Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - MYSONSDAD

#1
Illinois State Forum / Springfield Reporter...
Nov 12, 2004, 08:29:31 AM
In last weeks newspaper, a reporter from Springfiled wrote on the new Grandparents Rights Law.

Maybe a few well written, polite letters will point her in the direction on the Class Action Lawsuit. Or at least our side of being a NCP.

The reporter is out of Springfield, Illinois. Her name is Stephanie Sievers.  Phone number, 217-524-5797. E-mail address, [email protected]


"Children learn what they live"
#2
Welcome to Sparc! We appreciate your input.

I have a question that I would like to ask. It is sensitive. May I e-mail you privately Dean?  
#3
Child Support Issues / CS Action Alert
Nov 19, 2005, 05:45:12 PM
E-mail newsletter from Congressman Marsha Blackburn,
found they are very close to passing what looks like a major
improvement to incentives to states for their CS programs:

>Child Support Enforcement. Savings of $4.899 billion in 2006-10.
Makes
changes to Child Support Enforcement, some of which cost money by
increasing the amount of collections which are passed through to the
custodial parents. Two changes result in substantial savings. Those
are
eliminating the federal match when states spend CSE incentive
payments,
saving $1.6 billion; and phasing in a reduction in the federal
matching rate
for administrative expenses from 66% to 50%, which saves $3.8
billion.  
Rep. Blackburn

The bill this is contained in is called the "Deficit Reduction Act of
2005".  The rest of the bill isn't related to family law, but it
looks
good too.  This would be a great time to contact your congressman or
woman, and ask them to support this legislation, and also to
completely
defund VAWA which is a waste of about a billion dollars a year.

Contact your federal representative:
http://www.house.gov/

"Children learn what they live"
#4
http://www.cbelow.org/Child%20Support%20Commission%20Final%20Report%2012-1-04.pdf

"Children learn what they live"
#5
Child Support Issues / CLASP INFO, A MUST READ
Nov 10, 2005, 06:46:52 PM
http://www.clasp.org/publications/child_support_cuts.pdf

"Children learn what they live"
#6
Child Support Issues / NEW FROM CLASP
Oct 26, 2005, 07:13:11 PM

NEW FROM CLASP

Ways and Means Committee Proposes Deep Cuts in Child Support Funding
by Vicki Turetsky. The Committee on Ways and Means has proposed deep
cuts to the federal matching rate for child support services, which
would severely reduce states' ability to collect child support for low-
and moderate-income families. This brief outlines why the child support
program is a sound investment-collecting $4.38 in child support for
every public dollar spent-and how much funding each state stands to lose
if the proposed cuts are enacted. 3 pages. 10/25/2005
http://www.clasp.org/publications/child_support_cuts.pdf

Child Support-Related Provisions in New Katrina Relief Legislation
by Vicki Turetsky. This paper outlines the child support-related
provisions of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005, signed into law on
September 21, 2005. It also describes recent Health and Human Services
policy guidance and pending legislation that would clarify the law.
Finally, it recommends that Congress adopt additional short-term child
support measures to help states impacted by the hurricanes. 10 pages.
10/25/2005
http://www.clasp.org/publications/child_support_and_katrina_relief_legis
lation.pdf

The Child Support Enforcement Program: A Sound Investment in Improving
Children's Chances in Life
by Vicki Turetsky. The child support program enforces the responsibility
of parents to support their children. The program's performance has
improved dramatically in recent years. This six-page report explains why
the program is a sound investment-returning $4.38 in collected support
for every dollar the government spends. 5 pages. 10/24/2005
http://www.clasp.org/publications/cfy_safetynet_final.pdf

State Strategies for Preventing the Accumulation of Child Support
Arrears and Managing Existing Arrears
by Paula Roberts. The publicly funded child support program contends
with over $100 billion in arrears, or outstanding child support owed by
obligated parents. To address this problem, a number of states revising
their policies and developing strategies to both prevent the growth of
arrears and resolve existing debt. This PowerPoint presentation
describes these efforts, and includes a comprehensive bibliography of
sources for further information. 49 pages. 10/25/2005
http://www.clasp.org/publications/strategies_for_child_support_arrears.p
df

These publications and other resources are available at //www.clasp.org
___________________________

Sign up for the November 18 CLASP Audio Conference!

Better Business: Making Work "Work" for Employers and Employees
Friday, November 18, 12:30-1:30 pm (Eastern Time)

Many of the efforts to provide family support at the workplace have been
framed as either helping business or helping employees. However, a new
movement has emerged that is looking at the mutual benefits of making
work "work" for both employers and employees. The business reasons
behind this new movement are diverse, including the changing nature of
work, the economy and the workforce. And the business case includes the
attraction, development, retention of employees as well as community
economic development. What are some tips on how to get employers in your
community to make work "work"; what are the implications for low wage
workers of flexible work?

Learn about brand-new findings from two experts who bridge the worlds of
business and workers!

Guests:
Ellen Galinsky, President, Families and Work Institute
Donna Klein, President & CEO, Corporate Voices for Working Families

Register online with a credit card and save 10 percent!
http://www.clasp.org/confdescriptions.php#15

___________________________

The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a national, nonprofit
organization founded in 1968, conducts research, policy analysis,
technical assistance, and advocacy on issues related to economic
security for low-income families with children. For more information
about CLASP, visit //www.clasp.org

Center for Law and Social Policy
1015 15th Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 906-8000
(202) 842-2885 fax
#7
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm

"Children learn what they live"
#8
Child Support Issues / Handbook on CSE
Sep 05, 2005, 08:43:02 AM
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2005/handbook_on_cse.pdf

"Children learn what they live"
#9
Child Support Issues / Child Slave Trade
Jul 05, 2005, 09:13:24 PM
CHILD SLAVE TRADE PROJECT
NEW MATERIAL POSTED JULY 3, 2005: PRESS RLEASE: SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE: JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FEDERAL FUND REVENUE
PRESS RELEASE
July 3, 2005
SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT DECISIONS ARE DRIVEN BY THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM FEDERAL FUND REVENUE

Parents nationwide have complained for decades that their families were destroyed and children seized by corrupt child protection agencies for no other reason than to obtain federal funds for State governments. They have been telling the truth all along. Clear evidence has been discovered documenting how organized crime methods and procedures are integrated into juvenile and family courts. This documentation has been assembled through the combined efforts of independent researchers in California, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, researchers for the American Family Rights Association, and document research conducted by THE SOCIOLOGY CENTER.

Instructions for shaping judicial child and family protection decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund claims have been documented in the CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing (2004). The instructions are scattered throughout the Benchguide emphasized by the label "Judicial Tip." One example states:

Page 100-13
"JUDICIAL TIP: Failure to make this finding may cause permanent loss of federal funding for foster care. See discussion of other required findings in §100.36. The court may make this a temporary finding pending the continued detention hearing."

The full text of CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench Guides SmallFile.pdf (35.1Mb)

A publication of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges titled RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases provides additional evidence that this represents national judicial policy and that strategies using juvenile and family judicial decisions to maximize child protection system federal fund revenue is a well known corrupting influence on the judicial system. Two example state:

Appendix C, Page 158, Note 15
15. Two commentators summarize the barriers facing judicial oversight:
[T]he authority of judges in these matters is often limited; they do not have the power to order the agency to provide services to an individual. In some states, the courts will make a positive “reasonable efforts” determination regardless of agency efforts in order to ensure federal funding. Judges are not trained in matters over which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and, because of rotation schedules, remain in the assignment for a short period of time. Consequently, they do not acquire the experience needed to handle these sensitive cases. While judges in some localities make a good faith effort to determine whether adequate services have been offered to the family, in many localities a positive finding is merely a matter of checking a box on a preprinted form.
Susan Goodman and Joan Hurley, Reasonable Efforts: Who Decides What’ s Reasonable? (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.) 1993, at 8.

Appendix C, Note 110, Page 162
110. In many jurisdictions the trial judge must merely check a box on a preprinted court form to indicate that reasonable efforts were provided in the case. Shotton, supra end. 3. In some other jurisdictions the court order forms simply include a preprinted statement that reasonable efforts were made, thus making the finding possible without the judge’s even checking a box. Id., at 227. In some states, courts and agencies have taken a cynical approach, seeking to assure receipt of federal funding without the court taking a meaningful look at reasonable efforts. In such states, words indicating the agency has made reasonable efforts are preprinted into court order forms used when removal of a child is authorized, and laws are structured so a judge cannot authorize a foster placement without a positive finding of reasonable efforts. Hardin, supra end. 7, at 54

The full text of RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases is available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/CANCCourtPractices.pdf (569.6Kb)

Six pages of examples cited from CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES: BENCHGUIDE 200: Juvenile Dependency Initial or Detention Hearing and RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases are available at http://thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/SmokingGunAnoun.pdf
 

"Children learn what they live"
#10
These countries do not vote here. But lets keep the CS coming and coming. Send us to prison if we don't pay...

June 12, 2005
Finance Chiefs Cancel Debt of 18 Nations
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LONDON, June 11 (AP) - Finance ministers from the Group of 8 industrialized nations agreed Saturday to cancel at least $40 billion worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations.

The British chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, said that 18 countries, many in sub-Saharan Africa, would benefit immediately from the deal to scrap 100 percent of the debt they owe to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Bank.

As many as 20 other countries could be eligible if they meet strict targets for good governance and tackling corruption, leading to a total debt relief package of more than $55 billion.

"The G-8 finance ministers have agreed to 100 percent debt cancellation for heavily indebted poor countries," Mr. Brown told a news conference in London.

Aid agencies welcomed the deal, saying it would save the 18 countries a total of $1.5 billion a year in debt repayments that could now be used for health care, education and infrastructure development.

Finance ministers from the United States, Britain, Japan, Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy and France agreed to the package during a two-day meeting in London. The initiative was begun by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1996.

"A real milestone has been reached," said Treasury Secretary John Snow. "President Bush's commitment to lift the crushing debt burden on the world's poorest countries has been achieved. This is an achievement of historic proportions."

Nations in sub-Saharan Africa alone owe some $68 billion to international bodies. Rich nations had long agreed the debt must be relieved, but the international community could not agree on a formula for tackling the problem.

The package agreed to on Saturday was put forward by the United States and Britain after talks in Washington this week between Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Britain originally wanted rich countries to assume the repayments for the poor countries, to protect the lending groups' ability to create future aid packages.

But eventually, Britain agreed with the American position that the debts be scrapped outright.

But Mr. Bush agreed that rich nations would provide extra money to the lending groups, to compensate for the assets being written off. The agreement will initially cover 18 nations eligible for debt relief under the initiative, including Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana and Mali.

Nine other countries are close to completing the targets for good governance set out under the initiative. They too would qualify once the goals are met.

"This is a great deal for people in many of the very poorest countries, it reflects well on Gordon Brown and John Snow and is a tribute to the growing global campaigns to beat poverty," said Jamie Drummond, executive director of DATA, a lobbying group that campaigns against AIDS and poverty in Africa. "This bold step builds serious momentum for a historic breakthrough on doubling effective aid and trade justice at the G-8 summit next month."

Britain has made tackling poverty in Africa and the developing world a priority for its presidency of the Group of 8.

Mr. Blair's approach has three prongs: increasing aid, eliminating debt and removing export subsidies and other trade barriers that make it difficult for developing nations to compete.

Aid agencies say the Group of 8 leaders must now focus on meeting Britain's target of increasing international development aid by $50 billion a year.

Some question whether agreement on that will be reached at the Group of 8 summit meeting scheduled for early July in Gleneagles, Scotland.

The United States and Japan both reject a British proposal to raise that money by selling bonds on the world capital markets.

Like the United States, Japan prefers its own bilateral aid programs, and France is pushing an initiative for an international aviation tax.



"Children learn what they live"
#11
http://www.childsupport-aces.org/home.html

"Children learn what they live"
#12


American Coalition for Fathers and Children
http://www.acfc.org/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Below is the fourth strongly-worded column by Phyllis Schlafly this year on outrages against fathers and children.  This is a direct challenge to the HHS machine, now supposedly run by a family-friendly conservative administration.  Republican politicians cannot ignore the voice of Phyllis Schlafly -- and we must not allow them to try.
 
Phyllis is the first major columnist to directly confront the economics of the divorce regime and expose the money trail.  This column is even stronger than past columns by Kathleen Parker and Cathy Young (who now perhaps may be induced to rejoin the battle).  Together with the NY Times Magazine piece (though this column says much more, more incisively, in much fewer words), we are having major breakthroughs on both the left and right.  We must encourage this if we want it to continue and grow.  I can tell you, if our sympathizers do not receive support and encouragment, they will not continue.
 
Please write to your local newspapers and urge them to run this column.  Contact your local broadcast media to interview her -- or you:  Tell them that you can provide a local twist and local examples.  Editors love that.  You may also wish to contact your state Eagle Forum affiliate and offer to work with them
 
Stephen Baskerville
President, ACFC
******************************************
 
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20050509.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/printps20050509.shtml
townhall.com


Printer-friendly version
Federal incentives exist to make children fatherless
by Phyllis Schlafly (archive)

May 9, 2005


Why has Congress appropriated taxpayer money to give perverse incentives that break up families and deprive children of their fathers? The built-in financial incentives in the current child-support system have expanded the tragedy of fatherless children from the welfare class to millions of non-welfare divorced couples.

Americans have finally realized that providing generous welfare through Aid to Families with Dependent Children was counterproductive because the father had to disappear in order for the mother to receive taxpayer-paid benefits. Fathers left home, illegitimacy rose in alarming numbers and children were worse off.

AFDC provided a taxpayer-paid financial incentive to reward girls with their own monthly check, food stamps, health care and housing if they had illegitimate babies. "She doesn't need me, she's got welfare" became the mantra.

Congress tried to reform the out-of-control welfare system by a series of child-support laws passed in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1996 (the famous Republican welfare reform), and 1999.
Unfortunately, these laws morphed the welfare system into a massive middle-class child-support system that deprives millions of children of fathers who never abandoned them.

As former President Ronald Reagan often said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn't. When welfare agencies collect child support, the money actually goes to the government to reimburse it for welfare payments already given to mothers, supposedly to reduce the federal budget (which, of course, is never reduced).

In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendment. It required states to adopt voluntary guidelines for child-support payments.

In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory - along with criminal enforcement - and gave states less than one year to comply. The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines conveniently already written by a Department of Health and Human Services consultant who was president of what was shortly to become one of the nation's largest private collection companies, which makes its profits on the onerous guidelines that create arrearages.

The 1988 law extended the guidelines to ALL child-support orders, even though the big majority of those families never had to interact with government in order to pay or receive child support. This massive expansion of federal control over private lives uses a Federal Case Registry to exercise surveillance over 19 million citizens whether or not they are behind in child-support payments.

The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a state fund, but the federal government pays most of the administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal government pays 66 percent of the states' administrative overhead costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and 90 percent of DNA testing for paternity.

In addition, the states share in a nearly $500 million incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose.

However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class fathers is uncollectable. Most of them are either unemployed or have annual incomes less than $10,000.

So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement, the states began bringing into the government system middle-class fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on welfare. These non-welfare families have grown to represent 83 percent of child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating a windfall of federal money flowing to the states.

The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money state bureaucracies collect from the federal government.

Follow the money. The less time that noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they are required pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.

States have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced and to hang onto the father's payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 that states were holding $657 million in undistributed child support.

Fatherless boys are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Fatherless girls are twice as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail.

We can no longer ignore how taxpayer money is providing incentive for divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government's complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without fathers.



©2005 Copley News Service

Contact Phyllis Schlafly | Read Schlafly's biography

townhall.com

QUICK LINKS: HOME | NEWS | OPINION | MEETUP | C-LOG | ISSUES


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Children Need BOTH Parents!
 
The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
 
For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS
or see ACFC's homepages at: http://www.acfc.org
 
To subscribe send a message to:  [email protected]
Message in subject line: subscribe acfc
 
To unsubscribe send a message to:  [email protected]
Message in subject line: unsubscribe acfc
 
The ACFC List Serve provides timely information to fathers, second
wives, and others seeking restoration of fatherhood in America and
the world.  ACFC does not endorse or approve the views or opinions
expressed by contributors, which have been provided only as a
service to our list serve subscribers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
#13
Illinois Legislature Mobilizes to Protect Reservists Fighting Overseas From Unfair Child Support Payments


Thu Mar 10,10:00 AM ET
 
 
To: State Desk

Contact: Joe Englert of the Law Offices of Jeffery M. Leving, LTD, 312-807-3990 ext. 236 of [email protected]

CHICAGO, March 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Illinois reservists and guardsmen fighting overseas may face another battle when they return home - a legal battle. Many divorced or unwed fathers serving in the reserves may face prosecution as a "deadbeat dad" and possible jail time when they return home due to unpaid child support payments they could not afford while on their limited active-duty pay. Adjusting these payments can be difficult for reservists who may be mobilized with as little as one day's notice.

This week the Illinois Legislature moved forward two identical bills that would address this problem and protect Illinois' military fathers. The bills - Senate Bill 2094 and House Bill 2598 - would establish a program to adjust child support payments for reservists and guardsmen when they are mobilized for more than 30 days. The proposed legislation was passed unanimously in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) on March 8, 2005 and was passed unanimously by the House Child Support Committee the following day.

"Now Illinois lawmakers will have the opportunity to fight for the soldiers that are fighting for us, by ensuring that they aren't welcomed home as dead beats." said Chicago attorney and fathers' rights advocate Jeffery M. Leving, who authored the proposed legislation. "Reservists and guardsmen serving overseas are risking their lives everyday to protect our freedom. The least we can do is fix a flaw in the system that could cost them their freedom."

The bills, sponsored by Sen. Kimberly Lightford and Reps. Kenneth Dunkin and Cynthia Soto, will now go before the full Senate and House for votes in those chambers.

In addition to establishing the Child Support Military Modification (CSMM) program, the proposed legislation would mandate the publication and distribution of materials to inform reservists and guardsmen of the program, making efforts already initiated by Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Operation Homefront to facilitate modification of child support payments the law in Illinois.

Leving, a nationally recognized litigator and author of the book "Fathers' Rights," believes the proposed Illinois law will serve as an example for lawmakers in other states. A bill similar to the legislation proposed in Illinois was recently introduced in the California State Legislature.

He also is advocating for reform at the federal level. Currently, military fathers cannot get relief when they return home because of the federal Bradley Amendment, which forbids judges from retroactively forgiving child support.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

 
 
"Children learn what they live"
#14
Wendy McElroy was interviewed on KRights Radio. Her interview can be
downloaded and/or heard at: http://www.krightsradio.com/wendyMcelroy.mp3
In that interview she made the following statement"
. "There has to be people saying, as in the sixties,
. `Hell no, I won't pay this child support. -- and do
. it in a public protest way -- not a private way,
. where they are picked off -- where
. they become prominent court trial cases"
We now have a man that is about to take this step ... what will we do to
support him?

I learned of a man named Doug Cantrell yesterday. He was posting to
the MichDads Yahoo! website. One of his messages and a link is
provided at the end o fthis message. The website can be found at:
. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michdads/?yguid=89571721

"Children learn what they live"
#15
http://krightsradio.com/lettertoeditor.php

"Children learn what they live"
#16
Child Support Issues / Eye Opener
Dec 18, 2004, 06:44:05 PM
Section 11. Child Support Enforcement Program
 
                               BACKGROUND
 
    The enactment of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
program in 1975 represented a major new commitment on the part
of the Congress to address the problem of nonsupport of
children. Although prior to that time the Social Security Act
had included provisions which were aimed at improving the
collection of support on behalf of children, these provisions
had not proved to be effective. The 1975 amendments were aimed
at strengthening in a very significant way the efforts of the
Federal and State Governments to improve the enforcement of
child support obligations.
    The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D
to title IV of the Social Security Act. The statute, as
amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for
enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents
to their children and the custodial parent, locating absent
parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child and
spousal support. Basic responsibility for administering the
program is left to the States, but the Federal Government plays
a major role in funding, monitoring and evaluating State
programs, providing technical assistance, and in certain
instances, in giving direct assistance to the States in
locating absent parents and obtaining support payments from
them. The program requires the provision of child support
enforcement services for both welfare and nonwelfare families
and requires States to publicize frequently, through public
service announcements, the availability of child support
enforcement services, together with information about the
application fee and a telephone number or address to be used to
obtain additional information.
 
  INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
 
    In most States, the State share of CSE collections made on
behalf of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC families can be calculated by subtracting the
Federal medical assistance percentage from 100 percent (in some
States, local governments also are entitled to part of the
State's share of collections). In addition, States and
localities receive Federal CSE incentive payments that come
entirely from the Federal share of child support collections.
The revised incentive formula, effective October 1, 1985, was
designed to encourage States to develop CSE programs that
emphasize collections on behalf of both AFDC and non-AFDC
families, and to improve the program's cost effectiveness.
    Under the incentive formula, each State receives an
incentive payment equal to at least 6 percent of the State's
total amount of AFDC support collections for the year, plus at
least 6 percent of the State's total amount of non-AFDC
collections for the year. The amount of the State's incentive
payment could reach a high of 10 percent of the AFDC
collections plus 10 percent of the non-AFDC collections,
depending on the State's ratio of child support collections to
administrative costs. (See table 11-8.)
    There is a limit, however, on the incentive payment for
non-AFDC collections. The incentive payments for such
collections may not exceed 115 percent of incentive payments
for AFDC collections. (This percentage was 100 percent in
fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 1987, 105 percent in fiscal
year 1988, 110 percent in fiscal year 1989, and 115 percent in
fiscal year 1990 and each year thereafter.)
 
            TABLE 11-8.--INCENTIVE PAYMENT STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Incentive
                                                                payment
                                                                received
                                                               (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection-to-cost ratio:
    Less than 1.4 to 1.......................................        6.0
    At least 1.4 to 1........................................        6.5
    At least 1.6 to 1........................................        7.0
    At least 1.8 to 1........................................        7.5
    At least 2.0 to 1........................................        8.0
    At least 2.2 to 1........................................        8.5
    At least 2.4 to 1........................................        9.0
    At least 2.6 to 1........................................        9.5
    At least 2.8 to 1........................................      10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    The incentive formula seeks to assure that States provide
equitable treatment for both AFDC and non-AFDC families. Under
the old system, a State that incurred administrative costs to
collect support for a non-AFDC family did not receive an
incentive payment since incentives were paid only for AFDC
collections. This practice generally resulted in the neglect of
non-AFDC cases. The new incentive formula aims to remedy that
by making payments for non-AFDC collections. At the same time
it has placed a limit on non-AFDC incentive payments so as to
lessen the possibility that States would merely transfer to the
CSE program child support activities which were previously
financed out of State and/or local moneys, with no increase in
the level of child support services.
    At State option, laboratory costs (for blood testing, etc.)
to establish paternity may be excluded from the State's
administrative costs in calculating the State's collection-to-
cost ratios for purposes of determining the incentive payment.
In addition, for purposes of calculating these ratios,
interstate collections are credited to both the initiating and
responding States. Incentives are paid according to the
collection-to-cost ratios (ratio of AFDC collections to total
administrative costs and ratio of non-AFDC collections to total
administrative costs) shown in table 11-8.
    Before 1984, a State that initiated a successful action to
collect child support from another State generally did not
receive an incentive payment. Rather, the jurisdiction that
made the collection received the incentive payment. Public Law
98-378 provides that both States involved in an interstate
collection be credited with the collection for purposes of
computing incentive payments. This double-counting is intended
to encourage States to pursue interstate cases as energetically
as they pursue intrastate cases. States now will pay incentive
for interstate cases to themselves out of the Federal share of
collections they distribute.
    In addition to substantial Federal reimbursement, States
may use fees and cost recovery to help finance the CSE program
(discussed later). Such fees and costs recovered from non-AFDC
cases must be subtracted from the State's total administrative
cost before calculating the Federal reimbursement amount;
however, the lower administrative cost figure may result in
greater Federal incentive payments by improving the State's
collection-to-cost ratio


"Children learn what they live"
#17
The Wrong Man
November 5, 2004
One local man had child support taken out of his paycheck because someone
spelled his name wrong! To make matters worse, now, the Friend of the
Court has lost the money. Action news is on his side. Watch tonight... 7
Action News at 6.


from website WXYZ.com - Detroit    

We believe that this case, about a child support agency error that is
apparently going to be aired on Nov. 5, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Who is going to step up to the plate to do the right thing and to protect
families and children in Michigan and nationwide?

Here are 2 more Michigan cases - out of many, many more that are
documented in newspaper articles:

http://www.lsj.com/xtras/childsupport/030501john_1b.html
#18

Enhance Child Support Enforcement

Overview

Child support enforcement is an important component of the Federal
and state effort to promote family self-sufficiency. For the low-
income families who receive it, child support makes up a significant
portion of the family budget (26 percent). Moreover, families that
receive child support are less likely to return to TANF.

The 1996 welfare reform law included the most extensive child support
reforms ever enacted. These include new information systems to help
locate parents who owe child support, automatic income withholding
from paychecks, driver and professional license revocation, and other
administrative tools. As shown by increased collection amounts and
rates, these reforms have been a great success. Since 1995,
collections have increased by nearly 50 percent, rising by over $1
billion a year.

The 1996 reforms also streamlined paternity establishment,
particularly voluntary paternity establishment, to encourage fathers
to take the first step toward providing their children with financial
and emotional support. These provisions have also been extremely
successful. Paternity was established in more than 1.5 million cases
in FY 1999, a 60 percent increase from 1995. Paternity is now
established through in-hospital acknowledgment in nearly half of all
non-marital births.

The Administration's proposal continues rigorous enforcement of child
support obligations while targeting additional child support
collections to the families with greatest need. Under current law,
states and the Federal Government can retain most payments on overdue
child support for families in which the mother is or has been on
welfare. The Administration's proposal gives states financial
incentives to increase the amount of collections on over-due child
support given to families, especially families that have left
welfare. When fully implemented, the proposal will provide annual
payments of more than $280 million to more than 230,000 families that
have left welfare, thereby helping them maintain their independence
from welfare. In addition, fathers will know that when they pay child
support, their families will benefit; their children will know that
they are being supported by both of their parents. A major research
study in Wisconsin has shown that when TANF families receive the
child support paid on their behalf, fathers are more likely to pay
child support and to pay more child support.

Summary of Proposals

Provide Federal Matching Funds for Child Support Pass-Through
Payments to Families That Currently Receive TANF. Although the state
and Federal Governments generally retain child support collected on
behalf of families that receive TANF, almost half of the states give
TANF families some of the support collected on their behalf. Building
upon this state practice, the Administration proposes Federal
matching for states to provide up to the greater of $100 per month or
$50 over the current state pass through to families that receive TANF
(starting in October 2004). This support must be ignored for purposes
of calculating a family's eligibility for TANF.

Encourage States to Give Families That Once Received Welfare All of
the Child Support Collected on Their Behalf. The Administration
proposal will simplify child support distribution rules to give
states the option of providing families that have left welfare the
full amount of child support collected on their behalf. This policy,
which will be effective beginning October 2004, stipulates that the
Federal Government will share costs with the states.

Require States to Regularly Review and Adjust Child Support Orders
for Families That Currently Receive TANF. This proposal will require
states to review child support orders for TANF families every three
years. This mandatory review and, if necessary, modification of child
support orders will increase the amount of payment required, which in
turn will boost collections in welfare cases.

Collect a User Fee from Families That Have Never Received Welfare.
This proposal will require families that have never used TANF to pay
a $25 annual user fee (effective FY 2003) when child support
enforcement efforts on their behalf are successful. Families that are
receiving TANF assistance are already asked to contribute some or all
of their child support to offset part of the cost of the child
support enforcement efforts made on their behalf. The Federal and
state governments will share this revenue.

Lower the Threshold for Passport Denial. The Administration proposes
lowering the threshold for passport denial to $2,500 in past-due
support, effective FY 2004. This policy will optimize the use of the
successful provision established by the 1996 reforms that granted the
authority to deny a passport to anyone owing over $5,000 of past-due
child support.

Withhold Limited Social Security Benefits. This proposal will expand
the Federal administrative offset program to allow states to collect
past-due child support by withholding a limited amount of Social
Security Disability Insurance payments from beneficiaries in
appropriate cases. Benefits must exceed $760 a month in order to be
subject to withholding.




"Children learn what they live"
#19
 
Home | Login | Search | Spotlight | Calendar | Agencies | Opportunities | About Us

 
Child Support Officer Assistant
Last updated on May 24, 2004
 
The volunteer will assist the Child Support Officer with research, may verify and evaluate data, may handle customer inquiries and may operate personal computers. The volunteer may provide support in conducting paternity classes, may assist in investigations locating absent parents, and may assist the Child Support Office in taking the appropriate course of action to collect child support. The volunteer may attend court. The needs of the office and the skill level of the volunteer will determine assignments.

A volunteer must be at least 14 years old. Training will be handled on-the-job. All volunteers will undergo a criminal background check before being cleared to volunteer. Parents' permission of minors will be obtained before the agency does a background check. Volunteers are expected to serve at least 8 to 10 hours weekly.

This opportunity is sponsored by: Texas Attorney General

This opportunity is available to the following types of volunteers

Adolescents (13-17)
Interns
Adults (55+)
Court-appointed
Individual
I'm interested in this opportunity
 

Contact Person:
Leticia Cantu, Regional Outreach Coordinator, 210-804-6422, (email this person)
   View all agency contacts


Address:
 3460 Northeast Pkwy
San Antonio, TX 78218
(See a map)

Web Site: http://www.oag.state.tx.us



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you volunteered with this opportunity? Log your hours online
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be the first person to offer feedback on this agency!
Post a volunteer reflection to share your experiences with other volunteers!    
 Description
 Add to Favorites
 Add Reflection
 Email to Friend
 Printer Version
 Opportunities

 
 Summary Info
 Detailed Info
 Add to Favorites
 Email to Friend
 Printer Version
 

 

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Information Privacy Statement

The inclusion of any organization or person in this database does not constitute a representation, warranty, or endorsement with respect to the competence, suitability, or reliability of such organization or person by United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County; nor does United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County sponsor or endorse any third-party web site (legal notices).  
#20
Thank you for writing to John Kerry some time ago with your thoughts about child support. John Kerry has been a tireless leader on children's issues. Throughout his career he has fought to improve child support enforcement laws.

In the past few years, little has been done to tackle the national child support crisis. Millions of families across the country are unfairly prevented from providing their chi! ldren with basic necessities, including clothing, food and medical care. Failure to pay child support is a
widespread problem, cutting across income and racial lines. Nationwide, over $92 billion in accumulated unpaid support is owed to millions of children.

The Kerry Administration will make it a priority to improve and enforce child support laws so children receive the necessities they need and deserve. John Kerry will bring attention to this critical issue, and work towards real solutions for families. Our children are our future.



Democratic National Committee
430 S Capitol St SE
Washington, DC 20003


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Thought this was interesting insight....
#21
http://www.wbbm780.com/asp/ViewMoreDetails.asp?ID=34498

Tax Records of Parents Who Don't Pay Child Support May Be Opened

Thursday, February 19, 2004, 12:16 p.m.

(Springfield-AP) -- Prosecutors soon might be able to peek into the tax
records of people they think are lying about their income to avoid
child-support payments.

An Illinois House committee approved a bill today that would let state's
attorneys obtain tax returns from the Illinois Department of Revenue.

The returns would be used to determine a parent's income and whether they
are meeting their child-support obligations.

The bill now goes to the full House.

The committee also rejected legislation to allow support payments to be
withdrawn automatically from a self-employed parent's checking account.

Lawmakers said the bill should spell out whether someone could be forced
to sign up for automatic withdrawal.

(The bills are HB4076, HB4132. On the Net: http://www.legis.state.il.us )

#22
Dear Socrateaser / Simple Question
Jun 27, 2005, 06:38:09 PM
1. After going thru a Custody Trial, how much time can be expected for the Judge to render their decision?

2. Is there a time frame that they must follow?

THX
#23
Hi Soc,

I just discovered that biomom, living in what the custody evaluator called a "very small" one-bedroom, has had a man move-in.  This man has been around for a short while-- maybe weeks at best (i.e., assumed because she was apparently dating someone before that, and I hadn't heard this man's name until recently).

Four year old daughter reports that she's left alone with this man, that the man sleeps at their home on the couch.  Daughter explains that "his home isn't ready" so he has to stay with them.

At this time, daughter doesn't report any inappropriate behavior from this man.  Not that I've probed on any inappropriate behavior.

Daughter is routinely exposed to men that biomom apparently is dating (i.e., assessed by frequency of comments that daughter relays).

Daughter has private bedroom in my home, where she lives with my wife and I (daughter has known wife since 2001).

1.  If a man has moved into biomom's small one-bedroom apartment, is it relevant to anything if this man isn't a pervert?

2.  If it is relevant, what is best way to demonstrate that the guy is living there?

3.  We have joint/joint.  There is nothing in our orders about providing any info to each other about living arrangements.  Does biomom have any obligation to inform me that this man is living with her?

4.  If I had the guy's license plate, how could I get his identity to check sex offenders website?

5.  If I were your client, would you see this as an opportunity to change the parenting schedule for best interest of child's stability?

Thanks,
DD
#24
Dear Socrateaser / Help for a friend...
Dec 02, 2004, 08:59:08 PM
Have someone going this pro se, due to personal information, can they e-mail you privately?

Know your busy and ready to vacation, but would appreciate if you could give a quick read on the situation. Hearing in a few days.

THX!

"Children learn what they live"
#25

"Children learn what they live"
#26
Dear Socrateaser / Evaluation ?
Jan 24, 2004, 08:40:27 AM

A few months back, I had an Evaluation. It was not in my favor. There were several issues I felt uncomfortable with. Doing the research, I felt things were not done according with the Code Of Ethics.

I filed a complaint. The Investator has contacted me and has found at least two violations with regard to the Evaluation. I was told if I persued the complaint it would hurt my chances for custody. My custody trial is set for next month.

My questions:

1. Will my pursuing the complaint hurt my chances for custody? The evaluation already is against me.

2. Is there a time frame to continue the investigation? State is Illinois.
I'd like to wait until after the trial if it will hurt my chances for custody.

THX in advance

 
#27
Dear Socrateaser / Evaluation
Jan 11, 2004, 09:54:15 AM
A few months back, I had an Evaluation. It was not in my favor. There were several issues I felt uncomfortable with. Doing the research, I felt things were not done according with the Code Of Ethics.

I filed a complaint. The Investator has contacted me and has found at least two violations with regard to the Evaluator. I was told if I persued the complaint it would hurt my chances for custody. My custody trial is set for next month.

My questions:

1. Will my pursuing the complaint hurt my chances for custody? The evaluation already is against me.

2. Is there a time frame to continue the investigation? State is Illinois.
I'd like to wait until after the trial if it will hurt my chances for custody.

THX in advance
#28
Parenting Issues / HELP FIGHT PAS
Dec 27, 2004, 07:54:27 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/PAS1716/

"Children learn what they live"
#29
General Issues / ALL NCP'S, CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS
Jul 14, 2005, 10:09:52 AM
Greetings:

In a nutshell, EVERY parental rights agenda, whether (A) legal challenges, (B) communication
campaigns to members of legislatures, (C) public rallies, or (D) etc., needs **many** more
interested people to join and support those causes, and as fast as can be humanly done!

Problem = how to find and contact all of those other millions of noncustodial parents?

Solution = use the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to force the states - themselves - to tell us
the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of every noncustodial parent under a Title IV-D
child support order. Since every divorce/custody/paternity/etc case is, by definition of law, a
matter of public record, that "party information" for all of those other millions of noncustodial
parents is, also therefore, information obtainable under the FOIA - because Title IV-D
information is... **federal** information!

Each FOIA request is filed with the agent in charge of Title IV-D child support for a given
county. This is typically either the actual/named/official county clerk herself/himself, or some
other officially-named person. Once your FOIA is filed, they only have 20 working days to
provide the information, and in 95% of the counties in this country, that information will be
provided in an easy-to-use electronic format -> on floppy disks, cd-rom, or by email.

Even better, in almost every case, federal law requires that the information shall be provided at
**no cost** - all you need is a printer, 2 sheets of paper, and an envelope. However, it is highly
recommended that the FOIA request be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, so as to
have a formal record of proof of filing the request, and of the date it was filed.

GO HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE "NCP" FOIA REQUEST, AND TO GET MORE INFO:
http://www.indianacrc.org/FOIA.html

Please distribute this information as widely as possible...TODAY... Ideally, there should be one
person per each of the approx 3142 counties in the United States filing their FOIA request with
that particular county, or maybe one person for each 2-3 counties, just to get it going faster.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Bill s.1618 Title III passed by the 105th US Congress, this mail can not be considered
Spam as long as we include contact information. To be removed from this mailing list, simply
reply, leaving the subject heading intact, and adding "remove" to the end. However, this is
fully intended as a one-time-only informational message, and it is not expected that any further
informational messages would ever be distributed in this manner, so you should not feel the
need to do anything. You were included due to at least one of the following reasons: (1) you
signed an online parental rights petition, (2) you joined one of our affiliated online parental rights
groups, and/or (3) you are personally known to be interested in such information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Children learn what they live"
#30
Cost of Government Day Just Passed
by Bill Wilson, Washington, D.C., correspondent

SUMMARY: It takes the average American until July 4 to pay
off the cost of government.

The Founding Fathers rebelled at less than a penny tax on
tea. Now, government consumes 50.4 percent of all personal
income -- and this July 4 marked the date when the average
American worker has earned enough to pay off his or her
share of government expenses.

Broken down, it takes 125 days to pay for all federal,
state and local spending, 60 days to pay for federal and
state regulations.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist said
there is good news and bad news in the fact that Americans
are now working more than half the year until they reach
what's been called Cost of Government Day.

"The good news for the total cost of government is that
the regulatory burden is coming down a little bit with
some of the deregulation under President Bush. State and
local government costs are coming down a little bit," he
explained. "The bad news is that federal government
spending continues to grow."

Daniel Clifton, executive director of the American
Shareholders Association, said the government spends more
than it receives.

"So you've worked half the year just to pay off all costs
imposed at all levels of government," he said. "And
without reform of our major federal programs, we're going
to be working into mid-August."

The future, he added, will be bleak in absence of reform.

"We are obviously headed in the wrong direction," he said.
"As the population ages, the growth of the government is
going to continually grow."

The remedy, Norquist explained, is a tax structure that
reduces government growth and stimulates the economy.

"Step one," he said, "is to have pro-growth tax cuts and
pro-growth deregulation so that the economy grows more
rapidly."

---------------------------------------------

"Children learn what they live"