Federal Title IV 'Welfare' Part D 'Child Support' (Law) Education & Awareness

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Brick Layer, Jan 1, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CHILD SUPPORT) :rock:
    Statutes of limitations serve important purposes in our criminal justice system. Not only do they protect defendants from having to defend against stale claims, they pressure law enforcement officials to act promptly. The public is served by them in that wrongdoers are brought to justice more quickly. Also, an accused is less likely to be deprived of evidence or witnesses lost through the passage of time.


    Although the felony-nonsupport charge is related to an order of support pursuant to the support and parenting time act, it is a distinct criminal action.

    MCL 600.5809, this statute as a whole clearly applies only to civil actions, not criminal charges, and sets forth a ten-year period of limitations addressing support orders, a ten year period of limitations for civil claims seeking enforcement and collection of a non-contractual money obligation, the period of limitations is 10 years from the date that the last support payment is due under the support order.

    The Michigan legislature did not specify carrying a support arrearage as a means by which an individual could violate MCL 750.165(1). Because a person is subject to conviction and punishment each time the statue is violated, separate violation of the statute cannot constitute a single continuing offense. The legislature did not intend that a violation of MCL 750.165(1) continue until an individual's monetary support obligation is fully discharged.

    The CRIME of nonsupport under MCL 750.165(1) is complete at the time that an individual falls to pay the ordered amount at the ordered time, a prosecutor has only six years from that point in which to charge such violations.

    MCL 767.24[(5)] is the appropriate statutory limitations period for the criminal offense of not paying child support, "All other indictments shall be found and filed within 6 years after the offense is committed. [Emphasis added.]"

    PEOPLE v. MONACO
    FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions.
     
  2. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    Imputation of Income (Child Support)
    Actual resources of each parent factual assumptions... :wink_2:


    The Legislature directed that the formula be based on the children's needs and the actual resources of each parent.
    “The award of child support rests in the sound discretion of the trial court [and] . . . is presumed to be correct.” Morrison v Richerson, 198 Mich App 202, 211; 497 NW2d 506 (1992). The party challenging a child support order must demonstrate the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Kosch v Kosch, 233 Mich App 346, 350; 592 NW2d 434 (1999). But the proper application of the state friend of the court bureau’s child support formula, as required by the Legislature, is a question of law reviewed de novo. Paulson v Paulson, 254 Mich App 568, 571; 657 NW2d 559 (2002), citing Burba v Burba (After Remand)
    FindLaw's Supreme Court of Michigan case and opinions.

    Court Must Find Parent Capable of Working to Impute Income for Child Support Calculation
    In an unpublished decision released by the court of appeals on July 17, 2012, that court held that the trial court must find that a parent is actually capable of working before the court may impute income to the parent for the purposes of calculating and assessing child support.
    http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/Michiga...nt Opinions/11-12-Term-Opinions/141154-OP.pdf
     
  3. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    :eusa_doh::hmpf: :(
    Title IV-D of the Social Security Act does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D. Justice O'Connor wrote for the court that parents cannot sue merely because a state fails to be in "substantial compliance" with federal collection standards.
    Blessing v.Freestone
    {{meta.pageTitle}}

    Contemporary civil rights issues... :whip:
    Finally, jurisdiction over all remaining state law claims will be declined. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
    All claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are DISMISSED
    Any remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;
    The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/6:2010cv01361/83067/8/0.pdf

    MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER that all of the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED; All of the defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED; All claims pursuant to 42 U for Koziol v. Lippman et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings

    Title IV-D and Corruption - Page 6 - Sui Juris Club Forum
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  4. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    Vide: pages 5 & 6 FOC HANDBOOK 'Opting Out' and 'Starting a Case, plaintiff's complaint'
    http://courts.mi.gov/administration/scao/resources/documents/publications/manuals/focb/focb_hbk.pdf
    Information provided by the state may be misleading:

    [Absent welfare] Regarding the need of both parents to be in some form of agreement in order to 'opt out' of Title IV-D services; and or that...
    The state only requires one parent requesting Title IV-D services, for them 'all' [Title IV-D Contactors], to obligate the other parent to such services [absent welfare] even if it is against (his or her) will, [to abandon the child(ren) in any form].

    :disagree:

    [Without Welfare] 42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions (d) objection of either of the parents of such child, is all that is needed!!!!!! If the family is not on welfare or state health insurance, one parent's objection to Title IV-D Child Support Services is all that is needed to 'opt out'.
    :iagree:

    Federal regulations that supercede state law specifically state that a guideline award shall be rebutted when shown to not be economically appropriate.
    [Code of Federal Regulations under 45 CFR 302.56.]
    The U.S. Court of Appeals – among other Federal courts – has published opinion that, when states engage in program agreements with the federal government, federal regulations supercede not just state rules and regulations but also related state statutes. A key opinion is Jackson v. Rapps, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, October 17, 1991. 947 F.2d 332. This case specifically addressed child support program regulations. http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983307P.pdf

    “Presumptive” means only default.

    By federal regulation, state child support guidelines must be “rebuttable.” They are not absolute. One must be able to give arguments for doing something else for the award than the mindlessly apply the default formula. Federal regulations that supercede state law specifically state that a guideline award shall be rebutted when shown to not be economically appropriate. [Code of Federal Regulations under 45 CFR 302.56.]

    If case circumstances do not fit the assumed circumstances of the underlying economic basis of the guideline, then the existence of the differing circumstances rebut the appropriateness of the presumptive award.

    Further, states are required to enact presumptive guidelines that are economically appropriate (see 45 CFR 302.56).

    A number of court opinions have specifically stated general requirements for economically appropriate child support awards, and for child support guidelines to pass constitutional muster. One of the earliest opinions to articulate how to derive an economically appropriate award was Smith v. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Or. 1980). This opinion specifically stated that it is economically inappropriate and unjust to apply a welfare case guideline to non-welfare cases. That case then delineated how one should allocate child costs between parents. Cases that have defined constitutionally sound child support award processes are Meltzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984) and Conway v. Dana, 318 A.2d 324 (Pa. 1985).

    These cases established several key principles. There is equal responsibility for both the father and mother.
    Presenting Your Case Introduction - CSPlus

    NOT JUST WELFARE CASES
    ALL CASES
    I would dare say it is economically inappropriate to turn every child support case in Michigan into a Title IV-D case....
    [Increasing cases, more cases with every case than if cases were just welfare cases alone] where the cost avoidance of paying welfare to the families in need is surpassed by welfare expenditures for the services on every account. Duping the American taxpayer into paying more for services than actual welfare to needy families!


    Purpose of Child Support to recoup taxpayer monies paid out in welfare and or welfare services to needy families and not to create non-custodial parents for the purposes of exploiting the accounts (services) to generate revenue for the county and or Title IV-D agencies slash contractors... Title IV-D Contractors acting in public.

    This Action Transmittal (AT) provides information regarding the use of MiCSES’ IV-D Case Number as Michigan’s single case identifying (ID) number on all IV-D cases and court orders that are sent to the FCR as required for federal reporting and other activities. With the MiCSES 4.0 Release, Michigan will report MiCSES’ IV-D Case Number to the FCR.

    [In MiCSES, these are court orders associated to non-IV-D cases]

    https://dhhs.michigan.gov/ChildSupport/policy/Documents/AT2006-025.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  5. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    My ex-wife abandoned me after a working injury no fault of my own and was paid well from my workmans comp checks [the set amount was more than they could legally take so I was going in the arrears every month], paid well prior to a workmans comp settlement with a lump sum at the time of my workmans comp settlement catching up on the arrears. After the workmans comp settlement and prior to any disability determination I was still obligated to pay the support amount determined as though I was still working even though I was not nor could not and had not since prior to her filing her complaint (divorce).

    BEWARE, It is not uncommon to find the Title IV-D contractors allow the custodial parent to receiving both the Child Support and Social Security Disability (double dipping). In my case even though the local Friend of the Court knew my situation-they on their own refused to make any adjustments, even after this was brought to their attention.

    I had to go to the United States Department of Health and Human Resources and tell them before any oversight adjustments were made. For over a year without retromodifcation the custodial parent received both the awarded amount of child support plus disability payments from my Social Security Portfolio based on the amounts contributed over my years of working.... over $1, 300.00 a month in total every month for over a year when she should have only been receiving $750.00 a month from the portfolio with no child support; the amount at which it stayed until the children reached 18 years of age. My ex-wife was so mad when I finally got it straightened out that she hauled me to court where even the FOC worker was confused about who changed the amount and what went on [I played dumb]. All I know is after filing my complaint it was fixed internally; but in my Michigan case for whatever reason (reasons I do not know) the discharge papers for my children's Child Support Case Closure did not occur until after my youngest child aged out.

    To this very day my ex-wife tells people I never paid child support for my children, that the checks she received [out of my portfolio totaling more than she would have received from the child support formula had I not been disabled] was just welfare.... her :cuckoo: giving no credit to me :confused: whatsoever.

    Court must find that a parent is actually capable of working!
    CASE CLOSER procedures are mandated by federal regulations and require a 60-day written notice to the custodial parent before case closure is accomplished.

    The Child Support Hustle
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  6. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25

    :popcorn:
    ACTION!!!! (seeking no money damages)
    The Friend of the Court, Sheriff, and the County are the named defendants.

    ....this is a Pending Case I helped co author with the plaintiff (a close friend of mine); access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
    Please pray for my friend [Title IV-D Poster Child], a victim of the divorce industry, devastated by the Title IV-D corruption; he is having health issues and needs prayers for strength and healing as we see this Title IV-D Case make its way through the wheels of our American justice system; waiting remedy.
    NOTICE there is nothing for sale here, I with permission am simply sharing, for others.....;)
    https://dockets.justia.com/docket/michigan/miedce/2:2017cv11789/320733

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  7. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    This touches on statute of limitations, and imputations.... :bsflag:

    A June 27, 2017 article by Kenya N. Rahmaan
    "ARE YOU A 'DAD BY DEFAULT'"

    http://thechildsupporthustle.com/are-you-a-dad-by-default/#WednesdayWisdom
    An issue that almost always arises when men are declared a ‘Dad by Default’ in a child support order can be the amount of the order. Because the obligor is not present during the hearing, he cannot provide necessary financial documents needed when deciding a payment amount. The judge can then impute his income to decide a monthly payment amount.
    It is important to mention that there are different statutes of limitations, based on the state, when dealing with child support judgments. For example, the statute of limitations to enforce a child support order in Michigan is 10 years after the last obligation due while Alabama enforces a 20-year statute of limitations, (Child Support Collections). Florida has a more complex statute of limitation when dealing with child support enforcement as it may apply ‘laches of defense’ if claimed by the defendant. States such as Ohio and Massachusetts do not have a statute of limitation when it comes to child support orders.

    https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/child_support_glossary.pdf
    Statute of limitations for child support by State.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  8. Ringel05
    Online

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    55,316
    Thanks Received:
    10,423
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Duke City
    Ratings:
    +33,673
    Like I said.......

    Oh and I already have too many hobbies.......
     
  9. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity’s creation of private law.

    Title IV-D is strictly a federal matter, clear of state supplemental jurisdiction!
    Definition of CLEAR OF

    This is where Leon R. Koziol went wrong arguing state law claims.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  10. Brick Layer
    Offline

    Brick Layer VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2018
    Messages:
    184
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +25
    The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is critical, because criminal contempt triggers additional constitutional safeguards. Civil contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In a criminal contempt proceeding, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent for purposes of criminal contempt is subjective, not objective, and must necessarily be ascertained from all the acts, words, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Prosecutions for serious criminal contempts [in which the court wishes to sentence the defendant to imprisonment of more than six months] are subject to the jury trial protections of the Sixth Amendment.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



Search tags for this page

title iv-d prosecutor michigan grant budget 2018