Please attend any of the hearings below.
Not attending these hearing will keep the court and DOR, doing what they do best, this includes
Solicitation of a Bribe with Corrupt Intent, Knowing Solicitation of a Bribe, Unlawful Use of Official Position, Conspiracy, Extortion or Attempted Extortion.
Not attending these hearing will keep the court and DOR, doing what they do best, this includes
Solicitation of a Bribe with Corrupt Intent, Knowing Solicitation of a Bribe, Unlawful Use of Official Position, Conspiracy, Extortion or Attempted Extortion.
Child Support Public Hearing
This year, the Massachusetts Trial Court is inviting public comments and recommendations for the formal review of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines. As part of this review, the Child Support Guidelines Task Force is holding five public forums. During the forums, written statements may be delivered and brief oral statements may be made. Oral statements must be no longer than three minutes.
I will be attending the hearings in Lawrence, The forums are all scheduled for September:
Tuesday, September 11th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Fenton Judicial Center
2 Appleton Street, Lawrence
Wednesday, September 12th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Edward Brooke Court House
24 New Chardon Street (Near Haymarket T), Boston
Thursday, September 13th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Worcester Court House
225 Main Street, Worcester
Tuesday, September 18th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Springfield Hall of Justice
50 State Street, Springfield
Wednesday, September 19th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Plymouth Court House
52 Obery Street, Plymouth
As you prepare your oral and written statements for the Child Support Hearings, there are some key points you may wish to include. Please remember, you may send your written statement whether or not you attend the hearings.
The deadline for submission of comments is September 30, 2012. You have the option to email your written statement to the Massachusetts Trial Court at [email protected] or mail to:
Administrative Office of the Trial Court
Child Support Guidelines Task Force
Two Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
I will be attending the hearings in Lawrence, The forums are all scheduled for September:
Tuesday, September 11th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Fenton Judicial Center
2 Appleton Street, Lawrence
Wednesday, September 12th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Edward Brooke Court House
24 New Chardon Street (Near Haymarket T), Boston
Thursday, September 13th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Worcester Court House
225 Main Street, Worcester
Tuesday, September 18th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Springfield Hall of Justice
50 State Street, Springfield
Wednesday, September 19th, 4:00 to 6:00 pm
Plymouth Court House
52 Obery Street, Plymouth
As you prepare your oral and written statements for the Child Support Hearings, there are some key points you may wish to include. Please remember, you may send your written statement whether or not you attend the hearings.
The deadline for submission of comments is September 30, 2012. You have the option to email your written statement to the Massachusetts Trial Court at [email protected] or mail to:
Administrative Office of the Trial Court
Child Support Guidelines Task Force
Two Center Plaza
Boston, MA 02108
If you tell the court that you are broke, Be prepared to do the time.
The long term consequences of changing your decision from jail to pay is to guarantee you will NEVER be believed when you run out of funds. The Judge will know you will do whatever is necessary because you have showed the Judge you will pay up once in jail. After paying once from jail, you will be jailed EVERY time in the future you do not pay CS. Excuses do not matter. The source of funds does not matter in the system's mind. Only that you pay matters.
If you do not pay and do the time, the Judge is much more likely to believe you in the future if you say you do not have the funds. That is almost certainly the ONLY way he will ever believe you. If you pay after you START the time, you will forever be jailed again and again.
If you do not pay and do the time, the Judge is much more likely to believe you in the future if you say you do not have the funds. That is almost certainly the ONLY way he will ever believe you. If you pay after you START the time, you will forever be jailed again and again.
Is DOR breaking the law and getting away with it?
We go Behind the Scene to ask them tough questions, bring you their response and let you decide.
Is DOR violating your rights in court and getting away with it? Stay Tune as we discuss with Attorney Anthony DiFruscia DOR role in the courts.
Here is a letter sent to DOR asking questions, you decide if they are telling the truth.
"A DOR staff member will be at the court hearing,but he or she will be there only to provide the court with the information we have
(for example ,financial information about you and the other parent). DOR cannot provide you or the other parent with legal representation.
Our attorney's represent DOR; they do not represent you or the other parent"
Can you explain why on Aug 5, The departments Attorney Shannon Rand, Phoebe Ho, Eric Stephan, Mark Hentz,and MaryAnn DiNatale were asking for jail time on cases that had no welfare payments owed?
Answer: An obligor can be found in contempt whether or not public assistance arreas exist. The issue is did the obligor not pay when they had the ability to do so, which is the court's decision to make.
Also can you explain if the department is only in court to provide information when asked of the court, Why is it that the Attorney's quickly stand up and Identify themselves as Attorney's for the department, without being asked for information?
Answer: It is basic court room protocol for attorneys to identify themselves and to state their purpose for being there.
Judge Mary Manzi has stated in open court and on the record when addressing the cases, "what is the department seeking" Should this be a question that a Judge should be asking of your department? if so why?
Answer: The court asks for information in order to inform the court's decision making.
Also Marylou Fargas was seen in the Salem Probate Court, slamming the court room door, after she didn't like the approch that Judge Sahagain took in ordering her to get a file, Do you see anything wrong with person who is a supervisior for the department, to act in such a way, and not be held in contempt, when others that may do the same, would end up in contempt? What is the department paying the courts to protect your Attorney's? Is that the 3.5Million?
Is DOR violating your rights in court and getting away with it? Stay Tune as we discuss with Attorney Anthony DiFruscia DOR role in the courts.
Here is a letter sent to DOR asking questions, you decide if they are telling the truth.
"A DOR staff member will be at the court hearing,but he or she will be there only to provide the court with the information we have
(for example ,financial information about you and the other parent). DOR cannot provide you or the other parent with legal representation.
Our attorney's represent DOR; they do not represent you or the other parent"
Can you explain why on Aug 5, The departments Attorney Shannon Rand, Phoebe Ho, Eric Stephan, Mark Hentz,and MaryAnn DiNatale were asking for jail time on cases that had no welfare payments owed?
Answer: An obligor can be found in contempt whether or not public assistance arreas exist. The issue is did the obligor not pay when they had the ability to do so, which is the court's decision to make.
Also can you explain if the department is only in court to provide information when asked of the court, Why is it that the Attorney's quickly stand up and Identify themselves as Attorney's for the department, without being asked for information?
Answer: It is basic court room protocol for attorneys to identify themselves and to state their purpose for being there.
Judge Mary Manzi has stated in open court and on the record when addressing the cases, "what is the department seeking" Should this be a question that a Judge should be asking of your department? if so why?
Answer: The court asks for information in order to inform the court's decision making.
Also Marylou Fargas was seen in the Salem Probate Court, slamming the court room door, after she didn't like the approch that Judge Sahagain took in ordering her to get a file, Do you see anything wrong with person who is a supervisior for the department, to act in such a way, and not be held in contempt, when others that may do the same, would end up in contempt? What is the department paying the courts to protect your Attorney's? Is that the 3.5Million?
|
|
Who is DOR and their role?DOR attorney's represent DOR; they do not represent you or the other parent"
|
1. Does DOR receive money from the federal government as reimbursement for collecting child support?
Yes, reimbursement is provided under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act
2: How much money?
The Federal government reimburses eligible state expenditures at a rate of 66%, This year’s state appropriation is $43.2 million and will be reimbursed at that rate.
3: Where does that money go?
Reimbursements are deposited in the General Fund except for $6.5 million that is retained to pay for program operating costs.
4: What is the total COST to the state for child support collection activities?
In FY2011 the state appropriation for Child Support Enforcement is $43.3 million, which will be reimbursed at 66%.
5: Does DOR pay any monies to the court for hearing child support cases?
Yes.
6: How much money?
The FY2011 amount is $1.9 million
7: Is the payment of funds to the court, by DOR, a violation of the state Constitution's "Separation of Powers mandate? No.
8: Is such payment a "conflict of interest" for the courts?
Cooperative agreements between child support agencies and courts are allowed under Title IV-D. Federal regulations require that child support enforcement agencies have cooperative agreements with courts to ensure that child support and medical support orders are established, modified and enforced and heard by the courts in a timely and efficient manner. In Massachusetts the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Revenue is the agency designated by state law to enter into an interdepartmental service agreement with the Trial Court for the coordination of duties and responsibilities for the efficient operation of the child support enforcement program pursuant to Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act.
Yes, reimbursement is provided under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act
2: How much money?
The Federal government reimburses eligible state expenditures at a rate of 66%, This year’s state appropriation is $43.2 million and will be reimbursed at that rate.
3: Where does that money go?
Reimbursements are deposited in the General Fund except for $6.5 million that is retained to pay for program operating costs.
4: What is the total COST to the state for child support collection activities?
In FY2011 the state appropriation for Child Support Enforcement is $43.3 million, which will be reimbursed at 66%.
5: Does DOR pay any monies to the court for hearing child support cases?
Yes.
6: How much money?
The FY2011 amount is $1.9 million
7: Is the payment of funds to the court, by DOR, a violation of the state Constitution's "Separation of Powers mandate? No.
8: Is such payment a "conflict of interest" for the courts?
Cooperative agreements between child support agencies and courts are allowed under Title IV-D. Federal regulations require that child support enforcement agencies have cooperative agreements with courts to ensure that child support and medical support orders are established, modified and enforced and heard by the courts in a timely and efficient manner. In Massachusetts the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Revenue is the agency designated by state law to enter into an interdepartmental service agreement with the Trial Court for the coordination of duties and responsibilities for the efficient operation of the child support enforcement program pursuant to Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act.
What DOR doesn't want you to know
Child Support,
Consider that United States Signed this Treaty.
Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Article 1The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Parts b,c,d and e are now happening on a regular basis in the USA in child support cases.
Anyone who cannot find a job, according to the Commonwealth of Mass is automatically a
criminal, since the base amount is 80.00. If you do not pay that, you go to jail.
Minorities and those who have landed in prison, who dare to have children, are now subject to arbitrary arrest and detention.' This is exactly what Adolf Hitler did in the beginning of his mass extermination of Jews. Jews could not find jobs because of the conditions that Hitler imposed on the Jews. Jewish children were taken away from their parents because their parents were unable to support them.
By putting people in jail who dare to have kids and not be able to support them is Genocide.
Welcome to the Police State of America.
"A DOR staff member will be at the court hearing,but he or she will be there only to provide the court with the information we have
(for example ,financial information about you and the other parent). DOR cannot provide you or the other parent with legal representation.
Our attorney's represent DOR; they do not represent you or the other parent"
Consider that United States Signed this Treaty.
Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Article 1The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Parts b,c,d and e are now happening on a regular basis in the USA in child support cases.
Anyone who cannot find a job, according to the Commonwealth of Mass is automatically a
criminal, since the base amount is 80.00. If you do not pay that, you go to jail.
Minorities and those who have landed in prison, who dare to have children, are now subject to arbitrary arrest and detention.' This is exactly what Adolf Hitler did in the beginning of his mass extermination of Jews. Jews could not find jobs because of the conditions that Hitler imposed on the Jews. Jewish children were taken away from their parents because their parents were unable to support them.
By putting people in jail who dare to have kids and not be able to support them is Genocide.
Welcome to the Police State of America.
"A DOR staff member will be at the court hearing,but he or she will be there only to provide the court with the information we have
(for example ,financial information about you and the other parent). DOR cannot provide you or the other parent with legal representation.
Our attorney's represent DOR; they do not represent you or the other parent"
When dealing with the Attorney for the department, this is all you need to know.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE TRIAL COURT CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION THAT THESE GUIDELINES APPLY IN ALL CASES SEEKING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR MODIFICATION OF A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER. A SPECIFIC, WRITTEN FINDING THAT THE GUIDELINES WOULD BE UNJUST OR INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN A PARTICULAR CASE SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION IN THAT CASE. THESE GUIDELINES APPLY TO CURRENT CHILD SUPPORT ONLY. THEY DO NOT APPLY TO ALIMONY, THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, THE PAYMENT OF ARREARS, RESTITUTION, OR REIMBURSEMENT.
THESE REVISED GUIDELINES, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT A MODIFICATION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER.
The child support guidelines are formulated to be used by the justices of the Trial Court, whether the parents of the children are married or unmarried, in setting temporary, permanent or final orders for current child support, in deciding whether to approve agreements for child support, and in deciding cases that are before the court to modify existing orders. A modification may be allowed upon showing a discrepancy of 20% or more between an established order and a proposed new order calculated under these guidelines. The presumption establishing a proposed new order may be rebutted in cases where the amount of support required under the guidelines is due to the fact that the amount of the current support order resulted from a rebuttal of the guideline amount and there has not been a change in the circumstances which resulted in a rebuttal of the guideline amount. The guidelines are intended to be of assistance to members of the bar and to litigants in determining what level of payment would be expected of them given the relative income levels of the parties. In all orders where an order for child support is requested, a guideline worksheet must be filled out, regardless of the income of the parties.
In establishing these guidelines, due consideration has been given to the following principles:
1) To minimize the economic impact on the child of family breakup; 2) To encourage joint parental responsibility for child support in proportion to, or as a percentage of income; 3) To provide the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the family been intact; 4) To meet the child's survival needs in the first instance, but to the extent either parent enjoys a higher standard of living to entitle the child to enjoy that higher standard; 5) To protect a subsistence level of income of parents at the low end of the income range whether or not they are on public assistance; 6) To take into account the non-monetary contributions of both the custodial and non-custodial parents; 7) To minimize problems of proof for the parties and of administration for the courts; and 8) To allow for orders and wage assignments that can be adjusted as income increases or decreases.
I. INCOME DEFINITION
A. For purposes of these guidelines income is defined as gross income from whatever source. Those sources include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) salaries and wages, including overtime and tips, and income from self-employment, except in certain instances, see B below;
2) commissions;
3) severance pay;
4) royalties;
5) bonuses;
6) interest and dividends;
7) income derived from business/partnerships;
8) social security;
9) veterans' benefits;
10) insurance benefits, including those received for disability and personal injury;
11) workers' compensation;
12) unemployment compensation;
13) pensions;
14) annuities;
15) income from trusts;
16) capital gains in real and personal property transactions to the extent that they represent a regular source of income;
17) spousal support received from a person not a party to the order;
18) contractual agreements;
19) perquisites or in kind compensation to the extent that they represent a regular source of income;
20) unearned income of children, in the court's discretion;
21) income from life insurance or endowment contracts;
22) income from interest in an estate, either directly or through a trust;
23) lottery or gambling winnings received either in a lump sum or in the form of an annuity;
24) prizes or awards;
25) net rental income; and
26) funds received from earned income credit
B. In individual cases, the court may choose to disregard overtime income or income derived from a second job. However, consideration of such income may be appropriate in certain instances such as those where such income constituted a regular source of income when the family was intact.
II. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN SETTING THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
A. RELATIONSHIP TO ALIMONY OR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
So long as the standard of living of the children is not diminished, these guidelines do not preclude the court from deciding that any order be denominated in whole or in part as alimony or as a separate maintenance payment. It is the responsibility of counsel representing the parties to present the tax consequences of proposed orders to the court.
B. CLAIMS OF PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS FOR CHILD DEPENDENTS
In setting a support order, the court may make an order regarding the claims of personal exemptions for child dependents between the parties to the extent permitted by law.
C. MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM LEVELS
The guidelines recognize the principle that, in many instances, to maintain a domicile and a reasonable standard of living for the minor children, the custodial parent will choose to work. In those cases, a disregard of gross income of the custodial parent is to be applied up to a maximum of $20,000. The formula in these guidelines is intended to be adjusted where the income of the custodial parent exceeds the $20,000 disregard after consideration of day care expenses.
These guidelines are also intended to ensure a minimum subsistence level for those non-custodial parents whose income is less than $100 per week. However, it is the obligation of all parents to contribute to the support of their children. To that end, in all cases, a minimum order of $80.00 per month ($18.46 per week) should enter. This minimum should not be construed as limiting the court's ability to set a higher order, should circumstances permit.
Where the court makes a determination that either or both of the parties is either purposely unemployed or underemployed, the section of these guidelines entitled ATTRIBUTION OF INCOME should be consulted.
These guidelines are not meant to apply where the combined gross income of the parties exceeds $135,000 or where the gross income of the non-custodial parent exceeds $100,000. In cases where income exceeds these limits, the court should consider the award of support at the $100,000/$135,000 level as a minimum presumptive level of support to be awarded. Additional amounts of child support may be awarded at the judge's discretion.
B. AGE DIFFERENTIAL
The above orders are to be increased to reflect the cost of raising older children. The following is intended to be applied to the age of the oldest child in the household for whom support is sought under the pending action.
AGE OF OLDEST CHILD PERCENTAGE INCREASE
0-12 Basic Order Applies 13-18 Basic Order + 10% of Basic Order Over 18 Discretion of the court (and if statute permits)
C. CUSTODIAL PARENT INCOME ADJUSTMENT
Where the custodial parent works and earns income in excess of $20,000 after consideration of child care expenses, the support order is to be reduced by the percentage that the excess represents in relation to the combined incomes of both parents minus the custodial parent's disregard.
.
Rules of Professional Conduct.
8.4(d):
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice;
RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct,
knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts
of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government
agency or official;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a
violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) fail without good cause to cooperate with the Bar Counsel or the
Board of Bar Overseers as provided in Supreme Judicial Court Rule
4:01, § 3, last sentence; or
(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her
fitness to practice law.
Comment
[1] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to
practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of
willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of
offense carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was
drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept
can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of
personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have
no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a
lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer
should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate
lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses
involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious
interference with the administration of justice are in that category.
A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when
considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
[2] A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by
law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The
provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the
validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges
of legal regulation of the practice of law.
[3] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities
going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public
office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of
lawyer. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such
as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer,
director or manager of a corporation or other organization.
[4] Paragraph (c) prohibits the acceptance of referrals from a
referral source, such as court or agency personnel, if the lawyer
states or implies, or the client could reasonably infer, that the
lawyer has an ability to influence the court or agency improperly.
[5] Paragraph (h) carries forward the provision of Former DR
1-102(A)(6) prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on that
lawyer's fitness to practice law, even if the conduct does not
constitute a criminal, dishonest, fraudulent or other act specifically
described in the other paragraphs of this rule.
Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f) identical to Model Rule 8.4; clause (g) incorporates obligations
set forth in S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3; clause (h) comes from DR 1-102 (A)
(6).
Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. DR 1-102, DR 9-101 (C).
See S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3.
THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION THAT THESE GUIDELINES APPLY IN ALL CASES SEEKING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR MODIFICATION OF A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER. A SPECIFIC, WRITTEN FINDING THAT THE GUIDELINES WOULD BE UNJUST OR INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN A PARTICULAR CASE SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION IN THAT CASE. THESE GUIDELINES APPLY TO CURRENT CHILD SUPPORT ONLY. THEY DO NOT APPLY TO ALIMONY, THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY, THE PAYMENT OF ARREARS, RESTITUTION, OR REIMBURSEMENT.
THESE REVISED GUIDELINES, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO WARRANT A MODIFICATION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER.
The child support guidelines are formulated to be used by the justices of the Trial Court, whether the parents of the children are married or unmarried, in setting temporary, permanent or final orders for current child support, in deciding whether to approve agreements for child support, and in deciding cases that are before the court to modify existing orders. A modification may be allowed upon showing a discrepancy of 20% or more between an established order and a proposed new order calculated under these guidelines. The presumption establishing a proposed new order may be rebutted in cases where the amount of support required under the guidelines is due to the fact that the amount of the current support order resulted from a rebuttal of the guideline amount and there has not been a change in the circumstances which resulted in a rebuttal of the guideline amount. The guidelines are intended to be of assistance to members of the bar and to litigants in determining what level of payment would be expected of them given the relative income levels of the parties. In all orders where an order for child support is requested, a guideline worksheet must be filled out, regardless of the income of the parties.
In establishing these guidelines, due consideration has been given to the following principles:
1) To minimize the economic impact on the child of family breakup; 2) To encourage joint parental responsibility for child support in proportion to, or as a percentage of income; 3) To provide the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the family been intact; 4) To meet the child's survival needs in the first instance, but to the extent either parent enjoys a higher standard of living to entitle the child to enjoy that higher standard; 5) To protect a subsistence level of income of parents at the low end of the income range whether or not they are on public assistance; 6) To take into account the non-monetary contributions of both the custodial and non-custodial parents; 7) To minimize problems of proof for the parties and of administration for the courts; and 8) To allow for orders and wage assignments that can be adjusted as income increases or decreases.
I. INCOME DEFINITION
A. For purposes of these guidelines income is defined as gross income from whatever source. Those sources include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) salaries and wages, including overtime and tips, and income from self-employment, except in certain instances, see B below;
2) commissions;
3) severance pay;
4) royalties;
5) bonuses;
6) interest and dividends;
7) income derived from business/partnerships;
8) social security;
9) veterans' benefits;
10) insurance benefits, including those received for disability and personal injury;
11) workers' compensation;
12) unemployment compensation;
13) pensions;
14) annuities;
15) income from trusts;
16) capital gains in real and personal property transactions to the extent that they represent a regular source of income;
17) spousal support received from a person not a party to the order;
18) contractual agreements;
19) perquisites or in kind compensation to the extent that they represent a regular source of income;
20) unearned income of children, in the court's discretion;
21) income from life insurance or endowment contracts;
22) income from interest in an estate, either directly or through a trust;
23) lottery or gambling winnings received either in a lump sum or in the form of an annuity;
24) prizes or awards;
25) net rental income; and
26) funds received from earned income credit
B. In individual cases, the court may choose to disregard overtime income or income derived from a second job. However, consideration of such income may be appropriate in certain instances such as those where such income constituted a regular source of income when the family was intact.
II. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN SETTING THE CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
A. RELATIONSHIP TO ALIMONY OR SEPARATE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS
So long as the standard of living of the children is not diminished, these guidelines do not preclude the court from deciding that any order be denominated in whole or in part as alimony or as a separate maintenance payment. It is the responsibility of counsel representing the parties to present the tax consequences of proposed orders to the court.
B. CLAIMS OF PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS FOR CHILD DEPENDENTS
In setting a support order, the court may make an order regarding the claims of personal exemptions for child dependents between the parties to the extent permitted by law.
C. MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM LEVELS
The guidelines recognize the principle that, in many instances, to maintain a domicile and a reasonable standard of living for the minor children, the custodial parent will choose to work. In those cases, a disregard of gross income of the custodial parent is to be applied up to a maximum of $20,000. The formula in these guidelines is intended to be adjusted where the income of the custodial parent exceeds the $20,000 disregard after consideration of day care expenses.
These guidelines are also intended to ensure a minimum subsistence level for those non-custodial parents whose income is less than $100 per week. However, it is the obligation of all parents to contribute to the support of their children. To that end, in all cases, a minimum order of $80.00 per month ($18.46 per week) should enter. This minimum should not be construed as limiting the court's ability to set a higher order, should circumstances permit.
Where the court makes a determination that either or both of the parties is either purposely unemployed or underemployed, the section of these guidelines entitled ATTRIBUTION OF INCOME should be consulted.
These guidelines are not meant to apply where the combined gross income of the parties exceeds $135,000 or where the gross income of the non-custodial parent exceeds $100,000. In cases where income exceeds these limits, the court should consider the award of support at the $100,000/$135,000 level as a minimum presumptive level of support to be awarded. Additional amounts of child support may be awarded at the judge's discretion.
B. AGE DIFFERENTIAL
The above orders are to be increased to reflect the cost of raising older children. The following is intended to be applied to the age of the oldest child in the household for whom support is sought under the pending action.
AGE OF OLDEST CHILD PERCENTAGE INCREASE
0-12 Basic Order Applies 13-18 Basic Order + 10% of Basic Order Over 18 Discretion of the court (and if statute permits)
C. CUSTODIAL PARENT INCOME ADJUSTMENT
Where the custodial parent works and earns income in excess of $20,000 after consideration of child care expenses, the support order is to be reduced by the percentage that the excess represents in relation to the combined incomes of both parents minus the custodial parent's disregard.
.
Rules of Professional Conduct.
8.4(d):
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice;
RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct,
knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts
of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government
agency or official;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a
violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) fail without good cause to cooperate with the Bar Counsel or the
Board of Bar Overseers as provided in Supreme Judicial Court Rule
4:01, § 3, last sentence; or
(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her
fitness to practice law.
Comment
[1] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to
practice law, such as offenses involving fraud and the offense of
willful failure to file an income tax return. However, some kinds of
offense carry no such implication. Traditionally, the distinction was
drawn in terms of offenses involving "moral turpitude." That concept
can be construed to include offenses concerning some matters of
personal morality, such as adultery and comparable offenses, that have
no specific connection to fitness for the practice of law. Although a
lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer
should be professionally answerable only for offenses that indicate
lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice. Offenses
involving violence, dishonesty, breach of trust, or serious
interference with the administration of justice are in that category.
A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when
considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
[2] A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by
law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The
provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the
validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges
of legal regulation of the practice of law.
[3] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities
going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public
office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of
lawyer. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such
as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer,
director or manager of a corporation or other organization.
[4] Paragraph (c) prohibits the acceptance of referrals from a
referral source, such as court or agency personnel, if the lawyer
states or implies, or the client could reasonably infer, that the
lawyer has an ability to influence the court or agency improperly.
[5] Paragraph (h) carries forward the provision of Former DR
1-102(A)(6) prohibiting conduct that adversely reflects on that
lawyer's fitness to practice law, even if the conduct does not
constitute a criminal, dishonest, fraudulent or other act specifically
described in the other paragraphs of this rule.
Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and
(f) identical to Model Rule 8.4; clause (g) incorporates obligations
set forth in S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3; clause (h) comes from DR 1-102 (A)
(6).
Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. DR 1-102, DR 9-101 (C).
See S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3.
Fraud Unit ….. 617-887-6780
Toll-free in Massachusetts ….. 800-792-5254
Child Support Enforcement Division
Toll-free nationwide ...... 800-332-2733
Inspectional Services Division Main Number...... 617-626-2201
Internal Affairs Office...... 617-626-2130
Internal Audit Office...... 617-626-2170
Legal Division General Counsel's Office...... 617-626-3200
Litigation Bureau...... 617-626-3225
Bankruptcy Unit...... 617-626-3875
Rulings & Regulations Bureau...... 617-626-3250
Local Services Division Main number ...... 617-626-2300
Office of Appeals Main Number ...... 617-626-3300
Office of the Taxpayer Advocate Taxpayer Advocate...... 617-626-2201
Problem Resolution Office...... 617-626-3833
Publishing & Media Services Office..... 617-626-2805
Revenue Accounting Unit
Main Number ...... 617-626-3550
Toll-free in Massachusetts ….. 800-792-5254
Child Support Enforcement Division
Toll-free nationwide ...... 800-332-2733
Inspectional Services Division Main Number...... 617-626-2201
Internal Affairs Office...... 617-626-2130
Internal Audit Office...... 617-626-2170
Legal Division General Counsel's Office...... 617-626-3200
Litigation Bureau...... 617-626-3225
Bankruptcy Unit...... 617-626-3875
Rulings & Regulations Bureau...... 617-626-3250
Local Services Division Main number ...... 617-626-2300
Office of Appeals Main Number ...... 617-626-3300
Office of the Taxpayer Advocate Taxpayer Advocate...... 617-626-2201
Problem Resolution Office...... 617-626-3833
Publishing & Media Services Office..... 617-626-2805
Revenue Accounting Unit
Main Number ...... 617-626-3550
The System at work
Oath of office
Section 38. Whoever is admitted as an attorney shall in open court take and subscribe the oaths to support the constitution of the United States and of the commonwealth; and the following oath of office shall be administered to and subscribed by him:
I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.
Oath of office
Section 38. Whoever is admitted as an attorney shall in open court take and subscribe the oaths to support the constitution of the United States and of the commonwealth; and the following oath of office shall be administered to and subscribed by him:
I (repeat the name) solemnly swear that I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit, nor give aid or consent to the same; I will delay no man for lucre or malice; but I will conduct myself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity as well to the courts as my clients. So help me God.
Contempt civil and criminal
If the contempt hearing includes both civil and criminal features, the plaintiff who initiated the proceedings could act in place of a prosecutor because "private parties to civil litigation have the right to press both the civil and criminal aspects of the case " Furtado supra, quoting Katz v Commonwealth 379 Mass. 305 (1979) quoting Root v McDonald 260 Mass. 344, 365 (1929). Mr. Durland, Linda's attorney and de facto prosecutor sets the tone for this proceeding in declaring this is a criminal offense by suggesting to the judge during the hearing "frankly I think you should incarcerate him until the deed is signed" (App. 68). The defendant is entitled to counsel if a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed and may waive counsel only as provided by constitutional principles and applicable court rules id..
William was acting Pro Se. He never waived counsel on any criminal charges nor did the judge offer aid of counsel at the hearing. Further that William had no offer of a jury trial is additional serious error. That jury trials are not available in probate court for a criminal contempt further indicates this is the wrong forum. Repeated pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights is serious judicial misconduct Matter of Peeves 480 N.Y.S. 2d 463.
Massachusetts General Law 273 Section 2 (Add 3) states in relevant part “Proceedings under Section One shall be begun if in the Superior Court, in the county in which is situated the place where the husband and wife last lived together, and if begun in a district court, in the court having such place within its judicial district" “A statutory power , to be validly executed, must be executed according to the statutory directions” Marx v Hanthorn 148 US 172, 13 S Ct 508, State ex rel. Laurisch v. Pohl, 214 Minn 221, 8 N.W. 2d 227. There is no provision in this law for Probate Court jurisdiction. Therefore the Probate Court is without jurisdiction and is the improper venue for the amended complaint filed.
William was acting Pro Se. He never waived counsel on any criminal charges nor did the judge offer aid of counsel at the hearing. Further that William had no offer of a jury trial is additional serious error. That jury trials are not available in probate court for a criminal contempt further indicates this is the wrong forum. Repeated pattern of failing to advise litigants of their constitutional and statutory rights is serious judicial misconduct Matter of Peeves 480 N.Y.S. 2d 463.
Massachusetts General Law 273 Section 2 (Add 3) states in relevant part “Proceedings under Section One shall be begun if in the Superior Court, in the county in which is situated the place where the husband and wife last lived together, and if begun in a district court, in the court having such place within its judicial district" “A statutory power , to be validly executed, must be executed according to the statutory directions” Marx v Hanthorn 148 US 172, 13 S Ct 508, State ex rel. Laurisch v. Pohl, 214 Minn 221, 8 N.W. 2d 227. There is no provision in this law for Probate Court jurisdiction. Therefore the Probate Court is without jurisdiction and is the improper venue for the amended complaint filed.
Chapter 215: Section 34B. Review of contempt order prior to order of confinement
Section 34B. A judge of the probate court who has found a party to be in civil or criminal contempt for failure to obey any order or judgment of the probate court relative to support of a spouse or children or relative to the custody of children shall, before ordering such person to be confined in a jail, review such order or judgment to determine that such order or judgment was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction and was not obtained by fraud.
You have an absolute right to have someone help you in court
You have an absolute right to have someone help you in court or to help someone else in court in hearing. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has decided this many times in many situations.
The attached page is one I take with me when I go to court to help someone. I show it to the Judge when he/she asks what I think I am doing standing up there beside the defendant. I read it and hand it to the Judge. The Judge has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, especially when he knows I am aware of it. He would look like a total idiot doing so on the record. I have NEVER been told to sit down.
I even won a couple times helping someone. Also lost a few.
If the Judge does not allow you to help, immediately protest it verbally in court. Ask if he is going to contradict the Supreme Court. Get it on the record that is clearly what he is doing! And get him to admit it!! IMO It is definitely appealable after that. You might as well demand a recusal of the Judge while he is clearly violating constitutional rights and showing extreme prejudice and bias.
PRO SE ADVOCATES IN COURT
Non-lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court.
� JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 747
Members of group who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"
� BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;
� UNITED MINE WORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;
The power of the states to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to abrogate federally protected rights
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� Sperry v. Florida 373 U.S. 379 (1963)
"Reasonable access to the courts is . . . a right [secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States], being guaranteed as against state action by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so far as access by state prisoners to federal courts is concerned, this right was recognized in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. . . . The right of access by state prisoners to state courts was recognized in White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 762, n. [1]." Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632, 636 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1961).
Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
� HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594;
� JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 (1969);
� PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240;
� PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 233.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSISTING MGL 209A ABUSE ORDER DEFENDANTS
Massachusetts Guidelines on Domestic Violence:
2:08 Role of Advocates in Assisting Parties. The court should support the participation of advocates at each stage of the c. 209A process, regardless of whether such persons are volunteers from a local advocacy group, law students, employees of the district attorney or of some other state, community or legal service agency, or friends or family members of either party. Where possible, such support should include providing an area of the courthouse where advocates can operate, allowing sufficient time in the complaint filing process for an advocate to speak to the party, individually or, if there are multiple parties, in a group setting, and to assist the party in filing the complaint, and permitting the advocate to accompany the party, when so requested, to the courtroom. See Guidelines 1:04, 3:09 and 5:02. Advocates should coordinate their efforts with the appropriate staff in each court.
http://www.state.ma.us/courts/formsandguidelines/domestic/dvg2.html#Top
The attached page is one I take with me when I go to court to help someone. I show it to the Judge when he/she asks what I think I am doing standing up there beside the defendant. I read it and hand it to the Judge. The Judge has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, especially when he knows I am aware of it. He would look like a total idiot doing so on the record. I have NEVER been told to sit down.
I even won a couple times helping someone. Also lost a few.
If the Judge does not allow you to help, immediately protest it verbally in court. Ask if he is going to contradict the Supreme Court. Get it on the record that is clearly what he is doing! And get him to admit it!! IMO It is definitely appealable after that. You might as well demand a recusal of the Judge while he is clearly violating constitutional rights and showing extreme prejudice and bias.
PRO SE ADVOCATES IN COURT
Non-lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court.
� JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 747
Members of group who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"
� BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1;
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561;
� UNITED MINE WORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715;
The power of the states to control the practice of law cannot be exercised so as to abrogate federally protected rights
� NAACP V. BUTTON, 371 US 415 (1962);
� Sperry v. Florida 373 U.S. 379 (1963)
"Reasonable access to the courts is . . . a right [secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States], being guaranteed as against state action by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so far as access by state prisoners to federal courts is concerned, this right was recognized in Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549. . . . The right of access by state prisoners to state courts was recognized in White v. Ragen, 324 U.S. 760, 762, n. [1]." Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F.2d 632, 636 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1961).
Pro Se (Without a Lawyer, representing self) pleadings are to be considered without technicality; pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
� HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594;
� JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 (1969);
� PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240;
� PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 233.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSISTING MGL 209A ABUSE ORDER DEFENDANTS
Massachusetts Guidelines on Domestic Violence:
2:08 Role of Advocates in Assisting Parties. The court should support the participation of advocates at each stage of the c. 209A process, regardless of whether such persons are volunteers from a local advocacy group, law students, employees of the district attorney or of some other state, community or legal service agency, or friends or family members of either party. Where possible, such support should include providing an area of the courthouse where advocates can operate, allowing sufficient time in the complaint filing process for an advocate to speak to the party, individually or, if there are multiple parties, in a group setting, and to assist the party in filing the complaint, and permitting the advocate to accompany the party, when so requested, to the courtroom. See Guidelines 1:04, 3:09 and 5:02. Advocates should coordinate their efforts with the appropriate staff in each court.
http://www.state.ma.us/courts/formsandguidelines/domestic/dvg2.html#Top
Restriction on garnishment Don't allow them to abuse your rights.
How Current is This? (a) Maximum allowable garnishment
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206 (a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).
(b) Exceptions
(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of
(A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.
(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11.
(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed—
(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week;
except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited
No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1673.html
How Current is This? (a) Maximum allowable garnishment
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206 (a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).
(b) Exceptions
(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of
(A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.
(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11.
(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed—
(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week;
except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited
No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
Jail for an inability to pay court order debts.(Family Court)
While this behavior appears to be illegal, certainly unAmerican, it doesn't stop our justices from doing it
I recently had the opportunity to interview those prisoner's in South Bay, who were in there for civil contempt, an inability to pay court ordered amounts, I was shocked to hear the way they were treated by the courts.
I thank you for promoting this by Northeastern University study, and I would encourage you to investigate the prisoners in our jails for an inability to pay, debtor prisoners.
While this behavior appears to be illegal, certainly unAmerican, it doesn't stop our justices from doing it
I recently had the opportunity to interview those prisoner's in South Bay, who were in there for civil contempt, an inability to pay court ordered amounts, I was shocked to hear the way they were treated by the courts.
I thank you for promoting this by Northeastern University study, and I would encourage you to investigate the prisoners in our jails for an inability to pay, debtor prisoners.
*Exact Child Support Laws at both the Federal and Local Levels that
give D.O.R. their power*
Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., and
M.G.L. c. 119A.
*State Law that assesses interest to CS Obligor (Payer)*
M.G.L. c. 119A, § 6
*The rights of the person receiving CS (Payee)*
Title IV, Parts A and E, or Title XIX of the Social Security Act. See M.G.L.
c. 119A, § 2.
*Conditions of Interest and Penalties (Arrears)*
M.G.L. c. 119A, § 6
830 CMR 119A.6.1(3) and (4)
*Exemptions to Interest and Penalties (Arrears)*
830 CMR 119A.6.1(5)(b)
830 CMR 119A.6.1 (5)(c)
*Exclusion from Monthly Assessment of Interest and Penalties*
830 CMR 119A.6.1(5)(a) if the conditions of 830 CMR 119A.6.1 (2) are met
*If D.O.R. receives an interest payment from the Payee it goes into the
Child Support Trust Fund. *
See M.G.L. c. 119A, §§ 2 and 9.
*Under the proposal - you wont have to pay CS if you meed the
following requirements:*
1. The obligor is receiving cash benefits from a needs-based program,
including, but not limited to, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
Transitional Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and State Veterans’
benefits.
2. The unemancipated child for whom support is owed is living with the
obligor, either because the obligor has physical custody of the child or
because the obligor and obligee are cohabiting, and the current support
order has been terminated.
3. The obligor has been temporarily unable to meet his support
obligation due to loss of employment, provided:
a. the obligor is actively seeking employment; or
b. a workers’ compensation insurer, the Department of Unemployment
Assistance (DUA) or another state’s unemployment agency is remitting child
support to DOR on behalf of the obligor, but the amount of the withholding
is insufficient to satisfy the total monthly obligation.
4. The obligor has a medically verified disability that affects earning
capacity and does not otherwise have the financial ability to meet the
support obligation. An obligor may be eligible for the exemption if child
support is being withheld from SSDI, veterans’ benefits or other disability
benefits and remitted to DOR, but the amount of the withholding is
insufficient to satisfy the total monthly obligation in full.
5. The obligor has been institutionalized in a psychiatric facility,
hospice, long term care facility, nursing home, rehabilitation facility or
other similar facility and has no financial ability to pay child support.
6. The obligor has been incarcerated but is participating in or has
successfully completed a counseling, job training or self-improvement
program approved by DOR.
7. The obligor has obtained a reduction, termination or suspension of
the current support obligation after filing a modification complaint in the
appropriate probate and family court, provided that the exemption is not
available if the reduction, termination or suspension of the current support
obligation arose in the context of a contempt action. The exemption will
be retroactive only to the date of filing of the modification complaint.
8. The obligor is on active duty in the United States Armed Forces and is
paying child support by income withholding, but the amount of withholding is
insufficient to satisfy the total monthly obligation in full.
9. The obligor has been approved for a hardship exemption by DOR.
give D.O.R. their power*
Title IV, Part D of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., and
M.G.L. c. 119A.
*State Law that assesses interest to CS Obligor (Payer)*
M.G.L. c. 119A, § 6
*The rights of the person receiving CS (Payee)*
Title IV, Parts A and E, or Title XIX of the Social Security Act. See M.G.L.
c. 119A, § 2.
*Conditions of Interest and Penalties (Arrears)*
M.G.L. c. 119A, § 6
830 CMR 119A.6.1(3) and (4)
*Exemptions to Interest and Penalties (Arrears)*
830 CMR 119A.6.1(5)(b)
830 CMR 119A.6.1 (5)(c)
*Exclusion from Monthly Assessment of Interest and Penalties*
830 CMR 119A.6.1(5)(a) if the conditions of 830 CMR 119A.6.1 (2) are met
*If D.O.R. receives an interest payment from the Payee it goes into the
Child Support Trust Fund. *
See M.G.L. c. 119A, §§ 2 and 9.
*Under the proposal - you wont have to pay CS if you meed the
following requirements:*
1. The obligor is receiving cash benefits from a needs-based program,
including, but not limited to, Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
Transitional Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and State Veterans’
benefits.
2. The unemancipated child for whom support is owed is living with the
obligor, either because the obligor has physical custody of the child or
because the obligor and obligee are cohabiting, and the current support
order has been terminated.
3. The obligor has been temporarily unable to meet his support
obligation due to loss of employment, provided:
a. the obligor is actively seeking employment; or
b. a workers’ compensation insurer, the Department of Unemployment
Assistance (DUA) or another state’s unemployment agency is remitting child
support to DOR on behalf of the obligor, but the amount of the withholding
is insufficient to satisfy the total monthly obligation.
4. The obligor has a medically verified disability that affects earning
capacity and does not otherwise have the financial ability to meet the
support obligation. An obligor may be eligible for the exemption if child
support is being withheld from SSDI, veterans’ benefits or other disability
benefits and remitted to DOR, but the amount of the withholding is
insufficient to satisfy the total monthly obligation in full.
5. The obligor has been institutionalized in a psychiatric facility,
hospice, long term care facility, nursing home, rehabilitation facility or
other similar facility and has no financial ability to pay child support.
6. The obligor has been incarcerated but is participating in or has
successfully completed a counseling, job training or self-improvement
program approved by DOR.
7. The obligor has obtained a reduction, termination or suspension of
the current support obligation after filing a modification complaint in the
appropriate probate and family court, provided that the exemption is not
available if the reduction, termination or suspension of the current support
obligation arose in the context of a contempt action. The exemption will
be retroactive only to the date of filing of the modification complaint.
8. The obligor is on active duty in the United States Armed Forces and is
paying child support by income withholding, but the amount of withholding is
insufficient to satisfy the total monthly obligation in full.
9. The obligor has been approved for a hardship exemption by DOR.
In addition to a child support obligation, the noncustodial parent may also be incurring a debt to the state for public assistance given to his family. "State debt" is distinct from "child support" but the two are often confused.
When a child support order has been established, many states (e.g. North Carolina ) have (and all states should) adopt a policy that the state debt can be no larger than the child support obligation. So, if the child support obligation is set under the guidelines at $50 per month and the father pays that amount, no state debt accrues. If the order is $50 and the father doesn't pay, then the state debt is $50 per month. The viability of this approach is recognized by federal regulations. 45 CFR Sections 302.50(a)(2) and (b)(2).
A more difficult issue arises when there is no court order. In many states, the state establishes a "state debt" equal to the amount of assistance provided to the family for the period when there was no order in place. The state then tries to collect this state debt through the IVD system. A number of courts have found this to be illegal. Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1991); Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513, 517 n.1 (1st Cir. 1991).
Federal law requires states to take an assignment of support rights from TANF families "not exceeding the total amount of assistance provided to the family". 42 USC Section 608(a)(3) (1996). This language places a ceiling on the amount of money a state can claim under the assignment but not a floor.
IN OTHER WORDS STATE CANNOT TAKE/EXPECT ARREARS FROM YOU THAT EXCEED WELFARE BENEFITS PROVIDED TO EX
When a child support order has been established, many states (e.g. North Carolina ) have (and all states should) adopt a policy that the state debt can be no larger than the child support obligation. So, if the child support obligation is set under the guidelines at $50 per month and the father pays that amount, no state debt accrues. If the order is $50 and the father doesn't pay, then the state debt is $50 per month. The viability of this approach is recognized by federal regulations. 45 CFR Sections 302.50(a)(2) and (b)(2).
A more difficult issue arises when there is no court order. In many states, the state establishes a "state debt" equal to the amount of assistance provided to the family for the period when there was no order in place. The state then tries to collect this state debt through the IVD system. A number of courts have found this to be illegal. Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1991); Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513, 517 n.1 (1st Cir. 1991).
Federal law requires states to take an assignment of support rights from TANF families "not exceeding the total amount of assistance provided to the family". 42 USC Section 608(a)(3) (1996). This language places a ceiling on the amount of money a state can claim under the assignment but not a floor.
IN OTHER WORDS STATE CANNOT TAKE/EXPECT ARREARS FROM YOU THAT EXCEED WELFARE BENEFITS PROVIDED TO EX
CHILD SUPPORT COSTS-NH/MA-NATIONAL
COMPILED FROM DATA PROVIDED BY THE US-DHHS
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
REPORT TO CONGRESS
2008
MASSACHUSETTS: 2008
Collected: $549,451,744 in child support
% Welfare cases: 4.46%
% Welfare Caseload: 15.7%
Cost to state of collections: $78,612,139 (2008)
Fed. Incentives: (2007) $9,352,175
Net Loss: $69,259,964
Fed. Incentives (5 years): $46.456 MILLION
Full Time Staff: 822
NEW HAMPSHIRE: 2008
Collected: $88,101,583 in child support
% Welfare cases: 4.7%
% Welfare Caseload: 13.7%
Cost to state of collections: $20,424,577
Fed. Incentives (2007): $1,792,225
Net Loss: $18,632,352
Fed. Incentives (5 years): $9,061 MILLION
Full Time Staff: 183
NATIONAL: 2008
Total Collections: $23,187 BILLION
% Welfare Cases: 4%
Total Cost to States: $5.878 BILLION
Total Paid to States in Incentive Payments(2007): $471 MILLION
Net Loss to States: $5.407 BILLION
Total State Staff: 59,995
Total Caseload: 15,675,989
Average weekly order: $269
As you can see, the welfare cases make up 15.7% of the TOTAL caseload, but only receive 4.46% of the total money collected. (In MA)
The state is operating the child support system at a huge LOSS. Receiving $9,352,175 in federal incentives, while paying $78,612,130 for operating it. That's a loss of $69,259,964.
Question: Does any offset in welfare cost equal the expenditure for CS collections?
Did CS collection REDUCE the number of welfare cases? Or did it cause the divorce rate, hence the welfare rate, to rise.
COMPILED FROM DATA PROVIDED BY THE US-DHHS
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
REPORT TO CONGRESS
2008
MASSACHUSETTS: 2008
Collected: $549,451,744 in child support
% Welfare cases: 4.46%
% Welfare Caseload: 15.7%
Cost to state of collections: $78,612,139 (2008)
Fed. Incentives: (2007) $9,352,175
Net Loss: $69,259,964
Fed. Incentives (5 years): $46.456 MILLION
Full Time Staff: 822
NEW HAMPSHIRE: 2008
Collected: $88,101,583 in child support
% Welfare cases: 4.7%
% Welfare Caseload: 13.7%
Cost to state of collections: $20,424,577
Fed. Incentives (2007): $1,792,225
Net Loss: $18,632,352
Fed. Incentives (5 years): $9,061 MILLION
Full Time Staff: 183
NATIONAL: 2008
Total Collections: $23,187 BILLION
% Welfare Cases: 4%
Total Cost to States: $5.878 BILLION
Total Paid to States in Incentive Payments(2007): $471 MILLION
Net Loss to States: $5.407 BILLION
Total State Staff: 59,995
Total Caseload: 15,675,989
Average weekly order: $269
As you can see, the welfare cases make up 15.7% of the TOTAL caseload, but only receive 4.46% of the total money collected. (In MA)
The state is operating the child support system at a huge LOSS. Receiving $9,352,175 in federal incentives, while paying $78,612,130 for operating it. That's a loss of $69,259,964.
Question: Does any offset in welfare cost equal the expenditure for CS collections?
Did CS collection REDUCE the number of welfare cases? Or did it cause the divorce rate, hence the welfare rate, to rise.
This is the law that helps to keep Fathers in jail. Deval Patrick helped to pass this law while at the civil rights division, according to Kevin Callahan at the Federal Civil rights division,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/fct/fct4.htm
Their is a grant to states for sending guys to jail according to Kevin Callahan of Federal Civil rights enforcement office. He said states benefit by sending more dead broke dads to jail. He said "we should ask for repeal or veto of 18 USC Section 228". He said "it could be done at any time".
Try to blow up a US plane as a Muslim terrorist savage animal, and you wil get read your "Miranda" rights;
fall behind on child support in Massachusetts, YOU GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS AT ALL
fall behind on child support in Massachusetts, YOU GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS AT ALL
Read the words ONLY HE,
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 273. DESERTION, NON-SUPPORT AND ILLEGITIMACY Chapter 273: Section 1. Abandonment and nonsupport; failure to comply with support order; decree establishing rights of spouse as prima facie evidence
Section 1. A spouse or parent shall be guilty of a felony and shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section fifteen A if:
(1) he abandons his spouse or minor child without making reasonable provisions for the support of his spouse or minor child or both of them; or
(2) he leaves the commonwealth and goes into another state without making reasonable provisions for the support of his spouse or minor child or both of them; or
(3) he enters the commonwealth from another state without making reasonable provisions for the support of his spouse or minor child, or both of them, domiciled in another state; or
(4) wilfully and while having the financial ability or earning capacity to have complied, he fails to comply with an order or judgment for support which has been entered pursuant to chapter one hundred and nineteen, two hundred and seven, two hundred and eight, two hundred and nine, two hundred and nine C, or two hundred and seventy-three, or received, entered or registered pursuant to chapter two hundred and nine D, or entered pursuant to similar laws of other states. No civil proceeding in any court shall be held to be a bar to a prosecution hereunder but the court shall not enter any order pursuant to section fifteen A which would directly or indirectly result in a decrease in the amount paid for current support pursuant to an order or judgment on behalf of the child or spouse to who, or on whose behalf, support is owed.
In a prosecution hereunder a decree or judgment of a probate court in a proceeding in which the defendant or spouse appeared or was personally served with process, establishing the right of his spouse to live apart or the freedom of such spouse to convey and deal with property, or the right to the custody of the children, shall be admissible and shall be prima facie evidence of such right.
Finding where cuts can be made, Working together to get answers
State employee payroll for 2009 with 2008 earnings
Below is the state payroll as of July 2009, listing projected salaries and earned income from last year. This list, to be updated periodically, includes the University of Massachusetts. Payroll provided to the Herald under the state's Public Records law. E-mail any inquiries to [email protected] and check for updates in the City Desk Wired blog.
* $0 for 2008 earnings may reflect a new hire or data the Herald has yet to receive.
* The Herald is also seeking additional information on all standard hours worked.
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/massachusetts/
* $0 for 2008 earnings may reflect a new hire or data the Herald has yet to receive.
* The Herald is also seeking additional information on all standard hours worked.
http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/massachusetts/
Judge John P. Cronin is simply another judge of many to defy the laws of the land that he has sworn to uphold to deprive many their fundamental parental ...
www.thompson4justice.com/cronin.html
Please listen to this hearing and see if this Judge followed the Law
Link to my hearing on my complaint for contempt against DOR Nov 5 2009 In front of Judge John P Cronin
http://blip.tv/file/2842700
The Ruling
You be the Judge, listen to the tape, then see if you would had ruled this way
Judge Mary Ann Sahagian may seem fair on the bench, But does she follow the Law? We go Behind the Scene to find answers to some very hard findings
Listen to the hearing below and you decide.
What we looked at on Judge MaryAnne Sahagan Grade: D+ (1.28
When facts are in dispute, it requires a JURY to consider them and to render a verdict based upon those facts.
Probate court cannot render verdicts on divorce proceedings if facts are in dispute.
It takes jury to do this.!!!
Normally in civil courts the person not showing loses by default, but not in Family and Probate Court in this State
When you motion the Probate court, make certain
you put in your motion that you are reserving
your rights as secured under the laws and
Constitution of the USA.
This will give you standing to go to federal court
and a JURY TRIAL.
The courts can ignore you, but you save your right to
revisit the action.
If a court does not have jurisdiction during your litigation,
the actions of that court are null and void........ ........ever.
Those actions are void from the beginning... ........
Denial of due process..... .......
============ ========= ===
BROWN v. COMM. OF MASSACHUSETTS, 144 U.S. 573 (1892)
Indictment of John F. Brown for forging and uttering a discharge for money. Defendant was convicted, and his exceptions were overruled by the supreme judicial court. 18 N. E. Rep. 587.
He then moved in arrest of judgment, and filed an 'exception to the jurisdiction. '
These were overruled by the trial court, and on appeal its action was again affirmed. 23 N. E. Rep. 98. Defendant then brought the cause on a writ of error to this court.
Mr. Justice GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
In order to give this court jurisdiction, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes, to review on writ of error a decision of the highest court of a state against a title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the constitution of the United States, it must, as observed by Chief Justice WAITE in Spies v. Illinois, 'appear on the record that such title, right, privilege, or immunity was 'specially set up or claimed' at the proper time in the proper way.' 123 U.S. 131, 181, 8 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 21, 31.
In the case at bar the only ground on which it has been argued that the judgment of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts should be reversed is that the plaintiff in error has been deprived of his liberty without due process of law, in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, because the grand jury by which he was indicted, and the traverse jury by which he was tried and convicted, were wholly composed of inhabitants of the town and county of Nantucket, which the indictment charged him with intending to defraud, and because the selectmen of the town, who prepared the jury list, and took the principal part in drawing the jurors, were at the same time actively promoting this prosecution.
No objection that the proceedings were in violation of the constitution of the United States was taken in any form,
Page 144 U.S. 573, 580
either expressly or by any possible inference or implication, before verdict.
Nor was any such objection duly presented afterwards.
Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
KEEP YOUR TAX RETURN FROM BEING INTERCEPTED, IF YOU ARE REMARRIED.
FILE TAX FORM 8857 SPOUSE RELIEF FORM WITH THE IRS, WHEN FILING YOUR TAXES, THIS PROTECTION RELIEVES YOU OF ANY DEBT THAT YOUR SPOUSE MAY OWE THE GOVERMENT.
ALSO FILE 8379 INJURED SPOUSE ALLOCATION FORM, THIS ALSO RELIEVES YOUR SPOUSE FROM ANY CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS OWED TO DOR
FILE TAX FORM 8857 SPOUSE RELIEF FORM WITH THE IRS, WHEN FILING YOUR TAXES, THIS PROTECTION RELIEVES YOU OF ANY DEBT THAT YOUR SPOUSE MAY OWE THE GOVERMENT.
ALSO FILE 8379 INJURED SPOUSE ALLOCATION FORM, THIS ALSO RELIEVES YOUR SPOUSE FROM ANY CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS OWED TO DOR
