CA: AB 2440 will allow CSE to target anyone who associates with parents owing child support

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/0...attack-in.html

3/1/2006
Second Wives Under Attack in California
AB 2440 will allow CSE to target anyone who associates with parents owing
child support

By Jim Untershine

California Assembly Bill 2440, entitled "Klehs Child support obligations
liability", is raising many eyebrows amongst loved ones, family members,
employers, customers, and landlords that come into contact with a parent
owing child support in the State. "This bill would impose joint and several
liability upon any person who knowingly assists a noncustodial child support
obligor who has an unpaid child support obligation to escape, evade, or
avoid current payment of those unpaid child support obligations".

Since "Existing law imposes joint and several liability upon a parent or
guardian for the injury done to another person by the child of that parent
or guardian under certain circumstances" it is only natural that the State
of California should allow Child Support Enforcement (CSE) to target and
collect money from anyone who associates with a parent that CSE has under
their thumb. Rather than just putting the deadbeat in jail for a year, CSE
could attempt to financially attack anyone who stood in the way.

California is the only state in the nation that only receives 36% of CSE's
operating costs from the Federal government while all other States receive
66% (USC 42 655 a4B). The reduction in Federal funding cost California
taxpayers $250 million last year since the accounting system used by CSE has
not been approved by the Federal government for 5 years in a row. The
publicized reason for Federal disapproval of the California CSE accounting
system seemed to be the system's failure to track employers of parents (or
non-parents) who are targeted by CSE. California has contracted IBM to
design an accounting system in a few years that can be approved by the
Federal government at a cost of $800 million.

The CSE agency in every state is required to comply with Federal Law in
order to receive taxpayer funding for actively collecting arbitrary amounts
of money from parents, or putting them in jail if they can't (USC 42654 20).
Depriving the rights and privileges of parents under the color of a Federal
Law may put the State into an actionable position and may invite legal
liability ( USC 42 1985 b/ USC 18 242).

The power to withhold wages from a parent's income is just one of the many
powers that is granted by the Federal Mandate which can be utilized by an
individual, a civil attorney, or a representative of the State's CSE agency
(USC 42 666 a8A). Employers withhold wages based on the amount that is
ordered by a Family Court judge and can be ordered without the employee's
involvement. The Family Court judge can only withhold up to 65% of a
parent's wages, which is limited by Federal Law (

USC 15 1673). If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the
State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a
child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the
state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42654 21a).

The protection granted to employees by the Federal Mandate demands that
employers must withhold the money ordered by the court and must not
discriminate against an employee by terminating or refusing to hire a parent
due to the existence of the court's wage withholding order (USC 42 666 b6D).
Employers who are forced to impoverish their employees are participating in
a self-defeating activity. The employee must make drastic changes to somehow
survive after this court ordered pay-cut and must maintain the same level of
productivity that would allow them to keep their job. Any employer can prove
a State's compliance with Federal Law by simply refusing to abide by a wage
withholding order and see if they have the guts to enforce it. Family Law
litigants, attorneys, or CSE agencies are reluctant to enforce wage
withholding orders because it might allow the employee to seek a downward
modification, if it was brought to the court's attention that this parent is
currently unemployed. Successfully driving the parent targeted for
collection to unemployment allows the child support arrearage to grow with
interest, which explains the reluctance to allow a parent to reduce it, let
alone allowing a parent to pay it.


Why should laws be changed or created if officers of the court are free to
ignore them? The back room solution would be to convince the American Bar
Association to allow their members to ignore the laws that drive parents
attempting to pay child support into poverty or prison, and recognize and
enforce the laws that protect them. The front room solution would be to
round up the consultants who were paid to guarantee that a State's child
support guideline and implemented system complies with Federal Law and sue
them for malpractice it doesn't.The California Legislature separated the
District Attorney's Office from the Child Support Enforcement Office because
the Attorney General wanted to shelter his criminal prosecutors from
criminal prosecution, when his Child Support Enforcement agency is
prosecuted by the Federal government for racketeering, taxpayer fraud, mail
fraud, consumer fraud, credit fraud, and deprivation of rights and
privileges under the color of law. California's plausible deniability rests
in pointing the finger at the 'Family Law Fall Guys' that operate out of
other States and have been paid by the taxpayers for their professional
guidance and thorough understanding of the Federal law that allows the state
to draw Federal funding.

Policy Studies Inc (PSI) of Denver, CO conducted the "California Child
Support Guideline Review" in addition to investigating the State's CSE
accounting. The Urban Institute (UI) of Washington, D.C. conducted the
"Collectability Study" in 2003 entitled "Examining Child Support Arrears in
California".




· PSI and UI failed to identify California noncompliance with the Federal
mandate (USC 42 654 20):



· Child support guideline exceeds the Federal maximum of 65% in some cases
(USC 15 1673 b2B)



· 10% interest charged on child support arrearages exceeds the Federal
maximum of 6% (USC 42 654 21a)



· Interest charges are not distributed last as required by Federal law (USC
42 654 21b)



· Enforcement of employer wage withholding is not required as demanded by
Federal law (USC 42 666 b6Dii)



· Employer discrimination due to wage withholding is not required as
demanded by Federal law (USC 42 666 b6Di)

The Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) of Bloomington, IN
published a survey entitled "Amount of Child Support Awarded by State
Guidelines in Various Cases". FASR is paid by the Federal government to act
as the 'Clearinghouse for Child Support Enforcement Statistics' and has
continued to misinform the US House of Representatives, Ways and Means
Committee of the financial demands imposed on parents across all States
(except Indiana) since 1997.

FASR has made the following errors in their attempt to portray Indiana as
the most aggressive child support guideline in the nation:



· Child support guideline amounts are only for 2 children, which masks the
actual financial demand as a function of children



· Parent income is not identified to be gross or net, which diminishes the
actual financial demand



· California parent earning $4,400/mo gross income ($3,300/mo net) is
reported to pay $770/mo (18% gross, 23% net), which diminishes the actual
financial demand of $1,320/mo (30% gross, 40% net)



· The total income of both parents is erroneously reported as the
noncustodial parent income, which diminishes the actual financial demand
(Marilyn E. Klotz, FASR, 1998, "Interstate Comparison of Child Support
Orders using State Guidelines")

"Dusty" wrote in


California Assembly Bill 2440, entitled "Klehs Child support obligations
liability", is raising many eyebrows amongst loved ones, family members,
employers, customers, and landlords that come into contact with a parent
owing child support in the State. "This bill would impose joint and
several liability upon any person who knowingly assists a noncustodial
child support obligor who has an unpaid child support obligation to
escape, evade, or avoid current payment of those unpaid child support
obligations".


Interesting how they stoke the fires of the witch hunt for what amounts to
chump change.
Why not instead focus on collecting the 400Billion a year in unpayed income
taxes?

"DB" wrote in message
et...

"Dusty" wrote in


California Assembly Bill 2440, entitled "Klehs Child support obligations
liability", is raising many eyebrows amongst loved ones, family members,
employers, customers, and landlords that come into contact with a parent
owing child support in the State. "This bill would impose joint and
several liability upon any person who knowingly assists a noncustodial
child support obligor who has an unpaid child support obligation to
escape, evade, or avoid current payment of those unpaid child support
obligations".


Interesting how they stoke the fires of the witch hunt for what amounts to
chump change.
Why not instead focus on collecting the 400Billion a year in unpayed
income taxes?

Because the IRS doesn't want to fill that many body bags with their agents
remains..