Season 2- Episode 3 - Mothers Did Not Force Men On The Child Support Program. PART 2.

Chris H  0:05  
Welcome. In today's session we will discuss mother did not put you on the program, part two. You've often heard mothers say that I will put the fathers on child support. Well, we're going to look at that more closely in this session. And we will rely on the case law call blessing versus Freestone. Blessing is the cornerstone of the child support process, where the Supreme Court decides exactly what happens in a title 4d program, where it says it does not constitute a federal right, and that whether or not a particular person, the custodial mother or the child is a benefit from title 4d. Now, this is a follow on to the first part of the program where mother did not put you on the program. Part One, this is where we showed that based on the case law, that if the mothers were on food stamps, or any sort of food benefit, that it does not translate that fathers are on the child support system. 

If you haven't seen that video, watch this video after you've previewed this one here. So in this session, we're going to discuss in addition to blessing versus Freestone, another case called Benita liro le AR o out of New Jersey. And it was argued in 2011. Now this particular case is a class action suit brought by the mothers. And so we're going to look at that, look at that as well. So here's the premise of this video. Can mothers force fathers on child support? I'm going to tell you the answer right now the answer is no. However, stick around please don't leave. Let's take a look closely and see how that translate in these court cases. And we're going to centered around this particular statute which is 45 CFR 264. Point three, zero. And again, we'll discuss this further, we have a video called defending your rights. And in this session, it's important that you understand what your rights are.

 Hello, my name is Chris. And in this session, we're going to show that mothers are not the individuals or persons that put men or fathers in child support. It is the state. So let's look further into this. As always, we have a non lawyer Maxim that here on this channel, what we do is we review case laws, and then we provide you the feedback. As to its results. We have a section called call to action. That is we give you tips and strategies in how you can remedy this problem about with a mom actually put fathers on child support. 

So let's start off with blessing versus Freestone, as I said is the cornerstone of the child support process. And in blessing, which is 520 USC 329, it was decided in 1997. So here are the key highlights from from this case. It says the enforcement scheme that Congress created in a title for D is limited. The title for D can contains no private remedy, whether judicial or administrative. That means the aggrieved person cannot seek redress, that is a remedy. There is no private action, as well as the mother has no standing in court to sue on behalf of title four D, only the State Secretary can bring a suit for specific performance. 

Next highlight the way that the title four D is structured for the state is that the Secretary is the one that has the oversight of the program. And the only tool available to the Secretary is that they could audit for some substantial compliance. Or they can review the program to see if it's working. And the only tool available to them is is to cut the federal funding. Here's another thing that was discussed in the case is that approximately 25% of the eligible children and custodial parents can go without the services at a private provided by the title 4D program before the secretary of the state can cut off the services to what is called afdc grants and that is aid to families with dependent children. So what is this a saying in blessing is that the mother does not have a lawsuit in which to force title 4D to do anything. It's the responsibility of the State Secretary in order to hold or bring in compliance with the title for the program.

Chris H  4:55  
So now let's look further into blessing versus Freestone where let's look at it from the children. perspective, as it says here. So one of the points is title four D is in the nature of a contract. Yes, it's a contract. And that is the state promises to provide certain services to private individuals, in exchange for which the federal government promises to give the state funds. In contract law. When such arraignment arrangements are made, it is a promises to pay B, in exchange for what B promises to provide services for See, the person who received the benefit of this exchange is called the third party beneficiary. And under contract law, the third party beneficiary are generally regarded as strangers to a contract. 

That is, they cannot sue if they did not repeat received the services. So what's happening is if b broke the promise, and not provide service for C, then the only person who can enforce that promise is party A. So let's look at it another way in graphic format. So I have a picture here, right? So the federal government is a and the states are B all 50 B. So the government pours billions of dollars into the states for the child support total for the services. Here is See, there's a question mark, I have here over the pictures. 

It says what if C does not receive the services? Well, that's not a concern for the parents or the children. The federal government is the only one that can bring a lawsuit. Because why the contract is between the federal government and the state. That contract is not between the mothers, the children, or the fathers. So this explains that in blessing versus Freestone. 

When it says that, as far as they understand, title four D has nothing in common with the custodial parent, the mother, the child or the father. What they're saying is, the agreement is only between the federal government and the state on this program. So now let's look at another case law. And this time, it's a class action lawsuit. And by the way, it was not successful. And it's Benita liro versus New Jersey Department of services, in other words, that the Office of Child Support Services. So this mother, along with other mothers brought a federal lawsuit against the state of New Jersey saying that they're not complying with the law. And as it says here that they tried to enforce the compliance of the law under what is called a 1983. However, in blessing vs Freestone, it says in order to seek redress through a 1983, the plaintiff must assert what is called a violation of rights, not merely a violation of federal law. 

That is, if they don't collect a child support, it may be a violation of federal law, but it's not a violation of the Federal rights. So let's look closer at the class action itself. And so here, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Office of Child Support on behalf of all the mothers who have been participants in the child support system program since October one 2000. And who did not receive the interest calculation on their child support arrears. 

So in this case, we're talking about the arrears, the interest on the word, not the underlying order, not the child support, just the interest. So the plaintiffs, which are the mother's assertion defendant violated her rights or their rights under 42 USC 1983, because it failed to calculate the post judgment, interest charges, an outstanding Child Support arrears, as required by federal law, in addition to plaintiffs sought to compel Child Support Services to calculate the interest and Child Support arrears, and then to refund those money that was not paid out. For each year that it doesn't this does not happen. So let's what they're asking. They're asking that the mothers calculate their own interest, sort of like a check and balance, like an audit of the child support services to determine whether or not those interests are calculated correctly. If not, they should be allowed to go into court and sue for the balance of those interests.

Chris H  9:41  
So here's what happened. Nothing. The lawsuit failed. It failed again, because there are no rights. mothers have no rights to dictate what happens in a town title for the program. So here I have exactly If mother does not have rights without a fork. Dee, and the children have no rights on the channel for D, then how is it that mothers claim that they take the fathers to court and put them on child support? These two cases point out? That is not possible. The program was never structured that way? Well, here's the answer. This section here is from Texas, it came out of a Texas family court cases. And it's section 230 1.308. And it says here, public identification of obligors. And it reads, the title for the agency shall develop a program to identify publicly, certain Child Support obligors, who are delinquent in their child support payments, and that these are reported to the Child Support Agency. 

Right. So in other words, they set up a program in which for people to report publicly the child support, then under Section 230 1.309. It says reward for the information as the title says the title for the agency may offer a reward to an individual who provide information to the agency that leads to the collection of child support payments, owed by the obligor, who are delinquent in those payments. next section, it says they shall adopt for those who wish to be rewarded those people against individual to be rewarded for providing that information. And by the way, the rewards are paid other funds collected. So let's summarize what that means. So since blessing says it has nothing to do with the mother and the child. And liro in New Jersey said the same thing that you can't even collect the interest on delinquent payments. So what is the role that mothers play within title 4D program? 

Well, this statute under Texas says, the mother is nothing more than what an informant, mother is an informant in all 50 states that mothers do not put men on child support the state did. And what the state has done is reward them for those services. But that goes against all conventional thinking. Everyone says mothers are put on mothers But father and child support. That is not true. According to these two case laws. That is not the case. So now that this program is set up, how does the State brings the fathers into the Child Support Program. And here we are at the the statute, it's 45 CFR 264, point three, zero. And it says the state agency must refer all appropriate individuals in the family of a child for whom paternity has not been inch established, or for whom the child support order needs to be established. 

Well, who provided the referral? The mother, the girlfriend, they're the ones providing the referral to detail for the agency, but they don't have any right to those funds other than a reward. So in essence, this is how that this is the quintessential statute, that pretty much tells everyone that child support has nothing to do with the mother and the child is just a reward program between the federal government and the state government. So in my opinion, as in part one, we pointed out that a mother and child who was on food stamp, it does not translate that the fathers are on child support. Here in this part two, it's all about the money. And the goal is paternity equals child support.

Chris H  13:54  
What does that mean is that mothers refer the individual the names or security number to the agency, and then the agency along with the state, then start the action against fathers. So if you have a court case where mom is there, and mom is saying, put him on child support, or I want x, it's nothing more than a smokescreen. Because legally, what you're witnessing is not possible. And you have to go to Judicial Court in order to make that possible. So here we are at the call to action phase. So we've now proven that mother did not put fathers on Child Support is not true. The two case laws, blessing versus Freestone, and lira of New Jersey, prove that they have no rice and program. The states has all the rights. So what do you do in your case in this call to action, first, you can file a motion to remove mother from the process. She's not involved. In it legally. 

Next, you want to watch out for paternity. Again, as the statute says 264 point three zero. They're seeking to establish paternity. So you need to avoid the paternity classification, whether it's to the acknowledgement of paternity or to DNA. Next, look out for those compilers warrants for genetic testing. Pay attention to those, make sure you got to challenge those. And next, we call this the fruit of the poison three poison tree. Because the program was set up specifically for the federal government of the state. It is a lie in a deception that they involved fathers in this process, and let the fathers believe the mothers are behind all of this. Again, a fruit from the poisoned tree that says if one fruit on that tree is poison, then the entire tree must be chopped out. So here we are at the end. 

And if you disagree, or you agree with anything we've said In this episode, please feel free to email us as well as we ask that you like or subscribe to our channel. And also please hit the notification bell. In addition, we ask for a small donation just to keep up with our research and we bring you this information. Here in this episode, we show you that legally. Mother has no rights to the program never had and never will. And our videos are free so we ask for a $25 gift to help with our process. So here we are at the end and please select one of the videos here including mother did not put us on Child Support part one. Thank you. Have a good day.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai