Federal Judge Claims Parents Have No Rights Over Their Children

By Andrea Widburg

Lenin is reputed to have said, “Give me four years to teach the children, and the seeds I have planted will never be uprooted.” Every parent knows this is true: Children are sponges, learning things incredibly quickly. These things then stick, for they are buried in the very deepest recesses of our brains. Today’s leftists are attempting to reinstitute this specific type of Leninism in America. They want your children, and your efforts to protest will be unavailing. A Massachusetts federal judge confirmed this last week, saying that it didn’t “shock the conscience” that a school secretly indoctrinated two children into transgenderism.

From the Daily Wire:

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit from Massachusetts parents who accused public school officials of hiding their children’s gender transitions from them.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Mastroianni, an Obama appointee, criticized Ludlow Public Schools officials for allegedly hiding the pair of siblings’ gender transitions from their parents, but he said the officials’ actions do not “shock the conscience.”

“While the court is apprehensive about the alleged policy and actions of the Ludlow Public Schools with regard to parental notification, it cannot conclude the decision to withhold information” about the children from their parents meets the conscience-shocking legal standard in Massachusetts, the judge wrote in his December 14 ruling.

The case revolves around the fact that the school deliberately made the decision to keep from the parents the demands that they be treated as members of the opposite sex in junior high school:

The 11-year-old girl allegedly emailed school staff in February 2021 and announced that she wanted to go by a cluster of new pronouns.

“I am genderqueer. … My new name will be R**** … If you deadname me or use any pronouns I am uncomfortable with I will politely tell you … A list of pronouns you can use are: she/her he/him they/them fae/faerae/aer ve/ver xe/xem ze/zir. … Please only use the ones I have listed and not the other ones. I do not like them,” the girl wrote, her parents said in court documents.

Afterward, a school counselor allegedly sent an email to staff ordering them not to tell her parents about the gender identity change.

“R**** [B****] is still in the process of telling his parents and is requesting that school staff refer to him as B**** and use she/her pronouns with her parents and in written emails/letters home,” the counselor wrote, according to the parents.

Meanwhile, the girl’s 12-year-old brother asked school staff to use female pronouns for him, and staff hid that information from his parents, the parents claimed.

In other words, said a federal judge, for schools to keep a profound secret about a child who has ostensibly made a decision that could alter the child’s entire life—surgeries, hormones, suicide, substance abuse—is no big deal. It’s a little worrisome, sure, but why should anyone get upset about it? As the Kinks once sang, “Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world….” Get with the transgender times, man!

No!

The heck with that. That is not true. Parents love their children; the state does not. The state’s only goal is power, while a parent’s only goal is for his or her child to have the best possible life. It is madness for anyone to give priority to a state that wants to turn children into gender-free widgets who have loyalty only to the government.

And another thing (a phrase I’ve long wanted to write): What kind of 11-year-old expresses herself as that child allegedly did? Anyone with a brain—that is, a parent who knows young people—knows that the letter’s business-like tone is utterly alien to a child. That is the kind of letter that an adult writes, and I’m willing to bet that some social worker, administrator, or teacher not only wrote the letter but was behind the transition.

Admittedly, this all took place in Massachusetts, but it has national implications because it’s a federal judge who made that decision. In theory, federal judges aren’t supposed to reflect local biases and craziness. But thanks to Clinton, Obama, and (now) Biden, numerous federal judges are not just failing to reign in the local madness, they’re encouraging it—and they’ll get your children if they can.

Behind on child support in the US? If so, you won’t get a stimulus check

If you’re behind on child support, you either won’t get a stimulus check. That is hard news for a group of men and women that have been marginalized and oppressed to the point of tyranny in the last few decades.

The reason for no stimulus check? While the CARES Act suspends debts like overdue student loans or back taxes that typically lead to the garnishment of tax refunds, it doesn’t apply to delinquent child support payments. That means the government’s relief checks will still be garnished if you’re overdue. And some spouses who are filing joint tax returns with their late-paying partners are upset their stimulus money is being withheld for the same reason.

Even if your spouse is solely responsible for the debt, a shared tax refund or stimulus check could be at risk.

According to the experts, docking your stimulus check and sending it to the mother of the child is the way to send it to people that need relief the most. Go figure. Really?

The stimulus payment that is reduced or withheld by the child support owed will go to the appropriate collecting office for the taxpayer’s state. From there, that collecting office will issue the money to the custodial parent, the person due the child support. The time it takes for the money to arrive may vary by collecting office, which varies by state.

Those that have fallen on hard times are being oppressed in the name of child support debt. Owing back child support doesn’t make you a ‘deadbeat,’ nor should it carry a stigma of disapproval or rejection.

IRS typically works with the Office of Child Support Enforcement so the agency is aware of who has fallen behind on child support payments. The Federal government needs to stop punishing families of a person that owes a debt.

Another concern for Americans facing massive numbers of layoffs is whether late child support payments are taken from unemployment checks. The short answer is yes.

If you’re claiming unemployment and a child support order is in place, you will have child support payments withheld. Some states will limit back child support collection to 50% of each check so that the person who owes child support would still collect unemployment, while other states may garnish differently for back child support.

It’s lots of fun in the land of free, as those that owe a debt are continually punished, a very real tyranny that has been held in place for almost two decades.

R&B Star Grounded by Child Support Hell

It’s been a rough time going for R&B Star R. Kelly. On top of his recent trials, he was taken into custody on Wednesday for failure to pay more than $160,000 in child support to his ex-wife and their three children.

Kelly was detained by the Cook County sheriff in Illinois and transported to the county jail on Wednesday evening. The 52-year-old singer will remain in custody until he pays what he owes — $161,633. His next court date is set for March 13.

On Wednesday, CBS This Morning broadcast the first parts of a recent interview. The conversation, which Gayle King taped Tuesday at Kelly’s apartment at the Trump Tower Chicago, began airing on Wednesday in three segments on CBS This Morning.

The following morning, CBS This Morning aired the second parts of the interview. As was the case during the initial interview segments, Kelly appeared emotionally volatile.

In the interview portions which aired Thursday, Kelly screamed and wept when King asked about abuse allegations made by his ex-wife, Andrea Kelly, and the outstanding child support debts. He denied her accusations once again, shouting: “How can I pay child support — how — if my ex-wife is destroying my name and I can’t work? … What kind of woman would tear down a dad who’s trying to have a relationship with their kids?” He admitted to King, however, that he has “zero” contact with their three children.

Unconscionable Debt Collection Practices of Child Support Enforcement

by Giovanni LoPresti

As an American Citizen, you want to believe that any person can rely upon judicial fairness in a child support proceeding. The outrageous child support law on the books today is designed to treat all child support debtors like a piece of garbage. The wisdom of common sense, respect, judicial fairness, doesn’t exist under the present law. The mastermind of this unconscionable child support enforcement law was created by former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey.

His Senate Bill modified U.S. Code Title IV-D (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c)) which requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. The law abolished the statute of limitations, created a civil judgment by operation of law on all child support debtors, allows adverse credit reporting, allows a cost of living adjustment every two years, allows for review of child support orders every 3 years, without a showing of substantial change in circumstance, allows for a suspension of drivers licenses, passports, professional licenses, income withholding, tax intercepts, unemployment & workman compensation intercepts, requires citizen to provide their social security numbers, requires employers to utilize new hire directory to see if a child support debt is owed, provides locator services, requires health care coverage to be provided by either or both parents, and requires a debtor citizen to show proof of substantial change in circumstances necessary in request for review outside 3-year cycle.

I would like to focus on the requirement of proof of substantial change in circumstances necessary in requesting a review of child support outside 3-year cycle. The law offers no guidance whatsoever on what constitutes a substantial chance in circumstances. Similarly, the Office of Child Support Enforcement offers no guidance either. With no guidance whatsoever, the law requires payments to be maintained without regard of a citizen’s ability to pay.

In my view, common sense and judicial fairness would dictate that an injury, illness, loss of employment at no fault of a citizen, whether temporary or not, would constitute a substantial change in financial circumstances? Nonetheless, family court judges throughout the United States have consistently rejected a child support debtor’s request for child support reduction under these circumstances. I asked myself over and over again, why are family court judges are so mean and lack understanding and compassion? The answer to this question is going to shock you.

Under the present law, there is a presumption that child support award is correct and a citizen debtor has the ability to pay or find similar work at the same rate of pay, even if you’re not making the same amount of money. Put simply, Congress has provided family court judges physic abilities to determine a citizen earning capabilities. I find this horrifying, but family court judges find no shame in it. I have heard endless horror stories of citizens whose financial circumstances changed, and denied judicial fairness in family court. Unfortunately, this is what will likely happen if your financial circumstances change:

1. Unemployment or workmen compensation garnished at the full amount.
2. Your ability to support yourself doesn’t matter.
3. Fall behind at no fault of your own, driver’s license, professional license, passport
revoked.
4. Your credit will be destroyed.
5. You can expect armed law enforcement showing up and putting you in county jail
for failure to pay child support.
6. Tax refund intercepted.

WHY A CHILD SUPPORT DEBTORS ARE DENIED JUDICIAL FAIRNESS
WHEN FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE

My researched has revealed that most Americans are unaware that our federal government reimburses States 66% of collection cost expended for child support enforcement, see Title IV under the Social Security Act. This doesn’t bother me, but the additional incentive dollars the States receive to treat citizens like garbage does. Under Title IV:

States receive additional incentive dollars for:

a. paternity establishment
b. order establishment
c. collection on current support cases
d. cases paying towards arrears
e. cost effectiveness
f. performance

So regardless of a child support debtors changed financial circumstances, a family court judge will routinely deny any request for a reduction or, even a temporary reduction. The unfortunate truth, family court judges armed with physic abilities to determine a citizen’s earning abilities, don’t care. They are the front line in defending the State’s performance incentives. A family court judge will bully a citizen by denying any type of relief sought, suspend your driver’s license, professional license, passport, may incarcerate you for failure to pay child support without a finding of ability to pay, intercept your tax return, garnish your unemployment or workman’s compensation, destroy your credit, and your home State will receive additional incentive dollars from our federal government for doing this to you. This is not only insane, cruel, unconscionable, but definitely creates an appearance of impropriety.

States routinely incarcerate child support debtors, without any determination that they have the ability to pay. Our States actually get paid additional incentive dollars from our federal government for incarnating a child support debtor. The States routinely tell citizens that they are court ordered to pay child support and find them in civil contempt. However, the court order is also a civil judgment by operation of law. Did you ever hear of any situation whereby any judge would allow any person to have a slice a cake and eat it too? For example, if you obtained a civil judgment against me, you can’t suspend my passport, driver’s license, professional license, intercept my tax return, garnish my unemployment or disability check, hold me in contempt, and jail me for failure to pay a debt. Special thanks to our federal government, state government are permitted to have a slice of cake and eat it too.

The last time I checked, the 14th Amendment prohibits States from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. The federal government must do the same, but this is also required by the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause. All citizens should be entitled to judicial fairness in any court proceeding. I urge all citizens to write their elected officials and asked them to repeal this unconscionable law. Alternatively, send your elected official a strong message and vote them out of office. A debtor citizen cannot rely upon judicial fairness in a family court proceeding, if a State has a financial interest in maintaining additional incentives dollars.

Texas Secretly Pushing Child Support on County Offices

Wichita County Tax Collector/Assessor Tommy Smyth said more unfunded mandates pushed onto his office may be a recipe for disaster.

Smyth spoke at the Wichita County Commissioners meeting to provide information about a request to fill a position for a deputy collector in his office.

In the past 12 months, he said, while already wrangling changes with the one sticker-two step program for vehicle registration and inspection, tax offices were informed by the state that beginning in March, the office must deny services to people who owe back child support. [“American Poverty: An American Criminal Subclass“, “Unemployment, Child Support & Bradley Law“, “Bradley Law and Real Justice“]

Smyth said there was also talk that two more mandates might be added in the next six months.

“We had a conference in June in Lubbock and there was no mention of what was going to be dropped on us in November in San Marcos,” Smyth told the court.

“You can only push bureaucracy so far to a certain point, and then something has to be compromised,” he said, likening the situation to an employee at a restaurant who was running a register, taking orders, cooking and cleaning.

In that situation the business’ service, food and reputation could be compromised, he said.

“It’s the same thing in county government, it’s the same thing. We’re trying to provide optimum services to the citizens of Wichita County. I think we do a Cracker Jack job of it. We’ve got Cracker Jack staff, but we’re not in control,” Smyth said.

Several problems arise from the tax offices serving as a filter for child support enforcement, he said.

Smyth noted that if the state attorney general’s office had been successful in finding these people delinquent on child support, the people would have been notified already instead of pushing it onto the tax offices.

“More than likely when that somebody walks up to our window and one of our deputies says, ‘Sir/madam, we cannot do your transaction.’ They bought a $58,000 pickup, but can’t do tax and license on it, it’s going to get very contentious,” Smyth said.

Another problem could be the merging of another database and software download.

In March the office merged with the Department of Public Safety’s system.

Smyth said they have run into situations at times with the one sticker-two step system where the other entity did not do a download of their software and the system was not up to date.

He gave a possible example of someone who paid child support on a Friday, then comes in Monday to register vehicle, but the system was not up to date in showing the individual’s payment.

“When that individual comes in our office, we have to decline them. Well, the minute you decline somebody, you inherit a very contentious situation,” he said.

“The call volume that we associate with this child support, I can’t even get my arms around it. I mean, I have no idea,” Smyth said of the calls and complaints the tax office could receive about the new mandate.

from the Wichita Falls Times Record

Tennessee Struggles With Child Support Debt

Mothers who make no effort to identify father of their children could have a cap on the number of years in which they can go back and seek child support.

“We’re asking the legislature to consider allowing a law that says you can’t go back any more than five years,” 9th Judicial District Attorney General Russell Johnson said.

Johnson said his office collected $8.173 million in child support during the 2014-15 fiscal year and led the state in establishing orders in cases.

An inability to pay is a problem many defendants run into, according to Johnson.

“What’s happening is these dads, usually dads, sometimes mothers, owe tens of thousands of dollars in child support going back 18 years at some point,” Johnson said. “They’ll never get it paid.”

To convey his point, Johnson’s office looked at the number of inmates in the Roane County Jail with child support issues as of Dec. 1.

Two were in custody on a child support hold only, and another 10 were in jail with criminal and child support holds.

The total child support arrearages for those 12 inmates was $343,210.54.

“Right now, you place a child support amount from birth until 18,” Johnson said. “In a lot of cases, most of these are not typically just people coming out of divorce with kids. They are people who have had kids out of wedlock, which is a common thing.”

Johnson’s office handles cases free of charge in Magistrate Charles Crass’ court for custodial parents who have either a divorce decree or court order requiring someone to pay child support.

“The court and the state can’t relieve you of paying the child support,” Johnson said. “It’s going to be there forever. Judge Crass just can’t say well that’s OK, don’t worry about that $20,000.”

A law that puts a cap on the number of years a person can go back to seek child support could force parents to take advantage of their rights sooner.

“You’ve got to immediately file something for paternity and get that going and get that person identified,” Johnson said. “You can’t wait until right before the child is about to turn 18 and go back and say, ‘hey, John Doe, you’re the father of my child, let’s have a DNA test and prove it, and now you’re owing 18 years of child support you didn’t know about’.”

The next session of the Tennessee General Assembly starts in January.

“That’s something the legislature is going to look at,” Johnson said.

If that happens, Johnson said it could also cause the legislature to look at some of the problems the court system is having with defendants who can’t pay their fines and court costs in criminal cases.

original article at Roane County News

While states struggle with their child support issues, the federal government takes support from any available source, including social security and tax offices. Men continue to be cut down by unconstitutional and cruel law like the Bradley Amendment, which prohibits any retroactive change in child support.

Data Shows NJ Child Support Administrators Lied To Lawmakers About Effectiveness Of Collections

A law suit challenging New Jersey’s automatic suspension of driver’s licenses for child support arrears says that the Division of Family Development misled lawmakers to convince them that the program is a success.

The Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development (DFD) administers the child support computer system. In reports to the Legislature from 2006-08, the DFD said an average of $33 million in additional child support was collected annually under a program which provides for automatic suspensions of driver’s licenses. They said, on average, they collected of $1,737 per suspension.

However, changes to the child support computer system which allowed for more accurate tracking, show that from 2010 through 2014 the state averaged each year about 20,000 suspensions and collected only $5.3 million or an average of $259 per license suspension, according to reports obtained through discovery.

Rather than reconciling the 600% inflation of the numbers, annual reports on the progress of the license suspension program mysteriously stopped. From 2009 through 2013 no reports exist and in 2014 the drastically lower numbers were noted as due to a “change in data collection.”

The New Jersey Child Support Program Improvement Act, signed into law in 1998, requires annual reports to the Legislature about the program’s operation. [“Child Support: Is Losing Your License Legal?“, “Oppressive Government: Licenses & Child Support“]

In Kavadas v. Martinez, a law suit challenging the state’s practice of suspending driver’s licenses without conducting a hearing for nonpayment of child support, David Perry Davis, a New Jersey lawyer who represents the plaintiffs says the suspension of a driver’s license in such cases is “self-defeating” because it may prevent a parent from going to work, applying for jobs or seeing his or her children. [“American Poverty: An American Criminal Subclass“, “Unemployment, Child Support & Bradley Law“]

Davis also stresses the point that there is no way to determine what collections are attributable to license suspensions when they occur automatically upon the issuance of an arrest warrant. “Obviously, an arrested obligor’s interest is in getting out of jail – the idea that they are more motivated to do this because their license has been suspended is absurd,” Davis told the Bergen Dispatch.

In essence, the Division of Family Development claims that 100% of the money collected as a result of an arrest warrant is due solely to the automatic suspension of a driver’s license and arrests and incarceration have no impact on the money collected by the state.

“The suit does not seek to stop the suspension of driver’s licenses to force parties to pay child support, instead it attempts to limit the practice to cases where a hearing is conducted and a judge determines that it would be appropriate,” Davis said. The suit claims that the state’s practice of automatic suspensions is “unconstitutional and is contrary to the intent of the Legislature.”

“The 2014 Report still dramatically misrepresents the process, failing to inform the legislature that 99.429% of suspensions are done without a contemporaneous hearing,” Davis added.

Named as defendants in the suit are Raymond Martinez, chief administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission; the State of New Jersey; the Motor Vehicle Commission; acting Attorney General John Hoffman; and Natasha Johnson, director of the Office of Child Support Services in the state Department of Human Services.

The program stems from a 1996 federal law requiring states to toughen their child support procedures in order to qualify for certain types of federal aid. The federal Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) called for states to develop legislation to increase ways in which compliance with child support orders could be increased.

PRWORA also requires New Jersey residents receiving benefits under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to sign over any right to child support to their respective County. In those cases, monies collected through child support enforcement are used to reimburse the counties for TANF benefits and do not go directly to the families.

The 2014 report states, “Clearly the implementation of this program has positively impacted families that rely upon receiving support and, as an indirect benefit, has resulted in an additional revenue stream for the Motor Vehicle Commission.”

In order for a suspended license to be restored the Motor Vehicle Commission charges a $100 restoration fee.

In state fiscal year 2014 a total of 20,498 drivers’ licenses were suspended under the program, resulting in support collections of $4,333,543 or just $211 per suspension – plus $2,049,800 in additional fees to the MVC.

According to the Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development, on average, there are about 35,000 active child support warrants at any given time.

original article at Bergen Dispatch

Removing Barriers to Opportunity for Parents With Criminal Records and Their Children

Nearly four decades of mass incarceration and over-criminalization have made the United States the world leader in incarceration and arrests. The number of Americans in federal and state prisons and jails has quintupled over the past four decades. As a result, nearly 2.3 million Americans are behind bars today. The U.S. incarceration rate is at more than six times the average across developed nations. “Communities of color” and “men of color” are hit hardest, with black men six times more likely and Latino men two-and-a-half times more likely to be incarcerated than white men.

Between 70 million and 100 million Americans, or as many as one in three American adults have a criminal record. Many have been convicted of only minor offenses, such as misdemeanors and many have arrests that never led to a conviction. Regardless of whether an individual has been incarcerated, having a criminal record often carries a lifetime of consequences, lasting long after that person has paid his or her debt to society.  A minor criminal record can be a life sentence to poverty, while presenting obstacles to employment, housing, education, training, public assistance, financial empowerment, and other lifestyle choices.

While the effects of parental incarceration on children and families are well-documented, less appreciated are the family consequences that stem from the barriers associated with having a criminal record. A child’s life chances are strongly tied to his or her circumstances during childhood. Thus, these barriers may not only affect family stability and economic security in the short term but also may damage a child’s long-term well-being and outcomes.

Nearly half of U.S. children now have at least one parent with a criminal record. Parental criminal records create significant challenges among low-income parents and their families.

Income
Parents with criminal records have lower earning potential, as they often face major obstacles to securing employment and receiving public assistance.

Savings and assets
Mounting criminal justice debts and unaffordable child support arrears severely limit families’ ability to save for the future and can trap them in a cycle of debt.

Education
Parents with criminal records face barriers to education and training opportunities that would increase their chances of finding well-paying jobs and better equip them to support their families.

Housing
Barriers to public as well as private housing for parents with criminal records can lead to housing instability and make family reunification difficult if not impossible.

Family strength and stability.
Financial and emotional stressors associated with parental criminal records often pose challenges in maintaining healthy relationships and family stability.

Texas Can’t Get It Together: Tech Contractors Dismissed

The Federal Government has cut off funding for a massive and long-troubled project aimed at upgrading the system by which Texans make child-support payments. Federal funding makes up two-thirds of the project’s budget. The lifting of the funding freeze is contingent on the state submitting a Corrective Action Plan and updated project schedule that is acceptable to federal officials. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has dismissed 11 technology contractors amid delays in upgrading the state’s child-support data system.

The shakeup of this white elephant comes as state House members are set to begin an investigation into how the costs for a project known as T2 climbed to $310 million. Initial estimates said the project would cost just over $202 million. The project was intended to streamline the data system used to process child-support payments and support investigations.

The dismissals come after reports of failures by state officials and vendor, Accenture, to deliver promised work on time. A spokes for the company said that Accenture is receiving only $79 million and has won multiple awards for its work.

The project started in 2009. The child support division at the attorney general’s office handles more than 1.5 million cases and collects more than $3.5 billion per year, but relies on paper case files, lacks real-time data, is difficult to research, and requires time-consuming workarounds without any centralized security infrastructure to manage access to information.

Hurting for money

The child-support project has drawn criticism because it employs 100 people based in India (getting around US employment law and wages). Paxton’s office said it was hopeful but somewhat uncertain about the future.

“We are currently seeking clarification with (federal officials) regarding the scope and duration of the temporary suspension,” Wise said, “and we anticipate (they’ll) review our responses and release the suspension as soon as they possibly can.”

Texas Plays Dumb

While the future of the eight-year, $310 million project is in the air, the Attorney General’s office insisted it was “nearly finished” with the Corrective Action Plan. It claims to be working with federal officials and the contractor chosen to lead the effort. Paxton was clueless as to why the project was costing more than expected.

The issues have ballooned the costs by more than 50 percent, from an initial estimate of $203 million to the current estimate of $310 million. The project is now expected to have completion delayed in 2017.

Although cost-overruns are not infrequent in state government, the project has drawn special scrutiny because of its size, the nature of the work and the contractor, Accenture, which has had a series of blunders on other major technology contracts. Bad choice Texas – all at taxpayer expense. There’s a saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Oklahoma Could Owe Millions in Child Support Overcharges

• Some parents have been overcharged for back child support.
• A judge ruled Monday that the state has to pay millions in repayment.
• If his ruling is upheld, a search of paper records will decide who is owed refunds.

A judge’s decision against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services in a class-action lawsuit could cost the state millions of dollars if upheld on appeal.

The Oklahoman reports that Oklahoma County District Judge Barbara Swinton ruled that for years, the state agency has charged fathers in paternity cases too much in interest for back child support judgments.

Four men filed the lawsuit in 2011. They claimed they were wrongfully charged 10 percent interest rather than a fluctuating rate determined by the prime rate set by banks.

Department of Human Services records dating to 2000 show that more than 26,000 men could be due refunds. If the decision is upheld, a search of paper records that date back to 1993 will be necessary to determine who is owed refunds.

Bob Robinson, an attorney for the four men, estimates the state will have to reimburse fathers $130 million or more.

Oklahoma Department of Human Services attorney Richard Freeman said in reference to Robinson’s estimate that “It could be in the millions for sure, potentially. I don’t think it will be that much.”

Freeman also said that the reimbursement funds could come from insurance.

The agency says the way it computes, assesses and collects interest on child support judgments is proper under Oklahoma law.

After the lawsuit was filed, the law was rewritten to make clear that the human services department can charge 10 percent interest on back child support in paternity cases. The new law went into effect on Nov. 1, 2012.

—–

Of course, using a little magical thinking, the state insists on making no error despite their mistake. Those that have paid child support and kept up won’t see any benefit. However, those that have paid a penalty for late support payments can expect to see a refund in a few years, at least if the attorney doesn’t grab all the loot for “fees and expenses”. This should also force Oklahoma to compute all back support amounts for all child support from 1993 to 2012. – MJR