why is the new law not the new law ?

[spinner]

Hi Everyone.
There is a new law passed in summer of 2005 that as of Januar 1 2007 changes the child support calculation to an income shared model.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=SF630&ls_year=84&session_year=2005&session_number=0&Go.x=11&Go.y=7

so ok, the new laws put guidelines and what not for what not and gives the judge the discretion of, ...

So came january 1 2007 and the Child Support services and the self help centers as well as court forms for motions, ... ALL states that the law applies to only new cases in 2007 and old cases will have a review in 2008 unless
- both parents agree
- gross income has changed of the obligor of 20%
- new circumstances for health or child care
- public assistance, ..

roughly that's it.
So of course you can buypass all this mumbo jumbo by simply saying your income is over 20% more and have a review which lowers it but the CS office puts a hudge amount of effort to tell us (obligors and obligee) that there cannot be a review in 2007. The same person that before told me they couldn't give me any "legal advises" now are very happy to give me the legal advises that I cannot file unless :), ...

Even the self help forms all have that in it and if you do not have one of the reasons they will not approve your screening motion.
Even an attorney told me no unless I had one of the special reasons, ...

HOWEVER.
There is no where in the law that says that. So the CS office chooses to apply the law to their liking to avoid a rush of everyone to court and reduce their CS but what I am surprised and the reason for this post is: how can they do this? isn't a law a law and if in effect in january 2007 then it comes in effect then.

It feels to me that it's a violation of the law to do this. Of course the judges applies the law and if you get past that misinformation and file then they will listen to you.

But is it legal for the governement to simply say: of there is a new law but sorry, next year for you. I mean what would IRS say if I file my tax and say: forget your new rule bla I'll only apply it next year ?!?!?!

So why is this happening? are there any legal recourses?

[socrateaser]

>So why is this happening? are there any legal recourses?

File a motion to modify with the court now, and if you are denied a hearing now, then ask that the court leave the case pending until 2008, because otherwise you will not be entitled to a retroactive downward modification back to Feb 2007, due to the federal prohibition.

[spinner]

well I already filed my motion, I guess what I am surprised of is that no one is saying anything and complaining.
I doubt that their practices are legal....

From what I have been told from others is that judges are gona apply the law.

But what about all these government agencies that are misrepresenting the law ?

[socrateaser]

>well I already filed my motion, I guess what I am surprised
>of is that no one is saying anything and complaining.
>I doubt that their practices are legal....
>
>From what I have been told from others is that judges are gona
>apply the law.
>
>But what about all these government agencies that are
>misrepresenting the law ?

The political process is available to vote out legislators and governing officials and put in who you want who will remove the administrators.

For a court action, you must have a concrete (or imminently threatened) and particularized injury, fairly traceable to the defendant, for which the court can provide a remedy.

So, if someone else is injured, they can sue. You can't sue for them -- unless your an attorney and you're creating a class action.

[spinner]

So if I understand right,

The law is the law and really it is the Child Support Agency and self help center that are misrepresenting the law and giving false information and there is nothing to do except by voting someone else in office who will remove the CS office which is not gona happen anyway :)

I just find it disturbing that the CS office and self help center are missinforming the public and that no one does anything about it.

I mean is this something that can only be a letter to our senator or governort, ...

I just find it amazing that they can miss inform like this so I am assuming that it is me that is missing an important part of the law but apparently not ?!?!

[socrateaser]

>So if I understand right,
>
>The law is the law and really it is the Child Support Agency
>and self help center that are misrepresenting the law and
>giving false information and there is nothing to do except by
>voting someone else in office who will remove the CS office
>which is not gona happen anyway :)
>
>I just find it disturbing that the CS office and self help
>center are missinforming the public and that no one does
>anything about it.
>
>I mean is this something that can only be a letter to our
>senator or governort, ...

>I just find it amazing that they can miss inform like this so
>I am assuming that it is me that is missing an important part
>of the law but apparently not ?!?!

This really isn't a political debate forum, but I'll try to explain it again.

In order to have a court resolve a problem with the executive branch of government, the plaintiff/petitioner must PERSONALLY suffer an injury.

Being a taxpayer or a citizen, is insufficient standing, by itself, to force the government to act or refrain via court action.

For example: no individual citizen can sue President Bush for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act, unless the complaining individual can show that the President's wiretapping actually invaded the complainant's privacy.

The ONLY way to hold the President responsible for violating the law (assuming that he has violated the law -- a subject I won't address in this forum), is for the House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment.

Similarly, if MN CSE refuses to enforce the law as of 1/1/2007, then an individual can only sue if he/she can show show a personal injury (and many obligor parents can likely do this).

But, a person who has not sufferred an injury cannot sue CSE. The person can only demand that the legislature threaten to or actually impeach the governor, as a means of forcing the replacement of the CSE agency head.

OK, if you want to continue this discussion, please take it to another forum. Thanks.