Beware of private child support collection agencies

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.

Read more...

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

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.

Read more...

Special judge to be assigned to child support case

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."

Read more...

Child support is a woman's issue, NOW says

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

Read more...

Political notes VA Child Support

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.

Read more...