Grants to States for access and visitation programs.

[Samson2005]

Davy,  

I never saw a word in there about the funds to be specifically directed to children in the custody of the gov't, only.

Instead, i think it applies to every state to see it is utilized in the manner it was brought to be.

I bet that when this becomes widespread knowledge, alot of things will change!

[Davy]

Samson,

I do not know if I'm correct except the statue specifically identified the Administration of DCFS.

In addition, this is not a new statue since it specifically noted the years 1995 and 1997.  There have been literally millions of children denied access to their father's since 1995 and many would have utilized this statue if it applied to them.  I think MB mentioned this situation in her post.

Believe me.  You do not want your child and yourself under the auspices of DCFS.  

[Samson2005]

Here is just a little bit I found on this page:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/child_support_01.shtml

Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, "Child Support Enforcement Program"


The Secretary also must make available the services of the FPLS to any State that wishes to locate a missing parent or child for the purpose of enforcing any Federal or State law involving the unlawful taking or restraint of a child or the establishment or maintenance of a child custody or visitation order.

Historically, the Federal Government held the view that visitation (also referred to as child access) and child support should be legally separate issues, and that only child support should be under the purview of the CSE Program. Both Federal and State policymakers have maintained that denial of visitation rights should be treated separately and should not be considered a reason for stopping support payments. Nonetheless, Census Bureau data indicate that it was more likely for noncustodial parents to make payments of child support if they had either joint custody or visitation rights. Thus, in order to promote visitation and better relations between custodial and noncustodial parents, the 1996 welfare reform law provided $10 million per year for grants to States for access and visitation programs, including mediation, counseling, education, and supervised visitation. In addition, as mentioned above, the 1996 law also expanded the scope of the FPLS to allow certain noncustodial parents to obtain information regarding the location of the custodial parent.

All States and territories applied for and received funding for access and visitation grants in fiscal year 1997. According to a preliminary report on the grant program (American Institutes, 1999), most participating individuals received parenting education, help in developing parenting plans, and mediation services. Based on data from 28 States and 2 territories, nearly 20,000 individuals were served by the grant program in its first year of operation.

THE STATE ROLE

The Social Security Act requires every State operating a TANF Program to conduct a Child Support Enforcement Program. Federal law requires applicants for, and recipients of, TANF to assign their support rights to the State in order to receive benefits. In addition, each applicant or recipient must cooperate with the State to establish the paternity of a child born outside marriage and to obtain child support payments.

TANF recipients or applicants may be excused from the requirement of cooperation if the CSE agency determines that good cause for noncooperation exists, taking into consideration the best interests of the child on whose behalf aid is claimed. If good cause is found not to exist and if the relative with whom a child is living still refuses to cooperate, then the State must reduce the family's TANF benefit by at least 25 percent and may remove the family from the TANF Program. (Federal law also stipulates that no TANF funds may be used for a family that includes a person who has not assigned child support rights to the State.) Before the 1996 welfare reform law, cooperation could have been found to be against the best interests of the child if cooperation could be anticipated to result in physical or emotional harm to the child or caretaker relative; if the child was conceived as a result of incest or rape; or if legal procedures were underway for the child's adoption.

Unlike previous law, the welfare reform law provides States rather than the Federal Government with the authority to define ``good cause.'' The law now requires States to develop both ``good cause'' and ``other exceptions'' to the cooperation requirement. The only restriction is that both the ``good cause'' and ``other exceptions'' must be based on the ``best interests of the child.'' In addition to defining good cause and other exceptions, States must establish the standard for proving a claim. States also will have to decide which State agency will inform TANF caretaker relatives about the cooperation exemptions, and which agency will make the decision about the validity of a given claim. These responsibilities can be delegated to the State TANF agency, the CSE agency, or the Medicaid agency.

Each State is required to designate a single and separate organizational unit of State government to administer its child support program. Earlier child support legislation, enacted in 1967, had required that the program be administered by the welfare agency. The 1975 act deleted this requirement in order to give each State the opportunity to select the most effective administrative mechanism. Most States have placed the child support agency within a social or human services umbrella agency which also administers the TANF Program. However, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, and Massachusetts have placed the agency in the department of revenue and Guam, Hawaii, Texas, and the Virgin Islands have placed the agency in the office of the attorney general. The law allows the programs to be administered either at the State or local level. Ten programs are locally administered. A few programs are State administered in some counties and locally administered in others.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/child_support_01.shtml

[backwardsbike]

Amen to that idea.  Courts don't want to deal with conflicted cases and seek to avoid it at all costs.

The last custody evalautor told me- "Don't worry...in 20 years you will have as close a realtionship with your kids as if none of this had ever happened."  Well...what's 20 years anyway?

But that's the court's solution.  And the lip service they pay to "equal access".

[Samson2005]

http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?&cfda_program_num=93.597&sortby=u&datype=T&reptype=a&database=faads&detail=0

[Samson2005]

$300 for Grants to States for access and visitation programs,

And 114,700 for child support enforcement.

I called the office that is supposed to handle this and after I said that I was calling about the Grants, was put into a voice prompt system and then disconnected.



The page will not allow me to copy and paste...

http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?fiscal_year=&cfda_program_num=93.597&sortby=u&datype=T&reptype=a&database=faads&detail=4&submit=GO

[Samson2005]

this info has changed since i posted it - 6 hours ago...

update:  the site is not functional to me at this time....

Still not functioning...

I'm giving up on posting the states audit concerning utilization of the funds...