P.O. Box 130776 Roseville, MN 55113 VM 651/490-9277
Website:
cpr-mn.org Email: info@cpr-mn.org
Prepared by: Molly K
Olson Date: December 2004
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title IV-D Eligibility Standards are
Justified for Minnesota
The U.S. Supreme Court held that
services are not required for all applicants – the local agency decides!
Minnesota Budget Problem: $1.4 billion dollar deficit (or, aka $700,000)
Governor Pawlenty: “no more fat to
cut”
Legislators Fear: harmful cuts to nursing homes, schools, more county
tax levies, medical assistance, etc
Social Impact/Danger: Poor, Needy, Vulnerable to be put at further risk
General Philosophy: Return
to Fiscal Responsibility, Spending
Smart, Creative Solutions
Current Problem: Minnesota has NO eligibility standard for Title IV-D
welfare services
Current IV-D Eligibility: NONE,
everyone who applies gets all the services, there is NO means testing.
Kirby Puckett’s ex
wife Tanya would get accepted as a IV-D welfare recipient.
Chief Justice,
Kathleen Blatz would get accepted as a IV-D welfare recipient.
State Auditor, Pat Anderson would get accepted as a
IV-D welfare recipient.
Specific Solution: Clarify an Eligibility standard for Title IV-D Welfare Services consistent with
Federal law and congressional intent of the program
What is the federal standard: Because there is a pecuniary
interest, states must provide IV-D services for:
1) those on welfare (cost recovery), and
2) those at risk of
falling on welfare if they don’t get their support (cost avoidance)
Goal of the bill: Maintain IV-D welfare services and provide better services to those who need
the
service, by eliminating from the program those who can afford to pay for the
services privately, without government assistance and subsidies.
How much money could this save: $100 million
a year savings – as many because 60% of recipients may not be eligible
What is Title IV-D: Government
subsidized child support enforcement and collections.
Federal
program that is state supervised and county implemented.
Who gets
services that shouldn’t: Wealthy, affluent, upper-middle class,
those of means, and non-needy.
If no IV-D, what is the alternative: If
those not eligible for IV-D services have a support collection problem, the
custodial parent can assert their rights and handle the lack of compliance in
the same way the non-custodial parent enforces their visitation order which is
not government subsidized. There are private
remedies for relief, such as:
v
Non IV-D Wage-withholding only is still available, and any private electronic funds transfer will suffice
v
Hire a private attorney – if you can afford it
v
Hire legal aid
attorney - on a sliding fee scale consistent with your ability to pay
v
Hire attorney
from women’s advocacy organization
v
Fill out pro se
court documents, readily available at every county
v
Motion the court for contempt of court for the other parents violation of a court
order
v
If the person
doesn’t show for court, the Judge issues
a warrant for their arrest
v
If the person
shows up for court, the Judge orders
sanctions, jail, judgment, or a lien on all property.
v
In the
alternative, instead of litigation, parents can take personal responsibility and use mediation.
P.O. Box 130776 Roseville, MN 55113 VM 651/490-9277
Website:
cpr-mn.org Email: info@cpr-mn.org
Prepared by: Molly K
Olson Date: October 2004
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Title IV-D Eligibility Standards are
Justified for Minnesota
The U.S. Supreme Court held that services are not required for all
applicants
Title IV-D: Child Support Collection and Enforcement,
Welfare Service Program
Premise:
In difficult economic times, when all levels of government are facing cuts,
when welfare to the poor, needy, and vulnerable are in jeopardy, we need
courageous public officials to consider suitable options and shatter
unsubstantiated paradigms.
Background:
Child support is good public policy. Both parents have an equal duty to support
and ensure the basic needs of their children. In cases of divorce or paternity,
some custodial parents have difficulty collecting their child support, causing
them to be in poverty or at risk of being in poverty without government
intervention to protect the financial needs of the children. The Title IV-D
program is a set of directives from the federal government instructing the
state how to deal with child support issues for the states “needy” families.
Government subsidized child support collection and enforcement services must
remain in place for those who meet the eligibility criteria Congress intended
to cover. In Minnesota, the federal program is state supervised and county
administered. The program is not a stand-alone program; it is not an
entitlement program; it creates no individual rights.
Problem:
Due to unwarranted, indefensible, and misguided program creep, the program has
expanded so far beyond the intent of Congress, that bureaucrats appear to be
scrambling to change the mission of the agency in the absence of qualified
recipients. Even the GAO and the US DHHS have indicated such unfettered
expansion will cause county programs to go bankrupt. The purpose of the program
has been lost as these welfare services are provided to everyone who applies,
regardless of need or circumstance. The Title IV-D welfare service program
is unnecessarily and unlawfully costing taxpayers billions at the federal,
state, and county level because of an unauthorized over-reach of IV-D agency
authority into private domestic relations matters, even when there is
NO compelling state interest and no pecuniary interest that is validly
protectable by tax dollars.
A projected $1 billion budget
deficit in Minnesota will require some difficult decisions in the 2005
legislative session. While programs for the needy are being cut, Title IV-D
welfare services to the rich and affluent remain untouched. Why? Many
legislators do not know or understand the history and evolution of the IV-D
program and are not aware that IV-D welfare services are being subsidized by
public aid to provide these welfare services to people who earn over $75,000 a
year and who live in homes valued in excess of $500,000. In effect, the state is inviting self-sufficient, affluent, and non-needy individuals to
become dependent on government aid, contrary to the purpose of welfare.
Upon completion of the IV-D application by one parent, the agency has NO way to
distinguish whether the other parent is: a) a deadbeat (someone who has an ability to pay but doesn’t pay and subsequently
leaves his family on public assistance) or b) a loving, caring, involved,
fit parent who fought hard to be equally involved and was denied equal access
because of a system that requires, in every case, that one parent be labeled
the custodial parent and one parent
be labeled the non-custodial parent,
denying that fit parents right and desire to be equally involved in the lives
of their children. Too frequently, in the eyes of the court, and the agency, a
non-custodial parent is a non-parent.
Title IV-D services include
a list of up to 100 services subsidized by the government: wage-withholding,
caseworkers, help desk workers, county attorneys, monthly invoicing, tracking
debits and credits, asset seizure, free court costs, and a plethora of
collection and enforcement services.
Public aid is being spent to provide a government funded collection system for a purely private purpose,
when private remedies are available. Federal law requires an assessment
process. Absent a IV-D eligibility standard, no assessment of need is completed.
Financial Impact: The October 2003 Minnesota DHS Child Support Performance Report
indicates that 76% (189,474) of IV-D recipients are potentially ineligible
based on the criteria outlined by the Congress. Estimates show that the Title
IV-D system is unnecessarily costing Minnesota in excess of $100 million a
year, because services are provided to the affluent and non-needy. While the
federal government provides funding, program costs far exceed federal
reimbursements and incentives. The county bears most of the excess burden. In
2002 Hennepin County required a $5 million tax levy just to pay for the IV-D
program.
Solution:
A law to clarify eligibility standards for Title IV-D welfare services is
needed, because currently NO eligibility standards exist and anyone who fills
out an application is provided the welfare services. Much research is available
to support the fact that the Title IV-D welfare service program eligibility
should be based on congressional intent to limit services to two classes of
people: 1) those on welfare (cost
recovery), and 2) former or potential welfare recipients at risk of falling
on welfare if they don’t get their child support payments (cost avoidance). For
anything above poverty, the decision of eligibility lies with the state.
Challenge:
Minnesota is at an economic crossroads. Will we continue to rob from the poor
to subsidize services to the rich?
SOURCES:
U.S. General Accounting
Office Report # GAO/T-HEHS-95-181, June 13, 1995 “Opportunity to Reduce Federal
and State Costs,” by Jane L. Ross, Director, Income Security Issues.
GREEN BOOK, U.S. House Ways
and Means Committee, 2000
U.S. Supreme Court Decision,
Blessing v Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997)
Petitioner’s Brief, Blessing
v Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997)
Minnesota Child Support
Performance Report, October 2003
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Strategic Plan, 2005 – 2009
CPR Financial Worksheets
Minnesota County Budgets