If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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. 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. 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 and the state can has a statutory obligation to initiate the process. And in this case, the state failed to follow the federal law. 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? 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. 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. The language used in decrees is there to allow either party to report changes for either party. How else could a CP request a periodic review if their own situation had not changed? 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. My point is the state and the CP had equal responsibility to act and they did not. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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? Ummm, Moonie, there's one very important, and basic, fact that you've overlooked.. The state knew EXACTLY where he was the whole time!!! The criminal court system very well did - but family court, and child support, are separate divisions. To say that they (the state) didn't know where he was, let alone how to get a hold of him at a moments notice, to have a review of his C$ payments is to claim that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheddar cheese! I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something here - where did you see anyone saying anything about the state knowing where he was? Come on, Moonie, wake up and read it again. He was INCARCERATED in a STATE PRISON. The state cannot, ever, make the claim that they couldn't find him. I don't believe that claim was made anywhere. And for the state to IGNORE informing him of his rights (in this case, to reduce or stop his C$ while he was in their custody) is of such magnitude, that there should be a Federal inquiry. As far as I'm aware, the state is required to tell him of his criminal rights, in criminal proceedings. Seems to me that the 2 are separate, and unrelated. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the guy not only screwed up in criminal proceedings, but then further screwed himself by not tending to his other obligations? Doesn't he have any personal responsibility in how he runs his own life? Your whole argument about his not receiving a notice from the state is utterly foolish. Why would he have received a notice from the state? But don't let the FACTS get in the way.. Oh, no, we wouldn't want that to happen now would we..? The fact is that he didn't inform the courts about his change in employment, address or health insurance, and he further didn't inform the child support agencies about his change in circumstances. Why don't you hold him responsible for his own inactions? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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? Ummmm....please explain how the poor guy who owes 50,000+ has profited by his inaction? I, personally, do not think he should owe a penny!! He had 13 years of his life stolen from him!! |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... .. To say that they (the state) didn't know where he was, let alone how to get a hold of him at a moments notice, to have a review of his C$ payments is to claim that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheddar cheese! I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something here - where did you see anyone saying anything about the state knowing where he was? Come on, Moonie, wake up and read it again. He was INCARCERATED in a STATE PRISON. The state cannot, ever, make the claim that they couldn't find him. I don't believe that claim was made anywhere. And for the state to IGNORE informing him of his rights (in this case, to reduce or stop his C$ while he was in their custody) is of such magnitude, that there should be a Federal inquiry. As far as I'm aware, the state is required to tell him of his criminal rights, in criminal proceedings. Seems to me that the 2 are separate, and unrelated. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the guy not only screwed up in criminal proceedings, but then further screwed himself by not tending to his other obligations? Doesn't he have any personal responsibility in how he runs his own life? Your whole argument about his not receiving a notice from the state is utterly foolish. Why would he have received a notice from the state? My husband receives a notice every year that he can have his cs payments reviewed if there is a significant change in circumstance. He gets these notices both from the state we live in and from the state the child lives in. They don't notify cs obligors of this in your state? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... snip 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. My husband's case was reviewed at 3 years, even though neither he nor the child's mother requested it. It was found that there was no change in circumstance, so nothing was changed. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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? Ummmm....please explain how the poor guy who owes 50,000+ has profited by his inaction? I, personally, do not think he should owe a penny!! He had 13 years of his life stolen from him!! Ooops--$30,000--not 50 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$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. He went to prison in 1992. At that point the state claims he was current on CS. He requested his CS payments to be suspended in 1995. At the rate of $100 per week he would have owed somewhere around $15,000 at that point. The state says he owed $23,000 in CS in 1997 and now owes $38,000 in CS plus interest. Looks to me like some pretty clear evidence the state did not act on his request to have his CS payments suspended back in 1995. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... . To say that they (the state) didn't know where he was, let alone how to get a hold of him at a moments notice, to have a review of his C$ payments is to claim that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheddar cheese! I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something here - where did you see anyone saying anything about the state knowing where he was? Come on, Moonie, wake up and read it again. He was INCARCERATED in a STATE PRISON. The state cannot, ever, make the claim that they couldn't find him. I don't believe that claim was made anywhere. And for the state to IGNORE informing him of his rights (in this case, to reduce or stop his C$ while he was in their custody) is of such magnitude, that there should be a Federal inquiry. As far as I'm aware, the state is required to tell him of his criminal rights, in criminal proceedings. Seems to me that the 2 are separate, and unrelated. Why is it so hard for you to accept that the guy not only screwed up in criminal proceedings, but then further screwed himself by not tending to his other obligations? Doesn't he have any personal responsibility in how he runs his own life? Your whole argument about his not receiving a notice from the state is utterly foolish. Why would he have received a notice from the state? My husband receives a notice every year that he can have his cs payments reviewed if there is a significant change in circumstance. He gets these notices both from the state we live in and from the state the child lives in. They don't notify cs obligors of this in your state? I don't know. I know that every 33 months, I get a notice that I can CHOOSE to have them review, and it doesn't require showing a change in circumstances. I have no idea what my ex does or doesn't receive. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... snip 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. My husband's case was reviewed at 3 years, even though neither he nor the child's mother requested it. It was found that there was no change in circumstance, so nothing was changed. And it's highly likely that it's different from one state to the next. Here, if I ignore the notification, no review is done (at least as far as I know). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 7th 05 11:00 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |