"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

Here is a more detailed account of the case:



http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

Sadly, the focus in cases like this one are on the NCP father and his
"failure" to seek a CS change. The deputy DA in the story above takes
it a
step further and talks about how the CP mother was forced to support her
children over the years without any financial support.

So what's wrong with this picture?

Well, for openers, the states selectively apply the CS statutes ignoring
statutory requirements when they don't work to their advantage. In this
case where were the 2-3 year interval CS order reviews to determine if
the
ordered amount was still appropriate? The original CS order was from
1987.
The man went to prison in 1992. Why was no CS review completed during
that
5 year period or the subsequent 13 year period he was in prison?

Because the review isn't automatic. They send a letter to the recipient
of the child support, who can elect to have the
review done, or ignore it, in which case the review isn't done.

When a suuport order is at least two years old, the IV-D agency, at the
request of either parent or the state, must review the parties' incomes and
situations to determine whether the support amount is still in substantial
conformity with the guidelines.

At the request of either parent, or the state. It appears that neither parent, nor the state, requested such a review.

If not a modification must be initiated,
regardless of whether it would result in a decrease or increase. See 42 USC
chapter 666 (a) (10) imposing a 3 year deadline for review. No change of
circumstance need be proven.

BTW - The state represents the state's interests and does not represent the
obligee.

I'm well aware of that.




And secondly, why isn't the deputy DA being held accountable for failing
to
do his job to review CS orders like this one that have good cause
reasons
for reductions?

And precisely how was anyone supposed to know that a review should have
been done? Or are you suggesting that they
review every single CS case?

I am not suggesting anything. I am pointing out it is federal law to review
CS orders every three years or more frequently

When such a review has been reqquested.

and the state can has a
statutory obligation to initiate the process.

When a review has been requested.

And in this case, the state
failed to follow the federal law.

The review apparently wasn't requested.




The public officials never admit their failures to follow
the statutory requirements in the law.

As far as I'm aware, having been the recipient of the letter offering to
do a review - there IS no statutory requirement
to review a care periodically - at least, not in my state.

The last time I checked all states were subject to following the federal
laws or lose federal CS and welfare funding. Has your state rejected
federal CS and welfare reforms so they don;t have to follow the federal
laws?

As far as I'm aware, no. Child support is up for review 33 months after the most recent ruling, IF such a review is
requested. I've received the letters, and depending on a number of circumstances, have either requested such a review,
or tossed out the letter. When the letter is tossed out, no review is initiated, because no review has been requested.




It's pretty obvious the state knew
this guy was in prison, they knew if they did a CS review they would be
forced to reduce or stop the CS order, so they did nothing.

Perhaps they did no review because none was requested?

See above. Periodic reviews are in the federal CS law.

(i) In general.- Procedures under which every 3 years (or such shorter cycle as the State may determine), upon the
request of either parent, or, if there is an assignment under part A of this subchapter, upon the request of the State
agency under the State plan or of either parent, the State shall with respect to a support order being enforced under
this part, taking into account the best interests of the child involved-

Upon the request of either parent.

It certainly appears that in this case, there was no request by either parent, nor does it appear that there was an
assigment and then the state requested a review. They're not required to in all cases.






The reported
facts indicate the state failed to do it's job over an 18 year period.

The facts indicate that the recipient of the CS didn't request a review.


And third, why does the mother get a free pass for what is most likely a
violation of a court decree to notify the court or the state of any
changes
in address, employment, or insurance coverage? Those types of parental
requirements are broiler plate language in all decrees. Why is she
allowed
to profit from her inaction? Why isn't the mother being charged with
contempt of court for her failure to follow a court order?

Perhaps she didn't have any changes? She is required to notify any
changes in HER employment, employment and insurance
coverage. In reading the articles from both cites, there is no indication
that she had any changes - at least, nothing
was mentioned.

I know you don't like me to use my case as an example, but every decree
modification I have ever seen has had wording to indicate the obligor and
obligee have the responsibility to report any changes in income, employment,
or insurance.

My decrees have never been limitied to me just reporting my
own changes.

Ahhhh so now, you want to shift the responsibility of reporting the father's changes onto the mother?

The language used in decrees is there to allow either party to
report changes for either party.

It doesn't, however, require them to. I'm fairly certain that my ex would never think to go running to the courts to
report any changes in my home life, in much the same way I haven't taken it upon myself to report changes in his life.

Funny though, most divorces? Have wording that essentially says that each person has to stay out of the other's life.

How else could a CP request a periodic
review if their own situation had not changed?

Because if the child support was set 3 years ago, there is a reasonable presumption that the payer has seen, at a
minimum, cost of living increases in income, in the same way that the CP has seen cost of living increases in the costs
of providing for that family. 3 years is apparently the time span that was felt to be reasonable without being overly
intrusive by demanding a full review every 6 months, for example.

The CP does not have to show a change in circumstances to request the (approximately) 3-year review of the child
support.



So now, let's turn it around. Why didn't the obligor notify the courts of
any changes in address, employment or
insurance coverage? Why should he be allowed to profit from his inaction?
Why shouldn't he be charged with contempt of
court for his failure to follow a court order?

Nice try, but that is what the news stories have implied - He didn't act, so
he is screwed.

Well? He didn't act, and he is screwed. Perhaps personal responsibility needs to come into play here?

My point is the state and the CP had equal responsibility to
act and they did not.

Actually, no, they didn't. The only one who didn't comply with the court orders was the NCP. The CP had no
responsibility to take care of the NCP's personal business, except in your world, I guess. What color is the sky there,
anyway?