The deadline for public Comment is Friday, January 16, 2015. And we MUST get as many people as possible to comment before then. (Put on Facebook, twitter, your organization’s email list, the bathroom wall, and any other place you can.) The Federal Office Of Child Support Guidelines makes rules and regulations that States must follow. They are seeking public comments. In order to save time, here is a link to what I am talking about: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22068-office-of-child-support-enforcement-proposes-constructive-new-rules-for-states Read carefully, and ACT on it. regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=CMS-2014-0146-0001 THIS IS THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS KNOWN!! For those who think they will not fall behind on child-support, college contribution, medical care, child-care (baby-sitter/stranger-care) contribution, stop kidding yourself. It is just a matter of time before you find yourself on the wrong end of payment, and behind bars. You get laid off, the car transmission goes bad, braces for the kids, broken water pipe, etc. Any non-recurring expense will put you behind and your judge will not care. Or your ex convinces your judge that you make more, or should be making more and paying more. Next thing, you’re in jail falling even further behind. This shit has to stop. Make your views known. From the linked article: The actual proposed new rules begin on page 68555. First, only the “actual earnings” of a non-custodial parent will be able to be used in calculating child support. Second, states will be required to include in their child support guidelines, a basic subsistence level of income the non-custodial parent will be able to maintain. Income considered for child support calculations will only be that that exceeds that subsistence level. Some states already incorporate such a subsistence income into their guidelines, but many do not. The new rules would require all states to do so. Third, while discouraging the imputation of income, the new rules allow it in cases in which “the noncustodial parent’s lifestyle is inconsistent with earnings or income and where there is evidence of income or assets beyond those identified.” Fourth, the proposed rules would prohibit states from considering incarceration to be “voluntary unemployment.” Fifth (p. 68557), if a parent is hauled into court in contempt proceedings for failure to pay, the new rules would require states to allow the parent a subsistence living before he can be held in contempt. In addition, we encourage States to develop procedures to take into account the noncustodial parent’s subsistence level in other child support enforcement procedures such as credit bureau reporting, license revocation, State tax refund offset, and liens. Sixth, the OCSE rules would require judges to make written findings of fact based on actual evidence produced in court that a parent held in contempt is actually able to pay but refuses. That’s an attempt to make states comply with the requirements of Turner vs. Rogers decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011. Seventh, the rules would require states, as part of their child support enforcement systems, to provide low-income parents job services to help them train for, obtain and keep employment.
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 20:40:36 +0000