The Child Support Control System

Sabotaging welfare reform for money
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/03/untershine022603.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 02-24-03

The child support control system that is implemented by each state must comply with the federal mandate to reap federal funding. The legal liability associated with noncompliance with a federal mandate may expose rogue states to civil \1 and criminal \2 penalties. If Child Support Enforcement (CSE) deprives a noncustodial parent (NCP) of rights and privileges under the color of a federal law that has not been implemented correctly, \3 then the impoverishment of the custodial parent (CP), the children, and the NCP are damages incurred by the state and is also a federally recognized crime. Policy Studies Inc (PSI) is paid by states to verify compliance with a federal mandate, and may be guilty of malpractice.

Overview

A child support control system that is designed to provide support to the children must employ a method to measure the amount of support actually received by the children. This crucial feedback function of measuring the output of a control system must be performed to allow comparison to the input command of the control system. If this feedback path does not exist, then the system is referred to as "open loop" and is deemed "inherently unstable".

Driving down the road is a feedback control system. We see the target that we wish to drive toward and we can see whether we are driving toward it. If we see that we are not driving toward the target, we turn the steering wheel until we are driving toward it. When we see that we are driving toward the target we stop turning the wheel. This control system would be "open loop" if we could not see where we were driving. Although the driver can hear the screams of the people being run down on the sidewalk, or feeling the lane reflectors when the car strays to one side, this diminished form of feedback will not be enough to prevent this control system from eventually failing.

Child support control system

The child support control system exists to control a family. The family subsystem that is subjected to a child support control system is comprised of the parents, the children, and the parent's employer. An optimized control system utilizing proper feedback and compensation would seem transparent to the family. A robust control system would actually benefit the family being controlled by insuring the children receive the support they deserve and the parents are allowed to continue to be employed.

Input to the system

The input to the child support control system is money paid by the NCP. A state's child support guideline forces an NCP to reimburse the children for damages incurred by the civil court in denying custody of the children to the breadwinner. The NCP is forced to pay cash to the CP that exceeds the state's welfare benefits.

The state is empowered by the federal mandate to impose a fine against an employer if the NCP is fired, or is denied employment, or is unduly disciplined, or if the employer refuses to withhold court ordered child support from wages. \4 The wisdom of this empowerment of the state over employers manifests itself in the realization that the source of child support money is not the NCP, but the employer the NCP works for.

California recognizes their child support guideline as the input to the child support control system. The California child support guideline does not vary with CP income and is the highest in the nation, demanding 25% of a NCP's net income for 1 child, 40% for 2, and 50% for 3. \5 The California child support guideline is imposed on a NCP by default 80% of the time. \6 The California child support guideline exceeds their welfare benefits by 11% of a NCP's net income for 1 child, 22% for 2, and 28% for 3, regarding an NCP earning $4,400/mo (52,800/yr) net income. \7

Output of the system

The output of a child support control system is the support delivered to the children. The child support control system, as described by the federal mandate, is "inherently unstable" by virtue of the fact that there is no means to ensure that child support is delivered to the children, thereby denying the children a legal right to the money ordered for their support.

California presumes that a CP will spend a significant portion of available resources to support the children. \8 California recognizes the output of the child support control system as the amount of financial damages demanded of the NCP by the civil court. \6

Feedback of the system

The feedback of a child support control system is visibility of the support delivered to the children and visibility of the amount of money delivered to the CP. The federal government implements a semblance of feedback in the welfare control system by issuing food stamps and housing subsidies to the CP. Although it may seem objectionable to micromanage CPs on welfare, the NCP paying child support is a taxpaying consumer whom has the right to "get what they pay for and stop paying if they don't". The damages owed to the children are now the responsibility of those making reimbursement impossible, unconscionable, or fraudulent. \9 The cost of the support delivered to the children should be compared to the amount of money ordered for the children's support to obtain an error.

The federal mandate provides the states a feedback path from the employer by allowing visibility of wage withholding delivered to the CP. If the money ordered to be garnished from the NCP's wages stops being paid to the CP, then CSE can restore this cash flow if the employer maliciously targeted the NCP due to the existence of child support hardships. The amount of money ordered to be garnished from the NCP's wages should be compared to the money delivered to the CP to obtain an error.

California recognizes the feedback of their child support control system as the amount of child support that is ordered by the civil court and imposed on the NCP. California compares the amount of the civil court order to the amount recommended by their child support guideline to obtain an error.

California denies the NCP federal protection against employer discrimination by not allowing CSE involvement until after the NCP is unemployed and the impoverished CP files for welfare. California should compare the amount of child support that is ordered by the civil court and imposed on the NCP to the welfare benefits delivered to the CP to obtain a very meaningful error.

Instability

A control system that is designed to exclude feedback is an "open loop" or "out of control" system. A child support control system that ignores the money paid to the CP or ignores the actual support delivered to the children is doomed to inevitable failure. Failure of this child support control system involves the input being driven to zero when the NCP is exiled to self-employment and the output is driven to welfare.

A control system that is designed to add the feedback to the input rather than comparing the two is referred to as a "positive feedback" system and will fail immediately. Positive feedback is the phenomenon experienced when a microphone is too close to the speaker. The sound received by the microphone is amplified and delivered to the speaker, which is received by the microphone and amplified again and so forth.

Positive feedback instability will become very apparent in California when

Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, gzs@gndzerosrv.com, www.gndzerosrv.com

Citations:

\1 USC 42 1985, "Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights", http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1985.html; (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges; If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
\2 USC 18 242, "Deprivation of rights under color of law", http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html; Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
\3 USC 42 666, "Requirement Of Statutorily Prescribed Procedures To Improve Effectiveness Of Child Support Enforcement", http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/666.html; (a) Types of procedures required; (1) Withholding from income of amounts payable as support; (2) Establishing paternity and establishing, modifying, and enforcing support obligations; (3) Enforcing a support order; (4) Liens; (5) Paternity establishment; (6) Require noncustodial parent give security, post a bond, or give some other guarantee to secure payment of overdue support; (7) Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus; (8) Withholding from income if arrearages occur without the necessity of filing application for services; (9) Payment or installment of support under any child support order not subject to retroactive modification; (10) Review and adjustment of support orders upon request; (11) Full faith and credit to a determination of paternity, whether established through voluntary acknowledgment or through administrative or judicial processes; (12) Locator information from interstate networks; (13) Recording of social security numbers in certain family matters; (14) High-volume, automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases; 15) Procedures to ensure that persons owing overdue support work or have a plan for payment of such support.; (16) Authority to withhold or suspend licenses; (17) Financial institution data matches; (18) Enforcement of orders against paternal or maternal grandparents; (19) Health care coverage
\4 USC 42 666, "Requirement Of Statutorily Prescribed Procedures To Improve Effectiveness Of Child Support Enforcement", http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/666.html; (b) - Withholding from income of amounts payable as support ; (6)(D) Provision must be made for the imposition of a fine against any employer who -; (i) discharges from employment, refuses to employ, or takes disciplinary action against any noncustodial parent subject to income withholding required by this subsection because of the existence of such withholding and the obligations or additional obligations which it imposes upon the employer; or; (ii) fails to withhold support from income or to pay such amounts to the State disbursement unit in accordance with this subsection.
\5 CAFC 4055, California Family Code, "The statewide uniform guideline for determining child support orders", http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=04001-05000&file=4050-4076
\6 California Judicial Council entitled "Judicial Council Releases Report On State Child Support Guideline", http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/newsreleases/nr64-98.htm
\7 TANF benefits across all states was extracted from Table 7-9 of the US House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 2000 Greenbook, Section 7, entitled "Maximum Combined TANF And Food Stamp Benefit For Families Of One To Six Persons, January 1, 2000", http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.37&filename=wm014_07.pdf&directory=/diskb/wais/data/106_green_book
\8 CAFC 4053, California Family Code, "In implementing the statewide uniform guideline, the courts shall adhere to the following principles:", http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=04001-05000&file=4050-4076; (i) It is presumed that a parent having primary physical responsibility for the children contributes a significant portion of available resources for the support of the children.
\9 USC 15 1666, "Correction of billing errors", http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1666.html; (b) Billing error; (3) A reflection on a statement of goods or services not accepted by the obligor or his designee or not delivered to the obligor or his designee in accordance with the agreement made at the time of a transaction.
\10 USC 42 603 (a) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/603.html; (2) Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants - ; (A) Authority - The Secretary shall award competitive grants to States, territories, and tribal organizations for not more than 50 percent of the cost of developing and implementing innovative programs to promote and support healthy, married, 2-parent families. ; (4)(C) FORMULA FOR MEASURING STATE PERFORMANCE - ; (i) IN GENERAL.—Subject to clause (ii), not later than October 1, 2003, the Secretary, in consultation with the National Governors Association and the American Public Human Services Association shall develop a formula for measuring State performance in operating the State program funded under this part so as to achieve the goals of employment entry, job retention, and increased earnings from employment for families receiving assistance under the program, as measured on an absolute basis and on the basis of improvement in State performance.

Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.