CA Governor Grey Davis Runs Out of Excuses
Paternity fraud was
not enough to save CA $40 million in federal funding
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/03/untershine061303.htm
|
|
CA Governor Grey Davis Runs Out of Excuses
Paternity fraud was
not enough to save CA $40 million in federal funding |
Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 06-13-03
Governor Grey Davis vetoed last years legislation (Assembly Bill 2240) that would have allowed vindication for California victims of paternity fraud, and would have allowed the state plausible deniability in the complicity / conspiracy to commit a crime. The veto of the bill amounted to obstruction of justice and the motive was $40-million in federal funding. After vetoing the bill, Davis was quoted to say, "If the bill became law, the state might not meet federal requirements on collecting child support payments, putting California at risk of losing $40 million in federal funds." Davis wrote in a veto message, "I recognize that paternity fraud is a serious issue and has the potential of damaging an individual’s livelihood. However, AB 2240 is flawed in its attempt to address the issue." \1
The wrongful collections demanded by Davis, from these victims of mistaken identity, were not enough to force the taxpayers to make crime pay in California. The Los Angeles Times reports: "Anticipating a $40-million cut in funding to child-support agencies statewide, San Bernardino County, with a collection rate of 36%, has issued layoff notices to 60 child-support workers. In Los Angeles County, which collects just 32% of court-ordered child support, officials say they may cut as many as 300 child-support worker positions." Davis' latest plan also assumes that vehicle license fees would be raised, bringing in an additional $4 billion per year \2
To pump up the federal incentives paid by the taxpayers, California's child support collections must increase or the administrative costs must decrease. \3 If California would adopt a federally approved accounting system, the state could save over $150 million in federal penalties every year. \4 However, the state would lose the fraudulent collections, or be exposed to legal liability, in this age of accountability and Martha Stewart.
The various types of fraud used by California in collecting child support include:
Consumer fraud - Children have no legal right to the damages awarded to them by the civil court and paid by the NCP
Accounting fraud - California has refused to implement a federally approved automated statewide child support collection system. regarding the various county agencies
Mail fraud - Eliciting fraudulent amounts of money from NCPs using the US Postal Service
Credit fraud - Notifying creditors and the IRS of fraudulent amounts of money owed by NCPs.
Paternity fraud - Forcing men whom may have had sex with a woman, to pay for another man's child.
Rather than ending the fraud perpetrated by his state, Governor Grey Davis seeks to reclaim the taxpayer's money by laying-off DCSS employees and raising the state's automobile registration fees. The fraudulent California child support racket will eventually bring Federal scrutiny, fulfilling the familiar prophecy "Detached from the nation, California will slip into oblivion".
As the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, the road to ruin is paved with fraud.
01-99 - CA DCSS is separated from District Attorney by CA Legislative Branch
California Assembly Bill 472 was part of legislation that separated the District Attorney from Child Support Services. AB 472 was deemed necessary after a 1999 Bureau of State Audits report found that the child support enforcement program in California was lacking in many areas, including a sense of overall vision and uniformity of practice. \5
01-00 - FASR contracted by U.S. Legislative Branch to provide interstate child support guidelines
The Federal government contracted the Institute of Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) to operate as the clearinghouse for child support enforcement (CSE) statistics. FASR reported interstate child support guideline amounts for various cases in Table 8-2 of the Ways and Means Greenbook 2000. FASR reported California child support guideline demands $770/mo for 2 children regarding an NCP earning $4,400/mo. \6
FASR's report fails to mention whether the NCP's income is gross or net. A cursory glance at the source of this data, reveals that the reported amounts were based on gross income, but it was based on $4,400/mo total gross income for both parents (NCP = $2,640/mo, CP = $1,760/mo). \7 Marilyn Klotz is a research associate of FASR, and reports that the data presented to the US Legislature is based on a bi-annual national survey conducted by Maureen Pirog, the co-director of FASR,. Klotz is a former assistant for economic policy for House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, while Pirog provided the scientific foundation for the child support guideline in Alaska. \8
FASR seems to be telling the US Legislature that an NCP earning $52,800/yr is required to pay less than the welfare benefits for a family of that size in California. FASR also seems to be telling the US Legislature that Indiana has the most aggressive child support guideline in the nation. It is no surprise that FASR is based out of the University of Indiana at Bloomington.
06-00 - PSI contracted by CA Judicial Branch to review child support guideline
The Judicial Council of California contracted Policy Studies Inc (PSI) of Denver, Colorado to review the state child support guideline The review is mandated by federal law and must serve to verify compliance with the federal mandate, and to recommend changes to the Legislature. PSI reported the average child support order as $369/mo for 1 child, $662 for 2, and $921 for 3. Welfare benefits for a family of that size is $627/mo for 1 child, $813/mo for 2, $988/mo for 3. \9 What PSI failed to tell the CA Legislature is that the Family Code falls woefully short of complying with the federal mandate regarding the enforcement of NCP protections against employer discrimination.
PSI seems to be telling the California Legislature that the average child support order is less then the monthly welfare benefits for a family of any size. PSI is under the direction of Robert Williams and provides sole source child support consultation to 49 states, Canada, Australia, Puerto Rico, and. Virgin Islands.
01-01 - CA DCSS accounting penalty reported to the CA Legislative Branch
The Financial Services Branch of California transmitted the DCSS portion of the governor's budget to the Legislature. DCSS chooses to use the federal incentives from fraudulent billing practices to backfill the loss of Federal financial participation amounting to a $152 million penalty. California refuses to use a federally approved county automation system that would allow accurate accounting of child support collections.\10
06-01 - PSI contracted by CA Executive Branch to investigate accounting practices of LA DCSS
DCSS of California pays $250,000 to PSI to investigate the accounting practices of LA County and to disprove the negative findings arrived at by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Inflated child support collection figures by LA County prompted the director of California DCSS, Curtis L. Child, to say, "L.A.'s performance continues to be a problem for the statewide program and when they have such a significant percentage of the statewide caseload, it affects the state's ability to do well on [federal] performance measures." \11
PSI aspires to "Do socially useful work, have fun, and make money"
01-02 - PSI reports findings of the investigation regarding LA DCSS accounting practices
California's overhaul of its beleaguered child support system, prompted state officials and advocates to say that the new program has exceeded expectations in collecting money for single-parent families. The director of California DCSS, Curtis L. Child, was quoted as saying "The reorganization has helped to foster a new level of cooperation between child support advocates, fathers' rights groups and others in handling the thorny issue of child support collections". \12
PSI reports that LA County has achieved an "impressive rate" of compliance with federal deadlines for child support cases, an indication that it is meeting deadlines for such actions as establishing paternity and obtaining court orders for collections. But the study also found that the county's collection rate for current support was only 32%, "very low" compared with the state and nation. The latest state figures show that collections on current support in California averaged 44%, while nationwide the figure was 56%.\12
PSI reports that LA County's performance in other key areas has also been poor. For example, the report found, Los Angeles County has an "extraordinarily high" rate of court orders obtained by default--79%--because those sued for child support fail, for whatever reasons, to appear in court. That default rate, the report says, not only raises serious questions about the fairness of the county's approach, but also gives the court orders for child support "less credibility and makes them harder to enforce."\12
PSI seeks to create an environment that encourages employees to take risks without being punished for their mistakes.
06-02 - CA DCSS accounting penalty reported to the CA Legislative Branch
Health and Human Services of California transmitted their portion of the governor's budget to the Legislature. DCSS chooses to use the federal incentives from fraudulent billing practices to backfill the loss of Federal financial participation amounting to a $158 million penalty. California refuses to use a federally approved county automation system that would allow accurate accounting of child support collections.\4
Citations:
Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, gzs@gndzerosrv.com, www.gndzerosrv.com
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.