Question about statute...GARNISHMENT

"DB" wrote in message
. ..

"Kenneth S." wrote in
I just hope that young men considering marriage and families realize
they will be subjecting themselves to this kind of treatment.

This has already started in Britain where marriage is not an option for
the majority of single people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...30/nmarr30.xml

Can't find the article, it was reported that women in America are finding
it really hard to find prospective mates to marry.


There is still not enough awareness of the horror policies of the tyrant
Child Support System!
Then again, most Americans assume it will never happen to them.

I have heard that one, I know a lot of single women asking me if I know of
any good single men. The guys I know that are single are not looking for
anyone.

wrote in message
ps.com...
Thanks for the many answers, folks.

To be clear, my initial order was in 1988, the latest order is May 10
of 2006 with no mention of wage withholding in it, which is why I
believe I could legally challenge the order.

The attorney I work for, like many, maintain "working relationships"
with Virginia's DCSE - they don't like to rock the boat.

In my opinion the May 10, 2006 order and the previous order are void
anyhow because the orders flowed from two motions for rules to show
cause signed by non-attorney employees of DCSE...and I have letters
from the Virginia State Bar to that employee saying she was engaged in
the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW by signing the motions of behalf of
DCSE.

The question tonight is: how hard should I push on the garnishment or
should I just add this to the "due process" claims I have in my class
action suit against DCSE and Virginia already?

It's one think to screw with me...when you screw with my wife and two
boys, that's entirely different.

I like to screw back.



First if I am reading you correctly that a judge never "signed" these
orders..

NOTE: If it is just the fact that a NON attorney employee initially wrote
the orders to be signed by a judge you dont have a case, as long as they
state they were reviewed by an attorney!

Otherwise I would contact the ACLU they may be able to help you more than
you may realize. Michigan FOC got sued years ago for signing orders (which
legally ONLY a judge can do).
The FOC can ONLY make recommendations, and enforce orders already in place,
they can not MAKE orders.

This is simply part of the government that seems to think they have more
legally authority then give them by the state legislature. (also contact
your State Rep - and tell him/her that the FOC is breaking the law by acting
outside their authority)

Simply put the FOC / DCSE is NOT the court, they are an agency "TO" the
court not "OF" the court. They have NO Judicial powers! (just like the
police can enforce the laws by arresting drunk drivers thay can not simply
thru you in jail for 30 days, that is what the Judge is for!)

Robert

On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

States have the decision making autonomy to adopt the entire federal
legislative scheme or none of it. Every state decided to adopt the federal
family law provisions in what is commonly referred to as Welfare Reform to
continue receiving federal revenue share money for welfare and CS
adminisrtation. The states have no legal right to pick and choose which
federal laws they adopt - It's all or nothing.

The states have the legal right to pick and choose what federal laws
they adopt, the consequences of choice is all or nothing with regards
to the federal funding. Virginia does not have a simple choice
between all federal law and no federal law. Virginia can enact any
constitutional family law it wants.

I do not know where you are getting this "the states has no legal
right" thing. The states have all the legal rights in this area of
law and can do whatever they wish, that is why the federal government
has to bribe the states to enact the laws the federal government
wants.

If you are trying to say that failure to adopt the laws would lead to
the federal government withholding funds, that may be true, or it may
not, depending on whether the official administrating the program is
holding the states to the letter of the federal requirements. The
only enforcement mechanism the federal government has is to withhold
the funds. The federal government is obviously not doing so. In
other words, Virginia may not be in compliance with the federal laws.
This assumes, of course, the the law Briggman points to is current
Virginia law that is not contradicted by other Virginia law. Again
not federal law, Virginia law.



Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 666(b)(2) in effect since 1988 has language
stating
no amendment is necessary to initiate withholding. The applicable law
language says "...such withholding must occur without the need for any
amendment to the support order involved or for any further action (other
than those actions required under this part) by the court or other entity
which issued such order." The allowable actions of the court are to
suspend
the need for withholding due to mutual agreement between the parties or a
court approved alternative payment plan.

That language in that section says that in order to meet some
requirement that either directly or indirectly allows the state to
receive federal funds. If you read 42 U.S.C. 652 that should clear up
the role of federal law in child support. This is about spending. It
does not directly affect state procedural law. Virginia may not be in
technical compliance with the federal requirements, this does not
invalidate Virginia law. I am sure that the federal offical that
approves these plans has determined that Virginia is in substantial
compliance or some BS like that, so Virginia gets the matching
funds.

.
So what. Virginia took the federal money and that obligates the state to
comply with federal statutes related to taking the money.

It is not nearly that simple. You statement that they are obligated
may be correct, but that does not mean they have followed through on
their obligation. For example, we could have a contract that states
when you do A, I will do B. It does not follow that just because you
did A, I have did B. I still have to comply with my obligation.

In other words, the state law is the state law, any obligations that
Virginia has taken on by receiving money are conditions that must be
met by the legislature of Virginia enacting laws that meet the federal
requirements. Taking the money does not automatically make the
federal law state law. More importantly, an administrative official
(such as a CSE employee) cannot unilaterially change state law to meet
federal funding requirements.

You have to differentiate between the federal obligations that are
conditions to receiving funding and Virginia's absolute right to make
their own family law.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that
run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

States have the decision making autonomy to adopt the entire federal
legislative scheme or none of it. Every state decided to adopt the
federal
family law provisions in what is commonly referred to as Welfare Reform
to
continue receiving federal revenue share money for welfare and CS
adminisrtation. The states have no legal right to pick and choose which
federal laws they adopt - It's all or nothing.

The states have the legal right to pick and choose what federal laws
they adopt, the consequences of choice is all or nothing with regards
to the federal funding. Virginia does not have a simple choice
between all federal law and no federal law. Virginia can enact any
constitutional family law it wants.

I agree with the basic concept you are presenting, but when it comes to
family law it is all or nothing. When any state adopts federal family law
they are adopting 100% of Title 42 Chapter 7 Section IV-D Part D. The
states don't get to go through the legislative scheme layed out in IV-D and
pick and chose what portions of the scheme they like. They must adopt every
aspect from 651 through 669b to be in compliance. States have the
flexibility to consider the federal law a minimum requirement and create
local legislation that is stricter than the federal law.


I do not know where you are getting this "the states has no legal
right" thing. The states have all the legal rights in this area of
law and can do whatever they wish, that is why the federal government
has to bribe the states to enact the laws the federal government
wants.

Here is a specific example - The IRS sets federal tax law and has developed
specific rules that apply to family law situations. The federal rules say
child support is taxable to the obligor and tax free to the obligee. The
states have no authority to change tax treatment of CS payments by creating
a law, or creating a court order, stating taxes on CS will be paid by the
obligee. My point is the states have no legal right to create ruling
CONTRARY to federal law.


If you are trying to say that failure to adopt the laws would lead to
the federal government withholding funds, that may be true, or it may
not, depending on whether the official administrating the program is
holding the states to the letter of the federal requirements. The
only enforcement mechanism the federal government has is to withhold
the funds. The federal government is obviously not doing so. In
other words, Virginia may not be in compliance with the federal laws.
This assumes, of course, the the law Briggman points to is current
Virginia law that is not contradicted by other Virginia law. Again
not federal law, Virginia law.

I disagree with your conclusion. Federal law has included a provision for
immediate wage withholding without further action by a court since 1988.
Virginia created its law stating the language regarding immediate
withholding may be included in a court order starting in 1995. The federal
withholding law has applied in Virginia since 1988. Virginia apparently did
not decide until 1995 to provide notice in their court orders that the
federal law applied.

On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that
run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

States have the decision making autonomy to adopt the entire federal
legislative scheme or none of it. Every state decided to adopt the
federal
family law provisions in what is commonly referred to as Welfare Reform
to
continue receiving federal revenue share money for welfare and CS
adminisrtation. The states have no legal right to pick and choose which
federal laws they adopt - It's all or nothing.

The states have the legal right to pick and choose what federal laws
they adopt, the consequences of choice is all or nothing with regards
to the federal funding. Virginia does not have a simple choice
between all federal law and no federal law. Virginia can enact any
constitutional family law it wants.

I agree with the basic concept you are presenting, but when it comes to
family law it is all or nothing. When any state adopts federal family law
they are adopting 100% of Title 42 Chapter 7 Section IV-D Part D. The
states don't get to go through the legislative scheme layed out in IV-D and
pick and chose what portions of the scheme they like. They must adopt every
aspect from 651 through 669b to be in compliance. States have the
flexibility to consider the federal law a minimum requirement and create
local legislation that is stricter than the federal law.



I do not know where you are getting this "the states has no legal
right" thing. The states have all the legal rights in this area of
law and can do whatever they wish, that is why the federal government
has to bribe the states to enact the laws the federal government
wants.

Here is a specific example - The IRS sets federal tax law and has developed
specific rules that apply to family law situations. The federal rules say
child support is taxable to the obligor and tax free to the obligee. The
states have no authority to change tax treatment of CS payments by creating
a law, or creating a court order, stating taxes on CS will be paid by the
obligee. My point is the states have no legal right to create ruling
CONTRARY to federal law.



If you are trying to say that failure to adopt the laws would lead to
the federal government withholding funds, that may be true, or it may
not, depending on whether the official administrating the program is
holding the states to the letter of the federal requirements. The
only enforcement mechanism the federal government has is to withhold
the funds. The federal government is obviously not doing so. In
other words, Virginia may not be in compliance with the federal laws.
This assumes, of course, the the law Briggman points to is current
Virginia law that is not contradicted by other Virginia law. Again
not federal law, Virginia law.

I disagree with your conclusion. Federal law has included a provision for
immediate wage withholding without further action by a court since 1988.
Virginia created its law stating the language regarding immediate
withholding may be included in a court order starting in 1995. The federal
withholding law has applied in Virginia since 1988. Virginia apparently did
not decide until 1995 to provide notice in their court orders that the
federal law applied.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I read in a child support paper/study that the NCP had the right to
NOT go
through the CSE office UNLESS the case was a welfare case...
has anyone heard of this? So, although the states and the CPs
take you through the CSE office, if it is NOT a TANF case,
you can fight for getting out of it?

"whatamess" wrote in message
ups.com...

I read in a child support paper/study that the NCP had the right to
NOT go
through the CSE office UNLESS the case was a welfare case...
has anyone heard of this? So, although the states and the CPs
take you through the CSE office, if it is NOT a TANF case,
you can fight for getting out of it?

Not true. Getting IV-D services from CSE can be at the request of the
obligor, the oblige, the child, or the person with physical custody. And
IV-D services can be requested for TANF cases, Medicaid-only cases, Foster
Care payments, and/or Youth Authority commitments. It's an "opt-in" type of
system with no way to opt-out unilaterally.

On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that
run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

States have the decision making autonomy to adopt the entire federal
legislative scheme or none of it. Every state decided to adopt the
federal
family law provisions in what is commonly referred to as Welfare Reform
to
continue receiving federal revenue share money for welfare and CS
adminisrtation. The states have no legal right to pick and choose which
federal laws they adopt - It's all or nothing.

The states have the legal right to pick and choose what federal laws
they adopt, the consequences of choice is all or nothing with regards
to the federal funding. Virginia does not have a simple choice
between all federal law and no federal law. Virginia can enact any
constitutional family law it wants.

I agree with the basic concept you are presenting, but when it comes to
family law it is all or nothing. When any state adopts federal family law
they are adopting 100% of Title 42 Chapter 7 Section IV-D Part D. The
states don't get to go through the legislative scheme layed out in IV-D and
pick and chose what portions of the scheme they like. They must adopt every
aspect from 651 through 669b to be in compliance. States have the
flexibility to consider the federal law a minimum requirement and create
local legislation that is stricter than the federal law.

The states can go through the legislative scheme, but they will not be
in compliance and therefore should not receive federal funds.
However, the federal government relies on a government official to
determine compliance and if that official erroneously determines
compliance, then the state law may not be in compliance with the
federal law. The federal government has to rely on this spending
clause power as the basis of the legislation because the legislation
does not involved interstate commerce.



I do not know where you are getting this "the states has no legal
right" thing. The states have all the legal rights in this area of
law and can do whatever they wish, that is why the federal government
has to bribe the states to enact the laws the federal government
wants.

Here is a specific example - The IRS sets federal tax law and has developed
specific rules that apply to family law situations. The federal rules say
child support is taxable to the obligor and tax free to the obligee. The
states have no authority to change tax treatment of CS payments by creating
a law, or creating a court order, stating taxes on CS will be paid by the
obligee. My point is the states have no legal right to create ruling
CONTRARY to federal law.

Your analogy is flawed. The federal government can do whatever it
wishes because the power to tax, like the power to spend, is
complete. Family law and tax law are two different animals with
regard to federal power over each. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_spending_clause


If you are trying to say that failure to adopt the laws would lead to
the federal government withholding funds, that may be true, or it may
not, depending on whether the official administrating the program is
holding the states to the letter of the federal requirements. The
only enforcement mechanism the federal government has is to withhold
the funds. The federal government is obviously not doing so. In
other words, Virginia may not be in compliance with the federal laws.
This assumes, of course, the the law Briggman points to is current
Virginia law that is not contradicted by other Virginia law. Again
not federal law, Virginia law.

I disagree with your conclusion. Federal law has included a provision for
immediate wage withholding without further action by a court since 1988.
Virginia created its law stating the language regarding immediate
withholding may be included in a court order starting in 1995. The federal
withholding law has applied in Virginia since 1988. Virginia apparently did
not decide until 1995 to provide notice in their court orders that the
federal law applied.

This is true only if there is some other provision of Virginia law
that says withholding is automatic. Your statement that "the federal
withholding law has applied in Virginia since 1988" is incorrect
because the federal withholding law is not the law that governs family
law in the state of Virginia but is merely a law that governs the
spending of funds appropriated by Congress. The federal government
has no ability to directly enact state family law.

For example, the beginning of the notorious Bradley Amendment say "In
order to satisfy section 654 (20)(A) of this title, each State must
have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures" and
goes on to give such a list. Section 654 is a list of state
requirements. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
But what happens if the state does not comply?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...-000-.html#a_8
(8) Noncompliance of State child support enforcement program with
requirements of part D
(A) In general
If the Secretary finds, with respect to a State's program under part D
of this subchapter, in a fiscal year beginning on or after October 1,
1997-
(i)
((III) on the basis of the results of an audit or audits conducted
under section 652 (a)(4)(C) of this title that a State failed to
substantially comply with 1 or more of the requirements of part D of
this subchapter (other than paragraph (24), or subparagraph (A) or (B)
(i) of paragraph (27), of section 654 of this title); and
(ii) that, with respect to the succeeding fiscal year-
(I) the State failed to take sufficient corrective action to achieve
the appropriate performance levels or compliance as described in
subparagraph (A)(i); or
(II) the data submitted by the State pursuant to section 654 (15)(B)
of this title is incomplete or unreliable;
the amounts otherwise payable to the State under this part for
quarters following the end of such succeeding fiscal year, prior to
quarters following the end of the first quarter throughout which the
State program has achieved the paternity establishment percentages or
other performance measures as described in subparagraph (A)(i)(I), or
is in substantial compliance with 1 or more of the requirements of
part D of this subchapter as described in subparagraph (A)(i)(III), as
appropriate, shall be reduced by the percentage specified in
subparagraph (B).

Translation, they lose money. Look at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html
as well. That section spells out the Secretaries duties.

I lurk here a lot, and you are usually right, but you are wrong on
this one.

On Aug 27, 2:21 am, wrote:

Then you believe, that since my last court order provides no provision
for wage withholding, as Virginia law makes that optional, that DCSE
is unable to legally withhold wages absent such a provision?
Especially since the order is unsigned and undated, right?

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 26, 12:49 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...



On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

On Aug 23, 2:38 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com...

"An order which modifies an initial order may include a provision
for
immediate income withholding."

This language seems to control. "Every initial order entered on or
after July 1, 1995" would seem to mean exactly what it says. Your
initial order was entered in 1988. There is no requirement that a
modification order contain a provision for immediate income
withholding, just authorization that a modification order may
provide
for immediate income withholding. DCSE is exceeding their
authority,
they need a court order.

I disagree. The states have no legal authority to create laws that
run
counter to federal laws.

That is not a correct statement, particularly in regard to family
law.
Federal and state power to create laws depends a great deal on
limits
on Congressional power in the Commerce Clause. That is why the
statute you quote below cannot simply require the state to comply.
However, the federal government can bribe the state into creating
draconian family law through spending provisions (the notorious
matching funds) under the Spending Clause, which is a much wider
power. The federal government cannot just create federal family
law.
Your statement forgets about federalism. Look at this wikipedia
article for some information on how far this spending power goes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

States have the decision making autonomy to adopt the entire federal
legislative scheme or none of it. Every state decided to adopt the
federal
family law provisions in what is commonly referred to as Welfare
Reform
to
continue receiving federal revenue share money for welfare and CS
adminisrtation. The states have no legal right to pick and choose
which
federal laws they adopt - It's all or nothing.

The states have the legal right to pick and choose what federal laws
they adopt, the consequences of choice is all or nothing with regards
to the federal funding. Virginia does not have a simple choice
between all federal law and no federal law. Virginia can enact any
constitutional family law it wants.

I agree with the basic concept you are presenting, but when it comes to
family law it is all or nothing. When any state adopts federal family
law
they are adopting 100% of Title 42 Chapter 7 Section IV-D Part D. The
states don't get to go through the legislative scheme layed out in IV-D
and
pick and chose what portions of the scheme they like. They must adopt
every
aspect from 651 through 669b to be in compliance. States have the
flexibility to consider the federal law a minimum requirement and create
local legislation that is stricter than the federal law.

The states can go through the legislative scheme, but they will not be
in compliance and therefore should not receive federal funds.
However, the federal government relies on a government official to
determine compliance and if that official erroneously determines
compliance, then the state law may not be in compliance with the
federal law. The federal government has to rely on this spending
clause power as the basis of the legislation because the legislation
does not involved interstate commerce.

Compliance is monitored annually and certification of state CSE programs are
provided each year. The states are required to make detailed reports to the
Secretary of HHS each year showing they have reviewed and complied with
federal CS program requirements. In addition, HHS does an audit every 3
years of state CSE programs, and more frequently should an conidition of
non-compliance be determined. Fines for non-compliance are where the big
money is - TANF Block Grants. The fine for a first failure to comply is 1
percent but not more than 2 percent of the block grant. Fine for a second
offenbse is 2 percent but not more than 3 percent for a second failure to
comply. And 3 percent but not more than 5 percent for third and subsequent
failures to comply.




I do not know where you are getting this "the states has no legal
right" thing. The states have all the legal rights in this area of
law and can do whatever they wish, that is why the federal government
has to bribe the states to enact the laws the federal government
wants.

Here is a specific example - The IRS sets federal tax law and has
developed
specific rules that apply to family law situations. The federal rules
say
child support is taxable to the obligor and tax free to the obligee. The
states have no authority to change tax treatment of CS payments by
creating
a law, or creating a court order, stating taxes on CS will be paid by the
obligee. My point is the states have no legal right to create ruling
CONTRARY to federal law.

Your analogy is flawed. The federal government can do whatever it
wishes because the power to tax, like the power to spend, is
complete. Family law and tax law are two different animals with
regard to federal power over each.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_spending_clause

I disagree. Family law and tax law are tied together and are applied
together. CS guidelines are established based on tax policy related to a
parent's earnings. Asumptions are made in the CS guidelines about the tax
positions of the parents. Federal law dictates exemptions, filing status,
deductibility of spousal support, non-deductibility of CS payments, tax
consequences on retirement account transfers, eligibility for tax credits,
pre and post 18 support rules, etc.



If you are trying to say that failure to adopt the laws would lead to
the federal government withholding funds, that may be true, or it may
not, depending on whether the official administrating the program is
holding the states to the letter of the federal requirements. The
only enforcement mechanism the federal government has is to withhold
the funds. The federal government is obviously not doing so. In
other words, Virginia may not be in compliance with the federal laws.
This assumes, of course, the the law Briggman points to is current
Virginia law that is not contradicted by other Virginia law. Again
not federal law, Virginia law.

I disagree with your conclusion. Federal law has included a provision
for
immediate wage withholding without further action by a court since 1988.
Virginia created its law stating the language regarding immediate
withholding may be included in a court order starting in 1995. The
federal
withholding law has applied in Virginia since 1988. Virginia apparently
did
not decide until 1995 to provide notice in their court orders that the
federal law applied.

This is true only if there is some other provision of Virginia law
that says withholding is automatic. Your statement that "the federal
withholding law has applied in Virginia since 1988" is incorrect
because the federal withholding law is not the law that governs family
law in the state of Virginia but is merely a law that governs the
spending of funds appropriated by Congress. The federal government
has no ability to directly enact state family law.

So if there are annual certifications of state CS programs for compliance,
and federal audits of state CSE programs at least every three years, and
Virginia was not in compliance there ought to be lots of evidence Virginia
was fined with reduced TANF Block Grants over a 7 year period. Of course,
there is one other possibility - Virginia got a federal waiver from the
requirement to provide immediate withholding without an amendment to an
exisiting order because they had an alternative federally approved pilot
program in place covering withholding.


For example, the beginning of the notorious Bradley Amendment say "In
order to satisfy section 654 (20)(A) of this title, each State must
have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures" and
goes on to give such a list. Section 654 is a list of state
requirements.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html
But what happens if the state does not comply?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...-000-.html#a_8
(8) Noncompliance of State child support enforcement program with
requirements of part D
(A) In general
If the Secretary finds, with respect to a State's program under part D
of this subchapter, in a fiscal year beginning on or after October 1,
1997-
(i)
((III) on the basis of the results of an audit or audits conducted
under section 652 (a)(4)(C) of this title that a State failed to
substantially comply with 1 or more of the requirements of part D of
this subchapter (other than paragraph (24), or subparagraph (A) or (B)
(i) of paragraph (27), of section 654 of this title); and
(ii) that, with respect to the succeeding fiscal year-
(I) the State failed to take sufficient corrective action to achieve
the appropriate performance levels or compliance as described in
subparagraph (A)(i); or
(II) the data submitted by the State pursuant to section 654 (15)(B)
of this title is incomplete or unreliable;
the amounts otherwise payable to the State under this part for
quarters following the end of such succeeding fiscal year, prior to
quarters following the end of the first quarter throughout which the
State program has achieved the paternity establishment percentages or
other performance measures as described in subparagraph (A)(i)(I), or
is in substantial compliance with 1 or more of the requirements of
part D of this subchapter as described in subparagraph (A)(i)(III), as
appropriate, shall be reduced by the percentage specified in
subparagraph (B).

Translation, they lose money.

They lose TANF Block Grant money. See above for how much. If Virginia
ignored a federal CSE requirement to establish immediate withholding for a 7
year period because the "State failed to substantially comply with 1 or more
of the requirements of part D" where is the evidence the state lost TANF
Block Grant money?

wrote in message
oups.com...

I lurk here a lot, and you are usually right, but you are wrong on
this one.

I think I figured out why we are not agreeing.

States have exclusive jurisdiction over "family law." Family law has been
defined by the courts as marriage, divorce, alimony, and child custody. The
federal courts excluded child support and CS enforcement from their
definition of family law. The IV-D legislative scheme, which includes the
immediate withholding provision, deals with CS, not family law as defined by
the courts.

I have been talking about the federalization of CS and CSE which is
sometimes referred to as the "domestic relations exception" area of family
law. You are talking more generically about the state's right to create and
enforce family law issues other than CS.

Where we both agree, I believe, is federal intrusion into areas of family
law have been increasing. A recent example would be the push by the federal
government into domestic violence with the VAWA. The feds have tried to
redefine the VAWA issues as being under the Spending Clause (like CS) as
opposed to being a family law issue under the Commerce Clause. With the
advent of no-fault divorce, domestic violence is no longer a reason to get
divorced so it has shifted over to a public good type issue related to
federal spending.