Messages

I agree w/ you one hundred percent again,but like I said unless they know how to fight it correctly, and be able to rebute the answer that CSED, CSSD,etc has as required by federal law to rebut any presumption or claim of wrong doing there in for a fight that the average person wont win. Slander is what it is,theres no doubt to that, but ive seen a lot of claims and never a win against these guys, at least in the courts.

i posted my comments for the first person. I personally dont know SOC, you need to comment to the first post for that question. This that I post is from experiences in dealing w/ CSSD in Alaska, and assisting others in other states,w/ similiar cases.

I agree with you a hundred percent, but to prove an agency is wrong is a ball game that most people dont know how to play in the judicial sense to win on correctly,I personally except nothing that they enter nor do i consent nor do I sign anything they send, since ,ost papers if you look and read close enough if you sign you consent to there estlishment of the fact. What they do is challenge you to see if you are willing to take the time and money to fight them, what you have to remember is they have the taxpayers funds and service to drag these issues out as long as they want, at are expense, and at no lost to them.Never surrender, but be sure of what you present you can back one hundred percent, and always know what youre talking about, and always have a rebuttle to any possibility, what they will do is try to claim in court you are siimply recircuming the issues, and unless you can rebut with facts of law, and facts of proof they will derail you.You have to know the whole picture of the processes, for there is almost a backdoor for these guys in every issue.

the state plan, has been introduced in a lower superior court, never has been in Alaska before now though, however it wont go any where because I personaly insulteed the assistant Attorney General by smacking for being in violation of the code of ethices, and the federal law, so now the issue will soon enough go to a federal court. To answer youre question about income, many states only imput the income of the non custodial parent, what is different about Alaska is they dont care who has custody, all they care about is who makes more, custodian or not, and then that person is the obligor, custodian or not, it is illegal as hell and that is what ime fighting and will be soon in federal court. I have found two federal cases, one from a district and one from the United States Supreme court that states very clearly that the states are bound by the contract and the meanings and deffintions within the satte plan, as approved by the Secretary of health and Social services, and many state are not, but untill you fight them on it, they'l do whatever they want.

The basic needs of the CHILD are what is to be figured, not the other parents financial woes, as explained before unless you have a copy of the STATE PLAN and read it you will guessing and floundering around in the sea of BS. It is contract between the state and the feds, it details what the state shall do, the supreme court of the United States has twice ruled they must follow the guidelines under a contract stipulation, and this is what there not doing, but since most people dont know about it, nor how to resaerch it correctly, they get away with what they do, and that is operate outside there statuatory authorized authority.The state plan is easy to get, you file a FOIA(freedom of information act) to the nearest head collection office and demand for the copy of the state plan as required under title IV-d of the Social Security Act, and for wwhich all states MUST have to be able to get federal assistance, and they have ten days to comply, its a simple type up, and then you will be able to easily read and see what is going on, and what realy is mandated to be goiong on.

the problem with labeling them with slander, is in the cooperative agreements under section 3.1 of the state plan, they have a process agreed upon with the courts that they have a rebuttable presumption to any wrong order, or that its amount is false, you would end up banging youre head against the wall and the Attorney Generals office, since they represent CSED,CSSD. But this is just my opinion, backed by law though.CSED is a agency, however when dealing with them you are nothing more than a third party beneficuary, A debtor, the differenec here is a mortage company is a contract you enter into willingly, here most cases we do not enter into willingly, therefor the rules of service and obligations are quite different.

I will explain one more time, the problem resides in what people dont know, and this is what the courts and the Child suppoprt services division of every state depends on. The Sytem or the STATE PLANS are set up around the title IV-d of the Social Security Act and the cooperative agreements within the state plan under section 3.1, every state has them, and there all the same, and the states signed and agreed to abide by them,what the states have done is used there interpretive authority and mended the plans under there state guidelines, but there interpretive(have no force and effect of law) they are non substantive, and because they vary so much they have no supporting regulations outside of the federal requirements. People always want a quick fix, and want someone else to do it for them, and this is why so many people lose, because no one wants to challenge the correct issues and the true wrongs within the states.Even the feds have stated that both parents are to contribute, this is based upon the facts the feds are still tied within the common law of the United States.
You want to play in there world under there interpretive guidlines you will lose, especially since every state has a rebuttal as required by the feds, to extinguish any claim of wrong or judicial error.

The custodial parent has to be able to show the increase need for the child, regaurdless of her expences, as far as her personal costs you should file a motion in opposition of those finances since they have no correlation w/ the subject matter at hand, which is the allegedness of the expenses of the child has increased. What people tend to forget it all has to be coreelated w/ the child and in the enterest of the child, the common law of the responsibilities is that both parents contribute to the care nuture and the welfare of the child, not just one. People think these guidelines are god, but they dont hold weight when a person attacks them within there substantiveness and the overall application of there validity.

her motion to raise support has to show a significant change in circumstances, wether its in the form of the needs of the child increaing, or an increase in youre fiance's income to justify, warrant a motion to change.

what would help you even more, since I know exactly how CSED will respond to youre fileing is the state plan and the cooperative agreements for that state. CSED will contend you two could not enter into agreements between the two of you for suppoprt distribution but unless you show in the state plan and under the code of federal regulations where you can enter into between the two of you distribution you will lose.email and I will explain, thefireman#gci.net, everyday we dont so something they get away w/ more.