welfare and institution code #11350.6

In a case where child support payments were contained in dissolution of marriage default judgement, the time period for making payments stopped after both children
reached the age of majority, no payments however were ever paid because the party that was orderred to make the payments, was never notified of such or even of the petion for dissolution. Both subject children reached the age of majority without ever recieving and without ever applying for any
kind of taxpayer aid or benefits of any kind. There is no public entity that is owed any money, nor is there any chance left that
any aid for support of either minor will ever be necessary, as the children are already adults. The support order has expired. The State has had no interest vested
nor is it posible for them to have one in the future. How and Where does the state get authority (with no interest in), to suspend the drivers lisence? and intervene ?in this civil matter, under the guise of child support when there are no children, and when there were they never recieved any form of aid or assistance of any kind. Before the State can take away constitutional rights,
is it not necessary for them to show that there is an overriding state interest, and even then do they not have to do so only in a manner that is directed at that same interest. Also having intervened without a justifiable interest, is the state then liable for the damages they have caused? this pertains to resident of California,

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by denny:
[b]In a case where child support payments were contained in dissolution of marriage default judgement, the time period for making payments stopped after both children
reached the age of majority, no payments however were ever paid because the party that was orderred to make the payments, was never notified of such or even of the petion for dissolution. Both subject children reached the age of majority without ever recieving and without ever applying for any
kind of taxpayer aid or benefits of any kind. There is no public entity that is owed any money, nor is there any chance left that
any aid for support of either minor will ever be necessary, as the children are already adults. The support order has expired. The State has had no interest vested
nor is it posible for them to have one in the future. How and Where does the state get authority (with no interest in), to suspend the drivers lisence? and intervene ?in this civil matter, under the guise of child support when there are no children, and when there were they never recieved any form of aid or assistance of any kind. Before the State can take away constitutional rights,
is it not necessary for them to show that there is an overriding state interest, and even then do they not have to do so only in a manner that is directed at that same interest. Also having intervened without a justifiable interest, is the state then liable for the damages they have caused? this pertains to resident of California,[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Denny - - you've got a lot of questions.

I think you're forgetting one, little, fact.
Child support is based upon a "court order". The State gets involved because of that. The D.A. has the right and obligation to enforce a court's child support order. But then, you say, "the children are now adults, so the order has expired." Not quite. There's the matter of the 3 year Statute of Limitations, Denny. The D.A. can come after you for up to 3 years after the date of your last payment, or 3 years backwards from the date of the child's 18th birthday. And, that's 3 years worth of child support, Denny. That can be a whole lot of money. And the D.A. has the legal right to enforce it.

Good luck, Denny.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

no i did not forget the court order. I did not do a good job of phrasing my question.heres some background.
When legislation the State refers to as Title IV-D Social Security Act. was enacted its design and purpose was to obtain,and enforce child support and spousal support judgements
for needy families who were or who may in the future reciving or recieve aid from a tax payer funded program. Hence the obvious gov. or state interest. When Ca.Welfare and Institutions code 11350.6 was enacted to obligate the D.A.`s office to enforce TitleIV-D support orders and support orders from any other legal court it gave authority
to suspend or deny,or revoke things such as
drivers lisences,bussiness lisences,and other lisences required by professions. At the time of enactment, this statute was constitutionally valid because the state had a valid overriding interest
in seeing that parents fullfill their obligation to support their children whenever posible before utilizeing tax payer funded programs or to reimburse such programs for funds utilized do to a parents nonsupport.
Originally the bill was crafted correctly for this purpose. After the date of anactment,
bills that fall under the catagory of "Title IV-D" were amended to include the D.A.`s enforcement of any support judgement that was obtained in a legal court, and for collection of arreages, without regard to weather or not
a case was one in which tax payer funded programs were utilized or may be utilized in the future because of non support of parent.
When this amendment was enacted by congress, California Welfare and Institutions code 11350.6 became Constitutionally invalid, because it obligated the D.A.`s office to enforce by sanctioning of constitutionally protected rights where the state did not have a valid interest and where the posibility of having an interest in the future did not exist. Constitutional rights cannot be taken away without the Fed. or State Gov. having an orrideing interest. Even than the law must be crafted in the least restrictive method posible to satisfy the State interest.

There have been over a thousand amendments to what the state recognizes as the Title IV-D
Social Security Act.
Ca. W.&I code 11350.6 becuse of amendments to
Title IV-D has become unconstitutional. The State has not done anything to correct this,
even after it has been called to the attention of the state legislature. Is the State liable for the damages being incurred
by the irresponsibility of it legislature?

IAAL he also said he never recieved notice of the dissolution of the marriage. So would he still be considered married?

IAAL he also said he never recieved notice of the dissolution of the marriage. So would he still be considered married?

IAAL he also said he never recieved notice of the dissolution of the marriage. So would he still be considered married?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paula2:
[b]IAAL he also said he never recieved notice of the dissolution of the marriage. So would he still be considered married?[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

I had no comment in that regard because Denny didn't expand on those circumstances. For example, some people just one day, up and leave. The other spouse has no idea where the "leaving spouse" has gone, and the Petition for Divorce is published in a newspaper of general circulation in the town of a persons last known address. That is one reason why a person may not have received actual notice; however, publishing a Summons, and not seeing the publication, is not an excuse. In that case, however, you can be divorced "in absentia". Now, I'm not saying that this is what actually happened to Denny. Like I said, he didn't explain his statement so I have no real opinion.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

My further response:

Denny, I make no comment on the Constitutionality of the law. First, Constitutional issues are way too far afield for a Board such as this and, Second, such issues are better handled through lengthy discussion, in person, with an attorney. Going back and forth on a Board, such as this, would be too slow and time-consuming.

However, since the law is still on the books, under the statutory scheme, child or family support obligors engaged in a licensed business or profession risk nonissuance or nonrenewal of the requisite license when they fall more than 30 days in arrears on a child support obligation (whether for current or past-due support or for public assistance reimbursement). Delinquent child/family support obligors similarly risk nonissuance or nonrenewal of a driver's license. [Ca Wel & Inst § 11350.6; see Ca Wel & Inst § 11350.6(a)(5) & (6) (defining "license" and "licensee"); see also Ca Bus & Prof § 31]

Parallel license suspension penalty: Further, under parallel (though not entirely identical) statutory provisions, child support obligors risk license suspension when they are "out of compliance" with a child support order or judgment for more than four months. [See Ca Bus & Prof § 490.5 & Ca Wel & Inst § 11350.6(e) (3)]

The suspension takes effect 150 days after service of the appropriate board's notice of suspension and, thereafter, will effectively suspend the license indefinitely unless, during the 150-day period, the board receives a release from the DA who submitted the obligor's name (procedures to obtain a release, including avenues for administrative and judicial review, are the same as those applicable to obligors applying for a license or renewal). A license so suspended remains suspended until expiration of the remaining license term, unless the board receives a release along with applications and fees (if applicable) to reinstate the license during its term. [See Ca Wel & Inst § 11350.6(e)(3),(f)(2),(i) & (w)]

Note: The sections below address the procedures applicable to delinquent child support obligors applying for a license or renewal. For the particular details applicable to license suspensions, the statutory provisions cited above should be consulted.

Initiated by DA certification and transmittal to DSS: Section 11350.6 proceedings are initiated by the district attorney's office, which is required to maintain a list of obligors who are more than 30 days in arrears in court-ordered child or family support. A certified list of such obligors must be submitted monthly to the State Department of Social Services ("DSS"). [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6 (b); see also Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(a)(4), defining "compliance with a judgment or order for support"]


Licensing board processing and notice to obligor: Within 30 days of receipt of the DA's certified list, the DSS provides a copy to the appropriate licensing board for processing pursuant to Sec. 11350.6. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(c) & (d)]

Before issuing or renewing a license, each board must determine whether the applicant is on the certified list. If so, the board must immediately serve the applicant with notice of its intent to withhold issuance or renewal of the license. More particularly, the notice must advise the applicant regarding issuance of a temporary license (see below); and provide the address and telephone number of the DA who certified the applicant's name on the list, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining a release from the DA's office as a prerequisite to issuance or renewal of the license. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(e) & (f) (copy of DA review request form must be included with board's notice)]

Interim temporary license: Applicants on the certified list must be issued a temporary license effective for 150 days. Except in the case of a driver's license (below), the temporary license may not be extended; and only one such license may be issued during a "regular license term" (coinciding with the first 150 days of that license term). A license for the full or remainder of the term may be issued or renewed only upon receipt of the DA's release pursuant to Sec. 11350.6. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(e)(2)(A) & (B)]

One-time extension for driver's license: Upon the DA's request or by court order for good cause shown, a 150-day temporary driver's license (but not a commercial driver's license) may be extended for up to 150 additional days. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(e)(2)(D)]

Opportunity to contest by DA internal review: Through DA internal (administrative) review procedures, obligors on the certified list may have the underlying arrearage and defenses investigated, obtain information concerning modification of the support order, and receive assistance in establishing a payment schedule on the arrearages. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(g)]

A DA internal review is the first mandatory recourse for applicants wishing to challenge the Sec. 11350.6 license suspension penalty. [See Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h) & (o)--DA review pursuant to subdivision (h) is "sole administrative remedy" for contesting license denial for nonpayment of support]

Timely written request required: To initiate a DA review, the support obligor must make a "timely" written request with the DA who certified the applicant's name. Though there is no per se time limit, the obligor must generally act in sufficient time to allow completion of both the DA review and judicial review processes before expiration of the 150-day temporary license period. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h) & (i)]

The DA has 75 days to act on the obligor's written request. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h)]

Grounds for release: The DA must release the obligor license applicant from the certified list if it finds any of the following conditions are met (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6 (h)):

· The applicant is in "compliance" with the support order (see Welf. & Inst.C. Sec. 11350.6(a)(4)), or negotiates an agreement with the DA for a payment schedule on arrearages or reimbursement (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h)(1));

· The DA cannot complete its review and send notice of his or her finding to the applicant within 75 days (unless the delay is a result of the applicant's failure to act in a "reasonable, timely, and diligent manner" upon receiving the board's notice that his or her name is on the certified list) (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h)(2));

· The applicant has filed and served a request for judicial review but that review will not be completed within the 150-day temporary license period (unless the delay is a result of the applicant's failure to act in a "reasonable, timely, and diligent manner" upon receiving notice of the DA's findings) (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h)(3));

· The applicant has obtained a judicial finding of compliance with the support order (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(h)(4)).

Subsequent judicial review: In the event the DA denies the requested release from the certified list, the obligor may obtain a judicial review of the DA's decision by promptly filing an OSC or notice of motion (a copy must be served on the DA who certified the applicant's name on the list within seven days of filing the motion). [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(j) & (k)]

The obligor's motion must state the grounds for which review is requested; and judicial review "shall be limited" to the grounds specified. An evidentiary hearing on the motion will be held within 20 days after the motion is filed. [Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(k)]

· Notice of Motion for Judicial Review of License Denial (Ca Rules of Court Rule Form 1296.95).

Scope of review: Only the following issues may be considered and determined by judicial review of the DA's decision (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(k)):

· Whether there is a support judgment, order or payment schedule on arrearages or reimbursement (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6 (k)(1));

· Whether the moving party is the obligor covered by the support judgment or order (Ca Wel & Inst Sec. 11350.6(k)(2));

· Whether the obligor is or is not in compliance with the support judgment

How does this work when the driver's license was suspended in Ca. and now the case is in Illinois? Do you ask the Illinois DA to provide a statement about payment arrangements? Can Ca. still withhold a license when they don't have a case?