Man get CS Back.

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

Read more...

Once again VA can't get it Right

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.

Read more...

Dads win in new child support appeals

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.

Read more...

Judge Order Child Support in traffic Court Proceeding

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.

1. 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.

Read more...

DELAWARE: Funds sought to replace child support enforcement system

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.

Read more...