Arrearages; payments collected by DSS shall be applied first to interest associated with arrearage. (HB1808)

Introduced By

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Support; interest on arrearage.  Provides that payments collected by the State Department of Social Services on any support arrearage pursuant to an order being enforced by the Department shall be applied first to the interest on the arrearage and then to the arrearage. Amends § 63.2-1952, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/11/2011Committee
01/11/2011Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100203D
01/11/2011Referred to Committee on Health, Welfare and Institutions
01/18/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1808)
01/21/2011Assigned HWI sub: #4
01/27/2011Subcommittee recommends laying on the table
02/08/2011Left in Health, Welfare and Institutions

Comments

Dave Briggman writes:

Why owuld you apply it to the interest first, instead of toward the principal, except to increase the amount of money to flow through DCSE for the nice federal financial incentives Virginia receives from the feds.

marshamaines writes:

Does the impact statement include the cost of every DCSE employee's BOND being REVOKED for any claims of DEBT that are Manufactured by the social worker and not an ACTUAL LEGAL Debt that a parent allegedly "owes the state"?

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Fairfax) writes:

Dave - because that's the way interest and principal are calculated on every other obligation in the United States. The current method is only used in Europe and there's no authority for what DCSE is currently doing under the Code of Virginia.

Dave Briggman writes:

Delegate Surovell, thanks for your reply. I believe this is the first time, that I'm aware of, where a Delegate has directly addressed a commenter, and I appreciate it.

Sir, might you have an hour with you so I can express my many concerns about what DCSE is doing to non-custodial parents across the Commonwealth, that they're able to do either with or without "authority"?

Your legislative body can always be counted on to give them administrative authority to enact punitive sanctions against non-custodial parents, with absolutely no standards needed for them to impose those sanctions.

For example, DCSE was illegally permitting non attorney employees to sign legal pleadings in a representative capacity for that agency...I sued them in federal court where the A.G.'s Office conceded that they'd been doing that for 20 years at the rate of about 56,000 times/year.

In response, Delegate Iaquinto and Senator Quayle introduced House Bill 1382 and Senate Bill 788 in 2008, which gave the non-attorneys, the ability to practice law in the JDR Courts, and attempts to retroactively apply that law to 20 years of court cases which had already been decided.

Look at here 1382:

http://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2008/hb1382/

Additionally, DCSE is suspended drivers license so fast, that instead of DMV hiring more people to handle the load caused by DCSE (and the requirements of §46.2-320(B), DMV merely gave complete access to their computer systems to DCSE employees, who now access DMV requests as frequently and for whatever reason they want...mine were accessed 77 times in 18 months, and my license was suspended twice with no notice.

You could send me an email at briggman@gmail.com or call my cell at 540-246-5252. Laws pertaining to DCSE have been created or amended several times because of me over the last few years. I'd be more than willing to come to Richmond at a mutually-convenient time to discuss exactly what DCSE has been and is doing to non-custodial parents across the state, much of which is with the assistance of the General Assembly and the Office of the Attorney General.

Dave

marshamaines writes:

So, the cases I witnessed in Courts whereby the "word" of a social worker in addition to the false APECS statements used with only One line of programming (DCSE system broken since 1998 as testified by Nick Young to General Assembly THEN) and still in place today - REPORTING FALSIFIED Arrears Debts -which end up dragging Parents into jail to explain why they should not be jailed for failing to pay "child support" for their DEAD children is ok with you? I witnessed THREE such cases IN just ONE court, in ONE locality. Scott - You really need to watch my 3 minute testimony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYe_b4uzjII.. DCSE needs to be AUDITED - not granted any "new" statutory authority..they do NOT comply with current codes and Craig Burshem is one of the biggest reasons not a single dcse case worker has been held criminally liable for consistently breaking the Va. law, taking retaliatory actions, and illegally altering driving records without due process.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Delegate Surovell, thanks for your reply. I believe this is the first time, that I'm aware of, where a Delegate has directly addressed a commenter, and I appreciate it.

Actually, it's a regular occurrence, and always a helpful one. Thank you for your contribution, Del. Surovell.

Dave Briggman writes:

Alright Waldo, it's the first time a Delegate has responded to a posting I've made on here. ;-)

Thanks, again, Delegate.

Dave Briggman writes:

Waldo, you've got a great website...if you would cool if you had a technical description somewhere to tell us geeks exactly how it works.

Keith writes:

The whole purpose, in theory anyway, for child support is for the financial care and support of children. All of the other arguments aside concerning the practice of child support, this is an example of the priorities we see daily in child support. This establishes that the government is the most important player in this process and WILL receive it's monies first, regardless of the supposed financial care and support of the child. Having the government enact interest on child support arrearage is controversial as it makes it profitable for the government to have people in arrearage, thus creating an incentive for the government to impute child support payments on as many people as possible and at a rate level for default, but having the government be able to collect interest payments from non-custodial parents before the child receives the child support monies is unethical at best. We are turning our children into ATMs.