Bias against men in family courts – “Don’t nigggerise me”

“Don’t niggerise me” (“nigger” = an offensive term used in Britain against Asians as well as Blacks – which the writer of the article containing this quote states is essentially what is happening to non-custodial parents, regardless of their race) was the plea of a British fellow regarding corruption in family courts – you will see below is how non-custodial parents are treated IN AMERICA today – reminding me of the status of Blacks in America a 100 years ago!

This corruption is pervasive in American family courts as well – but I believe this applies to women as much as men, regardless of their race, who end up wrongfully as the non-custodial parent instead of as a co-parent with loving relationship with their children – solely due to the corruption of our family courts which is destroying child/parent relationships and teaching our children only greed and materialism, while alienating parents from their children. [all quotes are for emphasis  purposes and are from Dr Linda Shelton written in this article]

I observed for several years now family court cases in Cook County, Illinois.  I find that the judges are abdicating their responsibility to make decisions to the ill-trained and grossly biased child representatives and guardians ad litem.  There is a strong bias towards assuming that one parent is BAD and one parent is GOOD and at all costs vilifying the parent these court-appointed attorneys decide is bad, usually with just hearsay and no actual evidence.

I have seen case after case where literally no evidence was allowed from one side to refute false statements from the other parent that were mere hearsay unsupported by evidence. The judges are therefore pulling  their custody decisions out of thin air on the advice of court-appointed attorneys masquerading as trained evaluators of family interactions (psychologist, psychiatrist, psychiatric social workers, etc).

The family court lawyers for both the parents charge outrageous fees and grossly ignore constitutional rights, as well as grossly ignore federal and state laws (750 ILCS 5/506) that were supposed to encourage joint parenting, mediation, and solving of family arguments so that children are raised in a loving and nurturing instead of hostile, stressful and disruptive environment – which also deplete family funds including their college funds. Many  parents last year testified to these facts in the Illinois House of Representatives. See their testimony here.

I believe that literally billions of dollars have been and are misappropriated in this scheme that is  producing millions of children that are being taught that parents are unimportant and only serve as deep pockets for their every wish.  This is destroying the families in America and encouraging greed, lawlessness, and immorality.

I firmly believe that the family courts and the lawyers and counselors that practice associated with them run a scheme to fill their pockets and pensions with the feuding families’ financial assets and money from the federal government that comes from Social Security Title IV-D and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds. I believe the VAWA is faulty in failing to have oversight as to how the funds are used and in being grossly biased against men.  I therefore do NOT support it without safeguards changing it to prevent these abuses. I feel some sympathy with those that believe womens’ shelters increase this bias. I don’t endorse everything said in this link, but much of what is said in the POD1 report supports this corruption as being true and needs remedy.

Two of the alleged worst offenders in violating these state and federal laws are child representatives David Wessel, Mary T. Doheny, and Ralla Klepak, as well as former child representative and now Judge Regina Scannicchio. The worst offending judges who are ignoring the Bill of Rights, the State statutes, and any concern over the childrens’ relationships with both parents include Judge David Haracz, Judge Veronica Mathein (well  known  appearing to hate men), Judge Pamela Loza, Judge Grace Dickler, Judge Fe Fernandez, Judge Debra Walker, Judge Leida J. Santiago, and Judge Paul Vega.

The “POD1″ report from the Illinois House of Representatives Family Law Study Committee seems to support this contention that there is a scheme or what they call development of a “cottage industry” that is supported by misused funds that encourages enrichment of these attorneys instead of the best interests of the children.

The Bill of Rights is trashed in Cook County Domestic Division (family) courts.  Decisions are often made based on hearsay thrown around by these more often than not corrupt court-appointed attorneys. Child representatives totally ignore 750 ILCS 5/506(a)(3) statutes (reproduced at end of this post) that REQUIRE the child representative to act as the gatherer of discovery and present a pre-trial memorandum to both parents as to what are the “evidence-based legal argument” that he/she will present to the court through testimony of others and documents, which cause him/her to promote a specific custody decision.

Normally in civil cases discovery (factual information, proposed witness testimony, and evaluators reports, as well as child representative summaries of interviews with child(ren), teachers, friends, family, clergy, doctors that will be used in the divorce trial) is requested by each party and exchanged. The pre-trial memorandum is supposed to replace discovery to some extent and put the discovery in the hands of a supposedly neutral court-appointed attorney who is supposed to pay attention to the “best  interest of the child[ren]”. However, I have yet to see ANY child representative produce ANY statutory required  “pre-trial memorandum” and I have seen NO JUDGE REPRIMAND ANY child representative for failure to do so.  I have seen NO JUDGE POSTPONE a trial until the child representative produces a pre-trial memorandum and NO JUDGE HOLD a child representative in contempt of court FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS LAW!

As a result divorce trials proceed with hearsay and not discovery – often biased against one side as the other side has not been given legal notice of evidence of it prior to trial. There is no fairness or justice, just a railroading of the vilified parent turning them into a deep-pocket to be used by the other parent, while the vilified parent’s child/parent relationship is de facto severed.

I have seen as many woman as men vilified falsely in this manner totally denying their constitutional right to due process and in the end harming the children, rather than resulting in a decision that is in their best interest. The parent is often rendered penniless and many are now even homeless, due to the violation of the Federal Consumer Protection law that requires that wage garnishment in divorce cases can be more than 60% of a parent’s income.  Judges are routinely ordering parents to pay child support in excess of their income! See:

15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870

When the man is vilified, the bias and defamation is in many ways as bad as the bias against blacks in the South during segregation.  That is why this article:

“Don’t niggerise me”

written by an Asian British man regarding what is happening in the UK is relevent all over the world when family courts show bias against men.

Please read it and then read my

letter to the Cook County Board of Commissioners

asking them to investigate the corruption and denial of constitutional rights in the family courts, as well as asking them to pressure the Illinois legislature to change the law so that the courts are forced to encourage instead of discourage equal parenting; discourage instead of encourage vilifying parents; encourage instead of discourage mediation and low-cost counseling instead of excessive appointment of unqualified attorneys who illegally act as psychologists and psychiatrists without a license.  The phone numbers and email addresses to the board members are written below.

PLEASE CONTACT THE BOARD MEMBERS AND ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE THE ABOVE AND FORCE THE LEGISLATURE AND COUNTY COURTS TO STOP VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND

STOP HARMING OUR CHILDREN! ENCOURAGE JOINT PARENTING AND MEDIATION! STOP  IMPOVERISHING FAMILIES TO ENRICH UNNECESSARY COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS! LIMIT FEES FOR DIVORCE ATTORNEYS APPOINTED BY THE COURT TO NO MORE THAN $150/HR CAPPED AT $5,000 PER CASE.  SPECIFY IN COURT ORDERS THAT ONLY OPINIONS OF TRAINED EVALUATORS THAT HAVE INTERVIEWED FAMILY MEMBERS FROM BOTH SIDES, TEACHERS, FRIENDS AND DOCTORS CAN RENDER OPINIONS AS TO WHAT CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT IS BEST!

COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:

Phone Number

President Toni Preckwinkle

312-603-6400

Robert Steele

312-603-3019

Larry Suffredin

312-603-6383

Earlean Collins

312-603-4566

Timothy O. Schneider

312-603-6388

Jerry Butler

312-603 6391

Elizabeth Doody Gorman

312-603-4215

Joan Patricia Murphy

312-603-4216

Jeffrey R. Tobolski

312-603-6384

Bridget Gainer

312-603-4210

John A. Fritchey

312-603-6380

William M. Beavers

312-603-2065

Gregg Goslin

312-603-4932

Edwin Reyes

312-603-6386

Jesus G. Garcia

312-603-5443

Deborah Sims

312-603 6381

Peter N. Silvestri

312-603-4393

John P. Daley

312-603-4400

Commissioner Email addresses:

r.steele@robertsteele.org

earlean.collins@cookcountyil.gov

jerry.butler@cookcountyil.gov

joan.murphy@cookcountyil.gov

commissioner@bridgetgainer.com

edwin.reyes@cookcountyil.gov

deborah.sims@cookcountyil.gov

john.daley@cookcountyil.gov

larry.suffredin@cookcountyil.gov

tim.schneider@cookcountyil.gov

liz@lizgorman.com

commish@fritchey.com

commissioner.goslin@cookcountyil.gov

Jesus.Garcia@cookcountyil.gov

cookcty9@aol.co

750 ILCS 5/506 Representation of child.

(a) Duties. In any proceedings involving the support, custody, visitation, education, parentage, property interest, or general welfare of a minor or dependent child, the court may, on its own motion or that of any party, appoint an attorney to serve in one of the following capacities to address the issues the court delineates:

(1) Attorney. The attorney shall provide           independent legal counsel for the child and shall owe the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation as are due an adult client.

(2) Guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem shall testify or submit a written report to the court regarding his or her recommendations in accordance with the best interest of the child. The report shall be made available to all parties. The guardian ad litem may be called as a witness for purposes of cross examination regarding the guardian ad litem’s report or recommendations. The guardian ad litem shall investigate the facts of the case and interview the child and the parties.

(3) Child representative. The child representative shall advocate what the child representative finds to be in the best interests of the child after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case. The child representative shall meet with the child and the parties, investigate the facts of the case, and encourage settlement and the use of alternative forms of dispute resolution. The child representative shall have the same authority and obligation to participate in the litigation as does an attorney for a party and shall possess all the powers of investigation as does a guardian ad litem. The child representative shall consider, but not be bound by, the expressed wishes of the child. A child representative shall have received training in child advocacy or shall possess such experience as determined to be equivalent to such training by the chief judge of the circuit where the child representative has been appointed. The child representative shall not disclose confidential communications made by the child, except as required by law or by the Rules of Professional Conduct. The child representative shall not render an opinion, recommendation, or report to the court and shall not be called as a witness, but shall offer evidence based legal arguments. The child representative shall disclose the position as to what the child representative intends to advocate in a pre trial memorandum that shall be served upon all counsel of record prior to the trial. The position disclosed in the pre trial memorandum shall not be considered evidence. The court and the parties may consider the position of the child representative for purposes of a settlement conference.

(a 3) Additional appointments. During the proceedings the court may appoint an additional attorney to serve in the capacity described in subdivision (a)(1) or an additional attorney to serve in another of the capacities described in subdivision (a)(2) or (a)(3) on the court’s own motion or that of a party only for good cause shown and when the reasons for the additional appointment are set forth in specific findings.

(a 5) Appointment considerations. In deciding whether to make an appointment of an attorney for the minor child, a guardian ad litem, or a child representative, the court shall consider the nature and adequacy of the evidence to be presented by the parties and the availability of other methods of obtaining information, including social service organizations and evaluations by mental health professions, as well as resources for payment.

In no event is this Section intended to or designed to abrogate the decision making power of the trier of fact. Any appointment made under this Section is not intended to nor should it serve to place any appointed individual in the role of a surrogate judge.

(b) Fees and costs. The court shall enter an order as appropriate for costs, fees, and disbursements, including a retainer, when the attorney, guardian ad litem, or child’s representative is appointed. Any person appointed under this Section shall file with the court within 90 days of his or her appointment, and every subsequent 90 day period thereafter during the course of his or her representation, a detailed invoice for services rendered with a copy being sent to each party. The court shall review the invoice submitted and approve the fees, if they are reasonable and necessary. Any order approving the fees shall require payment by either or both parents, by any other party or source, or from the marital estate or the child’s separate estate. The court may not order payment by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services in cases in which the Department is providing child support enforcement services under Article X of the Illinois Public Aid Code. Unless otherwise ordered by the court at the time fees and costs are approved, all fees and costs payable to an attorney, guardian ad litem, or child representative under this Section are by implication deemed to be in the nature of support of the child and are within the exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C.A. 523. The provisions of Sections 501 and 508 of this Act shall apply to fees and costs for attorneys appointed under this Section.

Court abuse of parents and children in child custody and support cases – Please contact Cook County Board NOW!

PLEASE CALL OR WRITE MEMBERS OF THE COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OR EMAIL THEM,

ASKING WHY THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE FOLLOWING LETTER ABOUT  COURT ABUSE

OF NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS,

COURT CORRUPTION IN CHILD CUSTODY AND CHIILD SUPPORT CASES,

AND THE NEED TO

REWRITE CHILD SUPPORT AND CUSTODY LAWS IN ILLINOIS!

Link to letter (PDF formatted) to Cook County Board of Commissioners about court and lawyer abuse of parents in child custody and child support cases:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111836499/Letter-to-Cook-County-Board-of-Commissioners-Please-support-investigation-of-and-rewrite-of-Illinois-Child-Support-Enforcement-Statute-It-s-uncon   This letter is also reproduced at end of this post.

This letter was faxed to Board President Preckwinkle’s office and was also individually addressed and sent to each of the Cook County Commissioners. Please feel free to reuse or repost this letter and add your signature.

Please contact Board President Preckwinkle and all the Cook County Board of Commissioners today and urge them to investigate the issues in the attached letter sent to the Cook County Board of Commissioners.

SEE THE FOLLOWING PHONE NUMBERS AND EMAIL ADDRESSES.

 Phone Number

President Toni Preckwinkle

312-603-6400

Robert Steele

312-603-3019

Larry Suffredin

312-603-6383

Earlean Collins

312-603-4566

Timothy O. Schneider

312-603-6388

Jerry Butler

312-603 6391

Elizabeth Doody Gorman

312-603-4215

Joan Patricia Murphy

312-603-4216

Jeffrey R. Tobolski

312-603-6384

Bridget Gainer

312-603-4210

John A. Fritchey

312-603-6380

William M. Beavers

312-603-2065

Gregg Goslin

312-603-4932

Edwin Reyes

312-603-6386

Jesus G. Garcia

312-603-5443

Deborah Sims

312-603 6381

Peter N. Silvestri

312-603-4393

John P. Daley

312-603-4400

Commissioner Email addresses:

r.steele@robertsteele.org

earlean.collins@cookcountyil.gov

jerry.butler@cookcountyil.gov

joan.murphy@cookcountyil.gov

commissioner@bridgetgainer.com

edwin.reyes@cookcountyil.gov

deborah.sims@cookcountyil.gov

john.daley@cookcountyil.gov

larry.suffredin@cookcountyil.gov

tim.schneider@cookcountyil.gov

liz@lizgorman.com

commish@fritchey.com

commissioner.goslin@cookcountyil.gov

Jesus.Garcia@cookcountyil.gov

cookcty9@aol.co

Linda Lorincz Shelton, Ph.D, M.D.

             XXXXXXXXXXX Ave.

           XXXXXXX, IL 60XXX

https://cookcountyjudges.wordpress.com

                                                                                                                        October 31, 2012

VIA FASCIMILE DELIVERY 312 603-4683

Cook County Board of Commissioners

County Building

Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Board Members:

As you no longer allow public comment, the only way I can get the following statement  of concern to you is by a letter and to the public is by a press release.  There is no point in coming to board meetings anymore as we cannot interact with the board and we can read your minutes on line.

We ask that you consider the following statement and act upon it:

We as concerned parents in Cook County wish to ask the Board to request the Illinois legislature to investigate and rewrite the Illinois DHFS Child Support Enforcement laws as they presently are both:

1)    Unconstitutional as the Separation of Powers Clause in the Constitution forbids the Judiciary from overseeing and administering legislative functions; the Illinois Supreme Court is unconstitutionally “administering” the Administrative Law Courts under under 750 ILCS 25/4-5, the “Expedited Child Support Act of 1990.”

Please note that the Judiciary may not oversee or administer a legislative body, especially because they would then have a conflict of interest when Petitions for Mandamus are filed in courts against this body (the DHFS Child Support Enforcement Administrative Law Courts). Also note that all other administrative law courts under Illinois statutes are administrated and overseen by administrative and not judiciary officer; and

2)    Discriminatory in that they accept cases in Title IV-D program from custodial parents but fail their statutory duty to hear requests from NON-custodial parents for reduction in child support due to change of circumstances (i.e. Hold hearings in DHFS Administrative Law Courts)  as required under 750 ILCS 25/5-2 (“Actions Subject to Expedited Child Support”).

Thus they abdicate their statutory duty for the Administrative Law Court Investigator under Child Support Enforcement Division of DHFS to investigate both parents ‘ financial situation and hold a hearing to recommend to the Trial Court in post-divorce proceedings changes in child support. The courts then usurp this power and refuse even to listen to the defamed NON-custodial parent.

Thus many NON-custodial parents are falsely accused of failing to pay excessive child support which they are unable to pay and DHFS is obtaining federal funds to assist NON-custodial parents in obtaining changes in child support to reasonable amounts, but not using these funds for that purpose. What are they using them for – judges and child reps penions?  Instead the Non-custodial parents are falsely labeled and defamed as “deadbeats.

Two examples of this lawlessness in the Cook County Courts that are affected by the dereliction of this statutory duty by DHFS and lawless rulings by judges are:

1)     Sandie, who stopped her preparation for a board exam in pediatrics and for licensure as a  physician to raise her children, while her ex-husband completed his exams and then after being fraudulently defamed and the custody of her children illegally removed from her due to false statements to the court by her ex-husband and the child representative, then the Trial Court has ordered her to  pay exorbitant child support “because you are a doctor”, while she is actually homeless due to this order and she is NOT a licensed doctor and cannot obtain high paying employment, at the same time that her ex-husband is a highly paid anesthesiologist and her children are being brainwashed against her through typical actions known as parental alienation.  The DHFS has yet to hear her case to reduce child support.

2)    David, who is falsely defamed by his ex-wife as dangerous because he is an ex-Marine, and therefore wrongfully and illegally upon the outrageous order of the Trial Court lost custody of his children. He had a serious injury to his back at work last year – and he therefore has been unemployed for nearly a year. Worker’s compensation has failed to OK his compensation and his union is litigating that issue so his income has been $0 for a year. Yet the Trial Court has ordered him to pay $420 in child support every two weeks for his two children who are in the custody of their mother who is a drug addict. David has NO other assets as his ex-wife was a compulsive spender and threw away over $200,000 of marital income causing them to remortgage their house and lose it in foreclosure. Yet the Trial Court has refused, even after receiving affidavits from others that she is a drug addict to have the mother tested or even examined by psychologists as well as refused to even allow to be filed, let alone hear a motion to reduce child support. Now the judge is threatening to jail David for failure to pay child support.

Please note that the NON-custodial parents then end up with wage garnishment and other orders requiring that they pay > 150 % of their income for child support and they are thrown in jail when they are unable to do this. Their parents and other relatives are then extorted to get them out of jail. Please note that the Federal Consumer  Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1611 and 29 C.F.R Part 870 require that wage garnishment be for no more than 65 % of NET income! These Trial Court orders often say that NON-custodial parents must pay more than 150 % of their gross income for child support. Isn’t this extortion and federal funding fraud?

I hope your committee will strongly consider this suggestion and strongly advocate for investigation of this situation.

Attached is the “Table of Contents” of the Big Divorce Book written by Dr. Shelton and David Bambic which has a summary of the DHFS Child Support Enforcement statutes and the federal Consumer Protection Statutes.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this most important issue. We await your concerned response.

Sincerely,

Linda Lorincz Shelton, PhD, MD

ILLINOIS

 

DIVORCE BIG BOOK

 

ILLINOIS AND FEDERAL STATUTES

 

REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT

 

                                    AN EDUCATIONAL PUBLICATION BY STOP ILLINOIS CORRUPTION

 

                                                  

(A PUBLIC SERVICE CLUB)

 

EDITED BY

 

DAVID BAMBIC and DR. LINDA SHELTON

 

November 4, 2011

 

Copyright 2011

 

 

 

NOTE: Interpretation of Law in Table of Contents has been done by paralegals and lay persons and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy – Please verify any interpretation of law by a licensed attorney – This is the opinion and belief of editors only and not meant to be a definitive interpretation of the law or legal advice – Use this interpretation at your own risk

 

 

NOTE: These laws are applicable the moment an obligee (non-custodial parent) is placed into the State Disbursement Unit (in Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services [HFS]) for collection and distribution of child support and are available to ALL  PARENTS in divorce actions even if they are NOT on  public assistance (Public Aid), upon application by either parent, whereupon the Family Court loses jurisdiction to investigate and hear applications for change in child support unless the parents disagree with the recommendation of the HFS Child Support Unit Administrative Law Court (ALC), after the ALC investigates financial circumstances, holds a hearing and makes a recommendation to the  parties.  Then the parties may go back to the Family Court Judge (Trial Judge) for review of recommendations, evidentiary hearing, and decision on change in child support.

 

NOTE:  All parents may apply to be supervised by the SDU and ALC in the Child Support Services Division (CS) of HFS. Find the address of your local office for the Illinois Child Support Unit in the Department of Healthcare and Family Services at their web site:

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DIVORCE BIG BOOK

Note that these laws were written to be in compliance with federal codes pertaining to Social Security Title IV – 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. & amendments

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   page

1. Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act – 750 ILCS 5/506

Representation of child………………………….……………………………………………………………….  1-2

“The child representative shall not render an opinion, recommendation, or

 report to the court . . . but shall offer evidence-based [ NOTE NOT HEARSAY]

legal argument.  The child representative shall disclose the position as to what

the child representative intends to advocate in a pre-trial memorandum that

shall be served upon counsel of record prior to the trial. The position disclosed

 in the pre-trial memorandum shall not be considered evidence.” ………………….      1

 

“Any person appointed under this Section shall file with the court within

90 days of his or her appointment, and every subsequent 90 – day period

thereafter during the course of his or her representation , a detailed invoice

 for services rendered with a copy being sent to each party.”………………………….     2

1. “Unified Child Support Services Act” 750 ILCS 24 et seq. …………………………………………    3-6

Plan must be submitted by County State’s Attorney to the [Illinois] Department

of Healthcare and Family Services (“DHFS”) – Section 10 …………………………….      3

“Components of a Unified Child Support Services Program” 750 ILCS 24/15……     4-5

“ (1) Accepting applications for child support services from private

Parties or referrals from any state agency [Court]”………………………….……..      4

“(7) Obtaining identified cases that have moved into non-compliance

With obligations [arrears] . . . . “……………………..………………………………………      4

“(16) Marketing the Program within the county in which it is operating

so that potential applicants learn about child support services offered.”.       5

“Child Support Program Responsibilities” – 750 ILCS 24/35 ………………………       5-6

”Operation of a statewide toll free telephone”    – [for the public to

obtain information even if they are not eligible for public aid]………………     5

“(2) Management and supervision of the State Disbursement Unit”

By the DHFS…………………………………………………………………………………………….    6

1. “Expedited Child Support Act of 1990” – 750 ILCS 25 et seq………………………………   7-13

“Purpose”  750 ILCS 25/2 “. . modification of child support orders” …………….      7

“Establishment of the Expedited Child Support System” 750
ILCS 25/4………………………………………………………………………………………………………      8

“(1) …The System shall be available to all participants in the IV-D

program, and may be made available to all persons, regardless of

 participation in the IV-D program…” ……………………………………………………       8

“(2) Implementation . . . the Chief Judge of any Circuit shall develop and

Submit to the [Illinois] Supreme Court a Plan for the creation of a System    8

“(5) Implementation. The System shall be administered by Supreme

Court. The Supreme Court may delegate, to the Chief Judge of each

Judicial Circuit, the day-to-day administration of the system in the

County. . . .” ……………………………………………………………………………………………    8

1. “Actions subject to Expedited Child Support Hearings” – 750 ILCS 25/5 ………….       9

“(1) Petitions for child support and for medical support . . . for

post-judgment dissolution and . . where child support or medical

support was reserved or could not be ordered at the time of entry

• of the judgment  . . .” …………………………………………………………………………..     9

“(2) Petitions for modification of child support and medical support

in post-judgment dissolution of marriage . . . “ ……………………………………     9

“(4) Actions for the enforcement of any existing order for child support

 or medical support in post-judgment dissolution of marriage . . .”……..     9

“(8) Actions brought pursuant to Article X of the Illinois Public Aid

Code”……………………………………………………………………………………………….….     9

“(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section,

 if the custodial parent is not a participant in the IV-D program and

maintenance is in issue, the case shall be presented directly to

the court.”………………………………………………………………………………..…………     9

“(c) . . . the System be available in pre-judgment proceedings for

dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage and

 legal separation.”……………………………………………………………………………..      9

1. “Authority of hearing officers (administrative law judges”  and “Expedited Child Support Hearings”  750 ILCS 25/6 & 7……………………………………………….………………..…………   9-11

Administrative law judges [hearing officers] are by statute authorized

to subpoena and collect evidence, review evidence, and make

recommendations to the court as to post-dissolution of marriage

child support issues, modification of child support and health

 insurance  issues for the children.  The Trial Court by statute shall

refer all child support and health insurance issues to the administrative

law court. Only if the parents disagree with the administrative

law judge’s recommendations shall the court intervene in coming

up with its own decisions regarding child support and health

insurance issues for the children post judgment for

dissolution of marriage……………………………………………………………………..     9-11

 

“(b) in any case in which the Obligee is not participating in the

IV-D program or has to applied to participate in the IV-D program,

the Administrative Hearing Officer shall: (1) inform the Obligee of the

existence of the IV-D program and provide applications on request;

and (2) inform the Obligee and the Obligor of the option of

requesting payment to be made through the Clerk of the

Circuit Court.”…………………………………………………………………………………….   10-11

1. “Authority retained by the [trial] court”  750 ILCS 25/8 ………………………………..     12-13

Trail Court retains jurisdiction over all matters not related to child

Support or health insurance [as well as parentage issues] for the

children and must resolve issues when the parents disagree with

the recommendations of the administrative law judge …………………..      12-13

1. “Judicial Hearings”  750 ILCS 25/9………………………………………………………………..      13

Defines under what circumstances the Trial Court regains

Jurisdiction over post-judgment child support and child health

Insurance support issues ………………………………………………………………..       13

1. “Child Support Payment Act” 750 ILCS 27 …………………………………………………..       14

Allows obligor to pay child support through a currency exchange ..        14

1. “Income Withholding for Support Act:  750 ILCS 28…………………………………….     15-24

Details the form of notice to be given to the Obligor

(750 ILCS 28/20(b)- p. 17-18),  by the Court Clerk and the payer

by the SDU, Clerk or other public officer (750 ILCS 28/20(g) –

p. 18, 750 ILCS 28/30 – p. 20), or Obligee if the SDU, Clerk or other

public officer is not Ordered  to be involved in support payments

supervision or providing notice to payer (750 ILCS 28/20(b)&(g) –

p.18); details how to deal with delinquency and how to penalize

payers who refuse to withhold……………………………………………………..  15-24

1. 10.   “Illinois Public Aid Code” 305 ILCS 5, “Determination and Enforcement of

Support Responsibility of Relatives” 305 ILCS 5/Article X…………………………………  25-49

“The Department of HCFS shall cause to be published and

distributed publications reasonably calculated to inform the

 public that individuals who are not recipients of or applicants

for public aid under this Code are eligible for the child support

enforcement services under this Article X. Such publications shall

set forth the an explanation, in plain language, that the child

support enforcement services program is independent of any

public and aid program under the Code and that the receiving of

 child support enforcement services in no way implies that the

person receiving such services is receiving public aid.”.………………….   25-26

“Access to records” 305 ILCS 5/10-9.5…………………………………………….    32

Mandates that both parents have access to all records from

The Clerk, SDU, and DHFS, except if there is an order of

Protection hiding an address or phone number,  then that

Address or phone number may not be revealed………………..    32

“Information to State Case Registry” 305 ILCS 5/10-10.5 ………………  37-39

Establishes a section in the Department of HCFS, Public

Aid Division that maintains all records of child support

Payment and enforcement, and requires that both parents

Keep the Department informed of address changes…………  37-39

“State Disbursement Unit”  305 ILCS 5/10-26………………………………..  46-47

Establishes the SDU under the supervision of the Illinois

DHFS which is authorized to accept and disburse child support

Payments as well as to inform payers of withholding orders

And penalties for failure to comply …………………………………  46-47

“Notice of child support enforcement services” 305 ILCS 5/10-28..    49

Provides that the SDU may notify the Obligor and payer of

Its services, as well as other parties………………………………….    49

1. “Title III, Consumer Protection Act”  Summary of authority and purpose of

15 USC § 1671 et seq. and 29 CFR Part 870 regarding maximum payments that may

Be withheld under federal law from Obligor …………………………………………….  50-51

1. 15 USC § 1671 et seq. Federal Wage Garnishment Law (Title III of the Consumer

Protection Act) & corresponding 29 CFR Part 870 …………………………………….  51-56

Mandates that when child support is an issue that federal and

State taxes have priority over child support or other debts.

Provides that child support has priority over other debts except

for taxes. Provides that if the Obligor is not living with and

supporting a spouse or child that no more than a total of

60% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck and no

more than 65% of net wages may be withheld from a paycheck

if Obligor is more than 12 weeks in arrears ………………………………..   52-54