.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, February 28, 2009

 
DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE

Those readers who have electronic access to Federal Court documents may want to review the Complaint David Bardes filed against the South Carolina Department of Social Services and the Charleston County Council. We are somewhat familiar with both Mr. Bardes and his grievances with the Family Court and DSS. Click here to read an old letter he sent to DSS and click here and scan down to review his comment to one of our posts.

We do not agree with Mr. Bardes 100%, however, we think he has some legitimate complaints, particularly given some of the recent problems exposed at DSS. Among other things, he objects to the imposition of the 5% child support payment processing fee which, according to this post, is not supposed to go into effect until "implementation of the State wide Child Support System," presumably whenever this Legislation is enacted. And as the comment to "IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?" demonstrates, Mr. Bardes is not alone in his dissatisfaction.

We are at a loss as to how the Family Courts have apparently managed to ignore Court Orders and prematurely increase the child support processing fees. If not authorized either in the Final Support Orders or by Statute, from where does the authority to impose "Court Costs" of 5% come? As $67 Million and counting of fines demonstrates, South Carolina is nowhere close to "implementation of the State wide Child Support System."

If (the editorial) we were members of the South Carolina General Assembly we would take a good, long, hard look at not only this 5% "Court Cost" assessment, but at all the fees and fines that are running through the Family Court accounts. We would also give some serious consideration to passing this legislation.

Labels: , , ,


Friday, February 27, 2009

 
A FEW COMMENTS/QUESTIONS ON THE TOPIC OF "EVERYTHING IS RELATED"

The Post and Courier reported:
Other areas of the Charleston courthouse are likewise feeling the effects of downward budget concerns. Charleston Clerk of Court Julie Armstrong said this week that as the workload increases for everyone, her office still has mandated responsibilities.

Among them are ensuring that juries are available for all civil and criminal trials, and the federal requirement that child-support payments and wage garnishments go forward in short speed.

That alone is a tall order, she said, as more than $34 million in support payments move through the county each year.
If “$34 million in support payments move through the county each year” that means that $1.7 Million is generated in processing fees. And who knows how much is generated in fines and from the “float?” Shouldn't the General Assembly be asking questions about how much money is being generated through the Family Court by way of fines, interest, and support processing fees?

On a related issue, check out Lilly’s comment to this article:
Collusion by […] lawyers and a judge to harm the rights and interests of victims […] constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct which exceeds all possible bounds of decency and which must be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community,"

And this happens in the family court a lot. Soooo, where the h*** are the lawyers who are alleged to be willing to clean up that putrefied mess?

Over the last eight years no one has been willing to man up to the plate on that one.
In view of the fact that a USC Law School Professor has raised serious questions about collusion, shouldn't the members of the General Assembly be concerned about these kinds of allegations? Or do they think that something like this cannot happen in South Carolina?

Last, check out the comments to this article regarding the money that was taken from the detainees, but which has never been accounted for either qualitatively or quantitatively. Shouldn't the General Assembly be asking questions about how much money is being generated through the County Jails through hidden surcharges, processing fees, and other revenue sources?

In short, everything is related.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

 
IS FILING THE NEW HIRE REPORTING FORM MANDATORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA?

To paraphrase a television commercial, “we are not real lawyers.* And in our case, we do not even "play one on T. V." Still, we note that there appears to be a conflict between Sections 43-5-598 and 63-17-1210 of South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended).

42 USC Sec. 653a, Section 43-5-598 South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended), and this link, when read in conjunction, indicate that filing of the New Hire Reporting Form is mandatory. However, the clear language of recently enacted Section 63-17-1210 South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended) indicates that participation in the “Employer New Hire Program” is voluntary rather than mandatory.

The South Carolina Legislature has apparently either overlooked the conflict between the Federal mandate and the permissive nature of the statutory scheme it enacted or does not agree that there is a conflict. However, considering that the United States government keeps fining South Carolina for failure to become compliant with Federal Laws in the area of child support, maybe the State Legislature should address the question of the apparent conflict. After all, this appears to be the $67 Million question.

*For the views of a real South Carolina lawyer log on to South Carolina Appellate Law Blog.

Labels:


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

 
LACK OF COMPUTERIZED CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM IN SC HURTS EVERYONE

Check out the comment to SC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM REPORT & "STIMULUS" LEGISLATION. Does this sound familiar?

We believe that the lack of a computerized child support system in South Carolina not only negatively affects the payees,* but results in miscalculations of child support arrearages and virtually amounts to harassment of many people who are meeting their obligations on a consistent basis--it is too much trouble to find the guy who owes $30,000 (for example) so the Clerks Rule in the guy who owes $400 (for example)--after all, they know where he lives and can sock him with penalties that they do not have to explain to anyone and keep him in jail until he pays whatever the Court tells him to pay without regard to how much it costs the taxpayers of the county to house, guard, and feed him.


*For related posts see, GIRL REUNITED WITH FATHER SUES COUNTY FOR FAILURE TO LOCATE HIM, DELAYS IN CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTIONS, and INADEQUATE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION SYSTEM?

Labels: , , , ,


Tuesday, February 24, 2009

 
SC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM REPORT & "STIMULUS" LEGISLATION

We do not know whether DSS has yet presented the South Carolina with "a detailed report on the status of the Child Support Enforcement System including actions currently being undertaken to become compliant with federal government requirements; the cost required to meet minimum federal guidelines; total funds spent so far on the system; the amount of fines assessed by the federal government associated with non-compliance; how much has been spent to satisfy actions taken by the state judicial system; and how much has been spent related to actions taken by any other entity which may have altered the amount required for meeting minimum federal guidelines." However, we remind everyone that this report was supposed to have been submitted to the General Assembly by August 31, 2008. More important, our preliminary review of the "Stimulus" Legislation along with our review of some related government publications indicates that States that are compliant with Federal Law may be eligible for some incentive bonuses. And remember, it is not just the fines that are killing South Carolina--the State has also missed out on incentive bonuses that would have been available had it increased its rate of child support collection and reduced its arrears.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, February 23, 2009

 
SOLVING THE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION PROBLEM IN SC

This is a complex problem which requires immediate and proactive action. This is why Dr. Hayes needs to either be terminated or given enough assistance and authority to address the problem. Again, at the risk of sounding arrogant, we have been both calling attention to the problem with child support collections in South Carolina and trying to offer solutions for years, but nobody would listen. For an example of what we have been saying, note "SOUTH CAROLINA DSS CHIEF RESIGNS FROM CABINET," For an example of what other people have written, click "South Carolina Child (Non) Support."

As far as a specific solution is concerned, getting the computerized child support system into place would solve most of the problems of collection and distribution. And while that task should be able to be completed within months, not years, we acknowledge that it cannot be completed yesterday. Therefore, we suggest an immediate and simple partial solution--Public Service Announcements.

Rather than using the 5% that is being assessed (possibly unlawfully) against the payors and the interest that is being generated from the undistributed collections to run the Court System, the State of South Carolina should use (at least part of) these funds to pay for Public Service Announcements such as: "Hello my name is Dr. Kathleen Hayes. I am the Director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services. I am here today to tell you that we have collected almost $6 Million in back child support on behalf of South Carolina custodial parents, but that we are unable to distribute it because we are unable to locate the people to whom the money is owed. Therefore, if you are not currently receiving support through Family Court and you believe that you are owed back support, send a letter to the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the South Carolina Department of Social Services at P. O. Box 1469, Columbia, South Carolina, 28202-1469. Note that you may still be eligible to collect these funds even if your children are now adults. However, be sure to include a copy of your Support Order along with your letter."

Labels: , ,


Sunday, February 22, 2009

 
JUDGE GUILTY IN KICKBACKS IS ACCUSED OF FIXING SUIT

The New York Times has reported "a judge who pleaded guilty last week to taking part in a kickback scheme has been accused by a Wilkes-Barre newspaper of fixing an unrelated defamation case in which he ordered the paper to pay $3.5 million.” The newspaper has also reported that William Sharkey, Judge Conahan’s cousin, who was the Court Administer, helped steer the case to Judge Conahan by ignoring case assignment procedures, and that, in a separate case, Mr. Sharkey pleaded guilty this week to stealing $70,000 in illegal gambling proceeds that were to be turned over to the county treasurer’s office.

When it rains it pours. It makes us wonder who else is going to go down in the South Carolina DSS Embezzling Scheme and the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office Embezzling Scheme.

Labels:


Saturday, February 21, 2009

 
SOUTH CAROLINA DSS & CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION STATISTICS

The ACE Child Support Statistics cited in DSS problems challenge the credibility of Sanford's restructuring agenda are not the most current. They were based on NET UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS (UDC), FY 2005. More important, these figures do not represent the child support collection rates for the individual states. Rather, they represent the amount of child support that has been collected by the individual state child support offices, but which has not yet been distributed to the custodial (obligee) parents.

In other words, this is money that has been collected from the noncustodial (obligor) parents and is drawing interest, but which cannot be paid to the obligee parents because the State cannot locate the obligee parents.

Where is that multimillion dollar computerized child support tracking system when you need it?

Those who wish to read an explanation of the Undistributed Collections Chart should click Undistributed Collections, FY 2007. Those who wish to review the most current available statistics should click NET UNDISTRIBUTED COLLECTIONS (UDC), FY 2007.

DSS and the Family Courts of South Carolina have some major problems to solve, but if the members of the Legislature want to assist in solving these problems, they have to first understand the nature of the problems. Otherwise, they are just pandering to their constituents.

Labels: , , , ,


Friday, February 20, 2009

 
SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR ASKS DDSN BOARD MEMBERS TO RESIGN

Greenville Online has reported that “Governor Mark Sanford asked for the resignations Thursday of four of the seven commissioners of the state Department of Disabilities and Special Needs after a critical audit alleged problems, including health and safety gaps, unused funds and a lack of transparency.” According to the article “December’s audit said the agency diverted or left unused $9 million in autism funding, may not have fired some staff members involved in cases of abuse and neglect, didn't follow up on numerous safety and welfare violations and denied commissioners access to public information, among other issues.”

So when are DSS resignations coming?

Labels: ,


Thursday, February 19, 2009

 
UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS AND STATE NEW HIRE DIRECTORY

Click 42 USC Sec. 653a to review the text of the applicable Federal Statute as relates to the New Hire Directory. Then read the comments posted to the article Your stimulus dollars at work, and the articles Day Laborers Are Easy Prey in New Orleans, Laborers' Class-Action Lawsuit Targets Charleston, S.C., Staffing Agency, and L&L client list a who's who of area businesses.

We understand that the information about the number of undocumented construction workers in these articles has not been scientifically verified, but is only anecdotal. However, the fact that undocumented laborers were actually able to maintain a class-action in Charleston suggests that at least some builders are hiring workers off the books. Presumably, these builders are not filing the New Hire Reporting Forms with the appropriate State Agency either. If this is in fact the case, it would help explain why South Carolina is having such difficulty both collecting child support and locating "Deadbeat Dads." It would also help explain why there has been such a high rate of reported unemployment in the State even during periods of construction booms. This leads one to wonder whether anyone is actually monitoring compliance with the Law and whether the State may be facing either losses of incentives or additional fines from the Federal Government for this lack of oversight.

Labels:


Wednesday, February 18, 2009

 
ONCE AGAIN WE PRESENT: HIDDEN TAXATION IN FAMILY COURT!

We received only one comment to "IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?." The commenter was upset with the 5% fee he was having to pay along with his child support. Personally, we think he has a legitimate complaint. As we have indicated previously, the processing fee should be a flat rate for everyone, not more for those who pay more child support. It costs the same to address and place a stamp on an envelope containing a $1200 check as it does to address and place a stamp on an envelope containing a $280 check. In fact, the Family Court may earn interest on the average daily balances in its Accounts, so the person who pays the higher amount of child support and the larger processing fee may actually be earning more for the Family Court than the person who pays less child support and a smaller processing fee.

Labels:


Tuesday, February 17, 2009

 
E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR SC SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Those South Carolinians who wish to submit comments regarding either funding for DSS or any other State Agencies or programs can e-mail current members of the Senate Finance Committee at: SFI@scsenate.org, PL@scsenate.org, JYM@scsenate.org, NGS@scsenate.org, WHO@scsenate.org, SLC@scsenate.org, CCP@scsenate.org, CROMERR@scsenate.org, DJ1@scsenate.org, JCL@scsenate.org, MED@scsenate.org, EDU@scsenate.org, GR@scsenate.org, SGE@scsenate.org, FAIRM@scsenate.org, BRYANTK@scsenate.org, RA@scsenate.org, SBI@scsenate.org, JWM@scsenate.org, set@scsenate.org, STR@scsenate.org, SAG@scsenate.org, and DE@scsenate.org.

Monday, February 16, 2009

 
IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?

Greenville Online reported last week in "State spending sources questioned," “The state budget of roughly $7 billion is only about a third of the amount the state spends, according to the study, with another $7 billion laid on taxpayers in fees outside legislative review and another $7 billion the state spends in federal funds.”

This article substantiates our long-held suspicion that at least some State Agencies are apparently running a sort of “shadow government” outside the purview of the Legislature. Among them are the Family Courts which set and collect fines from “Deadbeats” with no oversight from the Legislature and no accountability to anyone. Oftentimes the people against whom the fines are accessed cannot afford counsel. And they have no choice but to pay the assessment or go to jail and remain there until they “purge themselves of Contempt.”

Certainly, we do not advocate terminating the powers of Civil Contempt possessed by Family Court Judges. But, until the Family Courts provide an accounting of how much they are receiving and how they are spending it, there should be a suspension of Civil Contempt fines. The power of Contempt is supposed to be utilized to increase compliance with Court Orders, not either to enrich the coffers of the State or to make up budget deficits.

Labels:


Saturday, February 14, 2009

 
IS THERE MORE UNREPORTED MISMANAGEMENT AT SC DSS?

The South Carolina Department of Social Services has recently come under fire for mismanagement of various sorts. However, this may not be the end of the criticism and the scrutiny.

We remind everyone that STATE LAW REQUIRES REPORTING OF NEW HIRES BY EMPLOYERS. However, the case of Staffing 200 suggests that at least some South Carolina businesses are either ignoring the Law or are unaware of the Law. This raises several questions. Is DSS monitoring compliance with the Law? Are there widespread violations of the Law? Is the Child Support Enforcement Division being funded sufficiently both to insure compliance with Federal law and to collect the arrearages? Why are the total arrearages owed in South Carolina increasing by $50 Million per year? What do the Family Courts do with the 5% administrative fee that is collected for processing all child support payments? How much money is collected in fines and penalties each year from parties who are found to be in contempt for failure to pay child support and what is done with that money? Does the Family Court's gain constitute a loss to County Sheriffs who have to house and feed these "deadbeat parents" or have the counties found other ways to profit off of inmates?

Until these questions are answered, the public will not know whether recent reports constitute merely the tip of the iceberg.

Labels: , ,


Friday, February 13, 2009

 
JUDGES PLEAD GUILTY IN SCHEME AND ARE THEN SUED

We concede that the little nickel dime stuff that former Dorchester County Sheriff Nash strong-armed from detainees appears mild in comparison to the scheme reported in Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit. Still, in our opinion, Mr. Nash should both provide a full accounting and return the money. It is an issue of quantity not quality. Whether a theft or a wrong is accomplished by brute force rahter than by deception makes it no less a theft or a wrong. More important, perhaps, Sheriff Nash should want to avoid lawsuits like the ones referenced in Suit Names 2 Judges Accused in a Kickback Case.

Labels: ,


Thursday, February 12, 2009

 
TAXPAYERS MAY HAVE TO COVER OCTOPLET MOM’S COSTS

The Associated Press has reported:
A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.

We have a suggestion for determining who should pay for the costs of raising these children—the biological parents. That means “Dad” and "Mom”--"sperm donor" and "egg donor." Give him visitation, but make him contribute. And the idiot doctor and hospital administrators who approved this whole fiasco should reimburse the hospital for the costs associated with this dangerous and expensive procedure out of their own pockets. At a time when many Americans cannot afford even basic preventive health care and when social safety net programs are being cut to the bone all over the country, spending limited resources on this kind of self-indulgent procedure borders on criminality. If it isn’t against the law it ought to be.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, February 11, 2009

 
SHOULD SC DSS DIRECTOR BE FIRED FOR SC DSS FAILURES?

It has been suggested that Dr. Hayes should be removed from her post at SC DSS for the failure of SC DSS to prevent the alleged embezzlement scheme and for the failure to implement the Federally-mandated computerized child support collection and tracking system. However, while we believe that Dr. Hayes shares some of the blame with the Legislature for the State's failure to implement the computerized child support collection system, we are hesitant to place the responsibility for the embezzlement on the shoulders of either Dr. Hayes or Governor Sanford. These were not only systemic institutional failures, but banking failures as well. Note:

U.S. Attorney for South Carolina Walt Wilkins says Moore used his position as finance director to have 761 checks issued, from an account he had access to, to at least 250 different people. Those people would cash the checks, which averaged $7,000, keep anywhere from $700 to $1,500 of it for themselves and give the rest to Jonathon Moses, who is charged as Moore’s co-conspirator.
In short, there were many people, both in and out of government, who should have caught these problems long ago. However, it appears that safeguards were not built into the system and that this lack of safeguards predated Dr. Hayes' tenure.

To put this matter into perspective, consider what happened in the Sheriff's Office in Dorchester County. It is fair to ask how County Auditor Mary Pearson missed the fact that regular Toll Phone Account Deposits were not being made and to ask why Sheriff Nash had no idea how much was running through his accounts. However, it is also fair to ask how First Citizens Bank both overlooked the fact that a government account was set up by a low level employee and allowed someone other than either a head of an agency or political entity to withdraw money using an ATM Card.

Turning back to the issue of the computerized child support collection and tracking system, we reiterate that attention needs to be focused in getting this system up and running. Under the present Family Court System non-criminal behavior is criminalized, the powers of Contempt are both abused and squandered, precious court-time and limited jail space are wasted, and exorbitant "user" fees are accessed without rhyme or reason. Even then, only about one half (1/2) of the child support that is owed is collected. Additionally, every few years we see the appointment of another DSS Chief who does nothing to correct the problems because the problems are systemic and no one is working to fix the system. Still, while we believe that the Legislature is primarily responsible for the State's failure to implement the computerized child support collection system because it failed to exercise any oversight, we also think that Dr. Hayes should be removed from her post for her failure either to understand the importance of this system or to address the problem in the almost three year period she has held this position.

Labels:


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

 
Table 6: CASES WITH ARREARS DUE AND CASES PAYING TOWARD ARREARS, FY 2007

Click Table 6: CASES WITH ARREARS DUE AND CASES PAYING TOWARD ARREARS, FY 2007 to see how your State compares with other States.

Labels: , ,


Monday, February 09, 2009

 
STATE HOUSE FRESHMEN DEMAND ANSWERS FROM SC DSS

Somehow we initially missed the post State House freshmen demand answers from SC DSS. However, readers may be interested to know that last year the South Carolina Legislature passed legislation requiring:
the Department of Social Services shall prepare a detailed report on the status of the Child Support Enforcement System. The report shall include, but not be limited to, actions currently being undertaken to become compliant with federal government requirements; the cost required to meet minimum federal guidelines; total funds spent so far on the system; the amount of fines assessed by the federal government associated with non-compliance; how much has been spent to satisfy actions taken by the state judicial system; and how much has been spent related to actions taken by any other entity which may have altered the amount required for meeting minimum federal guidelines. The report shall be submitted to the General Assembly by August 31st of the current fiscal year.
Note the last couple of paragraphs of SC DSS DIRECTOR SAYS SCAM VICTIMIZED ENTIRE STATE, in which we mention this Legislation. Again, we do not know whether DSS has complied with the Legislature's directive regarding providing updated information on the status of the computerized child support collection system. However, we do know that the Report is past due. And while it is a shame that Legislation had to be enacted to compel DSS to provide this information to the Legislature, the Report should now be available for everyone to review.

Labels:


Saturday, February 07, 2009

 
S.C. FINE: $63 MILLION AND COUNTING

Check out Frustrated SC DSS Director Explains $63 Million Penalties.

Dr. Hayes' excuses are pitiful. It is true that she inherited this mess from her (in our opinion) incompetent and overpaid predecessor. However, it is also true that she could have either traveled or made a telephone call to Alabama or Mississippi, or any number of states, and asked ”how did you solve your problem and can you give us the phone number for the guys that created your system?”

Note that we previously wrote about Dr. Hayes’ pending appointment on this Blog on Friday, February 23, 2007. Additionally, note that we posted S.C. FINE: $55 MILLION AND COUNTING on June 6, 2007. Granted, few people read this Blog and even fewer post to it. Still, if we were aware of this problem, our State Legislators should have been aware of the problem also--especially, given the number of published articles on the subject such as “S.C. fine: $55M and counting.”*

Incidentally, it is our understanding that the incompetence of Dr. Hayes' predecessor was rewarded by being appointed to another high-paying State job. Therefore, DSS's former problem may now be the problem of the South Carolina Department of Education.

Why we are thinking about it, we are reminded that State Senator Tom Davis thinks that counsel appointed to represent indigents should work without compensation. Maybe all attorneys working for the State Department of Social Services should work for free to make up for what they cost the State of South Carolina. That would be "$63 Million and counting."

*http://206.74.165.240/news/2007/jun/06/s_c_fine_m_counting/

Labels: , , ,


Thursday, February 05, 2009

 
DSS PROBLEMS CHALLENGE GOVERNOR SANFORD'S CREDIBILITY

Check out DSS problems challenge the credibility of Sanford's restructuring agenda.

There are some minor substantive mistakes in the piece. And more important from our perspective, we do not completely agree with Mr. Capps' main premise; while Governor Sanford has made some very poor appointments, the responsibility for this particular mess falls primarily on the Legislators who control the State's purse strings. For example, why in the world would the State spend untold amounts of State funds on the Hunley and another $12 Million on abstinence-only education before stopping the bleeding at DSS by implementing a computerized child support tracking and collection system?

Still, everything else aside, we think Mr. Capps is on to something important. Lucy has "some 'splainin' to do."

Labels:


Sunday, February 01, 2009

 
THREE "DEADBEAT DADS" ARRESTED BY LEXINGTON AUTHORITIES

WLIX Television has reported that Lexington authorities have arrested three men who they say owe over $71,000 in child support. According to the report, 33-year-old Deandre M. Black, of Lexington, was arrested for owing more than $27,000 in court-ordered child support, 43-year-old James S. Mayers, of Gilbert, was arrested for owing more than $10,000 in back child support. and authorities in Sevier County, Tennessee arrested 45-year-old Ronnie G. Fussell, who is wanted by the Lexington County Sheriff's Department on a warrant for failing to make court-ordered child support payments totaling more than $33,000.

The station also reported that "under South Carolina law, deadbeat parents can be charged with a criminal violation that carries a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $1,500 fine, Sheriff James Metts said. That punishment can be imposed in addition to any penalty that a family court judge hands down for not paying court-ordered child support."

We would like to know what took so long. Could it have something to do with the fact that South Carolina still does not have a statewide computerized child support tracking and collection system?

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?