Title IV Funding
STATE PLAN FOR FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE[182]
Sec. 471. [42 U.S.C. 671] (a) In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which—
(1) provides for foster care maintenance payments in accordance with section 472 and for adoption assistance in accordance with section 473;
(2) provides that the State agency responsible for administering the program authorized by subpart 1 of part B of this title shall administer, or supervise the administration of, the program authorized by this part;
(3) provides that the plan shall be in effect in all political subdivisions of the State, and, if administered by them, be mandatory upon them;
(4) provides that the State shall assure that the programs at the local level assisted under this part will be coordinated with the programs at the State or local level assisted under parts A and B of this title, under title XX of this Act, and under any other appropriate provision of Federal law;
(5) provides that the State will, in the administration of its programs under this part, use such methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of personnel standards on a merit basis as are found by the Secretary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the programs, except that the Secretary shall exercise no authority with respect to the selection, tenure of office, or compensation of any individual employed in accordance with such methods;
(6) provides that the State agency referred to in paragraph (2) (hereinafter in this part referred to as the “State agency”) will make such reports, in such form and containing such information as the Secretary may from time to time require, and comply with such provisions as the Secretary may from time to time find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such reports;
(7) provides that the State agency will monitor and conduct periodic evaluations of activities carried out under this part;
(8) subject to subsection (c), provides safeguards which restrict the use of or disclosure of information concerning individuals assisted under the State plan to purposes directly connected with (A) the administration of the plan of the State approved under this part, the plan or program of the State under part A, B, or D of this title or under title I, V, X, XIV, XVI (as in effect in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), XIX, or XX, or the supplemental security income program established by title XVI, (B) any investigation, prosecution, or criminal or civil proceeding, conducted in connection with the administration of any such plan or program, (C) the administration of any other Federal or federally assisted program which provides assistance, in cash or in kind, or services, directly to individuals on the basis of need, (D) any audit or similar activity conducted in connection with the administration of any such plan or program by any governmental agency which is authorized by law to conduct such audit or activity, and (E) reporting and providing information pursuant to paragraph (9) to appropriate authorities with respect to known or suspected child abuse or neglect; and the safeguards so provided shall prohibit disclosure, to any committee or legislative body (other than an agency referred to in clause (D) with respect to an activity referred to in such clause), of any information which identifies by name or address any such applicant or recipient; except that nothing contained herein shall preclude a State from providing standards which restrict disclosures to purposes more limited than those specified herein, or which, in the case of adoptions, prevent disclosure entirely;
(9) provides that the State agency will—
(A) report to an appropriate agency or official, known or suspected instances of physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, or negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child receiving aid under part B or this part under circumstances which indicate that the child’s health or welfare is threatened thereby; and
(B) provide such information with respect to a situation described in subparagraph (A) as the State agency may have;
(10)[183] provides for the establishment or designation of a State authority or authorities which shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining standards for foster family homes and child care institutions which are reasonably in accord with recommended standards of national organizations concerned with standards for such institutions or homes, including standards related to admission policies, safety, sanitation, and protection of civil rights, provides[184] that the standards so established shall be applied by the State to any foster family home or child care institution receiving funds under this part or part B of this title, and provides that a waiver of any such standard may be made only on a case-by-case basis for non-safety standards (as determined by the State) in relative foster family homes for specific children in care[185];
(11) provides for periodic review of the standards referred to in the preceding paragraph and amounts paid as foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance to assure their continuing appropriateness;
(12) provides for granting an opportunity for a fair hearing before the State agency to any individual whose claim for benefits available pursuant to this part is denied or is not acted upon with reasonable promptness;
(13) provides that the State shall arrange for a periodic and independently conducted audit of the programs assisted under this part and part B of this title, which shall be conducted no less frequently than once every three years;
(14) provides (A) specific goals (which shall be established by State law on or before October 1, 1982) for each fiscal year (commencing with the fiscal year which begins on October 1, 1983) as to the maximum number of children (in absolute numbers or as a percentage of all children in foster care with respect to whom assistance under the plan is provided during such year) who, at any time during such year, will remain in foster care after having been in such care for a period in excess of twenty-four months, and (B) a description of the steps which will be taken by the State to achieve such goals;
(15) provides that—
(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern;
(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families—
(i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child’s home; and
(ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child’s home;
(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan (including, if appropriate, through an interstate placement) and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child;
(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) shall not be required to be made with respect to a parent of a child if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that—
(i) the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances (as defined in State law, which definition may include but need not be limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse, and sexual abuse);
(ii) the parent has—
(I) committed murder (which would have been an offense under section 1111(a) of title 18, United States Code[186], if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;
(II) committed voluntary manslaughter (which would have been an offense under section 1112(a) of title 18, United States Code[187], if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States) of another child of the parent;
(III) aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter; or
(IV) committed a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent; or
(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a sibling have been terminated involuntarily;
(E) if reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B) are not made with respect to a child as a result of a determination made by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with subparagraph (D)—
(i) a permanency hearing (as described in section 475(5)(C)), which considers in-State and out-of-State permanent placement options for the child, shall be held for the child within 30 days after the determination; and
(ii) reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child; and
(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian, including identifying appropriate in-State and out-of-State placements may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts of the type described in subparagraph (B);
(16) provides for the development of a case plan (as defined in section 475(1)) for each child receiving foster care maintenance payments under the State plan and provides for a case review system which meets the requirements described in section 475(5)(B) with respect to each such child;
(17) provides that, where appropriate, all steps will be taken, including cooperative efforts with the State agencies administering the program funded under part A and plan approved under part D, to secure an assignment to the State of any rights to support on behalf of each child receiving foster care maintenance payments under this part;
(18) not later than January 1, 1997, provides that neither the State nor any other entity in the State that receives funds from the Federal Government and is involved in adoption or foster care placements may—
(A) deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person, or of the child, involved; or
(B) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved;
(19) provides that the State shall consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards;
(20)(A) unless an election provided for in subparagraph (B) is made with respect to the State,[188] provides procedures for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases (as defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code[189]), for any prospective foster or adoptive parent before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child regardless of whether foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made on behalf of the child under the State plan under this part, including procedures requiring that—
(i) in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect, for spousal abuse, for a crime against children (including child pornography), or for a crime involving violence, including rape, sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical assault or battery, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed at any time, such final approval shall not be granted; and
(ii) in any case involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be made in which a record check reveals a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, if a State finds that a court of competent jurisdiction has determined that the felony was committed within the past 5 years, such final approval shall not be granted; and
(B)[190] subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a State plan if, on or before September 30, 2005, the Governor of the State has notified the Secretary in writing that the State has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State, or if, on or before such date, the State legislature, by law, has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State;
(C)[191] provides that the State shall—
(i) check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent, and request any other State in which any such prospective parent or other adult has resided in the preceding 5 years, to enable the State to check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by such other State for such information, before the prospective foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child, regardless of whether foster care maintenance payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made on behalf of the child under the State plan under this part;
(ii) comply with any request described in clause (i) that is received from another State; and
(iii) have in place safeguards to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information in any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State, and to prevent any such information obtained pursuant to this subparagraph from being used for a purpose other than the conducting of background checks in foster or adoptive placement cases; and[192]
(D)[193] provides procedures for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases (as defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) of title 28, United States Code), on any relative guardian, and for checks described in subparagraph (C)[194] of this paragraph on any relative guardian and any other adult living in the home of any relative guardian, before the relative guardian may receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of the child under the State plan under this part;
(21) provides for health insurance coverage (including, at State option, through the program under the State plan approved under title XIX) for any child who has been determined to be a child with special needs, for whom there is in effect an adoption assistance agreement (other than an agreement under this part) between the State and an adoptive parent or parents, and who the State has determined cannot be placed with an adoptive parent or parents without medical assistance because such child has special needs for medical, mental health, or rehabilitative care, and that with respect to the provision of such health insurance coverage—
(A) such coverage may be provided through 1 or more State medical assistance programs;
(B) the State, in providing such coverage, shall ensure that the medical benefits, including mental health benefits, provided are of the same type and kind as those that would be provided for children by the State under title XIX;
(C) in the event that the State provides such coverage through a State medical assistance program other than the program under title XIX, and the State exceeds its funding for services under such other program, any such child shall be deemed to be receiving aid or assistance under the State plan under this part for purposes of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(I); and
(D) in determining cost–sharing requirements, the State shall take into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parent or parents and the needs of the child being adopted consistent, to the extent coverage is provided through a State medical assistance program, with the rules under such program;
(22) provides that, not later than January 1, 1999, the State shall develop and implement standards to ensure that children in foster care placements in public or private agencies are provided quality services that protect the safety and health of the children;
(23) provides that the State shall not—
(A) deny or delay the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction with responsibility for handling the case of the child; or
(B) fail to grant an opportunity for a fair hearing, as described in paragraph (12), to an individual whose allegation of a violation of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph is denied by the State or not acted upon by the State with reasonable promptness,
(24) include a certification that, before a child in foster care under the responsibility of the State is placed with prospective foster parents, the prospective foster parents will be prepared adequately with the appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child and that such preparation will be continued, as necessary, after the placement of the child;
(25) provide that the State shall have in effect procedures for the orderly and timely interstate placement of children; and procedures implemented in accordance with an interstate compact, if incorporating with the procedures prescribed by paragraph (26), shall be considered to satisfy the requirement of this paragraph;
(26) provides that—
A)(i) within 60 days after the State receives from another State a request to conduct a study of a home environment for purposes of assessing the safety and suitability of placing a child in the home, the State shall, directly or by contract—
(I) conduct and complete the study; and
(II) return to the other State a report on the results of the study, which shall address the extent to which placement in the home would meet the needs of the child; and
(ii) in the case of a home study begun on or before September 30, 2008, if the State fails to comply with clause (i) within the 60-day period as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the State (such as a failure by a Federal agency to provide the results of a background check, or the failure by any entity to provide completed medical forms, requested by the State at least 45 days before the end of the 60-day period), the State shall have 75 days to comply with clause (i) if the State documents the circumstances involved and certifies that completing the home study is in the best interests of the child; except that
(iii) this subparagraph shall not be construed to require the State to have completed, within the applicable period, the parts of the home study involving the education and training of the prospective foster or adoptive parents;
(B) the State shall treat any report described in subparagraph (A) that is received from another State or an Indian tribe (or from a private agency under contract with another State) as meeting any requirements imposed by the State for the completion of a home study before placing a child in the home, unless, within 14 days after receipt of the report, the State determines, based on grounds that are specific to the content of the report, that making a decision in reliance on the report would be contrary to the welfare of the child; and
(C) the State shall not impose any restriction on the ability of a State agency administering, or supervising the administration of, a State program operated under a State plan approved under this part to contract with a private agency for the conduct of a home study described in subparagraph (A);[195]
(27) provides that, with respect to any child in foster care under the responsibility of the State under this part or part B and without regard to whether foster care maintenance payments are made under section 472 on behalf of the child, the State has in effect procedures for verifying the citizenship or immigration status of the child;[196]
(28)[197] at the option of the State, provides for the State to enter into kinship guardianship assistance agreements to provide kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed legal guardianship of the children for whom they have cared as foster parents and for whom they have committed to care on a permanent basis, as provided in section 473(d);[198]
(29)[199] provides that, within 30 days after the removal of a child from the custody of the parent or parents of the child, the State shall exercise due diligence to identify and provide notice to all adult grandparents and other adult relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents), subject to exceptions due to family or domestic violence, that—
(A) specifies that the child has been or is being removed from the custody of the parent or parents of the child;
(B) explains the options the relative has under Federal, State, and local law to participate in the care and placement of the child, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond to the notice;
(C) describes the requirements under paragraph (10) of this subsection to become a foster family home and the additional services and supports that are available for children placed in such a home; and
(D) if the State has elected the option to make kinship guardianship assistance payments under paragraph (28) of this subsection, describes how the relative guardian of the child may subsequently enter into an agreement with the State under section 473(d) to receive the payments;[200]
(30)[201] provides assurances that each child who has attained the minimum age for compulsory school attendance under State law and with respect to whom there is eligibility for a payment under the State plan is a full-time elementary or secondary school student or has completed secondary school, and for purposes of this paragraph, the term “elementary or secondary school student” means, with respect to a child, that the child is—
(A) enrolled (or in the process of enrolling) in an institution which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under the law of the State or other jurisdiction in which the institution is located;
(B) instructed in elementary or secondary education at home in accordance with a home school law of the State or other jurisdiction in which the home is located;
(C) in an independent study elementary or secondary education program in accordance with the law of the State or other jurisdiction in which the program is located, which is administered by the local school or school district; or
(D) incapable of attending school on a full-time basis due to the medical condition of the child, which incapability is supported by regularly updated information in the case plan of the child;[202]
(31)[203] provides that reasonable efforts shall be made—
(A) to place siblings removed from their home in the same foster care, kinship guardianship, or adoptive placement, unless the State documents that such a joint placement would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings; and
(B) in the case of siblings removed from their home who are not so jointly placed, to provide for frequent visitation or other ongoing interaction between the siblings, unless that State documents that frequent visitation or other ongoing interaction would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings;[204]
(32)[205] provides that the State will negotiate in good faith with any Indian tribe, tribal organization or tribal consortium in the State that requests to develop an agreement with the State to administer all or part of the program under this part on behalf of Indian children who are under the authority of the tribe, organization, or consortium, including foster care maintenance payments on behalf of children who are placed in State or tribally licensed foster family homes, adoption assistance payments, and, if the State has elected to provide such payments, kinship guardianship assistance payments under section 473(d), and tribal access to resources for administration, training, and data collection under this part; and[206]
(33)[207] provides that the State will inform any individual who is adopting, or whom the State is made aware is considering adopting, a child who is in foster care under the responsibility of the State of the potential eligibility of the individual for a Federal tax credit under section 23 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) The Secretary shall approve any plan which complies with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Use of Child Welfare Records in State Court Proceedings.—Subsection (a)(8) shall not be construed to limit the flexibility of a State in determining State policies relating to public access to court proceedings to determine child abuse and neglect or other court hearings held pursuant to part B of this part, except that such policies shall, at a minimum, ensure the safety and well-being of the child, parents, and family.
[182] See Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §503, with respect to prohibition of Federal funding to unlawfully present individuals.
[183] See Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §104(b), with respect to a report on licensing standards for relatives.
[184] P.L. 110-351, §104(a)(1), struck out “and provides” and substituted “provides”.
[185] P.L. 110-351, §104(a)(2), inserted “, and provides that a waiver of any such standard may be made only on a case-by-case basis for non-safety standards (as determined by the State) in relative foster family homes for specific children in care’’. For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
[186] See Vol. II, 18 U.S.C. 1111(a).
[187] See Vol. II, 18 U.S.C. 1112(a).
[188] P.L. 109-248, §152(b)(1), strikes out “unless an election provided for in subparagraph (B) is made with respect to the State,”, effective October 1, 2008, as provided in §152(c)(2). See Vol. II, P.L. 109-248, §152(c)(3), which allows for a delay if state legislation is required.
[189] See Vol. II, 28 U.S.C. 534 (e)(3)(A).
[190] P.L. 109-248, §152(b)(2), struck out subparagraph (B) and provides for the redesignation of subparagraph (C), as added by P.L. 109-248, §152(a)(1)(B), as subparagraph (B), effective October 1, 2008, as provided in §152(c)(2). See Vol. II, P.L. 109-248, §152(c)(3), which allows for a delay if state legislation is required.
[191] P.L. 109-248, §152(a)(1)(B) , added this subparagraph (C) and P.L. 109-248, §152(b)(2), provides for the redesignation of this subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B), effective October 1, 2008, as provided in §152(c)(2). See Vol. II, P.L. 109-248, §152(c)(3), which allows for a delay if state legislation is required. P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(B)(i)(II), redesignates subparagraph (D), as added by P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(A)(ii), as subparagraph (C); §101(c)(2)(B)(ii)), provides that the redesignation made by §101(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) shall take effect immediately after the amendments made by §152 of P.L. 109-248 take effect.
See Vol. II, P.L. 109-248, §152(c), with respect to the effective date, which allows for a delay if state legislation is required.
[192] P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(A)(i), added “and”.
[193] P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(A)(ii), added subparagraph (D). For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(B)(i)(II), redesignates this subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); §101(c)(2)(B)(ii)), provides that the redesignation made by §101(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) shall take effect immediately after the amendments made by §152 of P.L. 109-248 take effect.
See Vol. II, P.L. 109-248, §152(c), with respect to the effective date, which allows for a delay if state legislation is required.
[194] P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(B)(i)(I), strikes out “(C)” and substitutes “(B)”. P.L. 110-351, §101(c)(2)(B)(ii)), provides that this amendment made by §101(c)(2)(A)(i)(i) shall take effect immediately after the amendments made by §152 of P.L. 109-248 take effect.
See Vol. II, P.L. 109-248, §152(c), with respect to the effective date, which allows for a delay if state legislation is required.
[195] P.L. 110-351, §101(a)(1), struck out “and”.
[196] P.L. 110-351, §101(a)(2), struck out the period and substituted “; and*”.
*P.L. 110-351, §103(a)(1), struck out “and”.
[197] P.L. 110-351, §101(a)(3), added paragraph (28). For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
[198] P.L. 110-351, §103(a)(2), struck out the period and substituted “; and*”.
*P.L. 110-351, §204(b)(1), struck out “and”.
[199] P.L. 110-351, §103(a)(3), added paragraph (29). For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
[200] P.L. 110-351, §204(b)(2), struck out the period and substituted “; and*”.
P.L. 110-351, §206(1), struck out “and”.
[201] P.L. 110-351, §204(b)(3), added paragraph (30). For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
[202] P.L. 110-351, §206(2), struck out the period and inserted “; and*”.
P.L. 110-351, §301(c)(1)(A)(i), struck out “and”.
[203] P.L. 110-351, §206(3), added paragraph (31). For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
[204] P.L. 110-351, §301(c)(1)(A)(ii), struck out the period and inserted “;and*”.
*P.L. 110-351, §403(1), struck out “and”.
[205] P.L. 110-351, §301(c)(1)(A)(iii), adds paragraph (32). P.L. 110-351, §301(f), provides that this amendment shall take effect on October 1, 2009, without regard to whether the regulations required under subsecton (e)(1) have been promulgated by such date.
See Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §301(d), with respect to rules of construction and §301(e), with respect to regulations.
[206] P.L. 110-351, §403(2), struck out the period and substituted “; and*”.
[207] P.L. 110-351, §403(3), added paragraph (33). For the effective date, see Vol. II, P.L. 110-351, §601.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/about/title-iv-funding/
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
There are grandparents rights and there are grandparents rights
There are grandparents rights and there are grandparents rights
Mar 3rd, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparent Rights, grandparents rights
ABOUT THE CHILDREN
In the news almost every day we learn of some very sad and nearly impossible to comprehend situations of child neglect and abuse. Here in Charlotte North Carolina the other day a woman left her 4 young children sleeping completely alone in a home with a kerosene heater in the bedroom. The house caught on fire and a seven year old daughter and 4 year old son survived but tragically their 1 and 2 year old brothers perished in the flames. The neighbor who saved the two older children heard screams of “Mommy, Mommy”. After saving the two children she tried to enter the house again but the flames drove her back. The mother was nowhere to be found. To add to this horrific event, just 4 months prior the mother had been charged with child neglect in connection with leaving her children home alone. Two years earlier, before either of her deceased sons were born she was convicted of possession of cocaine and she also had other brushes with the law. How different this could have been if caring grandparents would have stepped up and asserted their grandparents rights and taken custody of these children? This kind of tragedy is what the grandparents rights legislation is aimed at preventing. It allows an observant grandparent(s) to have standing in the court in the best interest of the children.
On the other hand I have a friend who, because of the actions of her now deported husband has been a single mom to 4 children for the past 5 years. There has been no support from him, however, she allows the kids to keep in touch with him in San Salvador. I can tell by her proud stories of her kids complete with pictures and what her friends say about her that she is a dedicated and wonderful mother. She works two jobs and the rest of her life is her children. Over the past couple of months her now 15 year old daughter started faltering in her studies and come to find out she had a boyfriend who, according to her older brother, was a gang member who caused trouble. Mom wisely stepped in to protect her daughter and wouldn’t allow her daughter to see this boy. Come to find out on weekends when her daughter was visiting her grandmother on her dads side of the family she was allowed to see this guy. The daughter became more difficult at home and stated she wanted to go live with the grandma. It went so far that social services was called on this unsuspecting mother and the grandma was part of the problem. You get the picture. This is WRONG, it is not a grandparents right to alienate a child from her mother under any circumstances much less to be popular with her son and granddaughter. This is the kind of behavior that gives grandparents rights legislation a bad name. I just want to scream “IT IS ALL ABOUT THE CHILD’S WELL BEING”.
I have read many case studies and it is heart wrenching when you see these kinds of things happen. It is my hope that every child knows, at the very least, one grandparent who cares deeply for them and especially for those children in peril. Our grand angels deserve all the love and support to help them reach their potential. I would suggest you know your rights as a grandparent even if things look good on the home fronts. Since the divorce rate is around 50%, if it is not you or me, someone we know will have to face a changing family situation. There are things that the grandparents can do to provide some semblance of family stability during turbulent times. It is a gift and a responsibility as grandparents to do everything in our power to be there for our grandchildren and the magic is that it is our greatest and best purpose at this juncture of our lives. I wish you Great Grand parenting. NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/about-grandparents/there-are-grandparents-rights-and-there-are-grandparents-rights
Mar 3rd, 2010 | By neil | Category: grandparent Rights, grandparents rights
ABOUT THE CHILDREN
In the news almost every day we learn of some very sad and nearly impossible to comprehend situations of child neglect and abuse. Here in Charlotte North Carolina the other day a woman left her 4 young children sleeping completely alone in a home with a kerosene heater in the bedroom. The house caught on fire and a seven year old daughter and 4 year old son survived but tragically their 1 and 2 year old brothers perished in the flames. The neighbor who saved the two older children heard screams of “Mommy, Mommy”. After saving the two children she tried to enter the house again but the flames drove her back. The mother was nowhere to be found. To add to this horrific event, just 4 months prior the mother had been charged with child neglect in connection with leaving her children home alone. Two years earlier, before either of her deceased sons were born she was convicted of possession of cocaine and she also had other brushes with the law. How different this could have been if caring grandparents would have stepped up and asserted their grandparents rights and taken custody of these children? This kind of tragedy is what the grandparents rights legislation is aimed at preventing. It allows an observant grandparent(s) to have standing in the court in the best interest of the children.
On the other hand I have a friend who, because of the actions of her now deported husband has been a single mom to 4 children for the past 5 years. There has been no support from him, however, she allows the kids to keep in touch with him in San Salvador. I can tell by her proud stories of her kids complete with pictures and what her friends say about her that she is a dedicated and wonderful mother. She works two jobs and the rest of her life is her children. Over the past couple of months her now 15 year old daughter started faltering in her studies and come to find out she had a boyfriend who, according to her older brother, was a gang member who caused trouble. Mom wisely stepped in to protect her daughter and wouldn’t allow her daughter to see this boy. Come to find out on weekends when her daughter was visiting her grandmother on her dads side of the family she was allowed to see this guy. The daughter became more difficult at home and stated she wanted to go live with the grandma. It went so far that social services was called on this unsuspecting mother and the grandma was part of the problem. You get the picture. This is WRONG, it is not a grandparents right to alienate a child from her mother under any circumstances much less to be popular with her son and granddaughter. This is the kind of behavior that gives grandparents rights legislation a bad name. I just want to scream “IT IS ALL ABOUT THE CHILD’S WELL BEING”.
I have read many case studies and it is heart wrenching when you see these kinds of things happen. It is my hope that every child knows, at the very least, one grandparent who cares deeply for them and especially for those children in peril. Our grand angels deserve all the love and support to help them reach their potential. I would suggest you know your rights as a grandparent even if things look good on the home fronts. Since the divorce rate is around 50%, if it is not you or me, someone we know will have to face a changing family situation. There are things that the grandparents can do to provide some semblance of family stability during turbulent times. It is a gift and a responsibility as grandparents to do everything in our power to be there for our grandchildren and the magic is that it is our greatest and best purpose at this juncture of our lives. I wish you Great Grand parenting. NEIL
http://www.caringgrandparents.com/about-grandparents/there-are-grandparents-rights-and-there-are-grandparents-rights
State's foster care under scrutiny
State's foster care under scrutiny
CAROL NADER
March 4, 2010
JUST months after an explosive report revealed failings in the child protection system, state welfare authorities are facing more scrutiny by the Ombudsman, who is believed to have turned his attention to the standards in which children removed from the care of their parents are living.
The Age believes the Ombudsman is investigating the state's out-of-home care system, which includes foster care, kinship care - where children are placed with relatives - and residential units that house four or five traumatised children together.
Sources say the Ombudsman is well into his own-motion investigation and has made inquiries with senior members of the Department of Human Services and people working in not-for-profit welfare organisations that operate some of these services for the state government.
The Age last year ran a series of stories highlighting the problems with residential care units, in which thousands of incidents, including physical and sexual assault, self-harm and substance abuse, occur each year. Some teenagers in residential care also resort to sex work.
Carers have been openly critical about the practice of housing teenagers with traumatic backgrounds together, and there have been concerns that an inappropriate mix in a house can do young people more harm.
There have also been long-running concerns around trying to recruit and retain foster carers, many of whom have complained of not being properly supported by the government and have left the system.
Any report that emerges, possibly within months, is expected to be another blow to the department, which was condemned by the Ombudsman last November for its handling of child protection and for taking a dangerously long time to intervene in some cases where children were being abused.
Nor will it be welcomed by the government, which is facing a state election in November and has recently been damaged by the issue. Last year, Premier John Brumby was forced to admit the state had failed to protect children.
The system is now the subject of unprecedented attention, with a government review by the Victorian Law Reform Commission currently looking at the way in which the Children's Court operates within the child protection system.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/states-foster-care-under-scrutiny-20100303-pj11.html
CAROL NADER
March 4, 2010
JUST months after an explosive report revealed failings in the child protection system, state welfare authorities are facing more scrutiny by the Ombudsman, who is believed to have turned his attention to the standards in which children removed from the care of their parents are living.
The Age believes the Ombudsman is investigating the state's out-of-home care system, which includes foster care, kinship care - where children are placed with relatives - and residential units that house four or five traumatised children together.
Sources say the Ombudsman is well into his own-motion investigation and has made inquiries with senior members of the Department of Human Services and people working in not-for-profit welfare organisations that operate some of these services for the state government.
The Age last year ran a series of stories highlighting the problems with residential care units, in which thousands of incidents, including physical and sexual assault, self-harm and substance abuse, occur each year. Some teenagers in residential care also resort to sex work.
Carers have been openly critical about the practice of housing teenagers with traumatic backgrounds together, and there have been concerns that an inappropriate mix in a house can do young people more harm.
There have also been long-running concerns around trying to recruit and retain foster carers, many of whom have complained of not being properly supported by the government and have left the system.
Any report that emerges, possibly within months, is expected to be another blow to the department, which was condemned by the Ombudsman last November for its handling of child protection and for taking a dangerously long time to intervene in some cases where children were being abused.
Nor will it be welcomed by the government, which is facing a state election in November and has recently been damaged by the issue. Last year, Premier John Brumby was forced to admit the state had failed to protect children.
The system is now the subject of unprecedented attention, with a government review by the Victorian Law Reform Commission currently looking at the way in which the Children's Court operates within the child protection system.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/states-foster-care-under-scrutiny-20100303-pj11.html
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
What happens to children when both parents are sent to prison?
What happens to children when both parents are sent to prison?
A couple I know have 4 children, aged 15,13, 2 and 11 months. It looks highly likely that both parents are going to be sent to prison.
What will happen to their 4 children?
http://mandela-children.org/children/what-happens-to-children-when-both-parents-are-sent-to-prison.children/comment-page-1#comment-2003
A couple I know have 4 children, aged 15,13, 2 and 11 months. It looks highly likely that both parents are going to be sent to prison.
What will happen to their 4 children?
http://mandela-children.org/children/what-happens-to-children-when-both-parents-are-sent-to-prison.children/comment-page-1#comment-2003
El Paso County commissioners approve settlement in foster-care death case
El Paso County commissioners approve settlement in foster-care death case
March 02, 2010 10:53 AM
EILEEN WELSOME and JOANNA BEAN
THE GAZETTE
The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday approved a $300,000 out-of-court settlement with the estate of Alizé Vick, a 2-year-old killed while in foster care.
The settlement clears the El Paso County Department of Human Services of all claims in a suit brought by the estate of Vick, who died of a closed head injury while in the care of former foster mother Jules Lynn Cuneo. The settlement will be paid from the county's self-insurance risk management fund, said Rick Bengtsson, director of El Paso County Department of Human Services.
As a result of Vick's death, the department initiated what it called a "best practices review." The department has since assigned an additional employee to its team that investigates alleged child abuse cases in foster homes, among other changes, the county said.
“We were responsible for her care and well-being,” Bengtsson said Tuesday. “But the person who killed the child was ultimately responsible.”
A supervisor now reviews any allegation of child abuse, including photographs, videotape, audio tape or other relevant information. And the three-person team that reviews child abuse complaints investigates all assigned allegations involving a foster home within 24 hours.
“It was a tragic event,” said Bengtsson, “and we’re going to do everything we can to make sure it never happens again.”
On Feb. 19, a 4th Judicial District jury found Cuneo guilty of child abuse resulting in death but did not convict her of first-degree murder, which would have meant mandatory life in prison.
The jurors in the criminal case did not hear some evidence that might have figured in a civil trial, such as alleged instances of verbal abuse by Cuneo overheard by a neighbor on a baby monitor.
A civil trial also could have raised other issues, such as allegations that authorities ignored obvious issues about Cuneo’s suitability before she was approved as a foster care mom and complaints raised months prior to Alizé’s death by her grandmother.
El Paso County Human Services removed Alizé and her younger brother Anthoni from their home in March 2007, in part because they were living with their paternal grandfather, a registered sex offender.
On the day the county took custody of the children, their mother, Ashley Lindenberger, said she was high on drugs.
One month later, she and the children's father were in jail.
Lindenberger also filed lawsuits in 4th Judicial District Court against Cuneo and Kids Crossing, the nonprofit agency that placed the Vick children with Cuneo.
However, all sides reached an agreement to dismiss those lawsuits on Nov. 25, according to court records.
Jeffrey R. Hill, the attorney for Lindenberger in both the state and federal lawsuits, said earlier this month he could not comment on the reason for the dismissal.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/county-94971-foster-settlement.html
March 02, 2010 10:53 AM
EILEEN WELSOME and JOANNA BEAN
THE GAZETTE
The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday approved a $300,000 out-of-court settlement with the estate of Alizé Vick, a 2-year-old killed while in foster care.
The settlement clears the El Paso County Department of Human Services of all claims in a suit brought by the estate of Vick, who died of a closed head injury while in the care of former foster mother Jules Lynn Cuneo. The settlement will be paid from the county's self-insurance risk management fund, said Rick Bengtsson, director of El Paso County Department of Human Services.
As a result of Vick's death, the department initiated what it called a "best practices review." The department has since assigned an additional employee to its team that investigates alleged child abuse cases in foster homes, among other changes, the county said.
“We were responsible for her care and well-being,” Bengtsson said Tuesday. “But the person who killed the child was ultimately responsible.”
A supervisor now reviews any allegation of child abuse, including photographs, videotape, audio tape or other relevant information. And the three-person team that reviews child abuse complaints investigates all assigned allegations involving a foster home within 24 hours.
“It was a tragic event,” said Bengtsson, “and we’re going to do everything we can to make sure it never happens again.”
On Feb. 19, a 4th Judicial District jury found Cuneo guilty of child abuse resulting in death but did not convict her of first-degree murder, which would have meant mandatory life in prison.
The jurors in the criminal case did not hear some evidence that might have figured in a civil trial, such as alleged instances of verbal abuse by Cuneo overheard by a neighbor on a baby monitor.
A civil trial also could have raised other issues, such as allegations that authorities ignored obvious issues about Cuneo’s suitability before she was approved as a foster care mom and complaints raised months prior to Alizé’s death by her grandmother.
El Paso County Human Services removed Alizé and her younger brother Anthoni from their home in March 2007, in part because they were living with their paternal grandfather, a registered sex offender.
On the day the county took custody of the children, their mother, Ashley Lindenberger, said she was high on drugs.
One month later, she and the children's father were in jail.
Lindenberger also filed lawsuits in 4th Judicial District Court against Cuneo and Kids Crossing, the nonprofit agency that placed the Vick children with Cuneo.
However, all sides reached an agreement to dismiss those lawsuits on Nov. 25, according to court records.
Jeffrey R. Hill, the attorney for Lindenberger in both the state and federal lawsuits, said earlier this month he could not comment on the reason for the dismissal.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/county-94971-foster-settlement.html
Bill sets priorities in placement of children in foster care
Bill sets priorities in placement of children in foster care
By Dustin Hurst
March 2nd, 2010
Health and Welfare may soon have an easier path in placing children
Children being placed into the care of foster parents may soon have a clear line of direction for the courts and Idaho Department Health and Welfare (DHW) to consider when searching for qualified persons to take in children removed from parents.
The legislation, developed by Rep. Sharon Block, R-Twin Falls, would give judges a path that would give clarity in the process of deciding where to place children after they have been removed from the care of their parents.
The legislation sets the placement priority in this order:
A fit and willing relative.
A fit and willing non-relative with a significant relationship with the child.
Foster parents licensed in according with DHW.
The bill also allows expediting of the child placement process by allowing DHW to waive the licensing requirement for those on the list for a certain period of time. If one of the persons on the list is chosen to be the child’s caretaker but is unlicensed, that person would, if the environment is deemed safe by DHW, be allowed to care for the child while going through the license application process.
Block, speaking to fellow members of her committee, said the list and the waiver would help to keep families together in times of difficulty when biological parents can’t be in the picture for the children.
“The legislation will help keep families together,” said Block. She added that judges may not always go in the order prescribed in the legislation, but will instead work in the best interests of the child.
The bill garnered support of the Catholic Charities of Idaho, as well as the AARP. Dr. Will Rainford, representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, urged lawmakers to pass the legislation because the system needs more foster parents and the Block’s plan would make available more “saints,” as he called them, ready to accept children in need.
“I know that nothing heals a child’s broken soul like the love of a close relative or known friend,” said Rainford.
Members of the committee unanimously approved Block’s plan, which now heads to the full House for a vote.
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/bill-sets-priorities-in-determining-placement-of-children-in-foster-care/
By Dustin Hurst
March 2nd, 2010
Health and Welfare may soon have an easier path in placing children
Children being placed into the care of foster parents may soon have a clear line of direction for the courts and Idaho Department Health and Welfare (DHW) to consider when searching for qualified persons to take in children removed from parents.
The legislation, developed by Rep. Sharon Block, R-Twin Falls, would give judges a path that would give clarity in the process of deciding where to place children after they have been removed from the care of their parents.
The legislation sets the placement priority in this order:
A fit and willing relative.
A fit and willing non-relative with a significant relationship with the child.
Foster parents licensed in according with DHW.
The bill also allows expediting of the child placement process by allowing DHW to waive the licensing requirement for those on the list for a certain period of time. If one of the persons on the list is chosen to be the child’s caretaker but is unlicensed, that person would, if the environment is deemed safe by DHW, be allowed to care for the child while going through the license application process.
Block, speaking to fellow members of her committee, said the list and the waiver would help to keep families together in times of difficulty when biological parents can’t be in the picture for the children.
“The legislation will help keep families together,” said Block. She added that judges may not always go in the order prescribed in the legislation, but will instead work in the best interests of the child.
The bill garnered support of the Catholic Charities of Idaho, as well as the AARP. Dr. Will Rainford, representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, urged lawmakers to pass the legislation because the system needs more foster parents and the Block’s plan would make available more “saints,” as he called them, ready to accept children in need.
“I know that nothing heals a child’s broken soul like the love of a close relative or known friend,” said Rainford.
Members of the committee unanimously approved Block’s plan, which now heads to the full House for a vote.
http://www.idahoreporter.com/2010/bill-sets-priorities-in-determining-placement-of-children-in-foster-care/
History of child support in the USA
History of child support in the USA
This page is being evolved as part of a long-term project. I ask anyone with useful material to get in touch at: history@childsupportanalysis.co.uk .
Summary
This history appears at first to have been similar to early English history of child support. In the latter case, communities (parishes) rescued destitute people, including lone mothers and children, often by putting them to work, and then attempted to recoup their costs from relatives such as fathers. The money was limited to amounts needed to avoid destitution, and was claimed by the community, not by individuals such as the lone mother or personal helpers of the lone mother.
Later, the systems diverged. The English (then the UK) child support approaches became an addition to "the welfare state". The National Assistance Act 1948 saw the state implicitly taking on some of the responsibilities that would once have been between local communities and relatives.The state (taxpayers!) eventually provided universal family allowances (called "Child Benefit" for the last decades). Most other "Western" countries had something similar. Nations with somewhat socialist tendencies such as Denmark were able to have much milder child support systems. Such universal benefits lessened or delayed the need for aggressive child support, such as enacting criminal offences.
In contrast, the USA developed more aggressive child support obligations during the 19th Century, with criminal law being enacted for the "affront" of fathers causing mothers and their children to become a burden on the community. That perhaps reduced the motivation for such universal family allowances. While there were federal initiatives such as AFDC for poorer children, there was little for better off lone parents and their children. In the late 20th Century, AFDC was replaced with TANF (T = temporary), and this will make timely child support even more imperative in the USA. Child support is typically an anti-socialist measure, aimed at reducing welfare spending, and the USA has looked to it to assist with its anti-socialist / anti-welfare policies such as TANF. However, it is probably not (yet?) effective enough for the purpose. GAO.
Caution: the states of the USA differ from one-another in their child support laws, and in the way they implement those laws. The "Uniform Acts" were drafted by the Uniform Law Commissioners to promote uniformity in state law on all subjects where uniformity is desirable and practicable, but some have only had limited take-up. So some statements below may be over-generalisations.
When? What? Information
Pre-19th Century The poor laws
from 1601 The earliest history of child support in the USA came from the inheritance of the English poor laws. These laws were intended to allow parishes (local communities) to recover their costs of keeping people out of destitution from the relatives of those people. The laws didn't allow those people themselves (or other people) to claim from their relatives.
See: History of child support in the UK
Pre-1776 Child support in the 13 colonies "Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history". Gay.
See below:
about 1800
to 1880 Development of civil law for child support See Hansen.
At first, courts developed civil law for child support. This especially enabled communities that kept lone mothers and children out of destitution to claim from the fathers. (This was similar in principle to the poor laws, but intended to be clearer and more effective).
1808 Stanton v. Willson
Connecticut
"American courts in the nineteenth century addressed the problem of dependency among single mothers and their children by creating a legally enforceable child support duty.... One reason for the divergent fortunes of men and women after a divorce was that the transformations in the American conception of children from wage earners to dependents who needed constant nurturing and the trend toward maternal preference in custody decisions combined to require divorced women to bear the burden of raising children who did not work.... American courts in the nineteenth century invented a parental child support obligation in the context of increasing concerns about dependency among single mothers.... When single motherhood began to emerge in nineteenth-century America, the judiciary was the only institution of the American state that could deal with dependency among single mothers and their children: The poor laws were being overwhelmed by population growth and urbanization, and private charities and state poor-relief agencies had not yet appeared. The first child support statutes built on this judicial innovation, codifying a child support system that relied primarily on payments from absent parents, instead of on public supports for families." Hansen.
1816 Van Valkinburgh v. Watson
New York
1858 Tomkins v. Tomkins
New Jersey
See below:
about 1870 onward
Development of criminal law for failing to support children See Hansen.
Now states started to pass laws against desertion and nonsupport. It started to become a criminal offence, with punishments including prison. Also, gradually it became possible for individuals, such as lone mthers, to claim child support.
By 1886 (Compilation of statutes) By 1886, 11 states had made it a penal offence for a father to abandon or refuse to support his minor children. Typically, it still needed evidence that without this support the children would be a cost to the community. Hansen.
1884 New Jersey statute Examples of states taking action because fathers were criminally responsible for allowing children to become a public charge. The New York statute punished nonsupporting fathers with imprisonment and hard labour. Hansen.
1897 Bowen v. State
Ohio
1903 State v. Peabody
Rhode Island
1st half of 20th Century The court system continued to operate. The number of separated families continued to rise. 46 states had laws criminalising desertion and non-support.
1935
Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271)
This included Aid for Dependent Children. ADC (later AFDC; F = Families) established a partnership between the federal government and the states by providing appropriations to those states which adopted plans approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The states in turn provided a minimum monthly subsistence payment to families meeting established need requirements (such as an absent parent not providing support). This later gradually drove child support enforcement, in order to reduce expenditure on AFDC (see events below).
"Care for children" becomes one of the few entitlements for welfare. Compared with other countries, this tends to make "child support by parents" a prominent objective.
World War 2
2nd half of 20th Century and onwards USA becomes unique in not having state-provided universal family allowances "In most industrialized nations, private child support payments are not a central way in which the community makes sure that children are adequately supported. Instead, most industrialized nations have some kind of child allowances financed by the public or by employers that go to all families. In England, for instance, families receive a universal "Child Benefit" to defray the costs of raising children; and all single-parent families receive an additional "One Parent Benefit". But although the United States has generous, publicly funded benefits such as Social Security and Medicare for elderly Americans, no comparable program exists for children.... A privatized child support system might have been a background factor that lessened the pressure for family allowances in early-twentieth-century America." Hansen.
1948 The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) Some limited applicability to child support, and largely replaced by the 1964 version.
1950 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
This act has been enacted in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The purpose of URESA was to provide a system for the interstate enforcement of support orders without requiring the person seeking support to go (or have her legal representative go) to the State in which the noncustodial parent resided. Where the URESA provisions between the two States are compatible, the law can be used to establish paternity, locate an absent parent, and establish, modify, or enforce a support order across State lines.
1950 Social Security Act Amendments of 1950 (Public Law 81-734) The law required state welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when providing AFDC to a child. (Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support).
The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) was approved. (See above).
1952 Amendment to URESA 1950
1958 Amendment to URESA 1950
1964 The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) Implemented by most states and DC. Some relevance to child support orders.
1965 Social Security Amendments of 1965 (Public Law 89-97) Allowed welfare agencies to obtain addresses and employers of obligated parents from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
1967 Social Security Amendments of 1967 (Public Law 90-248) Allowed states access to IRS for addresses of obligated parents. Each state was required to establish a single child support unit for AFDC children.
States were required to work cooperatively.
1968 Revision to URESA (RURESA) 1950 (Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act).
1973 Uniform Parentage Act 1973 Rules for the presumption of parentage, etc. Only adopted by a minority of states. Should be replaced by the 2000 Act.
1974 - 1975
Social Security Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-647)
(Child Support and Establishment of Paternity Program)
A response by Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them. Mandated that the State plan for child support require States to cooperate with other States in establishing paternity, locating absent parents, and securing compliance with court orders.
Created (commencing January 1975) Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the child support program. The program was designed for cost recovery of state and federal outlays on public assistance and for cost avoidance to help families leave welfare and to help families avoid turning to public assistance. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. This established the basis of the CSES. It required every State to establish a child support enforcement system. States had to establish special agencies for the collection of child support payments due to recipients of AFDC who were required to sign over to the state claims to child support as a condition of eligibility. States were required to offer similar services to non-AFDC cases if requested.
1976 (Public Law 94-566) Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions: Requires that upon request of a public agency administering or supervising the administration of a State plan approved under title IV (Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children) of the Social Security Act, shall furnish to such agency making the request, information with respect to unemployment compensation, and refusal by an individual to accept employment. (Required state employment agencies to provide addresses of obligated parents to state child support agencies).
1977 (Public Law 95-30) Amended section 454 of the Social Security Act relating to the garnishment of a federal employee’s wages for child support.
1980 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
(Public Law 86-265) Provided state and local child support agencies access to wage information held by the Social Security Administration and state employment agencies for establishing and enforcing child support obligations.
1981 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) 1) IRS was authorized to withhold tax refunds for delinquent child support;
2) IV-D agencies were required to collect spousal support for AFDC families;
3) IV-D agencies were required to collect fees from parents delinquent in child support;
4) obligations assigned to the state were no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings; and
5) states were required to withhold a portion of unemployment for delinquent support
1984
Child Support Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-378)
(Mandated guidelines to be used in an advisory capacity).
Section 3 of the 1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments required every State’s child support enforcement agency to establish procedures for automatically withholding income from the pay and tax refunds of absentee parents, whenever their child support payments fell into arrears of over one month, without having to request court intervention. It also required States to establish procedures imposing: "lines against real and personal property for the amount of overdue support ... [and] Permitted states to extend withholding to income other then wages, such as bonuses and commissions, or dividends."
Additionally, Sections 15 and 18 required States to establish a committee responsible for formulating child support award guidelines. Once established these were to be provided to: "all judges and other officials who have the power to determine child support awards within such State, but need not be binding".
Required States to limit the role of the courts significantly by implementing administrative or judicial expedited processes. States are required to have quasi-judicial or administrative systems to expedite the process for obtaining and enforcing a support order.
1986 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509) Required States to treat past due support obligations as final judgments entitled to full faith and credit in every State. Thus, a person who has a support order in one State does not have to obtain a second order in another State to obtain the money due should the debtor parent move from the issuing court's jurisdiction. The second State can modify the order prospectively if it finds that circumstances exist to justify a change, but the second State may not retroactively modify a child support order.
1987 Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act 1987 (Adopted by a minority of states). Requires that child support be based in part on the financial resources of both parents and in part on the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved.
1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) Required states to provide services to families with an absent parent who receives Medicaid and have them assign their support rights to the state.
1988 1988 Family Support Act (Public Law 100-485) Title I of the 1988 FSA implemented a national Child Support Enforcement System based upon the uniform application of a State-developed formula to ensure absent parents were held responsible for maintaining their children. Section 101 requires every State to implement various procedures for immediate and mandatory wage-withholding for all support orders being enforced by the State’s CSEA.
This law required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) to administer the Child Support Enforcement Program.
Mandated that by 1994, states implement presumptive, rather than advisory, guidelines.
Enacted "immediate" wage withholding.
1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990 (Public Law 101-508) Permanently extended the federal provision that allows states to ask the Internal Revenue Service to deduct child support arrears of at least US$500 from tax refunds to non-custodial parents.
1992 Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-521) Imposed a Federal criminal penalty for the willful failure to pay a past due child support obligation to a child who resides in another State and that has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. For the first conviction, the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both; for a second conviction, the penalty is a fine of not more than $250,000, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.
1992 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) It is designed to deal with desertion and nonsupport by instituting uniform laws in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. The core of UIFSA is limiting control of a child support case to a single State, thereby ensuring that only one child support order from one court or child support agency is in effect at any given time.
1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66) Required states to establish paternity on 75 percent of the children in their caseload instead of 50 percent. States had to adopt civil procedures for voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.
The law also required states to adopt laws to ensure the medical compliance in orders.
1994 Bankruptcy Reform Act 1994 (Public Law 103-394) Protected child support from being discharged in bankruptcy. It also provided protection against trustee avoidance, facilitates access to bankruptcy proceedings, and assigns child support a priority for collecting claims from debtors.
1994 Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-383) This is binding in all the states and supercedes any inconsistent provisions of state law. It restricts a State court's ability to modify a child support order issued by another State unless the child and the custodial parent have moved to the State where the modification is sought or have agreed to the modification.
1994 Work and Responsibility Act of 1994 Included assisting states with child support enforcement.
1994 Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-403) Renders delinquent child support payers ineligible for small business loans.
1994 Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-432) Requires states to periodically report debtor parents to consumer reporting agencies.
1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-193)
(Welfare reform law)
Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds (which replaced AFDC). This law made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes included requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.
Under the new law, states can implement tough child support enforcement techniques such as withholding wages, seizing assets, and revoking driving and professional licences of those parents who owe child support.
Set aside 1 percent of the Federal share of retained child support collections for information dissemination and technical assistance to States (including technical assistance related to automated systems), training of State and Federal staff, staffing studies, and related activities needed to improve the CSE Program, and research, demonstration, and special projects of regional or national significance relating to the operation of the CSE Program. An additional 2 percent of the Federal share of retained child support collections is set aside for the operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). Expanded the scope of the FPLS to allow certain noncustodial parents to obtain information regarding the location of the custodial parent.
Streamlines the paternity determination process.
Required all States to enact UIFSA (see below), including all amendments, before January 1, 1998
Increased its access to information and maintaining its effort to automate caseload processing. The legislation mandated that states require employers to report all new hires within 20 days to child support enforcement authorities. This new requirement was expected to reduce the delay in establishing immediate wage withholding.
PRWORA also eliminated the federal requirement that states pass through the first $50 of child support paid to welfare families.
1996 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) (1996) The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA") was drafted to more efficiently enforce the child and spousal support orders as well as paternity judgments of other states and countries. The prerequisite to enforce another country's orders under UIFSA is that the country of origin must have a "law or procedure substantially similar to UIFSA's, or one of UIFSA's precursors -- the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA") and the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("RURESA").
1997 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) Allows FPLS (Federal Parent Locator Service) information to be disclosed to noncustodial parents except in cases where there is evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and the local court determines that disclosure may result in harm to the custodial parent or child.
1998 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-200) Provides penalties for failure to meet data processing requirements, reforms incentive payments, and provides penalties for violating inter-jurisdictional adoption requirements. Incentive payments are based on paternityestablishment, order establishment, current support collected, cases paying past due support, and cost effectiveness and on a percentage of collections. Incentive payments must be reinvested in the state's child support program.
1998 Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-187) The law establishes two new categories of felony offenses, subject to a 2-year maximum prison term. The offenses are:
(1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has remained unpaid for more than 1 year or is greater than $5,000; and
(2) willfully failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for more than 2 years or is greater than $10,000.
2000 Uniform Parentage Act 2000 This has been drafted in the hope that states will enact it and become more uniform in their approach to parentage, and especially paternity. Among other things, it emphasises genetic testing, but also recognises the strength of acknowledgement of paternity. Morgan.
2002-12-12 Australia and the United States entered into a treaty for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of child support maintenance arrangements. This new treaty allows administrative assessments made under the Australian Child Support Scheme to be recognised and enforced in the United States. Another feature of the treaty is that each country will have a central authority which will take responsibility for coordinating all agencies involved in a case. In Australia's case, that central authority will be the Child Support Registrar.
Present day
The following is provided to show just how resistant the USA is towards adopting international treaties and conventions relating in some way to child support. The USA continues to pursue its own approach towards the common objectives of reducing child poverty and reducing welfare spending. (Part of this may be because states, rather than the federal government, have historically had the jurisdiction for family matters).
2002? United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Being considered by Congress.
(In fact, this has little to do with child support).
Not under active consideration for ratification. United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (Is this what the State Department calls "United Nations Convention on International Family Support (1956)"? I suspect it is).
Not ratified. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (May 2002): The most significant contradiction between the convention and U.S. law and practice is in relation to the death penalty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for offenses committed before the age of eighteen. However, twenty-two U.S. states allow executions of juvenile offenders, and currently there are eighty-two juvenile offenders on death row in the United States. In the last five years, nine executions of juvenile offenders were carried out in the United States, and two more are scheduled in the next month. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Iran are the only other states to have carried out such executions in the last three years.
Not under active consideration for ratification. The following Hague Conventions:
#8 on the law applicable to maintenance obligations towards children
#9 concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards children
#23 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations
#24 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations
References
Hansen: "The American invention of child support: dependency and punishment in early American child support law".
Yale Law Journal, Hansen, Drew D. 1999 (March)
Morgan: Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and Application
Laura W. Morgan
Ways & Means: The 2000 House Ways and Means
Green Book, "Child Support Enforcement Program"
Washington State: Washington State, Department of Social and Health Services
Child Support Federal Legislative History
GAO: Child Support - an uncertain income supplement for families leaving welfare (US)
GAO/HEHS-98-168 Child Support and Time-Limited Welfare, August 1998
United States General Accounting Office
Gay: A Return to Welfare As We Knew It? The beginning of the end of child support reform
WELCOME TO VIRGINIA
Two Hundred Years of History, Unimpeded by Progress
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm
This page is being evolved as part of a long-term project. I ask anyone with useful material to get in touch at: history@childsupportanalysis.co.uk .
Summary
This history appears at first to have been similar to early English history of child support. In the latter case, communities (parishes) rescued destitute people, including lone mothers and children, often by putting them to work, and then attempted to recoup their costs from relatives such as fathers. The money was limited to amounts needed to avoid destitution, and was claimed by the community, not by individuals such as the lone mother or personal helpers of the lone mother.
Later, the systems diverged. The English (then the UK) child support approaches became an addition to "the welfare state". The National Assistance Act 1948 saw the state implicitly taking on some of the responsibilities that would once have been between local communities and relatives.The state (taxpayers!) eventually provided universal family allowances (called "Child Benefit" for the last decades). Most other "Western" countries had something similar. Nations with somewhat socialist tendencies such as Denmark were able to have much milder child support systems. Such universal benefits lessened or delayed the need for aggressive child support, such as enacting criminal offences.
In contrast, the USA developed more aggressive child support obligations during the 19th Century, with criminal law being enacted for the "affront" of fathers causing mothers and their children to become a burden on the community. That perhaps reduced the motivation for such universal family allowances. While there were federal initiatives such as AFDC for poorer children, there was little for better off lone parents and their children. In the late 20th Century, AFDC was replaced with TANF (T = temporary), and this will make timely child support even more imperative in the USA. Child support is typically an anti-socialist measure, aimed at reducing welfare spending, and the USA has looked to it to assist with its anti-socialist / anti-welfare policies such as TANF. However, it is probably not (yet?) effective enough for the purpose. GAO.
Caution: the states of the USA differ from one-another in their child support laws, and in the way they implement those laws. The "Uniform Acts" were drafted by the Uniform Law Commissioners to promote uniformity in state law on all subjects where uniformity is desirable and practicable, but some have only had limited take-up. So some statements below may be over-generalisations.
When? What? Information
Pre-19th Century The poor laws
from 1601 The earliest history of child support in the USA came from the inheritance of the English poor laws. These laws were intended to allow parishes (local communities) to recover their costs of keeping people out of destitution from the relatives of those people. The laws didn't allow those people themselves (or other people) to claim from their relatives.
See: History of child support in the UK
Pre-1776 Child support in the 13 colonies "Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history". Gay.
See below:
about 1800
to 1880 Development of civil law for child support See Hansen.
At first, courts developed civil law for child support. This especially enabled communities that kept lone mothers and children out of destitution to claim from the fathers. (This was similar in principle to the poor laws, but intended to be clearer and more effective).
1808 Stanton v. Willson
Connecticut
"American courts in the nineteenth century addressed the problem of dependency among single mothers and their children by creating a legally enforceable child support duty.... One reason for the divergent fortunes of men and women after a divorce was that the transformations in the American conception of children from wage earners to dependents who needed constant nurturing and the trend toward maternal preference in custody decisions combined to require divorced women to bear the burden of raising children who did not work.... American courts in the nineteenth century invented a parental child support obligation in the context of increasing concerns about dependency among single mothers.... When single motherhood began to emerge in nineteenth-century America, the judiciary was the only institution of the American state that could deal with dependency among single mothers and their children: The poor laws were being overwhelmed by population growth and urbanization, and private charities and state poor-relief agencies had not yet appeared. The first child support statutes built on this judicial innovation, codifying a child support system that relied primarily on payments from absent parents, instead of on public supports for families." Hansen.
1816 Van Valkinburgh v. Watson
New York
1858 Tomkins v. Tomkins
New Jersey
See below:
about 1870 onward
Development of criminal law for failing to support children See Hansen.
Now states started to pass laws against desertion and nonsupport. It started to become a criminal offence, with punishments including prison. Also, gradually it became possible for individuals, such as lone mthers, to claim child support.
By 1886 (Compilation of statutes) By 1886, 11 states had made it a penal offence for a father to abandon or refuse to support his minor children. Typically, it still needed evidence that without this support the children would be a cost to the community. Hansen.
1884 New Jersey statute Examples of states taking action because fathers were criminally responsible for allowing children to become a public charge. The New York statute punished nonsupporting fathers with imprisonment and hard labour. Hansen.
1897 Bowen v. State
Ohio
1903 State v. Peabody
Rhode Island
1st half of 20th Century The court system continued to operate. The number of separated families continued to rise. 46 states had laws criminalising desertion and non-support.
1935
Social Security Act of 1935 (Public Law 74-271)
This included Aid for Dependent Children. ADC (later AFDC; F = Families) established a partnership between the federal government and the states by providing appropriations to those states which adopted plans approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The states in turn provided a minimum monthly subsistence payment to families meeting established need requirements (such as an absent parent not providing support). This later gradually drove child support enforcement, in order to reduce expenditure on AFDC (see events below).
"Care for children" becomes one of the few entitlements for welfare. Compared with other countries, this tends to make "child support by parents" a prominent objective.
World War 2
2nd half of 20th Century and onwards USA becomes unique in not having state-provided universal family allowances "In most industrialized nations, private child support payments are not a central way in which the community makes sure that children are adequately supported. Instead, most industrialized nations have some kind of child allowances financed by the public or by employers that go to all families. In England, for instance, families receive a universal "Child Benefit" to defray the costs of raising children; and all single-parent families receive an additional "One Parent Benefit". But although the United States has generous, publicly funded benefits such as Social Security and Medicare for elderly Americans, no comparable program exists for children.... A privatized child support system might have been a background factor that lessened the pressure for family allowances in early-twentieth-century America." Hansen.
1948 The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) Some limited applicability to child support, and largely replaced by the 1964 version.
1950 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
This act has been enacted in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The purpose of URESA was to provide a system for the interstate enforcement of support orders without requiring the person seeking support to go (or have her legal representative go) to the State in which the noncustodial parent resided. Where the URESA provisions between the two States are compatible, the law can be used to establish paternity, locate an absent parent, and establish, modify, or enforce a support order across State lines.
1950 Social Security Act Amendments of 1950 (Public Law 81-734) The law required state welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when providing AFDC to a child. (Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support).
The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) was approved. (See above).
1952 Amendment to URESA 1950
1958 Amendment to URESA 1950
1964 The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) Implemented by most states and DC. Some relevance to child support orders.
1965 Social Security Amendments of 1965 (Public Law 89-97) Allowed welfare agencies to obtain addresses and employers of obligated parents from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
1967 Social Security Amendments of 1967 (Public Law 90-248) Allowed states access to IRS for addresses of obligated parents. Each state was required to establish a single child support unit for AFDC children.
States were required to work cooperatively.
1968 Revision to URESA (RURESA) 1950 (Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act).
1973 Uniform Parentage Act 1973 Rules for the presumption of parentage, etc. Only adopted by a minority of states. Should be replaced by the 2000 Act.
1974 - 1975
Social Security Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-647)
(Child Support and Establishment of Paternity Program)
A response by Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them. Mandated that the State plan for child support require States to cooperate with other States in establishing paternity, locating absent parents, and securing compliance with court orders.
Created (commencing January 1975) Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the child support program. The program was designed for cost recovery of state and federal outlays on public assistance and for cost avoidance to help families leave welfare and to help families avoid turning to public assistance. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. This established the basis of the CSES. It required every State to establish a child support enforcement system. States had to establish special agencies for the collection of child support payments due to recipients of AFDC who were required to sign over to the state claims to child support as a condition of eligibility. States were required to offer similar services to non-AFDC cases if requested.
1976 (Public Law 94-566) Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions: Requires that upon request of a public agency administering or supervising the administration of a State plan approved under title IV (Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children) of the Social Security Act, shall furnish to such agency making the request, information with respect to unemployment compensation, and refusal by an individual to accept employment. (Required state employment agencies to provide addresses of obligated parents to state child support agencies).
1977 (Public Law 95-30) Amended section 454 of the Social Security Act relating to the garnishment of a federal employee’s wages for child support.
1980 Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980
(Public Law 86-265) Provided state and local child support agencies access to wage information held by the Social Security Administration and state employment agencies for establishing and enforcing child support obligations.
1981 Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35) 1) IRS was authorized to withhold tax refunds for delinquent child support;
2) IV-D agencies were required to collect spousal support for AFDC families;
3) IV-D agencies were required to collect fees from parents delinquent in child support;
4) obligations assigned to the state were no longer dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings; and
5) states were required to withhold a portion of unemployment for delinquent support
1984
Child Support Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-378)
(Mandated guidelines to be used in an advisory capacity).
Section 3 of the 1984 Child Support Enforcement Amendments required every State’s child support enforcement agency to establish procedures for automatically withholding income from the pay and tax refunds of absentee parents, whenever their child support payments fell into arrears of over one month, without having to request court intervention. It also required States to establish procedures imposing: "lines against real and personal property for the amount of overdue support ... [and] Permitted states to extend withholding to income other then wages, such as bonuses and commissions, or dividends."
Additionally, Sections 15 and 18 required States to establish a committee responsible for formulating child support award guidelines. Once established these were to be provided to: "all judges and other officials who have the power to determine child support awards within such State, but need not be binding".
Required States to limit the role of the courts significantly by implementing administrative or judicial expedited processes. States are required to have quasi-judicial or administrative systems to expedite the process for obtaining and enforcing a support order.
1986 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-509) Required States to treat past due support obligations as final judgments entitled to full faith and credit in every State. Thus, a person who has a support order in one State does not have to obtain a second order in another State to obtain the money due should the debtor parent move from the issuing court's jurisdiction. The second State can modify the order prospectively if it finds that circumstances exist to justify a change, but the second State may not retroactively modify a child support order.
1987 Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act 1987 (Adopted by a minority of states). Requires that child support be based in part on the financial resources of both parents and in part on the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved.
1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203) Required states to provide services to families with an absent parent who receives Medicaid and have them assign their support rights to the state.
1988 1988 Family Support Act (Public Law 100-485) Title I of the 1988 FSA implemented a national Child Support Enforcement System based upon the uniform application of a State-developed formula to ensure absent parents were held responsible for maintaining their children. Section 101 requires every State to implement various procedures for immediate and mandatory wage-withholding for all support orders being enforced by the State’s CSEA.
This law required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) to administer the Child Support Enforcement Program.
Mandated that by 1994, states implement presumptive, rather than advisory, guidelines.
Enacted "immediate" wage withholding.
1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990 (Public Law 101-508) Permanently extended the federal provision that allows states to ask the Internal Revenue Service to deduct child support arrears of at least US$500 from tax refunds to non-custodial parents.
1992 Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-521) Imposed a Federal criminal penalty for the willful failure to pay a past due child support obligation to a child who resides in another State and that has remained unpaid for longer than a year or is greater than $5,000. For the first conviction, the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both; for a second conviction, the penalty is a fine of not more than $250,000, imprisonment for up to 2 years, or both.
1992 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) It is designed to deal with desertion and nonsupport by instituting uniform laws in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. The core of UIFSA is limiting control of a child support case to a single State, thereby ensuring that only one child support order from one court or child support agency is in effect at any given time.
1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66) Required states to establish paternity on 75 percent of the children in their caseload instead of 50 percent. States had to adopt civil procedures for voluntary acknowledgement of paternity.
The law also required states to adopt laws to ensure the medical compliance in orders.
1994 Bankruptcy Reform Act 1994 (Public Law 103-394) Protected child support from being discharged in bankruptcy. It also provided protection against trustee avoidance, facilitates access to bankruptcy proceedings, and assigns child support a priority for collecting claims from debtors.
1994 Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-383) This is binding in all the states and supercedes any inconsistent provisions of state law. It restricts a State court's ability to modify a child support order issued by another State unless the child and the custodial parent have moved to the State where the modification is sought or have agreed to the modification.
1994 Work and Responsibility Act of 1994 Included assisting states with child support enforcement.
1994 Small Business Administration Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-403) Renders delinquent child support payers ineligible for small business loans.
1994 Social Security Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-432) Requires states to periodically report debtor parents to consumer reporting agencies.
1996
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-193)
(Welfare reform law)
Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds (which replaced AFDC). This law made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes included requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.
Under the new law, states can implement tough child support enforcement techniques such as withholding wages, seizing assets, and revoking driving and professional licences of those parents who owe child support.
Set aside 1 percent of the Federal share of retained child support collections for information dissemination and technical assistance to States (including technical assistance related to automated systems), training of State and Federal staff, staffing studies, and related activities needed to improve the CSE Program, and research, demonstration, and special projects of regional or national significance relating to the operation of the CSE Program. An additional 2 percent of the Federal share of retained child support collections is set aside for the operation of the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). Expanded the scope of the FPLS to allow certain noncustodial parents to obtain information regarding the location of the custodial parent.
Streamlines the paternity determination process.
Required all States to enact UIFSA (see below), including all amendments, before January 1, 1998
Increased its access to information and maintaining its effort to automate caseload processing. The legislation mandated that states require employers to report all new hires within 20 days to child support enforcement authorities. This new requirement was expected to reduce the delay in establishing immediate wage withholding.
PRWORA also eliminated the federal requirement that states pass through the first $50 of child support paid to welfare families.
1996 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) (1996) The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA") was drafted to more efficiently enforce the child and spousal support orders as well as paternity judgments of other states and countries. The prerequisite to enforce another country's orders under UIFSA is that the country of origin must have a "law or procedure substantially similar to UIFSA's, or one of UIFSA's precursors -- the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA") and the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("RURESA").
1997 Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) Allows FPLS (Federal Parent Locator Service) information to be disclosed to noncustodial parents except in cases where there is evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and the local court determines that disclosure may result in harm to the custodial parent or child.
1998 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-200) Provides penalties for failure to meet data processing requirements, reforms incentive payments, and provides penalties for violating inter-jurisdictional adoption requirements. Incentive payments are based on paternityestablishment, order establishment, current support collected, cases paying past due support, and cost effectiveness and on a percentage of collections. Incentive payments must be reinvested in the state's child support program.
1998 Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-187) The law establishes two new categories of felony offenses, subject to a 2-year maximum prison term. The offenses are:
(1) traveling in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation if the obligation has remained unpaid for more than 1 year or is greater than $5,000; and
(2) willfully failing to pay a child support obligation regarding a child residing in another State if the obligation has remained unpaid for more than 2 years or is greater than $10,000.
2000 Uniform Parentage Act 2000 This has been drafted in the hope that states will enact it and become more uniform in their approach to parentage, and especially paternity. Among other things, it emphasises genetic testing, but also recognises the strength of acknowledgement of paternity. Morgan.
2002-12-12 Australia and the United States entered into a treaty for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of child support maintenance arrangements. This new treaty allows administrative assessments made under the Australian Child Support Scheme to be recognised and enforced in the United States. Another feature of the treaty is that each country will have a central authority which will take responsibility for coordinating all agencies involved in a case. In Australia's case, that central authority will be the Child Support Registrar.
Present day
The following is provided to show just how resistant the USA is towards adopting international treaties and conventions relating in some way to child support. The USA continues to pursue its own approach towards the common objectives of reducing child poverty and reducing welfare spending. (Part of this may be because states, rather than the federal government, have historically had the jurisdiction for family matters).
2002? United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Being considered by Congress.
(In fact, this has little to do with child support).
Not under active consideration for ratification. United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (Is this what the State Department calls "United Nations Convention on International Family Support (1956)"? I suspect it is).
Not ratified. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (May 2002): The most significant contradiction between the convention and U.S. law and practice is in relation to the death penalty. The Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the use of the death penalty for offenses committed before the age of eighteen. However, twenty-two U.S. states allow executions of juvenile offenders, and currently there are eighty-two juvenile offenders on death row in the United States. In the last five years, nine executions of juvenile offenders were carried out in the United States, and two more are scheduled in the next month. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Iran are the only other states to have carried out such executions in the last three years.
Not under active consideration for ratification. The following Hague Conventions:
#8 on the law applicable to maintenance obligations towards children
#9 concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards children
#23 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations
#24 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations
References
Hansen: "The American invention of child support: dependency and punishment in early American child support law".
Yale Law Journal, Hansen, Drew D. 1999 (March)
Morgan: Child Support Guidelines: Interpretation and Application
Laura W. Morgan
Ways & Means: The 2000 House Ways and Means
Green Book, "Child Support Enforcement Program"
Washington State: Washington State, Department of Social and Health Services
Child Support Federal Legislative History
GAO: Child Support - an uncertain income supplement for families leaving welfare (US)
GAO/HEHS-98-168 Child Support and Time-Limited Welfare, August 1998
United States General Accounting Office
Gay: A Return to Welfare As We Knew It? The beginning of the end of child support reform
WELCOME TO VIRGINIA
Two Hundred Years of History, Unimpeded by Progress
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)