Tuesday, December 28, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING & JIM HODGES, ET. AL. V. TOMMY G. THOMPSON, ET. AL.
Note the following from http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002512.P.pdf:
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.
South Carolina needs to get a New Hire Reporting Statute in place just as the other forty-nine states have done. Doing so would help South Carolina locate the 70,000 parents who are not paying their court-ordered child support; it would also help get some of the custodial parents off of welfare and their children off of Medicaid. Additionally, not only is it unconscionable that South Carolina has enabled non-custodial parents to steal over $1.2 Billion from their children, but like the computerized child support tracking and collection system, a state new hire reporting system and registry is required by 42 U.S.C. § 655.
Those who do not believe us on this last point should ask South Carolina State Senator Mike Rose and/or the attorney for the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee if we are correct. Or better yet, ask Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner for the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Department of Health and Human Services whether we are correct. Both of them have law degrees from very prestigious institutions.
Of course, Ms. Turetsky and Senator Rose may not be any more concerned about the fact that the South Carolina General Assembly and the CSED of the Department of Social Services are doing so little to collect the $2 Billion+ that is owed to non-custodial parents in South Carolina than is South Carolina DSS Director Dr. Kathleen Hayes. Both of them have known about this problem for over eight months and Dr. Hayes has been aware of the problem for even longer. Yet all of them have done nothing to address the problem.
In her defense, Ms. Turetsky is an equal opportunity neglector of child support recipients--nationwide over $100 Billion is owed in child support arrears, but despite the availability of Draconian laws to enforce compliance with Support Orders, the arrears are increasing rather than decreasing.
Hopefully, the New Year will be better for everyone and those in a position to do so will actually do something to help the families who are going without support rather than just paying lip service to the problem.
Note the following from http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002512.P.pdf:
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.
South Carolina needs to get a New Hire Reporting Statute in place just as the other forty-nine states have done. Doing so would help South Carolina locate the 70,000 parents who are not paying their court-ordered child support; it would also help get some of the custodial parents off of welfare and their children off of Medicaid. Additionally, not only is it unconscionable that South Carolina has enabled non-custodial parents to steal over $1.2 Billion from their children, but like the computerized child support tracking and collection system, a state new hire reporting system and registry is required by 42 U.S.C. § 655.
Those who do not believe us on this last point should ask South Carolina State Senator Mike Rose and/or the attorney for the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee if we are correct. Or better yet, ask Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner for the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Department of Health and Human Services whether we are correct. Both of them have law degrees from very prestigious institutions.
Of course, Ms. Turetsky and Senator Rose may not be any more concerned about the fact that the South Carolina General Assembly and the CSED of the Department of Social Services are doing so little to collect the $2 Billion+ that is owed to non-custodial parents in South Carolina than is South Carolina DSS Director Dr. Kathleen Hayes. Both of them have known about this problem for over eight months and Dr. Hayes has been aware of the problem for even longer. Yet all of them have done nothing to address the problem.
In her defense, Ms. Turetsky is an equal opportunity neglector of child support recipients--nationwide over $100 Billion is owed in child support arrears, but despite the availability of Draconian laws to enforce compliance with Support Orders, the arrears are increasing rather than decreasing.
Hopefully, the New Year will be better for everyone and those in a position to do so will actually do something to help the families who are going without support rather than just paying lip service to the problem.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
