Child Support Corruption
Just when you think that you have heard every conceivable situation out there… Not a chance. Here is a testimony that reaks with corruption and incompetance.
“I am past the point of having to pay child support with my youngest now 27 years old. During the time I did pay I ran into countless problems. In one instance 4 checks over a one month period were not cashed and sent to the mother of my children. Result was wages being garnished for non support.::Finally after all the children were grown and the vacating order for child Support was granted, someone in Harrisburg reimplemented the garnishment and I found myself paying Child Support on an order that was already vacated. $2000 later I finally had to back to court and get another vacating order and the garnishment stopped. When asked when I would gewt my overpayments back, I was informed I would have to sue my exwife. They take the money and have no accountability for their dumb mistakes.”
Does anyone have any suggestions as to who else may have received a piece of this pie???
Please take a moment and SIGN for Child Support Reform. If not for yourself; then do it for the Children. PLEASE USE THE COMMENT FORM TO SIGN LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE; Thank You!
Do to the recent amount of SPAM, I have gone to a Captcha Comment Format in-order to receive Legal Only Signatures. Please note that Signature/Email/Comment fields must be filled out. If you do not wish to leave a comment, but would like to sign, just type in three (3) random letters in the comment box. A name and valid email address is all that is needed for a legal signature.
If you want to read responses to your comments, make sure to subscribe to the RSS feed! Click Here.
About The Author
Don’t have space for all the details lets just say that after many attempts to modify unseccessfully resulting in bankrupting my business I am now facing jail for being poor(failure to pay). The best part is the public defender I am appointed is actually a child support magistrate in another county, Who of course just assumes I another deadbeat. Oh and by the way I have had my son between 40-60% of the time depending on his mothers schedule/incarceration/whims. What a racket.
Child support has evolved into a scam for lawyers and states that is destroying children and families. The corruption is deep and well hidden. Billions are paid to states annually to “collect” child “support”. States raise orders to 40% of take-home pay because the federal government pays them to separate children from their parents and pretend the cost of children is 3-5 times higher than it really is so the judges and lawyers can profit. These people belong in jail as they are destroying society. See http://www. FathersUnite.org and http://www.BestInterestOfCH
See also http://www.BestInterest of Children.org for information on over 225 studies that show sole custody is child abuse and equal time with both parents is 660% to 2,400% better on every one of 24 different metrics.
my son has been living with me for the past 2 years and only visits his mom on holidays i am still paying almost $500.00 a month in child support to his mother, family court and child support agency are refusing to review the case or at the very least adjust my child support to match my real income wich is half of what it was 3 years ago. i lose 50% of my income to child support and still fall behind in payments. me and my son are now homeless living with my parents while his mother uses the child support i pay to buy a new car, is that really caring about the children?
ANSWER TO
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW
BY
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
AND
MOTION CONTESTING AMOUNT OWED AND COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW Michael E. Gallegos Pro Se before the Court and claims the following:
Michael E. Gallegos makes a Motion to this Court denying all debt owed to Child Support Enforcement which they claim that I owe for child support. The reasons are set forth as follows:
1. I was denied property rights (The State can take your property and refuse to return it under immunity doctrines)
2. I was denied individual rights, (The Right to Question Authority) (Social-Civil-and Political Rights)
3. I was denied Due Process of the Law, CSED is not impartial but in fact is biased and prejudiced. Explanation below!
4. I was denied Civil and Constitutional rights
5. I was routinely caused to become disenfranchised, destitute, homeless, for 7 miserable years needlessly and unjustly, exposed to the elements (sleeping outside-eating out of trash cans- attacked sometimes-no personal hygiene) (I had my life threatened on numerous occasions, I was treated badly by law-enforcement) with my college degree.
6. I was relentlessly, vigorously, routinely treated in such a grossly unjust manner I would never get on my feet, because of CSED’s efforts to reduce me to the grave.
7. Characterizations of me made by CSED, were made spuriously, to characterize me something other than who I really am. (As I mentioned in A letter I sent to numerous Senators)
8. Because of this clear cut gross, arbitrary and capricious action taken against me, I make a counter claim with good cause, and I pray I open the door for a class action against (all states) the State of New Mexico for damages.
9. The action taken by CSED is unfair, unjust, and a witch hunt, designed to make me look like the bad guy. When in fact, of material fact I am the victim. Let’s blame the victim, he is defenseless.
10. I was denied visitation, and when and when I asked about it, I was told to pay more money.
11. My mother, my sons grandmother was denied visitation.
12. To this very day, I am persecuted unjustly. I cannot get a drivers license, even though I am garnished wages, never get a tax return, I pay taxes, and have made demands for my driver’s license. Because I need it for work. I NEED FAIRNESS AND EQUITABLE PICUNIARY JUSTICE.
13. Parents are equally responsible, but not treated equally, especially if you happen to be a guy.
14. My credit is destroyed.
15. Finally I ended up in one of the Veterans Administrations medical hospitals, due to the unfair treatment, the conditions I had to live in, my health deteriorated, the utter shame of being labeled like this, knowing I had paid w/o a problem before, but with one problem with management at my work, and arbitration pending, CSED decides to hammer me. No inquiries just make me pay. Especially to make it hurt me. I had other job offers and explained to the CSED that if they would simply release my license they can garnish me. But would not.
16. CSED made these things happen to me as a strategic (SLAP), is a strategic lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, silence and extort critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. The plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiffs goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, and mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAP is often presented by a legal threat.
WHEREAS comes now Michael E. Gallegos asserts a COUNTER CLAIM and states hereby that the State of New Mexico Child Support Enforcement erred in dealing with my case, and the issues herein. Therefore the State of New Mexico owes me damages, and an apology to me and all non-custodial parents, including federal taxpayers. Furthermore asks the court for injunctive relief, discontinuing any support whatsoever, release of my driver’s license in the State of Alaska. And payment for damages.
1. Tort Damages (Prima Facie Tort)
2. Property Damages
3. Compensatory Damages
4. Punitive Damages
5. Personal Injury Damages
6. Loss of Wages plus interest at my current wage for seven years, plus compounded interest.
7. Medical damages.
8. This is a Perfect example of how the State Misuses its authority, and taxpayer dollars, at the taxpayers and at my expense and many others like me.
9. The State of New Mexico’s gross negligence and improper treatment of my case, has consequently exacerbated and furthered my indebtedness to the State of Texas Child Support Enforcement due to the actions of NMCSEDs unfair and unjust practices. Therefore I as the court to remove 7 years of that debt taken off, including interest.
The Law Perverted! Child Support and Politicians alike have taken the position of Marxist Principal in the Freeworld by dominating and exploiting the working class. Made to perform more labor than is necessary. Alienation-denotes the estrangement of people from their humanity. Child Support has nothing to do with justice, it is a panoply of plundered pops, and overwhelmingly now more than ever, Child Support is a regime whereby a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children. What is most striking is that this witch hunt of zealots has come entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures. The public never demanded that the government take action, nor has any public discussion of this alleged problem ever been held in the national or local media.
Needless to say the voices of pursued parents are seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. The bipartisan certainty of their guilt is sufficient to set aside their right to trial and declare them public enemies by general acclaim. Yet there is reason to believe that this problem is an optical illusion and that what is being portrayed as irresponsible fathers is in reality a massive abuse of government power. In recent years, a few cracks have appeared in the monolith. William Comanor writes that “child-support obligations” the only form of “obligation” or “debt” that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur- “are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt.” Attorney Ron Henry characterizes the system “as an obvious sham” a “disaster,” and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States.” “The overwhelming majority of so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are judicially created,” says another attorney. “Why all this talk about so-called ‘deadbeat dads’? Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth.”
When one begins to research the objective data and the research of independent scholars, it turns out that the problem is mostly the creation of government officials. In fact the myth of deadbeat dad has already been discredited conclusively by Sanford Braver and other scholars. We have already seen that few married or not married fathers seldom voluntarily abandon their children. Beyond this Braver has also shown that little scientific basis exists for claims that large numbers of fathers are not paying child support. Braver found that government claims of nonpayment were derived not from any compiled database or hard figures but entirely from surveys of mothers, and these alone, in setting enforcement policy against fathers, and no effort is made to balance them with surveys of non-custodial parents. Yet Braver found that fathers overwhelmingly do pay court-ordered child support when they are employed, often at enormous personal sacrifice.
STATE REVENUE VIA CHILD SUPPORT
A look at government machinery reveals that it was created not in response to claims of widespread nonpayment but before them, and that it was less a response to “deadbeat dads” than a mechanism to create them. Like new divorce laws (and shortly after their enactment), the child-support regulations and criminal enforcement machinery were created while few were paying attention.
Under pressure from bar associations and feminist groups, President Gerald Ford signed legislation creating the Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, warning at the time that it constituted unwarranted federal intrusion into families and the role of states. Contrary to professions of concern “for the children,” the principal purpose was never to provide for abandoned or impoverished children but to recoup welfare costs for the government. In fact, no study has ever been undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress, or any branch of government to explain the reason for the agency’s existence.
Almost immediately the program began to expand exponentially, increasing tenfold from 1978 to 1998. The massive growth of law-enforcement machinery and reach was federally driven. In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to the Social Security Act required states to adopt child support guidelines. The legislation was promoted by the OCSE itself and by private collection companies—again less to help children than to save the government money under the theory that it would help get single-mother families off of welfare by making fathers pay more. Because most unpaid child support is due to unemployment, and because most “non-custodial parents of AFDC [welfare] children do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already receiving in AFDC benefits,” according to researchers Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, higher child-support guidelines could not help these children.
Then, with no explanation or justification (or constitutional authority), guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to address the minority of children in poverty were extended, under pressure from OCSE and other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988. This vastly enlarged the program and transformed a welfare provision into an entitlement. Today welfare cases, consisting mostly of unmarried parents account for only 17 percent of all child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83 percent of non-welfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are usually divorced involuntarily and who generally can be counted on to pay. With wage withholding, “the number of dollars passing through the government collection system exploded,” mostly from non-welfare cases for which the system was never designed, which currently accounts for 92 percent of the money collected.
The 1988 law also made the guidelines presumptive and, for all practical purposes, compulsory. By one estimate the new guidelines more than doubled the size of awards. Yet that point was already known among policy makers and scholars that, with the exception of the relatively small number of poor and unemployed fathers, no serious problem on nonpayment existed. Not only was Braver presenting the results of his research, but a federal pilot study commissioned four years earlier by OCSE itself was published with similar findings. Originally the full-scale government-sponsored study was planned to follow up the pilot, but that was quashed by the OCSE when the pilots findings threatened the justification for the agencies existence by demonstrating that non-payment of child support was not a serious problem. The Congressional Research Service also concluded at about the same time that no serious problem existed.
Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal child-support enforcement has incurred a continuously increasing deficit. “The overall financial impact of the child-support program on taxpayers is negative,” the House Ways and Means Committee reports. Taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in 2002.
This money does not vanish. It ends up in the pockets and coffers of state officials, for whom it constitutes a lucrative source of revenue and income. “Most states make a profit on their child-support program,” according to Ways and Means, which notes that “States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fit.” In other words, federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize state government operations through child-support. This also transforms family courts from impartial tribunals into revenue-generating engines for the state government.
In addition to penalties and interest, states profit through federal incentive payments based on the amount collected, as well as receiving 66 percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs. (When two states collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of almost $3.5 billion in 2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect $640 million. “There is a $200 million per year motive driving this system” in Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out. “It dances at the strings of federal money.”
To collect these funds states must channel payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, further criminalizing involuntarily divorced parents and allowing the government to claim its perennial crackdowns are increasing collections despite the program operating at an increasing loss. In January 2000, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala announced that “the federal and state child-support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected in 1992.” Yet these figures are not what they appear.
In simple accounting terms, the General Accounting Office, which appears at face value all the official HHS assumptions and data for what is “legally owed but unpaid,” found that as a percentage of what it claims is owed, collections actually decreased during this period. “In fiscal year 1996, collections represented 21 percent of the total amount due but dropped to 17 percent of the total amount due in fiscal year 2000,” writes GAO? “As a result the amount owed at the end of the period is greater than the amount owed at the beginning of the period.”
These facts are gathered from a book published by Cumberland House Publishing Inc. The Title is Taken Into Custody- The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. By Stephen Baskerville For the sole purpose to stir up concern for rights of people. Something needs to be done.
Michael E.Gallegos
Email: droit87105@yahoo.com or
Michael.gllgs@gmail.com
Cell: 484-319-5708
other email: michael.gallegos@gmail.com
907-385-4939
Im with you and my story is alot alike. I have been denied the right to see my kids for 3 years because mother makes any claims she wants to before i pick them up at airport and they stop me for investigation. I was given a 1600.00 a month support order from a magistrate that is no longer working due to her on corruption and padding her invoices as well as bank accounts froze, being arrested, being investigated by social services, and cps. I had an attorney that neglected my case and did absolutely nothing. The law states that a change of circumstance has to be submitted in order for a custodial parent to bring the noncustodial parent to court for more money and that is exactly what my ex did, except the excuse she used was that i had not been providing insurance on the children. That was an absolute lie and she knew it. I have transcripts proving i told them this and also had paperwork from insurance company stating the proof of coverage. They ignored all of this in order to go ahead and hit me for more money for the same chiidren that the same system has allowed her to keep me from them for years. The lawyer did nothing and as a result i didnt get an appeal in. I am now stuck with this which they backdated 10 months and now owe 30,000 dollars in arrears and a 1600 a month support order that i cant afford and have went through 3 lawyers who tell me once i get them alll of their money that they cant do anything for me. WHat a scam. Its like every other stage of our government. CORRUPT! I want to do something about it. Any ideas.
My number is 903-826-0366
davidbrdn@yahoo.com
I would like to be part of what ever organization or petition that can be made to correct these issues in our governement both at the state and federal level. Im not scared to stand up for what i s right and I hope that others will stand up with me. Numbers will talk for themselves.
A truly broken, corrupt system that helps no one save for the families of the government officials enforcing it. America should be ashamed for creating homeless, hopeless dads. Justice for all my a##.