 
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher and author are not engaged in rendering professional services. If expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Distributed by James Street at Smashword

## The Child Support

## Conspiracy

Copyright 2015 James Street

All rights reserved.

Thank you for downloading this e-book. This book remains the copyrighted property of the Author, and may not be redistributed in whole or in part for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy from their favorite retailer. Thank you for your support.
_Introduction_

The "Child Support Conspiracy" is about the H.R 17045 Law of the Health & Human Services Department. It's better known as part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act. On January 4, 1975, our 38th President Gerald Ford signed it into law. President Ford also express concern about what he saw as excessively "injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations". The fact is this law does what it was design to do. That is to recover all money that was given to families that are in the family court system and to create profit in the process. This program has collected approximately $ 156.6 billion dollars in child support from years 1976 to 2000 and $ 84.3 billion dollars from years 1995 to year 2000. The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2002 there was $657 million dollars that was undistributed to children in that year. That is $657 million dollars setting in a special account collecting interest. In 2009 {CSE} collected $26 billion dollars. Those are the facts and so is this. That our middle-class families make up of 92 percent of all money collected by CSE, not the poor class, because the poor class does not have much money to contribute.

There are 11 percent of parents that don't pay their court ordered child support. 5 percent can't afford to pay it and only 6 percent of parents refuse to pay their child support here in the United States, not the 40 or 50 percent of parents that some might want you to believe. In years 1994 and 1995 private collection companies collected $ 60 million dollars for child support and received $ 10 million dollars for fees out of the money that our children could have gotten. The plain truth is that parents should be hold financially accountable for their children welfare and no one should be allow to make money from their misfortune. There are many ways to make profit in this system. Let's fellow the money.

It is important to realize that charges may occur in our U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Laws. This book is not intended to be a legal guide or give advice regarding any child support laws or cases, and it is not intended to replace the work of an attorney.

Table of Content

Introduction...........................................................................................2
**Chapter 1.Health & Human Services**..........................................................5

•A signing Statement...............................................................................5

•U.S Department of Health & Human services history.........................................6

**Chapter 2.Title IV-D** ...............................................................................7

•Legislative history of Child Support Enforcement..............................................7

•Social Security Amendment Act of 1965.......................................................7

•Tax Reduction & Simplification Act of 197......................................................8

•Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 & 19...........................................................9

•Social Security Disability Amendment Act of 1980...........................................9

•Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 1986, 1989, 1990 &1993.....10,12,14,15

•Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982............................................10

•Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984............................................11

•The family Support Act of 1988..................................................................12

•Child support Recovery Act of 1992..................................................................14

•Full faith & Credit for Child Support Orders Act of 1994.......................................15

•The PRWORA Act of 1996.............................................................................15

•The Balance Budget Act of 1997...................................................................17

•The CSPIA and The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998..........................17

•Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2000........................................................17
**Chapter 3.The Conspiracy** .................................................................................19

•Statistics, myths & •legends...........................................................................20

•Paternity...............................................................................................24

**Chapter 4.Committee on ways & means**.............................................................25

•Committee history................................................................................25

•Empowers HHS to collect fees..................................................................25
**Chapter 5.Collecting fees** ..........................................................................29

•Application fees......................................................................................29

•Fees for service......................................................................................31

•Late fees and interest................................................................................32
Chapter 6.Bankruptcy & Child Support............................................................33

•Noncustodial parents with child support orders..................................................33

•Implementation cost incurred by states..........................................................34

•Who is G.A.O ?..............................................................................................................34
**Chapter 7.Privatized Collections** ....................................................................35

•Why some states use them............................................................................36

•Government collection via private collection......................................................36

•Private collection agency fees.......................................................................37

•Matrix set for private collection agencies...............................................................38

•Collection agency branch license application packet............................................40

•Custodial parent contract................................................................................43

•G.A.O finding.....................................................................................................44
**Chapter 8.Government Resources** .....................................................................46

•United States Accounting Office...........................................................................46

•International Reciprocating Countries.....................................................................47

**Chapter 9.Conclusion** ........................................................................................48

Glossary of Terminology..........................................................................................71

Author's Resources...............................................................................................72

Health & Human Services (Chapter 1)

A Signing Statement

President Gerald R. Ford issued a Signing Statement on signing the social Services Amendments of 1974 on January 4, 1975. Although generally favorable, Ford expressed concern about what he saw as excessively 'injecting the Federal Government into domestic relation'.

A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the president of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN). Although I have signed H.R. 17045, I am pleased with most of its provisions but concerned about others.

The provisions concerning the Federal -State partnership program for social services successfully concludes many long months of negotiations among the Congress, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Governors ,State administrators and spokesmen for producers and consumers. Ending a long impasse, the efforts of all exemplify my call for communication, cooperation, conciliation and compromise when I assumed the office of President. The second element of this bill involves the collection of child support payments from absent parents. I strongly agree with the objectives of this legislation.

In pursuit of this objective, however, certain provisions of this legislation go too far by injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations. Specifically, provisions for use of the Federal courts, the tax collection procedures of the Internal Revenue Service, and excessive audit requirement are an undesirable and an unnecessary intrusion of the Federal Government into domestic relations. They are also an undesirable addition to the workload of the Federal courts, the IRS, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Audit Agency. Further, the establishment of health, Education, and Welfare with access to all Federal records raises serious privacy and administrative issues. I believe that these defects should be corrected in the next congress, and I will propose legislation to do so.

I am particularly pleased that this legislation follows desirable trend I Federal -State relations. It will improve the result of programs previously hampered by unrealistic assumptions of Federal review and control. Those decisions related to local conditions and needs will be made at the State Level, while Federal responsibilities are clearly delineated. Indeed, the interests of not only the Federal and State governments but also producers and consumers are recognized and protected. I also believe that this new legislation significantly improves program accountability and focuses funds on those most in need of services.

In summary, I regard the social services provisions as a major piece of domestic legislation and a significant step forward in Federal -State relations.

United States Department of Health and Human Services history: The United Stated Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a Cabinet department of the United States government with the goal of protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services. Its motto is "improving the health, safety, and well -being of American". Before the separate federal Department of Education was creating in 1979, it was called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).

President Harding proposed a Department of Education and Welfare as early as 1923, and similar proposals were also recommended by subsequent president, but for various reasons were not implemented. It was only enacted thirty years later as part of the authority, in which the president was allowed to create or reorganize bureaucracies as long as neither house of congress pass a legislative veto. The power to create new departments was removed after 1962, and in the early 1980s the Supreme Court declared legislative vetoes unconstitutional. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 1979, When its education functions were transferred to the newly created United States Department of Education under the Department of Education Organization Act. HHS was left in charge of the Social Security Administration, agencies constituting the Public Health service, and family support administration.

In 1995, the Social Security Administration was removed from the Department of Health and Human Services, and established as an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States Government. HHS is administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who is appointed by the President with the advice and the consent of the Senate. The United States Public Health Service (PHS) is the main division of the HHS and is led by the Assistant Secretary for Health. The current Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the Vice -Chair of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Department of Health and Human Services is a member of the council, which is dedicated to preventing and ending homelessness in American.

Source is Wikipedia.org/health and human services.

Title IV -D (Chapter 2)

Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement

Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement

**1950** :Congress passed the first Federal child support enforcement legislation requiring State welfare agencies to notify appropriate law enforcement officials upon providing Aid to families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with respect to a child who was abandoned or deserted by a parent. 42 U.S.C. 602(a}(11).

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Bar Association approved the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) (amended in 1952 and 1958 and revised in 1968).

**1965** :The Social Security Amendment Act of 1965

Public Law (P.L.) 89 -97 The Social Security Amendments of 1965 permit State or Local welfare agencies to obtain from the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare the address and place of employment of a noncustodial parent who owes child support under a court order for support.

**1967** :P.L. 90 -248 -under the Social Security Amendments Of 1967, States may obtain from the Internal Revenue Service the addresses of noncustodial parents who owe child support under a court order for child support. In addition, each State must establish a single organization unit to establish paternity and collect child support for deserted children receiving AFDC. States must work cooperatively with each other under child support reciprocity agreements and with courts and law enforcement officials.

**1975:** P.L. 93 -647 -after 3 years of Congressional attention to child support enforcement issue, the Social Services Amendment of 1974 created title IV -D of the Social Security Act, which was signed into law on January 4, 1975. 42 U.S.C. 651 et seq. under Title IV -D:

The Secretary of Health, Education and welfare, now the Secretary of health and Human Services is required to establish a separate organizational unit to oversee the operation of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program. Responsibilities include:

•Establishing a parent locator service

•Establishing standards for state program organization, staffing and operation to ensure an effective program:

•Reviewing and approving state plans for the program;

•Evaluating state program operations by conducting audits of each state program;

•Certifying cases for referral to the federal courts to enforce support obligations;

•Certifying cases for referral to the internal Revenue Service (IRS) for support collections;

•Providing technical assistance to states and assisting them with reporting procedures;

•Maintaining records of program operations;

•Submitting an annual report to Congress;

Primary responsibility for operating the CSE program is placed on the States. Each State must have an approved State plan indicating that:

•The state has designated a single and separate organization unit to administer the program;

•The state will establish paternity and secure support for individuals receiving AFDC and for others who apply directly for CSE services;

•Child support payments will be made to the state for distribution;

•The state will enter into cooperative agreements with appropriate courts and law enforcement officials;

•The state will establish a state parent locator service (SPLS) that uses state and local parent location resources as well as the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS);

•The state will cooperate with any other state in locating an absent parent, establishing paternity, and securing support; The state will maintain a full record of collections and disbursements made under the plan. Specific procedures are required for distributing child support collections made on behalf of families receiving AFDC. States are to be paid incentives for collections made in AFDC cases.

•Monies due and payable to Federal employees are subject to garnishment for the collection of child support.

To be eligible for AFDC, each applicant for, or recipient of, AFDC must make an assignment of support rights to the state; must cooperate with the state in establishing paternity and securing support; and must furnish his or her Social Security Number (SSN) to the State.

The effective date of these provisions was July 1, 1975, except for the garnishment provision, which was effective on enactment. Because several problems were identified before the effective date, Congress extended the effective date to August 1, 1975, in P.L. 94 -46.

P.L. 94 -88 - In August 1975, States were allowed to obtain waivers from particular program requirements under certain conditions until June 30, 1976 and to receive Federal reimbursement at a reduced rate. This law also eased the requirement of AFDC recipients to cooperate with State CSE agencies when such cooperation would not be in the best interests of the child. It also provided for supplemental payments to AFDC recipients whose grants would be reduced because of implementation of the CSE program.

**1977** : The Tax Reduction and Simplication Act. P.L. 95 -30 -Effective May 23, 1977, the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977 amended Title IV -D as follows:

Include employee of the District of Columbia; Specify the conditions and procedures to be followed to serve garnishments on Federal agencies

Authorize issuance of garnishment regulations by the three branches of the Federal Government and by the District of Columbia; and Define further certain terms used.

The State plan was required to provide for bonding of employees who receive, handle, or disburse cash and to ensure that the accounting and collection functions be performed by different individuals. 42 U.S.C. 654(14)

The incentive payment provision was amended to change the rate to 15 percent of AFDC collections (from 25 percent for the first 12 months and 10 percent thereafter). 42 U.S.C. 658(a). P.L. 95 -142 -Effective October 25, 1977, the Medicare –Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendment of 1977 established a medical support enforcement program under which States could require Medicaid applicants to assign to the State their rights to medical support. State Medicaid agencies were allowed to enter into cooperative agreements with any appropriate agency of any state, including the CSE agency, for assistance with enforcing and collecting medical support obligations. Incentives were also available to localities making child support collections for states securing collections on behalf of other states.

**1978** : The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. P.L. 95 -598 - The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, signed into law on November 6, 1978, repealed a section of the Social Security Act that barred the discharge in bankruptcy of child support debts. This section of the Social Security Act was restored in 1981.42 U.S.C.656 (b).

**1980** : The Social Security Disability Amendment of 1980

P.L. 96 -178 -Federal financial participation (FFP) in expenditures for non -AFDC services was extended until March 31, 1980, retroactive to October 1, 1978.

P.L. 96 -265 -The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, signed into law on June 9, 1980, retroactive to October 1, 1978.

P.L. 96 -265 -The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, signed into law on June 9, 1980, increased Federal matching funds to 90 percent, effective July 1, 1981 for the costs of developing. Implementing, and enhancing approved automated child support management information systems. Federal matching funds were also made available for child support enforcement duties performed by certain court personnel. In another provision, the law authorized the use of the IRS to collect child support arrearages on behalf of non -AFDC families. Finally, the law provided state and local CSE agencies with access to wage information held by the Social Security Administration and State employment security agencies (SESAs) for use in establishing and enforcing child support obligations.

P.L. 96 -272 -The Adoption Assistance and child Welfare Act of 1980 contained four amendments to Title IV -D of the Social Security Act. FFP for non AFDC services was made available on a permanent basis. States became eligible to receive incentive payments on all AFDC collections as well as interstate collections. As of October 1, 1979, States were required to claim reimbursement for expenditures within 2 years, with some exceptions. The imposition of the 5 percent penalty on AFDC reimbursement for States not having effective CSE programs was postponed until October 1980.

**1981** : The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981. P.L. 97-35 - The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 added five amendments to Title IV -D. Act of 1981 added five amendments to Title IV -D. The IRS was authorized to withhold all, or part of, certain individuals' Federal income tax funds for collection of delinquent child support obligations. CSE agencies were required to collect spousal support payments. Child support obligations, which were assigned to the State, no longer were dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. States were authorized to withhold a portion of unemployment benefits from noncustodial parents delinquent in their support payments.

**1982** : The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. P.L. 97 -248 -The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was signed into law on September 3, 1982. The following provisions affected the CSE program:

FFP was reduced from 75 to 70 percent, effective October 1, 1982. Incentive payments were reduced from 15 to 12 percent, effective October 1, 1983. Congress also repealed a provision for reimbursement of certain court personnel costs that exceed the amount of funds spent by a State on similar court expenses during calendar year 1978. The mandatory non -AFDC fee imposed by P.L.97 -35 was repealed, retroactive to August 13, 1981. Sates were allowed to elect either not to recover costs or to recover from collections or from fees imposed on noncustodial parents. State authority to collect spousal support in certain non -AFDC cases was clarified.

As of October 1, 1982, member of the uniformed services on active duty were required to make allotments from their pay when support arrearages reached the equivalent of a 2 -month delinquency. Beginning October 1, 1982, States could reimburse themselves for AFDC grants paid to families for the first month in which the collection of child support is sufficient to make a family ineligible for AFDC. P.L. 97 -253 -The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, effective September 8, 1982, provided for the disclosure of information obtained under authority of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to various programs, including State CSE agencies.

P.L. 97 -252 -The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, signed into law on September 8, 1982, treated military retirement or retainer pay as property to be divided by State courts in connection with divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation proceedings.

**1984** : The Child Support Enforcement Amendment of 1984. P.L. 98 -378 - The Child Support Enforcement Amendment of 1984 required improvement in State and local CSE programs in four major areas:

Mandatory Practices

•All States were required to enact statutes providing for the use of improved enforcement mechanisms, including:

•Mandatory income withholding procedures;

•Expedited processes for establishing and enforcing support order;

•State income tax fund interceptions;

Liens against real and personal property, security or bonds to assure compliance with support obligations; and reports of support delinquency information to consumer reporting agencies. In addition, State law had to allow for the bringing of paternity actions any time before a child's 18th birthday, and all support orders, issued or modified after October 1, 1985, were to include a provision for wage withholding. Federal Financial Participation and Audit Provisions

To encourage greater reliance on performance based incentives, Federal matching funds were reduced by 2 percent in FY1988 (to 68 percent) and another 2 percent in FY1990 (to 66 percent). Federal matching funds became available at the 90 percent rate for developing and installing automated systems, including computer hardware purchases, to facilitate income withholding and other newly required procedures.

State incentive payments were reset at 6 percent for both AFDC and non -AFDC collections. These percentages could increase to as much as 10 percent for both categories for very cost effective States, but a State's non -AFDC incentive payments were limited by the amount of incentives payable for AFDC collections. The law further required States to pass incentives on to local CSE agencies where these agencies have participated in the costs of the program.

The requirement for an annual audit of State CSE agencies was dropped in favor of an audit once every 3 years. The focus of the audit period, a State's effectiveness would be evaluated on the basis of program performance as well as operational compliance. Graduated penalties of from 1 -5 percent of total payments to the State under the AFDC program would be imposed if a State were found not to have complied substantially with Federal requirement over successive period s. The penalty could be suspended, however, if the State were to take corrective action, over a maximum period of 1 year, to come into substantial compliance.

Improved interstate Enforcement: The Proven enforcement techniques discussed above were to be applied to interstate cases as well as intrastate cases. Both states involved in an interstate case could take credit for the collection when reporting total collections for the purpose of calculating incentives. In addition, the law authorized OCSE to commission special State demonstration grants, beginning inFY1985, to fund innovative methods of interstate enforcement and collection. The Federal audits would focus on State effectiveness in establishing and enforcing obligations across State lines.

Equal Services for Welfare and No welfare Families: Congress stated in the social Security Act that, in creating the CSE program, it intended to aid both no welfare and welfare families. Several specific requirements were directed at improving State services to no welfare families. All mandatory practices had to be available to both types of cases; the interception of Federal income tax refunds was extended to no welfare cases; incentive payments became available for collections in no welfare cases; when families are terminated from AFDC, they automatically are to receive no welfare support enforcement services, without being charged an application fee; and States were required to publicize the availability of no welfare support enforcement services.

Other Provisions: In addition to the above, States were required to:

•Collect support in certain foster care cases;

•Collect spousal support, in addition to child support, when both were due in a case;

•Notify AFDC recipients at least yearly of the collections made in their individual cases;

•Establish a State commission to study the operation of each State's Child support system and report findings to the State's governor;

•Formulate guideline to judges and other individuals with authority to establish obligation amounts;

•Offset the costs of the program by charging various fees to no welfare families and to delinquent noncustodial parents;

•Allow families whose AFDC eligibility was terminated as a result of the payment of child support, to remain eligible for Medicaid for 4 months; and

•Seek to establish medical support awards in addition to cash awards for support. In addition, the FPLS was made more accessible and more effective in locating absent parents. Sunset provisions were put in effect for the extension of Medicaid eligibility and Federal tax refund offsets for non -AFDC families.

**1986** : The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986. P.L. 99 -509 -The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 required States to provide that support installments are vested as they fall due and, therefore, are judgments entitled to full faith and credit. It also allowed prospective modification form the date the opposing party received notice of the motion for modification.

**1988** : The family Support Act of 1988. P.L. 100 -485 - The family support Act of 1988, enacted on October 13, 1988, made many important charges to the CSE program. The major provisions were:

•Immediate Wage Withholding: For IV -D cases, States were to provide for immediate wage withholding in orders issued or modified on or after November 1, 1990, unless one of the parties demonstrates and the court finds that there is good cause not to require it or there is a written agreement between both parties for an alternative arrangement. In non -IV -D cases, immediate wage withholding was to apply to all orders initially issued on or after January 1, 1994.

•Disregard of Child Support: The Child support disregard was to be applied to a payment made by a non -custodial parent in the month it was due even though it was received in a subsequent month.

•Guidelines for Child Support Award amounts: Judges and other official were required to use State guidelines for support awards, unless the decision -maker entered a written finding that applying the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in the case. States were to review their guidelines every 4 years. Beginning 2 years after enactment, if a State determined, under its plan for review and adjustment of orders, that an order being enforced under the program should be reviewed, the State must, at the request of either parent or of the CSE agency, initiate a review of the order and adjust it, if appropriate. Beginning 5 years after enactment, States were to begin to review and adjust individual case awards every3 years in AFDC cases, unless it is not in the best interests of the child and neither parent has requested review. In other IV -D cases, the review and adjustment process had to be available every 3 years if a parent requests it. States were required to notify each parent subject to an order in effect in the State that is being

Enforced under Title IV -D:

•Of any review of the order, at least 30 days before the commencement of the review;

•Of their right to request a review; and

•Of any proposed adjustment or determination that there should be no change to an order, allowing the parent at least 30 days for challenge Notice of Support Collected

Beginning January 1, 1993, States were to inform families receiving AFDC of the amount of support collected on their behalf on a monthly basis, rather than annually as previously required. States could provide quarterly notice if the Secretary of HHS determines that monthly reporting impose an unreasonable administrative burden.

•Performance Standards for Paternity Establishment

•States were required to meet Federal standards for establishing paternity beginning in FY92. A State's paternity establishment percentage had to:

•Be at least 50 percent; Be at least equal to the average for all states; or have increased by 3 percentage points from FY1988 to FY1991 and by 3 percentage points each year thereafter.

•States had to require all parties in a contested paternity case to take a genetic test at the request of any party. States could charge individuals not receiving AFDC for the costs of genetic tests to establish paternity. States were encouraged to adopt a simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity and a civil procedure for establishing paternity in contested cases.

The Federal matching rate for laboratory testing to establish paternity was set at 90 percent.

Standards for Providing Services and Distributing Collections:

The Secretary of HHS was required to issue regulations establishing time standards that States must meet in responding to requests for establishing and enforcing support orders, locating absent parents, establishing paternity and collecting support. The standards must include time limits governing distribution of amounts collected as child support under the CSE State plan.

Mandatory Automated Systems: Each state that did not have a statewide automated tracking and monitoring system in effect was required to submit an advance planning document that met Federal requirement by October 1, 1991. By October 1, 1995 each State had to have an approved system in effect. The Federal matching rate of 90 percent for this activity expired after September 30, 1995.

Additional Information Source for Parent Locator Service: The Secretaries of Labor and HHS were to enter into an agreement to give the FPLS access to wage and unemployment compensation claims information useful in locating absent parents.

Use of Social Security Number to Identify Parents: Each State, in the administration of any law involving the issuance of a birth certificate, was to begin requiring each parent to furnish his or her Social Security number (SSN), unless the State found good cause for not requiring the parent to furnish it. The SSN cannot appear on the birth certificate, and the use of the SSN is restricted to CSE purposes, except under certain circumstances.

**1989** : The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989. P.L. 101 -239 -The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 made permanent the requirement that Medicaid benefits continue for 4 months after a family loses AFDC eligibility as a result of collection of child support payments.

**1990** : The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. P.L. 101 -508 -The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 permanently extended the provision allowing states to ask the IRS to collect child support arrearages of at least $500 out of income tax refunds otherwise due to non -custodial parents in non -AFDC cases. The minor child restriction was eliminated for adults with a current support order who are disabled, as defined under OASDI or SSI. The IRS offset was allowed to be used for spousal support when spousal and child support are included in the same support order. P.L. 101 -508 also extended the life of the Interstate Child Support Commission from July 1, 1991 to July 1,1992 required the Commission to submit its report no later than May 1, 1992 and authorized the Commission to hire its own staff.

**1992** : The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. P.L. 102 -521, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, imposed a Federal criminal penalty for the willful failure to pay a past -due child support obligation, with respect to a child who resides in another State, that has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. For the first conviction, the penalty was to be a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for not more than 6 months ; for a second conviction, a fine of not more than $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years was to be imposed.

P.L. 102 -537, the Ted Weiss Child Support Enforcement Act of 1992, amended the Fair Credit reporting Act to require consumer credit reporting agencies to include, in any consumer report, information on child support delinquencies provided by, or verified by, State or local CSE agencies, which antedates the report by 7 years.

**1993** : The omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. P.L. 103 -66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, increased the percentage of children for whom the State most establish paternity and requires States to adopt laws requiring civil procedures to voluntarily acknowledge paternity (including hospital -based programs).

P.L. 103 -66 also required States to adopt laws to ensure the compliance of health insurers and employers in carrying out court or administrative orders for medical child support. It included a provision that forbade health insurers from denying coverage to children who are not living with the covered individual or who were born outside of marriage.

**1994** : The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act. P.L. 103 -383, the Full Faith and Credit for Child support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), required each state to enforce, according to its terms, a child support order by a court (or administrative authority) of another State. FFCCSOA offered conditions and specifications for resolving issues of jurisdiction.

P.L. 103 -394, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, protected child support from being discharged in bankruptcy. Among many provisions, the new law provided that filing a bankruptcy petition does not operate as an automatic stay for an action to establish paternity, or to establish or modify a child support or spousal support order. Under the law, a bankruptcy debtor may not avoid a judicial lien securing a support debt. It also provided protection against trustee avoidance, facilitated access to bankruptcy proceedings, and assigned child support a priority for collecting claims from debtors.

P.L. 103 -403, the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendments Act, required that recipients of financial assistance not be more than 60 days delinquent in paying child support.

P.L. 103 -432, the Social Security Amendments of 1994, required State CSE agencies to periodically report parents, who are at least 2 months delinquent in paying child support, to credit bureaus. It modified the benchmarks under the paternity establishment percentage formula used to determine the States' substantial compliance, and it required HHS to provide free access for Justice Department to the FPLS in case involving the making or enforcing of a child and /or the making or enforcing of a child custody determination.

**1996:** The PRWORA Act of 1996. P.L. 104 -193 - The title of this law is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

This law dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into one that required work in exchange for time -limited assistance. The law contained strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward States for moving welfare recipients into jobs, State maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement provision, and supports for families moving from welfare to work.

Under the law, each State was to operate a CSE program meeting Federal requirements to be eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants. Provisions included:

National New Hire Reporting System: PRWORA established a Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders (FCR) and a National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) to track delinquent parents across State lines. It also required that employers report information on all new hires to State agencies for transmittal to the NDNH.

Streamlined Paternity Establishment: The law streamlined the legal process for establishing paternity, making it easier and faster to establish paternities. It also expanded the voluntary in -hospital paternity establishment program, and required the use of a State form for voluntary paternity acknowledgment.

Uniform Interstate Child support Laws; PRWORA provided for uniform rules, procedures, and forms for interstate cases.

Computerized Statewide Collections: The law required States to establish central registries of child support orders as well as centralized collection and disbursement units. It also required expedited State procedures for child support enforcement.

Tough Enforcement Penalties: Under PRWORA, States could implement tough child support enforcement techniques. The law expanded wage garnishment, allowed all States to seize assets, permitted states to require community service as a penalty in some cases, and enabled States to revoke drivers' and professional licenses for parents who owe delinquent child support.

Families First: Under a new 'Family First' policy, families no longer receiving assistance were given priority in the distribution of child support arrears.

Access and Visitation Programs: In an effort to increase noncustodial parent's involvement in their children's lives the law included grants to help States establish programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parent's visitation with and access to their children.

**1997** : The Balance Budget Act of 1997. P.L. 105 -33, the Balanced Balance Budget Act of 1997, made a number of amendments to the Social Security Act, including creating the Children's Health Insurance Program in Title XXI to help provide medical coverage to children of working poor families, who are not eligible for private health insurance and who are earning too much to receive Medicaid. The Balanced Budget Act also amended section 454 of the Social Security Act regarding cooperation/good cause, and the FPLS language in section 453 to clarify the authority permitting certain re -disclosures of wage and claim information. Also this Act authorized for the first time the direct funding of Tribal support programs; with Congress giving OCSE greater flexibility in providing direct funding for such programs and requiring OCSE to promulgate regulations before issuing grants directly to Tribes.

P.L. 105 -34, the Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997, amended the Social Security Act by requiring, beginning October 1, 1999, that the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders include the names and Social Security Numbers of Children on whose behalf child supports owed, and that such information also be included in State case registries. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Treasury shall have access to the Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders for the purpose of administering the tax provisions that grant tax benefits based on support or residence of a child.

P.L. 105 -89, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, made the Federal Parent Locator Service available to child welfare services for enforcement of custody and support orders.

1998: The CSPIA and the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998. P.L. 105 -200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998(CSPIA), generally provided for an alternative penalty procedure for States that fail to meet Federal child support data processing requirements, and it reformed Federal incentive payments for effective child support performance. The law also required the creation of a Medical Support Working Group to identify any impediments to effective enforcement of medical support and to recommend appropriate remedies. {The Medical Support Working Group's report was issued in August of 2000}.

P.L. 105 -306 included technical amendments to CSPIA that reduced, by 20%, the penalty for State failure to meet the deadline for compliance with child support data processing and information retrieval requirements. This late also amended the effective data for State Enactment of certain medical support requirement.

P.L. 105 -187, the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act, established felony violations for the willful failure to pay legal child support obligations in interstate cases.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2000: P.L. 106 -113, Consolidated Appropriations Act, **2000** , contained several provisions affecting child support. Section 454A of the Social Security Act is amended by requiring State child support automated data processing and information retrieval system to disclose to Private Industry Councils certain information on noncustodial parents for purpose of contacting them regarding their participation in the welfare to work program. The Act also provided that if a State plan would be disapproved for failure to establish a disbursement unit for child support payments, but the State had submitted, by April 1, 2000, a corrective compliance plan acceptable to the Secretary, then the secretary shall not disapprove the State plan for spousal and child support (but the amount otherwise payable to the State will be reduced as a penalty).

The Act also required the Secretary of Health and Human Resource, to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of lowering the threshold amount of an individual's support arrearage, from $5,000 to $2,500, before the Secretary of State must refuse to issue a passport to such an individual.

P.L. 106 -169, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, narrowed the hold harmless provision for State share distribution of collected child support. Source is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Source is: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Conspiracy (Chapter 3)

**Statistics, myths and legends**

The 'deadbeat dad' craze has allowed the blame of several social ills, from poverty to welfare costs to social pathology, to be placed squarely in the laps of fathers.

Child Support Statistics: Myths, legends and the American Way: Deadbeat dads (Summary: 62% of custodial mothers do not receive child support. However, of that number, three -fourths of them simply do not want child support, have not asked for it, have accepted other financial arrangements instead of child support, or the father does not have the money. Only 11% of those custodial mothers, who do not receive child support, are because of 'deadbeat dads'.) The 'deadbeat dad' craze has allowed the blame of several social ills, from poverty to welfare costs to social pathology, to be placed squarely in the laps of fathers. When we view government data that 6.2 million single mothers do not receive child support, we cringe in disbelief, and wonder how those dads could be so heartless to their children. How can those fathers just walk away from their responsibilities? Or, perhaps there is another story to be told?

Examining the data closer reveals a much different picture of why things are the way they are. It suggests that the severe draconian measures placed to enforce child support are no more than knee -jerk reactions which are oppressing a whole class of people to punish a few. When the reasons for custodial mothers not receiving child support, or not even having a child support order to begin with, are examined, it becomes clear that 'deadbeat dads' are a rarity, and the current policies in place will never work. Of those custodial mothers who do not receive child support, almost 30% of them either simply do not want child support, or have never asked for it. These are not the cases of dads willfully neglecting their children; it's a case of the mother not wanting the child support or not asking for it to begin with. Some of these dads don't even k now that they are dads! Some of these mothers receive informal support from the father, and do not wish to get involved with the government and child support enforcement.

In almost 25% of the cases, the father simply cannot afford to pay child support. Now, keep in mind that data was determined by asking the custodial mother why she is not receiving child support. These are not dads who are hiding assets and crying poor. The custodial mothers have admitted that one -quarter of the dads do not pay child support because they do not have the money. Over 20% of the custodial mothers have come to other financial agreements with the father. These fathers are providing financially for their children. They are just not doing it in the traditional manner. This category also includes those fathers who have died and the fathers of children who have reached the age of emancipation. More than 2% of those who do not pay do not pay because paternity has not been established\\. These fathers either do not know that they are fathers, or are not sure the child is in reality theirs.

Over 11% of custodial mothers do not have a child support order for unspecified reasons. However, one of these 'unspecified' reasons is that the father and mother are currently together. This leaves the category we hear so much about. Those fathers who cannot be located, or are not paying a child support order (other than for reasons of not having the money). Here's those 'deadbeat dads'. They account for 11% figure. They make up almost 6% of those who do not play child support. Not quite the exodus that we are led to believe occurs. If we look at the whole population of custodial mothers, we see that 'deadbeat's dads' account for only 7% of the population. Only 3.5% of fathers cannot be located (which are included in the 7% figure). These are not the figures we think about when we see 'deadbeat dad' articles bannered across newspaper headlines. It is time to stop making policies based on myths and distortions. It is time to recognize that single fathers are like any other group of people out there; the vast majority of them are good, loving people who will happily care for and love their children. Why have we been so willing to believe the worst of these dads? Why have we accepted the negative images without question? And even for those real 'deadbeats', why are we so quick to approve of punitive measure against these father, instead of seeking ways to encourage their involvement? Why have we applauded license revocation, wage garnishment and even imprisonment, and have not even bothered to look at positive means of encouraging support from these fathers? Faced with these types of attitudes, how would you react? Of 10 million custodial mothers, only 700,000 (7%) do not receive child support because of 'deadbeat dads'. This is not minimizing the problems that those custodial mothers face. But 'deadbeats' are by far the minority. Keep this in mind the next time you hear yet another story about all of those 'deadbeats'. (Sources for data: GAO/HRD -92 -39FS, January 9, 1992, and DHHS Green book, chapter 11)(United States Government Accountability Office)

Bruce Walker, executive coordinator at the District Attorney's Council in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma has been quoted as saying, 'I have put hundreds of these deadbeat's dads in jail, and I have collected child support from tens of thousands of them. I was the primary or only trial attorney in three child support enforcement offices for eight years, and then I ran the Oklahoma child -support enforcement program for three years'. 'The real deadbeat dad is seldom a model citizen, but he is even more seldom the mythical monster described by politicians. Most deadbeat dads are frightened, angry, and depressed men who fall into several overlapping categories:'

Remarried Supporter: A large percentage of deadbeat dads are remarried and are supporting several step -children or biological children from a second marriage. Often this family is poorer than the household of his ex -wife, who may have married a more successful breadwinner. It is also common for the ex -wife of a deadbeat dad to have remarried another deadbeat dad, who is supporting her and her children.

Men in Poverty: Many deadbeat dads are homeless, and even greater percentages are poor. Because the calculation of a woman's income excludes many of the social welfare benefits she receives, the statistical picture of women in poverty is highly misleading. Not only are many deadbeat dads destitute, it is often their failures as providers which led their ex -wives to divorce them. I prosecuted one deadbeat dad who had been hospitalized for malnutrition and another who lived in the bed of a pick -up truck. Many times I prosecuted impoverished men on behalf of ex -wives who had remarried successful men and were living in comfortable conditions.

Fathers Helping Mothers: Men who provide non -monetary support are deadbeat dads according to the child -support system. Mothers and fathers often work out agreements for child support that involve dad fixing the car, buying groceries, baby -sitting the children, or getting clothes for the children. These men may be unemployed, but they want to help their children. Sometimes they are concerned that monetary support doesn't benefit the children, but the mother's newest boyfriend -or that it goes to buy drugs or alcohol. None of the non -monetary support counts, even if they agree in writing that it should count.

Fathers Paying Child Support: Child support is 'paid' only when it's paid in a bureaucratically acceptable form. In a child -support program, the jargon for other means of payments is a 'shoe box full of receipts' -which means a father who was paying his support, but not through court or the program. I had thousands of these cases. In one, the mother signed an affidavit that the dad had never paid. But when confronted with receipts acknowledged that he had always paid support. Why would she do that? She was on welfare; her child support became the property of the state and federal government.

If she keeps the child support, it is welfare fraud. Why would concerned fathers pay child support directly to the mother? The bookkeeping in child support offices is atrocious. The mother could be confused with another woman or the paying father with another man.

Men with actual custody: Yes, even men who are raising in their homes the very children for whom child support is sought are deadbeat's dads. If a court order says that the mother has custody and is entitled to child support, and if the mother gives the father the children because she cannot control them nor has other problems, then he is still liable for child support. Most of the fathers I prosecuted said that they government and with no help from mom, if given the chance.

Men who can't find their children: Even the inability to find children to support is no excuse. The mother may leave the state with their young children and not tell the father where she is for five years. The child -support system can, and does, go in and collect five years of delinquent child support from this deadbeat dad. In some cases, of course, the mother has a very good reason because of domestic abuse, but in other cases it is the father's allegations of child abuse by the mother which prompt her to run.

Fathers who love their kids, but won't work for them: This is different, of course from mothers on welfare who won't support their kids. The former are creeps and the latter are victims of society. The sad fact, however, is that children have precisely one set of parents, and if the parents can provide emotional support, that is at least as valuable as economic support. Many deadbeat dads love their children just as much as the mothers on public assistance who don't support their children either. The social costs of driving dad into another state or putting him in jail are seldom considered in the calculus of child -support enforcement benefits.

Child -support resistors: Let's take the case of the 'worst deadbeat dad in the country'. He fits none of the above categories. He had money; he knew where his children were; he had no excuse. And he was almost half a million dollars in arrears on child support. But how much child support was this man ordered to pay each month $5,000, $10,000? There is middle -class men who are obligated to pay half of their take -home pay as child support. Mandatory child support guidelines remove from parties and even courts the power to determine what support is fair and reasonable.

Source is SPARC -A Parenting Advocacy Group. Hennepin County, Minnesota **:** The caring people of Hennepin County have named their paternity program, Recognition of Parentage (ROP). A better name that describes this program should be RIP, as in RIP -OFF. By signing the ROP, you conveniently give up the right to genetic tests, and the right to a court hearing in the establishment of paternity. If you did not catch the last sentence, it needs to be repeated again. By signing the ROP, you conveniently give up the right to have an attorney represent you, the right to genetic tests, and the right to a court hearing in the establishment of paternity. The Only thing that is conveniently give up the right to have an attorney represent you, the right to genetic tests, and the right to a court hearing in the establishment of paternity. The only thing that is convenient about signing the ROP is the ability to reach into your pocket, without any access to your child. Can you say "child ransom".

Texas

The State of Texas has made it easy to view their, Texas Child Support Enforcement Paternity

Information, 'Oh what a(financial) feeling' statement. The following paragraph is straight from their information.

'Once we find him, we'll need to prove that he is your baby's father. One way is if he signed the birth certificate or an Acknowledgment of Paternity form at the hospital. It will also help if you can provide letters in which he claims he is your baby's father, pictures of him with your baby, diaries, calendars, Mother's Day or birthday cards or proof of any money he has given you or your baby. If you have these items, please bring them to our office.' In 1993 the Texas Supreme Court recognized a biological father's constitutional right to establish paternity EVEN when the child is born to a married couple.

Ohio

Another example is from the Child Support Enforcement Division of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland), their Paternity Establishment web page. Even though this page is form the child support division, they mention Support fifth behind identifies and Medical on why you should establish paternity. This is very disingenuous. This pages FAQ's are also very interesting. The main theme that runs through this page is the "support of both parents". But the fact that this page omits is that when the mother and child are on welfare the ONLY person responsible for supporting the family is the father. In rounding out this page there is one word that is mysteriously missing...VISITATION.

California

Coming from California the Riverside County, California, District Attorney -Family support Division. This page supports signing what is called the 'Declaration of Paternity'. This page admits that, 'In most cases, signing the form will make it easier to establish paternity in a court later.' Then what is being signed? If it does not establish legal paternity then what does it do? Well, you are signing the right to pay child support without establishing legal paternity and visitation...which again was never mentioned. Below is the actual disclaimer on the State of California Paternity Declaration.

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO UNMARRIED PARENTS

If the parent s of the child is not legally married, the father's name will not be added to the birth certificate unless you: sign a declaration of paternity in the hospital or Sign the form later or legally establish paternity through the courts and pay a fee to amend the birth certificate.

Mississippi

The State of Mississippi has a program called 'A Simple Acknowledgement of Paternity' or ASAP PROGRAM. This page does discuss visitation and says; 'The Division of Child Support enforcement does not represent either party in establishing visitation or custody rights. However, establishing paternity is the first step needed in order to ask a judge for visitation privileges. The father will need to seek legal counsel for advice on visitation and/or custody.'

Not so fast State of Mississippi! Simply tell us who is designated custodian when this, 'simple acknowledgement' is signed? It has to be the parent who will receive child support, or in other words, the mother. Even though the State of Mississippi states they do not represent either party when a paternity acknowledgement is signed, they have already handed the mother custody without a judge's ruling.

Illinois

The State of Illinois webpage on Paternity Establishment details several arm twisting efforts to establishing paternity if the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity form is not signed. The web page states;

Paternity can be established by default when an alleged father fails to attend a scheduled interview or to go for a scheduled genetic test without a valid reason. Paternity can be established by publication of the alleged father's name in the newspaper. Please note that all a mother needs to do is select a man who has a reasonable income, place that's name on a form, and then that man has to prove his innocence against the full force and resource of a state agency.

In essence, the man named is guilty until proven innocent'; or until he reads the local newspaper. Illinois even has a program that enlists the help of Grandparents to establish paternity called Grandparents a Link in Paternity Establishment. Are you POSITIVE the father? There is a big difference between 'I might be the father' and 'I am positive I am the father'. It might be in your best interest to find out for sure if you are the father. Check out this link if you 'might' be the father:

DNA Diagnostics Center: Paternity DNA Testing Information and Services

Your state paternity information these state profiles contain descriptions of State child support enforcement programs. Some of these of profiles date back to September, 1994. For the most up to date information you may want to contact your specific State IV -D Office or Wed site for update information.

Select from the following States: Look for paternity information in section 'C'

AL -AK -AR -AZ -CA -CO -CT -DE -DC -FL -GA -GU -HI -ID -IL -IN -IA -KS -KY -LA -MA -ME -MD -MI -MN -MO -MS -MT -NE -NV -NH -NJ -NM -NY -NC -ND -OH -OK -OR -PA -PR -RI -SC -SD -TN -TX -UT -VT -VI -VA -WA -WV -WI -WY

Paternity Information Page Everything fathers need to know and what the government fails to tell you!

**Paternity** : The Paternity Information Page was created to present paternity information for fathers from a father's point of view. Since 'PATERNITY' is the state of being a father, fatherhood, and male parentage, a frank and revealing presentation of paternity information by and for fathers is made. Currently paternity is strongly linked to child support; therefore, child support and its link to paternity are discussed. Concerning child support enforcement agencies: keep in mind that the main purpose for creating these agencies was and is to recoup the money (AFDC, food stamps) given to a single parent family with your child or children. In almost every case, the non -applicant parent –the father -was never asked if he would want custody of his child (ren) so they would not have to be on public assistance at tax payer expense. "Paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order."{2000 Green Book, SECTION 8. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM, Establishing Paternity} Please note that the word' paternity' is gender biased. If this was replaced by a word that referred to the color of someone's skin, or religious background it would be recognized as 'discriminatory' and unacceptable. We strongly encourage replacement of the term "paternity" with the non -gender biased term of 'PAENTAGE'. Source is members.peak.org/jedwards/paternity.html

Committee on ways & means (Chapter 4)

Committee History

The Committee on Ways and means is the oldest committee of the United States Congress, and is the chief tax -writing committee in the House of Representatives. The Committee derives a large share of its jurisdiction from Article I, Section VII of the U.S. Constitution which declares, 'All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives'

First established as a select committee on July 24, 1789, it was discharged less than two months later. The committee was reappointed from the first session of the Fourth Congress in 1795, and was formally listed as a standing committee in the House Rules on January 7, 1802.

Until 1865, the jurisdiction of the committee (referred to as the Committee of Ways and Means before 1880) included the critically important areas of revenue, appropriations, and banking. Since 1865, the committee has continued to exercise jurisdiction over revenue and related issue such as tariffs, reciprocal trade agreements, and the bonded debt of United States. Revenue -related aspects of the Social Security system, Medicare, and social services programs have come within Ways and Means' purview in the 20th century.

The roster of committee members who have gone on to serve in higher office is impressive. Eight Presidents and eight Vice Presidents have served on Ways and Means, as have 21 Speakers of the House of Representatives, and four Justices of the Supreme Court.

**Empowers HHS to collect fees:** This is branch of government that Empowers HHS to collect fees for child Support services.

3125 -37 Application fee for furnishing services. The department of job and family services shall charge an application fee of up to twenty -five dollars, as determined by rule adopted by the director of job and family services pursuant to Chapter 119. Of the Revised Code, for furnishing services under Title

IV -D of the 'Social Security Act,' 88 Stat. 2351(1975), 42 U.S.C. 651 as amended, to person not participating in Ohio works first under Chapter 5107. Of the Revised Code or to persons not exempted from paying the fee under section 454(6) (B) of the 'Social Security Act,' as amended by the 'Balanced Budget Act of 1997,' 111Stat.625, 42 U.S.C. 654(6) (B)

The director shall adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 119. Of the Revised Code authorize counties, at their option to waive the payment of the fee. The application fee, unless waived pursuant to rules adopted by the director pursuant to this section, shall be paid by those persons.

3125.22 Investing in repurchase agreements. A child support enforcement agency may invest any of the moneys collected pursuant to the performance of its duties under Chapters 3111, 3119, 3121, 3123, and 3125. Of the Revised Code in a repurchase agreement in which a bank agrees to sell short -term federally guaranteed securities with an obligation of the bank to repurchase the securities. All interest derived pursuant to investments made under this section shall be retained by the agency and used solely for support enforcement activities.

Ways and Means Committee:

Approves 40 Percent Cut in Child Support Funds. By Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner the office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

On October 26, the ways and means committee of the U.S. House of Representatives approved a budget reconciliation package that would impose deep cuts in federal funds used to help pay for state child support services provided to single parent families. The child support program enforces the responsibility of non -custodial parents to support their children, reducing the need for families to receive public assistance.

These cuts, if implemented, would cut federal child support program funding by 40 percent, severely reducing states' ability to collect child support for low -and moderate –income families. Congress projects that child support collections would drop by $24.1 billion over the next ten years.

The proposed cuts are likely to reverse dramatic improvements in the child support program's performance over the past decade and may force many families back into the welfare caseload. In 2004, the child support program collected $21.9 billion, while total program collected $5.3 billion $4.38 child support dollars were collected for every public dollar spent.

The President's 2006 budget cites the child support program as 'one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government -wide. This high rating is due to its strong mission, effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual and long term performance measures.'

The funding cuts are part of the "Entitlement Reconciliation Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2006" which is being submitted by the Ways and Means Committee to the House Budget Committee. (See Appendix for proposed language.)2 The committee recommendations include two direct cuts to child support funding:

***** One recommendation would make a deep cut in the federal match rate for child support program costs. Currently, the federal government pays 66 percent of program costs, while states and counties cover the remaining 34 percent. The committee recommended that federal rate cut be phased in, reducing the rate to 62 percent in 2007, 58 percent in 2008, 54 percent in 2009, and 50 percent in 2010 and thereafter. The full impact of the cuts would occur in 2010.

The committee added a second recommendation to prevent states from using their performance incentive payments to draw down matching federal funds. Currently, the federal government pays states incentive funds based on their level of child support performance. These incentive payments are capped at $458 million in fiscal year 2006 and divided among the states according to their performance on five measures. States are required to reinvest these funds in their child support program (or closely related activities), but may claim 66 percent federal matching funds for incentive funds spent on enforcing child support.

In addition, the committee's budget package includes a recommendation to charge custodial parents an annual service fee for collecting support. The proposal would direct states to charge custodial parents a $25 annual fee subtracted from collections. This fee is in addition to application and other child support

fees imposed on families. The first $500 in collections would be exempt from the annual fee. Custodial parents other than those who have received TANF assistance would be required to pay the fee.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score assumes that nearly $5.0 billion would be cut from the child support program over the five -year phase -in period between 2006 and 2010.

Over the next five -year period between 2010 and 2015, the program would lose more than twice as much funding, or $10.9 billion, according to CBO. The cuts grow over time, reaching 40 percent of total federal child support funding in 2010. In addition, new child support fees subtracted from child support paid to families would generate $172 million federal savings over 5 years and $405 million over 10 years.

CBO estimates that the federal funding cuts will reduce child support collections by nearly $7.9 billion in the next five years and $24.1 billion in the next ten years. These are dollars that CBO estimates would go uncollected if the budget cuts are implemented. A number of states believe these estimates understate the impact of the cuts on their ability to collect child support for families. CBO projections assume that states will backfill a portion of the funding ($1.6 billion in the first five years, and $5.2 billion over the ten –year period) to partially make up for the loss in federal funds.

Collecting Fees (Chapter 5)

The feasibility of collecting fees for Child Support services executive summary:

This report is in response to the JLARC recommendation that the Division of Child Support (DCS). Conduct a feasibility study for collecting fees for child support services. DCS has found that assessing fees of any type permitted by the federal office of Child Support Enforcement is not cost effective. In addition to being administratively cumbersome, fees do not do a particularly good job of increasing income to the state. Fees add less than 1 percent to the state's coffers.

The state keeps only 34 cents on the dollar, with administrative cost diminishing the returns even further. Fees also tend to mire the agency in controversy and allegations of unfair practices against straggling families. There are three types of fees:

•Application fees

•fees for services

•late (or interest) fees

The assessment of application fees or fees for services can be interpreted as punitive toward the non -assistance custodial parent. Most single headed household families are poor. Evidence indicates that assessing fees against such families could keep them from receiving child support services that may keep them off welfare. Most (73 percent) of the DCS caseload is comprised of current and former assistance cases, which typically equates with low -income.

DCS does try to get reimbursement for the state for genetic testing and birth costs. The subrogated debts, however, fall toward the bottom of the distribution chain, which means many of these debts are very old and few are ever are paid in full. DCS prevailed in a class action lawsuit in 1994 that sought to force the state to assess interest.

A subsequent bill to change RCW failed to pass in 1995. DCS demonstrated that it was not cost effective to develop and integrate interest assessment into the statewide -automated system, which is necessary. Recent empirical evidence shows that assessing interest does not improve payment on current support, a federal performance indicator. Evidence also indicates that assessing interest actually worsens the federal performance indicator, paying arrears cases.

Many of the obligors are low income, Imposing interest against the obligated non -custodial parent when many struggle to pay the arrears accumulated on their child support is questionable. This report responds to Recommendation 1 of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) performance audit (Report 00 -3) on the Division of Child Support dated June 28, 2000.

Specifically, Recommendation 1 states: To determine if it is cost -effective to recover part of its expenses for providing services to non -public assistance clients. DCS should study the feasibility of collecting fees for any of its services from such clients, and present its findings with recommendations to the legislature.

The Division of Child Support agreed to study the issue of collecting fees. The approach in this document is to review the legal background that enables the state to charge fees, assess the types of fees that may be charged and to discuss what other states have done regarding fees.

Background: The Social Security Amendments of 1974 created Title IV -D of the Social Security Act. Title IV -D created a federal -state child support program. The program was designed for cost recovery of state and federal outlays on public assistance paid to families and for cost avoidance to help families leave welfare and to help families not on welfare to avoid turning to public assistance (see Appendix 1, Federal Legislative History of Child Support).

Applicants for and recipients of public assistance had to accept IV -D services and cooperate with the IV -D agency unless they had 'good cause' for not cooperating, such as potential harm to the recipient or the child. Families not receiving public assistance could apply for IV -D services and could close their cases at any time.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 mandated that states charge a service fee to non -assistance obligors of 10 percent of the amount of past due support owed. The intent of Congress was to make non - assistance cases self -supporting and reserve free services to the assistance cases. Congress removed the requirement the following year because states found the administration of the fee burdensome. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 removed the mandatory non -assistance late fee requirement and made it a state option to recover administrative costs in non -assistance cases. The state could deduct the administrative cost from collections or charge the non -custodial parent. That arrangement, also, proved to be unattractive to state 1v -D agencies, and only a handful ever pursued this 'cost recovery' option.

The Child Support Amendments of 1984 Increase the oversight functions of the federal government to increase the uniformity among states. An area relevant to this discussion was the intent of Congress that states fully and effectively serves public assistance and non -public assistance families alike. 1v -D agencies were also required to continue child support services to families leaving assistance without an application and without an application fee for service. State 1v -D agencies were also required to advertise their services to non -assistance families.

I. Application Fees

Beginning October 1, 1985, the State plan must provide that an application fee will be charged to each individual who applies for services under this section" {45 CFR 302 State Plan Requirements}. The application fee must be uniformly applied on a statewide basis.

The fee may not exceed a flat dollar amount of $25. In lieu of a flat fee, the state may set an amount not to exceed $25, using a fee schedule based on the applicant's income. In an interstate case, the fee is charged by the state where the individual applies for child support service. The state has three options under P.L 98 -378 and 45 CFR 302: collect the fee from the custodial parent, the noncustodial parent or pay it out of state funds.

'In the legislative history of P.L. 98 -378, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimated that the fee would average $15 and that revenues would be $15 million in FY 1989.'3 What the CBO did not expect was the response of states to take the third option of paying the fee out of state funds. In response to states exercising this option, the Office of the Inspector General within the Department of Health and Human Services conducted a review of states' practices to determine if states were charging the fee in accordance with CBO revenue - raising expectations.

The result of the study confirmed that 32 states were charging only token fees of $1 or less, with 24 states absorbing the fees rather than charging the applicants. The Office of Inspector General summarized the following concerns of the states regarding charging application fees:

The administrative burden associated with the application, along with the collection and accounting for the fee, simply was not worth the effort. The fee was seen as a possible impediment to individuals requesting CSE [child support enforcement] services. The States did not wish to turn away anyone needing CSE services just because they could not afford to pay the application fee.

There was no financial incentive for the State to collect application fees because it was not cost -effective.

* Fees in general take away child support which could be going to the child or the family.4

The Office of the Inspector General urged the Administration for Children and Families to try to obtain congressional sponsorship to make the make the application fee mandatory at $25 and to establish a $25 annual user fee for non -AFDC applicants. Neither the mandatory application fee of $25 nor the annual user fees for non –AFDC applicants was adopted. Again, there was little support among state child support officials because such fees were believed to take money away from the child and the family.

In 1996, the North Dakota Department of Human Services conducted a survey of state child support agencies on charging non -AFDC application fees. They received 44 responses. Of the responding states, 54.5 percent stated the applicant was responsible for the application fee and the remainder said the state was responsible for the application fee. Eleven of the state -application paid IV -D programs had charged the applicant before.

When asked whether they preferred that the state paid or the applicant paid, 73 percent preferred that the state paid. Some of the reasons cited were that it was hard to process and account for the receipts, making it more trouble than it was worth to charge the applicant the fee. Another response was that it discouraged some applicants from filing for or continuing non -AFDC services. Also, expressed was the notion that applicants are the ones who are in need of the money in the first place.

The proportion of states charging application fees has increased over time. Many IV -D programs are now mandated by state law to charge application fees. There still remains resistance because of the reasons stated by states' representatives.

II. Fees for Services (Recovery of Costs)

There are two types of fees for services mandated by statute:

1) federal tax intercepts fees and

2) Federal Parent Locate Service (FPLS) fees. The first is a fee not to exceed $25 that can be charged to a no assistance family for submitting a request to IRS for a federal tax intercept. By statute, the IV-D agency must charge a fee to anyone except a recipient of TANF -funded services who seeks information from the Federal Parent Locate Service (FPLS), 42 USC Section 653(e)(2).'8 States may elect to pay this fee out of its own funds, charge the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent.

Washington pays the fees out of its own funds. For federal fiscal year 2000, Washington State paid $92,445 for IRS Offset and $37,524 for FPLS. States may also elect in their state plans to recover any costs incurred in excess of any fees collected to cover administrative costs under the IV -D state plan.

A state that elects to recover costs must collect on a case -by - case basis either excess actual or standardized costs. States recovering standardized costs must develop written methodology to estimate costs as closely to actual as possible. The child support program cannot treat any amount collected as recovery of costs unless they exceed the current amount of child support owed under the obligation.

The state that chooses to recover costs must notify the responsible party of the costs it will recover. In addition, the state must notify all other states if it recovers costs from the individual receiving IV -D services.

The cost recovery efforts in the form of fees for services for non -assistance families are not widely practiced among states, except for specific expenditures. For example, Washington State does assess fees related to establishing paternity against the father. It also establishes a liability against a noncustodial parent found to be the father for the cost of genetic tests paid by the state IV -D program.

These fees are cost recovery for paternity laboratory tests (DNA or blood tests) and are set up as separate cases called 'paternity suborns.' These paternity suborn cases also include costs to serve the putative father and Guardian Ad Litem fees in the pursuit of establishing paternity.

DCS also used to recover birth costs to repay the state if the mother was on assistance or to repay the mother who was not on assistance. 'The agency may assess a responsible parent's liability for a dependent child's birth costs, not recovered by health insurance, if there is no order assessing or relieving the responsible parent of liability for birth costs. The agency shall assess liability for birth costs based on the parent's proportionate share of the basic support obligation for the child. The recovery of birth costs was discontinued about seven years ago unless specified in court orders. Advocates for the First Steps Program argued that birth cost recovery could act as a deterrent for mothers seeking prenatal care. Secretary Thompson required the Washington child support program to cease repayment of birth costs. The reality for both types of cost recovery cases, paternity and medical subs, is that they are not particularly cost effective.

lll. Late fees and interest

The ability for states to impose late payment fees on noncustodial parents who owe overdue child support was effective September 1, 1984. The fee, proscribed by the federal government, can be no less than 3 percent and no more than 6 percent of overdue support. "The fee shall accrue as arrearages accumulate and shall not be reduced upon partial payment of arrears. The fee may be collected only after the full amount of overdue support is paid and any requirements under State law for notice to the noncustodial parent have been met".

Do Fees Recover Costs? Participants frequently expressed doubt about the actual cost efficiency of charging fees, though fees were intended for cost recovery. It generally seems to cost more to set up the system to determine, collect and account for cost recovery than to collect. The administrative cost of charging fees seems to outweigh the benefits derived. Moreover, the new distribution rules (family first distribution requirements) make it difficult to keep money for the state or federal government. Some participants emphasized the 'real need to seriously estimate the amount that can be collected from cost recovery.

Are fees compatible with the Program's Mission of Helping Children?

Participants saw fees as incompatible with the purposes of the child support program on several grounds. For them, the purpose of the program was to help children or, more broadly, to help families. (In opening the meetings, the OCSE Project Manager quoted key concepts from the Child Support Strategic Plan, including the Mission, Vision, and Our Customers, all of which emphasize helping children. None refers to cost recovery.) Source is Washington State Division of Child Support (June 2001). Source is: United States Government Accountability Office.

Bankruptcy & child support (Chapter 6)

Why GAO Did This Study

Noncustodial parents with child support orders.

Recognizing the importance of child support, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 requires that if a parent with child support obligations files for bankruptcy, a bankruptcy trustee must notify the relevant custodial parent and state child support enforcement agency so that they may participate in the case. The act also required GAO to study the feasibility of matching bankruptcy records with child support records to assure that filers with child support obligation are identified. GAO therefore identify the percent of bankruptcy filers with obligations nationwide examined the potential for routine data matching to facilitate the identification of filers with child support obligations, and study the feasibility and cost of doing so.

GAO interviewed child support enforcement and bankruptcy officials at the federal level and in six states. GAO also conducted a nationwide test data match and reviewed national bankruptcy filings for people with support obligations in Texas for an indication of whether filers are failing to provide this information.

What GAO Found: Nationwide, about 7 percent of individuals who filed for bankruptcy between October 17, 2005, and October 17, 2006—the first year of the bankruptcy act implementation—were noncustodial parents with child support orders. They, in turn, represented about one -half of 1 percent of the 9.9 million noncustodial parents with orders to pay child support. While these proportions are small, they represented 45,346 adults and at least as many children. Routine data matching might identify individuals who have not reported their child support obligations. However, GAO estimated from a random sample file review that 98 percent of noncustodial parents nationwide with orders in Texas had volunteered this information when they filed. (The results could be higher or lower in other states.) Another potential benefit would be to reduce the workload for state child support agencies by providing positive identification of bankruptcy filers with orders under the states' purview by comparing the full social security numbers (SSNs) of individuals in both bankruptcy and child support databases.

This would help address the current situation state agency officials described, in which significant numbers of the notices they receive from bankruptcy trustees included only partial SSNs of the named person, imposing additional work on staff to make a positive identification in their databases. For bankruptcy case trustees participating in the U.S. Trustee Program, we found this to be the case, even though program guidance—covering 84 of the 90 bankruptcy districts—calls for case trustees to provide full SSNs in notices sent to state agencies. These notices are not part of any public record and trustee program officials said this use of the full SSNs is consistent with executive branch policies designed to guard privacy.

For the remaining six districts, administered under a separate program, no guidance has been developed. A data matching system is technically feasible, but it would be a complex and costly undertaking and would involve addressing some statutory and policy considerations. Regarding notifying state agencies of the match results, federal child support enforcement official said that their national automated system could disseminate this data after modification to federal and state systems. However, data matching system would not offer a comprehensive alterative to the trustee notification system, because it would not transmit information to custodial parents.

Implementation cost incurred by states. Regarding cost, bankruptcy and child support enforcement officials said that the development and implementation of an automated interface between two separate databases is a complex and costly undertaking, requiring modifications to each, with many steps required to assure that the matching system is developed and deployed without critical flaws and allowing for the secure exchange of data. Also, bankruptcy officials cited some statutory and policy considerations to releasing their own data or to performing a data match. It would also duplicate a portion of the current trustee notification process. In view of these findings, instituting a data matching system may not be warranted, especially if the case trustees can provide full SSNs of bankruptcy filers when notifying state agencies.

Who is G.A.O ?

GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Privatize collection (Chapter 7)

GAO

United States

General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

B -272184 October 23, 1996

The Honorable John R. Kasich Chairman, Committee on the Budget House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Between 1980 and 1995, the national child support enforcement (CSE) program's caseload more than tripled—from 5.4 million to 20.1 million cases.1 In addition, the amount of uncollected support from prior years increased from $8.8 billion in 1986 to $30.8 billion in 1994.

Federal responsibility for the CSE program lies with the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). State child support enforcement agencies have responsibility for administering the program at the state and local levels. This includes providing services to locate noncustodial parents, establish paternity and support orders, and collect support payments.

To service this large and growing caseload, some state CSE programs are contracting with private organizations for child support services, including the collection of support payments. Collection services are aimed at obtaining the financial child support legally owed by noncustodial parents to their children.

Recent enactment of welfare reform legislation—the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996—strengthen the CSE program by providing additional tools to enhance the collection of child support. Among many provisions, the act requires the federal and state governments to establish automated registries of child support orders and a directory of new employees for quickly tracking and locating parents owing support.

This report responds to your request for information on (1) the reasons why states are contracting for CSE collection services and (2) the factors affecting the financial outcomes of collection contracts for families and the federal and state governments.

To develop the information in this report, we interviewed CSE officials in nine states identified in our November 1995 report as having collection contracts for which we were able to obtain cost and collection data;

(2) analyzed cost and collections data for 11 collection contracts in these states in fiscal years 1994 and 1995; and

(3) analyzed state data, compiled by OCSE, on CSE caseloads and support collections in fiscal years 1980 through 1995. We did not compare the contractors' performance with that of state collection efforts because data were not available. Appendix I contains more detailed information on our scope and methodology.

Why some states use them? States are turning to private firms to collect child support payments because they are finding it increasingly difficult to service their growing CSE caseloads with available staff and budgetary resources. Most commonly, states contract with the private sector for the collection of past -due support, 3 especially that considered hard -to -collect. Privatizing collections has enabled states to collect support that they would have been unable to collect without hiring additional staff. Under the terms of most collection contracts, states pay contractors only if collections are made and payments to contractors are often a fixed percentage of collections.

For example, in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, contractors in nine states collected nearly $60 million and were paid about $6 million. Whether or not these collections provide financial benefits for the states and for the federal government depends on whether the families receiving child support services had received welfare and on the specific financial arrangements that exist between the federal government and each state. For families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits, 4 most of the child support collected is retained by the government; in effect, the government is reimbursed for AFDC payments made to families. Families not on AFDC get most of the support collected.

The split in collections between the federal and state government depends first of all on the federal government's share of welfare payments within each state. The more the federal government pays in relation to the state, the more it gets back from child support collections. However, the net amount actually returned to the federal government also is reduced by performance incentives paid to the states and the share of CSE program administrative costs paid by the federal government. In the 11 contracts we reviewed, the federal government's financial outcomes ranged from a net cost of about $242,000 to revenues of $1.2 million.

Government collection via private: Private Agency, Government and Attorney Services Compared a private child support collection agency functions much like other collection agencies, but concentrates on debts owed for child support. Some states don't allow this type of collection agency. In other states, agencies are subjected to industry -specific regulations, including registration.

Depending on your type of case, such as receipt of welfare benefits, government agencies may be required to help collect support. Government agencies and attorneys can help with collection efforts, and can provide legal help in obtaining support orders. Private agencies focus on collecting support based on existing court orders.

Private agencies may have the time and resources to get results faster. Government agencies have heavy caseloads and must do more with less. Private agencies use high -pressure techniques on a noncustodial parent that public sources won't use, such as:

•Contacting the parent directly at home

•Talk to the parent's neighbors and coworkers

•Threat to put liens on the parent's property

•Constant streams of communication directed toward the parent.

When thinking about using a private agency, check how long it has been in business, and confirm its phone number and street address. Also want to check for any consumer complaints at your local Better Business Bureau or your state's attorney general.

Private Agencies Fees: Private child support collection agencies typically take a percentage cut, called a contingency fee, of up to 40 percent of all support collected, no matter who collects it. So even if you collect child support money from your child's other parent through your efforts, or the government's, you still must pay the private agency's fees.

Source is lawyers.com

OCSE compiled a list of current statues and policies related to private support collection agencies (PCA). The State Child Support Enforcement Private Collection Agency Matrix contains information on nine areas related to PCAs and provides a link to the appropriate state citation where applicable. The matrix includes information on the following topic areas.

Matrix set for private collection agencies

1. State IV -D Contact: The state's contact person who can address questions from other states about PCA policy.

2. Primary cite: A link to primary

state legislation or policy that addresses PCAs policy or legislation

3. License or Bond Requirements: Indicates whether a PCA is required to have a license or bond to operate in your state.

4. Fee Limitation: Information on fee limits imposed on PCA by the state, such as application fees or fees deducted from your collection support

5. Contract Cancellation Limitations: Stipulates the terms under which a custodial parent may cancel a contract with the PCA.

6. Allow Payment Redirection: Information on whether an IV -D child support agency will redirect a custodial parent's payments received by the state disbursement unit to the PCA

7. Current Support Limitations: Specifies the limitations on how PCA may treat current support.

8. Fee for State/Federal Collections: Identifies whether state law or policy expressly prohibits the PCA from collecting a fee for work attributable to a state or government agency

9. Prohibited Practices: Includes other PCA business practices expressly prohibited by state law or policy.

Here is an example of PCA Policy Matrix for Arkansas: state IV -D

1. Contact: Mary E. Smith Mary.e.smith@ocse.arkansas.gov

2. Primary cite: Arkansas Code Annotated 17 -24 -101 -17 -24 -403 effective 4/13/2009 Are Code

3. License or Bond Requirements: License (17 -24 -301) and bond (17 -24 -306) required State filling fee $455.00

Bond fee $175.00

4. Fee Limitation: 17 -24 -309

(a)No person, partnership, association, or corporation mentioned in § 17 -24 -301 shall charge as a collection charge or fee an amount in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the total amount actually collected on all accounts held by the person, partnership, association, or corporation for collection for any one (1) client, nor more than fifty percent (50%) of the total amount actually collected on any one (1) account, nor shall a minimum charge in excess of one dollar ($1.00) be made on any partially or totally collected account.

5. Contract Cancellation Limitations: 17 -24 -309

(b)All contracts providing for a greater collection charge or fee or a greater minimum charge than provided in this section entered into between any creditor in this state and any person, partnership, association, or corporation covered by this chapter shall be void. The creditor shall have, in addition to all other remedies now or hereafter provided by law, a cause of action to recover all amounts collected by the person, partnership, association, or corporation on the creditor's account or accounts.

6. Allow Payment Redirection:

No 9 -14 -234(h) all current child support payments shall follow the child or children and shall be payable to the physical custodian as support for the child or children. AR Family Law

7. Current Support Limitations: N/A

8. Fee for State/Fed Collections: N/A

9. Prohibited Practices: 17 -24 -307 Grounds for revocation, suspension, or refusal.

Here is a section of Alaska's PCA

License Application Packet.

COLLECTION AGENCY BRANCH LICENSE APPLICATION PACKET

A person other than a collection agency licensed and authorized under this chapter may not for compensation

(1) conduct a collection agency business in this state;

(2) collect claims for others in this state;

(3) solicit the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another;

(4) advertise or solicit either in print, by letter, in person or otherwise, the right to collect or receive payment of a claim for another;

(5) seek to make collection or obtain payment of a claim on behalf of another. AS 08.24.090(a). Also, a licensee may not engage in the collection agency business unless and until the collection agency, and each branch office of the agency is under the management and control of a licensed operator for each office. AS 08.24.100 an Alaska collection agency license is required for only those agencies and branches that collect claims, or solicit claims collections, on behalf of Alaska -based creditors. If the agency's or branch's customers are out of state, no Alaska license is required.

APPLICATION FOR BRANCH LICENSE

The following documents and fees must be on file with the division before the file will be reviewed:

1. APPLICATION - Completed, signed, and notarized.

2. FEE - Make check or money order payable to the State of Alaska. Alaska Residents: nonrefundable application fee - $100 +license fee - $200; nonresidents: nonrefundable fee -$200 + license fee - $400

3. Surety BOND -$5,000- Include a copy of the parent agency's current surety bond. (There is no need to obtain a separate bond for a branch.)

LICENSE TERM - Licenses are issued for a two -year period. However, all collection agency branch licenses expire June 30 of even -numbered years, regardless of the date of issuance, except licenses issued within 90 days of the expiration date are issued to the next biennial expiration date. One renewal notice will be mailed at least 30 days before license expiration to the last known address of record.

State Business License is also required in the State of Alaska.

Source is U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Private Child Support Collection Companies

By Vicki Turetsky

Center for Law and Social Policy

Over the last decade, an unregulated industry related to the alternative financial services industry has grown rapidly, primarily around the internet, to aggressively and sometimes deceptively market child support collection services to mostly low -income single mothers who cannot afford an attorney. Some of the largest private collection agencies often fail to deliver any genuine services. Instead, they strip income from low and moderate -income families that could have been spent on housing, childcare, clothing and school expenses, or saved for their children's education. They trap custodial parents in perpetual contracts. They also exploit the child support indebtedness of low and moderate -income non -custodial parents through the use of predatory and abusive tactics that increase their debt levels and often destroy their credit histories and interfere with parenting relationships.

A number of private child support companies bring to the table a history of consumer complaints, bar association ethics complaints, and litigation filed against them. However, the Federal Trade Commission has determined that child support collection agencies are not covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, because they collect child support debt, not consumer debt. While not all states will share data with or redirect payment to private collection agencies, industry pressure routinely exerted on state legislators and administrations to 'play ball' with the companies is enormous.

CLASP has an extensive file of state consumer complaints and lawsuits filed over the past decade by mothers, fathers, grandparents, employers, states, and courts around the county against some of the largest private child support collection companies. CLASP continues to receive complaints on a regular basis from custodial and non -custodial parents, legal services programs, and state legislators about the predatory practices of this industry. From these recent complaints, it does not appear to CLASP that these predatory practices have changed much from a decade ago, but rather that the problems are more widespread.

The complaints routinely allege that companies make money in four illegitimate ways:

(1) promising help with back support, but instead pocketing a fee from ongoing monthly support;

(2) taking a cut of support collected by state child support agencies;

(3) demanding payments from grandparents; and

(4) coercing payments from non -custodial parents that are not owed or authorized by state law.

The complaints reflect an offensive and disturbing picture of deceptive advertising, misleading contracts, fee gouging, harassment and abuse, posing as the government, dunning grandparents, inflating and fabricating debts, undermining creditworthiness, and abusing legal process.

Custodial parents sign a contract with these companies, frequently agreeing to pay a third or more of collected support until all debt is paid off–essentially a perpetual contract. Rather than undertaking collection activities, however, private collection companies often take their exorbitant fees from ongoing monthly support coming to the parent before signing the contract or from support collected through the efforts of a state child support agency. Often, custodial parents have no idea that the company is operating a scam.

In other cases, companies use abusive and coercive collection practices against low and moderate -income non -custodial parents and their relatives. Like the custodial parents who sign up for services, the non -custodial parents targeted by the companies appear to be of modest means.

They have low -level jobs and have limited educations. Often, they have a second family. The companies interfere with the parents' employment relationships, make unauthorized foreclosure threats, harass mortgage companies, and repeatedly pull down credit records. They sometimes call the grandparents and threaten them with jail unless the grandparents pay up. These companies often inflate child support debts by charging unauthorized interest on decades -old debts and extort payments that the companies know that parents do not owe. They undermine regular payments being made by the parents and sabotage these parents' often tenuous toe -hold in the mainstream economy.

False promises

Advertisements carried on cable T.V. and the internet and in tabloid publications offer custodial parents risk -free services to collect unpaid arrears. Sometimes, the company tells them that it has a special 'in' with a state that gives it an advantage in collecting support. The complaints indicate that the parents who sign up are typically low -income, less educated mothers, although a significant number are custodial fathers. They are usually receiving ongoing monthly support through the state, but are seeking help collecting old arrears. Often parents have children finishing high school and hope to collect money for college. The company pitches plays on the parents' financial distress; desire to pay for college, and anger at the other parent. What the companies do not tell parents is that free and often more effective services are available from state child support agencies, or that very old child support debt is usually uncollectible and often discharged by state statutes of limitations.

Misleading contracts

Contracts reviewed by CLASP appears only to authorize fees for arrears collected by the company, but it actually says that the company can take a fee from any and all collections, whether or not the company did the work. Custodial parents are threatened with a lawsuit when they try to get out of the contract. At the time they sign up, parents are required to sign a power of attorney or 'change of address' form, which directs the state to send future collections to the company. The contract terminates when all arrears are paid off, but this rarely happens, because on -going monthly support payments are applied to the arrears balance, leaving the current month unpaid.

Income-siphoning fees

While private collectors promise to increase the income of custodial parents, in fact they often decrease family income by skimming off a third or more from income that parents would get without the company's help. Parents understand that that they will have to pay the basic fee if the company collects back support, but they do not understand that the company will take a cut from ongoing monthly support, tax offsets, and other support collected by a state. Many complaints follow the belated discovery that the company has not made independent collection efforts, but instead has skimmed off the fee from state -collected support or an ongoing payment stream. While a commonly repeated company slogan is that 'something is better than nothing,' the reality for many custodial parents is that when they sign the contract, they receive less money, not more. The fees charged are disproportionate to the minimal work performed by company

Custodial parent contact

Minimal collection activities: Contrary to representations; the company appears from the complaints to conducts few independent locate and collection activities. Parents receiving state child support services are required to sign a disclosure form directing a state to provide information about the non -custodial parents' location, employment, income and assets. When the custodial parent is not receiving state child support services, she is sometimes told that she must produce full locate information before the company will attempt to collect? When the company does take action, its methods are often illegal or abusive–and minimal in cost.

Illegal payroll withholding tactics

The public child support program automatically institutes and processes payroll withholding for all support orders issued in the states after 1994 (whether or not parents are participating in the program). Private parties also may institute withholding, but only if they have a court order authorizing income withholding. However, employers are required to send all withheld support to the state for more accurate interstate record -keeping. Instead of obtaining a court order, the company sends employers bogus withholding orders that direct employers to send the money directly to the company. The company threatens employers when they object to the company's demands to 'bump' legitimate withholding orders producing ongoing income streams to families. As a result, the military payroll department (DFAS) made a decision several years ago not to honor the company's withholding efforts.

Harassing and abusive tactics

The company calls non -custodial parents several times a week at home and work, calls their church pastors, leaves flyers in the neighbors' mailboxes, calls them names, threatens them with jail, menaces them in a way that they have become concerned for their physical safety, repeatedly pulls down their credit reports, puts liens on their houses, and threatens the mortgage holders. The company represents itself as a government agency, uses a misleading name (e.g., 'Child Support Enforcement' or 'Child Support Bureau') or uses official -looking documents. The company refuses to cancel the contract, even when the custodial parent is afraid that the non -custodial parent may harm her or the children. Instead, the company tells the custodial parent to get a restraining order.

Dunning grandparents

The Company telephones the grandparents and tells them that they will put their sons in jail tomorrow unless they provide a credit card number or certified check immediately.

Inflated and non -existent debt

The Company pursues decades -old debts barred by the state's statute of limitations, and inflates those debts by charging tens of thousands of additional dollars as 'interest,' even when state law does not authorize the interest charges. The company continues to harass the parent even when non -custodial parents say they do not owe the money, and provide documentation (such as a zero -balance account statement from the state child support agency, adoption papers, or cancelled checks). Even though the company knows they do not owe the money, it continues to pursue them, and will not respond to calls or letters. The company makes no effort to verify debt, but instead tries to extort a settlement.

No accountability

the company delays sending on the child support for weeks. The company will not account for the collections it made or the fees it deducts. It will not respond to calls or letters. It refuses to cancel the contract, even when custodial parents do not think it has performed as promised. Instead, the company threatens a lawsuit for a third of the unpaid arrears. Often complaints are pleas to the state child support agency to help them uncover the source of payment and sort out the accounting.

These complaints reflect a growing national problem with the business practices sometimes used by private child support collection companies. The industry is dominated by companies that sometimes exploit the financial vulnerability and personal frustrations of parents, often leaving both parents worse off. Their practices are divisive and profoundly anti -family. These practices can financially and emotionally devastate mothers and fathers, worsen already fragile family relationships, increase the risk of domestic violence, strip away income and financial good standing, subject non -custodial parents to fraudulent collection efforts, and undermine the credibility of legitimate child support enforcement efforts. These practices are not permitted to be used by state child support programs or private attorneys, and would be illegal if used by consumer debt collection companies.

According to a March 2002 U.S. General Accounting Office report, there are 38 private collection companies in 16 states that collect child support under a direct contract with custodial parents. Almost a third of the companies are located in Texas. Other states with several companies include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, and Ohio. Most companies told the GAO that they handled cases in every state in the country. On average, the private companies charge custodial parents 29 percent of collected support, while some of the largest companies' charge 34 percent. About half of the companies impose additional fees and charges in addition to the percentage fee.

GAO finding

The GAO found that the private companies have not demonstrated that they do any better on collecting support than state child support agencies. As a result of significant state improvements over the last few years, states have a higher collection rate than the private collection companies nationwide. The GAO found that the main edge held by private companies in enforcing support is that the companies pressure relatives to pay the support owed by non -custodial parents, and use collection tactics that are prohibited to state child support agencies, private attorneys, and private collection agencies that pursue consumer debt. Although there may be an appropriate role for private child support collection companies that are committed to customer service, use legitimate collection practices, and help parents obtain overdue child support that they might not otherwise receive, the industry currently operates without regulatory controls or accountability.

The growth of this unregulated industry undercuts basic social policies promoted by the public child support program, and threatens to unravel major reforms underway within the program–including improving performance and interstate coordination, reorienting the program from welfare cost recovery to family support, implementing realistic strategies to deal with debt, helping parents participate in the formal economy, and helping parents stay connected to their children. Several media stories have highlighted the abusive and deceptive practices used by some of the private collection companies over the years, including Time Magazine, Smart Money Magazine, Children's Voice, New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Gannett News Service, CNN, Fox News, Minnesota Public Radio's Marketplace, and CBS Market Watch.

Source is: Fathers and Families news report by Vicki Turetsky Commissioner of The Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families.

Government resources (Chapter 8)

United States General Accounting Office (GAO)

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. The head of GAO, the Comptroller General of the United States, is appointed to a 15 -year term by the President from a slate of candidates Congress proposes. Gene L. Dorado became the eighth Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) on December 22, 2010, when he was confirmed by the United States Senate. He was nominated by President Obama in September of 2010 and had been serving as Acting Comptroller General since March of 2008. Our Mission is to support the Congress in meeting its

Constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact - base, non -partisan, no ideological, fair, and balanced.

**Support laws State by State** : _WWW.child -support -laws -state -by -state.com/_

The information on child support laws are different in each state. This site will provide that information and guide you to other child support sites for relevant information. The child support process can be a nightmare if you don't have all the right information. It can be scary and unfair for some people.

U.S Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children & Families { _www.hhs.gov_ }

OCSE compiled a list of current state statutes and policies related to private child support collection agencies (PCA). The State Child Support Enforcement Private Collection Agency Policy Matrix contains information on nine areas related to PCAs and provides a link to the appropriate state citation where applicable.

1m -10 -01, private collection agency, state policy matrix

{www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/private-collection}

International Reciprocating Countries

As the U.S central authority for international child support, OCSE assists states and countries with cases when family members live in different countries. The U.S. government has arrangements with 26 foreign reciprocating countries and provinces {FRCs} to provide child support services. They work with the U.S Department of State to negotiate and implement FRC arrangement and the international Hague treaty for child support.

International partners

They offer services and resources to help international partners conduct child support business with the U.S. including:

The OCSE Intergovernmental Reference Guide {IRG} an on-line searchable resource that provides policy and address information for all U.S. child support jurisdiction to assist FRCs in doing child support business with the U.S. locate services for FRCs searching for the state location of an individual in the U.S. who is involved in a child support case.

Contact information: _WWW.acf.gov/programs/css/resource/irg or_ ocseinternational@acf.ffs.gov

Some of the Foreign Reciprocating Countries

Australia

Canada

Czech Republic

El Salvador

Finland

Hungary

Ireland

Israel

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Switzerland

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

OCSE Policy Issuances Dealing with International Child Support

Conclusion (Chapter 9)

Now that we have come this far together in this book, let me make this abundantly clear "The United States is the best, fairest and the most decent Nation on the face of the earth"; as was quoted by our 41st President "George Herbert Bush". I believe we (our government), has set the standards on how children throughout the world should live. Remember the Health & Human Service motto is "Improving the Health, Safety and Well-Being of America", right? So we should expect the social issue of child support to be dealt with as a social issue. However, when faced with the social problem on how some parents chose not to support their children, our government takes a capitalism approach, when recovering money that was spend on the needy. Our families are not sold for profit, nor should they be subjected to cash flow income streams or used as investments to support trouble cash stricken Corporations.

The Family

The family, Webster defines it as a social unit; consisting of parents and their children. They are considered a group, whether dwelling together or not (the traditional family). A family is also, one or more adult together with the child or children they care for (a single-parent family); these are American families. We know that children are form by a men and women union and out of that union they form biological children, and both parents are held financially responsible. There are also many cases when families adopt children making them (the adoptive parent (s)) financially committed. Family Court Support guide line is built based on these imputable facts. So, the first question that is ask is " who is the child mother or father?"; before any financial support can be ordered by Family Count this question must be answered.

Establishing paternity is the next step in the process. Parents that believe that the child in question is theirs can go to the next step; however, parents who are not sure of paternity can have a deoxyribonucleic acid test done (DNA-a generic test). This is the only way to prove, 100 percent who is the child's biological parent. So a DNA test should be the only standard used by the Court to determine a parent paternity. However, as you may know "Title IV-D" allows some different options. Like the Mansfield Rule that state that if a child is conceived within marriage, the husband is presume to be the father. That means, if a wife had an affair outside her marriage and had a child. And the husband, not the biological father is held responsible for support of that child; even if, the husband did not live with his wife at the time of the pregnancy. Then there is a Court appointed paternity. In this situation, the Court decides who the father is based on "best facts"; a blood test, which does not determine linage. In some states after the Court appoints a person as the father, and the man in question proves through a DNA that in fact he is not the biological parent, he still has to pay child support for that child, as ordered by the Court. This is because some, States have a Statute of Limitation law; which starts, you have 30 days to appeal the court order or you will pay support for that child until their 21 birthday. Finally there is paternity acknowledgment through hospitals. This happens when a man signs the birth certificate stating he is the father; this method of establishing paternity exceeds all other methods, by far. In fact, in the year of 2002 a lone 1,527,103 cases of paternities was established; from this number, 829,988 cases was established by using the acknowledgment method. That's more than 54% of all cases established for that year. Another astounding fact is, between year 1994 and 2002 the number of established, or acknowledged paternities increased from 592,000 to 1,500,000, jumping upward 156%.

Therefore, when ask why or is it fair for parents to pay support for a child or children that is not theirs biologically, the answer can be found in the "1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act". Which was introduced by our 42nd President, "William Jefferson Clinton"? This law ushered 1.9 million families off of welfare into the middle class. This law increased child support collections by approximately $24 billion, and reduce federal welfare cost by $4 billion over a ten 10 year period. This was also the birth of the Streamline Paternity Establishment; making it easier and faster to establish paternities. The plan was brilliant and fiscally sound; but at the same time, it is a social disaster for many families. Millions of parents are paying child support for someone else's biological child. This is clearly not the resolution to this social problem.

Middle Class Expansion and Child Support Explosion

Now that there are more middle class families in the Family Court System, guess who bares the financial burden for this cash trouble system? It is apparent that the time was right to get as much money from the non-custodial parent as possible. This is how it works, one parent (or the State on behave of a parent) petitions the Court for child support. Once a Court petition is filed, usually it takes two or three months before the Court hearing takes place. And since child support payments begins on the date the Petitioner files the petition, rather than the actual Court date; in most cases money is owed before the first Court date. This means, you (the non-custodial parent) now owe back money, which is called arrears. Arrears carry interest that inflates accounts receivables. In same States, Policy Studies Inc. (Policy Studies works with clients to develop effective, affordable solutions for connecting people to programs and to transform public policy like child support enforcement and healthcare reform into programs that achieve tangible results . A Maximus Company) estimated that by adding interest to arrear balances they could increase revenues by approximately $1 million in one year alone. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 permanently extends the provision for collecting arrears over $500 through the "IRS Tax off set program"; allowing the IRS to collect child support arrears for any amount over $500. So parents that have their income tax intercepted by a State for child support, now have to wait up to one year (sometimes) to get credit for funds intercepted by the State. Which means the child has to wait for the same period of time for the money to be release? This is reference in, Chapter 3125.22 of the" Investing in Repurchase Agreements". The State has the right to put your child support money in a securities account and make money on it, prior to releasing the money to the child. In the interim, the non-custodial parent is charged additional interest and late fees for support they've already paid. In the interim, the custodial parent waits to receive the payment, as well. This does not help the relationship between the parent that is paying the support and the parent that need the support payment. Family Court does not tell either party what is happening. Therefore, both parents become more and more frustrated, with each other, in most cases.

According to a 2011 report by the Congressional Research Service and by Carmen Solomon-Fears (specialist in social policy) in the year of 2009, Income Tax withheld was 21. 4 billion, Federal Income Tax Offset 2 billion and State Income Tax Offset was 221 million. That's 23 billion, 6 hundred and 21 million dollars in one year. It's also important to note that according to a 2009 Annual Report to Congress presented by the Office of Child Support, the Tax Offset Unit held 32% of the total that was collected in 2009. $9,920,000 was held for 6 months before releasing it to the custodial parents. Yes, that is $ 9 billion 9 hundred, 20 million dollars. This practice is supported by the Investing in Repurchase Agreement, remember!

One of the private community organizations that benefit from child support collections is, Child Support Enforcement Council, (CSEC). Please do not be fool by the name; CSEC is a private collection agency that collects money for Child Support Collection Enforcement. And, yes CSEC was advisors to the" IV-D program. How convenient is that? They (CSEC) received $10 million dollars for fees in a two year period, and in the words of their President " we will continue to do our part to ensure that all parents continue to have options, to work toward better cooperation between the private and public sector, and to see that more than $106 billion dollars owed to America's children are collected". But what their President did not tell you is SCEC gets paid first; before families get paid. That is clearly an example of profit before people. There is a word for this practice, it's called Capitalization. Private collection agencies don't have many rules governing them. They are allowed to lie, and do most anything to collect a debt.

Child Support Collections - Big Business

According to the 1996 GAO (General Accounting Office) report to the Chairman; a Committee for the Budget's House of representatives, privatize child support contracts are active at the State levels in 20 States and local levels in other States. They replace services, such as payment processing, debt-collections which may include searching various sources, credit bureaus, utility companies and telephone books to locate Parents to precise debt collection. Many States use privatize collection companies to help them with their caseloads; so that they do not have to increase staffing levels. It's called out-sourcing. This practice saves the States both money and time; because the fact is both the custodial and noncustodial parents pay the tab. It's a win-win situation right? It is a win for the child support system because they are collecting a debt. It's a win for the private collection companies because they get to keep 25 to 40 percent of the debt they recovery. Oh, let's not forget about the fees that the State charge Private collections companies to practice in this system; like license application fees (to operate) ; and bonding fees... most States require Collection Companies to be bonded; which is another income source for the State. None of the money from these fees pass-on to the parents or the children. Because, just like most for-profit businesses; profits are shared between the business and its partners. In this case that will be the State and privatized companies. The partnership between these two entities is also the cost and cause of many families hardship. A fact! An FYI: The Child Support Enforcement Council was established in 2001; this council is the leader in private child support enforcement companies. Member companies have collected more than $300 million in child support funds for families they serve since 2013

Bankruptcy And Child Support

Non-custodial parents, who may have lost their job (unemployed), or are experiencing a company down-size and their income has decreased, have an option to file bankruptcy; which offers protection from the federal Government (GAO found nationwide, about 7 percent of individuals who filed for bankruptcy between October 17, 2005 – the first year of the bankruptcy act implementation were noncustodial parents with child support orders. They in turn, represented about one – half of 1 percent of the 9.9 million noncustodial parents with orders to pay child support. While these proportions are small they represented 45,346 adults and at least as many children)). The majority of non- custodial parents that find themselves in this financial situation elect to file Chapter 13 rather than chapter 7 bankruptcy, because past due child support is a debt that can be included in their Bankruptcy Chapter 13 repayment plan. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of April, 2005, concludes that all child support must be paid in full, without exception. Bankruptcy Chapter 13 offers a great payment plan. This is a great law and can help families with court orders that receive their child support payments through family court (Support Collection Unit) now receive their child support through a chapter 13 trustee attorney. However You cannot discharge child support debt by filing for bankruptcy. But you can catch up on your missed payments through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy repayment plan. One of the responsibilities of a Bankruptcy Chapter 13 - Trustee is to make sure that your income calculations are accurate and your expenses are reasonable, and that your Chapter 13 repayment plan is fair and agreeable to your creditors. Consequently, a provision in State law that allows you to file bankruptcy is very controversial. One issue is custodial parents that receive child support payments through Family Court Automated System are not notify by Family Court that the non-custodial parent has filed for bankruptcy; nor are they informed that the amount of money that was initially ordered by the Courts may be reduced by the Bankruptcy Trustee. Simply put, custodial parents do not understand why all of a sudden, they receive less money than was initially ordered by the Court. And, although the Court is privy of the Bankruptcy Chapter 13 filing, in most cases, the non-custodial parent is still hauled back to Family Court to explain why he or she is paying less. This causes hard feeling between the parents. Another issue is the State can choose to receive interest on a Bankruptcy Charter 13 child support in two ways. Option one, interest can be prorated into the Chapter 13 Plan; with this option the payee (non-custodial parent) pays interest monthly... therefore, when their plan is complete the debt is paid in full. Option two, after the payee (non-custodial parent) pays the agreed amount in their plan, interest is than calculated based on how many months it took the payee to pay their debt; at the end of the plan, the non-custodial parent still owes money. Why would a State choose option two, especially when the non-custodial parent is willing to pay their child support? The answer is plain; Option 2 creates a wedge between the parents, and it keeps them in the system longer. The parents are consumed with fighting each other, while the third party makes millions off that system. This could be the reason why so many families choose not to use the United States Family Court System. Grant it, it does provide a way for families to receive financial help. But it also widens the wedge between an already troubled family union. It's harder for families to work together to raise their children.

How Does Child Support Affects Credit

Protecting our middle class, or should I say... improving the health, safety and wellbeing of America must include helping the middle class protect their credit scores. Yes, I am referencing to credit scores, because credit is used to help purchase and build America. Let's talk about the 1994 Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act. How about the PRWORA law that allows States to seize assets, revoke drivers licenses and resale the driver a lesser license just so they can go to work? Do these laws help or hurt the middle class? Do they help the family? How about jail time and the International Reciprocating Law? Are these laws helping with our social problems; or were they established as a decoy for cash $ income streams? How are these systems helping our National Child Poverty rates?

So lets' talk a little more about credit. Our life line; that's what credit here in America means. It's our life line. We use credit to buy our homes, rent our apartments. To get great paying jobs so that we can build our

"Dream business". We protect it with our very life, because in many ways it is. Your credit tells others who you are. Where you've been; and perhaps where you are trying to go. Good credit says, "I can be trusted". So, if we can agree that our Credit is that important, than we must find better ways to protect what decision maker see on our credit report. Think about it....why should a high paying Banker thrust any one that won't take financial care for their children? You don't pay your own bills so how can I trust you will manage my client's money? How about a CPA job that requires an understanding of the Company's profit and lost, control of the business assets; will they be trusted? Sounds crazy right, but it happens every day. Your credit is who you are "right now". People lose out on many great opportunities to get good jobs, receive promotions or even receive an invitation to interview for jobs. And it's all because what is written on their credit report. Perhaps Employers (the decision makers) do not understand that because of the Family Court's process, most child support cases start in arrears. That there may be a good reasons that the parent fall behind in their payment. There is no room on the credit report for this type of information to be considered. The Full Faith Credit act

P.L. 103-403 requires child support be reported to the Small Business

Administration, which include any payment of delinquencies that are more than 60 days past due. Will this law help a person obtain a business loan or hurt them? If the answer is yes it can help, than it's a great law. If the answer is no or I don't know... than this law should be rethought to conclude an absolute yes. Parents that pay child support through Family Court must have the same rights and privileges as parents that are not in the system. If not, this law can be viewed as discriminatory and very unfair.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is called the "federalization "of state domestic relations Law. This legislative law derived from recommendations from the U.S Commission, and its members; which are the private bar, the judiciary, the IV-D community, State human services agencies, advocacy groups, the federal bureaucracy and

The U.S Congress. ; Its' an all in this thing together group. Its task was to laid out and recommend to congress ways to improve interstate child support, including changes to (URESA) Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. This was suggested when a parent and child do not reside in the same state. Their recommendations introduce legislation for our "State Case Registry and a " New Hire Directory ("Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders" and the "National Directory

of New Hires"). According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services guide lines

Under PRWORA, States could implement tough child support enforcement techniques. The law expanded wage garnishment, allows all states to seize assets, permitted States to require community service as a penalty in some case, and enable States to revoke driver's and professional license for parents who owe delinquent child support. This change would be what President Ford was concern about over 20 years ago when he signed the H.R 17045 part D of the title IV bill into law. That this would be "injecting the Federal Government into domestic relation", this is his quote. In pursuit of this objection; however, certain provisions of this legislation go too far, because it injects the Federal Government into domestic relations. Specifically, the provisions for use of the Federal Courts, the tax collection procedures of the Internal Revenue Service, and excessive audit requirements are undesirable and an unnecessary intrusion of the Federal Government into domestic relations. That in fact might have been only a concern back then, but now it is our reality.

Child Support Enforcement and Driver's License Suspension Polices a Congressional Research Service dated April 11, 2011 by Carmen Solomon-fears ( submitted to The House Ways and Means Committee) looks into CSE Federal-state program whose mission is " enhance the well - being of children ", by helping custodial parents obtain financial support for their children from the noncustodial parent. As a condition of receiving Federal CSE funds, Congress requires each State to have effect laws, requiring the use of a specified list of collection / enforcement to increase the effectiveness of

The State's CSE program. P.L. 104-193. The 1996 Welfare Reform Law added to the CSE program's an array of collection /enforcement methods by giving States the authority to withhold , suspend, or restrict the drivers' License for certain noncustodial parents . According to this report recent

data indicate that about 5% of the United States population who work use public transportation to get to their jobs, 76% commuted to work in private vehicles, and 11% carpool ( 86% drove or is driven) the other 8% walked , use bicycles, rode on motorcycles, or work at home. So this new law has cast a net; over 86% of our Country's working-class need a way to get the work, in order to pay their child support and to financial support themselves. Proponents for the law resolve that license suspension is an appropriate tool to motivate noncustodial parents, who can afford to pay child; but resist (oppose) the fact that paying meets or brings the noncustodial parent into compliance with their child support obligations. CSE can point to the fact that in 2009 $ 1.4 billion dollars was collected by using this method. Yes, that's $1 billion and 400 million dollars; however, opponents contend that for some low -income noncustodial parents who cannot meet their child support obligations, suspending their driving privilege only exacerbate their dire financial situation and may result in them losing a job because they cannot legally drive to work. It may also prevent them from effectively searching for a job. Not being able to get to work is not in the "best interest of the child", which is what this program was enacted to do. The CSE reply is "a simple one DMV can offer these noncustodial parents a lesser or restricted Driver's License; which must be purchase for a fee (of Course)), and should only be used to drive to work. Offering a restricted license is another way that States can receive additional income that does not have to be shared with the Federal Government. No one yet has reported the $ millions of dollars the States earn with these fees. The Federal Government hasn't mandated that this data be tract or released as of yet. Then there is a report conducted by The Mobility Agenda called "Access to Driving and License Suspension Policies for the Twenty-first Century Economy", dated June 2008. It states that economics require access to a reliable vehicle and valid Driver's License because it is vital to our economic security, strong communities and healthy economy. The impact of license suspension has a negative impact on communities because it translates into higher cost and reduces public services. It also has negative consequences for employers because they have fewer choices to choose from when interviewing for available job opening. As I said $ 1.4 billion was collected in 2009 from suspension of Driver's License; however, there was another $ 3.7 billion collected in the same year from professional and recreational licenses, property liens, car boots , posting security bonds, electronic monitoring (ankle bracelets), passport Denial and of course incarceration.

Time To Go To Jail

The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (CSRA) Public Law no. 102-521 (revised 2/97) this legislative law

makes the willful failure to pay child obligation with the respect to a child residing in a another state a Federal Offense . The F.B.I has the primary investigatory jurisdiction over these cases and the Health and Human services have been given authority to investigate violations. This is according to a February

25, 1997 memorandum to all United States Attorneys from the Attorney General. It notes "The following policies and procedures are intended to ensure effective prosecution of the CSRA by providing a means for selecting egregious" (outstanding bad, shocking) cases which states are unable to handle because of the interstate nature of the case. Elements of the offense must prove; having the ability to pay, did willfully fail to pay, a known past due (child) support obligation which has remained unpaid for a longer than one year or is an amount greater than $ 5,000 for a child who resides in another state. However, the CSRA defines "past due support obligation" as any amount and not the $5,000 that was suggested by the Statute. Prosecution screening criteria include reasonable available remedies have been exhausted; a pattern of flight from State to State to avoid payment or flight after service of process for contempt or contempt hearing or a pattern of deception to avoid payment, such as changing employment, concealing assets or location and or social security numbers; and failure to make support payments after being held in contempt, etc.

Right To A Jury Trial

A first violation of the CSRA is considered a Class "B"; Misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail. As a "petty offense" there is no right to a trial by jury. An FYI: other "Class "B" misdemeanors may include, self - abortion in the second degree, reckless endangerment of property and tempering with a juror in a second degree and prostitution. A second or subsequent violation of the CSRA is considered an "E" felony with a maximum sentence of 2 years in jail. If this is the case, the right to for a trail-by -jury would attach. FYI: other "Class "E" felonies may include; reckless assault of a child by a "child daycare provider"; vehicular assault in the second degree; promoting a suicide attempt and criminally negligent homicide. Sentencing guidelines do not apply to a first violation of the CSRA, because it is considered a Class "B" misdemeanor. With respect to a second or subsequent

Violation of the CSRA, the sentencing guidelines are applicable; however, no guidelines for this offense exist. Therefore, sentencing should be based on the most analogous (comparable or make clearer) offense; which is theft.

Possible Defenses

Ex Post Facto; a law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed. Increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or change the rules of evidence to make conviction easier.

The Constitution prohibits the making of law; i.e. application of the statue. Whether an arrearage in the amount of $ 5,000 accrued after the enactment of the CSRA, or an obligation remain unpaid for a period of one year commencing after the enactment of the statue; etc.

Additional Information About Jail Time

At the introduction of this book I stated that there is eleven percent (11%) of parents that don't pay their court ordered child support. Five percent (5%) of them don't pay because they can't afford to pay (in jail, no job; etc.). That leaves six percent (6%) of parents that refuse to pay their court ordered child support. Now, if that number is even close to being actual, or true than we must stop right here, and look closer to understand why the F.B.I. is assigned "the primary lead" in interstate unpaid child support. This is a hard sell for me; all paths are already closed. In 1996, the National Directory of New hires was mandated; which track all delinquent parents across any State line. It also requires that employers report information on all new hires to State Agencies for transmittal to the NDNH. We have computerized statewide collection laws that require states to establish central registries of child support orders, as well as centralize collection and disbursement units. We have private collection companies, income tax withholding, Federal and State income tax offset units, Driver's license, professional and recreational license suspension policies in place and property liens, unemployment compensation intercept. Did I miss any? I'm sure I did; and I'm also sure that they did not. The fact is that there's nowhere in this Country that anyone can go to avoid paying their Court ordered child support for their biological child (or for non-biological child support; Parents keep reading), which is a good thing. It is in the "best interest of the child" to have that support payment.

Child Support Collection Reporting Discrepancies / Inter- Counties & Interstate

So let's refer to the Government Accountability office (GAO) report to congress dated February 25, 1992 titled "Wage withholding not fulfilling expectation". It highlights the effectiveness of legislative requirement for interstate wage withholding of child support payments. It focus on: procedures, uniformity of procedures among States; the time it take to serve a wage withholding on an employer and factors contributing to processing time .GAO found that procedures lack uniformity among States and among Offices within States; delays in wage withholding exist, because offices improperly couple their request for wages withholding with other such Congressional mandated enforcement remedies like; remedies as medical support, modification of child support award levels ,interception of tax refund check, etc.. Wage withholding report median response times ranged from 6 to 16 weeks, but reports from responding offices took a median of 12 to 26 weeks to respond to a request. I'm sure that some of those problem have been fixed sent ; however, I can't help notice that in this GAO case study the GAO did not find any evidence that parents moved to another State to avoid paying child support. The fact that was found was the States inability to organize itself to accomplish its goal to collect Interstate child support money in a timely fashion. I was personally involved in a case where the County my children moved from would not release my case. So, when my children moved there was major delays before they received their Court ordered child support. The Judge in my case had to make several calls to the prior jurisdiction asking, and then demanding that they release my case or he (the Judge) would have to take action against that Court (the prior jurisdiction). In the interim, both I and my children mother were told that I could not pay any money privately or in cash, because all money must be process throw the Family Court System. This case took over a year to complete. Both I and my children's Mother were unhappy; but there was nothing we could do but wait. Waiting for a year did two things, 1) hurt my children and their Mom financially; and 2) made me pay more money in interest. According to "The Child Support Recovery Act law" I could have went to jail, because at that time, I lived in a different State from my children. I was not running away from my obligation to pay my child Support. I just was not allowed to pay it because the two Counties was not working together to do what was in the best interest of my children. It was more important to the prior County to keep my money on their accounting ledger, than to release it to pay my child support.

There may be another reason why some noncustodial parents choose to flee and not pay their Court ordered child support. If they've proven by taking a DNA test that the child that was initially believed to be their biological child, in fact is not their child, they (the noncustodial parent ) find it immoral to have to support someone else child. These are factual reasons and must to considered a genuine reason why some don't and won't pay someone else child support obligation. Nevertheless, fleeing a State is not the solution to this problem; that answer must come from our United States Congress, who has the power to change the Law.

Incarcerated Parents

So what is the cost to incarcerate a parent? Does the cost justify the means? The first fact is you have just incarcerated a parent for not paying their Count Ordered Child Support. That parent will lose their freedom, and after they serve their time in jail they will still have to pay their child support plus interest and penalties . When they get out they will have to find a place to live and a new job, in most cases.

Can they start to pay their support order right away? Now let's consider the cost to incarcerate them. Looking at two different States, the 1st (first) is California . In California the cost to incarcerate an inmate in prison in 2008-2009 was $ 47, 102, a year (annually). That cost include $ 19, 663 for security; inmate health care, $ 12,442, facility Operations, $ 7, 214, Administration, $ 3,493, Inmate support (food , clothing, religious activities) $ 2,562, Rehabilitation programs , $ 1, 612 and Miscellaneous $ 116. Over two-thirds of the cost is for security and inmate care. The 2nd (second) State is New York; according to the Gov/Policy areas report, it cost $ 60,000 a year per inmate . So, who pay the cost to incarcerate offenders of the law? Right, "The tax payers do". So, who benefits from this law the most? Not the tax payers or the families that are owed Child support payments. Yes, State employees that work for the jails benefits. This law feeds their families but not the one it was enacted to feed . Think about it..... who would spend $ 60,000 to collect a $ 5,000 debt? This math does not add up. This is an important fact!

Child Support Laws And Its Impact On Poverty

In one of the most famous speeches ever made about poverty was made by our 32nd President D Franklin Roosevelt declared , " I see one third of the nation ill housed, I'll clad, ill nourished." Around the same time Sociologist Donald Hernandez applied 50% of the median income poverty line to contemporary census data; he found that the percentage of the population living below this level was 32%. In 1963, our 36th President Lyndon Johnson announced his " war on Poverty" campaign and asked economist Mollie Orshanshy to develop the first official United States poverty line. Again, the idea that poverty should be defined in relative terms was not intended, and Orshanshy drew the line at a fix number of dollars. But the Census Bureau data for 1963 show that the ' Orshanshy line" of $ 300 for a family or $ 1500 for an individual corresponded to approximately 50% of the median US income at the time . In 1974 Lee Rainwater, another leading figure in the history of poverty studies, brought together a range of public opinion surveys and family budget studies to show that , at every point since the 1930s , the American public's view of the income required to stay above the poverty line has remained close to 50% of national median income. According to a UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) Report , "Measuring child Poverty" (a New league tables of child poverty in the world's rich Counties. And Report card 10); the United States General Social Survey for 1993, for example, reported that on average the American public thought that a family of four would be below the poverty line if it's income fell below $ 17,658 ( in 1993 dollars) this turns out to be 48% of the US median household income for that year. An example of how to determine median incomes is as follows: Family # 1 makes $ 100 weekly, Family # 2 makes $ 200 weekly, Family # 3 makes $ 300 weekly, Family # 4 makes $ 400 weekly , and Family #5 makes $ 500 weekly. You'd add up the income for each (all) families. You'd get the total of $ 1500 than divide it by 5; since there are 5 families in this example. $ 300 would be the median income. So families #1, #2 would below the poverty line.

Since, the mid 1970s children under 18 years old has been much more likely than adults to be poor. Being raised in poverty places, children are at higher risk for a wide range of problems. "Child Trends Data Bank" research indicates that poor children are disproportionately exposé to factors that may impair brain development, and affect social and emotional development. Experiencing poverty is related to increased risk of negative health outcomes for young children and adolescents. Finally, growing up in poverty is associated with lower occupational status and lower wages. In the 1970s, the percentage of children living in poverty was on the rise at around fifteen percent (15%), and by the 1990s around twenty two percent (22%); and finally in in 2007 at eighteen percent ( 18%). Which is three percent (3%) higher over 30 years. Later than enacted during our first child support legislation. This is hard to understand because in year 1994 a lone child support collected over $ 7,311,117,304 and our child poverty rate was at 22% according to HHS office of child support enforcement. Yes, that's $7 billion ,311 million 117 thousand and 304 dollars; with not much impact to our child poverty levels.

So, how are we defining poverty here, and around the world? UNICEF defines it as eating three meal a day; at least one meal a day with meat, chicken or fish, or a vegetarian equivalent, and fresh fruit and vegetables; Books suitable for the child age and knowledge level (not including schoolbooks);

outdoor leisure equipment such as bicycles for regular leisure activities and/or indoor games and money to participate in school trips and events; quiet place with enough room and light to do homework; internet connection; some new clothes, not second hand. Two pairs of properly fitted shoes, an opportunity from time to time to invite friends home to play and eat. The opportunity to celebrate special occasion, such birthdays or religious events . Fourteen (14) items are taken into consideration. So, how does the U.S. child poverty rate match up to many other Industrialize Nations? This answer is surprising according to UNICEF .

In a report on Child poverty , 35 economically advance Countries with children ages from 0 to 17 years old that are living in relative poverty, defined as living in a household in which disposable income , when adjusted for family size and composition , is less than 50% of the national median income . Children in each Country who are deprived, lacking two or more of the 14 items considered normal and necessary for a child in an economically advanced Country . The OECD goal is 10% or less. The Number

# I leading country that has the lowest child poverty rate out of all 35 economically Countries is Iceland which is at 4.7 %; followed by Finland at 5.3% . Czech Republic is #10 on the list at 7.3% . At # 20 is New Zealand at 11.7% . #30 place is Greece at 16.0% . USA is in #34 place at 23%; fellow by last place

Romania at 35.5%. Wow, how is that possible? The USA has the highest GDP (the monetary valve of all finish goods and services produced within a Country Borders in a specific time period) of all industrialize Nation on this list. May be, it's our commitment to fixing our social problem of child poverty. As is mentioned in this report "a commitment to protecting children from poverty is therefore more than a slogan or a routine inclusion in a political manifesto, it is the hallmark of a civilize society ".

The level you pay and how that money is spent can be just as important as how much you spent on child poverty .

The Need To Improve Issues Around Child Support

Judging by the percentage of a Countries GDP, the United States, Lithuania , Latvia, Greece and Malta spent a little more than 1% of their Countries GDP on cash benefits, tax breaks and services for children and families. Their Spending on children and families is running well below the OECD average; However, Countries like France (3.6% ),The United Kingdom (3.5%) and Sweden (3.2%)spent twice as much of their GDP on the same services. The OECD points out the there is a strong relationship between resources

expended and results achieved. Setting a child poverty goal for the Country is the first step in

combating this large social problem. A goal must be observable and measurable and results having one or more objectives to be achieved within a more or less fixed time frame. Countries that have a written commitment to reducing child Poverty are as follows: Ireland , the United Kingdom and 27 European Union Countries. However, as of yet the United States does not have a written commitment to child poverty for our Country , but in 1995 invited the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address this problem. We are in year 2015 and still waiting for a response. I believe that the official poverty line and the setting goals to meet that commitment to reduce our child poverty in this Country is the

Responsible of the Executive Office of the our 44th President Barack Obama (source is UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Report Card 10); Implications For Public Policy (reported by Trends Child Research Brief) provides possible options for policymakers to consider as they approach the task of reducing child poverty in this Country should include, "Building on the success of the welfare-to-work initiatives". When these programs include financial Incentives for finding , keeping ,and holding a job, both employment and family Improves.

Maintain financial work supports and reduce the marriage penalty within the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The number of poor children who have working parents has increased substantially since expansion of the EITC and passage of the federal welfare law. Programs that help make work

Pay for parents and help their children as well . An estimate 2.4 million children were lifted out of poverty by the EITC in year 2003. Support efforts to strengthen marriages and decrease births to teens and unmarried women. Data indicates that children born to unmarried parents and living in single-parents households are more likely to be poor than those being raised in two-parent households. In 2007, children living in households headed by single mothers were more than 5 times as likely as children living in households headed by married parents to be living in poverty; the percentage is 42.9 % compared to 8.5% . Redouble efforts to promote child support enforcement , job training , and

Father involvement . One study estimated that, in 1996, child support lifted about half million children out of poverty . When families receive welfare, many States have polices requiring that some or all of the child support payments by the non-resident parents go to the government . A child support demonstration program in Wisconsin that allowed all child support to go directly to the child's family resulted in a modest increase in the percentage of fathers who support their children financially. And a small increase in the average amount of child support that these families received, compared with a group of welfare households that received a reduced amount . Some evidence from non-experimental research studies suggests that nonresident fathers who provide financial support are more likely to be involved In their children lives. A note of caution is important here : research finds that many nonresident fathers do not provide financial support to their children not necessarily because they are " deadbeat" dads, but because they are not able to do so financially. Job training coupled with other services may help to Improve their employment prospects and thus their ability to pay support.

What else works? Early childhood education; education is an important tool in fighting poverty in any age group. You remember that old saying, " An ounce of provision is better than a pound of cure " this saying still hold true today . A report from the University of Maine "Children and the brain Development, What we know about how children learn "suggest that child psychologist is given a new directive. The age range they work with is increasing from 0-18 to 0-25. Scientist have determine that the neurons for a child's vision begins sending messages back and forth rapidly at age 2 to 4 months and intense at 8 months old. Language is acquired most easily during the first 10 years of life and stress can become toxic when a child has frequent or prolonged experiences like abuse, neglect or poverty without adult support. In another report by " Making connections: how children learn" evidence on this topic was found, as well.

What Role Do Families And Communities Play?

What role do families and Communities play: as few as twenty years ago scientist believed that the genes we were born with wholly determine the structure of our brains. The fact recently discovered by neurologists and psychologists, however , prove that how children develop, learn , and grow depends on the critical and continual interplay between nature ( or genetic endowment ) and nurture, ( the surrounding care, stimulation, and teaching received) and , according to Rima Shore and the families and work institute. Both of these influences are crucial . Head start, early Head start, and even

Start literacy centers all over the Country can help. Other examples of what scientists are considering include "Rethinking the brain ( reported also by making connections ) Reports; Old thinking... How a brain develops depends on the genes you are born with ; New thinking ... How a brain hinges on complex interplay between the genes you're born with and the experience you have; Old thinking ... The experience you have at a very young age, have little impact on later development ; New thinking ... Early experience have a decisive impact on the architecture of the brain and the nature and intent of adult capacities; Old thinking ... A secure relationship with a primary care giver creates a favorable context for early childhood development and learning ; New thinking ... Early interactions don't just create a context , they directly affect the way the brain is " wired" ; Old thinking ... Brain development is linear. ( progressing from one stage to another in a single series of steps, Sequential) the brain capacity to learn, and Change grows steadily as an infant progress toward adulthood ; New thinking ... Brain development is non-linear . There are prime time for acquiring different kinds of knowledge and skills.

Old thinking ... A toddler's brain is much less active than the brain of a college student;

New thinking ... by the time children reach the age of three, their brains are twice as active as those if adults. Activity drops during adolescence .

In accordant with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 the office of child support enforcement has formed Collaboration with the National head start association who is one of the leaders in child early education. In 2010, head start and early head start has received $ 7.2 billion dollars in direct federal grants to local organizations to provide services to low-income children and their families to promote school readiness for children from birth through kindergarten . $ 5 billion dollars went to the Office of Child Care for grants to States to help subsidize child care for low-income working families . $ 1.2 billion dollars went to the Office of Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Program for grants to States to subsidize before -and after -school programs for children at low -performing schools . $ 1 billion dollars went to The Office of Special Education Programs For IDEA ( individuals with Disabilities Education Act) provides , in part grants to States and other entities to provide early intervention, special education, and related services to eligible infants, toddlers, children , and youths with disabilities. These programs are among many programs that the Federal Government have funded to reduce child poverty in this county; proving that they are committed to protecting our children from poverty.

How Well Is The State & Federal Government Programs Working ?

(GAO) The United States Government Accountability office answers that question in a February 2012 report to The Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S Senate; entitled, "Early Child Care And Education".

What GAO found was that paid early care and education (ECCE) workforce was made up of approximately 1.8 million workers in a range of positions , most of whom had relatively low levels of education and income, according to Census's 2009 American Community Survey data. Nearly half of all the child care workers had a high school degree or less, as did 20 percent of preschool teachers. Average yearly income ranged from $ 11,500 for a "Child Care Worker", working in a child's home to $ 18,000 for a "Preschool Teacher". Experts and government officials alike agreed that better educated and trained ECCE workers are more effective than those with less education and training . They also noted the need for more comprehensive workforce data to provide Valuable insight into worker characteristics and critical data gaps. HHS and Education have taken steps to encourage the collection of State-level data and working with Federal Agencies to improve workforce data collected nationally and States are using training , scholarships, and other activities to improve ECCE worker quality. To date Federal and State governments spend billions of dollars each year to improve ECCE programs;

Including the quality of its caregivers and teachers because the importance of this workforce and the Federal investment in it. The way I see it , this is not a case of lack of financial commitment by our Government, but rather a lack of a good plan or written goal to reduce child poverty by Using what has been agreed on by Many scientist, Psychologist , UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre and many world renown analytical educational institutions and groups.

A Reasonable Request

One of the best ways to reduce child poverty is to educate our children at a young age; and they will help break the cycle of poverty in their own lives and that of generations to come. Our government is on the right track by funding those educational Programs. Their purpose is to significantly improve child poverty in this Country; however, they must demand measurable results from the "Educational Institutions", who receive the tax payer's hard earned money. We, the tax payers are paying for a service, and we want what's in the best interest of our children. Putting billions of dollars in pockets that have holes is not the answer; we (the tax payers)are looking for accountability and results. This is a serious and very costly fact.

International Reciprocating

Making interchange; by moving alternately backward and forward between Countries is a way to collect child support aboard. So, how does it work? International child support is a relatively recent and evolving area of law; therefore, enforcement may be a bit tricky. Nevertheless, it is possible in many cases. The Child Support Enforcement program was enacted in 1975 as a Federal -State child support program, under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. However , there was no mandate in the program that covered international arrangements for child support until 1996. Now , under 42. U.S.C. 659(A) , foreign countries can declare " reciprocating Countries "; if they have established their own procedures for child support, among some other requirements. What this means is that the United States has many reciprocal agreements with other Countries for enforcement of each respective Country's child support order. For a domestic parent who wants to make a claim for international child support, the claim typically starts with the State's Child Support Agency. Once this claim is filed, the Country with a reciprocal agreement (where the other parent is located), will then have a designated agency carry out the enforcement of child support; following the local support enforcement laws in that Country. However, the CSE programs currently have reciprocal agreements regarding child support enforcement with about twenty six (26) Countries; according to the Congressional Research Service for Congress . So, if the parent you are seeking international child support lives in a Country with no reciprocal agreement, the next step may be to obtain a child support order from him or her by doing so in that foreign Country. You may be able to hire an experienced child support attorney or perhaps even an international law attorney who can aid you in this process. But unfortunately, not all Countries have child support laws ; ( reported by Betty Wang Oct , 2 , 2013 from the FindLaw Life, Family and workplace Law Blog.)

Here is the list of foreign reciprocating Counties (FRCs) that operate under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act 88. Stat. 2351 of 1975

Alberta... British Columbia...Manitoba ...New

Brunswick...Newfoundland/Labrador...Northwest Territories...Nova Scotia...

Nunavut ... Ontario ... Prince Edward Island (PEI) ... Saskatchewan ... Yukon... Czech Republic... El Salvador ... Finland... Hungary... Ireland... Israel... Netherlands ... Norway... Poland... Portugal... Slovak... Switzerland ... The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Currently this method of collecting child support serves 1% to 3% of international child support collections cases; which is a better option than we had previously, which was zero. However, the good news is there is a better provision coming with the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ( 2008), and Hague Treaty Provisions. Once this agreement is ratified ( to confirm by expressing consent, approval or formal sanction), it will model after our own domestic Enforcement of collecting child support, with few expect ions . High lights of the Hague Convention Treaty on Recovery of International Child Support and H.R. 1896 (reported by Congressional Research Service , July 15, 2013 by Carmen Solomon-Fears) include, custodial parent or child jurisdictional rights . The Convention provides flexibility for a U.S. Court having jurisdiction over the noncustodial parent to establish a new order in circumstances where U.S. jurisdictional requirements were not met in the Country issuing the initial order that is sought to be enforced, "Coordinated Expedited Enforcement". Central authorities will be required to receive and transmit applications for services through administrative cooperation; the authorities will facilitate the transfer of documents and case information using Electronic technology where feasible.... "Cost to access services". No cost or low cost access to CSE services in other Countries; it will be cost free to U.S. Citizens needing assistance with child support enforcement in a contracting Country. However, a few Countries are required (by their own internal procedures) to assess fees for these CSE services ( fees must to minimal ) ... No change to States' Authority over Child Support Law Issues. UIFSA ( Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ) will not affect intrastate or interstate CSE cases in the U.S. they will only affect cases where the custodial parent and child live in one contracting Country and the noncustodial parent lives in another contracting Country.

Once the Treaty is enforced it will apply to cases between Countries that are party to the Treaty. This new multilateral child support law, just like our domestic child support law here in the U.S will require the Secretary of HHS to use Federal and , if necessary , State child support enforcement methods to ensure compliance with any United States Treaty. And obligations associated with any multilateral child support convention to which the United States is a party. There are no new tools here just the tried and proven methods of establishing paternity to collecting the child support debt.

The following programs, organizations and agencies will take place in the Treaty: The Federal Parent Locator Service; the National Directory of New Hires; the Federal Case Registry; the Federal Offset program; the Federal Administrative offset Program; the Passport Denial Program ; and the Multi State Financial institution Data Match, a program that allows child support agencies a means of locating financial assets of individuals owing child support. The Treaty will also allow States an option to require individuals in foreign Countries to apply for child support services through their own Country's Appropriate central authority.

Uniform Interstate Family Act and Child Support

How do the Uniform Interstate Family Act ( UIFSA )2008 and the treaty differ from current law?

Under UIFSA 2008, State child support agencies will no longer be obliged to provide child support services to absolutely anyone who applies from any other Country, as is required under current law. The Treaty permits States to reject applications for services from Non- Treaty Countries. So, it will be State's option to continue to provide universal child support enforcement services to everyone. The Treaty provides a longer time period for a parent to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a support order. The period is extended in recognition of the international residence of parties. The Treaty provides that if a tribunal ( a court of justice) does not recognize a Treaty support order, because there was a lack of Personal jurisdiction , and the debtor is a resident of the State , it will take all appropriate measure to establish an enforceable support order.

UIFSA 2008 includes new provision that incorporate these Treaty requirements into UIFSA . All of these requirements were supported by the U.S. delegation during the negotiation of the Treaty. It is also important to highlight what the Treaty does not do. The Treaty does not change existing UIFSA provisions and U.S. law regarding personal jurisdiction, due process protections of notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and application of U.S. law concerning enforcement of the order. There are budgetary differences between the two programs, as well. While our domestics child support laws and our international child support laws are under the Statutory Pay-as-You-Go Act ( Pay-Go Act, Title I pub.L. 111-139 H.J. Res.45, enacted on February 12, 2010, is a public law used in Congress from 1990 until 2002, ensuring that most new spending is offset by spending cuts or added revenue elsewhere ) , our domestic child support have Federal budgetary funding and block grants for all of its many programs. Examples:

Under P.L. 112-34, is a primary emphasis on activities designed to improve casework retention, recruitment, training , and ability to access the benefits of technology , etc. $ 40,000,000 million for fiscal year 2007; $ 35,000,000 million for fiscal year 2008; $ 30.000,000 million for fiscal year 2009, and so on. The 1996 welfare reform law set aside 1% of the Federal share of retained child support collections for Information Dissemination and technical assistance to States (including technical assistance related to automate systems) training of State and Federal staff, Staffing studies and related activities needed to improve the CSE Program. An addition 2% of the Federal share of retained child support collections is set aside for the operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). Yes, Part D of title IV of the Social Security Act is a vase system. In 2002 this combined Federal and State program employed over 61,797 employees. To name a few, Chief Magistrates (Judicial Branch ) makes over

$140,000 annually; Assistance Director of child support services earns between $ 93,000 - $ 114,000. Attorneys between $ 90,000 - $ 145,000. Child Support Officers earn between $ 34,000 - $ 52,000, and there are many other salaried positions paid through the system.

Recommendation For A Viable Child Support System

Finally, now that we have looked into our child support system, how it works and how it has evolved. I think it's also very important to look into fixing "what is ailing", this great impactful social financial recovery child support system". So, first let's talk about paternity, because it is so vital to this system. Paternity is the beginning or first thing that is required by law, and it must be Established. The standard of only using a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test to prove paternity, since it is the only 100% proven way to evidence paternity, in cases where there is a question about who is the father of a child. The old ways must be repealed (revoke or withdraw). This process (repeal process) can only start with Paul Ryan of the 114 Congress; he is the Chairman of the Unite States Committee on Ways and Means who has the judicial powers to change our Social Security Act laws. The Committee derives a large share of its jurisdiction from Article I, Section VII of the U.S. Constitution which declares, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative"

So, how can we replace a child support law that generates Hundreds of millions of dollars and benefits so many people? The answer is Very carefully

1.Start from the beginning with a DNA paternity. Enact a law that establishes only DNA as proof of paternity; which means that going forward all new cases will start here.

2.Enact a law that will allow all current cases to be reviewed for DNA accuracy. Cases that are found to be inaccurate (the father is not the biological father of a child) should be referred to Federal Parent Locator Service. This service is already Federally funded to find the correct child parent; so it would be appropriate the use the FBI to lead finding absent parents. The debt of child support can and should be transferred to the correct parent's account and not the person that was wrongfully identified and has been paying for a child that is not his, and never will be his child.

3.Offer the custodial parent a way to help find who that correct father is by allowing them without penalties to still receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits( TANF) or take part of their payment to help fund Federal Parent locator service. Parents that are not on TANF can also have their payment reduce for a time until they can help find their correct child father. And part of their payment will also help to fund federal Parent Locator service.

4.Once the rightful biological parent is found than the wrongfully identified biological parent will be set free with all debt paid in full. That means all records will be expunged; DMV, credit bureau reporting, bank liens and etc., will reflect a zero balance and that person will receive a letter from child support terminating their court ordered child support and will be free to live their lives. However, once the biological father is found he will be subject to all governing rules of Part D of title IV of the Social Security Act with all of its penalties and increase.

These recommendations are in compliance with the "2010 Statutory Pay As You Go Act"; and do not add any cost to the Social Security Act budget; nor does it take any cost out. There is another resource to fix this problem; it's called an "Executive Order". This is a rule or order executed by the President of the United States to an Executive Branch of the Government, and it carries the influence and weigh of law. An Executive Order was given by Bill Clinton, our 42ndPresident to enact the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996"; which includes the "Streamline Paternity Establishment Law". So, an Executive Order can now be used by our 44th President, Barack Obama (presently seated) to fix or correct that part of the law that isn't in the best interest of our children, or our families. We do not need to appoint parents Mr. President, nor do we need their (an appointed parent) money; the biological parent will due.

Who Are You Asking?

To find a solution to a problem is it better to ask the right question, to get the right answer? Or is it best to ask the right person to get an answer to that important question? I believe the latter answer will serve you best. So, how come no one is asking our "Elected Government Officials", these very

important questions about, "Child Support Laws ". Can you image asking someone who is running for the Senate Seat or even a candidate that is running for the highest office in the land, i.e." The President of the United States a question in front of a millions of voters, questions like:

•Should a parent that supports (financially) their Child have the right to receive a monthly financial statement, showing what they've paid child support?

•Can parents who pay child support have 24 hours access into their own account with balance included?

•Should a parent who supports their Child financially have the privilege of claiming their child as a depended come tax time; they are the ones who is supporting that child financially, right?

•Should a parent that support their child financially; but owe arrears be given the benefit of receiving part of the government family stimulus money, when it is sent to their family?

•Should a parent that support their child (financially), receive credit for money that was intercepted by one of the "Tax Offset Units". In cases where child support funds was made, but not given to the Child and / or custodial parent until six month or a year later. Which results in the non-custodial parent owing more money because of the interests and penalties that accrue?

If the people that elect the government officials ask or demand answers; I'm certain that answers to those questions and many others regarding the affairs of child support will be answered. If not, we (the people) should elect some one that can? No conspiracies here; just do what's in the best interest of the children.

###

Thank you for reading my book. If you enjoyed it, please leave a review at your favorite retailer.

Thanks!

James Street

# About the Author

I was inspired to write "The Child Support Conspiracy" because like so many people in America, I found myself separated from my children. I wanted the best possible financial support for them, so, I turned to the United States family court for help. In fact, I demand that their Mom file as soon as possible. What I found out was our Family Court System, The United States Family Court System was broken. No one there seem to care about my children, their mother or me. How could this be, it is called "Family Court", right? Their motto is "Improving the Health, Safety and Well-Being of America". Does not that imply that families are important? I was raised to believe that as a parent, I must do my part in supporting my children. And that's what I set out to do.

The turmoil began a few months after I was in the Family Court System. I received a garnishment on my pay check, for child support funds that I already paid directly to my children's Mom. When I called the Child Support Collection Unit to inquire, their response was "if you was paying your child support, we would not have taken it from you". It took a decade to understand what really was going on there; but it's clear now. It's not about my children or yours, it's about the millions of dollars that are made off the backs of working Middle-Class Americans. This is not an assumption, it is a fact. This is a Child Support Conspiracy.

James Street, Author

Follow me on http://Twitter@JcStreet2Street

Glossary of Terminology

* AFDC - Aid to families with Dependent children

* ARRA - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

* ASL. - Assistant Secretary for Legislation

* CBO - Congressional Budget Office

* CSE - Child Support Enforcement

* CSEC - Child Support Enforcement Council ( Privatization )

* CRS - Congressional Research Service

* DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid

* DSO - Domestic Support Obligation

* EQUST - Executive Office for U.S. Trustees

* FAOP - Federal Administrative Offset Program

* FBI. – Federal Bureau of Investigation

* FCR - Federal Case Registry

* FOP - Federal Offset Program

* FPLS - Federal Parent Locator Service

* FRC - Foreign Reciprocating Countries

* FRS - Foreign Reciprocating States

* GAO - Government Accountability Office

* HHS - Department of Health and Human Services

* MSFIDM - Multi-State Financial Institution Data match

* NCSCA - National Child Support Enforcement Association

* NCCUSL - National Conference on Uniform State Laws

* HDNH - National Directory of New Hires

* NDR - National Drivers Register

* National Head Start Association

* OCSE - Office of Child Support Enforcement

* OIG - Office of Inspector General

* PAYGO - Pay - As -you- Go Act

* PCA - Private Collection Agencies

* PDP - Passport Denial Program

* PRWORO - Reconciliation Act of 1996

* SCR - State Case Registry

* SEMS - Support Enforcement Management System

* TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

* UDU - Undistributed Child Support

* UIFSA - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

* URESA - Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Support Act

Author's Resources

The Government accountable office - the audit, evaluation , and investigative

Arm of congress exists to support congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people . GAO examines the use of public Funds , evaluates , recommendations , and other assistance to help congress make informed oversight , policy, and funding decision, GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core valves of accountability , integrity and reliability .

Documents/ Articles:

(GAO) Feasibility of collecting Fees for Child Support Services. ( June 2001) .

(GAO) Child Support Enforcement and Driver's License

Suspension Policies. ( by Carmen Solomon - Fears, April 11, 2011)

(GAO) Hague Convention Treaty on Recovery of International Child Support and H.R. 1896. ( by Carmen Solomon - Fears , Specialist in Social Policy and

Alison M. Smith, Legislative Attorney. July 15, 2013)

(GAO) Bankruptcy and Child Support Enforcement. Improved Information Sharing Possible without Routine Data Matching . (Report to Congressional Committees January 2008)

(GAO) Child Support Enforcement . States' Experience with Private Agencies' Collection of Support Payments. ( GAO/HEHS-97-11)

Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections are Needed (GAO-04-377, March 2004)

Most States Collect Driver's SSNs and Use them to Enforce Child Support

( GAO- 02-239, February 15, 2002

States' Implementation of the 1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments ( HRD-86-40BR, December 24, 1985)

Interstate child Support . Wage Withholding Not Fulfilling Expectations

( HRD-92-65BR, February 25, 1992)

Child Support Enforcement . Certification Process for State Information Systems. ( AIM-98-134, June 15, 1998

(GAO) Early Child Care and Education. HHS and Education are Taking Steps to Improve Workforce Data and Enhance Worker Quality

GAO- 12-248, a report to the Chairman, Committee on finance, U.S. Senate

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre Florence . Report Card 10.

Measuring Child Poverty . New league tables of child poverty in the world's

rich counties. ( The Report Card 10 project was coordinated by the UNICEF

Office of Research Innocenti , and assisted by a panel of advisors and reviewers. Research was completed at the end of December 2011. Research and data analysis by Peter Adamson (independent consultant to UNICEF .

Jonathan Bradshew ( University of York) Yekaterina Chzhen ( University of Oxford) Gill Main ( University of York ) Bruno Martorano ( UNICEF office of Research Innocenti) Leonardo Menchini ( Chief , Social Policy, Monitoring and Evaluation, UNICEF Egypt, ( formerly UNICEF office Research Innocenti) Chris de Neubourg (Chief, Social and Economic Policy unit)

Trends child Research Brief . Children in Poverty: Trends, Consequences,

And Policy Options. (by Kristin Anderson Moore, Ph.D., Zakia Redd, M.P.P,

Mary Burkhauser, M.A, Kassim Mbwana, M.P.P and Ashleigh Collins, M.A.

April 2009)

Child Trends - Data Bank. Children in Poverty

Clasp - Center for Law and Social Policy. Ways and Means Committee Approves 40 Percent Cut in Child Support Funds. (By Vicki Turetsky )

Child Support Enforcement Council . A Message From the President

( David Conder ) ( www.csecouncil.org/misc/welcome/) ( privatization)

Lawyer.com .Your legal Solution Starts Here . Collecting Payments using Private Child Support Agencies.

U.S. Census Bureau- 2001 population Survey, 1998-2000 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Poverty in the

United States.

S.P.A.R.C- Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center . Child Support

Statistics : Myths, Legends and the American Way : Deadbeat dads

(HHS) Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement

(www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pub/2002/report/essentials/appendix_a.html)

(HHS) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - State Child Enforcement Private Agency ( PCA) Policy Matrix

( www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/resources/pca_matrix.html)

(HHS) The personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. ( Making Welfare a Transition To Work , Promoting Responsibility

(HHS) ASL Mission - The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation

(ASL) is responsible for the development and implementation of the Department's Legislative agenda.

(HHS) Office of Child Support Enforcement and Head Start Collaboration

(DCL-00-81, July 28, 2000 )

Find Law & Daily life. International Child Support : How Does it Work?

(by Betty Wang, JD on October 2, 2013

Fathers and Families - Private Child Support Collection Companies

( by Vicki Turetsky . Center for law and Social Policy)

Office of the Attorney General - Prosecutive Guidelines and Procedures for

The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 ( revised 2/97 )

State of Colorado Department of Law . Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Verified Bond Claim Form

( www.gao.gov/assets/230/223334.pdf)

City's Annual Cost Per Inmate is $ 168,000 , Study Finds.

( The New York Times August 24, 2013)

Criminal Justice and Judiciary - How Much does it cost to incarcerate an inmate ? ( California's Annual Cost Per Inmate in Prison )

(www.lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost)

National Head Start Association - Our mission is to coalesce , inspire , and support Head Start field as a leader in early childhood development and education .

DDC - DNA DIAGNOSTIC CENTER. Paternity Information Page

Everything fathers need to know and what the government fails to tell you!

(members.peak.org/~jedwards /paternity. HTML )

Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act of 2011 ( PAYGO- bill )

(John Thune U.S. Senator - South Dakota)

Federal Incentive Make Children Fatherless (by Phyllis Schlafty - May 11, 2005 )

