Topics

States are not required to reach cooperative agreements with their courts and law enforcement officials under Child Support and Establishment of Paternity Act;  but states are required to pave ways for such agreements by enacting enabling legislation and removing any statutory impediments thereto, and states must make reasonable, good-faith attempts to reach agreement with their appropriate courts and law enforcement officials.  Social Security Act, ß  454(7), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. ß  654(7).
A state plan for child and spousal support must-
(7) provide for entering into cooperative arrangements with appropriate courts and law enforcement officials (A) to assist the agency administering the plan, including the entering into of financial arrangements with such courts and officials in order to assure optimum results under such program, and (B) with respect to any other matters of common concern to such courts or officials and the agency administering the plan;
42 U.S.C. ß  654(7)

State plans---
2.2 support obligations
The support rights assigned to the state, as defined in 45 CFR 301.1 constitute an obligation owed to the State by the individual responsible for providing such support. With respect to such obligations, the IV-d agency complies with the requirements in 45 cfr 302.50

2.12-Procedures to improve program effectiveness
The state has in effect laws Requireing the use of expedited administrative and judicial procedures for establishing, modifying, and enforcing support obligations in accordance with 466(a)(2) and 466(c)(2) of the act

10-2 review and adjustment of child support orders
the state, in IV-d cases, has procedures for the periodic review and adjustment of child support orders, in accordance with 466(a)(10) of the act and 45 CFR 303.8

13. collection and use of Social Security numbers for use in child support enforcement
the state has in effect laws requireing that social security numbers be collected and recorded in accordance with 466(a)(13)
2.13 incentive payments to states and political subdivisions
The IV-d agency makes incentive payments in accordance with 303.52 and 302.55 (454)(22) and 458(a) 0f the act 45CFR 302.55 and 303.52

section 5
general provisions-the plan will be amended whenever necessary to reflect now or revised Federal statuts or regulations, or material change in any phrase of state law, organization, policy, or IV-d agency operations. Plan amendments will be Submitted to the regional Office of child support Enforcment for approval. Citation-454(13) of the act: 45CFR 302.13
list 3.1A-list of Cooperative agreements
CSED reimburses the courts for services provided for paternity and support establishment under 45CFR 303.107(d)

Burearu of vital statistics
BVS admiisters the hospital based paternity program and provides online data access for the IV-d agency regaurding birth and death records.
Social Security Administration-Access to records maintained by the IRS.

Court agreements- I. The court Will Solicit and recieve the expertise and Data of CSED in the course of establishing and revising the guidelines ti include compilations of information collected in compliance with 45 CFR 307.11
The Child Support guidelines WILL provide that there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount awarded which would result from the application of the guidelines established under the paragraph (A) of this section is the correct amount of support to be awarded.

F.the parties agree to cooperate in the devopement of budgets and work programs so as to avoid the loss of any incentives payments to which CSED may be entitled.

G. Center staff will provide training to its employees statewide on the functions of CSED, eligibility criteria, procedures for applying for CSED services and other related topics all designed to increase the number of persons applying for CSED services.

J. Allow, upon reasonable notice, CSED or the Federal Office acces to court records and permit periodic on site observation of the Performance of Functions being carried out relative to this agreement in order to evaluate the quality, efficiency,effectivness and scope of services provided under this agreement and fullfil the states obligation to cooperate with OCSE as required by 45 CFR 305.13(a)

VI. other terms and conditions- B. Financial penalties or disallowances of federal financial participation for expenditures that are sustained by CSED as a direct result of any federal audit or office review finding inadequate performance by the Court under this agreement shall be passed on to the court.
F. the parties agree to cooperate in the developement on budget and work programs so as to avoid in the loss of any incentive payments to which CSED may be enititled.

Code of Federal Regulations Currentness
Title 45. Public Welfare
Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Public Welfare
  Chapter III. Office of Child Support Enforcement (Child Support Enforcement Program), Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (Refs & Annos)
  Part 302. State Plan Requirements (Refs & Annos)
§  302.1 Definitions.
The definitions found in §  301.1 of this chapter also are applicable to this part.

§  302.10 Statewide operations.
The State plan shall provide that:

(a) It will be in operation on a statewide basis in accordance with equitable standards for administration that are mandatory throughout the State;
(b) If administered by a political subdivision of the State, the plan will be mandatory on such political subdivision;
c) The IV-D agency will assure that the plan is continuously in operation in all appropriate offices or agencies through:
§  302.13 Plan amendments.
(a) The State plan shall provide that the plan will be amended whenever necessary to reflect new or revised Federal statutes or regulations, or material change in any phase of State law, organization, policy of IV-D agency operation.§  302.34 Cooperative arrangements.

The State plan shall provide that the State will enter into written agreements for cooperative arrangements under §  303.107 with appropriate courts, law enforcement officials, Indian tribes or tribal organizations.  Such arrangements may be entered into with a single official covering more than one court, official, or agency, if the single official has the legal authority to enter into arrangements on behalf of the courts, officials, or agencies.

§  302.50 Assignment of rights to support.
The State plan shall provide as follows:
(a) An assignment of support rights, as defined in §  301.1 of this chapter, constitutes an obligation owed to the State by the individual responsible for providing such support.  Such obligation shall be established by:

(1) Order of a court of competent jurisdiction or of an administrative process;  or

§  302.55 Incentive payments to States and political subdivisions.
Effective October 1, 1985, in order for the State to be eligible to receive any incentive payments under §  304.12 and part 305 of this chapter, the State plan shall provide that, if one or more political subdivisions of the State participate in the costs of carrying out the activities under the State plan during any period, each such subdivision shall be entitled to receive an appropriate share of any incentive payments made to the State for such period, as determined by the State in accordance with §  303.52 of this chapter, taking into account the efficiency and effectiveness of the political subdivision in carrying out the activities under the State plan.
§  302.70 Required State laws.

 (a) Required Laws.  The State plan shall provide that, in accordance with sections 454(20) and 466 of the Act and part 303 of this chapter, the State has in effect laws providing for, and has implemented procedures to improve, program effectiveness:

Not even the beggining but way to long for one post. Next post will be continuation with the actual state plans, and yes the court mandates, that they perform for money.

Since when did we waive are rights to the fundamental rights incorporated and preserved in the Constitution of the United States and the several states?. Since when did the seperation or abrogation of powers become an aceptence to the people.?How can a person without an office created under the constitution weld judicial or executive power? and how can one weld both, and not be in violation of the seperation of powers and therefor not be held for acts of treason against the people or the constitution.?
When congress enacted title IV-d of the social security act as an adaption to the already questionable impletation of the orriginal act, (for which Californa of all places tried to get out of)(for which congress forbid them from doing so)it created an adaptation to the already increasing rights (rights created by the states against itself)(Hayburn, Nester, and Babcock) cases in the United States Supreme Court, for which congress, or in this instance the Secretary of health ,can adopt and implement regulations denying you acess to the courts and therefor denying you any rights, (for if you whish to receive this gratuity)
The gratuity is the Social Security Number in so many cases, however what is being tried now is how can congress mandate under law you have a Social Security Number(taxpayer ID) and then abrogate youre rights because of there mandation that you recieve this gratuity, right created by the states against itself. We have judges with no office, no OATH to the Constitution(employees) bound by cooperative agreements as so founded under title IV d , state plans section 3.1, to the collection agencys, to act in there favor, to generate revenue for the administrative state, at any cost, to whomever has more revenue regaurdless of there standings. Employees cannot have judicial or executive power, it is forbidden by the constitution, so if they do then that answers where we stand.

Round one in the federal administrative inferior court of the state of Alaska has taken place, as exspected the Attorney Generals Office stepped in to interfere, and claim judicial immunity for one character involved in the suit, and that the federal court has no jurisdiction on the issues I presented,(enteresting) I presented fundamental rights, and they claim the federal court doesnt have jurisdiction, god bless the communists souls.
The state, or its individuals outside of there authority, and the impersonateing adminstraive judge(commisoner) outside of any judicial standing, have already admitted there was no LAW for there actions, but yet claim judical immunity,for which I have to counterclaim in accordence with the terminology used for judical immunity, for which non have the standing to claim. When you attack these entities correctly you will know it, and on the correct issues(regaurdless) of youre standing,and reasons for attacking, you will find they instantly claim immunity, and the higher courts have no jurisdiction, for which they do since it is all Federal Law.

to understand how we went from being found guilty, or classified as a obligor,(a debtor, a fiction created by law) by anyone including agencys, (yes agencies, which under the deffinitions in title 5 can consists of one person, judge, jury, and or executive officer(employee, they hold no office) ) one has to look at what are status is as standind in citizenship.The people took the bait , as mandated by congress and got the infamious social security number,(a goverment created gratuity) and by doing so left are status as soveriegns, and denaturalized are standings as United States Citizens,as on of the citizens of the United states and the several states, and became citizens of the United States and the welfare states, Two cases very distinctly pointed towards the denaturalization of are statuses, Muskrat, and Pheraro, cases from which the United States Supreme court ruled if you wnat that goverment created gratuity then you waive youre standing and constitutional rights. This is how it started, and this is how it will be untill the people decide they wnat different, and not the gratuity created by congress, which goes all the way back to the widows and orphans act from the civil war.

The sad thing is I have been in so many chat rooms, different postings, and different law resources researching the details about child support for over 4 years, w/ unlimited resources and access to records most people couldn't even think about.
It has came clear that most people dont either want to know the truth, or want someone else to do the tasks for them of cleaning up the mess,the facts are there, I have never claimed a post that I cannot back up, No indepednant judges(due to the cooperative agreements) the state has a pecuinary enterest in every marraige, divorce and child born(due to the cooperative agreements) it all is federal law, im[posed by congress mandated on the states(forbidden by the constitution) it is a bill of attainder(forbidden by the constitution) but legislated like a civil punishment for the better of society, and the best part is the regs are partially found under the IRS, and this is all sourrounded by that SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, the wonderfull goverment created gratuity.\
Cooperative agreemnets, every state has them, and untill you get a TRUE copy read it and understand it, all you will be doing is banging youre head on a wall, and still be complaining when its over.

after looking for multiple answers in the regulations and statuatory law of the United States, it had dawned upon us that what was missing. There is no deffinitions for a custodial,- noncustodial parent, in any of the Code of federal regulations, nor any under the United States code(statuatory law) except one place and it was under title 26USC & 152,(United States tax code) and yet its description is still of question.

The importance of this is, Agencies have to have a statuatory law to go by, and then there has to be a regulation saying what they can do, but if there is no deffinition of the sort, then the regulation can not apply to a law that is not deffined.

Now maybe some states have a deffinition, but is it a clear deffinition, that actually sets apart the differnce between the two. There is lots of case laws, but where is the deffinitive answer to what there saying, there has to be a source to confirm there deffinition to be valid.

This draws a big problem in for people who have shared custody, equally and joint legal, there cannot be difference between the two if they share these attributes and survive under a claim of discrimination, for two people equal, one cannot for monetary reasons be called a obligor, it has no standing in law, and holds no water under the federal side either.
These are all important things, for judges are supposed to be in fact arbitrators of the LAW(united states constitution), not interpreting it or makeing law as they go, for there own or someones elses pecuinary enterest.

this is a simple question to test if people realy do have a clue to what is going on and how it happened.This question is not meant to insult or to mislead, it is meant to gather knowledge of what people think is true to better my postings in hopes of helping people. What do you think child support realy is?, and do you know what it is realy meant for.??and how do you think they have managed to circumnavigate the authority of the courts allowing AGENCY's to lein, levy and take property against youre constitutional secured rights.? Just want thoughts and beliefs, or facts if you think you can answer.

I have just found after extnsive research the savor to many of us, custodials and non custodials. It consits of federal ruleings and regulations binding the states under the cooperative agreements and the stata plan to abide to the T, the federal law and regulations.What it means is half of the state administrative and interpretive, including statutes are in fact void, for being in conflict of the federal requirements. Congress when it gives these grants to the states is acting under the spending power, supremacy clause, and in doing so, the states in wanting to recive these grants have to without exception abide by the federal regulations.It is good news, for all, not all of what the feds do is for better, but it is better than the enterpretive rules that the states use and opens the door for many litigation against these indiviuals acting outside of the color of law.

for those of you custodial parents court ordered to pay support to the infedells, yes some states have this little program, where the obligor is not based on custody, instead is based on income to whomever has the higher. Read youre order, then look at what paper work the collection agency sends you, on there you will see that you are NOT the custodial parent. State agencies in collecting child support CANNOT reckonize you as the custodial parent, they are prohibited from collecting from a custodial parent as per the CFR's, so youre a custodian but youre not, welcome to the smoke and mirrows show, and the world of the internal revenue service under Social Security Act.