[Title IV and Title IV-D] Hit em' where it hurts - Funding!!!

[Brick Layer]

"THE ANSWER TO THE RIDDLE" THE WELL AWAITED LONG SOUGHT AFTER ANSWER TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT REMIDEAL RIDDLE "Bleeding Me ~ Looking for something better" it is truly believed until now no one else has ever had nor has the/a complete answer to the riddle [Is that agreed?] that is until now - analyzed by a mortar-forker! A journeyman-mason-tradesman and a grandpa acting as an in-depth Title IV-D analyst dissecting every facet of the law for relief. As far as [y]our remedy goes [me taking credit where credit is due] who shall SEE—"


Here hold this!


Reader Notes:
This thread is dedicated to and in memory of my study buddy and dear friend Michigan's late Wayne Alan of the Vawter family,
aka sui juris - Wargames, Wargames 101, and Wargames 102.

Wayne's related cases:
Macomb County's 16th Judicial Circuit Court Case No.: 1991-004406-DM;
The State of Michigan's Federal Title IV-D No.: 911529983 for reporting to the FCR database;
United States Western District Court of Michigan Case No.: 0:19-cv-01931;
United States Eastern District Court of Michigan Case No.: 2:17-cv-11789;
United States Court of Appeals for The Sixth Circuit Case No.:2:17-cv-11789.
United States Supreme Court - Wayne was in contact with the clerk of the court regarding docket issues in the appeals court but sadly his passing prevented resolve; if reminded I will elaborate further along in this thread topic after the bulk of what I plan to share has been posted.

[Waiting on Wayne's military photo here]
Meanwhile...



__________


"Once a job has first begun
never leave it til it's done
though the honor be great or small
do it right or not at all!" .
' Long-running "Theme Song" Metallica - Bleeding Me '[/i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7GDn7NmGIs Reading Back Ground Noise .

.
MAN, I GOT SOME INFORMATION ALRIGHT CERTAIN THINGS HAVE COME TO LIGHT!
I GOT INFORMATION MAN NEW SHIT HAS COME TO LIGHT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIv7W7rhx4 To Inspire the Reader



This [thread] is for all those families still fighting, in hopes of (a child's right) joint custody for all; this:
RECORD PRESENTATION RETAINS [NOT REPRESENTATION BUT] BARGAINING POWER AND DIGNITY AT ARMS LENGTH!
GOVERNMENT'S, laws, rules, records, processes, and procedures...

PHOTOMONTAGE CorrelatioN & Presentation by: lower/central (Hardy Damn area) Western - MichiganianMan, Darren Edward of the Dykstra family [aka wargames' "the secretary"] aka Brick Layer; to anyone following [know it has been a long hard road untold damages countless families story after horrific story], with all my care and admiration sorry I'm slow; Lord willing better late than never.

With a shout-out to Grammarly because we are [toothless] common folk [real men and women]. Lol

And,

With a shout-out to The Lawful Path "Narrow is the Path to the Truth" for the solid platform including my original invitation to join membership [fellowship] [back in the day] and to the - editor "mom love's the 'avatar'" respectfully I'm [meticulously] thankful for the forum's editing features.

SPECIAL THANK YOU TO MY LORD GOD OMNIPOTENT— [Jeremiah 33:3] WHO RAINETH FOREVER!
Ever deserving all the honor and All the glory and ALL the praises! (Forever) And forever...
AMEN.

Thanking you in advance, for sharing, Share Far and Wide - it's F R E E ! ! !
And very cool eh?

If you find it within yourself [every picture tells a story don't it] look for the single DONATIONS hyperlink - find it further within these [ insightful ] illustrations treasure-trove assortment [pitucre pages] educational postings.


[Intro — what it's about] [the skinny]

Uncovering the "Secretes" of Law & Commerce
An illustrational citing photomontage [document images] Correlated Sources & Educational Materials, this [thread] is for all those families still fighting, BARGAINING POWER in hopes of [equal justice for all] joint legal lawful and physical custody, 50/50 parenting time for all every childhood, in every case, regardless of family financial status — a Child's Right and Constitutional liberty. Domestic relations outside the intrusion of the federal government and/or the New Global Child Support Enforcement Forum; with a local county ● portal, the new global family law since welfare reform legislation of 1996.

UIFSA's UNIFORM RECORD — MECHANISM IN THE UNITED STATES — IN THE ISSING STATE'S STATE COURT EXERCISING CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION A LINCHPIN (ASSIGNMENT) IN THE COUNTY CONCRETE CASE, VOLUNTARY AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS VIA ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED WITH A STATE TITLE IV-D CASE TO MEET THE STRICT DOCKET FILING REQUIREMENTS OF UIFSA'S RECORD CRITERIA.

Obligor's county recorded political vote in the concrete case # issued by the county [Title IV-D case # issued by the state for reporting to the FCR (IGO) database] a political-body subdivision of the UIFSA state within the United States [the more perfect union], each bound to the United Nations Multilateral Treaty (IGO) STREAMLINED UNIFORM LAWS RECORD PROCESS AND PROCEDURES BINDING ON THE STATE TRIBUNAL AS A REQUIREMENT FOR RECEIVING TITLE IV-D FUNDING, AND ALSO FOR A VALID SUPPORT ORDER TO ENSUE WITHIN THE FORUM'S STRICT CASE ESTABLISHMENT LINCHPIN RULES.

Grant programs are being used for revenue generation by the states as opposed to solving legitimate societal problems. States can use the Title IV-D / Child Support Enforcement Program as a tool for State Revenue Generation instead of Aid for Actual Needy Families. Michigan Analysis, "Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."

Many state child welfare system(s) plural [emphases added] do not serve children and families well, and most states risk losing funding for social services [Title VI-D services], some social service agencies have not delivered the services as promised in their state plans, the Act and state laws based upon it.

FFP, Federal Financial Participation [cooperative agreements] welfare's Title IV-D delivery services.
The federal government's role under the Act is to ensure compliance by auditing court records.

.(ENJOY)





PostScript, the information herein and throughout is tight and right; and is coming to you up close and personal ROFLOL!!!





THERE IS A LOT OF THREAD HERE, sometimes I wish I was a mouse in your pocket both while you study and when you learn to do by doing; there is a lot of driving the 'theme' home intro and other postings [LEG WORK] within this thread to find the remedy and or welfare answer short to speak - a couple of quick jumps [CUT TO THE CHASE] hyperlinks to get the reader to the meat of this well-hyped writing, those conveniently are found here:

ISSUING STATE CHILD SUPPORT CCEJ CONCRETE CASE RECORD COMPLIANCE AUDIT —
COURT FINANCIAL TAX AUDIT; INDEPENDENT OF WELFARE'S CHILD SUPPORT DELIVERY SERVICE AUDIT
[UIFSA CONTAINS THE PRIVATE REMEDY--EITHER JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE]

PRESIDENT FORD'S INTRUSION
THE UIFSA REMEDY IS THAT FIX THROUGH WHICH AN AGGRIEVED PERSON CAN SEEK REDRESS —
A TITLE IV WELFARE PART D CHILD SUPPORT DELIVERY SERVICE IS VOLUNTARY REGARDLESS OF FAMILY WEALTH
[HENCE, WELFARE'S COURT CASE RECORD AUDIT]

"Title IV-D contains no private remedy--either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress!"

__________


Pho●to●mon●tage

n.
a combination of several photographs joined together for artistic effect or to show more of the subject than
can be shown in a single photograph.

[1930-35]

[Brick Layer]

ITS A LOCAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SERVICE ON A GRAND SCALE AND A WORLDWIDE STAGE
[accounts and measures - the measure of compliance...]
Uniform Global Family Law.

Reader Notes:
On this page of this thread topic, starting with this Globe Post the laws illustrated within this first post are correlated in such a way to clearly show the law from afar. ZOOMING IN with the next post clearly showing the uniform law a little closer to home so on and so forth consecutively until towards the end of this [thread] page the illustrations are clearly showing more local law and uniform to the same and similar, [and intertwined...] take notice meaningless tidbit; carry on.

Integrating an International Convention into State Law a new global era the culmination of a multi-year process.

For the first time on a worldwide scale uniform simple procedures for the establishment, recognition, and enforcement of child support.

The Convention is a multilateral treaty that binds the United States to assure compliance, the key, is the enactment of both federal and state legislation which provided the mechanism for enforcing the requirements of UIFSA (2008) in all States and federal jurisdictions, state law (Articles 1 through 6 of the Convention), the treaty, in essence, establishes the framework for a system by emulating the interstate effect of UIFSA.

The United States in multilateral treaties globalization.

UIFSA principles, core UIFSA principles into a system for the legal mechanisms to facilitate child support enforcement between otherwise disparate legal systems.

Introducing the concept of continuing exclusive jurisdiction is the most dramatic founding principle of UIFSA a one-order-at-a-time world, the one-order system created by UIFSA procedure is designed to identify a single viable order that will be entitled to prospective enforcement in every UIFSA State. For UIFSA to function [UIFSA 701(6)], one order must be denominated as the controlling order, and its issuing tribunal must be recognized as having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; over the parties' "support-agreement/foreign support-agreement" thing on record in the issuing state's CCEJ.


A keystone of UIFSA is that the power to enforce the order of the issuing State is not "exclusive" to that State. Rather, on request one or more responding States may also exercise authority to enforce the order of the issuing State, a one-order-at-a-time system.

The entire system in transition since child support enforcement was overhauled in 1996 as part of welfare reform.
Conclusion Although the United States has in place the legal structure to meet the provisions of Convention Article 27, many children do not have a standard of living adequate for their needs. Job growth and welfare reform may have diminished welfare caseloads, but the number of children living in poverty has grown. The prognosis is not good single mothers increased these numbers are expected to continue rising.

The new global family law States are required to enact the new version of UIFSA to continue receiving federal funding for child support enforcement. The state funding for federal child welfare programs the amounts appropriated for these programs are considerably less than the funding for child support enforcement.

As anyone familiar with domestic law would know, child support in the United States is a growing multi-billion dollar public policy issue — this lucrative "industry" [cooperative federalism] creating a market from which continues to profit. Current US child supports public policy has cost federal and state taxpayers billions of dollars — since 1984 the industry [state plan cooperative arrangements political subdivisions within a country State Title IV-D Child Support Agencies as "Public bodies" cooperative reimbursement program] rakes in money from the block grant and passthrough incentives for child support cases on both ADFC families and non-ADFC families (all families), hence "Incentive Parents"!!!

2008 Interstate Family Support Act

[Brick Layer]

Hague Child Support Convention: Judicial Guide

The Hague Child Support Convention came into force in the United States the "law of the land" and binding on the states, see U.S. Constitution art. VI, cl.2. The UIFSA has been the state law governing child support since the "Welfare Reform" all cases under the Convention a treaty into State Law: The UIFSA Experience. 42 U.S.C. § 666 to add a new subsection (f) requiring all states to enact UIFSA, see Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996) UIFSA requirement that states enact it.

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES UNDER THE UIFSA

THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT is...
Intrastate Proceedings!

It addresses the duties of the state that originally issues a decree, the “issuing state”.
And,
The procedure for obtaining that judgment is the UIFSA procedure. [MCL 552.604(3)(b); UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)]
Cowan v Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.App.-Austin, 1995)


2001 Revisions to UIFSA - see Determination of Controlling Order

UIFSA's most revolutionary concept is its intrastate "one-order system" regardless of whether the parents or child later move to another state or not.

Child custody and support agreements are "binding" on the court and are subject to independent court scrutiny and a finding of conscionability [being in conformity with one's conscience] is a prerequisite to their binding effect.

UIFSA's evidentiary provisions place more emphasis upon the relevancy and veracity of a document and less importance upon whether the document is a "first generation."

The public policy defense may be raised where the parties have a great discrepancy in negotiating power or the agreement is reached through duress, the agreement was obtained by fraud or falsification if such order is not entitled to recognition and enforcement under UIFSA.

Due process considerations have little or no relevance when [after] an agreement is entered into by the parties with respect to the agreement, given its voluntary nature, documents from evidence, make [intrastate] requests directly to the tribunal such cases do not involve any services by the state as the Central Authority.

UIFSA is built on a "one order, one time, one place" construct.
UIFSA's core concept is continuing, exclusive jurisdiction as a linchpin.
The federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCSOA) also adopts CEJ as a linchpin (28 U.S.C. §1738B). UIFSA's voluntary consent requirement [hence full faith] has been strictly construed by U.S. courts as the CEJ rules of UIFSA/FFCCSOA.

Background Document Experts' Group

Procedures it is important to have a mechanism that provides for the recognition and enforcement of private agreements. The definition of "maintenance arrangements" is meant to encompass private agreements.

Private agreements require certification upon a challenge or appeal (certifiable in the concrete case) enforcement proceedings must be suspended during the pendency of a challenge to or an appeal of the agreement.

It is not important that a certain form of arrangement is enforceable according to the law of the State of origin, but that the arrangement (voluntary agreement between parents) in the concrete case meets the requirements of enforceability, UIFSA 701(6) criteria. Clear rules regarding the recognition and enforcement of voluntary agreements between parents.

Practical Handbook for Caseworkers under the 2007 Child Support Convention




In the United States, private agreements are not recognized and enforced as decisions unless they are, in fact, incorporated in a decision. Convention Article 26(5), recognition and enforcement of the private agreement suspended if either party challenges its validity before a competent authority.




Hague Child Support Convention: Judicial Guide

Foreign Support Agreement: § 701(6) integrates the Convention into UIFSA 2008.
Outside this State: The phrase "outside this state" means a location in another state or a country, regardless of whether the country is or is not a "foreign country" the equivalent terminology in UIFSA.
UIFSA's special evidentiary provisions.
"Child Support at Home and Abroad"
Also, see § 710 It is important to note that such an agreement between the parties in the U.S. would be treated as a contract, but, if the ISSUING STATE'S CCEJ'S RECORD MEETS UIFSA'S STRICT CRITERIA enforceable in the issuing country and "outside this state" and/or abroad within the scope of the Convention.

2008 Revisions to the UIFSA

A purely private agreement [evidence] such as a separation agreement is treated as a type of contract, rather than a support order. As such, it is not enforceable under UIFSA. The 2007 Family Maintenance Convention standardizes a process for recognition and enforcement of maintenance arrangements (private agreements). UIFSA 2008 calls such an arrangement a "Foreign Support Agreement" and defines "Outside this State" terms "more readily understandable for U.S. bench and bar.

Foreign Support Agreement— means an agreement for support in a record that:

Is enforceable as a support order in the country of origin.

THESE ARE RULES OF EVIDENCE (UIFSA RECORD CRITERIA CONCRETE CASE COURT CONTINUING, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN THE ISSUING STATE). One of the most important principles underlying UIFSA has been and remains utilitarian evidentiary provisions, see Official Comment to Section 710, Unif. Interstate Family Support Act 2008.

UIFSA 701(6) Most crucially:

● such an agreement

Must be accompanied by:

● a support order

In the country of origin.

Advantages for enforcement of child support binding on the parties in the country of origin stem from the inclusion of a foreign support agreement in the United States, this mechanism provides for recognition and enforcement ["outside this state"] in some of the likely Convention countries.

Orders Made in another U.S. State.
The tribunal will use its own laws and procedures to establish a support order Convention Articles 1-6 will apply to the application.

The essence is that it is an agreement, if any, is found, negotiated by the parties the subject of process so that it is enforceable as a support order in the country of origin.

Modification of a Foreign Support Agreement, it is clear that the agreement must be susceptible to modification and the proper forum is the competent authority in the country where the agreement was made and authenticated by due process of law in the country where the agreement was concluded.

[Brick Layer]

Case-Specific High-Performing Child-Support Programs Are Evidence-Based (each case) "record mechanisms" in the United States of the American union; Michigan a constitutional republic.


Jurisdiction based upon parental responsibility for child support DEMANDS VOLUNTARY WRITTEN ADMISSION (consent agreement) of a party in conformity to UIFSA's strict record criteria CCEJ's linchpin rules resulting in INADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION this happens when the documentation submitted with a case does not meet the requirements of UIFSA § 701(6) and is uncertifiable upon challenge or appeal and does not qualify for cooperative reimbursement block grants or federal financial incentives.


Even if a tribunal has personal jurisdiction over both parties, absent agreement [subject of UIFSA record process criteria] [UIFSA's issuing Court CEJ record mechanism in the U.S.] of the parties it does not have subject matter jurisdiction.
...that speaks volumes.

The jurisdictional nexus of UCCJEA places its focus on the factual circumstances of the child, primarily the "home State" of the child; personal jurisdiction over a parent in order to bind that parent to the 'child' custody decree is not required.

The jurisdictional nexus of UIFSA has it focuses on the personal jurisdiction necessary to bind the obligor to payment of a child-support because that is just a 'thing' in interstate commerce.

Title IV-D [Child Support Enforcement] was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents; it is a for-profit industry; operating under private international law (Child Support Enforcement UIFSA) United Nations multi-international Hague treaty [local] 'case processing' child support enforcement's federal case registry [Hague registry] Blessing v. Freestone.

Enforceable in the United States and 35 other countries including nearly the entire European Union!

[Brick Layer]

The "one-order-at-a-time" system (IGO) Federal Case Registry (FCR) is an Intergovernmental Global FORUM that applies to all cases [support order cases] since welfare reform legislation, vide UIFSA's Record Criteria Rules in the issuing state's court, continuing exclusive jurisdiction (CCEJ)(CEJ) "parties' agreement" linchpin procedures.
Establishing a record establishes a verifiable audit trail!!!



H.R.4325 — 98th Congress (1983-1984)

Basic requirements (including IV-D welfare agency procedures) intrastate cases; Safeguards [the record as a safeguard] the due process rights of the parties involved must be protected, the parties must be provided a copy of the VOLUNTARY support order; Title IV-D agency procedures/functions establish a record accepting voluntary support liability and stipulated agreements entering default orders.

MCL 552.604; MCL 552.2205
"support agreement"

And,

UIFSA 107(6)(A)(i)
"Foreign support agreement"

Singular "thing" that little guy!

Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit. To whomever anyone grants a thing the is considered also to grant that without which the thing itself could not be (the sine qua non). 11 Coke 52.


[UIFSA] THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT is...
Intrastate Proceedings!

It addresses the duties of the state that originally issues a decree, the “issuing state”;

And,

The procedure for obtaining that judgment is the UIFSA procedure MCL 552.604(3)(b); UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i).

Cowan v Moreno, 903 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.App.-Austin, 1995)


Voluntary by agreement 45 CFR § 302.50(a)(2) funds for the care of children 42 USC § 651 — Authorization of appropriations.

For the purposes of enforcing the support obligations available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State program funded under part A) is hereby authorized [by agreement].

Eodem ligamine quo ligatum est dissovitur.
An obligation is dissolved by the same bond by which it is contracted.

Voluntary Child Support means a consent to "opt-in" must occur prior to consent to "opt-out"!

After a 552.604 payer's parties, the written agreement has been reviewed and entered into the record by the court under UIFSA criteria for income withholding then the other parties' consent is needed to opt-out under MCL 552.505a and a motion will need to be filed with the court.

For a friend of the court case, an agreement by the payer "that little guy!"

The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered into the record by the court.

MCL 552.2205 UIFSA's "inclusion mechanism" CCEJ RULES see Official Comment to Section 710, Uniform. Interstate Family Support Act 2008.

● High-performing child support systems are evidence-based case-specific case-by-case bases.

● The majority of the court declared that the legislation authorizing the court to promulgate child support guidelines must be presumed to be constitutional, see Section 103 of the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) requires that there shall be a rebuttable presumption, USE OF GUIDELINES AS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IN ESTABLISHING SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS, Effective October 13, 1989, section 467(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act), and the implementing regulations at 45 CFR 302.56(f).

● Any challenges must come from the party litigants MCL 552.605(3).

● The obligee submits to the jurisdiction of a tribunal of this state, either expressly or by defending on the merits of the case without objection to the jurisdiction at the first available opportunity MCL 552.2711.

● Arrangements include private agreements and clear rules regarding recognizing and enforcing voluntary agreements between parents. The arrangement in the concrete case must meet the requirement of enforceability as a decision in the State of origin, see criteria UIFSA 2008 § 701(6).

● The voluntary agreement between the parents requires certification upon a challenge or appeal 2007 Convention Art. 25.

● Written factual records are paramount, and documents from evidence make such requests directly to the tribunal such cases do not involve any services by the state IV-D agency as the Central Authority, 45 CFR § 302.34; 45 CFR § 303.107; MCL 552.502(h); MCL 600.571(a); MCL 600.572.


Semper sexus masculinus etiam faemini-num continet.
The masculine gender always includes the feminine as well. Dig. 32.63.
"Order of the parties" means [stipulation and order] the parties' agreement "support agreement" as evidence the judge endorses the support agreement by recording the order of the parties [Title 45 § 302.50(a)(2) the support assignment of rights] into the record and issuing the ensuing "support order" in the issuing country of origin and "outside this state" meeting "foreign support order" recognition and enforcement record criteria under UIFSA 701(6) CCEJ LINCHPIN RULES.
SUPPORT STIPULATION PACKET [Michigan] SEE attatchment.

Other Processes, such as other legal processes, such as a legally enforceable and binding agreement.
Constitutes an obligation owed to the State by the one individual responsible for proving such support.

[Brick Layer]

The Lawful Path — Narrow is the Path to the Truth

Support orders require support agreements MCL 552.604(3)(b),
MCL 552.2205 inclusion mechanism in the U.S. "outside this state" [issuing state CCEJ] that same support agreement [that "little guy"] becomes a "foreign support agreement" UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i) regardless of whether the country is foreign or not. ~ Welcome to the worldwide Big League!!!

MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS
[The lawful path] To withhold consent , to withhold consent is to withhold funding, again to withhold consent refuses to authorize appropriations for the Title IV-D Program (cooperative arrangements) CRP & FFP also called (FMAP) human service programs [IV-D Program] funding for the care of children. [Child support is evidence-based - adjudication based on evidence submitted by the parties case-specific-tools case-by-case-basis a due-process record mechanism (safeguard) us it.]



.


The legal Path —

.
Role of Courts and Law Enforcement Officers under Title IV-D and IRS Section 6103, IRS TAX LAW


The Record Establishes A Verifiable Audit Trail!!!
MAXIM. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to reason. - Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.

"Throughout the history of western civilization certain principles of law have existed whose truth and validity are self-evident. These 'maxims of law' relate to matters surrounding property, contracts, government, evidence, marriage, economics and nearly every subject that our lives touch upon. Maxims of law are so manifestly founded on reason, necessity, and Divine order as to find a place in the code of every civilized nation." - From "Maxims of Law", Compiled and Edited by Charles A. Weisman
(ISBN 0-9668921-4-3)

Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metue.
Nothing is so opposite to consent as force and fear.

Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt.
Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by a subsequent act.

Nihil tam propriaum imperio quam legibus vivere.
Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.

Ejus Ext Nolle, Quipotestuelle.
Person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).

L’ou le ley done chose, la ceo done remedie a vener a ceo.
Where the law gives a right, it gives a remedy to recover.

Funds for the care of children by agreement - Voluntary Authorization of Appropriations
The obligor's authorizing 'charge of a child' - an assignment of support rights by the payer party's parties' agreement of record in the issuing state's concrete case!!!


Michigan Court Rules Chapter 3. Special Proceedings and Actions
Rule 3.208(D) - Friend of the Court

Who's the case is it? Without an obligator's payer's parties' agreement of record meeting UIFSA's strict record criteria clearly, it's the Friend of the Court's [worthless] case [frivolous (not having any value) a claim from which relief cannot be granted].

Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY
Subchapter IV - GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
Part D - CHILD SUPPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY

MAKING AND MEETING OBJECTIONS!

Don't forget this bad boy...



Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY
Subchapter IV - GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
Part D - CHILD SUPPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY
42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing DHHS any Federal official, TITLE IV-D/CPS agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this welfare chapter [Title IV Part D], to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child...


When the defense of fraud lies, it is necessary that the objecting party show extrinsic or collateral, rather than intrinsic, fraud. The principle is that judgments procured by fraud are not entitled to full faith and credit.

The matrix has you 'Fraud upon the Court".

The Fraud Exception to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: How it Almost Wasn't (and Probably Shouldn't Be)
fraud exception to rooker feldman

Rooker-Feldman’s Narrow Fraud Exception When a client wants to file a new action that involves legal issues that were long ago litigated in state court, challenging the basis of that state court ruling in a federal action may seem like a good strategy at first blush. This is especially true if the appeal period in state court has lapsed. After all, if the legal claims can be reframed in the new federal action to avoid *res judicata *concerns, filing the case in a federal district court may provide friendlier legal standards than those that previously doomed the case. Rebooting the case in federal court might also present an opportunity to focus the case on new or different facts, or permit the federal judge a chance to review the legal reasoning that the state court used to dismiss the case and reach a better result for your client.
[Federal judicial arena/venue]

[Back in the state judicial arena/venue] .

Obligor's county recorded political vote in the concrete case # issued by the county
AUDIT THE COUNTY VOTER ROLLS / POLITICAL VOTE / CASE-BY-CASE BASIS / COUNTY COURT RECORDS

[Administrative arena/venue]
Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
Chapter 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY
Subchapter IV - GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
Part D - CHILD SUPPORT AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PATERNITY
42 U.S. Code § 670 et seq. (1989)

APPENDIX C Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
Welfare Act of 1980 ("Act") significantly changed child welfare Law in the United States. Many state child welfare systems do not serve children and families well, and most states risk losing federal funding for services. Nowhere else in the law must judges play such an important role, the Act and state laws are based upon it, the judge monitors the activities of the social service agency before a child is removed from a parent's custody.

Some [Title IV-D] social service agencies have not delivered the services as promised in their state plans. Judges misunderstand or remain unaware of their duty to monitor social service delivery [Title IV-D delivery services] With no one raising the issue, courts understandably do not address it. Judges, unwilling to exercise their power and rule on social service failures, some judges record their findings incorrectly.

The Federal government's role under the Act is to ensure compliance by auditing court records. Where the social service agency complies with the court record compliance, the federal government will not penalize the state by demanding that federal funding be returned. The court's findings must be properly recorded so an auditor can understand them. If the judge or court clerk incorrectly records the judicial finding concerning these issues, the social service agency may not receive credit for satisfactory work or may get credit for improperly performed work.

The Author is a Superior Court Judge Honorable Leonard P. Edwards.

In the case in which a state plan which has been approved by the Secretary no longer complies, or that in the administration of the plan there is a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of the plan further payments will not be made to the state under this part, or that such payment will be made to the state but reduced by an amount which the Secretary determines appropriate until the Secretary is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, and until he is so satisfied he shall make no further payments to the state or shall reduce such payments by the amount specified in his notification to the states.
SHOWING THIS AGAIN [ONE MORE TIME] 42 U.S. Code § 652 - State Plan for Child Support §§ (22)
An appropriate share of such incentive payments, taking into account the efficiency and effectiveness of the activities carried out or not carried out in conformity to and/or under the State plan or not carried out in conformity to UIFSA's section of the State plan.
45 CFR § 302.55 - Incentive payments to States and political subdivisions.


Child Support Resource Guide for State IV-D Directors
Federal Organizational Chart - Office of Audit

CHIEF JUDGE IN EACH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THIS STATE (THE FRIEND OF HTE COURT IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT) THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE SHALL BE PERFORMED UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE CHIDF JUDGE (EACH FRIEND OF THE COURT SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO ADOPT PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACT, THE MICHIGAN COURT RULES

The State plan shall provide that the State will enter into agreements for cooperative arrangements with appropriate courts. Such arrangements may be entered into with a single official covering more than one court.


Besides the welfare record audit described in detail (State Plan Compliance issues as it pertains to UIFSA Strict Record Criteria) under the State Plan's mandate by law uniform streamlined processes and procedures - comporting to the 'Convention' in order to have effect regardless of whether the parents or child later move to another state or not "one order" called the Controlling Order Global UIFSA system, also IN COURT ON THE RECORD DEMAND A "TAX STAY EVENT";

Ask the chief judge "I don't wish to be found in contemptuous behavior asking the court for the single official's name — for IRS form 8300, whose name should I use on this form?" The name of the single official whose name appears on the court cooperative arrangement entered into by the county and the state... it has been rumored this tax form invokes an audit that will shut down the court for (3) days; hence the term "kicking ass and taking names" " We're in Hot pursuit" Lol.

We the people are the power!

“The Child Support Industry is the darling of the circuit court and that we actually made money for the judge and the court unlike the Sheriff's Department and so many agencies; our county our state was not an exception to the rule. Money that is paid to the children is collected for the children (child support money) are matched by the federal government [66% reimbursement] AND THEN [Plus] THERE ARE INCENTIVES for DIFFERENT types of enforcement activities (matching funds at state and local levels as well), and so the judges each time that they grant or approve The Friend of the Court up someone’s child support collection their actually what they’re doing is padding their own pockets because that comes back to them, it indirectly comes back to them." ~ Carol Rhodes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s_EF-3FA88&t=384s

The original intent of federal IV-D legislation is to recoup taxpayer money already spent on providing these specific welfare services to children who have been willfully abandoned by a parent [or both parents] and left to rely on the government to self-sustain. This original intent legislation did and still does hing on WILLFUL ABANDONMENT AND OR in other words a UIFSA PARTIES' AGREEMENT into that welfare jurisdiction, specifically welfare's child support delivery service - a client agreement per se in order for the federal intrusion into domestic family life case-by-case basis in order to meet constitutional muster. The parties' "support agreement" of the record is the law the parties agree to be bound by— endorsed by the judge [reveiwed by the court MCL 552.604(3)(b) and entered into the record] as an ensuing "support order" enforceable in the country of origin, and that enforcement order is only enforceable because it, therefore, meets UIFSA strict record criteria section 701(6) "foreign support order" inclusion mechanism in the U.S. - regardless of family wealth.

Circuit Court's chief Judge (family court) signs contracts with the state through the county to provide enforcement services of circuit court employee who reports directly to the chief judge, a friend of the court.

State Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) Private Collection Agency (PCA) Policy

Trial Court Services and Attendant Departments

Risk Management

United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 - Public Welfare Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Public Welfare CHAPTER III - OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM), ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PART 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS § 302.19 Bonding of employees.

SURETY BOND REQUIREMENTS (Risk Management)

Michigan Compiled Law 700.3606 Requirements and provisions of bonds.

CHAPTER 15. PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES BONDS OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

suits-against-state-officials


“If A Thief Robs A Jewelry Store Of All Of Its Diamonds, The Diamonds Must Be Returned”


HOW MANY STATES AND COUNTIES ARE STEALING FROM THE PUBLIC CRIME ON THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER; IN HOW MANY CASES RECEIVING FEDERAL COOPERATIVE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM (CRP) MONIES; ON A CASE-SPECIFIC CASE-BY-CASE BASIS ARE THE STATE AND COUNTY BLOCK GRANTS AND PASSTHROUGH INCENTIVES ACTUALLY BASED ON AN INVALID INTRASTATE "SUPPORT ORDER" AND NOT BY THE RULE OF LAW THAT REQUIRES AS A PREREQUISITE A PARTIES WRITTEN COURT RECORD OF A VALID 'CERTIFIABLE' "SUPPORT AGREEMENT" AND THAN... SUPPORTED BY JUDGMENT ORDER OR DECREE REGARDLESS OF THE FAMILY FINANCIAL SITUATION SINCE FEDERAL WELFARE REFORM LEGISLATION ALL CASES UNDER UIFSA'S NEW GLOBAL ERA A NEW GLOBAL FAMILY LAW SYSTEM ENTERED INTO AT A LOCAL INTRASTATE UIFSA TRIBUNAL LEVEL WITH BOTH THE COURT AND ALL GOVERNMENT ACTORS ACTING IN PUBLIC [AS THE DE JURE GOVERNMENT] [N FACT DE FACTO] AND GETTING PAID COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO COMPLY WITH UIFSA'S STRICT RECORD RULES AND THEN NOT TO COMPLY IS [THEFT] A FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER AND AN INJURY TO THE NON-WILLING PARENT/ALLEGED OBLIGATOR UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE AMERICAN FAMILY PARENTAL CHILD RELATIONSHIP UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAY COFFER UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY COFFER UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE AMERICAN FAMILY ECONOMY UNTOLD DAMAGE TO THE AMERICA'S CHILDREN

.
.



That's the real question about America's inflation?



[ASK THAT BIG QUESTION AGAIN]

[REREAD IT]


.

WARNING: NEVER PUT YOURSELF ON CHILD SUPPORT!
Because child support will guarantee neither custody nor visitation, later on after excepting a "support agreement" [due-process issues are moot, and] custody and visitation issues cannot be raised during support proceedings and or support enforcement proceedings. The only "thing" putting yourself on child support does is create the obligation with you as the obligor, see further postings later in the thread... if I forget please ask, as a remember to add the appropriate UIFSA rule and other applicable related source materials.

.

"This thread [equal justice under the law] [study focus on the agreement] is and always has been "a remedy for all category" and,

Intended for America's children, their children, and their grandchildren's children's neighbor kids' [neigbor hood] their natural childhood right to both parents equally regardless of [all] family financial status[es], even America's [dad and/or mother] poorest kid's parent!!!

[KEEP STUDYING THIS TOPIC IN FURTHER POSTINGS BELOW] [FILLING IN THE GAPS OF KNOWLEDGE]

I do hope something new has been revealed and is learned here within these teachings - that these teachings [complicated made simple] may be proven useful in practical application and common knowledge for all... Child support as Wargames would always say "It's just business..." whereas on the other hand [equal] custody matters; all the countless hours and selfless energy and personal sacrifice that has gone on behind the scenes learning what to do and most importantly [weeding out useless remedial claims] learning what not to do — even if it helps only one.

OK, patriots - be well, remember to have fun, stay safe, and as always,

Happy Paper Trails!!!



.

THANK YOU... Thank You... thank you!
IF YOU FIND IT WITHIN YOURSELF PLEASE SEND ALL YOUR DONATIONS: HERE!!!

[Brick Layer]

Come on [out here] man let's go we're in Hot pursuit!
HOT pursuit!!! https://www.facebook.com/darren.edward.52/videos/749010326310805/?notif_id=1660377725722672&notif_t=video_processed&ref=notif

[Brick Layer]

But wait!

There's more... Lol



I will quote certain places and add to the knowledge being shared - to fill in the blanks regarding the welfare assignments, more materials on UIFSA jurisdictional rules, bring Wayne's child support case back into play; and answer any residual questioning that may arise from group members...

I saved all this other stuff for last to add clarity now, without clutter and confusion in the work above, I do hope you're enjoying this!!!


.


INTERMISSION





Are we having fun yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwgC9aKplpQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2enGnAF0zHY&t=3s

https://youtu.be/f9JnX3Df7K0

[Brick Layer]

Vir et uxor censentur in lege una persona.
Husband and wife are considered one person in law.

Semper sexus masculinus etiam faemini-num continet.
The masculine gender always includes the feminine as well. Dig. 32.63.

Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure.
What is prior is truer; and what comes earlier in time is stronger in wright.


Under the one-order system established by UIFSA if the child has no home State, "first filing" will continue to control.

Under expedited processes In IV-D cases needing support order establishment, the case may be COUNTED as a success following service of process; entering default orders upon a showing that process has been served on the defendant in accordance with State Law, in Michigan Rule 2.603 - Default and Default Judgment, Mich. Ct. R. 2.603 also see In addition, the court may set aside a default and a default judgment in accordance with MCR 2.625(D).

Michigan forms Default Request; Motion and Affidavit to Set Aside Default

As amended by Congress, the federal Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521, § 201) requires that “before” granting a “default” judgment, state courts “must” first obtain an affidavit that sets forth facts (i.e., “not hearsay”, and not matters asserted “on information and belief,” etc.) sufficient to show that the defendant against whom a default judgment is sought is “not” currently active and serving in the United States Armed Forces.

A new trial following a default judgment is often easily obtained under the Craddock standards. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc..134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939). A defendant may even admit negligence and obtain a new trial, as long as the failure to answer is not shown to be intentional or due to conscious indifference.

When a default judgment is attacked by a Motion for New Trial or a Bill of Review in the trial court, the record is not so limited. In those proceedings, the parties may introduce affidavits, depositions, testimony, and exhibits to explain what happened. That being the case these procedures focus on what has always been and always should be the critical question in any default judgment: “why did the defendant not appear?”

Michigan Court Rules Chapter 3 Special Proceeding and Actions
Rule 3.210 Hearings and Trials
(B) Default Cases
(6) Setting Aside Default Judgment.
(a) A motion to set aside a default judgment, except when grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the defendant, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to serve the notice of default as required by subrule (B)(2)(b), or failure to serve the proposed default judgment and notice of hearing for the entry of the judgment under subrule (B)(4), shall be granted only if the motion is filed within 21 days after the default judgment was entered and if good cause is shown.
(b) In addition, the court may set aside a default judgment or modify the terms of the judgment in accordance with statute or MCR 2.612.

The tribunal which issued a valid support order ["Title 45 § 302.50" via uniform record rules "UIFSA 701(6)" Or by OTHER PROCESS "Default Process"] has continuing jurisdiction.

This order also may be registered for enforcement in any and all states in which the obligor resides, is employed, or has assets without stripping the issuing tribunal of its authority to enforce the order.

The order remains valid and controls the current support obligation unless and until it is modified by a tribunal with jurisdiction pursuant to UIFSA/FFCCSOA RULES; with immediate income withholding.


For UIFSA to function [UIFSA 701(6)], one order must be denominated as the controlling order, and its issuing tribunal must be recognized as having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; over the parties' "support-agreement/foreign support-agreement" thing on record in the issuing state's CCEJ.

WEHUNT V LEDBETTER 875 F.2D 1558 (11TH CIR. 1989) STATES THAT CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD – IT IS RECOVERY OF FUNDS FOR STATE TREASURY, see Rights Without Remedies: Section 1983 Enforcement of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act

[justincredible1984]

Has any Man in this forum presented them selvs sui juris in there divorce? Any sucesses? I need help. I have spent the last 8 months on studing all this stuff and I would like some feed back and bounce some ideas off of each other. Thanks