student already has turned 18.

Court records show that genetic testing showed the man is the biological father of all four of the mother's children. He was ordered to pay both back support and future payments.

In 2005 the state Department of Economic Security, which is entitled to intervene in cases, sued for past-due support. The father disputed the amount and said he was entitled to credit for payments he made after the youngest should have graduated from high school.

State law generally ends required at 18. But it also says if the youngster is still attending school at that age, the obligation can continue until the youngster turns 19.

The father contends that requirement simply means the money continues if the child is a senior on his or her 18th birthday but is set to graduate that year. He said it doesn't mean taking an entire extra year to get a diploma.

Appellate Judge Philip Hall, writing for the court, said the father does have a point. He said the law does "impose some responsibility on the child to be present in class.''

But Hall pointed out the law does not impose any specific attendance requirement.

Instead, Hall said, the trial judge has to consider specific factors, including whether the youngster is regularly present in class, the reasons for the absences and whether the child is taking "affirmative steps in pursuit of an education.''

Beyond that, the judge said, state policy requires parents to support their offspring "even if those children make unwise decisions.''

In this case, Hall said, the mother acknowledged the child was "struggling'' but said he was "giving his best effort'' while moving back and forth between his parents' homes. She also said many of the days the child was listed as absent were simply days he showed up late to school.

The child did, in fact, eventually get his high school diploma.

A $1.2 million penalty for child support denial

2008-01-22T21:42:00.001-05:00

On Nov. 29, 2007, the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld a failure to pay child support penalty in the amount of $1.2 million. If you think this was an outrageous penalty that had no relation to the amount of actual child support owed, you are right. If you think the Illinois Supreme Court probably got this one wrong, you are probably right. However, any employer responsible for remitting child support payments on behalf of an employee certainly won't be remitting those child support payments late anymore.

Here are the facts: Lenora's former husband, Harold, was ordered to pay Lenora child support in the amount of $82 per week. Harold worked for his father in his father's architecture firm. Harold's father properly received a notice from Lenora's attorney requiring Harold's father, and his architecture firm, to withhold $82 per week from Harold's pay, and remit this child support payment to Lenora on a weekly basis. The facts are as plain and simple as that.

As of Jan. 1, 1999, the Illinois Legislature enacted a child support statute which provides for a $100 per day penalty for each child support payment not made in a timely fashion. For example, if an employer pays his employee a salary each week, the employer is required to withhold child support from his employee's pay check on a weekly basis.

If the employer does not withhold the requisite child support and send the money to the custodial parent each week, then the penalty applies. If the employer does not remit child support payments for 130 weeks, as Harold's father failed to do, each of the weekly child support payments continue to incur a $100 per day penalty for each day the child support payments remain unpaid.

In the Miller case, Harold's father (and employer) accumulated 11,721 penalty days at the rate of $100 per penalty, for a total of $1,172,100 in penalties. As an aside, the unpaid child support totaled a mere $12,382.

As you might expect, the Illinois Legislature has broad discretion and authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of its statutes. Indeed, such governmental authority has existed for years.

The Illinois Supreme Court made several statements about this child support penalty, including the statement that, "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling state interest than the support of children."

The Illinois Supreme Court also noted that it is impossible to quantify the harm suffered by custodial parents when they do not receive child support on a timely basis, which may prevent a custodial parent from purchasing essentials such as food and medicine for a child.

It is doubtful that the entire penalty will ever be paid; however, obligations to pay unpaid child support are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, and therefore, will probably never be removed from the employer's record.

In conclusion, it may well be that the penalty imposed on Harold Miller's father/employer was excessive, unreasonable, harsh and oppressive. The penalty was nevertheless legal, enforceable and will most certainly deter employers in the future from failing to withhold child support payments from employee pay checks, and remitting these child support payments to the appropriate party.

Sperm Donor Wins Case Over Child Support

2008-01-06T18:05:00.001-05:00

The Associated Press: Sperm Donor Wins Case Over Child Support

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a woman who promised a sperm donor he would not have to pay child support cannot renege on the deal.

The 3-2 decision overturns lower court rulings under which Joel L. McKiernan had been paying up to $1,500 a month to support twin boys born in August 1994 to Ivonne V. Ferguson, his former girlfriend and co-worker.

"Where a would-be donor cannot trust that he is safe from a future support action, he will be considerably less likely to provide his sperm to a friend or acquaintance who asks, significantly limiting a would-be mother's reproductive prerogatives," Justice Max Baer wrote in the majority opinion issued last week.

Arthur Caplan, chairman of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said the decision runs counter to the pattern established by similar cases, where the interests of the progeny have generally been given great weight.

"It sounds like the Pennsylvania court is trying to push a little harder into the brave new world of sperm, egg and embryo donation as it's evolving," Caplan said.

McKiernan's lawyer, John W. Purcell Jr., said Wednesday an adverse decision against his client would have jeopardized the entire system of sperm donation.

"That wouldn't just include Pennsylvania, because we found out in the course of this trial that many doctors order their sperm for their artificial inseminations out of state," he said.

Ferguson and McKiernan met while working together at Pennsylvania Blue Shield in Harrisburg and had a sexual relationship that waned before Ferguson persuaded him to donate sperm for her.

Courts found that the two agreed McKiernan would not have to pay child support and would not have visitation rights, but Ferguson later changed her mind and sued.

A county judge said it was in the twins' best interests that McKiernan be required to support them. In addition to monthly payments, McKiernan also was ordered to come up with $66,000 in back support. The appeal reverses that order.

Elizabeth Hoffman, Ferguson's lawyer, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment left at her office Wednesday.

Justice J. Michael Eakin, in a dissent, said a parent cannot bargain away a child's right to support. "The children point and say, 'That is our father. He should support us,'" Eakin wrote. "What are we to reply? 'No! He made a contract to conceive you through a clinic, so your father need not support you.' I find this unreasonable at best."

On the Net:

* Majority opinion:here

Even without DNA match, child support may be enforced

2008-01-06T18:00:00.001-05:00

Yes but I don't think the courts would see it the same way if this men filed for custody, would they.

today - News - Missouri State News

KANSAS CITY — David Salazar and his estranged wife agree the daughter she gave birth to 14 months after the couple separated is not his. But Salazar narrowly avoided being jailed for 28 days in Buchanan County for failing to pay child support. Now Sen. Chris Koster, a Harrisonville Democrat, plans to try again to change how Missouri law deals with child-support cases involving men who deny paternity. The measure he introduced in the 2007 legislative session failed. Backers of the proposal say cases such as Salazar's show the state's paternity laws are outdated now that DNA testing is available. Critics say changing the law could hurt children caught in the middle. Advertisement Several other states have passed laws that allow men to introduce DNA evidence even after state-set deadlines for contesting paternity have passed. In Salazar's case, his estranged wife, Shannon McClure, asked the hospital not to list a father on the birth certificate in November 2001. But court records said the hospital listed Salazar as the father anyway. The Missouri Division of Child Support Enforcement named Salazar the father without DNA testing and served him with notice that he had a duty to support the girl. When Salazar did not appear at a hearing to determine his financial responsibility, the child-support division entered a default order requiring Salazar to pay child support. That default order was docketed with the circuit court, but the court did not hold a hearing or give any notice to Salazar. Salazar was charged with failing to pay child support after he didn't contest paternity by a state deadline. The only two witnesses at his trial were Salazar and McClure, both of whom testified that the child was not Salazar's. But a Buchanan County judge found him guilty of not paying $278 a month in child support, ruling that the Division of Child Support Enforcement's order was enough to make Salazar the legal father of the girl. Salazar was sentenced to 28 days in jail, but the Missouri Supreme Court in October overturned the jail term. The court found that Salazar can't be jailed without a hearing before a judge and a chance to prove that he is not the father. Regardless of the judge's ruling on the issue of paternity, Salazar will have to continue to pay child support. "He's not over this deal," his attorney, Merle Turner, said. "It is a can of worms." The Supreme Court's ruling affects only men who are married at the time their wives have children. Under state law that ties back to English Common Law, a married man is presumed to be the father of his wife's child and the Division of Child Support Enforcement had been able to declare such men fathers without a hearing. Larry Swall, a Liberty lawyer who is chairman of the Family Law Committee of the Missouri Bar, said the state treats men harshly from the start. spacer

Contempt motion on support issue must be signed by a lawyer

2008-01-06T11:32:00.001-05:00

For those in VA that might have been following the Briggman case over the years. I can only wonder how this decision will play out over time in Virginia

Judge: Contempt motion on support issue must be signed by a lawyer
By Alan Cooper

Staff members of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement no longer are signing motions to hold in contempt parents who are delinquent in their support obligations.

The decision to abandon the practice was made after Kimberly J. Daniel, a juvenile and domestic relations district judge in Fairfax County, ruled that Virginia Code Sect. 8.01.271.1 requires such pleadings to be signed by an attorney.

The absence of a lawyer's signature makes such pleadings void ab initio, Daniel ruled on Oct. 30.

Craig M. Burshem, a senior assistant attorney general who represents DCSE, said he disagrees with Daniel but does not want to run the risk that a DCSE employee could be charged criminally with the misdemeanor of practicing law without a license. One of the 45 attorneys who routinely represents the division will sign such motions, he said.

John L. Bauserman Jr., the attorney who represented the father, and David B. Briggman, a father who believes he has been abused by the failure of DCSE to follow what he views as the law, contend that Burshem's change of position comes 20 years too late.

And they argue that the logical extension of their position has truly staggering consequences. They contend that the absence of a signature by an attorney on motions to establish child support, modification of existing orders and the enforcement of existing orders means that those pleadings are a legal nullity.

As a result, they contend, courts lack the authority to enforce tens of thousands of orders ostensibly obtained by DCSE over the past 20 years.

Briggman has filed a pro se complaint in U.S. District Court in Harrisonburg asking a federal judge to make such a ruling. Judge Glen A. Conrad heard arguments last month on the Virginia attorney general's office's motion to dismiss Briggman's suit.

He had asked the judge to bar non-lawyers from filing such pleadings, but an assistant attorney general told Conrad that they would no longer do so.

The AG's office contends that Code Sect. 16.1-260(A)(ii) authorizes non-lawyers to file such pleadings. A formal attorney general's opinion in 1988 reached that conclusion, but Bauserman and Briggman emphasize a significant qualification in the opinion. Filing such pleading is not the practice of law only "to the extent that the information provided by such employees is limited to facts, figures or factual conclusions and does not include legal arguments or legal conclusions."

Any motion to hold a parent in contempt is making a legal argument and asserts a legal conclusion that the parent is delinquent in his support obligations, Bauserman said.

Briggman filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar's Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, which agreed with Briggman that completing and filing form pleadings by lay employees is the unauthorized practice of law.

But the committee found in February 2006 that Code Sect. 16.1-260(A)(ii) "authorizes the DCSE to file such pleadings on its behalf, through its lay employees and, therefore, that the conduct complained of is the authorized practice of law by such employees."

Bauserman contends that is an erroneous reading of the statute. The law requires most proceedings in juvenile court to go through an intake officer and lists three specific exceptions in which pleadings can be filed directly with the clerk: petitions from the commonwealth's attorney or county attorney, petitions by an attorney on behalf of a client, and support petitions by the Department of Social Services on its own motion.

Allowing the department to file motions with the clerk does not mean that an employee rather than a lawyer can do so, Bauserman said.

One case permitting

In what is apparently the only circuit court ruling on the point; Judge William D. Broadhurst of Roanoke interpreted the statute in September 2006 to allow employees to file pleadings on behalf of the department. Because an attorney can file pleadings under the exception that allows any attorney to file directly with the clerk, the special provision for the department would be superfluous if it needed an attorney as well, Broadhurst wrote in Commonwealth ex rel. Brazell v. Doss (VLW 007-8-274).

Bauserman is unpersuaded and says having laymen rather than lawyers investigate the basis for a pleading can have real consequences.

He cited as an example the year-long incarceration of a father on what he contends was an outdated administrative order from the department. After the mother obtained an administrative support order, the father went to court and won custody of the child. The father then obtained an amended administrative order eliminating any future support obligation and noting arrearages of less than 12 weeks.

A few months later, the mother regained custody but Bauserman contends that the amended support order was never withdrawn nor changed. Nevertheless, years later, DCSE sought and obtained a contempt citation based on the original order. Bauserman contends that a lawyer was more likely to have caught that error than a layman.

The father's attorney did not raise the issue at the contempt proceeding, and the judge ordered him to jail. The father could not appeal because he could not post a bond to cover the arrearages that the judge found to have accrued.

"On the face of it, this is not a popular group of litigants," Bauserman acknowledges.

But the law specifies that the signature of an attorney on a pleading certifies that he believes its contents to be well-ground in law and fact. When a non-lawyer is allowed to sign a pleading, no one is accountable—ethically or otherwise—for an inadequate investigation, he said.

Burshem, the DCSE attorney, said Bauserman's position is "strictly an ethical argument. … Nobody is making an allegation that the substantive law has been violated."

Bauserman responds that the law still is being violated, and "we don't get to pick and choose which laws we can follow."

Burshem said DCSE has several options to address the complaints of Bauserman and Briggman, including seeking legislation or a Supreme Court rule change to allow staff members to sign such pleadings. No decision has been made on what approach to take, he said.

Contempt motion on support issue must be signed by a lawyer

2008-01-03T11:40:00.001-05:00

Judge: Contempt motion on support issue must be signed by a lawyer
Staff members of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement no longer are signing motions to hold in contempt parents who are delinquent in their support obligations. The decision to abandon the practice was made after a juvenile and domestic relations district judge in Fairfax County ruled that Virginia Code Sect. 8.01.271.1 requires such pleadings to be signed by an attorney.
Full Story

Plundering fatherhood

2008-01-01T16:08:00.000-05:00

By Stephen Baskerville

Fatherhood is all the rage. President Bush unveils a $315 million plan "to promote responsible fatherhood." Sen. Evan Bayh, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, hosts a televised conference on "Connecting Fathers and Families" and promises to make fatherhood a top issue. Both houses of Congress, plus the governors and mayors, create bipartisan taskforces on "fatherhood promotion" and issue resolutions affirming the importance of fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative holds a Fatherhood Summit in Washington on June 7-8.

How, precisely, the state can promote something as personal and private as a parent's relationship with his own children (let alone whether it should) is seldom explained. But if government fatherhood programs sound somewhat nebulous, there is a more concrete side to our leaders' discovery of fatherhood. In 1998, President Clinton signed the ominously-named "Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act" and announced a "new child support crackdown ... to identify, analyze, and investigate [parents] for criminal prosecution." On the campaign trail Al Gore called for jailing more fathers.

In Virginia, a commission dominated by lawyers, judges and feminists moves to increase child-support obligations. In Alabama the government calls fathers "dogs" and announces increased measures to hunt them down.

That a crisis of fatherhood exists can hardly be denied. Forty percent of American children and 60 percent of African-American children now live without their fathers. Moreover, the social and personal pathologies directly attributable to father absence – crime, unwed motherhood, truancy, drugs and alcohol – are now too well known to belabor.

But what may be at work here is government, once again, creating a problem for itself to solve. Certainly policymakers are so intent on registering their concern that they never stop to tell us where the problem comes from in the first place. The often unspoken assumption is that these fathers have, in Clinton's words, "chosen to abandon their children." Yet there is no evidence this is true.

No academic or government study has ever demonstrated that large numbers of fathers are voluntarily abandoning their children. On the other hand, no knowledgeable policymaker or scholar denies that millions of fathers are involuntarily separated from their children by government officials.

Of the almost 1 million divorces each year involving children, at least two-thirds to three-fourths are initiated by mothers, according to Sanford Braver of Arizona State University and other scholars. In the largest federally-funded study ever undertaken on the subject, Braver confirmed previous studies showing that overwhelmingly it is mothers, not fathers, who are walking away from marriages without legal grounds. These divorcing mothers have virtual certainty of getting the children and a large portion of the father's income, regardless of any fault on their part.

What is happening in divorce courts is much more serious than gender bias against fathers. A massive divorce industry is finding it increasingly easy – and lucrative – to simply eliminate fathers from their families with no show of wrongdoing and seize control of their children. The industry consists of judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, social workers, bureaucratic police and women's groups – all of whom have one interest in common: separating as many children from their fathers as possible. A father can then be plundered for almost any amount in coerced attorneys' fees, involuntary psychotherapy, and "child support" which his children may never see. Failure to pay frequently results in incarceration without trial.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals," wrote Ayn Rand. "When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

What we are seeing today is nothing less than the criminalization of fatherhood itself: criminal penalties imposed on parents who have committed no act but are made outlaws through the actions of others in ways they are powerless to avoid. Once the father is stripped of custody, his contact with his own children outside government-approved times and locations becomes a criminal act. His criminalization is further consolidated through forced legal fees and impossible child-support burdens.

Child support obligations are determined by the same enforcement personnel who collect them. Such legislating by courts and enforcement agencies raises serious questions about the separation of powers and the constitutionality of the process. Where government officials develop an interest in hunting "delinquents," it is predictable that they will create delinquents to hunt. The more onerous the child-support levels, and the more defaults and arrearages, the more demand for coercive enforcement and for the personnel and powers required.

Private collection firms, such as Policy Studies, Inc., of Denver, are also involved in setting the levels of what they collect. Not only does an obvious conflict-of-interest arise in terms of the amount to be collected, but the firms can create precisely the "delinquents" and "deadbeats" they are hired to pursue and on which their business depends.

A presumption of guilt pervades the courts themselves, where "the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant" according to a legal analysis by the National Council of State Legislatures. In clear violation of the Constitution, courts have held that "not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial," and "even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer." Thus impoverished parents who lose their children through literally "no fault" of their own are the only citizens who – when they are fortunate enough to be formally charged and tried at all, before being incarcerated – must prove their innocence without counsel and without a jury of their peers.

Rather than confronting this appalling violation of both family integrity and constitutional rights, our elected leaders are cooking up fatherhood programs that may do more harm than good. In Massachusetts, state officials have used federal money to draw up a list of "Five Principles of Fatherhood," including: "give affection to my children" and "demonstrate respect at all times to the mother of my children." One cannot help but wonder what penalties the state will bring to bear on fathers who fail to show sufficient "affection" and "respect."

In an attempt to soften its image, the National Child Support Enforcement Association declares, "Child support is more than money. Child support also is love, emotional support and responsibility." Yet there is something troubling about bureaucratic police taking it upon themselves to define and enforce a parent's love and emotional support of his own children. Is the state, with its armed agents and penal apparatus, mandated to punish fathers deemed to be delinquent on this as well?

There is nothing mutually exclusive about protecting the rights of parents and their children not to be separated without cause and enforcing child support collection on those men who truly abandon the offspring they have sired. Requiring men to accept financial responsibility for their progeny has been a matter of public policy for centuries. Forcing fathers to "finance the filching of their own children," as attorney and author Jed Abraham puts it, is a prescription for social and political destruction. Yet this is the experiment on which we are now embarked.

It might not be necessary for government to promote fatherhood if only government would stop destroying it.

Stephen Baskerville teaches political science at Howard University in Washington, D.C.

Give gift of child support at holidays

2008-01-01T12:56:00.001-05:00

Story Link here

You might believe that parents separated from their kids might do a little extra during the holidays. They'd want their offspring well fed, in warm clothes against the cold. And that either because of parental love or guilt that they're absent, the child would have plenty under the tree on Christmas.

In many cases you would be 100 percent wrong.

Instead, according to the Virginia Department of Social Services, some folks purposely skip paying child support in November and December. They know the state will intercept their tax refunds early next year. So in their selfish little minds, parents count on children getting the support. Just not now.

Merry Christmas, kid.

Veteran child support employees are familiar with the trend.

"It's a phenomenon that repeats itself every year," said Nick Young, director of child support enforcement for the DSS.

Young has heard it all: Parents get distracted. They've moved on to the second or third families and forgotten about the first.

But more than likely, the parent who has custody of the child is counting on the support to go holiday shopping.

"What are they going to do?" Young asked, "Buy them Christmas gifts in February?"

Last month, Young sent 150,434 Social Security numbers to the Internal Revenue Service and the Virginia Department of the Treasury. Updated biweekly, the numbers belong to parents who are $500 or more behind on their child support.

"If they have money coming back, we'll get it," Young said.

In 2006, "tax intercepts" collected $33 million from federal returns and $2 million from the state. The money was forwarded to the children to whom it was owed.

In a state where 484,000 children receive child support, DSS has implemented new programs and is rethinking old ones in their effort to snare support scofflaws.

Good. The state needs to use all its resources to fight for Virginia's children. If it doesn't, the debt falls to us. One-third of parents who do not receive child support end up on public assistance to meet their families' basic needs.

In the year ended June 30, Virginia collected more than $608 million in child support, a nearly 4 percent increase from the previous year. In Virginia, 88 percent of adults paying child support are men; 12 percent are women.

That sounds like a lot of money. But it's a small proportion of the total due: About 268,000 delinquent Virginia parents owe $2.4 billion in child support.

Last month, Virginia received a southern regional award for implementing a first-in-the-nation program that targets scofflaws through their cellphones. Since the state created the program two years ago, more than a dozen states have established it.

Young and his staff came up with the idea after realizing that cell-phones, which about 70 percent of Americans possess, could be a useful collections tool.

After exhausting every other method of locating a delinquent parent, the state subpoenas cell-phone companies to determine if the parent is a customer and has a billing address.

Twice a year, social services sends a list of names to the largest cell-phone companies that operate in Virginia. Officials request only an address, but some companies send the address and the person's cell-phone number. Companies do not send a list of phone numbers the person has called.

The practice has drawn rumblings in a state where people celebrate privacy. The idea of companies' releasing information for government use leaves me queasy, too.

But the idea of a parent refusing to take care of his or her child leaves me even queasier. In this case, I'm willing to ask the cell-phone company to give up the digits.

"Look, we're going to use all available means to find them," Young said last week. "I just want the address. ... I'm into, 'Where are you?' "

In addition to the cell-phone initiative, DSS began its "Early Intervention" program. That program meets with parents as soon as they receive an order to pay.

Case workers emphasize parents' responsibilities and ask if they face any issues that might hinder them from paying. For instance, if the person is jobless or underemployed, officials direct them to existing agencies in the community to help.

As young employees join the staff, child enforcement increasingly has gone high-tech. Caseworkers scope out MySpace and Facebook pages to track scofflaws.

"We've had people who say, 'I can't believe you found me off my blog,' " Young said.

Many people are familiar with the infamous "Most Wanted" deadbeat parent lists.

Just last week, Young and his staff discussed whether they will continue to use it as a poster or scrap the paper version after 19 years in favor of an online-only version.

Using the posters, the state has found 140 people, Young said.

As technology changes, Young said the state is willing to consider different ways of tracking delinquent parents.

"What we're trying to do is convince people to modify their behavior," Young said. "If you're going to live in the great state of Virginia ... we need you to take care of your kids."

Interesting Acticle on Child Support

2007-12-27T11:17:00.000-05:00

LOOKING FOR IDEAS
Officials nationwide are casting about for ways to update and improve their child support programs and are looking to their sister states for ideas. Many innovations are not created explicitly in law, but stem from broad statutory authority and supportive legislative oversight. Many predate the federal mandates and already have a positive track record, while others are still in their infancy. Some build upon the federal mandates, but most are entirely outside the 1996 requirements. Whatever their origin, they have one thing in common: Legislators want and need to know about them. These initiatives and others like them are sure to generate the next round of legislative reforms.

read more here

New Mexico advocate for dads' rights takes on child support

2007-12-27T11:01:00.000-05:00

The Belen father who founded Dads Against Discrimination and spent 15 years in New Mexico courts battling for fathers' rights has a new fight on his hands.

Don Chavez has filed a challenge to New Mexico's child support guidelines in state District Court in Albuquerque in connection with his recent divorce case.

Chavez's 16-page petition is devoted to the child support guidelines he claims are unfair.

Chavez said he is going to bat for parents who have custody of their children less than 25 percent of the time and must pay full child support to the custodial parent.

He has asked the court to develop new guidelines that will recognize that both parents must pay for the needs of the child and that their share should be based on their ability to pay.

If he is successful changing the guidelines, "tens of thousands of court-ordered child support orders in New Mexico will be rendered null and void," Chavez claims.

New Mexico collects $95 million annually in child support payments under the guidelines adopted in 1994, state officials said.

The state Human Services Department's Child Support Enforcement Division manages 60,000 cases, said Martin Eckert, Human Services Department public information officer.

Department officials said they were not aware of Chavez's petition. The department is not a party in his case, they said.

Chavez said New Mexico's child support guideline for determining payment is similar to a guideline struck down as unconstitutional in a Washington, D.C., case.

Chavez is critical of the divorce industry for not taking on this issue after the Washington court decision.

"Why has not one legally trained professional nor licensed attorney noticed the same in New Mexico?" Chavez asks in his petition. "Because this is their bread and butter."

Chavez is representing himself against his estranged wife, Quillon Dayton-Chavez of Albuquerque. She filed for divorce last month.

Chavez and Dayton-Chavez have two children, ages 3 and 6, from their seven-year marriage, his third and her second.

Chavez said he has not asked for child support from Dayton-Chavez. And she said she hasn't mentioned child support.

"I wasn't the one who brought up child support," Dayton-Chavez said. "He is acting like I asked, and I didn't."

Even if a new guideline is not developed, Chavez said he will benefit from the changes in child custody laws instigated by Dads Against Discrimination, a group he founded in New Mexico.

In 1980, when Chavez was in court fighting for joint custody of two daughters, his request was denied based on the Tender Years Doctrine, which basically said children were better off with their mother.

In today's divorce court, the law presumes that joint custody will be granted, unless a court establishes facts to support sole custody, Chavez said.

The joint custody law was passed by the Legislature in 1986.

Chavez said he has leave from his job as a school social worker to care for his two young children.

"I'm Mr. Mom," he said. "I'm the custodial parent."

Dayton-Chavez said Chavez lets her have the children three weekends a month.

"Personally, I don't see that Don's child support challenge is newsworthy," she said.

"He's trying to use the media and look very dedicated. He didn't want me to file for divorce, and this is his way to strike back."

Fathers' group: Child-support warrants on Internet 'misguided'

2007-12-27T10:21:00.000-05:00

By HEATHER SCOFIELD
Staff Writer

BUNNELL -- At least one national organization that champions the rights of fathers and children says there may be a down side to a new feature on the Flagler County Sheriff's Office Web site.

The agency just launched a new online database at www.myfcso.us that allows anyone to search by name or just view a list of those wanted by the Sheriff's Office. There are already more than 600 names.

The new "warrants" feature sounds like a good thing to some. But one national organization says if the new database is left as is, it could hurt children.

Why? Because parents who fail to pay child support could find their names featured on the list.

"It's a misguided activity on the part of law enforcement," said Mike McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

But the Sheriff's Office is not "picking and choosing" which warrants go online, spokeswoman Debra Johnson said. All warrants issued in Flagler County are going into the database. And child-support warrants are not featured on the separate portion of the Web site, which highlights several warrants weekly and includes photographs of the individuals wanted.

The Flagler Sheriff's Office appears to be the only law enforcement Web site in the area with a warrants database. Neither the Volusia County Sheriff's Office nor the Daytona Beach or DeLand police departments have a warrants database. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Web site has a database but child-support offenders aren't usually included, a spokeswoman said.

Agencies partner to help Illinois collect $420,000 in past-due child support

2007-12-27T10:04:00.000-05:00

ILLINOIS - The state's collection of past-due child-support payments increased 71 percent to $420,000 in 2007, thanks to a partnership between two state agencies seeking to crack down on delinquent parents, according to a statement released Sunday by Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office.

The state collected $245,000 in overdue child-support payments in 2006, according to the statement. But beginning this year, officials combined the services of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, which collects child-support payments, with the Financial and Professional Regulation Department, the agency that issues state licenses for everything from public accountants to message therapists.

With this partnership, people who owe more than $1,000 in child support can be denied licenses when they are up for renewal.

Child-support payments statewide rose to $1.22 billion this year from $1.14 billion in 2006.

County votes to add lawyer to help with child support cases

2007-12-27T09:59:00.000-05:00

St. Croix County supervisors rethought an earlier decision and agreed last week to add another lawyer to the corporation counsel’s office.

Child Support Administrator Katie Kapaun urged the addition, saying her office needs more legal help to keep up with its caseload, which has increased 13 percent in the last two years.

County judges now devote eight hours a month to child support collections. Once a fourth judge is added next summer, they’ve agreed to increase that court time to 12-16 hours a month.

But, said Kapaun, that won’t help if there isn’t a corporation counsel to work on the cases.

Child support court work includes establishing paternity and support obligations, contempt actions for failure to pay and modifications to existing orders. That work involves preparation, pre-court conferences, court presentations and reviewing court orders once they’re filed.

Kapaun said Assistant Corporation Counsel Don Gillen averages about 65 hours per month on child support work. Corporation Counsel Greg Timmerman had agreed that if a new position were added to his office, that lawyer would spend half his time working on child support.

But the County Board cut the second assistant corporation counsel from a list of new positions before adopting the 2008 budget.

Kapaun said supervisors may not have understood that there is partial state funding for the lawyer.

The new position, including salary and benefits, would cost about $80,000.

Kapaun said state reimbursement for child support work would cover $27,000 of the cost. The extra position is also expected to save about $48,000 a year currently spent on outside lawyers who work with personnel issues.

Therefore, said Kapaun, the net extra cost from the tax levy would be about $6,000.

She said the county is falling behind state averages for current child support collections and could be penalized financially for not meeting standards.

Kapaun said the office can only get about 28 cases a month into court, and child support court hours are now booked up into August.

Hudson Supervisor Sharon Norton-Bauman said she would like some guarantee that the new position would only cost the general fund $6,000.

Since the need for outside legal help in employment matters varies, that’s hard to determine, replied County Board Chairman Buck Malick.

A motion to reconsider the position carried on a unanimous vote. A motion to table a decision until the January meeting failed on an 8-19 vote. The motion to add the new position was adopted 21-6.

CSA - Child Support Agency Admit a mistake

2007-12-25T10:09:00.000-05:00

Must have Appointment in Rhode Island

2007-12-25T09:48:00.000-05:00

Important Notice
To avoid unnecessary delays and better serve our customers the Office of Child Support Services will now see customers by APPOINTMENT ONLY.

Please I bet there will still be delays, no matter what. Lunch break, smoke breaks, and any other break they can think of.

Support Debit Card

2007-12-25T09:44:00.000-05:00

Coming Soon in 2008 "Kids Card" Debit Card.

Waiting for a check to arrive, get your Child Support Payments directly deposited into your saving or checking account with direct deposit or our new Kids Card (Debit Card) coming in 2008.
Direct Deposit Application
Stop Direct Deposit Form

Making a child support payment use our new on-line payment option now available with the following card(s):
MasterCard, Visa.
Please note there is a convenience fee to use this service.
Select the following link: https://www.paybill.com/childsupportservices/

National Medical Support Notices Now Available Online for employers
All at no cost!!! To register, select the following link.
https://www.mscompliance.com/ri

Child support or Life Support

2007-12-25T09:14:00.000-05:00

Christie and David Bren just want what's due them, their lawyer says; no more, no less. And by their calculations, that could be about $2.2 million a month -- each.

The teenage children of billionaire Orange County land developer Donald L. Bren will return to court Jan. 3 to try to force their father to pay child support commensurate with his wealth.

Billionaire

click to enlarge

Bren, chairman of the Irvine Co. and one of the country's richest businessmen, said he is willing to pay whatever a judge deems appropriate, but has been fighting efforts to force him to disclose details about his assets and finances.

The dispute, according legal experts, has potential implications for the way courts determine child support and is the latest in a series of legal battles in which California's rich and famous have fought to keep their financial holdings private.

Last year, for example, supermarket billionaire Ronald Burkle tried repeatedly to keep his personal finances secret in a bitter divorce, leading to a ruling that overturned a state law allowing litigants to seal court records.

According to court papers, Bren had two children with Jennifer McKay Gold, whom he never married. For years, the couple had an out-of-court agreement on the amount of financial support the billionaire would pay for the children. Ultimately, Gold and the children went to court, arguing that Bren wasn't paying enough. The dispute sparked a series of lawsuits and legal appeals.

The current litigation centers largely on a complex formula that judges typically use to fashion support orders. To craft those orders, judges require detailed financial information on a parent's ability to pay, as well as information on the amount of time each parent spends with the child. Judges can change the support amount suggested under the formula depending on the unique circumstances of a case, experts said.

Under state law, child support is largely based on the parents' income, so the child can share in the same standard of living as the wealthier parent. There is no upper limit on the amount of support that can be ordered. The average child support order in Los Angeles County is $345 per month, said Al Reyes of the county Child Support Services Department.

Grace Ganz Blumberg, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who helped create the child support formula, said the system was set up for the average litigant, not the very rich.

"Child support rules . . . don't make a lot of sense when applied to people of extraordinary means," she said.

One issue a judge must determine, Blumberg said, is whether Christie, 19, and David, 15, have a legitimate need for their father's financial information, or whether they are seeking it as a ploy to harass him in hopes of receiving an enormous settlement.

Herma Hill Kay, a professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, was skeptical of Bren's claims.

"Because you've got a lot of money, you don't need to abide by the disclosure rules? That argument doesn't work," Kay said. "The court has to apply the guidelines any time a judge sets child support. Saying 'I have more' won't take the court off the hook."

According to court papers, Bren and Gold signed an agreement in 1989 after a seven-month negotiation that provided Gold $3,500 per month of general support for each child.

The amount was increased to $5,000 a month in 1991, and was revised again later to provide an additional $2,500 a month for private school costs.

In turn, she agreed not to go to court, and to keep his relationship with them a secret. According to Bren's lawyers, Bren paid $17,000 a month for each child, tax-free.

Bren promised "always to take care of the children," Gold alleged in court papers. The developer made all payments, but declined her separate requests for a new car and a piano, according to court papers.

In 1997, Gold alleges, Bren stopped seeing the children after she told him over dinner at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel that she "wanted to change their relationship, that she wanted to no longer be intimately involved with him."

Four years later, Gold said she ran into Bren at the Ivy, an exclusive restaurant near Beverly Hills, where he "refused to speak to the children or acknowledge them."

In 2003, Christie and David went to court alleging that Bren broke his promise to support them in a style commensurate with his wealth.

Child Support Lawsuit Dropped Against Dwayne Dail

2007-12-23T00:31:00.000-05:00

Goldsboro — A child support lawsuit for back child support against a Wayne County man who spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit has been dropped.

Dwayne Dail said the suit, filed in November by his former girlfriend Lorraine Michaels for back child support while he was in prison, was dismissed Friday.

But he said he could not comment on the deal but was happy the matter was resolved.

"I am very happy and relieved to have this black cloud removed from me and my son's bonding process," Dail said. "And I hope that there can begin some healing between me and Lori, too. This has been extremely difficult for everyone involved."

Michaels sued for a "reasonable sum" of a $360,000 compensatory payment Dail is due from the state for his wrongful imprisonment.

Earlier this month, a judge ruled Michaels should receive only a portion, if any, of the payment

Dail spent 18 years in prison for the rape of a 12-year-old girl. He was exonerated by DNA evidence in August.

He is expected to receive that by the end of January and said said he plans to use it to buy a house for him and his son and enroll them both in college. Dail said he wants to pursue a career in criminal justice to help other innocent people in prison.

"I want to have that feeling of having helped someone who is desperately in need of help," he said.

State worker accused of taking child support money

2007-11-17T08:22:00.000-05:00

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A state employee in Olympia who handled child support payments has been accused of taking $24,000 and spending the money at casinos.

Thurston County prosecutors say 28-year-old Patricia Jones of Olympia stole money that was supposed to go to children by erasing money orders and inserting her name.

She was charged yesterday with 15 counts of theft.

The Department of Social and Health Services child-support division in Olympia processes about $685 million in payments every year.

Dad not guilty of felony child support charge

2007-11-17T08:18:00.000-05:00

Jury says prosecution failed to provide enough evidence during trial

By Jameson Cook

Macomb Daily Staff Writer

A jury found a 36-year-old Eastpointe man not guilty of felony child support for late payments following a 2-day-trial in Macomb County Circuit Court.

Corey Flener wiped away tears after the jury delivered the verdict Thursday afternoon and said he felt relieved to have the burden of a potential felony conviction lifted. If convicted, he would have faced a sentence of up to four years in prison and a fine levied by Judge Tracey Yokich.

"I try too hard. I'm not a felon," Flener said following the verdict. "I can deal with owing the money."

The case was prosecuted by the state Attorney General's Office as part of its escalated campaign in recent years to crack down on parents who fail to pay child support.

Assistant Attorney General Tim Flynn pointed to five months between September 2003 and September 2006 that Flener failed to make payments to three of his children. His monthly support payments were $1,005 plus $400 for past-due bills.

Defense attorney Thomas Nunley acknowledged to jurors that while his client may not have paid those months, he overpaid other months to partially offset the arrearages. He paid most months, even if he underpaid.

The jury forewoman said outside the courtroom that the prosecution simply didn't supply sufficient evidence.

"We were all in agreement there wasn't enough information to make a (guilty) decision," she said.

Nunley said: "I'm glad the jury saw fit to see the totality of what I argued instead of the minute offenses the Attorney General was trying to convict him on."

Nunley argued that Flener actually had overpaid more than he owed during the 3-year period by about $8,000, plus $10,000 in credit for a retroactive reduction of the payment.

Flener still owes $60,000 but claims he was behind $45,000 in 2000 before he realized he owed any money because he was unaware his now ex-wife, Tammy, filed for divorce. The amount has climbed also because of accumulating interest.

Flener is self-employed, working in remodeling, so his income fluctuates, he said. Work has been spotty in recent years due to the area's lagging economy, he said.

He admitted he has only paid about $1,200 since last May and partly attributed it to bouts with depression stemming from the child-support case. He faces a Nov. 28 civil show-cause hearing in front of Yokich for failure to pay two $2,300 lump-sum payments ordered by Yokich in September.

Tammy Flener, who testified and attended the trial, said before the verdict that her ex-husband has downplayed his lack of payments and only pays when forced to do so. She said the most he has paid in one year is $14,000 and never made a $9,000 alimony payment.

"It's been a struggle," said Tammy Flener, who lives in Ithaca.

Their three children are aged 9, 11 and 13. Flener is remarried and has two other biological children, ages 5 and 7, with his second wife, plus two stepchildren, age 12 and 15, and an adopted 17-year-old daughter from a third woman.

VA Support Fee

2007-09-20T08:31:00.000-04:00

who is to pay, it will be paid by the ncp paying support not the cp. Nick Young is nothing more then a fucking asshole, who need to have a child by so bitch so she can do to him what he is doing to others.

New Fee for Those Getting Child Support

By KEVIN FREKING – Sep 7, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of families that turned to federal and state governments for help in collecting child support payments will now have to pay more for the service.

Beginning Oct. 1, families in several states will have to pay $25 annually when their states have collected at least $500 on their behalf. Families that previously received public assistance will be exempted.

The $25 will help reduce the federal deficit and compensate the federal government and the states for providing a child support program. Two-thirds of the fee will go the federal government; one-third to the state.

Families also pay a $25 application fee to get a state's help in obtaining child support.

For Claudia Fauntleroy of Petersburg, Va., the notice about the additional fee was akin to getting a $25 parking ticket in the mail. Her immediate reaction? "You've got to be kidding me."

Fauntleroy said she would be glad to pay the fee if it would help customers get better service, but she has spent too many hours waiting in lines for help she termed inadequate to think that will happen.

"I see this system and I really wonder why I'm paying this," Fauntleroy said.

State officials fought the assessment, which will get the federal government about $172 million over five years. Even as they lobby Congress to overturn the fee, state officials try to get parents to look on the bright side.

"The fee works out to $2 a month for those who are going to have to pay it," said Nick Young, who oversees Virginia's child support efforts. "I don't think you could hire an accountant, a lawyer, a paralegal and a caseworker to work on your child support cases for $2 a month anywhere else."

States get involved in child support cases when something has gone wrong and emotions run high - on both sides. The noncustodial parent has fallen behind in making payments, or refuses to pay child support. The state helps locate the noncustodial parent and it takes steps to ensure payment, such as by withholding money from a paycheck or an income tax refund.

"I think it's fair to say that services provided are a good buy at $25, but of course, $25 to these families are maybe milk and Pampers for a week," said Larry McKeown, who oversees South Carolina's child support program.

For poor families with one parent, child support collections amount to about a third of their income, according to the Center for Law and Social Policy, a liberal research group.

Congress approved the fee as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Some states have already begun collecting the fee. Several other states will begin collecting it after the new fiscal year kicks in on Oct. 1. Those states include Virginia, South Carolina, Iowa, Idaho, Washington and Oregon. Overall, the federal government estimates that about 3.8 million families will pay the $25.

States have the option of paying the costs, charging the custodial parent, or charging the noncustodial parent.

Two states Florida and West Virginia have announced they will cover the $25 cost.

The large majority of states have opted to make the custodial parent pay.

Young said that the child support owed in Virginia by the noncustodial parent averages between $6,000 and $7,000. If the state were to add the $25 fee to that tab, it would likely never collect.

"They'll say 'add it to my bill. Have a nice trip,'" Young said.

As a result, taxpayers would end up footing the bill for a program they're not directly participating in, so most states consider it more fair to assess the fee to the custodial parent, he said.

Young said that Virginia would use proceeds from the fee to improve customer service. Depending upon the size of a state's caseload, the fee will generate anywhere from a few hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars each year.

Some child support directors also say the fee creates a sense of ownership for customers, and as a result, they may be more cooperative with staff. Families also pay a $25 application fee to get a state's help in obtaining child support.

The $25 annual fee is just one of several changes that Congress approved last year for child support programs. State officials are most concerned about a change that will lower federal payments to the states by an estimated $1.6 billion over five years.

The federal government awards states that meet certain performance measures. In the past, when states spent that money on their child support programs, it generated a match from the federal government. Congress voted to no longer let states use the bonuses to leverage additional federal funding.

In comments submitted to a House Ways and Means subcommittee, state child support officials said the change "will very likely lead to a dramatic downsizing of the work force, resulting in much higher caseloads per worker and fewer cases being worked successfully."

So far, many states' governors appear intent on making up for the cut. The Lewin Group conducted a survey of 28 child support directors, and the researchers noted that 24 governors had proposed full replacement of the lost federal money. Many child support directors are worried, however, that the full replacement may not continue in future years.

Some members of Congress are also considering repealing the $1.6 billion cut. The House Ways and Means Committee scheduled a briefing for Monday to learn from child support officials about how less federal money could affect collections in individual states.

From VA DCSE site about the $25 fee

2007-09-20T08:29:00.000-04:00

You should have recently received a letter from the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement informing you of a $25 federally mandated fee that must be imposed effective Oct. 1, 2007. This letter is not a bill and no action is required on your part. This $25 fee will automatically be deducted from the accounts of custodial parents when Virginia has disbursed at least $500 of support in a Federal fiscal year on each case. This $25 fee is charged to individuals who have never received Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in Virginia.

For questions or further information, call (800) 468-8894 or e-mail askdcse@dss.virginia.gov

VA Letter to CP’s

2007-09-20T08:25:00.000-04:00

August 2007

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO CUSTODIAL PARENTS ABOUT $25 FEE

Dear Child Support Customer:

A new federal law* required that the Commonwealth of Virginia amend §63.2-1904 of the Code of Virginia. Effective October 1, 2007, this law requires the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) to impose an annual fee of $25 for each case in which DCSE has collected and disbursed at least $500 in child support. This fee will be collected every federal fiscal year which runs from October 1 through September 30. DCSE will deduct the fee each year from collections after you have received $500 in child support, either in current support or arrears. If you have multiple child support cases, the $25 fee will be collected on each case.

If you have questions concerning this notice, please contact the DCSE Customer Call Center at 1-800-468-8894.

Sincerely,

Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement

*The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Plastic vs. Paper: Child-support funds now by debit card

2007-09-01T08:37:00.000-04:00

Parents receiving child-support checks will get plastic, rather than paper, next month. As part of a statewide change called ncKIDScards, parents who receive their child support via check will be issued debit cards.

The state Department of Health and Human Services began rolling out the program in April.

Susan Scales, the local child support director, said parents were notified earlier this year about the change. She said the new debit cards would benefit parents.

"This gets the payments to the custodial parent quicker. It's easier, it's safer," Scales said.

The new program will begin Monday. Parents enrolled in the program will receive a package with their debit card explaining the program and how to use the card.

The cards are not credit cards, Scales said. The money spent is the money contributed to the parent's child support account with the state.

Not everyone will get the debit cards, however. Many parents opt to have payments deposited into their bank accounts rather than have a check processed through the state. The accounts for those parents will not be affected by the change.

The debit cards will be backed Visa and can be used wherever Visa cards are accepted. Parents can also withdraw cash from their account using the cards.

More than 3,000 parents are enrolled in the child-support program in Rockingham County.

Beware of private child support collection agencies

2007-08-16T02:16:00.000-04:00

During the past several months, an organization calling itself the National Coalition for Child Support Options has run television advertisements in our area indicating that the state is preventing private child support collection companies from helping parents obtain child support. The group encourages people to call me and voice opposition to "Senate Bill 652."

I would like to explain the purpose and effect of Senate Bill 652, which the Legislature adopted in 2001.

But first, I should note that I conducted some research of my own. Parents seeking information about private child support collection (versus the state's Child Support Enforcement Division) call a telephone number operated by the company SupportKids, which in turn encourages residents to contact me in order to get the law changed.

Time Magazine published an article about this issue of private child support collection agencies a few years ago, specifically mentioning SupportKids. In the article, reporter Nadya Labi noted that in 2002 there were at least 38 private businesses profiting from this form of "deadbeat bounty hunting," a small but growing field. The largest of these companies, SupportKids, had been in existence for
11 years and was handling more than 30,000 open cases. By 2002 it had kept $40 million for itself.

But in West Virginia, such companies are not permitted to rake in such fees. State law, including law created by Senate Bill 652 in 2001, places restrictions on these companies in order to protect parents -- parents who already are struggling to make ends meet and are suffering because of a lack of child support.

Under Article 47, Section 16 of the State Code, any child support collection company must register with the state of West Virginia as a collection agency, obtain a license, post a bond and keep records. Most importantly, thanks to Senate Bill 652, there is a new section of code, 48-1-307, that limits the amount these companies can take from the child support they collect to 10 percent of the principal amount owed (not any portion of the amassed interest).

Unfortunately for parents in other states, some companies are claiming as much as
34 percent of what is collected, including interest. According to Time, parents have complained about being unable to get out of complicated contracts, including contracts with SupportKids, which in some cases allowed the collection business to draw money even after the parent in question started paying child support.

This is a capitalist economy, and we understand that private businesses such as this are out to make a profit. It is up to a customer to decide whether an undertaking is worth losing such a large amount of the money to which she or he is entitled. But a divided family creates an emotionally charged situation that should not be taken advantage of.

And what about the children? The money that companies like this are raking in was intended to fund the needs of children. Is a profit, particularly such a massive profit, appropriate?

If companies such as SupportKids or the National Coalition for Child Support Options are really looking out for their customers' best interests, why are they charging such high fees? West Virginia allows companies to collect child support payments from parents; it just doesn't allow them to do it at the expense of our children.

The state Department of Health and Human Resources continues to work to improve its child support collection system. Those parents who are experiencing problems obtaining their child support payments through DHHR's Child Support Enforcement Division should call (800) 249-3778.

Rick Thompson, D-Wayne, is speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates.

Owe back child support? Expect a call on your cell phone

2007-08-12T02:14:00.000-04:00

That cute little cell phone in her purse or snugly fitted to his ear or just clipped to a belt may be the way to call up a chunk of $73 million in back payments for child support in the Lynchburg area.

Calling up for payback is a cell phone initiative that has won recognition for the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Virginia Department of Social Services.

The cell phone billing address and phone number provides the chance to “reach out and touch people,” said Nick Young, director of Child Support Enforcement for the state.

The initiative was several years in the making, and difficult to get started, he said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Unable to get the information informally, Child Support Enforcement began the painstaking process of signing individual subpoenas for records.

For the first 5,000, “We had wonderful results,” said Young. He worked with the seven cell companies most active in Virginia - Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Alltel, Ntelos and Nextel.

The extensive subpoena paperwork is time-consuming. Several of the cell phone companies have agreed to some automated data matching, he said, though others continue to require the individual subpoena.

Young said the state has 268,000 delinquent non-custodial parents. The data match has brought back “52,000 brand new cell phone addresses and numbers.”

The information can be used in several ways, he said. “If there is an outstanding warrant we give the information to the sheriff’s office, and they use it accordingly.”

“If we’re trying to serve a legal document, notices, summons, we can use the address to do that. In many cases, we call the cell phone number (and ask) ‘Are you ready to start paying your child support?’”

Young said that among the delinquent parents, “We’re finding the average is 2.07 cell phones per person. What that means is that some have one and some have three - people who can afford two and three cell phones and do not take care of their children.”

According to a Department of Social Services news release, delinquent parents statewide owe about $2.4 billion in current and past support payments. Those debts are for 484,000 children.

In the 2006-2007 fiscal year the state was able to collect more than $608 million, up 4 percent from the year before.

The state has a 62 percent collection rate for child support. The Lynchburg localities have a rate of about 50 percent, but are catching up, said Young.

The $73 million in the Lynchburg area includes child support, as well as spousal support - also known as alimony. Some of those debts represent a few months in arrears, others are accumulated from decades of evasive maneuvers.

The cell phone initiative is in addition to other programs to find delinquent parents, involving drivers’ licenses, financial institutions, and employers.

Young said that the program is getting good feedback. For some families, the child support is essential to keep them afloat. Without it, they need benefits, food stamps, day care subsidies and other social services programs.

“Many went on welfare because they didn’t get the child support,” said Young.

The tab for those state and local social services programs is about $150 million. Although he’s using only a handful of cell phone companies now, said Young, 153 more are out there in the nation. Virginia is working with other states wanting to establish cell phone initiatives.

“I’m looking for people all over the U.S.,” said Young, adding that Virginia “will not be a safe haven for parents who do not take care of their children.”

The Department of Child Support Enforcement’s Cell Phone Initiative received the Innovation Award from the Council on State Governments during the Southern Legislative Conference.

Special judge to be assigned to child support case

2007-08-09T02:11:00.000-04:00

By KATE BRASER
Courier & Press staff writer 464-7622 or braserk@courierpress.com
Wednesday, August 8, 2007

A child support case in which an ex-wife claimed unfairness in the judicial system will be assigned to a special judge.

Suzanne Hebert Hamilton's attorney, Mary Lee Schiff, wrote a six-page letter to prosecutors in June complaining about the case. Hebert Hamilton's ex-husband, Richard Hamilton, is the son of Vanderburgh Superior Court Magistrate Allen Hamilton. A copy of the letter was also provided to the Courier & Press.

The couple separated in 2005 and finalized their divorce in February 2006. Hebert Hamilton lives in Florida with the couple's two children. In May 2006, she asked Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Robert Pigman to enforce a Florida contempt order, alleging Richard Hamilton owes $25,000 in back child support.

Court records show that in June, just days after a story ran in the Courier & Press in which Hebert Hamilton expressed her frustration about the case, Pigman recused himself. The next day, Vanderburgh Superior Court Judge Wayne Trockman recused all Vanderburgh Superior Court judges from the case.

A hearing scheduled for this week to determine whether Hamilton was making progress on his child support payments was canceled until the case can be assigned to a new judge.

Pigman, who helps supervise magistrates, wrote in his June 28 ruling that when the case was first brought to him, he explained in detail the potential conflict, and asked them to sign a waiver. In it, they acknowledged Hamilton's relationship to a court employee.

"Raising an issue, such as (Hebert Hamilton) and her attorney, Mary Lee Schiff, did in this case, after that issue had been specifically addressed and resolved to all parties' agreement, including a specific, on-record waivers and discussions of the options available to both parties, has created an atmosphere in which the fairness of the outcome in this case can reasonably be questioned, by both parties," Pigman wrote. "Recusal in the face of criticism is a particularly uninviting option for this court; however, given the nature and the circumstances surrounding this particular case, the court feels it is in the best interest of both parties that a fresh set of eyes examine the evidence."

Schiff responded to the ruling the next day, explaining the letter was sent to the prosecutor's office because Schiff was asking it to pursue a criminal case against Hamilton for his child support arrears.

The letter was delivered to the Courier & Press by Hebert Hamilton's father, Terry Hebert, a former employee of the newspaper. Hebert Hamilton is also a former newspaper employee.

In the letter, Schiff implied her client felt Richard Hamilton was being given special treatment because of his father's ties to the court.

On Tuesday, Hamilton's attorney, Scott Danks, extolled Pigman's virtues as a judge and dubbed Schiff's allegations "bizarre."

"Judge Pigman has such a wonderful reputation for being fair, unbiased and firm, to attack his integrity — I've never had that happen in a divorce case," Danks said. "They are the ones who requested him to hear the case. To me the allegations were just bizarre."

Noting Pigman was tough on Hamilton, Danks said he does not think another judge will handle the case differently.

Danks said Schiff's accusations were unfair.

"It is highly unethical for a lawyer to make false allegations against a judge," Danks said. "If a lawyer feels they have a grievance, we have formal procedures to go through."

Child support is a woman's issue, NOW says

2007-08-03T02:06:00.000-04:00

The following is a press release from the Virginia National Organization for Women.

Note these elements:

(1) NOW's open acknowledgment of the virtually one-way flow of so-called child support, from men to women. And while this press release says "88% of custodial parents in Virginia are women," the more interesting percentage to know would be the percentage of women who are required to pay CS to the fathers of their children. I suspect it is much less than 12 percent (100 minus 88), either because there are no CS orders where --against the odds--fathers have custody, or because the children are in neither parent's custody but in some form of foster care.

(2) When you go the web site showing the delinquent non-custodial "parents," you find they are all men, except for one. The amounts owed by the 15 men vary, but the average is around $80,000. However, Vickie Diane Mills got on the list while owing $16,087. I suspect that she was put on the list in a feeble effort to conceal the blatant anti-male bias of the CS system.

Published on Virginia National Organization for Women (http://www.vanow.org)
VA 's $2.3 billion child support problem
By legislative
Created Feb 13 2006 - 1:14am

Legislation to strengthen child support enforcement and update support guidelines are VaNOW priorities for the 2007 General Assembly session. In the vast majority of cases, child support is a woman's issue; 88% of custodial parents in Virginia are women. In Virginia, the Division of Child Support Enforcement http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/dcse.html [1] handles 363,000 cases, with 484,000 children. These children represent almost one-quarter of Virginia's child population. The size of the child support problem is enormous: $2.3 billion is due in past child support. Virginia is doing a number of things right in order to shore up child support. Here are a few statewide initiatives that are reaping success:

· The Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) maintains an interactive Internet site that provides updated payment and case information to custodial and non-custodial parents. Over 7,000 customers visit the site each day.

· Virginia participates in a "New Hire Reporting" program that requires new employees to be scrutinized for past due child support. Since its inception in 1993, approximately $89.8 million has been collected as a direct result of this program.

· The Virginia $4Kids Program allows child support payments to be made through the DCSE website or by toll-free phone call. · In 2005 Virginia initiated a program to publicize delinquent non-custodial parents with outstanding warrants. Pictures of these individuals were posted in newspapers in Tidewater, Roanoke, and Richmond.

To date, 63 non-custodial parents have been arrested. Pictures can also be found on the DCSE website at http://www.dss.virginia.gov/family/wanted.html

Political notes VA Child Support

2007-08-01T02:04:00.000-04:00

Potomac News
Friday, July 27, 2007

Speaker appoints McQuigg to committees
Virginia Speaker of the House William Howell has appointed Del. Michele B. McQuigg, R-51st, to seven joint committees, commissions and state boards, according to a press release.

McQuigg has been reappointed to the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, which reviews existing agency rules, regulations and practices and makes recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly.

McQuigg was also re-appointed to the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Operations of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office.

McQuigg will continue to serve as Chairwoman of the Disability Commission, which recommends legislative priorities and policies to support services and funding for disabled residents.

McQuigg was also reappointed to the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission.

McQuigg will also continue to serve on the Child Support Guidelines Review Panel, the Joint Subcommittee to Study the Cost Effectiveness of the Comprehensive Services for At-Risk Youth and Families Program and the Joint Subcommittee to Study the ways in which Telework Opportunities for State and Private Sector employees can be enhanced and increased.

McQuigg is retiring from her House seat at the end of this year and is running for Clerk of the Court in the November elections against Prince William County School Board Chairwoman Lucy S. Beauchamp, an independent, and Democrat Bill Ryland.

Political notes VA Child Support

2007-07-31T08:42:00.000-04:00

Virginia Putative Fatherhood

2007-07-31T02:02:00.000-04:00

You are considered a putative father, if:

You are not married to the child's mother; or
A court has not determined that you are the child's father; or
You have not signed a written agreement acknowledging you are the child's father; or
You have not adopted the child.

How Virginia Protects Putative Father Rights

Virginia has established a confidential database called The Virginia Putative Father Registry, that is designed to protect a putative father's rights by:

Helping to establish paternity
Notifying you of termination of parental rights or adoption proceedings for a child you may have fathered

The Virginia Putative Father Registry

Frequently Asked Questions (PDF)
Register as a Putative Father (PDF, Online Registration)
Request to Search Registry (PDF)
Questions or comments may be directed by phone to (877) 433-2339 or by e-mail to PutativeFather@dss.virginia.gov

Former child support clerk arrested

2007-07-31T01:58:00.000-04:00

An investigation by the State Attorney General’s Office resulted in the indictment Thursday, and the arrest Friday of Cindy Truhett on embezzlement charges involving child support funds which allegedly occurred while Truhett was a clerk in the program.

Truhett, 39, was arrested at 2 p.m. Friday inside the Lauderdale Courthouse in Meridian. Her bond hearing was held shortly thereafter where she was given a $10,000 bond. Truhett was released later Friday when she met bond requirements and guidelines.

According to the indictment against Truhett, who was working as a clerk in the Child Support Payment Program between Jan. 3, 2002 and April 10, 2007, she reportedly embezzled more than $216,000 in child support payment checks sent to the office.

The Child Support Payment Program, according to the indictment, was established by the Lauderdale County Chancery Court of the Twelfth Chancery Court District.

The charges levied against Truhett were the result of a contempt case filed by Laura Main on April 23. Main’s motion asked the court to hold Truhett in contempt for violating the duties of her office, and for her alleged failure to distribute collected child support payments for a persistent and unreasonable time.

Truhett unexpectedly quit her position with the program a day after Main’s motion was filed.

Main claimed during a July 13 hearing in Meridian she made several attempts to contact Truhett when Main fell behind in receiving her support payments. Main further stated Truhett misled her in saying the “checks were in the mail.”

A court date is expected to be set soon.

Former child support clerk arrested

2007-07-30T08:45:00.000-04:00

VA CSE Budget Upto $403 Millions

2007-01-20T08:20:00.000-05:00

According to JLARC, Virginia's equivalent to the Federal Government Accounting Office (GAO), Virginia's Child Support Enforcement's growth was SIXTH in growth amongst all of Virginia's "programs". Child Support Enforcement BUDGET Grew $403 MILLION dollars

Virginia Circuit Court Judge: Virginia DCSE's Paternit

2006-11-15T01:33:00.000-05:00

Human error calls validity of DNA testing into question Discipline is as reliable as ever, but workers prone to mistakes in collecting, analyzing samples

Tom Jackman, Washington Post

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Washington -- Washington hairdresser Andre Chreky gladly agreed to a DNA test when a former employee hit him with a paternity suit.

The claim was absurd, Chreky said he remembers thinking. He had stopped dating the woman years before she gave birth to the boy, now a teenager. This would all be over soon. DNA doesn't lie.

The results were back in a month, on a two-page report from Laboratory Corp. of America, or LabCorp, one of the largest paternity testers in the country and the state of Virginia's exclusive contractor: "The probability of paternity is 99.99 percent."

"It's crazy," Chreky, 50, who lives with his wife and two children in Great Falls, Va., recalled saying. "We need to take this to battle."

The fight lasted two years. When it ended in May, Fairfax County Circuit Court Judge David Stitt not only ruled in Chreky's favor but also raised serious questions about the reliability of DNA testing during a time when it is relied on to prove paternity, guilt, innocence and more.

"I thought LabCorp's performance was shoddy," Stitt said at a hearing in May after ruling that the state did not prove Chreky was the father. "I think something unfair happened in this case, where a citizen was put to the greatest extent to defend himself against what really has turned out to be a moving target as far as where LabCorp is concerned. ... I'm concerned about what level of oversight is being exercised by the commonwealth of LabCorp's work."

The state is not appealing Stitt's ruling.

LabCorp handles more than 100,000 DNA paternity tests for many public and private clients every year. But evidence at Chreky's trial showed that the company has only five people reviewing the data and making paternity determinations -- with one supervisor testifying that he issues an average of 1 paternity report every 4 minutes during a 10-hour shift.

DNA experts say Chreky's case underscores a growing problem in the burgeoning field of DNA testing: People make mistakes, and people collect the DNA samples and perform the analysis. So, they say, although DNA is as reliable as ever as a definitive science, the people reading and analyzing that science are imperfect. The volume of DNA testing also keeps rising.

The ruling in Chreky's case came as Virginia Gov. Mark Warner ordered a review of DNA testing at the state's criminal forensic lab after an audit detected human error in an analysis of a death row inmate's case.

Laurence Mueller, an evolutionary biology professor at UC Irvine who has been tracking lab errors in DNA cases for years, said DNA labs "use techniques that have been automated, like Hostess Twinkies on an assembly line. Most of the time, the Twinkies are fine. But once in a while, you see a bad one."

The bad ones, some biologists say, are coming more frequently.

This month, Illinois fired its DNA lab, Fairfax County-based Bode Technology, for failing to detect semen in 11 out of 51 rape cases. State police said the errors had not wrongly freed or convicted anyone, but they said they would have to reanalyze evidence in 1,200 rape cases.

At a July murder trial in Michigan, prosecutors acknowledged that a DNA test on evidence from 1969 matched someone who would have been 4 years old at the time of the slaying and couldn't possibly have been involved. Additional tests led to a second man, who was convicted.

In Las Vegas in 2001, a man spent a year in jail after being wrongly accused of committing two sexual assaults in the 1990s. Investigators later found that his DNA sample had been switched with another inmate's.

Human error "has always existed in all of the forensic sciences," said William Shields, a professor at the State University of New York in Syracuse who has testified in numerous DNA cases. "It exists in all the sciences."

Brad Smith, a LabCorp spokesman, said criticism from the judge in Chreky's case appeared to be the result of "some good lawyering on the challenge side."

"We are confident that we reported the correct results and that we followed appropriate procedures and good science," he said.

Smith added that he had worked in the identity and paternity testing field since 1982 and that "we've never had a result like this and/or a (judge's) statement like this."

Nathaniel Young, director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, which pursued Chreky's paternity, said in a statement that he could not comment on the case, but he said procedures are under review.

LabCorp has performed Virginia's paternity testing since 2001 and charges the state $39.50 per test, or about $120 per case. State statistics show LabCorp was paid $797,000 last year and did almost 20,000 tests.

Stitt found LabCorp's "99.99 percent" report "not statistically valid" and ruled that the state had "failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence" the case against Chreky.

How could a judge discard a seemingly definitive DNA report? Experts said it was virtually unheard of.

But Mueller pointed to a number of incidents of lab error in recent years, including allegations of problems with crime labs in Houston and Richmond, Va. Crime labs in Philadelphia and Minnesota were later discovered to have sent out "false matches."

"It's a terribly important issue," Mueller said. "People involved in doing these techniques make mistakes that are not involved with technology. ... Until you get humans out of the system, these things can happen."

Chreky is no scientist. He said he just knew that this was something he needed to fight. Most people don't have the means to contest a "99.99 percent" finding. His wife, Serena, said the couple spent more than $200,000 to fight the case.

Chreky said he spent much of the past three years overwhelmed with anxiety about the case. "I've been getting up at 3:30, sleeping a couple of hours a night," he said. "I tried to keep busy. You don't want to think about it."

Virginia Child Support Enforcement Receives Outstandin

2006-11-15T01:30:00.000-05:00

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine today announced that Virginia's Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) has been recognized by the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) with the 2006 Outstanding Program Award.

The award recognizes Virginia's child support program for having consistently and comprehensively exemplified the best in child support enforcement practices through an outstanding record of performance, and for providing effective services to its constituency. This is a complete lie, anyone who as dealt with DCSE know better.

Virginia's program serves more than 484,000 children, and DCSE collected a record $587 million in child support in state Fiscal Year 2006, a five-percent increase over the previous year. Virginia continues to be one of the most cost-effective states in the nation, collecting $6.52 in child support for every dollar expended on the program, according to a release from the state. In 2005, for the fifth consecutive year, Virginia received a $10.7 million incentive award for excellence in child support enforcement. Follow the money, its all about money… not the best interest of the child

"The commonwealth's consistent and award-winning efforts to enforce our child support laws helps promote responsible parenthood," Kaine said. "I congratulate these professionals who work hard every day to strengthen families, and who serve nearly one-in-four of Virginia's children." Damn another complete lie, responsible parenthood my ass. I guess if they goal is for the child to have only one parent then yes, be we all know that is not the case.

Virginia Secretary of Health and Human Resources Marilyn B. Tavenner and DCSE Director Nick Young will accept the award during NCSEA's 55th Annual Training Conference and Expo in Dallas, Texas, on August 2nd.

Innovation has defined child support enforcement in the Commonwealth:

Virginia's DCSE was the first state child support agency to subpoena cell-phone providers to obtain address and phone numbers of delinquent non-custodial parents, and is in the process of pursuing similar cooperation from cable TV providers. To get this done they are violating all the consumer of the company rights.
Virginia also pioneered the statewide use of full-page local newspaper ads picturing unlocated, egregiously-delinquent non-custodial parents, with the support of the papers, local law enforcement agencies, other state agencies such as Department of Motor Vehicles, and the courts.
In 1998, Virginia's DCSE initiated the Passport Denial Program, which makes it possible to revoke, refuse, restrict or limit a passport previously issued to an individual owing a child support debt greater than $5,000. Since its inception, more than 62,000 Virginians have been denied passports. The largest child support collection ever paid to retrieve a passport in Virginia was in 2003 when $186,968 was collected from a father living in Jordan.
This year, Virginia implemented a DCSE centralized Customer Service Call Center, located in Martinsville, to provide enhanced services to child support customers. The biggest waste of money the state even spent
DCSE has enhanced its Web site to facilitate customer access to both general and case-specific information.
DCSE is currently disbursing 58 percent of all child support payments electronically through direct deposit. Virginia also offers non-custodial parents and employers the opportunity to transmit payments electronically through the VA$4Kids Web site and interactive voice response system. So they can get account info that they normally won’t be able to get with a warrant..

Is the child support system set up to punish non-custodial fathers

2006-10-18T09:25:00.000-04:00

For years, men have stated that the child support system has its flaws. People are quick to label them as “dead beat dads” and swat away their complaints. YES ONLY FATHERS ARE LABEL DEAD BEAT...

It is a fact that some men are dreadful parents, but not all of them are. Sometimes, the father who’s trying to take responsibility gets milked by a system that favors women, regardless of any measures men take to provide for their children. LIKE THERE ARE NO DREADFUL MOTHERS OUT THERE

Recently, the Richmond Voice talked to Mason Roberts, a father of two who currently owes $30,000 in back child support. M:

“The courts want to keep upholding the image that people, especially African American men, don’t want to pay or take care of their kids, and that’s not it,” he said. WHICH IS NOT TRUE

“We just want fair treatment.” DAMN RIGHT!!!!

Roberts, 41, separated from his wife in 1998. He offered her three options then.

“I’ll take both the kids and you don’t have to pay any child support and you can come and get them anytime you want,” he told his wife of one year.

“Or, you take the girls and I’ll take our son,” he said in reference to a third child from his wife’s previous marriage.

And finally, he told her, “I’ll take them for the school year and you keep them on holidays and during the summer.”

But none of those options satisfied her. And from there, it was the start of a long road to an ugly child support case. WELL I WONDER WHY, BECAUSE A MOTHER WILL TELL YOU THEY ARE HER CHILDREN ONLY

After his wife was granted custody of their children, Roberts was making about $58,000 a year and his total child support payments was a little over $900 every month. YEAH, AND I BET IF THE MOTHER HAD TO PAID SHE WOULD BE PAYING NO $900 EVERY MONTH..

Roberts had no complaints. He was able to afford it so he gladly paid it.

A look inside Virginia DCSE as it commemorates CSEM

2006-10-18T09:22:00.000-04:00

Like rising tide, money keeps washing up to the doors of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), teeming in its quest to help Virginia children escape poverty. YES LET GET THE MOTHER AND THE KIDS OUT OF POVERTY SO WE CAN PLACE DAD IN POVERTY..

The money comes from stringent collections of court-ordered child support payments from non-custodial parents and from federal government bonuses. Last year, DCSE increased it collections by five percent to more than $587 million for 484,000 children and the feds awarded a $10.7 million bonus for DCSE’s collection efforts. The $10 million bonuses have been awarded for five consecutive years.
This is just the beginning of good things happening for DCSE. YET THESE DCSE OFFICE STILL CAN'T GET A DAMN THING RIGHT.

Adding icing to the cake is a recent recognition by the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which named DCSE the Nation’s Outstanding Child Support Enforcement Program.
A proclamation earlier this month by Gov. Tim M. Kaine did not hurt either. The governor proclaimed August Child Support Enforcement Month (CSEM) in the state.

“Virginia does an outstanding job in collecting child support payments,” Kaine said in issuing the proclamation. “The interests of the children of Virginia are being diligently pursued and protected by dedicated professionals at the local, regional and state levels.” AT WHAT COST TO FATHERS AND THOSE FEW MOTHERS WHO PAID SUPPORT

Those interests are pursued aggressively in collaboration with law enforcement agencies and private companies. Virginia was the first state in the nation to pursue the cell phone records of non-custodial parents owing child support. Cell phone service providers are subpoenaed for addresses and phone numbers. THAT IS WHY I HAVE A TRAC PHONE.... PREPAID, AND NO PERSONAL INFO..
Non-custodial parents are also tracked through new employment where automatic wage withholdings then begin to take place.

Less than a year ago, DCSE also pioneered the statewide use of full-page newspaper ads picturing non-custodial parents who owe their children large amounts of money but have gone AWOL and cannot be found. The response garnered from missing parents was favorable as many sought to pay off their debts to avoid having their names and pictures broadcast.

Last year, DCSE reports that it located 140,956 non-custodial fathers and mothers and established 9,302 paternities. Collection and tracking efforts are evident even on the DCSE’s Website where a most wanted list of the 11 child support dodgers in Virginia, shows that six have been found.

Anthony L. Cooley, a 29-year-old from Fort Eustis is one of those still wanted. He owes $24,869 for one child

In 1998, the DCSE initiated the Passport Denial Program, which makes it possible to revoke, refuse, restrict or limit a passport previously issued to an individual owing more than $5,000 in child support. Since the program’s inception, more than 62,000 Virginians have been denied passports. The largest child support collection ever paid to retrieve a passport in Virginia was in 2003 when $186,968 was collected from a father living in Jordan. I BET NOT MUCH OF THE MONEY WAS SPENT ON THE CHILD(REN)

DCSE this year implemented a centralized customer service call center, located in Martinsville to provide enhanced services to child support customers. The center is expected to handle some 8.8 million calls per year. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS A LIE. EVERY TIME I CALL I'M REROUTED TO THE PORTSMOUTH OFFICE OR SOME OTHER OFFICE..

“Each year we strive to improve so that we can provide the children of the Commonwealth what is owed to them,” said DCSE Director Nick Young recently. HE CAN'T EVEN GET THE LOCAL OFFICES TO DUE THEIR JOB, THESE OFFICE LEAK NCP PERSONAL INFO THE EX
Still out of 363,000 child support cases in the state, more than 300,000 children in the state are owed more than $2.2 billion in child support. HOW MUCH OF THIS IS CURRENT SUPPORT AS WELL AS ARRAERAGE
“This fact compels us to continually seek innovative ways to encourage parents to become responsible in meeting their obligations to their children,” said Young. “The end result we are seeking is improving the self-sufficiency of families.” WELL LET THE FATHER BE FATHERS IS A GOOD STARTING POINT.....

But even as the division celebrates this month and its apparent right moves, criticism is never far away.
Some custodial parents want DCSE to do more to locate missing parents who have been ordered by courts to pay child support. They want DCSE to take out more arrest warrants on non-child support paying parents.

Also, a number of non-custodial parents who have “fallen victim” to DCSE’s crutches say that it is riddled with mistakes. A parent who spoke to a Voice reporter last year said that he was still obligated to pay child support for a child who had passed away years before. Another parent said he was ordered to pay back child support from 1989 when his first child wasn’t born until 1993. Both had been fighting to get the situations redressed for years to no avail. YET THESE ASSHOLES DON'T MAKE MISTAKES... THE COURT/JUDGE WON'T DO NOTHING ABOUT, WHY BECAUSE THE STATE MAKES MONEY OFF OF CHILD SUPPORT

Aubrey El, who has had to pay back child support for years when he wasn’t a father yet angrily said that the DCSE’s motives were to perpetuate “a money making scam.” EXACTLY, ITS A SCAM

DCSE’s Young said that mistakes and human error happens. “But we try to fix them [when there’s no] questionable information” provided by parents. WELL THIS IS BULLSHIT, IF THE OFFICE OF DCSE KNOW A CHILD AS DIE AND THERE ISN'T ANY ARREARS, THEN WHY DON'T THEY CLOSE THE CASE ANYWAY..

He emphasizes that everything is done to help Virginia’s children. So if any custodial parents with child support court orders need help locating their children’s other parents, DCSE can step in.

Custodial parents are advised to not accept direct payments for child support from the non-custodial parents after the non-custodial parents have been ordered to pay child support through DCSE. Those who receive a payment directly are urged to send the payment to DCSE so the amount can be applied to delinquent accounts.

To help find parents who are delinquent in their responsibilities citizens can call (800) 257-9986.
–M.J.

Vt. high court: Mom must pay child support

2006-10-14T09:28:00.000-04:00

ONLY A FEMALE CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS ONE, HASN'T PAID SUPPORT SINCE 1991, IF THIS WAS A FATHER HE WOULD HAVE BEEN THROW IN JAIL.. YET, THEY CLAIM THE CHILD SUPPORT ARE NOT BIAS AGAINST FATHERS.. WHAT A BUNCH OF SHIT..

By The Associated Press
10.13.06

ST. JOHNSBURY, Vt. — The state Supreme Court has ruled that a former Vermont resident must pay child support despite her religious beliefs.

In a split decision, the court said the state can revoke the driver's license of Joyce Stanzione, a member of Twelve Tribes Messianic Community in Arcadia, Fla., who has not paid child support since 1991.

Stanzione was ordered to pay $50 per week in child support when she and her husband divorced and he left the religious community to return to Vermont along with three of the couple's five children, according to court papers.

She never contested the order but made no payments, court papers said.

In 2002, Stanzione was ordered to pay $4,800 to the state to make up for the welfare payments Vermont taxpayers supplied her children while they lived with their father.

Stanzione again made no payments, and in 2003 the Office of Child Support successfully moved to have her driver's license suspended.

Stanzione, 54, appealed that order.

Her lawyer argued that as a member of Twelve Tribes, which has a community in Island Pond, Stanzione is not permitted to have an income under church law. Suspending her license because she has no income violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects religious freedom, said attorney Jean Swantko, who is also a member of the Twelve Tribes Community.

The Vermont suspension bars her from driving in Florida which prevents her from doing church work, Swantko said.

Three of five justices ruled in September that Stanzione is able to pay child support from her share of the Twelve Tribes' annual income.

They also said Stanzione did not show how the license suspension impinged on her religious freedom.

Associate Justice John Dooley dissented, saying her license should be restored.

The evidence "conclusively showed an inability to pay," Dooley wrote.

Twelve Tribes has some 25 settlements worldwide, including Island Pond, which was the site of a raid by the state of Vermont in 1984. State officials alleged the community was abusing its children, but a judge dismissed all charges for a lack of evidence.

Hacker breaks into Treasurer's Office

2006-10-01T12:09:00.000-04:00

By NATE JENKINS / Lincoln Journal Star

Personal and financial information of more than 300,000 people may be in the hands of a hacker following a Wednesday break-in of the state computer system that processes child support payments.

A preliminary investigation of the incident suggests that the hacker did not download the information, said State Treasurer Ron Ross. But the possibility does exist.

“Based upon the method of attack, it is more likely the hacker’s intent was not to steal information, but rather to do something malicious since the hacker inserted a virus onto the server, which we immediately removed,” Ross said.

The child-support payment system was centralized in the treasurer’s office five years ago and now processes $1 million in transactions daily. Identity information potentially stolen by the hacker, which investigators believe may be based outside the U.S. and possibly in Asia, includes: names, addresses, bank account numbers, social security numbers and tax identification numbers.

Roughly 300,000 individuals and 9,000 employers may be affected. Ross said it was the first time the computer system, called KidCare, had been hacked. He was not aware of similar security breaches in other states.

The break-in, which Ross said lasted about 40 minutes, was detected by an employee after coming to work Wednesday morning. The system is not monitored 24 hours a day by a person.

The State Patrol has initiated a full investigation that could include help from the FBI and other agencies. Ross pledged to “get to the bottom of it” and implement new safeguards to prevent future break-ins. But that won’t likely include round-the-clock monitoring of the system by a person.

“I don’t think we’re at a point in government we want somebody standing by a computer screen 24-7, but we do need protocols in place,” Ross said.

“We thought we had good safeguards...somebody got in a door we didn’t think they’d be able to get into.”

The hard drive and server affected by the breach were immediately replaced.

Unlike many arms of state government, the child-support system is not part of the state’s centrally controlled computer system, said Brenda Decker, chief information officer for the state. The incident will prompt state officials to take a closer look at whether it should be.

“We’re working with the State Patrol to see if we can make this as secure and hardened as the rest of the system,” Decker said.

Asked during a press conference if the child-support system had the best available security system, Ross said he believed it did.

Those who pay or receive child-support should closely monitor their bank accounts, and are advised to close them if the see suspicious activity

Injured spouse claims

2006-10-01T11:47:00.000-04:00

Read More Here

Injured spouse claims. A noncustodial parent’s spouse typically does not have a duty to pay support for the noncustodial parent’s child from another relationship.[110] Thus, if the noncustodial parent and the spouse file a joint tax return, the portion of the tax refund attributable to the spouse is not subject to intercept. If an intercept includes an amount owed to the spouse, there is recourse. The nonobligated, or injured, spouse is allowed to request relief directly from the IRS.[111] The IRS requires submission of an Injured Spouse Claim and Allocation of a Joint Return form for the spouse to claim his or her portion of the offset refund. Money received through a tax refund intercept can be held for up to 6 months to see if an injured spouse will file a claim for a portion of the refund.

Distribution.[121] Collections received by a IV-D agency as a result of a Federal tax refund intercept, both for TANF and non-TANF cases, must be distributed as past-due support as required by 42 U.S.C. § 657. For individuals who have never received public assistance, the amount collected will be sent to them. In former assistance cases and in current TANF cases, some past-due child support payments are assigned to the State as a condition of receiving TANF. When the State receives intercepted Federal tax refunds, the refunds are retained to satisfy any support assigned to the State. After the debt to the State has been satisfied, the refund amount can be applied to any child support owed to the family.

Constitutionality. Federal tax refund intercept has been challenged in both State and Federal courts. Originally, noncustodial parents raised issues of denial of due process based on notice requirements and on an interpretation of the earned income tax credit portion of a Federal return.[122] As courts routinely upheld the validity of Federal tax refund interception, noncustodial parents have raised questions pertaining to the definition of the term “past due.” Courts have held that a supporting parent must fall behind in his or her ordered payments before having his or her Federal tax refund intercepted. The issue often arises in the context of a modification when the court orders that a modification take effect retroactively. Courts have found that, although the noncustodial parent was in arrears based on the entry of a modified order, he or she was not in arrears as the term “past due” was defined by 42 U.S.C. § 664.[123]

A New for VA to find your Bank Account

2006-09-23T12:21:00.000-04:00

VIRGINIA $4KIDS

The Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement now offers a method to pay child support
by electronic funds transfer (EFT) over the telephone or on the Internet.
Our VA $ForKids payment system has several advantages to help you save time and money:

Convenience - You can make payments seven days a week, using a standard touch-tone telephone
(888-820-7280) or on our secured website, www.govone.com/vacs.The system will prompt you for the required information.
If you have difficulties, an operator is available to guide you through the process at 800-332-4125.

Increased Control – A payment is made only when you call to authorize it.
You designate the date your bank account is to be debited and the amount paid. You will have the maximum
use of your funds, with the added benefit of ensuring on-time payments.

Increased Reliability – Once you have completed the transaction, you will receive a reference number as your proof of payment.
You will avoid the difficulties that could result from late or lost payments.

Free of Charge - You will no longer have to issue checks, print envelopes, and pay postage.
The Commonwealth of Virginia does not charge for this service.
The telephone number is a toll free number.

To enroll in this program, please complete the EFT Agreement
You may fax the completed agreement and a copy of a voided check to 804-726-7955.

( so va can get into you account without you knowing till after the fact.)
Or you may mail it to:

Virginia $4Kids
PO Box 10250
Richmond, VA 23240-0250

Please allow two weeks for your enrollment to be processed.
When this is complete, you will receive a welcome letter,
your personal identification number (PIN), and easy instructions on how to use this system.

If you have questions about this program or the enrollment process, please call the EFT Unit at 804-726-7277.
We hope this program will help simplify the child support payment process.

Child support enforcement agency to lose $8 million in funding in ‘07

2006-09-15T01:14:00.000-04:00

Kris WiseDaily Mail staff Tuesday September 12, 2006
The state agency charged with enforcing child support payments in West Virginia will lose $8 million next year from the federal government, further tightening the belt of an office already facing an increasing caseload and static staffing levels.

Changes in the way child support recipients receive their payments -- they now come through automated debit card accounts -- have increased the number of questions and phone calls the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement gets on a daily basis, although the number of employees hasn't moved much above 450 in the past six or seven years.

The number of active child support cases in West Virginia also is on the rise from the past decade, with the state helping process payments for about 117,800 families this year. More than 130,000 families receive some sort of help from the office, and child support collection rose last year to $178 million, up $13 million from 2004.

The state also helped administer 5,170 paternity tests last year for families who were looking to secure child support payments but needed genetic confirmation about a parent.

The funding formula changed for those tests, too, and the state's portion increased this year. The federal government once paid 90 percent of the cost of genetic testing; it now pays less than 67 percent, and the state has to pick up the rest of the tab.

The formula change adds an extra $50,000 to the state budget this year.

Starting in 2007, the federal government also is revoking one source of extra money that the bureau has counted on for several years to make up almost one third of its annual budget.
The bureau's $30 million budget consists of one-third state funds and two-thirds matching money from the federal government.

Next year a $4 million performance-based bonus that the government typically awards to the West Virginia bureau no longer will be eligible to receive matching federal funds.

Usually the state can count on drawing down an extra $8 million in matching money from that $4 million bonus, for a total of $12 million. With the federal government trying to shave spending in certain sectors, it's no longer going to match the bonus pot.

Jacobs said the $8 million budget loss next year would likely send bureau officials to the state Legislature to ask lawmakers to look at funding changes.

The money goes into the bureau's regular budget, helping pay staff salaries, operate child support programs and upgrade office equipment.

"We're in the initial stages of trying to figure out what affect it will have and what we will do," said Garrett Jacobs, deputy commissioner for the bureau. "No decisions have been made about cutting back on positions or services at this time."

The federal funding cuts were part of a nationwide $1.6 billion savings measure passed by Congress in December.

The move will shrink a budget that was already reduced by $1 million on the state level this year because the bureau renegotiated some program contracts to try and trim expenses.
"We are definitely not an agency that is overstaffed," Jacobs said Monday. "There are improvements we could make with more staff, and whether the state feels that would be beneficial or not is up to them. We are always getting more calls than we have customer service agents. We don't have enough staff to handle the magnitude of calls we get."

Less than two years ago, the state for the first time began processing child support payments through debit accounts.

The bureau received a spate of criticisms from some of the families they served, who called the new payment process confusing and less efficient.

Jacobs said the bureau's state and county offices were temporarily flooded with calls about the program, but the pace of questions has slowed.

"The biggest issue we had when we rolled it out...was a lot of people just weren't used to using a debit card," Jacobs said. "They were either unbanked or they didn't have a debit card. Once we got them used to it, it was a smoother transition."

Funding changes for the bureau take effect in July. The Legislature will approve next year's budget in March.

Contact writer Kris Wise at kriswise@dailymail.com or 348-1244.

Child Support Enforcement A Fraud

2006-09-14T11:57:00.000-04:00

Child Support Enforcement A Fraud
By Bruce EdenAfter reading the article "NYS Child Support Collections Top $1.5 Billion" (Feb. 25, 2006), the words that come to mind are "fraud", "scam", "extortion", "racketeering" and "government oppression".

The state talks a good story about how all the increased child support enforcement and collections benefits the children. This is pure fantasy. The monies that the state awards, enforces and collects is directly proportional to how much it receives from the federal government as incentive reimbursement funding.And that amount is in the several hundreds of millions of dollars. The monies that the state receives for child support enforcement has no strings attached. The state uses this funding to bolster their state employee and judicial pension plans. Sounds like a massive conflict of interest and criminal conspiracy to me. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville and Gibson v. Berryhill that judges cannot sit on cases where they have a pecuniary interest in them because it would be a demonstration of actual bias.

Yet, judges, or state employed judicial hearing officers, in the domestic relations courts, sit on these cases every day. This has created a tyranny by having the state criminalize a civil matter. As stated in the article, it says that the district attorneys are getting into the act in prosecuting people for child support arrearages.Again, this is a blatant due process and equal protection violation. When were the payor parents told, at the inception of the child support matter, that the matter would be converted from a civil case into a criminal case? When were they read their Miranda rights, such as right to remain silent about their financial situation, or given their right to trial by jury or right to appointed, competent effective counsel to defend them properly.As can be seen by this lack of substantive due process, the entire child support enforcement mechanism is a fraud and a scam that smacks of racketeering.

If any debt collection agency did this for any other debt, they be facing massive fines and criminal charges. They would be put out of business immediately.New York State claims it is going after so-called "deadbeats" by criminalizing child support delinquencies and jailing those with large arrearages. Sounds good. However, if one were to investigate the situation they would find that most of the state's largest delinquent child support obligors are unemployed, underemployed, undereducated, disabled, minorities, or deceased.

That's right-deceased! The state needs to keep those numbers on its books in order to maximize the federal funding it receives.According to a 7-year longitudinal academic study done by Arizona State University that became the book, "Divorced Dads-Shattering the Myths", it was uncovered that less than 5% of all delinquent child support payors are true "deadbeats"-those with the expensive sports cars and trophy wives half their age. So, where is the child support "deadbeat" hysteria? There is none. It is being contrived by the federal and state governments in order to control families, steal children, and eliminate fathers from families so that the state can become the "super-parent".

It is another tyrannical government program to extract money from taxpayers to support the government's own largesse.The state defrauds the taxpayers by claiming they are doing it "for the children". The government never does something for its citizens without a quid pro quo. In the U.S. Supreme Court case DeShaney v. Winnebago County Board of Social Services, the high Court ruled that the state owes no duty to protect its citizens. So, the question begs: "Why is the state discriminating against one-half of the population to enforce child support?" It is obvious. It is not about the children or getting people off of welfare.

It is about how much money the states can rake in so they can appropriate more money from the feds to balance their own budgets.Federal child support enforcement laws were designed solely for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and for welfare families. It was never designed for the "never-welfared" middle class. However, child support bureaucrats and other hangers-on testified before Congress that they needed to bring the middle-class into the fray in order to receive maximum benefits from the federal government in order to bolster state budgets. Interestingly, not one child support payor, or any advocacy group for child support payors was allowed to testify before Congress and the New York State legislature (or for any other state for that matter) in devising child support enforcement legislation.

Again, we see a pattern of racketeering conspiracy and government tyranny at the expense of innocent taxpayers.There is a large hue and cry across the country to curtail divorces because it threatens the very fabric of our society. The reason is because one parent is allowed to divorce the other without any grounds. One parent can divorce and abuse the legal system to win the divorce, all of the money and assets of the marriage, and win custody of the children (with all the attendant financial benefits that come with this). It's all because of child support. Child support enforcement has created the "divorce state". Not only does child support increase the amount of divorces because of the financial windfall to the custody-winning parent, it threatens society. Child support enforcement laws are in reality a threat to national security.

The time has come for lawmakers to take a second look at the draconian child support enforcement laws in this country because these laws are not constitutional. Child support enforcement laws are a threat to national security. To stop this threat, lawmakers either need to eliminate or seriously curtail child support enforcement against innocent taxpayers, or they must tax child support the way alimony is taxed.

This would immediately slow down divorces in this country. This is because the custodial parent, (in over 80% of all cases it is the mother-further gender discrimination against males), would think twice about divorcing on grounds that their marriage is not satisfactory, before having to pay the additional large income tax burden.Bruce Eden is the director of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination),New Jersey and New York chapters,Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey,PO Box 4075, Wayne, NJ 07474(973) 616-9558

Congress Should Reject Bounty Hunter Proposals To Open Child Support Data Bases and Enforcement Tools

2006-09-06T18:07:00.000-04:00

Congress Should Reject Bounty Hunter Proposals To Open Child Support Data Bases and Enforcement Tools: "Congress Should Reject Bounty Hunter Proposals To Open Child Support Data Bases and Enforcement Tools to Commercial Collection Agencies"

Child Support laws discriminate against fathers

2006-09-06T17:47:00.000-04:00

Chipeur Advocates - News: "Child support laws discriminate against fathers, Montreal lawsuit claims
Federal Court in Montreal asked to strike down formula that violates Charter guarantee of equality and does not preserve child support for children
December 24, 2002 - MONTREAL - The federal government's Child Support Guidelines are biased against fathers and violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, claims a major lawsuit filed against the government in Federal Court yesterday.
The lawsuit, A.B. and G.H. v. Her Majesty the Queen, exposes the unfair formula that the Federal Government developed to determine child support payments - a formula that is not based on the true cost of raising children. The lawsuit shows how Canada's Child Support Guidelines mandate a massive transfer of wealth from men to women for no demonstrable purpose. The wealth transfer is not related to child support and could only be described as extra alimony. But the lawsuit asserts that the federal government cannot use the child support rules to pad alimony payments.
The lawsuit also challenges the rules that remove paying parents - usually fathers - from any financial decision-making for the children. By doing so, the Child Support Guidelines interfere with the parent-child relationship.
The statement of claim highlights at least seven significant flaws in the current Divorce Act:
1. It arbitrarily requires men (in 90% of the cases) to make payments to their former spouses, using a formula that is not based on the needs of the children - this violates the Charter;
2. It does not require the child support payments to be accounted for or in fact spent on the children - this deprives children of financial security;
3. It establishes a new tax, a tax on being divorced and a father � and directs the tax revenues to a former spouse, not the children;
4. It v"

OCSE International Resources list were US can send a child support order to

2006-06-19T01:12:00.000-04:00

OCSE International Resources: "OCSE IRG International Addresses
Foreign Reciprocating Countries
Australia
Canada
Czech Republic
Finland
Ireland
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
OCSE Policy "