download (1)

TOOL OF THE DAY: Title IV-D Child Support
CATEGORY: Family Law Due Process

The last time our government imposed a duty on the American people there was a terrible war. Now family courts are imposing what they call a “duty” in the form of child support and acting as if they are completely justified and authorized to do this.

“…the right to impose a duty for the purpose of revenue, produced a war as important, perhaps, in its consequences to the human race, as any the world has ever witnessed.” –Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 – Supreme Court 1824.

The last time government got so full of hubris, the people rose up and rebelled.

This time they aren’t just imposing an unjust and unequal duty on parents but they are using our children as cash cows or what some may call a “cash for kids” or a form of “child trafficking” scheme. The reason that this practice has gone on this long is that it has been veiled well in an embedded culture, and has been protected by the notion that this was protecting children from poverty. We know now that this is not true.

Some of you might be surprised that child support and alimony has risen to this level. Divorce policies (marriage dissolution statutes) of the states encouraged by the Federal government guidelines are feeding this corruption and harming your child. Social Security Title IV-D is providing incentives to the courts and parents to battle over children. So we have created a solution where we incorporate protections of your rights into the child support guidelines below.

And you don’t have to wait to become a victim of this to do something about it. You have an opportunity to do something about this right now.

Until January 16, 2015 you can submit your solution for fixing the Title IV-D guideline for ordering child support.

We created some wording that can, to our knowledge, best facilitate the effect of removing the incentive of taking your child from you for profit and getting the government and courts out of your wallet.

If you’re not sure what to say, we’ve made it easy for you and have provided wording you can copy and paste into your comment form below.

Please click this Federal Register Submit-a-Formal_Comment-Buttonbutton here, paste the following text that you copy from this page below into the “COMMENT” section, check the “I read and understand the statement above” box on that page, and click “Submit Comment.”

You can only submit 5000 words on the federal registry page, so here is a pdf you can upload with the wording on it – Title IV-D Section 302.56 child support revision submission v1.1


(If you want to copy & paste what is below you will have to shorten it. You can copy through section (1) and then make a note that it is continued on the PDF. There is a button to upload the pdf on the federal registry site below your comment. Title IV-D Section 302.56 child support revision submission v1.1

I would propose the following language for new Section 302.56:

§ 302.56 Guidelines for setting child support awards.

(a) Within one year after completion of the State’s next quadrennial review of its guidelines, pursuant to § 302.56(e), as a condition of approval of its State plan, the State must establish one set of guidelines by law or by judicial or administrative action for setting and modifying child support award amounts within the State that meet the requirements in this section. These guidelines must be in compliance with the United States Supreme Court rulings including but not limited to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 – Supreme Court 1992 “…the Constitution places limits on a State’s right to interfere with a person’s most basic decisions about family and parenthood”, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 US 471 – Supreme Court 1970 “if the classification affects a “fundamental right,” then the state interest in perpetuating the classification must be “compelling” in order to be sustained, and all other rulings that protect the basic fundamental rights of parents and equal protection and treatment of parents and their children to the individual and private decisions between them and their child as a family unit.

(b) The State must have procedures for making the guidelines available to all persons in the State whose duty it is to set child support award amounts.

(c) the guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section must at a minimum:

(1) take into consideration that it is unconstitutional for this agency to set child support without a showing that one of the parents have failed to provide. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to direct or encourage or incentivize any state agency or government entity to impose a duty without first showing that that parent has failed to meet the minimum equally applicable standard of child care. A child support order cannot be imposed on a parent until the it has been proven under strict scrutiny and clear and convincing evidence that the parent forfeited or abandoned the right to care for their child or assign care for their child directly, intentionally, and knowingly, or had their rights formally terminated in a proper adjudication hearing. Once it is proven that the parent has failed to support their child to a basic minimum standard for the child’s basic minimum needs, applied to all households regardless whether married, unmarried, or divorced, only then can a State issue an order for the payment of child support. The State must set a basic minimum standard of cost of a child’s basic minimum needs and this same amount applied to every child equally once the guidelines established in this paragraph have been met. If there is any section or guideline that conflicts with this section this section prevails. All constitutional guidelines from section (a) apply to this section as well.

(2) For all births occurring after the date for establishment of the new guidelines specified in paragraph (a) and section (1), and when the paying parent is unwilling or unable to parent the child at least 35% of the time, be based on the statewide basic minimum needs calculation (“SBMNC”)* for the average family to support a first, second, or subsequent child, plus half the cost of daycare when both parents work more than half-time, and result in a computation of the support obligation that does not exceed the amount the State has computed is required for a bare basic minimum need for the housing, clothing, and food for the child and not to exceed what the State would pay to needy families for the same number of children similarly situated; (*State will have to create this and replace the SMMC with the new SBNMC based on the constitutional protections listed in this new guideline.)

(3) Address how the parents will provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs through health insurance coverage in accordance with the laws in force at the time that apply to everyone and according to the federal minimum guidelines of coverage. Neither parent should be responsible to the other parent for coverage. Section § 303.31 of this chapter must be in compliance with this section and section (a) and (1) of this guideline.

(4) REMOVE THIS SECTION as unconstitutional and conflicts with section (1) of this guideline; and

(5) Provide that incarceration may not be treated as voluntary unemployment in establishing or modifying support orders.

(d) The State must include a copy of the guidelines in its State plan.

(e) The State must review, and revise, if appropriate, the guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section at least once every four years to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts.

(f) The State must provide that there will be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support, that the amount of the award which would result from the application of guidelines established under paragraph (a) and (1) of this section is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. The presumption can be rebutted successfully with genetic evidence that the obligor is not the biological parent of the child, and by the lack of written adoption records, in which case there will be no support obligation.

(g) A written finding or specific finding on the record of a judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support that the application of the guidelines established under paragraph (a) and (1) of this section would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case will be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case, as determined under criteria established by the State; but in no event shall the award exceed the limit specified in paragraph (c)(2) unless the child has special needs as certified and quantified by a licensed medical doctor. Such criteria must take into consideration the best interests of the child. Findings that rebut the guidelines shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines.

(h) Child support awards established under paragraph (a) and (1) of this section may recognize parenting time provisions pursuant to State child support guidelines as long as the parenting time reduction is compliant with section (a) and (1) in this guideline or when both parents have agreed to the parenting time provisions.

(i) As part of the review of a State’s guidelines required under paragraph (e) of this section, a State must consider economic data on the marginal cost of raising children and analyze case data, by gender, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the application of, and deviations from, the guidelines. The analysis of the data must be used in the State’s review of the guidelines to ensure that gender bias is declining steadily, and that deviations from the guidelines are limited. Deviation from the presumptive child support amount may be based on factors established by the State as long as they are within the guidelines of sections (a), (1), and (h).


Additionally, you may send comments via United States Postal Service to: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Director, Division of Policy, Mail Stop: OCSE/DP, 370 L’Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447.

You also may send comments via overnight service to: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Director, Policy Division, Mail Stop: OCSE/DP, 901 D Street SW., Washington, DC 20447.Show citation box

You also may submit comments by facsimile to (202) 260-5980. Comments will be available for public inspection. To schedule an appointment, please call (202) 401-9271.

In addition, when a State makes an order for a parent to maintain their earning level to pay that support the State also infringes upon several other constitutional rights of that parent and child. You can read our book “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest” for more on those infringements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, and 14th amendment. And also the NIH and the Administration itself also has research of their own that shows that this is bad for children as well as creates more arrears and not paid child support.

“The research supports the conclusion that accurate support orders that reflect a noncustodial parent’s actual income are more likely to result in compliance with the order, make child support a more reliable source of income for children, and reduce uncollectible child support arrearages. [27]

In addition, these types of orders do not allow a parent to truly break away from the decisions that they made in the marriage. They prevent that parent from ever again having the right to make their own decisions. And also prevents and prohibits a parent from seeking additional education, career changes, as well as downgrading their financial status to live as a pauper if they choose. People like Warren Buffet, billionaire, and Sam Walton, also a billionaire chose to raise their children in frugality. If either of them had gone through a divorce then they would have been required to support their children at a billionaire’s expected lifestyle that may not align with their beliefs and values.

  • The Social Security Title IV-D scheme I believe was originally sold to the American people as a way to keep children off of welfare. However, this has failed since most people who are impoverished don’t and cannot pay child support in the first place. Once a State or federal scheme has proven to fail to accomplish its stated purpose, and is unconstitutional, the scheme must be abandoned. The States have failed to change this practice. So you have our suggestion of the proposed changes to the Child Support Guideline above. We hope that you will use it to help restore the economic and financial stability of families during their toughest times and remove the incentives for the family law courts to abuse and use the American children for money.

I’m also pretty sure that those that bought into this program and scheme had no idea that they might become victim to this as well. Karma maybe, but more likely they were duped and had no idea that they would be facing something bigger. (Okay just one more comment here, you’d think they would have been more suspicious knowing that Richard Nixon was the President in office when this scheme was being created! Who would have thought this at the time though when he was such a big supporter of the equal rights amendment for women, and desegregation, etc., right? That’s the way twisted policies get through, you get focused on what you think is good and stop seeing the effect that the policy might have in reality.)

If the states create policies that encourage limiting the time that a child spends with one of their fit and loving parents, they also are creating a situation that is proven if done without using the proper due process that the practice produces extremely harmful results in children. Take a look at the study that came out of Massachusetts General Hospital.[vi] Children that are suffering one parent being a part-time parent in their life are suffering the same disorders and symptoms of children that have had a parent terminated. To the young person there is no difference between deprivation and termination.

Perhaps, the State’s have not changed their practices because they are making too much money and for the state, money is more important than the actual welfare of the children. We have seen examples of this in the “cash for kids” judge scandal last year, and we see many examples of this when courts reduce a parents time with their child only to calculate a child support order.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said time and time again that fit parents determine the best interest of their child. They are the ones that would sacrifice their life and everything in it, as parents demonstrate every day when they give more than they have and end up homeless and some of them so devastated unable to go on another day knowing that they were unable to continue to protect their child. But instead of standing in front of bullets from a gun these parents are having to stand up to courts that are using federal policies to attack their children. These are the parents using their constitutional fundamental parental rights to protect their children.

Today is your opportunity to insert these suggestions into the Title IV-D policy. I have added a couple of case law references into the policy above that you can copy and paste into your comments that you send over to the Social Security Title IV-D federal registry for reform consideration.

“”The Law of the Few”, or, as Malcolm Gladwell states, “The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts”.” You must be one or you wouldn’t have read this post. Become part of the pareto effect and join Patrick Glynn, Divorce Corp., us and many other “rare” people with “social gifts” that are part of the 80/20 making a difference. It just takes a few to make a big difference.

Click here to watch Joe Sorge’s video with Divorce Corp: (While Joe’s solution for fixing the Title IV-D guidelines unfortunately would not be sufficient for producing the effect that so many families desperately need, we do like his video. So we proposed changing his wording to eliminate the states justifying putting their hands into your pocketbook and taking your child. Where Joe talks about changing the wording in section (1) to adding that it apply to both parents’ federal adjusted gross income, this would keep the states issuing child support based on income and justifying charging people who make more money more child support. We believe this would violate equal protection. You should not want child support calculated off your income. I remember a time when California calculated both parent’s income and also the income of another spouse to try and equalize things. This did not produce good results. We saw the abuses that continued under that scheme. It was social engineering on a grand scale that took away the rights of the parents to determine the lifestyle that their child would live beyond the minimum reasonable standard of care. If the government cannot dictate how much a married couple has to spend on a child beyond the minimum reasonable standard than equal protection would say that the government cannot dictate to a single or divorced parent beyond a minimum reasonable standard. In effect, Title IV-D discriminates between single and divorced parents unfairly and unconstitutionally, and unduly involves itself in the personal decision making of parents based on nothing more than a change on their marital or relationship statutes. Because we don’t feel that Joe’s wording will produce the results of getting the government out of your pocketbook for profit, end the cash for children or as Joe put it the “American Style Child Trafficking;” and because we feel that so many families are so close to the edge if not already over it that we need more than a baby step, we provided updated wording for you above. We need a major solution that can stop this now that incorporates equal protection. When you impose a duty on someone because of the income they earn you are depriving them of a right based on their financial status. You cannot do this to the poor and should not be able to do this to the middle class or the rich. Either way you would be discriminating against someone on their financial status. Simply put you cannot base child support on financial status. Either way you would be discriminating against someone on their financial status.)

Read our book and learn your parental rights so they cannot take advantage of you and your child in the family courts or domestic courts so easily anymore. [CLICK HERE to get the Parental Rights book “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest.]


[i] Welfare. The poverty numbers have grown since the passage of the new welfare policies not declined.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare accessed 9 September 2014.
[ii] The Divorce Corp. movie exposes these practices. Click here if you have not seen it or you want a copy of your own to show to your lawmaker, your Mayor, Governor, D.A., neighbors, and teachers so they know what is really happening: http://www.divorcecorp.com/store/
[iii] Divorce Corp website  http://www.divorcecorp.com/finances/receipts-expenditures-child/  Accessed on 1 September 2014.
[iv] Ibid. The excerpted bullet points are from the Divorce Corp. website: http://www.divorcecorp.com/finances/receipts-expenditures-child/  Go there if you would like to see their poll results and read more from their post.] [v] The equal protection article can be found here: http://www.fixfamilycourts.com/rights-made-simple/
[vi] Get more information about classes on parental rights here: http://training.fixfamilycourts.com/course-list/
[vii] Get the book on parental rights and learn how to recognize your own biases and get rid of the things that are preventing you from getting the results you want here: http://www.fixfamilycourts.com/books/
[viii] Massachusetts General Hospital statistics on children who have a custodial and noncustodial parent: Statistical info from Massachusetts General Hospital Research w amy bake…

* Schoolhouse Rock. “I’m still just a Bill.” Here is the link to a fun way to learn some of what a Bill goes through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag