NYS Child Support Collection Scams
Justice4NY
Exposing Judicial Corruption & the
Violation of Constitutional Rights
The #SupportCollection Scam has several major scams that are being covered up the judges and attorneys who practice in the family court. Parents are being defrauded out of millions of dollars each year and having their driver’s licenses illegally suspended. Watch the video on this at www.justice4ny.com
If a judge has found you in arrears, there is a good chance you are being forced to pay more than you owe. If your driver’s license has been suspended by the Support Collection Unit (SCU), it was probably illegally suspended by the #SCU.
NYS Support Collection scams defrauding parents (15:05)
The first scam:
This documentation was sent by letter dated September 28, 2009 to Ellen Biben Special Deputy Att. Gen. Of Public Integrity and Robin Baker Executive Deputy Att. Gen. for Criminal Justice with supporting documentation that the New York State SCU is perpetuating a multi-million dollar fraud on people who have arrears. This is during the time Andrew Cuomo was NY Att. Gen. Gov. Cuomo’s office is covering up corruption by the State that is defrauding New Yorker’s of millions of dollars each year!! All documentation on the following 3 sites. (https://justice4ny.com/25-scu-new-accou…od-documentation/)( https://justice4ny.com/25-scu-patrick-viele/)( https://justice4ny.com/25-collins-scu-history/)
How do you defend yourself against the illegal actions of the state in an illegally closed court and where you are being denied your constitutional rights to a public trial and a jury trial? You can’t. It’s a kangaroo court!
This is how the fraud works
The court has determined the person is to pay $100 per week child support, owes $1,000 in arrears and is to pay $50 per week on those arrears. Weekly obligation is on current support is only $100.00.
Should be:
Pre Bal Obligation Payment New Bal
$1,000 $100 0 $1,100
SCU does:
Pre Bal Obligation Payment New Bal
$1,000 $150 0 $1,150
$50 is already included in the previous balance and is not owed again.
It is only a payment on a past due balance.
SCU does if only current support payment made:
Pre Bal Obligation Payment New Bal
$1,000 $150 $100 $1,050
Notice your arrears have gone up as your new balance has gone up, even though you made your weekly support obligation.
SCU does when you make full payment (current + arrears)
Pre Bal Obligation Payment New Bal
$1,000 $150 $150 $1,000
You have just paid $50 on arrears, but the amount you owe has not been reduced.
The support collection is allowed to increase the amount of money they collect from your employer with an “administrative add on”. Even though the court has ordered you to pay $50.00 per week on arrears, the “administrative add on” now requires your employer to pay an extra amount towards arrears in order to reduce your arrears. This could be another $50 to $100 per pay period. This is a denial of due process as the judge has already determined the amount to be paid towards arrears. This is why they do not send out monthly statements of what is owed. You get a statement every few months. See the video, it goes into more detail.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is when the SCU obtains a judgment for arrears. Until the court issues an order stating the person owes in arrears and how much they are to pay towards the arrears, the SCU can only collect the amount on the order.
Once the arrears are determined, SCU usually obtains a judgment against the person that now allows them to collect 9% interest on the money owed.
Here is the question:
The court determines the person owes $1,000 in arrears and the SCU will charge 9% interest on this money until paid off.
At the end of the month the person has not made any payments on arrears. In a 4 week month this would be $400.
Is the SCU charging interest on the $1,000 determined by the court, or is the SCU charging interest on $1,400 the new amount owed?
The SCU has no authority to charge interest on the $400 that was added to the arrears for nonpayment after the court order as it has not been reduced to a judgment.
Going back to SCAM above: Is the SCU charging interest based upon the fraud they are committing. A person pays on arrears, gets to reduction in arrears owed and not that they get to pay interest on money that they have already paid back towards their arrears.
The above is not even addressing the issue that most court orders do not comply with the law and are invalid and unenforceable.
Illegal Suspension of Driver’s License Scam:
I have had many fathers including myself have not been notified by the support collection unit that our licenses are to be suspended. We are notified by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
According to Social Services Law §111-b(12)(b)(3) a driver’s license cannot be suspended by the SCU if you are under an income deduction order.
Notwithstanding the requirements of this subdivision, no notice shall be issued by the department pursuant to subparagraph one of this paragraph to a support obligor from whom support payments are being received by the support collection unit as a result of an income execution or an income deduction order issued pursuant to section five thousand two hundred forty-one or five thousand two hundred forty-two of the civil practice law and rules.
(e) A support obligator who has received a notice that his or her driving privileges shall be suspended may avoid suspension by:
(3) providing documentation that shows the support obligor is receiving public assistance or supplemental security income; or
(4) providing to the support collection unit the documentation required by clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph two of this paragraph, where such documentation is sufficient for the support collection unit to determine:
(i) that the support obligor’s income, as defined by subparagraph five of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section four hundred thirteen of the family court act, falls below the self-support reserve as defined by subparagraph six of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section four hundred thirteen of the family court act;
or
(ii) that the amount of the support obligor’s income, as defined by subparagraph five of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section four hundred thirteen of the family court act, remaining after the payment of the current support obligation would fall below the self-support reserve as defined by subparagraph six of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section four hundred thirteen of the family court act.
SCU scam CPLR §5241
CPLR 5241 is unconstitutional as it deprives a person of due process and equal protection of the law.
CPLR S 5241 allows a State Agency and/or a County Agency, namely the Support Collection Unit to violate and/or to override a judge’s court order of support concerning arrears without a court hearing.
Under CPLR § 5241 the Support Collection Unit is allowed to increase the amount of the weekly court ordered payment towards arrears that are allegedly owed. Thereby, allowing them to collect more money in a deduction order than what the court has ordered.
I was ordered to pay $120.00 per week in support and $30.00 per week towards the arrears for a total of $150.00. Support Collection Unit ordered my employer to deduct $225.00 per week under this statute. I was left with less than $60.00 per week to live on and pay the mortgage on house they were living in. This is a denial of due process.
§5241(g)(ii) Where a debtor is not currently supporting a spouse or dependent child other than the creditor, the amount of the deductions to be withheld shall not exceed sixty percent of the earnings of the debtor remaining after the deduction there from of any amounts required by law to be withheld (“disposable earnings”), except that if any part of such deduction is to be applied to the reduction of arrears which shall have accrued more than twelve weeks prior to the beginning of the week for which such earnings are payable, the amount of such deduction shall not exceed sixty-five percent of disposable earnings.
25% = .75 30% = .70 35% = .65
20,000 30,000 50,000 60,000
x .75 x .75 x .70 x .65
15,000 22,500 35,000 39,000
x .60 x .60 x .60 x .60
9,000 13,500 21,000 23,400
Payor’s Net
6,000 9,000 14,000 15,600
Poverty level 2016 $11,880
Self-support reserve 2016 $16,038
25% = .75 30% = .70 35% = .65
20,000 30,000 50,000 60,000
x .75 x .75 x .70 x .65
15,000 22,500 35,000 39,000
x .65 x .65 x .65 x .65
9,750 14,625 22,750 25,350
Payor’s Net
5,250 7,875 12,250 13,650
Poverty level 2016 $11,880
Self-support reserve 2016 $16,038
COST OF LIVING INCREASE
$115.00 Child support
+ 40.00 day care
+ 30.00 Social Security
185.00 Total child support
x .10 10% increase
18.50 increase in child support
203.50 New Support obligation (185 + 18.50 = 203.50)
The Notice of Cost of Living Adjustment to Your Child Support Order by the Support Collection Unit states:
“The amounts, if any, ordered for child care, health insurance, health care expenses not covered by health insurance, educational expenses for the child and spousal support will not be changed by the adjusted order.”
The cost of living increase should have only been 10% of the $115.00 or $11.50 and not the $18.50 determined by SCU. If you object, you face a denovo hearing where they can redo your entire order or support agreement.
The Court of Appeals ruled in the Matter of Thompkins County Support Collection Unit, on behalf of Linda S. Chamberlin v. Boyd M. Chamberlin, 99 N.Y.S.2d 328, 756 N.Y.S.2d 115 (2003):
The primary goal of the Court in interpreting a statute is to determine and implement the Legislature’s intent. Under the plain language of the statute, when a hearing is held pursuant to a COLA objection, the court is to review the order to determine whether an adjustment is warranted based on the guidelines, not merely whether the COLA should be applied. The statute directs the court to issue either “a new order of support in accordance with the child support standards” (Family Ct Act § 413-a[3][b][1]) or, “where application of the child support standards * * * results in a determination that no adjustment is appropriate,” to enter an order of no adjustment (see Family Ct Act § 413-a[3][b][2]).
An order “in accordance with the child support standards” should be exactly that — an order that comports with the guidelines as set forth in section 413. The legislative history of the State statute similarly supports this interpretation. The statute was intended to “strengthen and enhance the tools available for * * * the establishment, enforcement, and collection of child support orders and [to] bring the state into compliance with the child support provisions of the * * * [PRWORA]” — a clear incorporation of that statute and its goal of ensuring adequate child support.
Based upon this ruling, if you have an agreement that deviates from the Child Support Standards Act, be prepared to have to pay the full amount or more within 3 to 4 years after signing the agreement. They are allowing the court to over rule your agreement even though it was made part of your judgment of divorce. It also eliminates the need to prove a substancial change in circumstances to modify the agreement. My best estimate is that in more than 98% of the cases the court will go strictly by the statute if the father’s income is the same or more. If less, they will leave it where it is and will not reduce it where the father would be entitled to a decrease. Furthermore, will the Support Collection Unit now check the father’s income before sending out the notices in order that the father’s child support won’t be reduced?
Charles E. Colllins
518-274-0380
www.justice4ny.com. Check out my other “rants” This is #6
Like me on face book. (Charles Collins – american flag waiving)