Mothers in Custody Cases: Please read! Unaudited State Incentives (Title IV-A, IV-D) affect Family Court Decisions (posted 7/19/2011)
[This post received another comment in 2016, so I went through and added some formatting around the quotes, as well as supplemented (some updates) a short section on “ACES” a nonprofit organization found to go after child support enforcement, by a divorced mother of 2 (Geraldine Jensen) , long ago (1984). Note — this was 12 years before 1996 Welfare Reform… In looking for the tax returns, I found that organization’s administrative assistant was accused of fraud (embezzlement), not long after they testified before Congress as to Ohio’s (it was based in Ohio) systematic withholding of “undistributable child support.”
(This two-pager “pdf” still has active links. I notice from page 2 that the “FamiliesOnline” where I found her book being sold and the Heinz award (named after the late (d. 1991) Senator John Heinz, who was indeed heir to the famous Heinz fortunes (as in — tomatoes — you’ve hear of it, right?), was also founded by Ms. Jensen:
Public Service Component from the image shown below:
- Public Service
- U. S. Commission on Interstate Child Support.
- U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Child Support Advisory Committee
- Ohio’s Joint Legislative Domestic Relations Task Force and Ohio Commission on Fatherhood, Ohio Child Support Enforcement Commission
Child Support Enforcement in 1984 is NOTHING like Child Support Enforcement this century, although one thing I notice that seems still in common, when it comes to mothers going after absent fathers for child support — we are still often told, if we’re serious about it, go get it ourselves.
As has happened to me years ago also. Question: If “Enforcement” means — go hire a private lawyer (with WHAT funds?) and do it yourself, then why have a $4Billion-dollar-a-year enforcement program to start with?
And SINCE (not “IF”) it’s possible for counties and states to withhold distribution (whether simply by delaying it a few days — or weeks — each month, or NEVER distributing it) to accumulate profits (interest, or potentially dividends if the withhold millions were pooled with other investment funds within a state) — and SINCE (not “IF”) clearly the HHS/OIG, even if it DID keep good track (which it didn’t for several years after the major switchover enforced upon states (if they wanted federal welfare assistance for their poor families), if it has no real enforcement power, then what’s the point?
Possibly the point is other kinds of dirty business, and making sure as many people as possible are on public-supported SYSTEMS, as are their employers. Got to have a planned economy, right?
Anyhow, if you see a box around some quotes, that’s new (I didn’t know how to in 2011) and the section of similar color to this intro below, is also added. Other than that, this is a minor cleanup. A better use of your time might be to read more recent posts, and benefit from what I’ve learned since, not only as to how the systems work, but as to how to communicate how they work. Thanks again for taking some time to read the blogs, and thanks in advance for any clicks on the “Donate” button on sidebar! Generally speaking, except for the occasional clicks on that button (which are infrequent) I am not paid to do all this!
Read Page 2 (relating to the image above) for more information on activities involving criminalization of non-payment of child support, and more Ms. Jensen was involved in over the years. More on “ACES” in a similar-background section, below in this post.
//LGH 10/28/2016.]
The Child Support Enforcement mechanism seeks to monopolize the relationship between parents whether it’s done through welfare enrollment (to initiate a support order) or not — it seems. It is a total-control structure with few limits and controls on itself (upcoming posts on how poorly audited “undistributable” child support — sitting in various place accruing “unreported interest” for the states/counties entities — not for the kids — will show this.
I was stunned to realize that the last time the HHS/OIG apparently ran such (partial) audits — without teeth — covers approximately up to the year 2005 or 2006; and only a sample of counties in a sample of states (and only Title IV-D monies) were being investigated.
For example, this person “Crystal Ray” writes:
Paying Child Support in the State of Indiana
A State of Confusion
A Very Costly Mistake
Parents in the state of Indiana who want to bypass the courts and pay child support directly to the other parent could be in for a rude awakening. According to the Indiana Child Support Division, any child support money paid to the custodial parent that does not go through the court first is considered a gift. The term “gift” means the child support paid is considered free. That means, even if you paid child support by check, or went so far as to obtain receipts from the custodial parent, the child support you paid did not legally count. The custodial parent is legally entitled to keep that child support money, and you are still obligated to pay the full amount of child support determined by the court in the state of Indiana. This seems very unfair, especially if the non-custodial parent paying child support holds receipts, but this is the rule set by the court. If you paid the custodial parent directly, in the eyes of the court you did not pay a dime.
The fact that an entity wishes to monopolize and exclude money transfer between private individuals that it didn’t process tells us it is a for-profit business run by the US Government, even if profits are failing to be in the red — someone is getting paid. If it were truly altruistic, and both parents actually worked this out – -then there would be no need to FORCE people to enter child support orders in separation. Moreover, the system is capricious and riddled with fraud and other bad things in the administration, anyhow!
Indiana is famous (to me, at least) for having a direct connection from its Child Services Dept. (under which Child Support is collected) to Fathers and Families (check site); Indiana would seem to be as fatherhood-friendly as almost any state — however this indicates that Dads who don’t play according to its rules (and Moms) could still get screwed financially while supporting their children properly and keeping records of payments.
Ideally — stay out of family court, and stay off welfare. It’s not welfare for your FAMILY!
(Unfortunately one type of people that can get caught in abusive relationships includes people lacking family willing to fight with them against abuse before it gets to the divorce, or arrest stage. The abuser controls the economics, and/or work, making escape harder — credit may be ruined, or shut down, work and holding normal bank accounts compromised, add children, and it’s a difficult situation, surely. However, that’s NOTHING compared to what can happen after one seeks work, thinking that such abuse is confined to individual personalities, and the social contract with the US Government actually means its institutions (including jails, law enforcement, legal proceedings, and laws, etc.) exist to protect us from the common criminal element, rather than being part of that element itself….)
What your DV and Crisis in the Court nonprofits fail to systematically instruct followers in — so take a trip to self-education city; the air is clearer there:
Three Posts from a Larry Holland tell me someone else is upset about fraud, embezzlement, federal incentives to the states to mess up children’s and their parents’ lives (divorcing/separating) parents and shovel data, and dollars, down a bottomless hole. and a superstructure totally invading privacy.
Mr. Holland explains it better than I do (perhaps he doesn’t have PTSD issues, either) — and this is basic information, other than stay out of family courts, off welfare, ENTIRELY and (I say) if there is some way to exist without child support — I say (others disagree) — you are a visitor to that zoo, initially “please don’t feed the animals” or they WILL jump the fence and devour you (and your kids, your substance, and in general trash the neighborhood, too). OCSE per se is one of those beasts – it’s untamed. Do not pet, do not approach if possible, and definitely don’t feed it. Obviously I am not a fathers’ rights blogger, however I find that such bloggers are paying better attention to these matters than many women’s groups…
Alas, through the IRS and through court orders and (read on) it is already being fed.
(POST 1): (Fraudulent use of social security #s has been identified in child support and welfare cases. I’m having to investigate this in my own case now; was only alerted when someone on-line (having threatened me in a number of matters) continued to insist I was on welfare when I knew I was not. It sounds like once your #s are in some systems, they stay there. My post covering “Maximus, Inc.” mentioned the Charles Corry (nightmare); this seems to be a pattern. See also “Wikipedia” on this private child support (and Medicaid) enforcement company repeatedly caught in fraud, but still getting federal contracts.
ARTICLE 1: (2007)
If poor service delivery wasn’t enough of a reason to opt out of free Family Court Welfare Services, Title IV Part D programs and child support services, then how about saving a thousand or more dollars and being secured against identity theft? Child Support customers in at least three states have already experienced serious breaches in their personal information, including social security numbers being compromised and potentially handed over to hackers that might want to steal identities in the last few months alone.
In Colorado, a computer was stolen from a Colorado state contractor which contained over 1.4 million names of people that made child support payments in the state as well as nearly a million more names of newly hired employees anywhere in the state. Additionally, receivers of support had their information compromised as well. (“Privatization, Identity Theft, and Crony Capitalism” http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1186)
In Nebraska, “a hacker broke into the child-support computer system run by the state Treasurer’s office and may have obtained names, social security numbers and other information of 300,000 people and 9,000 employers.” (“Hacker Breaks Into Nebraska Child-Support Database”FoxNews.Com, June 29, 2006)
ARTICLE 2: (2006)
This explains the process — TITLE IV-D (child support enforcement) goes to HHS. This, from 2006. Recommend simply reading the entire post at:
Monday, February 20, 2006
How Federal Welfare Funding Drives Judicial Discretion in Child-Custody Determinations and Domestic Relations Matters.
Social Security, Welfare, and Child Support Enforcement
How federal welfare funding drives judicial discretion in child-custody determinations and domestic relations matters.
By Lary Holland and Jason Bottomley
February 2006
Notice, they say HOW. They are going to narrate HOW it happens. I didn’t even understand this was happening (although clearly the child support agency was behaving strangely) until my children were custody-switched without any judge stating a legal or factual reason why, and thereafter no court order became enforceable (safely) — either the child support or the visitation one. After the dust cleared, I re-read a site which told me about the access and visitation funding. However, I’m not so sure (anymore) those are literally helping the fathers as a gender — because anything that undermines the legal process affects all of us negatively. It brings out the inferior in human nature all-round.
The federal Title IV-D program makes large sums of grant money available to the states through the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In Fiscal Year 2006, Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) for the states that operate programs in accordance with federal guidelines.
{and continues to appropriate even when states have been found to be in violation of guidelines — links, coming….It does this also with outsourced privatized contractors, too}
…
he topics and issues being discussed are quite complex because of the nature of the multiple welfare programs created within Title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA); so the authors have attempted to provide a simplified overview of how federal welfare funding motivates the state family court judges to remove a willful parent and create high child support orders.
The authors have spent a tremendous amount of time researching external economic factors that they believe drive judicial discretion and influence professional judgment in domestic relations matters. Through their research and experience, the authors have concluded that a relationship exists between the federal funding of state welfare programs and the determinations made by state family court judges presiding over child-custody and domestic relations matters. They believe that it is this relationship that de-emphasizes the importance of sharing parental responsibility, and instead emphasizes a manufactured public policy concerned only on the financial obligations of one parent – rather than on the real interests of the children involved.
The authors have also concluded that, while this relationship has successfully been masked behind what is commonly termed “the best interests of the child,” the federal funding created within the Social Security Act provides clear monetary incentives to states that have a high-occurrence of one-parent households, where a child has the majority of access to only one of their parents. The authors believe that this “best interests of the child” standard is loosely subjective, gives unlimited discretion to state family court judges, and ultimately leaves a tremendous amount of room for abuse.
In simplest terms: State family courts are forcibly depriving children’s access to a parent because it is a source of revenue for the states – and because they can…..
{{TITLE IV-A vs. TITLE IV-D explained, plus “block grant” entitlements}}:
Title IV (four) of the Social Security Act consists of four parts (A, B, D, and E) and provides for the annual appropriation of block grant funding to subsidize the operation of various state-level welfare programs as outlined in each part of the title as long as the states are compliant to the federal guidelines.
The Federal Government collects its money through the IRS (and of course investments, etc.) — and distributes it out to the states, creating a Federal/State carrots & stick relationship. The Federal Government has the upper hand in this matter, because (again, in good part through income tax withholding & other taxes, fees, etc.) — it has the goodies — the grants (and contracts) — and so gets to say who gets them… Once on this type of support, it’s very addictive and states naturally want to continue with as much federal funding as they can get, generally speaking.
Title IV, Part A (or IV-A) is the most widely recognized welfare program, and is referred to as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.
Formerly known as AFDC, the TANF welfare program imposes federal guidelines to which all states must adhere in order to receive billions of dollars in federal block grant funding. This money is only available to a state when that state fully or substantially complies with these federally imposed guidelines. The complying individual states can use the money they receive to pay for the administration of their own programs, and to provide cash assistance to “needy” families pursuant to the federal guidelines.
The type of program described in Title IV-A is referred to as an “entitlement” program at both the state and welfare recipient level because it entitles the complying states to receive blocks of grant money, and it entitles the recipients who qualify to receive a certain amount of money as well.
…..The federal Title IV-D program makes large sums of grant money available to the states through the Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS) Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In Fiscal Year 2006, Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) for the states that operate programs in accordance with federal guidelines.
TITLE IV-A = TANF; TITLE IV-D = Child Support (note — these laws can be viewed and read on-line, for the persistent and curious. Give it a go!)
Hence “Welfare Reform” had aspects changing how IV-D and IV-A relate to each other, including where some of the fatherhood funding and marriage promotion appears to have gotten into the child support agency. They break up families, complain about broken up families and then fund artificial effforts (allegedly) to rebuild the same families and solve the TANF problem. Allegedly….
Child Support Enforcement is a Welfare Program
The purpose for the creation of the IV-D welfare program was to recover allegedly “lost” taxpayer money being spent by the federal government on needy families under Title IV-A (TANF). The intent of Congress was to slow the drain that the Title IV-A (TANF) cash assistance program had on the budget. The presumption was that single mothers with a high incidence of out-of-wedlock births was the proximate cause of the rising welfare expenditures. Congress attempted to shift the financial burden from their own budget to a parent who abandoned the family.The result of Congress’ intention was the creation of Title IV-D federally mandated guidelines, incentive block grants, and performance based grants being made available to the states for their operation of federally compliant programs. States that would comply with the federal guidelines made it a priority to collect money (termed as “child support”) from willfully absent parents who had abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The goal was twofold: To reimburse the expense of providing public assistance to children who had been willfully abandoned by a parent (and thus forced to become dependent on public assistance to satisfy basic needs), and to ensure continued financial support from willfully absent parents with children that were at risk of requiring public assistance if they didn’t receive support (to prevent them from requiring public assistance to satisfy basic needs).
In essence, the federal guidelines wanted the states to function as collection agencies, recovering financial support from parents who had willfully abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The result, however, was different from the intent and has caused the state welfare programs to adjust their environment to have a greater need, which has caused the program to collect from willing parents that would ordinarily provide a loving environment for their children absent a court order limiting a parent’s involvement. Despite the original intent of the IV-D welfare program, it now provides an incentive for the states to use their family courts to produce forcibly absent parents in order to increase the states’ IV-D welfare caseload.
…
Inclusion of Middle-Class into Welfare = More Federal Funding
The exponential inclusion of the middle-class into the state operated Title IV-D Welfare System has facilitated and furthered a perceived need for increased funding from the federal government to the states. Because there is an overwhelming majority of middle-class parents that have child support automatically withheld from their paychecks, there is the appearance of a tremendously successful state run Title IV-D welfare program – and it causes even more federal incentive payments and reimbursement funding to be received by the states.Even amidst cutbacks by the federal government for entitlement block grants and restrictions on the use federal incentive dollars as matching funds, the states’ standing remains to gain billions in funding by including more and more of the middle-class in their welfare programs.
To be more specific: We believe that Title IV welfare programs actually encourage the diminishment of parents’ roles in the lives of their children, and that these programs actually provide financial incentives for the breakup of the family – which is incidentally the exact opposite of the purpose of Title IV in reducing family dependence on government and encouraging safe and stable families.
The consequence of how and why the states receive federal funding is providing financial incentives to the state, its agencies, its human services professionals, and its family courts in general to create court-ordered child-support paying absentee parents wherever it can, and by whatever means available. The states’ manufacturing of non-custodial parents maximizes incoming federal and state revenue redistribution. Similar to those who were accused of abusing the Title IV-A welfare program, which prompted reform, the states are now modifying their own environment in order to receive more federal money.
Creating Non-Custodian = More Child Support = More Federal Funding
Title IV created incentives for the states that were intended to reduce the occurrence of single parent households; however these incentives have caused an exact opposite result. Instead of looking to Congressional intent, one only needs to look at the results.State family court judges, agencies, and both public and private professionals now have a pecuniary interest in establishing single-parent households in which the majority of a child’s time is limited by court order to be spent with only one parent. There is now a disincentive for a child to be equally placed with both parents where those parents share equal responsibilities while maintaining their own homes and lifestyles. If the state family courts do not produce an absent or “non-custodial” parent through their orders, the courts would effectively exempt the state (and any associated professional beneficiaries) from receiving the billions of dollars in federal funding which is offered through compliance with federally imposed welfare guidelines.
…
Federal Funding: A Working Perspective
The U.S. Tax Payer is solely supporting the middle-class’s inclusion in the Title IV-D program because there is no reimbursement to welfare. For Fiscal Year 2006, Congress has appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) from the collection of federal and Social Security taxes solely to fund the operations of federally compliant state IV-D welfare programs. Despite a commonly held public misconception that child support enforcement activities are funded by the people within the system, the fact is that this welfare program is funded with the money that comes from the U.S. Taxpayer in the form of federal and Social Security taxes.
Like I said, I recommend reading that entire article, carefully:
Now, consider a situation in which actual domestic violence and/or child abuse occurs, sometimes including one parent abdicating on supporting the household — there is little incentive to the states to interfere with the abuse, and there is no mechanism to force a couple which is together to help support their own kids equally — what’s in it for them? However, if CPS or Child Support or TANF can get involved, then there is.
Enter the civil restraining order system. I don’t like to trash this concept too much, I would probably not be alive (or our kids) without it, no matter what anyone else alleges; I lived and know the situation, and which direction it was going. I was also being financially pimped as a working mother while taking the abuse at home, including physical assaults resulting in serious injury and use of weapons to intimidate and control me in the home AFTEr the physical violence (and economic abuse, etc.) had already been established and when I was hard put to see a way out; it was my perception that these other controls (especially control of finances and transportation) was to ensure I did NOT leave. Obviously they failed, and by the time it got to filing a civil restraining order, things were very bad and compromised.
The red carpet was rolled out to get me onto welfare through assistance from the nonprofit that helped file the restraining order. I was escorted to the front of the line. Not knowing my own legal rights or being a follower of the law (who often does, til it’s too late and they’ve been compromised?), I had been seeking help for others who already knew us / the family / about the violence — to apply some social pressures that it was not safe for me to apply in the home, with small children. It was a new day indeed when this mother actually had a few months (only) of steady food stamps/cash aid (moderate) and the abusive parent NOT in the home trying to persuade me to sign over my paycheck to him!
However, there are no free lunches — this was in exchange for our kids’ social security numbers, and ours, and program participation. Eventually, it’s obvious either this couple is going to reconcile, or divorce — and the money would be more than recouped when they hit the family law situation, and had to go repeatedly in front of judges, mediators, and whoever else could be involved. I didn’t know then that our case was FROM THE START flagged as Title IV-D and ripe for different handling in the family court venue – or that a grant series existed to tweak the hearings.
… The more support orders that are issued and the higher orders are, by including the middle-class, the more of a perceived need is created for increased enforcement. Increased perceived need for enforcement provides for increased justification of program expansion, which in-turn provides for the perceived need for expansion of increased enforcement measures. The more enforcement measures that can be taken and the more serious the penalties are for resisting excessive monetary awards, the better chances are that the court-created absentee parent will pay even increased or incorrect amounts to avoid enforcement penalties like jail and license suspension. The more that court-created absentee parents pay to avoid jail or to prevent the suspension of the professional licenses that may be needed to maintain their livelihood, the less support goes into arrearage – which makes it appear that the states are performing more efficiently. The more effective the state looks, the increased chances that a state has to receive a higher portion of incentive funding.
That’s a very logical explanation — it’s in essence, extortion, force-based, whether or not parents are naturally supporting their kids. Unfortunately, some would not support without force – but in such cases, it’s a very roundabout way to handling support of the custodial parent — by prolonging the court process?
There is another angle — which is how little actual monitoring of money that is collected but not distributed — happens, and the incentive to keep a custody case “pending” while collected child support earns interest. Switching custody then causes one case to close (arrears artificially closed out, making the state look better) and then open another one, to the other parent (and more opportunity for federal incentives).
But that’s a very fine explanation.
Once in, you’re in, and then seek to make some aspect (at least one aspect) of this extended network WORK right. Suppose that happens to be, for a custodial mother (or father) — the child support system? Which brings me to Article 3:
ARTICLE 3 (2009):
Thursday, May 28. 2009
Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal
Your private information may have just gotten more vulnerable in state of Tennessee. In a deal that is qualified as the largest state privatization deal up to this point has been awarded to “Government Health Services Provider Maximus, Inc.” to provide services that the state is paid to provide to its residents under a federally mandated social security program known as Title IV-D. (42 USC 651). The contract details, we are working on, but Maximus, Inc. will be doing the government’s job in locating absent parents, establishing paternity, carrying out support orders and medical support orders, processing interstate cases, and providing customer service. This comes as a surprise because just last month there was a Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested in Tennessee for selling confidential records.
I am in the process of obtaining the government’s documents associated with these contracts, stay tuned for more information. We have some legitimate fears of access to citizen’s private data that have not been found guilty of any crimes being placed in unregulated databases that are accessible by unsavory characters that aim to make a profit with identity theft.
Over the past several years we have noticed a climate ripe for embezzlement, identity theft, invasion of privacy, and more. Just this year the Federal government removed some protections to the taxpayer to stop the continuous growth of these agencies. The reversal of the tax payer protection policy that was originally implemented under the Budget Deficity Reduction Act of 2005, paves the way for more disastrous consquences for taxpayers.Just in June 2008, Delaware Child Support Program Employees were caught stealing from taxpayers and the children. Just over a year ago, we demonstrated how Theft was Running Rampid in State Child Support Programs. The widespread lack of accountability in these programs continues, without sufficiently limiting access to private data and ensuring digital fingerprints are placed on all data in the various systems nationwide, there will continue to be fraud on the taxpayers and the participants of Child Support Enforcement programs.
The Child Support Enforcement program continues to be plagued over the past several years of documented fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more. Just take a look at the snapshot below, and know that this is hardly a comprehensive look at the problems that exist throughout the nation with this “free for all welfare program.”
February 18, 2011During his State of the Union address in January 2011, President Obama called for making “hard choices now to rein in our deficits,” but “not …on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.” This principle, endorsed by recent fiscal reform commissions and incorporated in past deficit-control legislation, is especially important for women, who are at greater risk of poverty than men throughout their lives. And, it is especially important at a time when the economic recovery is still fragile, state and local governments are laying off workers and slashing services for vulnerable people, and millions of women and men are struggling to get back on their feet in the aftermath of the Great Recession.
Child Support Enforcement Program
The child support enforcement program serves one in four children – more than 17 million – and distributes about $24 billion in child support to families annually. Child support represents 40 percent of family income for poor families who receive it, and the Congressional Research Service estimates that it reduces the poverty rate for children in these families by nearly 25 percent. Among other proposals, the President’s budget proposes an important initiative to increase child support for families. It would encourage states to give more of the child support noncustodial parents pay on behalf of children receiving TANF to the family, rather than retaining the money to reimburse welfare costs.
The budget allocates an additional $1 billion over 8 years in support of this initiative, including a $454 million, five-year pool of additional funds for states that adopt the reforms. Unfortunately, this budget does not propose to restore the federal match for reinvested incentive funds that were cut by the Deficit Reduction Act and restored for FY 2009 and 2010 by ARRA. Instead, the budget proposes a two-year increase in the incentive pool that would restore only about one-third of that funding. Thus, states will have less federal support for core child support enforcement services in FY 2012 than they had in FY 2010, making it more difficult to maintain services and implement new initiatives.
You’d think a Women’s Law Center might mention (in its summary blurb) that the Child Support Enforcement program has a fatherhood component — but they don’t. This blurb from the NCSEA (National Child Support Enforcement Association) at least does. Notice, both are dated EARLIER in 2011. This (nonprofit) agency is comprised of professional child support enforcement personnel. The first thing they bring up is the connection between child support and fatherhood initiative (which Mr. Holland did not mention, above — at all)
2011-2012 Federal Budget
February 24, 2011
Last week President Obama released the FFY 2012 Budget. Concerning the nation’s Child Support Program, highlights include:A new child support and fatherhood Initiative – This budget proposal would invest $305 million Federal Fiscal Year 2012 and $2.4 billion over the next ten years, to encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children and promote strong family relationships, while continuing a commitment to vigorous enforcement and an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiencies.
A recommendation to improve distribution policies to ensure that when non-custodial parents do the right thing, and pay child support, their children benefit – This proposal encourages states to distribute more child support payments to families so that more of the support paid by fathers reaches their children.
Fostering father’s engagement in their children’s lives – This budget proposal provides $570 million over ten years to support increased access and visitation services and integrates these services into the core child support program. The proposal would also require states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all court orders.
(meaning, all CHILD SUPPORT court orders? Because court orders already establish access and visitation responsibilities — generally that’s what any custody action is about to start with). THIS SHOULD BE OPPOSED — because it’s the feds paying the states to promote a concept of children as a rental property, while saying it’s not — it’s just about “best interests of the child.” Even minor children can see the dishonesty in this — but are not informed of what level of $$ bait is actually on their heads. Moreover, who informs the custodial parents, particularly when they are mothers?, of the federal incentives to states in these programs?
Short-term increase to the incentive pool – The budget proposal includes $600 million for a temporary increase in incentive payments to states based on performance in FFY 2012 and FFY 2013.***Note*** The match on federal incentives was NOT included in the budget. For more information, including information about the Health and Human Services budget, please see Oppenheim’s memo to the CSDA Membership on February 14th. Health and Human Services has also published the following budget proposal and subsequent budget brief after the release of the HHS Budget.Legislation
Sponsors: Rockefeller (D-WV), Cornyn (R-TX), Kohl (D-WI) and Snowe (R-ME)Status: Committee on FinanceCo-Sponsors: 7Summary: This bill would permanently restore the ability to use earned performance incentive funds as match for additional investments in the child support program.NCSEA urges its members to contact their Senators to co-sponsor this legislation.Previous co-sponsors must take affirmative steps to co-sponsor again. The following is afact sheet to educate new legislative members about the Child Support Program
The program’s core functions are:
Locating parents; Establishing paternity; Establishing child support orders; Enforcing those orders; Collecting and distributing child support obligations
Child support staff use a variety of methods and tools to carry out the above core functions to support children and their families. Using administrative and judicial processes, child support staff locate employers and work with them to withhold a portion of wages paid to employees owing support.
To the extent there may be other income available, child support staff pursue many other strategies to potentially offset public benefit costs by:
- Offsetting Unemployment Insurance Benefits
- Offsetting Federal and State Income Tax Refunds
- Suspending Driver’s Licenses
- Seizing Bank Accounts
- Placing liens on Real and Personal Property
- Denying a US Passport
- Denying hunting/fishing and other recreational licenses
- Denying professional and occupational licenses
States also collaborate with each other to ensure that parents living in a state different from their children meet their obligations.
Child Support Does More Than Collect Dollars
During the economic recession, agencies have worked hard with fathers** to find and maintain work, and modify support orders when necessary so that parents do not fall hopelessly behind in payments. Agencies try to build a culture of compliance, so that parents support their children voluntarily and reliably.
**That’s a shame, because the same marriage promotion / access visitation program that’s been in place since 1996 has produced a whole new contingent (increasing rapidly) of noncustodial MOTHERS with zero contact with their children, having THEIR wages garnished now. So wouldn’t it make sense to also help the mothers retain work by reducing frivolous child support proceedings (or biased ones) — and eliminating the federal incentive to prolong it and draw in more and more programs to help “solve” the family crisis created by one or more of the programs (or exacerbated by it) to start with?
Agencies promote stable, safe, and healthy relationships between parents and children by participating in the larger community’s efforts to strengthen families, and encourage healthy marriage and responsible parenthood.
How dishonest is that characterization? Most people (including many legislators — and this is a fact sheet for legislators) already know the grants stream is “Healthy Marriage / Responsible FATHERhood” not “parenthood” I find the chronic slip into gender-neutral terms when it’s not a gender-neutral situation — probably an intuitive instinct to coverup the truth. The Federal Government is now a player in the local state courts, even though they admit themselves they have no real LEGAL right to interfere. They can just exert pressure from the outside by paying — or threatening to reduce — bribes to the states, which pass this on down to the local county child support agency and superior court proceeding.
Agencies have developed targeted, specific initiatives to work with special populations, including incarcerated or formerly incarcerated parents.
This Federal, State, Local and Tribal Partnership Works!
Efficiently administered, the program collected $26.4 billion from non-custodial parents in FFY 2009 and distributed $24.4 billion directly to families.
From "DadsAmerica.org" (old post):
4. Undistributed Funds
States report an undistributed funds pool of over $634 million at the end of 2000 in collected but undistributed child support. Most states cannot explain the existence
of the fund pools nor do they know to whom the money rightfully belongs. For
example, in California, there is an unexplainable $192 million or so that is
reported to the Federal Office of Child Support as net undistributed funds, but only
$45 million in actual cash. The other approximately $148 million cannot be accounted for. It is quite possible that money has been diverted to general fund accounts. In Michigan, the amount of undistributed funds doubled from about $20 million in 2000 to $40 million in 2001 and Tennessee has the highest rate/case of undistributed funds at $71 million at the end of 2001. (See Chart 2)
[SECTION ADDED Oct. 2016 during format cleanup] Acronym for this nonprofit association is “ACES” Should not be confused with a commonly-referenced study (vs. “organization”) being circulated, in which “ACES” means “Adverse Childhood Experiences Survey” (or “Study”).
DIVORCESOURCE.COM describes the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support” as:
ACES is a non-profit organization founded in March 1984. Today, ACES is the largest national grass roots child support advocacy organization in the United States, with 40,000 members and 165 chapters in 45 states. All are united in the ACES mission: to assist disadvantaged children affected by parents who fail to meet their legal, moral and financial obligations to support them. A voluntary national board of trustees advises the organization.
Now that it’s described as having chapters, those chapters are likely separate nonprofits, or affiliates, and ACES an umbrella nonprofit providing products and services, i.e., membership benefits. In this goal, it is paralleling the purpose of child support agencies, for which parents (and non-parents) already pay, as funded through HHS/ACF/OCSE (actually as ADMINISTERED through the above department: Congress appropriates, and who funds? In the long run, who funds government — that would be “the public” (mostly), at least in their contributions to federal receipts. Then again, as I began to explore more in 2012 (like, as soon as I learned of it and the significance sank in), other sources of federal income — or for any major investment platform — are revenues produced from existing investments. See “CAFR” posts and topic (Cafr1.com, cafrman.com, etc. — I have a sticky post with ample links) It’s a KEY ISSUE.
ACES offers “how to” instructions and educational information about child support enforcement, visitation rights and paternity determination. It provides a telephone hot-line for affected families seeking information and understanding. ACES conducts public awareness campaigns through news releases and community action.
(Divorce Source, Inc., per “contact us,” is in Allentown, PA).
But, naturally, doesn’t call much attention to the ramifications of nonprofit associations in this field, or provide a link to the group, or to its EIN# for tax return lookup. That’s what I tend to do, so ….
LInk to two-page pdf featuring Geraldine Jensen’s Heinz Award, bio, and her book, from “Families OnLine” (Image at top of this post also): 
Heinz Awards – Sen. John Heinz
the late (d. 1991) Sen. John Heinz, a Republican, was also popular with Democrats, and the first of his family line to go into politics. NOTE: This date puts him pre-PRWORA.
John Heinz brought that hope with him wherever he went. Blessed with an appeal and charisma that crossed party lines, Senator Heinz, a Republican, was extremely popular with Democrats. He was the first Republican to carry every ward of the city of Pittsburgh during his 1976 Senatorial campaign. People valued his desire for change and his respect for human dignity and believed his guiding principle which was “the status quo is unacceptable.”
“In the performance of his duties, both as a public servant and as a philanthropist, he was not merely tireless, he was joyfully ferocious, himself the embodiment of radiant living,” Teresa Heinz has said. John Heinz did not rest upon the laurels of inherited privilege and fortune; he used his life as a vehicle to help others…
AWARDS:
Established by Teresa Heinz in 1993 to honor the memory of her late husband, U.S. Senator John Heinz, the Awards celebrate the accomplishments and spirit of the Senator by recognizing the extraordinary achievements of individuals in the areas of greatest importance to him.
The Heinz Awards, administered by the Heinz Family Foundation, recognize outstanding individuals for their contributions in the areas of: Arts and Humanities, Environment, Human Condition, Public Policy, and Technology, the Economy and Employment.
Nominations are submitted by an anonymous Council of Nominators and are reviewed by Jurors appointed by the Heinz Family Foundation. Award recipients are ultimately selected by the Board of Directors.
The Board of Directors, as we can see includes one son, Andre, and other powerfully-connected individuals, one of them, a “former classmate of John” at — why not, with this type of family wealth — Philips Exeter and Yale.
Teresa Heinz, raised and educated outside the US, but honored academically within and by the UN, is currently married to Secretary of State John Kerry:
Teresa Heinz (perchance you’ve heard of Secretary of State John Kerry? She’s now married to him).
Teresa Heinz is chairman of the Heinz Family Foundation and The Heinz Endowments. She founded the Heinz Awards, an annual program recognizing outstanding vision and achievement in the arts; public policy; the environment; the human condition; and technology, the economy and employment.
After the death of her husband, U.S. Senator John Heinz, in 1991, Mrs. Heinz assumed direction of the family’s extensive philanthropic operations, undertaking a major reorganization designed to sharpen the foundations’ strategic focus. Today, the foundations she oversees are widely known for developing innovative strategies to protect the environment, improve education, enhance the lives of young children, broaden economic opportunity and promote the arts. In 2007, Mrs. Heinz accepted the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy on behalf of the Heinz family and philanthropies.
Teresa Heinz, from “Heinzawards.net”
…Teresa Heinz is now married to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. She has three sons, John, André and Christopher Heinz. Born and raised in Mozambique, she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in romance languages and literature from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. In 1963, she graduated from the Interpreters School of the University of Geneva. Fluent in five languages, she later served as a consultant to the United Nations Trusteeship in New York City.
She has been awarded honorary doctorate degrees from Beloit College in Beloit, Wisc.; the University of Massachusetts in Boston; Bank Street College of Education in New York City; Pine Manor College in Chestnut Hill, Mass.; and Clark University in Worcester, Mass., as well as from Carnegie Mellon University and Carlow College in Pittsburgh; the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, in Philadelphia, Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, Pa. as well as Albertson College in Idaho and Kenyon College in Ohio.
A snapshot via tax returns of The HEINZ FAMILY FOUNDATION, a Pennsylvania-based private, Form 990PF-filing, and awards-giving entity:
Five awards per year (from Heinz Awards website),
For 2016 http://www.heinzawards.net/2016-recipients/ (Founder of WordPress got one!) You can see the progressive streak overall. One of the awards refers to ACES in re: Adverse Childhood Experiences Study — toxic stress in children (a doctor who is screening for it), another for disproportionate incarceration (a civil rights attorney). They are “Creating a Society for All” Theme. I’m glad to see one musician at least was included!
On Oct. 4th, the 21st Heinz Awards recipients participated in a moderated event at Carnegie Mellon University: “Shared Ideals Realized – Creating A Society For All.” Moderated by Grant Oliphant, president of the Heinz Endowments, the full video may be watched below:
ACES award 2016 involves a Center for Youth Wellness in SF and a screening tool for ACE’s:
2016 Heinz Award for The Human Condition, Dr. Nadine Burke-Harris, founder of Center for Youth Wellness (SF) re screening children for toxic stress (ACES)
Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, founder and CEO of the Center for Youth Wellness, is recognized for her work in addressing toxic stress in children, a significant, yet often unrecognized risk factor for chronic disease later in life.
Dr. Burke Harris was the founding physician of the Bayview Child Health Center, established in San Francisco in 2007. After identifying Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and toxic stress as a major health threat to her pediatric patients, she created the Center for Youth Wellness (CYW) in 2011 with a mission to prevent, screen and heal the impacts of ACEs and toxic stress.
A vocal advocate, Dr. Burke Harris is raising awareness of the dangers of children’s exposure to early adversity. Research Dr. Burke Harris and others have conducted reveal that when children are exposed to four or more ACEs, they are twice as likely to be overweight or obese, and 32 times as likely to have learning or behavior problems as compared to children of the same income and ethnicity with zero ACEs.
Through the development of a lifesaving screening tool to identify ACEs in young patients, Dr. Burke Harris is pioneering the way pediatricians will diagnose and treat children suffering from toxic stress.
ACES Award 2016 for Disproportionate Incarceration of African-Americans also went to a woman; notice now a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation (a major sponsor of responsible fatherhood programming and nonprofits to demonstrate and evaluate it, also “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” which has been “bred into” the social services framework throughout the US.
Heinz Award Public Policy recipient 2016, Attorney/Author Michelle Alexander
Michelle Alexander, legal scholar, advocate, civil rights attorney and author of the seminal book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, is recognized for drawing national attention to the issue of mass incarceration of African American youth and men in the United States, and for propelling a movement to take constructive action on criminal justice reform.
Throughout her career, Ms. Alexander has focused on addressing the racial inequities in America’s criminal justice system and prejudice against the formerly incarcerated. After graduating from law school, she served as a clerk for Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court and later was the director of the Racial Justice Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. In addition to leading major campaigns against racial profiling by law enforcement, Ms. Alexander and has taught at a number of universities and is now a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation.
For a partial perspective on size with (shown below) ACES organization, which in 2002 was $201K in a deficit, this is The Heinz Family Foundation. Click and scroll to see that, like many foundations this large (and many much smaller, and larger), it its revenues come from savings and interests (dividends on investments) and/or sale of assets (larger proportion). Page 1, Year 14 shows $11+M In, $2+M out in the form of grants and contributions to others (and basic management costs about $1M only); “do the math/ see the increase.” The foundation is also an employer, and pays of course investment management fees, but over a five-year spread, the average % of contributions from this organization has been only 2% (some years 1%, one year 7%).
Below the tax returns I’m going to post main parts of the Balance Sheet showing where the $133M (Fair Market Value) (or $112M “book value”) Total investment value is stored — and how NONE is in US or state corporate bond (Line 2) In addition to the about $11-12M in “Savings” (Line 2). By comparison, it’s “liabilities” are less than 4% of its holdings.
When you see enough similar tax returns and begin to understand that the wealth/ profits are made, (a) holding investment platforms (income-producing assets), (b) holding them so as to avoid or reduce corporate taxes as much as possible, and © through gifts of a small percentage of one’s regular holdings to others, making friends and solidifying influence as “the good guys” — perhaps, I hope, an understanding of how the various states doing similar things with their holdings (IN THIS CASE — THIS POST’S CASE — UNDISTRIBUTABLE BUT ALREADY COLLECTED CHILD SUPPORT) GIVEN THE SCOPE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT NATIONWIDE, THAT’S A VERY BIG DEAL.
Moreover, the more that is kept from the hands of individual families, the less those individual families have to invest and look towards becoming financially independent by any other means than running businesses which make sure not to over-pay their own employees, or, for most, becoming employees and hoping they don’t get fired too often, too early. or “outsourced” when the business finds a cheaper source of labor — whether imported (at home), or simply by moving operations off-shores to the USA.
Total results: 6. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heinz Family Foundation | PA | 2014 | 990PF | 53 | $133,112,940.00 | 25-1689382 |
| Heinz Family Foundation | PA | 2013 | 990PF | 56 | $132,473,301.00 | 25-1689382 |
| Heinz Family Foundation | PA | 2012 | 990PF | 54 | $117,095,904.00 | 25-1689382 |
BALANCE SHEET (P.2) TO 2014 RETURN ABOVE:
Statement of Geraldine Jensen, President,
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., Sacramento, CaliforniaTestimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources
of the House Committee on Ways and MeansHearing on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals
April 11, 2002
ACES has 50,000 members and 400 chapters located in 48 states. We are representative of the families whose 20 million children are owed over $83 billion in unpaid child support. We have banded together to work for effective and fair child support enforcement. As one of our members said,
“I’m finally off of welfare and in the ranks of the employed. The $400 a month in child support added to my wages from my job at the restaurant makes it possible for me to support my two children. Now I can look my kids in the eye and stand proud because they know their parents are both doing their part.”
Child support payments amount to almost 26% of family income for low-income families. Single parents leaving the welfare rolls rely on child support payments to supplement low wages more than ever before due to welfare reform.
4. Stop states from holding and/or sending unclaimed child support payments to state general funds. States are holding $634 million in undistributed funds.
5. Make sure states implement and enforce child support enforcement laws as outlined in PRWORA and improve their methods for collecting on interstate cases and cases involving large arrearages
Also,
ACES recently conducted a survey of families affected by the child support laws in PRWORA. We found that there are serious problems with the distribution of child support. Many families report that child support is being collected but they are not receiving payments. Others state that payments to them are sporadic or that they are uncertain how much is being collected because child support received is of varying amounts.
In Ohio, the Department of Jobs and Family Services failed to implement changes in the Welfare Reform law, which reduced the amount of welfare benefits the state was allowed to recoup from pre-assistance arrears. This caused 160,000 families to receive less child support than they were due. About $38 million was illegally withheld from Ohio’s poorest families, those who participated in Ohio Works First, became employed, and left the welfare rolls An ACES investigation discovered that the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS) knowingly brought online a computer system in October 2000 that miscalculated distribution of child support payments owed families.
In February 2001, ACES filed a Writ of Mandamus in State Appeals Court against ODJFS for putting the interests of the State ahead of those of affected children. As a result, Governor Taft has issued an Executive Order and the Ohio legislature has acted to release state funds to the 160,000 affected families, those who left the welfare rolls after October 1997. Ohio is supposed to be returning $44.6 million ($38 million plus interest) but families have yet to receive a payment, eight months after the Governor announced the refunds.
ODJFS did not correct the records. In fact, they were unable to untangle the pre-assistance arrears from legitimately owed welfare arrears so they just changed the arrears to all be owed to the family. Now, when payments are received, even if there is a legitimate debt owed to the state, it cannot be collected. The state has told us that if they ever get the records corrected they will not pursue families to return overpayments.
We have asked the Federal Office of Child Support if they are willing to give up their 50% of the welfare debt on these cases. They report that federal law would not allow this. Please act to help these families. They are caught up in a complicated distribution system that the state cannot seem to implement. They did all that Congress asked—they got a job, and left the welfare rolls. All they are asking is for support legally due to their children.
[SECTION ADDED Oct. 2016 during format cleanup, see similar-style section above also. This is about ACES fraud discovery in 2004 and below that, I look at some of ACES’ tax returns.]
Discovered years AFTER this post was published (“ACES,” above, was not a focus of my blogging) in a simple search for its website. This article was published in the Toledo Blade two years after the congressional testimony above, but seven years before my post (roughly speaking):
Jensen surrenders leadership as fraud claims rock advocacy group March 24, 2004 in The Toledo Blade, by Jim Provance:
COLUMBUS – Geraldine Jensen, the head of a national child support organization that was founded in Toledo, is stepping down amid fraud allegations against her and theft charges against a former top assistant. Ms. Jensen, who founded the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support in 1984, has turned over the director’s reins to Debbie Kline of Cleveland.
….Ms. Jensen, 51, does not plan to seek re-election as chairman of the board during the trustees’ annual meeting in July, but she will run for a seat on the board. The transition occurs as ACES struggles financially and deals with the prosecution of one of its own for alleged theft of more than $80,000 from the organization.
Patricia Lisa Redieck, 36, of 1752 Brame St., Toledo, former ACES administrative assistant, faces trial Aug. 5 on 11 counts of forgery and credit-card fraud for allegedly faking the signature of Ms. Jensen on checks between Jan. 8, 2002, and May 23, 2003.
“They are all felonies of the fifth degree with a maximum of one year on each of those charges,” said John Weglian, chief of the special units division in the Lucas County prosecutor’s office.
Rebecca K. Ligibel, Ms. Redieck’s attorney, did not return a call for comment.
Toward the bottom of this article:
…The story of Ms. Jensen and the founding of ACES was the subject of an ABC-TV movie, Abandoned and Deceived, in 1995.
The organization more recently garnered headlines for revealing that Ohio improperly withheld past-due child-support payments from former welfare families.
The state ultimately repaid $15 million plus interest to 66,000 families for cases dating to 1997.
Blade Staff Writer Mark Reiter contributed to this story. Contact Jim Provance at: jprovance@theblade.com or 614-221-0496.
So, that’s terrible. But tell me — which is the larger crime: $80,000 through forgery, or $15,000,000 plus interest, as far back as 1997 withheld from 66,000 ($15,000/66 = ) families on welfare, by the State of Ohio?
Despite the fame and prestige (and political approval, power bloc approval — which is why I mentioned the Heinz Awards, above), this is a broken-down organization within just a few years of the above article (after being around since 1984 and influential in welfare reform? Basically their contributions dropped off in 2006, per the last two tax returns, Schedule A. These show Deborah Kline in control:
Total results: 2. Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Association for Children for Enforcement of Support | OH | 2008 | 990EZ | 10 | $2,605.00 | 34-1452416 |
| Association for Children for Enforcement of Support | OH | 2007 | 990 | 23 | $2,807.00 | 34-1452416 |
| Association for Children for Enforcement of Support | VA | 2005 | 990 | ?? | $9,442 | 34-1452416 |
Tax year 2004: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/341/341452416/341452416_200412_990.pdf?_ga=1.195044841.498400656.1461724132
Tax year 2006 seems to be missing. Tax year 2005 (yellow row) is a PO Box in Fredericksburg, VA. It shows $84.1K public support (no gov’t) and a year-end a $14K deficit. So don’t let very low asset balances fool about money that might be flowing to and through any nonprofit. This one gave no grants.
Notice (any of the above returns) that the program services are INFORMATIONAL in nature — education about child support enforcement AND Visitation rights.
I went to CITIZENAUDIT with this EIN# (this link leads to chart of several returns — click on any PDF to see). Citizen Audit often has earlier returns to click on than “990finder” however, it doesn’t extract nice-looking tables with $$ Assets to compare one year to another. So, from that link I looked up tax year 2003 (One BEFORE the “Fraud” article and one AFTER the Congressional testimony shown in red-dashed lines, above). This year, Geraldine Jensen — with an Ann Arbor, Michigan street address – is signing the returns.
- Anyone who looked at them could see there is a problem when an organization dependent on private support (ONLY) is showing $248K revenues, and logs up $474K Expenses, which obviously results in a larger-than $200K deficit for a single year. That alone would be a red flag — but in 2003, was anyone looking?
Year 2001, showing Private Contributions of $569K (but a “Schedule B / Excess Contributions” with names blocked out, show 8 or 9 primary contributors donating around $410K of that amount). Face sheet shows the year’s summar (to see full size, use “2001” link; notice I’ve included identifying name & EIN# from page 2 to emphasize SUMMARY parts of Page 1 of the return):
<==$569.5K Donations.
<$10K loss on sale of something not inventory (turns out to be a building)
<==Next to bottom section, Lines 13-17 in these IRS forms (pre-2008) show Expenses, not much breakout of detail. So “Program Expenses” are $437K and “Mgmt” is $46K, total $484K. They started the year with $111.9K and this year, thanks to good contributions, ended up with double the assets, $215K See next image (close-up of that section). it’s still not that clear, though:
So, let’s look at how the “Expenses” are described — in short, they aren’t really. A number is put in under “Program Expenses” in one part. Then “see Statement X” You go to statement X, which breaks it down further, SOME, but still the largest item simply reads “Program Expenses” — which doesn’t exactly describe anything much, at all!
Before that, here is the following year’s tax returns, Page 1, bottom, showing what happened to a $215K “surplus” at the end of one year — and this was the same year as Congressional Testimony by Ms. Jensen shown above. One thing’s certain – although her salary is the only paid officer, it’s still modest, under $50K.
<==$273K Revenues (mostly contribs)
<==$400,158 “Program Service Expenses” and next line reads $74.5K “Mgmt” (expenses).
So “go do the math: “2 + 2 = 4” or, “4 – 2 = 2.”
What we have here In the hundred-thousand- dollars version (ad $, two 00s, and a “K” for $400K, etc.) is the NONPROFIT style of basic math: 2 – 4 = (2) = a Deficit.
(Filename for the image: “2002 Form990 Pg1 for ACES (EIN#34-1452416) PtI Bottom $215K – $400+K = Guess what, Negative $200+K (Expenses & Fund Balances only) (ScreenShot 2016Oct28)”
Why would this have happened, the same year a testimony before Congress on the State of Ohio took place?
Well, from 2001 returns, here are the Schedule B of main contributors (names redacted; the IRS gets these; individual viewers of tax returns on-line, don’t), where the total Revenues were $569K. There’s another $20K on the following page also:
But a primary source of reports to read includes the HHS/OIG (Office of Inspector General)’s own audit of various child support agency’s handling of “UNDISTRIBUTABLE CHILD SUPPORT” and failure to report the interest on them. This URL leads to an October 1998 – March 2006 audit of Los Angeles County’s practices. It’s in the form of a report (RECOMMENDED READ), noting that it also checked two other large southern-California Counties (note: California has 58 counties ? — and only three were checked. Of these three checked, it also appears that only Title IV-D child support cases (which are a fraction of the total amount) were the HHS’s concern. ALSO NOTE — I’m unaware of any follow-up audit, meaning in the past 5 years, whether any of the bad practices have been corrected.
Review of Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department
Within California, we selected for review several local child support agencies that had large amounts of unclaimed child support collections that were 3 years old or older and/or had reported no {NADA — ZERO — ZILCH — NOTHING} undistributable collections. This report focuses on Los Angeles County’s local child support agency, the Child Support Services Department (the county agency), which reported undistributable collections and program income to the State agency. We addressed the local child support agencies in Orange County and Riverside County in separate reports (A-09-06-00040 and A-09-07-00049, respectively).
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives
Our objectives were to determine whether the State agency appropriately recognized and reported program income for the county agency’s undistributable child support collections and interest earned on child support collections.
This is not a hard read, but it’s several pages of introduction til one gets to the juicy center: Its cover letter is from the HHS/OAS — “Office of Audit Services”:
APR 30 2009
Mr. Jan Studa Director California Department of Child Support Services P.O. Box 419064 Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9064
Dear Mr. Studa:
Enclosed is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General (OIG), final report entitled “Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Los Angeles County, California, From October 1,1998, Through March 31, 2006.” We will forward a copy of this report to the HHS action official noted on the following page for review and any action deemed necessary.
. . . THE REQUIREMENTS:
FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
Federal regulations (45 CFR § 304.50) state that interest earned must be used to reduce Child Support Enforcement program expenditures. In addition, OCSE AT-89-16 {AT = “Action Transmittal, a form of communication”}} requires States to offset program costs by recognizing and reporting program income from interest earned on child support collections. Specifically, OCSE AT-89-16 states: “Although not required by either statute or regulation, many States have chosen to invest or deposit these funds in income-producing accounts. Any amount earned through these activities is considered program income and must be used by States to offset program expenditures.”
State agency policy, Local Child Support Agency letter 02-36, provides clarification on the reporting of interest earned on child support collections: “All interest earned on Child Support Enforcement program funds must be reported … ” and used to offset program expenditures.
But Los Angeles County Agency were not good boys and didn’t report for four months while the program was in transition from the district attorney’s jurisdiction to the local child support agency bureaucracy, which was formed in that same year, 2000.
I still wonder if the formation of the local agencies was a consequence of this L.A. District Attorney having been caught sitting improperly on $14 million of “undistributed collections” when they knew – quite well — were several of the custodial parents were…..
INTEREST EARNED ON CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS NOT REPORTED AS PROGRAM INCOME
The State agency did not report program income totaling $878,373 ($579,726 Federal share) for interest earned on child support collections held by the county agency. This unreported interest was earned from May through August 2000. Because administration of the Child Support Enforcement program moved July 1,2001, from the Los Angeles County office of the district attorney to the county agency, the county agency was not aware that the office of the district attorney had not reported some interest earned on collections as program income.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the State agency report program income totaling $878,373 ($579,726 Federal share) for interest earned on child support collections.
Whether they ever did — who knows?
For something to have earned $878,373 of income in a single quarter indicates a LARGE principal sitting somewhere gathering interest — for the county, not the children’s caretakers! This is basically stealing if those were actually distributable. When it comes to Los Angeles, a lawsuit was filed to try to shake loose some of this money Los Angeles was improperly sitting on (fairly typical procedure for this area…)
In a September 2010 letter from Richard Fine, requesting a grand jury investigation into some of this (rampant) bribery, he has a short section on “Silva v. Garcetti” one of the two cases (apparently) that got his behind tossed in jail — for a year and a half — hoping he would “crack” which it appears, this elderly attorney, didn’t. He summarizes in his letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder:
In the case of Silva v. Garcetti and LA County, LASC Case No. BC 205645, I representedJohn Silva against LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti, who was illegally withholding $14 millionof child support monies beyond the six-month statutory limit and refusing to distribute such.Neither LA County, it lawyers, nor Judge James C. Chalfant disclosed the LA County payments {{addressed separately in th e letter} to LA Superior Court Judge Chalfant. Garcetti’s office admitted that it had the child supportmoney and had not distributed it.At the end of the trial, Judge Chalfant {{i.e., who was taking county payments and this suit was against a county district attorney, a very powerful position in government}} dismissed the case.
Upon finding out about the payments to Judge Chalfant after the dismissal, I raised the
issue in the appeal, App. No. B 150641. The Appellate Court refused to hear the issue.I then
became aware that Justice Kathryn Doi Todd, who had recently been appointed an appellate
justice, had received LA County payments when she was a LA Superior Court judge.Neither
Justice Todd nor LA County or its lawyers disclosed this information in the appeal.I raised the
issue in my Petition for Review to the California Supreme Court (S.Ct. Case No. 105221).The
California Supreme Court denied review.LA County women and children lost $14 million, which they should have timely received
More from the HHS/OAS Audit Report — it appears Los Angeles County was co-minglnig interest income from advances to the Child Support Enforcement agency into the general fund, and losing track of it. HHS says they plan to follow up (I see no record that they ever did, on the public site where its audits are to be posted):
OTHER MATTER: INTEREST EARNED ON PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS
Pursuant to Federal regulations (45 CFR § 92.21(i)), interest earned on advances, except for interest earned on advances offunds exempt under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, must be remitted to the Federal Government at least quarterly.
An advance is for use — not for sitting in a fund to earn interest income for the state / county. However this is exactly what happened to the advance. The federal government says — if you’re not using our advance, send us back the income; after all, it’s OUR money (i.e.., money the federal government has its hands on through IRS, etc. to distribute as it sees fit). And, you are to report interest income! (individual taxpayers have to do this, and pay taxes on their interest income, right? But the County was dodging that resposibility….)
State agency policy, Local Child Support Agency letter 02-36, states that county agencies must report quarterly the interest earned on all funds received to administer the child support program.
The State agency advances Federal funds for administering the Child Support Enforcement program to Los Angeles County. These funds are commingled with other county funds and invested by the Los Angeles County treasurer. The Los Angeles Auditor-Controller’s office stated that the interest earned on these funds is used to help fund the county’s annual budget. The county agency did not know the amount of the interest earned on these advances. We plan to review the interest earned on these funds in a future audit.
Individuals who improperly co-mingle their personal bank accounts with client’s bank accounts — including individual attorneys who misappropriate, for example, funds held in a retainer — can suffer severe penalties; it’s poor accounting and indicates potential or actual embezzlement. Here, we simply have a COUNTY doing this with funds to help the most needy population — I believe also this is referring primarily to TANF population, people on welfare, too. Instead, they are hanging onto the money (the advance money) sticking it in all-purpose funds, and letting the interest accrue without tracking it. Los Angeles also was involved in a drawn-out lawsuit with taxpayer advocacy group (“Jarvis”) for doing the same thing, evidently, with monies they got from a surcharge on basic services, i.e., water & power (search “DWP Slush fund” Including on my blog).
There is an entire series of similar HHS/OAS audit reports available at the US HHS “Office of Inspector General” “Office of Audit Services.” (URL = Http://OIG.HHS.Gov/Reports-and-publications/OAS/ACF.asp)
I browsed the ACF audit series, including its archives. (Recommended reading)
http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/oas/acf.asp
The State agency did not report program income totaling $2,870,137 ($1,894,291 Federal share) for undistributable child support collections for the quarters ended December 1998 through September 2004 and did not recognize program income of $500,352 ($330,233 Federal share) for unclaimed and undistributable collections that should have been considered abandoned. The unreported program income included (1) $2,608,472 that the county agencies held in trust fund accounts for more than 5 years without referring to the State agency; (2) $255,386 that the State agency reported as undistributable but did not recognize as program income; and (3) $6,279 that the county agencies referred to the State agency, which did not report the amount as undistributable collections or program income
There are a variety of Audits, including use of ARRA funds, TANF payments, Head Start funds, Foster Care incentives. For purposes of this post, however, this is the keyword. These reports say they are made available to the public under a certain law:
Pursuant to the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended by Public Law 104-231, OIG reports generally are made available to the public to the extent the information is not subject to exemptions in the Act (45 CFR part 5). Accordingly, this report will be posted on the Internet at http://oig.hhs.gov.
08-08-2008Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Texas From October 1, 1998, Through March 31, 2006(A-06-06-00088)
06-05-2008Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Riverside County, California, from October 1, 1998, Through March 31, 2006 (A-09-07-00049)
04-04-2008Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Orange County, California, From October 1, 1998, Through March 31, 2006(A-09-06-00040)
02-08-2008Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in New Jersey From October 1, 1998, Through March 31, 2006(A-02-06-02005)
01-17-2008Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Florida From October 1, 1998, Through December 31, 2005 (A-04-06-03508)
01-15-2008Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Maryland From October 1, 1998, Through December 31, 2005(A-03-06-00565)12-17-2007Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Georgia From October 1, 1998, Through December 31, 2005(A-04-06-03506)
And there are more. What I do NOT see is any similar audit since the years covered in this Archived Reports (meaning, prior to 2011 year).
I found TEXAS particularly “amusing” as Texas produced a US President who thought breaking down the separation of church and state was a great idea in 2001.
Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Texas From October 1, 1998, Through March 31, 2006
August 08, 2008 | Audit A-06-06-00088
Executive Summary
The State agency implemented the recommendations from the prior audit and established controls over collecting rebates for single-source drugs administered by physicians. Therefore, we do not offer any recommendations.
Complete Report
Download the complete report(PDF)
From October 1998 through March 2006, the State did not report program income of up to $2.2 million ($1.4 million Federal share) from undistributable child support collections and interest earned on collections by the State and nine county child support offices. These deficiencies occurred because the State did not have adequate procedures to ensure that it reported program income for all undistributable child support collections and interest earned on collections by the State and the counties.
We recommended that the State work with the Office of Child Support Enforcement and the county child support offices to determine the Title IV-D portion of the $2.2 million ($1.4 million Federal share) in undistributable collections and interest earned and report the amount as program income, review the county child support offices that we did not review to ensure that undistributable child support collections and interest earned on collections were reported as program income, and ensure compliance with State law. The State generally disagreed with our findings and recommendations but did not provide any additional information that would lead us to change our findings or recommendations.
Please note the HHS/OAS showed no interest in (or concern about) the fact that undistributable collections were this high, or any NON-TITLE IV-D child support undistributable collections. Like any business, the Federal government was concerned about its own bottom line.
This report was an advance report: “
“Attached is an advance copy of our final report on undistributable child support collections in Texas from October 1, 1998, through March 31, 2006. We will issue this report to the Texas Office of the Attorney General (the State agency) within 5 business days.
. . .
The State agency did not report program income of up to $2,194,149 ($1,448,138 Federal share) from undistributable child support collections and interest earned on collections by the State agency and 9 of the 15 county child support offices that we reviewed. This amount consisted of:
• up to $1,697,986 ($1,120,671 Federal share) in undistributable collections that certain county child support offices and the State agency had not recognized as abandoned and transferred to the State comptroller or county treasurers,
• up to $369,051 ($243,574 Federal share) in undistributable collections that certain county child support offices had recognized as abandoned and transferred to the State comptroller or county treasurers but that the State agency had not reported as program income, and
• up to $127,112 ($83,894 Federal share) in interest earned by certain counties and the State agency on child support collections.
This is more than half — of the offices reviewed — having malpractice resulting in illegally retraining, or under-reporting retained monies. In short, the counties apparently retained money by simply not reporting it, and then continued receiving more enforcement money from the general public a.k.a. the HHS/OCSE. …..Even when they knew it was abandoned, they didn’t handle it right by reporting. There are two simple forms (That I can tell from these reports) they were to fill out.
Please note that in all its recommendations, there was no apparent concern about the level of “undistributable collections” (indicating something isn’t working, right?) but only that the TITLE IV-D amount is returned to the Feds. Given how many DISCRETIONARY and OPEN-ENDED and “DEMONSTRATION” projects the OCSE is itself running (plus the Section 1115 grants series, see my recent post with the phrase “90FD” in title) – they are going to want their money back.
We recommend that the State agency:
• work with OCSE and the county child support offices to determine the Title IV-D portion of the $1,697,986 ($1,120,671 Federal share) in undistributable collections that were not recognized as abandoned property, transfer the Title IV-D amount to the proper authority, and report the amount as program income;
• work with OCSE and the county child support offices to determine the Title IV-D portion of the $369,051 ($243,574 Federal share) in abandoned property that was transferred by county child support offices and report the amount as program income;
• work with OCSE and the county child support offices to determine the Title IV-D portion of the $127,112 ($83,894 Federal share) in interest earned and report the amount as program income;
• review the county child support offices that we did not review to ensure that undistributable child support collections, including any previously transferred abandoned property, and interest earned on child support collections were reported as program income; and
• revise its procedures for reporting undistributable child support collections and provide oversight and training to county and State agency staff to ensure that future undistributable collections and the interest earned on collections are reported as program income in accordance with State law.
And some more from this Texas OAS report
NOTICE that both State and County kept their mouths shut, and then supporting evidence was eventually destroyed.
Four county child support offices did not report to the State agency up to $100,574 in interest earned on child support collections. (See Appendix C.) As a result, the State agency did not report this interest as program income.
The State agency did not have adequate procedures to ensure that it reported program income from interest earned on county child support collections. Specifically, the State agency did not provide sufficient oversight and training to ensure that county child support offices were aware of the need to report interest to the State agency. Many county officials stated that they were unaware of the need to report interest and that the State agency had never requested information on interest earned by the counties.
According to officials at the four county child support offices, the interest related to both Title IV-D and non-Title-IV-D collections. However, the county child support offices could not identify the amount of collections attributable to Title IV-D, and the State agency was unable to provide data that would help us estimate the amount.
Interest Earned on State Agency Collections
Although the State agency reported program income for most of the interest earned on child support collections for the period October 1, 2002, through March 31, 2006, the State agency did not report up to $26,538 in interest earned during that period. State agency officials informed us that they had reduced the amount of interest reported on Form OCSE-396A by $26,538 because the collections were unrelated to the Child Support Enforcement program. { ??} However, we reviewed some of these collections and determined that the majority of the collections reviewed were related to Title IV-D cases and therefore reportable as program income.
We were unable to determine the amount of interest earned on the State agency’s child support collections for the period October 1, 1998, to September 30, 2002, because the supporting documentation had been destroyed in accordance with the State agency’s record retention guidance.
Let’s note that only 15 counties in Texas were reviewed. (it also appears that only 3 were reviewed in California):
HOW MANY COUNTIES DOES TEXAS HAVE, ANYHOW? I’m glad you asked: Quite a few. So you do the math:
How Many Counties are in Texas?
Texas has 32 congressional districts (only California has more) and 254 counties- the most of any state in the US. When the Republic of Texas declared independence in 1836 there were 23 municipalities. These became the original 23 Texas counties. Most of these were divided into new counties. Kenedy County was the last county to be created. It was created in 1921. Some of the original counties include Austin County, Bastrop County and Washington County.
Each county has a Commissioners’ Court system. The court has 5 members- a county judge and four elected commissioners. There is also a county clerk who are responsible for registering marriage certificates, birth certificates, deeds, titles and other legal documents. The clerk is elected county-wide for four-year terms.
No one wants child support enforcement to Texas cut, right? But this audit doesn’t appear to have had teeth– it merely “recommends” the state get its act together. (article dates to 2005):
KTRE-TV – Lufkin/Nacogdoches, TX – Texas Families Could Lose Child Support Funds
A bill passed by the U.S. House could cost Texas families billions of dollars in child support. The bill would slash funding for child support enforcement.The budget reconciliation bill would reduce federal financial participation in child support programs from 66 percent to 50 percent by 2010. The Texas attorney general is concerned.
The cut in federal funds would require the attorney general’s office in Texas to reduce its child support staff. That could lead to a nearly three billion dollar drop in child support collections.
Please note the Texas law establishing the implementation of a centralized, TITLE IV-D controlled child support system. Notice that the Ruling Agency responsible for this is the “Title IV-D agency” (federal, or state level? Federal, I presume?):
(a) The Title IV-D agency shall have final approval authority on any contract or proposal for delivery of Title IV-D services under this section and in coordination with
- the Texas Judicial Council,
- the Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System,
- the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and
- state, county, and local officials,
shall develop and implement a statewide integrated system for child support and medical support enforcement, employing federal, state, local, and private resources to:
(1) unify child support registry functions;
(2) record and track all child support orders entered in the state;
(3) establish an automated enforcement process which will use delinquency monitoring, billing, and other enforcement techniques to ensure the payment of current support;
(4) incorporate existing enforcement resources into the system to obtain maximum benefit from state and federal funding; and
(5) ensure accountability for all participants in the process, including state, county, and local officials, private contractors, and the judiciary.
{{So what was the State & County’s excusees, above, for not knowing they were suppose to fill out OCSE form THIS or form THAT?}}
(b) Counties and other providers of child support services shall be required, as a condition of participation in the unified system, to enter into a contract with the Title IV-D agency, to comply with all federal requirements for the Title IV-D program, and to maintain at least the current level of funding for activities which are proposed to be included in the integrated child support system.
{{so much for “states’ rights” in the Lone Star State. . . . . Of course, they could just turn down federal funding of all sorts….}}
(c) The Title IV-D agency may contract with any county meeting technical system requirements necessary to comply with federal law for provision of Title IV-D services in that county. …
{NOW, pay attention here:}
All new cases in which support orders are entered in such county after the effective date of a monitoring contract shall be Title IV-D cases. Any other case in the county, subject to federal requirements and the agreement of the county and the Title IV-D agency, may be included as a Title IV-D case. Any obligee** under a support order may refuse Title IV-D enforcement services unless required to accept such services pursuant to other law. (d) Counties participating in the unified enforcement system shall monitor all child support registry cases and on delinquency may, subject to the approval of the Title IV-D agency, provide enforcement services through: (1) direct provision of services by county personnel; (2) subcontracting all or portions of the services to private entities or attorneys; or (3) such other methods as may be approved by the Title IV-D agency.
**the “obligee” is the person or entity owed support, most likely the custodial parent if there is one. (It could also be the state, I suppose if a child is in foster care and the parents are being billed for this (it happens)……..) Think about this: When the obligee is a mother, does Mom KNOW that there are access and visitation, fatherhood and marriage promotion, all kinds of programs with their hands in this Title IV-D pot (Probably not, nor is she told….). If, moreover, she is NOT a welfare recipient — what is the likelihood that she noticed that ANY NEW CASE in this system is going to be (mostly likely) treated as Title IV-D, the purpose of which is to counter Title IV-A (welfare) expenditures, and that the United STates Government declares that fatherlessness is a social ill, and curing it will cure abuse and poverty?
However, Moms who through the dissolution actually NEED TANF help, too bad for them. They have to assign their child support rights over to the county in order to receive assistance. Imagine the mother whose husband just cleared out the bank account in preparation for divorce — although they are not a poor couple; she is, currently. She loses control of the child support process — in fact, the county will initiate the order on its own, thus becoming a player in the divorce or separation process with a vested interest in its outcome.
If she DOES have some income, for example, work — but the county happens to have an existing Title IV-D contract, sounds to me if she is going to receive public help, however temporarily, rather than (for example, confront the Dad personally for help) her case just became a Title IV-D case unless she was smart and alert enough to say NO!
See Article 2, above: this supports Mr. Holland’s opus, i.e. his and Mr. Bottomley’s premise that the middle class is being forced onto TANF, i.e., Welfare one way or another. The Federal Department oversees, as it says in the OAS report standardized letters:
BACKGROUND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Child Support Enforcement program is a Federal, State, and local partnership, established in 1975 under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, to collect child support payments from noncustodial parents for distribution to custodial parents. Within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) provides Federal oversight.
This Child Support Development Project (in Texas) was added to the Family Code starting in 1995, the same year then-President Clinton issued his “fatherhood” memorandum, and one year after the National Fatherhood Initative (a 501©3 nonprofit) was started:
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 341, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 702, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999,76th Leg., ch. 556, § 50, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Last modified: August 11, 2007
(that makes sense as in 1996 there was welfare reform, and in 1998 another US Congress resolution on fatherhood, not that this is helping “Fatherhood” so much….)
WELL — I now have an 11,000 word post. And I didn’t even refer us back yet to my standard “randijames.com” post on what OCSE is actually DOING with some of their enforcement monies. However, HERE’s a LINK : http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CSE.pdf The third page in gives a FY 201through FY2012 APpropriations table (Federal) for “Payments to States for Child SUpport Enforcement and Family Support Programs” Please note that most years it’s from $2.1 Billion (lowest) to $3.3 Billion (highest) “appropriation” for enforcement — meaning, what the House Ways and Means, Appropriation Committee — appropriates to the authorizing legislation’s cause. In addition, most years, there was an Advance of from $1.0 Billion to $1.2 billion. In addition, in four different years, there was also an “Indefinite” (?) category allocating anywhere from $19 million (lowest, and exceptional) to $557 Million (2009) additional funding, meaning the range of expenditures to the states for these purposes, 2002 through 2009, ranges from $3.3 (lowest) to $4.4 (highest, BILLION of enforcement payments, I suppose whether grants or contracts.
So, now we find out that the states (agencies, counties, etc.) have been improperly retaining UNDISTRIBUTABLE monies, failing to report this, and failing to properly report interest income on these monies, even after a prominent attorney filed a class action (I believe) lawsuit to do something about prior abuses of privilege in Southern California when district attorneys were handling enforcement..
Implying that in previous years, they didn’t — i.e supporting the bureaucracy was more important that supporting individual, live, and sometimes hungry, children. Let other agencies, or individuals, I suppose pick up the slack then.. Perhaps driving the TANF caseload UP … However, Most STates didn’t implement “family first” pass-throughs. Surprise, surprise:
Most States Have Not Implemented “Family First” Policies, Citing Budget Constraints.After DRA provided states with additional “family first” policy options, most states did not change their policies and do not pass through any child support payments to families on public assistance.39 Before DRA, states could opt to pass through child support payments to families receiving public assistance, rather than retain the collections as reimbursement for their welfare expenses. However, when states did so, they would have to forego their state share of the collections, as well as pay the federal government its share. DRA’s options that allowed states to pass through up to $200 per family per month without having to pay the federal share effectively reduced the cost to states of enacting these policies, serving as a type of incentive for states to pass through collections. However, in response to DRA’s policy options, 43 states have elected not to increase their pass-through policies (see table 1). Among these states, 29 do not pass through any child support payments. The remaining 14 states already passed through some of the child support payment (and most disregard it as income for purposes of determining the amount of TANF benefits the family is eligible for) and did not elect to change the amount. Nevertheless, 11 states did change their policies after DRA to strengthen their “family first” provisions, with 9 increasing the amount of their current pass- through and 2 implementing a pass-through for the first time.When I think about some of this, plus how many private contracting child support entities have been caught in embezzlement and social security #s compromised (i.e., could be used fraudulently to keep cases on the books after kids have grown up, or are no longer subject to child support orders at all or on welfare…) no wonder finances in this country are one big mess.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
You forgot to mention the 1935 SS act–42 USC 1301(d). It means what it says. Everyone that objects will probably end up in prison. But that happens in socialist governments. I will stand up for my children. Liberty or death is where I am at right now. This country is done. Thanks for the information, but unless we start a civil war–they will keep that iron fist in your face. Protesting in the millions might work. The depression will bring this forward. Oh and don’t hire any attorneys. You will be feeding the fire!
Keith Dunkin
December 3, 2012 at 7:12 am
Interesting — here’s I think what you’re referring to:
At least, here’s a formal objection to pulling down Title IV-D services:
“42 U.S.C. 1301(d) Parental Objection to Child receiving Title IV-D Services”>
From a site CPR-MN
RE: ___________________________________________
___________________________________________ _____________ County Family Court Case #: ___________________
vs.
___________________________________________ _______________County Family Court File #:_________________
To the local IV-D agency:
This letter shall serve as notice of my decision to invoke my federal statutory right to object to the local agency’s continued delivery of all Title IV services on behalf of my child, including but not limited to Title IV-D in the above mentioned case. My authority for such objection is found under section 1101(d) of Title XI of the Federal Social Security Act (“SSA”) of 1935. The language used in this Title XI general provision applies to all aspects of the SSA, and is free of all ambiguity; it means what it says. There is no disputing that ___________________ County Support and Collections is currently carrying out provisions of Title IV of the Social Security Act on behalf of my child, which must immediately cease and desist, because of an unauthorized assignment of rights. As the other fit parent, I object to all Title IV SSA services. This congressionally enacted federal right, which applies to me in this case, states:
42 U.S.C. 1301 (d): “Nothing in this act shall be construed as authorizing any federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.”
The United States Constitution also clarifies my right to this federal provision, stating:
14th Amendment, Section 1: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
The needs of my child(ren) are being met without the need for government assistance. There has been no determination that the child(ren) is in need or “dependent” on public welfare cash payouts, or at risk of being “dependent,” as defined in this act. There is no public assistance in this case. Therefore, the county has no legal standing in this matter. According to the United States Constitution, 9th Amendment, as a fit parent, I also have a liberty interest to parent my child in the manner I choose, provided there is no clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect, harm or endangerment. No such evidence has been proven in my case. No such charges have been filed in my case.
The IV-D program is a federally funded program, requiring Minnesota to comply with all federal regulations related to the program. Minnesota DHS is acting as an agent of the federal government for the implementation of the IV-D child support program, pursuant to:
MN 256.01 Subd 2 – Specific Powers … the commissioner of human services shall: “(6) Act as the agent of and cooperate with the federal government in matters of mutual concern relative to and in conformity with the provisions of Laws 1939, chapter 431, including the administration of any federal funds granted to the state to aid in the performance of any functions of the commissioner as specified in Laws 1939, chapter 431 …”
MN 393.07 Powers and Duties Subd 1. The public child welfare program shall be supervised by the commissioner of human services and administered by the local social services agency in accordance with law and with rules of the commissioner.
MN 393.07 Powers and Duties Subd 2. The duties of the local social services agency shall be performed in accordance with the standards and rules which may be promulgated by the commissioner of human services to achieve the purposes intended by law and in order to comply with the requirements of the federal Social Security Act in respect to public assistance and child welfare services, so that the state may qualify for grants-in-aid available under that act.
The county lacked authorization from me to place my child(ren) on the Title IV welfare program, because I was not notified and was not afforded my Constitutional right to Due Process before the state took charge of my child under any of the IV welfare programs. These services must terminate immediately. There was no abandonment prior the date of application for IV-D services; therefore, there was an invalid assignment of rights. This invalid assignment of rights violated my fundamental right. A violation of the constitutional right to privacy occurred when the state made a determination to provide welfare services, without allowing my due process to take charge of my child under Title IV-D. There is no dependent child, according to the meaning of the SSA; therefore, when delivering Title IV-D services in this case, the county is operating outside the scope of the law. Continued delivery of Title IV benefits or services by the local agency on behalf of my child is, hereafter, without authority of law and would be in direct violation of the federal civil right entitled to me under Title XI of the Act.
MN Rule 9550.0091 CLIENTS RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT SERVICES. “An applicant or client or the applicants’ or clients authorized representative many accept or reject a local agency assessment of a need for community social services or an offer of community social services aimed at attaining specified goals.”
Concurrent jurisdiction exists between the United States and Minnesota over the general provisions of the Social Security Act at issue in this matter, and, therefore, the local agency is required by federal law to take the appropriate measures to see that my lawful objection to the local agency carrying out any provision of the act on behalf of my child is promptly executed. Ignoring this request will be a cause for claim in court actions, if my request to discontinue county services is not completed appropriately and complied with immediately. Ignoring this claim is in violation of federal law, putting all federal Title IV funding to the state and county agency in jeopardy.
It is of no concern to me that the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, nor Minnesota’s state agency, has promulgated a single regulation or rule for effectuating an objection raised under 1101(d) of the Act. All that matters is that Congress intuitively recognized a need to include this objection clause in the colossal 1935 social security legislation. The purpose of this general provision was to prevent unwanted and unnecessary government intrusion by the state. My children are being taken care of without the need for government assistance.
No hearing is required to discontinue services; it is an administrative action. Every court must enforce my objection to the administrative action, as the administrative order supersedes the judicial order. Jurisdiction lies with the administrative agency for all Title IV matters. The county unlawfully took charge of my child under the Title IV-D program through an administrative action. Discontinuing services is also an administrative action that must end immediately. Since no application to terminate exists, this objection is the only remedy available.
I affably instruct the local agency to recognize my objection and close the Title IV case file opened on behalf of my child. Please acknowledge receipt of my objection.
Because of my inability to afford an attorney, it has been virtually impossible for me to get resolution in this case. I am entitled to appropriate resolution, and equal protection under the law, as any married or unmarried parent.
Respectfully Submitted,
Name: __________________________________ Name: __________________________________
Signature: __________________________________ Signature: _______________________________
Address: ________________________________ Address: ________________________________
City State Zip: ____________________________ City State Zip: ____________________________
Phone: ____________________________ Phone: ____________________________
cc: Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota Mike Hatch, Minnesota State Attorney General
Kevin Goodno, Department of Human Services Commissioner
________________________________, Assistant County Attorney for the IV-D, ___________________________ County
________________________________, Case Worker, ____________________ County
________________________________, Child Support Supervisor, ____________________ County
_______________________________, Attorney of Record for the custodial parent
County Commissioners: (list)
Tommy Thompson, Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services
_____________________, Chair, United States House Ways and Means Committee
(messy format, cont’d in next comment).
Let's Get Honest
December 3, 2012 at 8:36 am
I can’t forget something I wasn’t aware of at the time.
Do you know of anyone who has objected and ended up in prison because of this? (Objection form is on next comment).
Any and all communities, particularly religious ones, are more than welcome to step in and stop their abusive fathers // upstanding church members/deacons/pastors, etc. — from beating up on their wives in front of their kids, or having them begging for necessities (I’m not talking a lavish lifestyle, but the basics) within a marriage, and threatening to kill them, etc. Seeing as none of these communities saw fit to care enough, others outside them did. That these other communities wanted a piece of the action also, is not the victims’ fault. However, as parents, we deserve a better choice than having broken bones, missing teeth (I have one), or living a life with someone who refuses to get help, is dangerous, and appears to need to actually SEE some suffering to get through the next week or day…
I suggest that the better choices is local communities become more concerned about abusive parents, and less concerned about warm bodies in the pews, AND more informed on the consequences of unrestrained violence in the homes on the larger society.
As that’s not about to happen someday soon, I’m blogging and requesting EVERYONE vote AGAINST welfare reform (reauthorization of block grants to the states) by March 2013, as this is setting up too many slush funds, and causing post-separation violence, including familicides, plus increased poverty, plus it’s simply irrational.
Having said that, 42 U.S.C. 1301 defines Jurisdiction of USA, Inc. The problem is not your “constitutional right” but the problem is more likely a birth certificate, marriage license (and all the other forms) in which you accepted membership in what is actually a corporation, it’s not called the USA). Check out realitybloger.wordpress.com on “strawman” and other concepts: Makes sense to me.
Definition of terms:
42 U.S.C. 1301 (definitions):
USC › Title 42 › Chapter 7 › Subchapter XI › Part A › § 1301
PREVNEXT
42 USC § 1301 – Definitions
USC-prelim
US Code
Notes
Updates
Authorities (CFR)
This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.
Current through Pub. L. 112-123. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) When used in this chapter—
(1) The term “State”, except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in subchapters IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI of this chapter includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in subchapters III, IX, and XII of this chapter also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in subchapter V and in part B of this subchapter of this chapter also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in subchapters XIX and XXI of this chapter also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. In the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, subchapters I, X, and XIV, and subchapter XVI of this chapter (as in effect without regard to the amendment made by section 301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972) shall continue to apply, and the term “State” when used in such subchapters (but not in subchapter XVI of this chapter as in effect pursuant to such amendment after December 31, 1973) includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Such term when used in subchapter XX of this chapter also includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Such term when used in subchapter IV of this chapter also includes American Samoa.
(2) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means, except where otherwise provided, the States.
(3) The term “person” means an individual, a trust or estate, a partnership, or a corporation.
(4) The term “corporation” includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
(5) The term “shareholder” includes a member in an association, joint-stock company, or insurance company.
(6) The term “Secretary”, except when the context otherwise requires, means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(7) The terms “physician” and “medical care” and “hospitalization” include osteopathic practitioners or the services of osteopathic practitioners and hospitals within the scope of their practice as defined by State law (etc.) …
here’s (a)(10) through (d):
(10) The term “Administration” means the Social Security Administration, except where the context requires otherwise.
(b) The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this chapter shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
(c) Whenever under this chapter or any Act of Congress, or under the law of any State, an employer is required or permitted to deduct any amount from the remuneration of an employee and to pay the amount deducted to the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, then for the purposes of this chapter the amount so deducted shall be considered to have been paid to the employee at the time of such deduction.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.
The state, actually, stands “in loco parentis” (even if kids are living with both parents in a safe home, and doing just fine) from the moment of marriage contract, birth certificate, in fact as it seems to turn out, basically anything consenting to do commerce (business) with the USA, which is actually functioning as a corporation. It’s been in a declared emergency status for all our lifetimes (unless you’re close to 100 about now), and for a good look at what states as corporations (or this one at least) does, look at what it just did ca. 1933, 1934, and 1935 regarding gold and the social security act. Or between the world wars, and relaxing only some of the War Powers Act (but not all), i.e., trading with the enemy. Or, look at what happened in 1913.
In more recent posts, I took on (mostly because of looking at the transformation of the Social Security Act under President Clinton, and realizing President Clinton (at the time) was a Rhodes Scholar — a closer look at the Rhodes scholarship and the founder of this TRUST (purpose of trusts is to control wealth), Cecil Rhodes. In Africa, that is.
So, do we have constitutional rights under a corporation? What’s the jurisdiction, really, held over us and our children?
I think a look at some of the posts at realitybloger.wordpress.com (and several others) do make the point that once a person “consents” to deal with crooks, one is in a contract, and that’s it for the constitutional rights factor.
I agree with you “this country is done” because that’s obviously the plan from those running it, who as nice as they talk, look, and conference, are on the same business plan as was Mr. Rhodes in his brief (lived to about 50 yrs old) but dastardly life. (See recent post). One more reply. Just trying to help……
“Liberty or Death” statement is kind of meaningless unless you continue follow through getting the basic facts straight. o you don’t have truth, you’re not free. Then it’s a matter of acting appropriately on it.
Fact is, if you (like I did) signed a marriage contract — you invited the state in “in loco parentis,” by claiming your “strawman” identity as a “PERSON.” (See also 28 USC Jurisdiction, etc.).. . which is a legal fiction. And I’m not starting a civil war — is that what you want? (See Egypt, etc)…..
I know about not hiring attorneys, and agree with you in that matter. They are officers of the court, not you. The thing is to stay out of the court by showing it doesn’t have jurisdiction over you, and that’s not going to happen overnight and without some study.
Let's Get Honest
December 3, 2012 at 9:12 am
These comments will appear in reverse order written (3,2,1) and are better read 1,2,3):
People that have consented to let everyone else govern them without paying close enough attention to what’s going on, will get the consequences — and we are having the consequences of our predecessors. All the machinery for a completely totalitarian state is in place. The eventual plan for that “state’ is apparently to be a global federation (commonwealth) with Great Britain’s ideals at the helm; just a very large fiefdom I guess.
here’s another reference on “Do you Own your Children?” I know how I felt when someone else claimed my children, then abandoned them (that’s their Dad), with the net result of more income for the courts and programs (and God knows what other SS# fraud; I’m about to find out some of it).
The side effect of being a consenting citizen of the United States (corporation) is that these copyrighted codes are applied to you with what the U.S.CODE itself calls Prima Facie law (law which derives its authority from presumed consent). Therefore, all branches of government technically operate under presumed law, meaning that the consent of the governed is automatically assumed in all legal matters and decisions based on court opinion.
This, unfortunately, applies to all contracts made with or on behalf of the state… And one of those contracts is called a “Marriage License“.
Yours and your spouses signature on that state-sanctioned and federally registered document signifies a consent-based contract between all three parties – you, your spouse, and the “State“.
But don’t take my word for it… Let’s see what the court system offers in their opinion about this subject?
First, lets visit an Illinois Appellate Court judgment from 1997:
Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:
“Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“
Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
Continued…
“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“
Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926).
“The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“
Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953).
Continued…
“This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity.“
Also, this case law states…
“The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.”
Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645.
(SOURCE: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1486817.html)
≈
But heck, what should we the people (not People) expect?
When such authority and jurisdiction is just arbitrarily handed over to a bunch of attorneys running around in black moo-moos with little wooden hammers yelling that they rule supreme in their houses of judicial worship simply because the state allows them to presume such authority and jurisdiction… I suppose those people who consent to this charade get just what they deserve – slavery through a bondage contract.”
Let's Get Honest
December 3, 2012 at 9:46 am
[…] busiest day of the year was December 3rd with 856 views. The most popular post that day was Mothers in Custody Cases: Please read! Unaudited State Incentives (Title IV-A, IV-D) affect Family C…. What’s interesting — that was a July, 2011 […]
Year In Review: On Dec. 3rd, a 2011 Post on Unaudited Title IV Incentives Tops the Charts.. « Let's Get Honest Blog
December 30, 2012 at 4:32 pm
Hey, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues.
When I look at your blog site in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has
some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads
up! Other then that, terrific blog!
bankruptcy attorney Sacramento
January 4, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Reblogged this on The Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America and commented:
Parents, please read how and why the government continues to tyrannize our families and children through economic fraud and other crimes to include discriminatory Health and Human Services grants that dictate from which parent children shall be kidnapped under color of law of authority for the State. Warning: Stay out of court and keep your children away from the government, before it is too late! The government does not have your child’s “best interests” at heart. The government in fact, has no heart, “collective” or otherwise. Wake-up, America! The veil has been lifted and it’s time to pray.
Julian's Real Mummy
June 17, 2014 at 9:58 am
The veil is lifted when you step into family court, inmho. However, some of us don’t have the option to “stay out of court,” and among those are people such as my self where splitting up was a matter of life and death and legal intervention — and we had children.
I’ve been busy writing — this is the main blog — and will look at your blog. I’m encouraging people to use their logical/analytical/deductive reasoning/observation skills and looking for people to talk with who already have been (or will). FYI, I am a survivor of religious battering marriage, I do not know your situation. I’m very outspoken in comments fields also, but if you hang with this blog for a while (I DNK how much you’ve read), the appropriate response (in my opinion) is to acquire the skills to look things up, start doing, and start teaching systematically, someone else to also do this, so at least we understand better HOW things work; the value judgment isn’t rocket science –something seriously wrong, stay out of court . However, it only takes one person out of two (parents) to haul the other into court. And I’m not anti-government (!). I just believe people have to be wiser in how they participate.
We know kids are being shunted through the system, but the thing is, what to do about it. Individually is one thing, but as to reform or change, that requires coming to an understanding of how the systems work, at least in some of the basics. This requires time and attention, and reading — but it’s for a very good cause.
Pls. browse table of contents to this blog (it’s a recent post) and there are abstracts on there, the titles tell a story, there’s a sidebar — there’s a LOT of material on here.
If you want to pray for this blogger (me) now would be a great time. Also while this has been a work of dedication, I’m “running on fumes” and would definitely appreciate a few clicks if there’s something around on the sidebar’s “Donate” button (even $10). I had the time to start this blog when was brought to rock-bottom after child-custody-overnight switch and a year and a half of attempting to regain contact with adolescent children I’d raised — until one day, that was it. NOTHING proved in court, devastating. They haven’t been the same either.
I began standing up to abuse in 1992, got out 1999, in court 2001ff, child-switch overnight (illegal, a felony in our state– but not with family courts around to downgrade and reframe the same activity), 2006, children were apparently abandoned physically by their father early 2008 (resumed stalking) one aged out 2009 fall, he stalked 2009-2010 (and to this day it’s an issue), MY mother died 2010, and since then I’ve been struggling with hostile sibling involved in standing by for the abuse (1990s) and aggressions through and around family court ever since. I went public finally with 2014 in a petition to remove a sister from some resources in my name, and that’s about where it is now. There’s a link in a recent (within the last 4) blogs to this effect.
I know homeless, near-homeless, parents (mothers) on disability that’s being garnished for child support and all kinds of situations. I know some have fled the country (I did not, I didn’t attempt to cut off my kids from their father while they lived full-time with me as a single mother). I know it’s tough.
But I also know I have a lot to offer on this blog and you are looking at five solid years of work (and there are other blogs). That’s my way of asking for a few clicks on that Donate button if you can. I was forced back onto food stamps (!!!) Fall 2012 and have truly had enough of this routine.
It seems you’ve reblogged or are promoting some of my posts (thanks). I hope you start to think and talk in more detail about the systems, which will help others. Preaching “stay out of court” is for most, not a real option, all the time.
The courts are a symptom of some things much larger going on in this country (and globally) which I’ll continue posting on, while I can.
Sincerely, etc.
Let's Get Honest
June 17, 2014 at 10:46 pm
We are in exactly the same situation. My five year-old son was a casualty as I haven’t been permitted to see him in two years after he made allegations of sexual abuse against his father.
This is the problem with “communication” via “text.” No paraverbals leads to miscommunication. In my comment, I was trying to reach a broader audience to warn the blind Americans and parents who have no idea what can happen when they do walk into court or let the government into their lives. What I would give to have someone tip me off before the big custody-switching scam.
As far and reform through deterrence, having lost everything–home, car, jobs, only child, my son, age 5–I still managed to get to the library and file my own legal brief in propria persona for violation of mine and my son’s constitutional rights under color of law and in conspiracy against rights. It is on appeal in the Federal, U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Know this, I suffer with you, and so many others. Please have a look at http://www.jonisaloom.wordpress.com. You will be in my thoughts and daily prayers, as will your children.
Please feel free to call any time you. We must all find each other, indeed. Which state or city are you in?
Joni Faith Saloom
Julian's Real Mummy
June 18, 2014 at 7:58 am
Joni, I wasn’t sure (or DNR) if you wanted to post your personal address and info. I wouldn’t — I approved the comment without them. What do you want me to do? If you say put it back, I will, but I’d be cautious about that, especially with an open court case.
Actually, if you want it back, submit on a follow-up reply. I see there’s a link to your URL as well for people who want to contact you. Take care, etc.
Let's Get Honest
July 4, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Thanks, Victoria. I really appreciate you looking out for me. Afterall, those of us who have been abused by so many systems must stick together. Obviously, we all have stories and problems that would make for a great novel. I encourage you to start writing one if you haven’t already. For some people, however, it does more harm to them than good, internally, to express their feelings and emotions publicly. That is a value and a very personal decision that every individual should be free to define for themselves as individuals. Let me assure you that I am not one of those individuals who wants to remain silent on the crimes of each and every person who did this to my baby boy (emphasis added).
My personal feeling on any motivation for “anonymous” is that this runs counterproductive to my entire philosophy and the war I vowed to wage the day I was denied the right to hold my son’s little hand and walk him to his first day of kindergarten to get a picture of him with his first teacher– a war waged when I looked Judge Lisa Millard in the eyes and said and meant, “I will expose you” (especially on that $20,000 bribe she took from my son’s father to mercilessly rip away his natural mother while his little brain was still growing for no reason whatsoever even cited).
I don’t have space herein to relate the story of a lifetime, nor do I desire to, especially since you seem to be offended by honesty and expression as a way to heal by perceiving it as “whining,” or complaining about personal problems rather than what you might call proactive. I respect that that is what is right for you and your personal values and circumstances, and I will defend you to the death from one smart, strong-willed, intelligent, spirited woman and survivor to another. I am all heart. Anyone who has a problem with that is part of the problem, in my opinion, or maybe they have never had an experience with a person with such purity of heart. I don’t have much, but this I do have in spades.
I feel that people who remain “anonymous” do so at the risk of losing credibility. They have already taken my liberty (2007, falsely imprisoned during ongoing child custody litigation, etc., as a direct result my careers opportunities are limited on a fake “assault bodily-injury” that will always appear on the Harris County Clerk’s public website regardless of federal or other laws), strangled me in prison (picture on my blog under How Harris County “Protected” a Mother and a Child), taken my only child, the love of my life and all I had left to give to in this life save for my heart, passion, soul, and spirit of truth and unconditional love and compassion. They’ve also stolen from me jobs, careers, car, jobs, sacred privacy with the help of police and constant private investigators and my son’s father stalking from afar (“legally”).
To add insult to injury, also all of this was a war waged on me for deciding not to abort my son in 2006, a decision of which I happen to be exceedingly proud–All Glory goes to God! My son’s narcissistic, sociopath of a father, whom I barely knew and said and acted like he never wanted anything to do with me,yet who has put me through an atrocious divorce without me ever having been able to even say I was married, has sabotaged my life for the past seven/eight years when I did nothing but try to forgive and want him to be a part of my son’s life.
In court, I was accused of writing an “anonymous” e-mail that was not “anonymous,” but was rather written because, after a robbery when I still had my son, my computer was stolen, I had to used my mother’s common law husband’s computer which he had to control and had me compose from his e-mail. As the judge had a real problem comprehending that someone couldn’t afford a new computer, I vowed that neither the court nor my son’s father would ever accuse me of being “anonymous” again! Wrong girl!
Finally, it it weren’t for me posting my contact information, I wouldn’t have met my best friend–the only one I have in state, who is going through much worse right now and has six court actions against her as her ex is an emergency room doctor with a lot of money, even more than my son’s pretentious father and his wife of convenience who my son is told to call “Mommy.” Without each other, we probably would be doing much worse right now. Instead we help and strengthen one another and share valuable information. She found my information on Carver County Corruption, as have other people called me for emotional support having court problems with local judges and CPS. This is all I have to give right now, as I have run into a brick wall and am confined to a small bedroom where I am really not wanted surrounded by twenty legal boxes and no car (in a town with ZERO public transportation, in Texas).
With regard to fighting for constitutional rights, whether I win or not, I am pushing back for all of us. This was one way in which I knew how to contribute so as to let them know that if one person defends themselves and holds their own legally against multiple government attorneys without fear, but rather with courage and the knowledge that I am in the seat of the righteous and did nothing wrong save for obey all the laws that did the opposite of “protecting,” a racket with which I am now all too acquainted.
I appreciate that your forte is numbers. Mine is not. That is exactly why I re-blogged your fascinating and in-depth research.
In fact, I have been very interested in figuring out how to find out how much in “SAFE” supervised access and “visitation” funds, child support enforcement money (see Office of Child Support Enforcement run by Texas Attorney General’s Office in Austin, Texas, and (IR) Responsible Fatherhood related programs (advertised on Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s website/www.txoag.com as being run through third party faith based and “community” organizations)/stolen TANF money went to lawyers, judges, and to Harris County and/or “state” of Texas, specifically from the 310th Judicial District Court of Harrris County, Texas, Judge Lisa A. Millard and for the criminal enterprise that comprises the Children’s Commissioner’s Court, overseen by Judge Ed Emmett (Houston, Texas/Harris County) and also for Brazoria County in Angleton, Texas (300th Judicial District Court of Judge K. Randall/”Randy” Hufstetler.
Where should I start? How do I figure out what legal company names they are using to amass this money?
I do know that Texas keeps almost everything offline and inaccessible to the public just as, by law, non-for-profits (for profits) are 100% non-transparent. These organizations are a large part of this financial racketeering, obviously, as we know that many of the judges, attorneys, law enforcement, probation departments, juvenile detention, mental health practitioners, and “therapists” are all “in bed together.” Specifically, the sixty-four affiliated C.A.C. model buildings in Texas (i.e. Children’s Assessment Center/Child Advocacy Center, a joint public-private trust) under the umbrella of the National Children’s Alliance and Child Advocacy Centers of Texas, Inc.) reek of corruption and financial fraud, extortion, racketeering, organized crime under Federal R.I.C.O. statute, even though the Federal Government promotes it all). But how do I trace the money, Victoria, or, “Victoria?”
In conclusion, I answer your question that it sounds like you are uncomfortable posting my information. For this reason alone, I would not feel comfortable putting you in a situation with which you were not comfortable.
I am interested in you elaborating, however, on specific examples of retaliation and/or otherwise that makes you so frightened for me (I am no Nancy Schaefer or even the news man who was pushed off a cliff after airing a controversial program exposing cover-ups of abuse or sexual abuse). A woman was run-down on her march in protest of corrupt family courts in Harris County on the way to Austin–she walked alone–was hit by a car while she was crossing the final block of her journey from Houston to the capitol building in Austin. Police still refuse to investigate. In my opinion, this woman, Donna DiGoringo was a martyr worthy of praise.
You know what they say about freedom…(means “nothing left to lose”).
What has happened to your or anyone you know who posted their information with or without an open case? Now you have piqued my curiosity.
“Take heart and have courage!”
You know who
Veritatem Dilexi–Through Truth, Knowledge
Julian's Real Mummy
July 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm
[…] https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/mothers-in-custody-cases-please-read-unaudited-st… […]
FEDERAL & STATE GOVERNMENTS DEFRAUDING MILLIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT SCAM ON MASSIVE PROPORTIONS ! |
November 24, 2014 at 12:03 am
Spot on…After 15 yrs.of paying,,down payments on two houses for ” the kids”..still payin ,,oldest is 20..not in school,,doesn’t even live with mom,,,the other One,,drop out,,,mom charges him rent,,,,,never ends guys,,,were in the system,,,I owe no rears,,,…but don’t miss a payment,,,,,who helps us……the u.s.a. Is a j.o.k.
Rob chittick..
October 28, 2016 at 1:10 am
Reblogged this on julian's justice journal.
julianjustice33
December 4, 2017 at 12:06 pm