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

Thursday, April 30, 2009

 

TWO CANDIDATES FOR SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT WITHDRAW LEAVING ONLY FORMER FAMILY COURT JUDGE HEARNS

In late breaking news, the Charleston Regional Business Journal has reported:

Two of three candidates for a seat opening up on the S.C. Supreme Court withdrew from the race today, leaving S.C. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Kaye Hearn of Conway as the only contender.

Officials with the Judicial Merit Selection Commission said they received letters of withdrawal this morning from Circuit Judge Deadra Jefferson of Charleston and Circuit Judge John Few of Greenville.The Judicial Merit Selection Commission had nominated the three as finalists earlier this month to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Waller.

The General Assembly still must vote for the new justice on May 13, but Hearn will be the only candidate, officials with the commission said.

This is an unusual occurrence, to say the least, and may stir up more discussion on "backroom deals" and popular election of judges. But, from our perspective, it is good to see the selection of a State Supreme Court Judge who has particular expertise in Family Law.

Labels:


Wednesday, April 29, 2009

 
LILLY COLLETTE'S COMMENTS TO "JEFFERSON COULD JOIN HIGH COURT"

Lilly Collette posted the following comment to Jefferson could join high court:
How many times does the family court have to be “reminded” of the Rules of Family Court before someone–puts their foot down—and does something about these mongrels?

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/unpublishedopinions/HTMLFiles/COA/2009-UP-008.htm Fuller v. Fuller, App. Ct. 2009-UP-008[3] Although we have affirmed the appealed order based on our own findings from our review of the evidence, we take this opportunity to remind the family court bench that, under the South Carolina Rules of Family Court, “[a]n order or judgment pursuant to an adjudication in a domestic relations case shall set forth the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s decision.” Rule 26(a), SCRFC.
While we would not go so far as to refer to a judge as "a mongrel," this Opinion does give us pause. It is our understanding that Family Court Orders in South Carolina are usually prepared by the attorney for the "prevailing party" with input from the attorney for the other party. If the two attorneys involved in this case could not manage to craft an Order that both complied with the procedural rules and accurately reflected the facts presented at trial, what hope do so-called "Deadbeat Dads," who are often unrepresented by Counsel, have that their Orders will both comply with the procedural rules and accurately reflect the facts presented at trial? Therefore, shouldn't indigent "Deadbeat Dads" be provided with assigned counsel?

Labels: ,


Tuesday, April 28, 2009

 
BIENVENIDO AL DIREDTORIO DE INFORMES DE NUEVAS CONTRATACIONES DEL ESTADO DE NEW JERSEY

Lineamientos Básicos para la Presentación de Informes:

¿Por qué se piden los informes de nuevas contrataciones?

Las empresas desempeñan una función esencial para que los niños de New Jersey puedan recibir la asistencia que necesitan. Por lo general, los niños que no reciben pensión infantil por orden de un tribunal se ven obligados a vivir en la pobreza o depender de los programas de asistencia pública. Al cumplir con los requisitos de la ley de informes de nuevas contrataciones, usted ayudará para que los niños reciban la asistencia que merecen.

En 1996, el Congreso aprobó una ley llamada "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" (Ley de Reconciliación de Oportunidades Laborales y Responsabilidad Personal, PRWORA) como parte de la reforma de beneficencia social. Esta legislación creó el requisito para las empresas de los 50 estados de informar acerca de sus nuevas contrataciones y recontrataciones de empleados a un directorio estatal.

Los informes de nuevas contrataciones aceleran el proceso de órdenes de retención de ingresos para el pago de pensiones para niños menores, facilitan el cobro de estas pensiones en casos de niños cuyos padres cambian con frecuencia de empleo y ubican con rapidez a padres que no tienen la custodia de los hijos, para ayudar a establecer la paternidad y las órdenes de pensiones para niños menores. Los informes de nuevas contrataciones ayudan a que los niños reciban el apoyo que merecen. Las empresas son un elemento clave para asegurar la estabilidad financiera de muchos niños y familias, y deben estar orgullosos de su papel.

Labels: ,


Monday, April 27, 2009

 
INFORMACION DE CONTACTO DEL ESTADO PARA NUEVAS CONTRATACIONES

Click here to access a list of State New Hire Reporting Sites throughout the country.

Labels:


Sunday, April 26, 2009

 
NEW HIRE REPORTING PROGRAM AS EXPLAINED BY ARIZONA

Why is new hire reporting required? The answer according to information available at this link is:
In 1996, Congress enacted a law called the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act," or PRWORA, as part of Welfare Reform. This legislation created the requirement for employers in all 50 states to report their new hires and re-hires to a state directory.

New hire reporting speeds up the child support income withholding order process, expedites collection of child support from parents who change jobs frequently, and quickly locates non-custodial parents to help in establishing paternity and child support orders. New hire reporting helps children receive the support they deserve. Employers serve as key partners in ensuring financial stability for many children and families and should take pride in their role.

The preceding paragraphs are oddly familiar.

Labels:


Saturday, April 25, 2009

 
TEXT OF "A DEADBEAT DAD, SOUTH CAROLINA IS HIS BEST FRIEND"

The text of "A DEADBEAT DAD, SOUTH CAROLINA IS HIS BEST FRIEND" is as follows:
Single parenting is a strain in every direction. On a good day, you can fret about being ?untraditional? and worry whether your children?s lives might be better; on a bad day, you come face to face with the brutal economics of being both the provider and the nurturer, and you worry whether your children will eat tonight, or who will watch them when work requires you to stay late unexpectedly. It is a fundamental principle that parents who bring a child into this world are both responsible for providing that child's physical needs, regardless of any conflicts in their relationship. South Carolina dosen't seem to understand it takes a women and a man to have a child . One of the results of this lack of holding the fathers responsabale as much as the mother for the children they have .South Carolina has one of the highest teen birth rates in the nation. Each of these pregnancies --- among girls as young as 10 and 11 years-old --- create substantial social, health-related and economic consequences for the individuals involved, as well as for every taxpayer in South Carolina. Between 1995 and 2000, the state incurred nearly $51 million indirect costs due to teen pregnancies in the form of economic and housing assistance, foster care and juvenile justice issues In 2004 According to the South Carolina Commission for Minority Affairs' 2004 Statistical Profile, 31 percent of all children in South Carolina under the age of 18 live in single-parent families. Of all females in the state who give birth, 40.1 percent are single.

In 2006 South Carolina Kids Count Project Director Baron Holmes : Stated "In order for young children to reach their potential, their health, family, economics, and safety would have to improve by at least 20% on the Kids Count indicators." The required reduction to reach the national average would be: Single-Parent Families by 22%

In all of my reserch I have only found only one thing that turns the the tide of single parent births by this high of number. The paper is titled "The Impact of Child Support Enforcement Policy on Nonmarital Childbearing." The research was supported by the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology at the University of Washington and a grant from the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Researchers studying the factors behind out-of-wedlock births have found a significant variable that often is overlooked: child support. States that are strict in enforcing child support have up to 20 percent fewer unmarried births than states that are lax about getting unmarried dads to pay, the researchers found.

PLEASE EMAIL THESE THREE STOGES AND TELL THEM TO WAKE UP AND SUPPORT THE CHILDREN OF SOUTH CAROLINA

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford http://www.scgovernor.com/Contact.asp?sitecontentid=33

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contactform

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint http://demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Labels: ,


Friday, April 24, 2009

 
NEW HIRE REPORTING: NORTH CAROLINA VS. SOUTH CAROLINA

According to information posted at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Website:
In 1996, Congress enacted a law called the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act," or PRWORA, as part of Welfare Reform. This legislation created the requirement for employers in all 50 states to report their new hires and re-hires to a state directory (emphasis added).
New hire reporting speeds up the child support income withholding order process, expedites collection of child support from parents who change jobs frequently, and quickly locates non-custodial parents to help in establishing paternity and child support orders. New hire reporting helps children receive the support they deserve. Employers serve as key partners in ensuring financial stability for many children and families and should take pride in their role.
On the other hand, employers in South Carolina are not required to file the New Hire Reporting Form because the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Program is designed as a voluntary program. We wonder why North Carolina thinks that federal law requires South Carolina and all other states "to report their new hires and re-hires to a state directory." Clearly, one of these States does not understand the concept of "State's Rights." Or else the State of South Carolina would rather pay fines than protect some of its most vulnerable citizens if doing so risks inconveniencing its business sector in the slightest degree.

Labels: , ,


Thursday, April 23, 2009

 
THIRTY-SEVEN CHARGED IN COCK-FIGHTING RING IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Just a few days ago, The Post and Courier published the article "37 charged in cockfighting ring," We found many of the online comments to the article to be racist and inappropriate. However, we note that if the State of South Carolina were enforcing the New Hire Reporting Law, it would not only be more difficult for the 70,000 missing parents to avoid paying child support, but it would also be more difficult for illegal aliens to obtain employment. This is because the New Hire Reporting Form requires that the employee provide both a Social Security Number and a home address. We have said this before and will probably say it again.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

 
MARYLAND IS STILL LISTED ON SOUTH CAROLINA DSS ABANDONED PROPERTY LIST

As we mentioned before, Alabama is not the only State listed on the South Carolina DSS Abandoned Property List. Maryland and Pennsylvania are also listed. Maryland's address is indicated as MD CHILD SUPPORT, PO BOX 17396, BALTIMORE, MD 21297. Why this problem has not yet been addressed is a mystery to us. We know as a matter of fact that four of the top ten highest paid employees at the South Carolina Department of Social Services have been made aware of the problem. And we have been informed that they are "working on it" by an underling who has no power to do anything.

"So it goes."

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, April 21, 2009

 
"FINANCIAL DISTORTIONS"--KEEPING THE POOR INCARCERATED & POOR

Click Financial Distortions for some scary reading brought to us by the (usually) friendly folks at the Southern Center for Human Rights. But don't stop there. Read:
Remember, these are the folks who made a South Georgia county repay inmates saddled with "jail bills" and ended the practice of “Room and Board” Fees For Pre-Trial Detainees at the Clinch County Jail.

Monday, April 20, 2009

 
"THE REAL COST OF PRISONS"--TELEPHONE TOLL CHARGE PRICE-GOUGING OF INMATES

Click here to access the "The Real Cost of Prisons" Weblog. Click here to access "The Real Costs of Prisons" website itself. One of the issues that is discussed on the site that was of interest to us was the issue of telephone toll charge price-gouging of inmates. As readers of this BLOG may recall, the exorbitant phone rates imposed upon inmates was one of the ways in which former Dorchester County Sheriff Nash was able to maintain a jail slush fund to spend as he pleased without County Council oversight. As readers may also recall, an audit revealed that this particular slush fund was one of the primary sources of the funds former Dorchester County Chief Jailer Arnold Pastor embezzled.

In the Op-ed Piece "A bad call for prisoners" Ronald Fraser writes:
Prisoners who use the telephone to maintain strong family ties will be better prepared to rebuild their lives upon returning home. Why then does Massachusetts allow price-gouging phone companies to drive prison rates for interstate calls sky high, isolating inmates from the outside world? It is time to end telephone price gouging in prisons. If phone companies in Florida, Michigan, Missouri and New York can provide inmates with reasonable rates, so can Massachusetts.
While we do not know whether newly elected Sheriff L. C. Knight has terminated the practice of price-gouging of prisoners for phone use we do think that what is good for Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and New York is good for South Carolina, particularly as it relates to taking money from incarcerated "Deadbeat Dads" that could and should go to their children.

On a related issue, we call everyone's attention to the article Lots of room to grow. Note that the Charleston County Jail houses almost three times the number of inmates it was built to house--many of them "Deadbeats." We wonder if the fines being imposed against these men are being given to Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon to offset the cost of housing and feeding them. And if not, we wonder if the Charleston County Family Court Judges would be a little more circumspect in the the number of men sent to jail for failure to pay child support if Sheriff Cannon sent the Family Court a bill each month. But, then again, maybe he makes enough money charging prisoners for phone calls and canteen privileges that this "income" offsets the costs of housing and feeding them.

Labels: , , ,


Sunday, April 19, 2009

 
IS JAILING "DEADBEAT DADS" DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

In the article "Question: Is Court-Ordered Child Support Doing More Harm Than Good?"* authors Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. and Geraldine Jensen present two compelling and opposing arguments. However, we submit that the wrong question is being asked. The better question which was posed by Tony Fantetti is "Should 'deadbeat dads' face jail time?" As Mr. Fantetti points out, many fathers cannot meet their financial obligations. And he then goes on to suggest:

Those demanding the incarceration of fathers in arrears on child support should themselves be jailed for their own overdue payments to their creditors. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Discriminately incarcerating one class of people (fathers) for overdue financial obligations in a society, and not incarcerating others who are guilty of the same, amounts to a state-sanctioned discriminatory inquisition.

Perhaps all single mothers with delinquent and outstanding medical bills for treatment of their children should be summarily jailed? If a father becomes involuntarily unemployed following massive layoffs, and is without income and therefore "refuses" (or so he's accused) to pay his child support should be jailed for being a "deadbeat," then it logically follows that a mother who "refuses" to seek medical treatment for a sick child simply because she is without the means to pay is also without a valid excuse and should be locked up as well.
Of course, we--as a society--would never even consider incarcerating a mother merely for being financially irresponsible, particularly without hard empirical evidence that spending some time "in the barb-wired hotel all dressed up and nowhere to go" would somehow teach those mothers how to be responsible. Otherwise, Octoplet Mom would be spending time in Los Angeles County Jail rather than spending time with Dr. Phil. So why are we so eager to take this approach with fathers? Should we not at least answer the question of whether jailing "Deadbeat Dads" is doing more harm than good. Should we not consider not just whether THE RECESSION is contributing to homelessness, but whether it is impacting on the ability of fathers to continue to pay child support at the Court-ordered levels as well.

*http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-30.htm

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Saturday, April 18, 2009

 
A.C.L.U. CRITICIZES BRUTAL AND OVERCROWDED CALIFORNIA JAIL

According to A.C.L.U. Criticizes Jail:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is calling for the closing of the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail, saying it is so overcrowded and brutal that it threatens the mental health of inmates. The conditions are “medieval and drive men mad,” Melinda Bird, a senior counsel for the group, said at a news conference on Tuesday. Mary Tiedeman, the group’s jail project coordinator, said she routinely saw inmates with “black eyes and bruised bodies” who contend that other prisoners or guards beat them. Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for Sheriff Lee Baca, said that any accusations of violence by guards were reviewed by the county’s Office of Independent Review.
We wonder how many of the Los Angeles County inmates are incarcerated for failure to pay debts. And we wonder how the living and safety conditions in Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail compare to the living and safety conditions in Berkeley County South Carolina where an inmate was recently beaten to death by a fellow inmate. And we wonder if the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail is as crowded as the Charleston County South Carolina Jail. And we wonder whether the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail is either profiting from inmate labor or using more inmate slave labor than is being used by either the State of Ohio or by Berkeley County South Carolina. And we wonder if the Los Angeles County Sheriff's wallet is getting fat as inmates are growing thinner.

At the end of the day, there is little or no oversight over how these jails are run, so it is no wonder that they are often used as cash cows and free labor pools. Slavery is alive and well in America--especially, it appears, in South Carolina.

Labels: , , , , ,


Friday, April 17, 2009

 
THREE VIEWS ON IMPOSING "USER FEES" ON JAIL INMATES

There is a growing trend throughout the United States for Cities to increasingly rely on the use of "user fees" to fill budget gaps. More and more often, those user fees are being imposed upon inmates. But, while one of the authors of the two articles at this link argues that inmate "user fees" are appropriate because they are a fiscal fix and the other argues against their imposition on the basis that the costs of collection exceed the revenues generated, we take a third view. We do agree with Pat Nolan that "fees should not be deducted from money sent by inmates' families" and that it "is wrong to do so." But, we would add that taking any money--or "volunteer services"--from inmates who are incarcerated because they did not meet their financial obligations to their families is immoral. This money rightfully belongs to the children and should not be utilized to pay overtime at the jail or for meals for visiting dignitaries or parties or character training or anything else that does not directly benefit the children of the inmates.

Labels:


Thursday, April 16, 2009

 
HOW DO SEVENTY THOUSAND PEOPLE MANAGE TO SECRET THEMSELVES IN A STATE THE SIZE OF SOUTH CAROLINA?

We do not know for certain, though we have a pretty good idea.

We do know for certain that The Post and Courier reported in 2005 "South Carolina parents owe more than $700 million in back child-support payments, with more than 70,000 people in the state dodging payments each year."

We also know for certain that the $700 Million arrearage figure reported three years ago has now ballooned to over $1.2 Billion, which leads us to believe that there are now substantially more than "70,000 people in the state dodging payments each year."

And we are pretty confident that the State's failure to either create a centralized computer child support tracking and enforcement system or to comply with 42 USC Sec. 653a has allowed people not only to hide in the open, but has also allowed them to avoid paying child support, to cheat on their income taxes, to successfully file false worker's compensation claims, and to illegally receive unemployment benefits. Still, those who want to know the definitive answer to the question of how seventy thousand people can secret themselves in a State the size of South Carolina--including those Freshmen Legislators who were recently demanding answers-- should contact Larry McKeown at either 1-800-768-5858 or Larry.McKeown@dss.sc.gov and pose the question to him. He gets paid $100,000 per year to know the answer to this and related questions. It is time that he earns his pay.

Labels: , , , , ,


Wednesday, April 15, 2009

 
CONTACTING THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IS LARGELY A WASTE OF TIME

If you are one of the tens of thousands of South Carolinians who want to know why you are not receiving your child support, we suggest that you not try to contact anyone at DSS other than “Ms. Barbara” at 1-800-768-5858.

Larry McKeown, the Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division is unfamiliar with the CSED website, is unfamiliar with the substance of applicable South Carolina statutes, and apparently has no clue as to when the computerized child support collection and tracking system that he has been promising for years will be in place. And he also apparently has not mastered the phone system, so if you do telephone him, he may accidentally cut you off while transferring you to someone who can answer your questions.

Brant Wood—the self-described “number three” man at the CSED is pleasant, courteous, patient, and professional—whenever you can get him. The problem is that Mr. Wood cannot answer simple questions, has no authority to correct the problems brought to his attention, and appears to spend his days in meetings.

According to published newspaper accounts, Dr. Kathleen Hayes is genuinely concerned about the long-standing problems at DSS and is determined to correct them. However, she also apparently spends her days in “important meetings” and either chooses not to return her telephone calls or is unaware that she is receiving telephone calls.

DSS General Counsel Virginia Williamson may also be spending her days in important meetings and thus unavailable to receive telephone calls. However, according to a message left on the DSS telephone system, as of 10:30 A. M. on April 15, 2009, her voicemail had not yet “been activated” and so voice messages could not be left for her.

Katie Morgan, Chief of Staff for Dr. Hayes, “will get back to you,” but it may be in a day or two or three after she gets out of those important meetings that they are always having at DSS.

So your best bet is to telephone Ms. Barbara. Of course, she cannot either answer most of your questions or solve most of your problems. But, Ms. Barbara is always cordial and can transfer you to the people who might be able to help you if they were motivated to do so. And, most important, she is never away from her desk “in an important meeting.”

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

 
DEBTORS' PRISONS ARE BEING CREATED THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES: "IF WE DON'T GET TECHNICAL"

In Pinched Courts Push to Collect Fees and Fines the reporter writes:
Since 2004, the [Florida] Legislature has required courts to support their operating expenses substantially, through fees collected by county clerks. Some of the clerks use collection agents, while about a third use the Collections Courts, state officials said. Here in Leon County alone, 839 people were arrested and jailed in the year ended last September over court debts or failure to appear at Collections Court, according to a study by the Brennan Center. Other Florida counties have less stringent policies.

Around Leon County, there are some 5,400 outstanding “blue writs” — the civil equivalent of an arrest warrant for failing to appear and pay fees. Some people come in and pay when they receive their summons; others spend a night or more in jail, often having been arrested when the writ pops up during incidents like routine traffic stops.
The reporter notes that "Constitutional law forbids jailing people solely over fees and fines they cannot pay, but Florida officials argue that, technically, they are jailing people because they violated court orders" (emphasis added).

So "technically speaking," those who are incarcerated as a result of their inability to meet their child support obligations, are not serving time in Debtors' Prison, but are serving time "because they violated court orders." However, if we do not both get technical and willingly suspend both disbelief and common sense, we have to admit that our county jails are fast becoming Debtors' Prisons. Pay the debt buddy and you can go home.

Labels: ,


Monday, April 13, 2009

 
IT IS NOW TIME TO CONSIDER THE IDEA OF PRISON REFORM

The following letter was published in The Post and Courier in response to this Editorial:
The prisons are the last step in a very broken system. There are too many things you can go to prison for, there are far too few options for judges to use outside of incarceration, and there is too little recognition of the damage our criminal justice system does to offenders who pose little danger to others.

Though Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's comparison between Japan, a homogeneous, fairly static society with very little immigration, and the United States, a heterogeneous, mobile country with a large number of immigrants, breaks down, he is correct that putting people into prison for anything that does not threaten another's safety is damaging to both the public who pays and the offender who is forever changed by the experience.

Prostitution, gambling, drugs, writing bad checks and shoplifting are just a few of the crimes that society should not endorse, but prison is not the correct response.

However, what actual sanctions will our society accept?

In the end, to fix the corrections system, we must start with the lawmakers who feel prisons are the only way to be tough on crime.

Then the courts need more options for sentencing and a changed outlook on the law being only a revenue source for lawyers. Saying prisons are broken because of the high numbers in them is the same as saying graveyards are broken because of being full of dead people.

Stan Burtt
S. Laurel Street
Summerville
We do not wholly embrace Mr. Burtt's belief that "the law [is designed] only [to provide] a revenue source for lawyers." Still, we think the ideas expressed by The Post and Courier, Mr. Burtt, and Senator Webb all have some merit. We believe however, that the suggested "dispassionate analysis of what the public is getting for [its] money, and how outcomes could be improved by making changes in the way it is spent" should extend to the areas of Civil Contempt and incarceration for what in many cases amounts to imprisonment for debt.

Labels: ,


Sunday, April 12, 2009

 
COURTS BEING CLOGGED BY PEOPLE REPRESENTING THEMSELVES

Last fall we referenced the article More Americans serving as their own lawyers in our post of the same name MORE AMERICANS SERVING AS THEIR OWN LAWYERS. And now The New York Times has reported in In a Downturn, More Act as Their Own Lawyers:
Financially pressed people...are representing themselves more and more in court, according to judges, lawyers and courthouse officials across the country, raising questions of how just the outcomes are and clogging courthouses already facing their own budget woes as clerks spend more time helping people unfamiliar with forms, filings and fees.

We all know that the numbers are through the roof,” said James K. Borbely, a circuit court judge in Vermilion County, Ill. “You just look at the courtrooms.”

Judges complain that people miss deadlines, fail to bring the right documents or evidence and are simply unprepared for legal proceedings. Such mistakes make it more likely they will fare poorly — no matter the merit of their cases.

Reliable numbers for people representing themselves in noncriminal cases are hard to come by. Nationally there is no tracking system, and each state’s court system follows its own rules. Many people hire a lawyer for one phase of a proceeding but then drop them later. (In criminal cases, of course, defendants have a right to an appointed lawyer.)

Records of New York’s family courts, in which a vast majority of people appear without a lawyer, are imperfect. But in the first six weeks of this year, nearly 95 percent of litigants in paternity and support cases did not have a lawyer, compared with 88 percent in all of 2008 (emphasis added).
We wonder if the New York statistics on unrepresented litigants in paternity and child support cases holds true across the country. If so, this represents an opportunity for some enterprising young lawyers who are familiar with the concept of "price point" and may be willing to give some thought to restructuring their fee schedules in order to capture some of this market. More important, given the limited amount of constitutional protections afforded to the putative fathers in paternity and child support cases, we suspect that there are thousands of men in this country who have been labeled "Deadbeat Dads" who are neither deadbeats nor dads.

Labels: , ,


Saturday, April 11, 2009

 
SUPPOSEDLY FILING THE SOUTH CAROLINA NEW HIRE REPORTING FORM IS MANDATORY

According to information posted at this link:
The Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, in compliance with Section 43-5-598 of the South Carolina Code of Laws and 42 USC Sec. 653a, has developed the Employer New Hire Reporting Program. Through this program all employers must report all newly hired and rehired employees.

This information will be used to ensure that non-custodial parents live up to their financial responsibilities to their children. By working together, the CSED and employers can reduce the burden on our nation's taxpayers and provide a better life for our nation's children. Decreasing the tax burden needed to fund government programs benefits all state residents. When children are receiving public assistance, State and Federal Laws allow the CSED to collect the child support owed to the children and use these monies to reimburse the State for the public assistance payments.

Most important of all, timely child support payments to families who are not receiving public assistance can prevent dependence on welfare programs in the future.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Federal Welfare Reform) requires employers to report the following data elements for each newly hired or rehired employee within 20 days:

    1. Employer Name
    2. Employer Address
    3. Employer Federal Identification Number
    4. Employer Phone Number (optional)
    5. Employee Name
    6. Employee Address
    7. Employee Social Security Number
    8. Employee Date of Birth (optional)
    9. Employee Date of Hire (optional)
New Hire information submitted by employers will only be used for purposes prescribed by law, including:
  • Establish and enforce child support orders
  • Detect Unemployment Benefits overpayments and fraud
  • Detect Workers' Compensation overpayments and fraud
  • Detect overpayments and fraud in other government programs, such as Welfare and Food Stamps

The penalty for an employer failing to report newly hired or rehired employees is:

  • $25 for the second offense and $25 for each offense thereafter; or
  • $500 for each and every offense, if the failure to report is the result of a conspiracy between the employer and the employee
Additionally, according to information posted at this link:

If you have any questions regarding the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Program, you may call us at (803) 898-9235. You may also contact us via e-mail at help@scnewhire.com. Since the data submitted to the New Hire Reporting Program is sensitive, i.e. Social Security Numbers and addresses, we ask that you not submit this data via e-mail, which may be intercepted during transmission. Please see our Security page.

You may submit paper reports to:

South Carolina Department of Social Services New Hire Reporting Program P.O. Box 1469 Columbia, SC 29202-1469
Fax: (803) 898-9100
This all sounds so simple and straightforward. Reading the above-cited materials would lead one to conclude that The South Carolina New Hire Reporting Program is a mandatory program enacted by the South Carolina Legislature in compliance with a Federal mandate and with the goal of advancing important public policies. The only problem with this conclusion is that, despite the representations of the South Carolina CSED, the statutory scheme enacted by the State of South Carolina does not require the employer to do anything.

Labels:


Friday, April 10, 2009

 
TEXAS ANSWERS THE QUESTION "HOW DOES NEW HIRE REPORTING BENEFIT THE COMPANY?"

"NEW HIRE REPORTING LAWS" explains:
How does it make sense and help a company's bottom line to comply with such a reporting requirement? Simple: the reports are used primarily for tracking parents who owe back child support and for reducing fraud under various social programs, including unemployment benefits. Employers are a vital link in the effort to ensure payment of child support, not only through garnishment of wages, but also through the new hire reports. If your employees who are owed child support start receiving it because of someone else's new hire report, you will have a better, more focused employee. What you do can help other employers, and what they do in that regard will help you. New hire reporting also helps your company through reduction of benefit fraud. Part of the unemployment tax that every taxed employer has to pay comes from claim fraud that must be recouped somehow, and of course the "somehow" is by resorting to employers! Since a new employee's wages will not be reported to TWC for up to three or four months following their hire, the new hire report can help TWC detect UI benefit claim fraud three or four months earlier than it might normally be found. For more details, see the article titled "How Employers Can Help Reduce Claim Fraud" in the Post-Employment Problems section of this book. In addition, since the new hire reporting law absolutely requires employees to give you their social security numbers, it is one more tool to use in verifying SSNs (see the article in the next section of this book titled "Verification of Social Security Numbers"). If a cross-match turns up a problem with the SSN, you can then contact the Social Security Administration for assistance in verifying whether the number is valid. Finally, new hire reporting can help avoid the problem of employees engaging in "double-dipping" with other state or federal benefit programs, such as workers' compensation.
Given the benefits of this program, we wonder why South Carolina does not require employers to file New Hire Reporting Forms.

Labels: , ,


Thursday, April 09, 2009

 
PENNSYLVANIA IS STILL LISTED ON SOUTH CAROLINA DSS ABANDONED PROPERTY LIST

According to information posted at this site, South Carolina still has a check (or four) for Pennsylvania. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Pennsylvania, please provide that information to Larry McKeown at either 1-800-768-5858 or Larry.McKeown@dss.sc.gov.

The South Carolina Department of Social Services has come under fire lately and apparently no one at the CSED knows how to either conduct GOOGLE searches or to use Nationwide Directory assistance. So they can use all the help that they can get.

Labels: , , ,


Wednesday, April 08, 2009

 
ALABAMA IS STILL LISTED ON SOUTH CAROLINA DSS ABANDONED PROPERTY LIST

According to information posted at this site South Carolina still has a check for Alabama. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Alabama, please provide that information to Larry McKeown at Larry.McKeown@dss.sc.gov.

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, April 07, 2009

 
STANDARD FOR FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT IN FAMILY COURT IN SOUTH CAROLINA

One of our readers called our attention to Ex Parte: Joe W. Kent, Appellant/Respondent. Leroy E. Capps and Harriette Capps, Respondents, v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, Respondent/Appellant, Opinion No. 4434, Submitted May 1, 2008 – Filed August 28, 2008, Refiled October 6, 2008. In that case, dissenting Court of Appeals Justice Thomas wrote:
Contempt results from the willful disobedience of a court order. Lindsay v. Lindsay, 328 S.C. 329, 345, 491 S.E.2d 583, 592 (Ct. App. 1997). A willful act is one “done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law.” Spartanburg County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Padgett, 296 S.C. 79, 82-83, 370 S.E.2d 872, 874 (1988) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1434 (5th ed. 1979)). The determination of contempt ordinarily resides in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Bevilacqua, 316 S.C. 122, 129, 447 S.E.2d 213, 217 (Ct. App. 1994). “A finding of contempt . . . must be reflected in a record that is ‘clear and specific as to the acts or conduct upon which such finding is based.’” Tirado v. Tirado, 339 S.C. 649, 654, 530 S.E.2d 128, 131 (Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Curlee v. Howle, 277 S.C. 377, 382, 287 S.E.2d 915,
This case suggests that all all those people incarcerated in Charleston, Dorchester, and Berkeley Counties for nonsupport were afforded tremendous protections before being hauled away. However, having witnessed some of these "cattle calls" first hand, we are not convinced that an appropriate determination of willfulness was made in all cases. But, what are you going to do? Because the CSED cannot find the real bad characters, they have to make an example of someone.

Labels: , ,


 
"DEADBEAT PARENTS" TARGETED IN SOUTH CAROLINA—REALLY THEY MEAN IT THIS TIME

On January 27, 2005, in an article titled Deadbeat parents targeted, Phillip Caston of The Post and Courier Staff wrote “South Carolina will spend $25 million on a computer database to record and track down deadbeat parents after being hit with more than $42 million in federal fines since 2001 for failing to implement such a system.” At the time, Larry McKeown, Director of the Child Support Enforcement Division at the state Department of Social Services, proclaimed that with the creation of the new system “"We at DSS will have a partnership with the 46 clerks of courts for enforcing child support payments…Rather than having to go to another county, they can access the information from anywhere…[the new system will improve communication between DSS and county clerks of court]…For example, if we find a person and input them into our system, Charleston County can quit looking for them…The system will allow us to monitor and remediate (sic) delinquent accounts more rapidly. Quicker response to a missed payment will accelerate efforts to get the non-custodial parent paying again."

At the time this article was published “South Carolina parents owe[d] more than $700 million in back child-support payments, with more than 70,000 people in the state dodging payments each year.” However, McKeown noted “One of the more effective ways of getting child-support payments is by withholding wages, a method that should work even more efficiently with the new system...With a statewide system DSS will enter the data and when it matches a case anywhere in the state, the automated system will generate a wage withholding notice to the employer the same day."

Four years have passed, South Carolina has been fined another $20 Million or so, and the total child support arrearages owed has almost doubled. And still the computer system has not been implemented. More important, the State of
South Carolina has changed its Laws so that employers no longer have to file the New Hire Reporting Form. Therefore, when, and if, this computerized system is ever implemented, South Carolina will have an insufficient data base to effectively generate wage with-holding notices.

Labels: , , ,


Monday, April 06, 2009

 
WHO IS BENEFITING FROM THE INCARCERATION OF "DEADBEATS?"

According to the article Economy lands more deadbeat parents behind bars "Twenty two percent of the inmates in the Berkeley County Jail are deadbeats. Twenty one percent in the Dorchester County Jail are there for not paying child support. And sixteen and a half percent of the inmates in the Charleston County Jail are deadbeats."

We wonder if jailing these men is resulting in an increase in child support collections and, if not, who is benefiting from the practice. Do the Sheriffs benefit? Do the Sheriffs and the Clerks benefit? Do the Judges and the Clerks benefit? Do the Counties receive free labor? Does anyone even know how long the average "Deadbeat" stays in jail, how much it costs to house and feed him during that period, the average fine imposed, the cost of prosecution, or who receives the fines imposed by the Court?

All philosophical considerations aside, in times of budgetary shortfalls, the Family Courts, the various County Councils, and the South Carolina General Assembly may want to examine whether incarcerating people who have not been convicted of a crime is either an efficient use of limited government resources or an effective procedure for increasing the rate of child support collection.

Labels: , ,


Sunday, April 05, 2009

 
CALIFORNIA BRINGS US: "FEDERAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN A NUTSHELL"

The Child Support and Incentive Act of 1998 changed the method in which incentives are paid to States by the United States Government for increasing child support collections and reducing the Welfare Roles. Some States have not only taken advantage of these incentives, but have created on-line publications both explaining the performance measures and outlining how that State performed. This practice not only serves to help improve performance by increasing accountability, but increases government transparency as well. For an example of how one State keeps its citizens informed on this issue, click Federal Performance Measures in a Nutshell (2/08).

Labels: ,


Saturday, April 04, 2009

 
2009-2010 S. BILL 411: UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR EXPUNGING CRIMINAL RECORDS

The South Carolina Senate has reintroduced Uniform Expungement of Criminal Records Act. There are still no provisions in this Bill for expunging Civil Contempt arrest records, even in cases in which the Trial Courts' Orders were overturned.

Labels: ,


Friday, April 03, 2009

 
INMATES HELP BUILD NEW ADDITION TO JAIL IN BERKELEY COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA

In Inmates Help Build New Addition to Jail WCIV TV tells the story of "inmates [whose] lives [are being turned] around by building a new jail."

At first blush, the article presents uplifting news. But, closer inspection reveals that this story is less than heartwarming.

As would be expected in a workforce of non-violent county inmates, some of the workers are apparently "Deadbeat Dads" like "49-year-old Donald Clark [who has] been locked up since January for issues related to child support" and [who] is happy to be outside and get[ting] fresh air instead of sitting in there and just looking at the TV."

Mr. Clark gets fresh air, but no reduction in his sentence and no income to apply to his increasing child support obligation. The citizens of Berkeley County get a bill for guarding, housing, and feeding Mr. Clark. The Contractor gets free "voluntary labor" which results in reduced overhead and higher profits. The Berkeley County Sheriff's Office likely profits in some way off the increased jail population. However, the ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and children of Mr. Clark and the other inmates get nothing and, in the meantime, the total child support arrearage in South Carolina continues to increase algebraically. So, overall, this is not a heartwarming story. And any public policy that allows the commercial use of either slave labor or uncompensated "voluntary labor" provided by people incarcerated for not meeting their child support obligations--whichever the case may be--is both an immoral public policy and a wasteful public policy.

Labels:


Thursday, April 02, 2009

 
EARL CAPPS ON GOVERNOR SANFORD AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Click on the following links to read what Earl Capps has to say about South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and the South Carolina Department of Social Services:
DSS failures show RINO Sanford hypocrisy

South Carolina DSS cannot find Alabama

State House freshmen demand answers from SC DSS

DSS problems challenge the credibility of Sanford's restructuring agenda

Labels: ,


Wednesday, April 01, 2009

 
AMENDED VERSION OF SC CODE SECTION 63-17-1210 DOES NOT CONFORM TO FEDERAL LAW

The recently amended version of South Carolina Code Ann. §63-17-1210 (1976, as amended) titled "Employer new hire program" provides in relevant part:
(A) By January 1, 1996, the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Social Services shall create and develop an Employer New Hire Reporting program. The Employer New Hire Reporting program shall provide a means for employers to voluntarily assist in the state's efforts to locate absent parents who owe child support and collect child support from those parents by reporting information concerning newly hired and rehired employees directly to the division.
(B) The following provisions apply to the Employer New Hire Reporting program: (1) An employer doing business in this State may participate in the Employer New Hire Reporting program by reporting to the Child Support Enforcement Division (emphasis added).
Clearly this program is voluntary, not mandatory as indicated on the South Carolina Child Support Enforcement Division website. That being the case, not only does the statute directly conflict with Federal Law, but no penalties can be levied for failure to comply with this statutory section. So why would employers go to all the trouble and expense of submitting this paperwork and both risk losing employees to incarceration and inviting government scrutiny of their employment practices? More important, why would the South Carolina General Assembly amend a decade old statute to eviscerate its effectiveness?

Maybe the Legislature's attitude is "So what if the State of South Carolina cannot locate the 'Deadbeats' and kids go hungry and mortgages go unpaid and college tuition is out of reach for thousands of South Carolina families who are receiving no financial support from the absentee parents?" We suspect, however, that the Legislature's attitude is, instead, "Now my friends in the business community will not have to deal with more government red tape."

In any event, somewhere some fat-cat contractor with political connections is smiling because he was able to finish his government project under budget and on time because he was able to hire "Deadbeats" and undocumented immigrant workers and pay them below market rate, secure in the knowledge that they would never complain and that there was no way that the State would ever be the wiser. And some child needlessly went to bed hungry.

Labels: ,


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