PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

According to the article “System to track S.C. deadbeats,” "Federal officials said in an e-mail South Carolina is working closely with them in monitoring the system's progress, including quarterly visits and bimonthly teleconferences. But the federal agency contends the penalties are set by law and only Congress can undo them (emphasis added)." This is news to some people, but not to the South Carolina General Assembly and South Carolina DSS. As stated eight (8) years ago in Jim Hodges, et. al. v. Tommy G. Thompson et. al.:

The district court opinion contains a comprehensive history, the details of which need not be repeated here, of the federal government’s longstanding involvement in child support enforcement programs and related federal efforts to work with the States to solve the serious problem of nonpayment of child support. See Hodges v. Shalala, 121 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.S.C. 2000). Currently, as a condition of receipt of any federal funding under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, States must have an approved state plan for child and spousal support that meets all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 654. Among the prerequisites for approval of a Title IV-D Plan are the requirements that the State establish and operate an automated data processing and information retrieval system, see 42 U.S.C. § 654(24), and a state child support disbursement unit (SDU), see 42 U.S.C. § 654(27)(A). South Carolina concedes that it has neither a federally certifiable statewide automated system for child support nor an SDU. See Hodges, 121 F. Supp. 2d at 86 (emphasis added).

Without an approved state plan, a State may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.

This Order makes clear that South Carolina is lucky to have avoided loosing both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF) funding. Certainly, as Dr. Hayes indicates, "money, if not forfeited, could be deployed to help some 250,000 single parents in South Carolina seeking child support through her agency." So the State should count its blessings, get to work solving this problem, and cease playing the victim.