Shooting the Daily Breeze in California
be posturing to sue the ‘Family Law Fall Guys’
Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 11-22-04
It is hard to believe that a California newspaper could print a story congratulating the State’s Child Support Enforcement agency, let alone CSE in Los Angeles County. California CSE is an agency that answers to the State’s Attorney General and uses an accounting system for child support collections that has been deemed unacceptable by the Federal Government. The Federal Government penalizes California by withholding over $200 million per year of financial participation from the State's TANF program.
As reported by the Contra Costa Times on 07-15-03: "State officials signed an eight-year, $801 million deal with IBM on Monday for a statewide computer system to streamline the child support collection process.", "Once in place, it will relieve California taxpayers from massive fines. The state has been paying penalties since it missed a 1997 deadline to implement an automated system.", "Those payments will total $1.3 billion by 2006, according to a report last year from the California State Auditor. This year, the damage is $207 million." (Peter Felsenfeld, Contra Costa Times, 07-15-03, “IBM gets state child support contract”)
The accounting practices of the CSE agency in Los Angeles County was the focus of an investigation conducted by Policy Studies Inc. of Denver, CO in 2001 costing the California taxpayers $250,000. As reported by the LA Times on 06-03-01: "But even as Los Angeles County moves toward a new program, the administration of its current child support collections remains controversial. Last week, state director Child confirmed that officials are examining Los Angeles County's accounting practices after learning from child support advocates that the county had been double-counting collection numbers for past-due support. The practice, officials said, was discovered in the quarterly reports sent to both the state and the county commission that oversees child support. And the financial consequences could be severe for California's child support program if the county's quarterly numbers are reflected in the yearly totals submitted to the federal government." (Greg Krikorian, LA Times, 06-03-01, “County Child Support Program's Accounting Under Scrutiny by State”, "Services: Inflated figures could affect funding statewide. A private firm is hired to examine the system")
Policy Studies Inc issued a report following their 3-month investigation confirming the problem that initiated the investigation. As reported in the LA Times on 01-05-02: "Glowing report comes on the two-year anniversary of the state agency that collects court-ordered payments, whose amounts doubled on average per case", "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%", "The 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'" (Greg Krikorian, Times Staff Writer, 01-05-02, "Reformed Child Support System Termed a Success", "Services: Glowing report comes on the two-year anniversary of the state agency that collects court-ordered payments, whose amounts doubled on average per case")
The California Legislature separated the District Attorney's Office from the Child Support Enforcement Office because the Attorney General wanted to shelter his criminal prosecutors from criminal prosecution, when his Child Support Enforcement agency is prosecuted by the Federal government for racketeering, taxpayer fraud, mail fraud, consumer fraud, credit fraud, and deprivation of rights and privileges under the color of law. California’s plausible deniability rests in pointing the finger at the ‘Family Law Fall Guys’ that operate out of other States and have been paid by the taxpayers for their professional guidance and thorough understanding of the Federal law that allows the state to draw Federal funding.
Policy Studies Inc (PSI) of Denver, CO conducted the “California Child Support Guideline Review” in addition to investigating the State’s CSE accounting.
The Urban Institute (UI) of Washington, D.C. conducted the “Collectability Study” in 2003 entitled “Examining Child Support Arrears in California”.
PSI and UI failed to identify California noncompliance with the Federal mandate (USC 42 654 20):
Child support guideline exceeds the Federal maximum of 65% in some cases (USC 15 1673 b2B)
10% interest charged on child support arrearages exceeds the Federal maximum of 6% (USC 42 654 21a)
Interest charges are not distributed last as required by Federal law (USC 42 654 21b)
Enforcement of employer wage withholding is not required as demanded by Federal law (USC 42 666 b6Dii)
Employer discrimination due to wage withholding is not required as demanded by Federal law (USC 42 666 b6Di)
The Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) of Bloomington, IN published a survey entitled “Amount of Child Support Awarded by State Guidelines in Various Cases”. FASR is paid by the Federal government to act as the ‘Clearinghouse for Child Support Enforcement Statistics’ and has continued to misinform the US House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee of the financial demands imposed on parents across all States (except Indiana) since 1997.
FASR has made the following errors in their attempt to portray Indiana as the most aggressive child support guideline in the nation:
Child support guideline amounts are only for 2 children, which masks the actual financial demand as a function of children
Parent income is not identified to be gross or net, which diminishes the actual financial demand
California parent earning $4,400/mo gross income ($3,300/mo net) is reported to pay $770/mo (18% gross, 23% net), which diminishes the actual financial demand of $1,320/mo (30% gross, 40% net)
The total income of both parents is erroneously reported as the noncustodial parent income, which diminishes the actual financial demand (Marilyn E. Klotz, FASR, 1998, “Interstate Comparison of Child Support Orders using State Guidelines”)
Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, email@example.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.