PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

Hawaii Employers Guide to Medical Support
Hawaii Employer's Guide - Income Withholding(FEN125)
State Directory of New Hires Q & A (FLO100)
New Hire File Format

The state is about to step up its efforts to purge South Carolina's workforce of illegal immigrants by scouring the files of small businesses for evidence of undocumented workers.

On July 1, state officials will begin auditing 110,000 companies with fewer than 100 employees to make sure they are complying with South Carolina's Illegal Immigration Reform Act, which lawmakers passed in 2008 to weed illegal aliens from the workplace.

Despite record collections by State CSE programs, considerable sums of child support go unpaid every year. As of September 30, 2006, States reported that the total national unpaid child support debt that has accumulated since the program began in 1975 is $105 billion. This large accumulation of child support arrears is a serious concern for a number of reasons. First, if these arrears could be collected, the additional income would clearly benefit the children and families who are owed this child support. Second, some of these arrears are owed to the government. Finally, large arrears balances give the impression that State CSE programs are not doing their job, when, in fact, the situation is much more complicated (emphasis added).

[States that fail to install computerized child support collection and tracking systems] may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV- (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.

Commissioner Turetsky referred your email to me for response.

The latest Title IV-D expenditure information available can be found in our FY 2006 Report to Congress at [this link]. Please see table 38. We are in the process of posting the ’07 Report – it should be on our website next week.

The latest Title IV-A information available can be found in the Office of Family Assistance’s FY 2008 TANF Financial Data page at [this link]. Please see table A.

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.

As to the issue of leaving both Title 43 and Title 63 provisions in the Code (which is what I believe you are proposing), I am at a loss to understand the wisdom of such a move. Our present problem stems from the fact that we have two separate statutes creating two separate New Hire Programs. One is voluntary (and was created in the late 1970s before the federal law was enacted) and contains many provisions that are inconsistent (and probably conflict) with federal law. The other is mandatory and mirrors the federal requirements. Why you or anyone (DSS also proposed this idea initially, but they have since agreed that one of the Sections needs to go) would advocate leaving both Title 43 and Title 63 intact is beyond my comprehension. Title 63 and Title 43 are inconsistent. They are inconsistent regarding when reports must be submitted, the contents of the reports, and several other matters, and Title 63 fails to exempt certain workers and fails to allow multi-state employers to choose a single state from which to file a report. The New Hire Program currently found in Title 63, whether it’s made mandatory or remains voluntary, needs to go. The New Hire Program in Title 43, with the few technical revisions I made to it in [a proposed] bill, is the plan that complies with federal law.

I imagine that DSS will have some kind of a position on this bill. But I have it from Mr. Bray, the legislative liaison for DSS, that DSS concedes that the current Title 63 program does not comply with federal law, and that the language in Title 43 does.

Move over DOT, ESC. The next acronymic state agency that might get investigated by the LAC (Legislative Audit Council) may be DSS, or the S.C. Department of Social Services.

Senate leaders reportedly are not pleased with reports that the agency that is charged with assisting and protecting some of the state’s most vulnerable citizens may have to pay between $10 million and $13 million in fines for this year and next year for failing to comply with federal guidelines. The agency is already struggling due to a sudden increase in calls for family assistance as a failing economy has caused major stress on many South Carolina families (emphasis added).