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

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
EXPUNGEMENT


‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010)
Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Six Pack Joe's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;


Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.

(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)

[Title IV and or Title IV-D Expungement; federal jurisdiction (administrative review) judicially.]
:Boom2:
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
when people respond with questions- provide them with more detail.
If you have any questions about Title IV (Welfare) Part D (Child Support) please feel free to provide a more detailed question and I will gladly respond to the best of my ability; my only concern is education and awareness.

'schools are for fish'

Malachi 4:6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction."

Luke 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
 
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
Six Pack Joe, believes all administrative remedies have been exhausted, all steps have been provided for in the procedural rules and the statute having been followed (except in the instance described here in and throughout [untold damage] ) and must resort to the courts. The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused. Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding. See: [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record."

Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”

Administrative Agencies by John Schulman (1949 Practising Law Institute) [highlighted].pdf

A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.

In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.

This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent :eusa_naughty: ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]

Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.



The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund


"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"
 

Attachments

Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
The requirement of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.

Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc

SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf


_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption

(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:

(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or

(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;

(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:

(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________

[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]
:flameth:
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent :eusa_naughty: ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]

Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/attac...-stipulation-on-file-with-the-foc-pdf.179722/
 

Attachments

OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation. As such, government (or in your case a court) then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder in due course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom demands for specific performance are made and further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

Part of the New Deal
The reason I can see is... taking God's portable property, gold, silver, copper, etc. out of the money (substance) and replacing it with (fiat currency) a debt based currency.

The NEW DEAL!!! Where the backs of every American and their children are pledged 'birth certificate' the creditors on account, the account of the United States deficit spending [Federal Title IV-D Fun[ding]], backed by We the People's faith and credit.
Can a law itself be a crime?
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS

CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL

Social Security Act Title IV

§ 303.101 Expedited processes.

(a) Definition. Expedited processes
means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;

(c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes:

(1) Paternities and orders established by means other than full judicial process must have the same force and effect under State law as paternities and orders established by full judicial process within the State;

(2) The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;

(3) The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;

(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the State's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [acting statutes].

[Gamesmanship on the court - Court, a place where games are played... tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, etc. Psalm 104:26; Luke 22:25.]
:D
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities

Example:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix

Welcome to the Child Support Portal
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law. 45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans. All state plans can be found at state plan system:

Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
:trolls:
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
TASK FORCE REPORT
DEFINING THE “UNDERGROUND ECONOMY”

A 2007 Internal Revenue Service report defined the “underground economy” as “the value of goods and services that elude official measurement.” They “elude” us because underground economy participants ignore their duty to report transactions in which they exchange those goods and services. Not reporting the transactions enables those people to evade their taxes and other financial obligations, or to conceal crimes. A substantial number of people join the underground economy to avoid paying taxes, but many have additional motives, including a desire to conceal their income from creditors. This report focuses on one category of debtors: noncustodial parents who choose to work in the underground economy in order to avoid providing financial support for their children.


:worthless:
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
§ 303.101(C)(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [the state's federal court].

[The state's acting statutes, controlling statutes, authorities [violated] according to Federal Law, 'Social Security' Law 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of that welfare act)].
FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities
Pretend-Six Pack Joe files a federal lawsuit (and or performs a federal removal procedure) regarding his common law deposition (fraud remedy), challenging the alleged private 'written agreement' between the parties/parents in the [equity] family court arena. That contract that which is required under 'informed consent Title IV-D duties of office' and then that 'written agreement' is reviewed and entered into the record by the court... A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the payer that he or she shall.... [without specific welfare services, temporary assistance to needy families being paid out by the taxpayer on behalf of Six Pack Joe's minor child] he or she still knowingly agree and or agrees to a SUPPORT ORDER, period. If there is no such agreement between Six Pack Joe and another party, with a wet ink signature, and the defendant and or defendants claim some prima facie evidence [prima facie presumption] that just such a 'stipulation' does exists when it does not - is a fraud (crime); a rebuttable presumption; of fact.

Pretend-Six Pack Joe's defendant and or defendants create, alter, and or modify some document with what looks like Six Pack Joe's wet ink signature on the face of it, and in fact it is not Six Pack Joe's signature at all, this is document tampering, is a fraud (crime) too - together alongside the above said rebutted evidence 'document that was passed along for the purpose of deceiving another person and or persons'.

Pretend [rhetorical question] riddle: all arguments aside, in any case, if Six Pack Joe with first hand knowledge knows of no such acknowledgement and or stipulation; then how can one 'they' defend the (crime) of passing along of a document, that said (prima facie evidence) claim that a stipulation exists [first] - without someone [secondly], someone other than Six Pack Joe forging and or document tampering???

The other (2 crime) of defendant and or defendants falsifying a document in support of the (1 crime) defendant and or defendants false witness to an alleged agreement between the parents of the child. [The child not on welfare and or tax payer recoupment not to exceed the amount so paid out to the family as listed under: Prohibitions; Requirements “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”]

:soapbox:

Six Pack Joe got em' boxed in...... Six Pack neither practicing from the bench or otherwise, is not reviewing 'support' wherefore has never brought up the issue of 'arrears' had that been Six Pack Joe's issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied. Six Pack Joe is not arguing 'child support' instead 'agency actions' a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s)! Six Pack Joe does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; and or beyond federal Sec. 408. [42 U.S.C. 608] (a)(3).

Pretended answer to the riddle: with all the facts in place - one 'they' can't. Summary requests have to view the case in most favorable view to the Plaintiff (summary judgements on the pleadings) and or (Default default judgement) when a party [the defendant and or defendants] against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the merits of the case; merits of the case them being Plaintiff's claim and or pleadings rebutting all rebuttable presumptions in law, and at law; regarding Title IV and or Title IV-D fraud.

PLAYING BY THE RULES: FRCP 55(A) AND THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING ITS MEANING
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:

:3:

A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children. It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity; ....just saying.
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
sta·tis·tics

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.
Dear anotherlife
My advice to you is take it case by case, address each wrong specifically and this will lead to correcting all wrongs collectively.
I agree with emilynghiem 100% on this!!!
THOUGH INTENDED FOR ALL (six pack joe style)

Last known, this [thread and or threaded] information only helps to serves the lost 4% theory;
[4% from Michigan plus the other percentage percents from the other states in the federally united states; United States of America]
...with hopes that the spread of knowledge, information, and belief 'thought model' on a case by case basis [in conformity to law]; addressing the [Title IV] wrong specifically, that this will lead to correcting most [IV-D] wrongs collectively.

[Federal Title IV-D Child Support Program, Over 96 percent of support cases in Michigan are Title IV-D cases. As the Title IV-D administrator for the State, the Office of Child Support must ensure that all Title IV-D services comply with the federal regulations related to those services.]

A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children. It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity; ....just saying.

hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:

:3:

“The authors find that a low-income noncustodial parent must have earnings 50 to 100 percent higher than the custodial parent in order to pay child support and taxes and enjoy the same standard of living as the custodial family.”
Noncustodial Parents, Child Support, and the Earned Income Tax Credit
CHILD SUPPORT: Helpful or Hindrance? - YouTube
:drills:
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
the lost 4% theory
Title IV-D services include all child support services provided in Michigan with the exception of custody and parenting time.
All means 100%.
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
[Federal Title IV-D Child Support Program, Over 96 percent of support cases in Michigan are Title IV-D cases. As the Title IV-D administrator for the State, the Office of Child Support must ensure that all Title IV-D services comply with the federal regulations related to those services.]
100 - 96 [or more] = 4; hence the lost 4% [or less] :eusa_doh:
4% from Michigan plus the other percentage percents from other states (far reaching).
USMessageBoard where your voices count

:5_1_12024:
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation. As such, government (or in your case a court) then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder in due course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom demands for specific performance are made and further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

Part of the New Deal
The reason I can see is... taking God's portable property, gold, silver, copper, etc. out of the money (substance) and replacing it with (fiat currency) a debt based currency.

The NEW DEAL!!! Where the backs of every American and their children are pledged 'birth certificate' the creditors on account, the account of the United States deficit spending [Federal Title IV-D Fun[ding]], backed by We the People's faith and credit.
Can a law itself be a crime?

31 CFR 363.6
Minor means an individual under the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an individual who has attained the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of the securities contained in his or her minor account.
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
WELFARE (Title IV-D)
Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.
....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.

FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities

Example:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix

Welcome to the Child Support Portal
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law. 45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans. All state plans can be found at state plan system:

Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
:trolls:
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654 | FindLaw
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/state_plan_table_of_contents.pdf

:04:
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf

(f) "Department" means the department of human services.

(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.

(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.

(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.

Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements

Michigan Legislature - Section 339.904

Michigan Legislature - Section 339.907

Michigan Legislature - Section 339.915a

Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.
Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%
Title IV-D and Corruption
 
Last edited:
OP
Brick Layer

Brick Layer

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
8
Points
61
Location
Michigan
Nation wide (All across America - every state)

...this link is in regards to Texas legislature:
The Child-Support Lie and The Title IV-D Reply

World wide every state (nation) in the world and or Hague states.
Estimated 150,000 international cases.... These cases have been primarily handled under bilateral agreements that the U.S. has with 14 countries and 12 Canadian provinces. Bilateral agreements require time-consuming country-by-country negotiations. As a result of U.S. ratification of the Hague Child Support Convention, we will have a treaty relationship with 31 countries in which the Convention is already in force, including the European Union.
U.S. Ratification of Hague Child Support Convention
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top