Ned Holstein on Private Child Support Collectors' Abusive Tactics
May 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"The company pursues decades-old debts barred by the state’s statute of limitations, and inflates those debts by charging tens of thousands of additional dollars as 'interest,' even when state law does not authorize the interest charges. The company continues to harass the parent even when non-custodial parents say they do not owe the money, and provide documentation (such as a zero-balance account statement from the state child support agency, adoption papers, or cancelled checks).
"Even though the company knows they do not owe the money, it continues to pursue them, and will not respond to calls or letters. The company makes no effort to verify debt, but instead tries to extort a settlement. They also may try to shake down your parents, embarrass you with your neighbors, or seize your assets.”--Vicki Turetsky, Director of Family Policy for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Dr. Ned Holstein of Fathers & Families has a great post about the abuses committed by private child support collections agencies. Read it here.
"));
19 queries. 0.386 seconds.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 am
Whilst the predatory and unethical (if not outright illegal) private CS collection agencies are without a doubt a serious scourge in the national effort to enforce child support orders and tend to the needs of children in divorced families, one wonders if these agencies also pursue delinquent accounts accrued by non-custodial mothers who fail to pay court ordered child support?
We know already state and federal CSE and LE agencies are disinterested in pursuing and enforcing such CS orders against non-custodial mothers (the infamous Butler County ‘Pizza Box’ campaign being one example).
And please do not discount instances of non-custodial fathers being forced to pay 2 or 3 times the monthly ordered dollar value of the CS order (Herbert Chalmers for example) and events of custodial fathers (such as myself) being pursued by state agencies for ‘delinquent child support’ (when the father not only has custody and possession of the child, but CS is a silent matter in the decree), suspending DLs and assigning arrearage liens to property (still on my credit report, years later) … based on provably false allegations leveled by the non-custodial mothers.
Sadly, this is but a single aspect manifestation of the overall Misandrist Paradigm of vilifying and criminalizing men in general and fathers in particular for no discernable reason other than they’re men and therefore easy targets for social demonization.
Gunner Retired
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 am
When it comes to the subject of child support, cries for help will only be met by the whip of harsh taskmasters...
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 am
The behavior of these parasitic scoundrels is disgusting. Its hard to see how they could get away with such behavior were it not for the anti-dad hysteria whipped up by the feminists and their irrational fanbase. Due to decades of such dad-bashing, simply being a dad carries a certain amount of stigma. This stigma puts fathers in a state not dissimilar to probation, a state where the slightest sign of wrongdoing will get a crowd of torch-wielding villagers storming their thrice-mortgaged castle with the intention of lynching the poor bastard. Upon being told that lynching, even the lynching of a man, is illegal, the angry villagers all scream "Lets put him on Fox."
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:38 am
CAFC has been keenly away of the problem for with current laws that restrict the defense of laches in child support cases. As a result, an Obligor must maintain all records of payment for life (compared to banks, which only maintain records for 7 years.) In 2006, CAFC presented a real-life example to Assembly Member Mark Leno where a private collection agency had contacted an alleged Obligor father) claiming he had not paid his child support for the last 15 years. The collection agency made threats to place a lien on his property and other hostile actions. The private agency had been contacted by the Obligee (mother), who had recently learned that the father had come into a substantial inheritance. Fortunately the father in this case had every single canceled check and receipt showing he had paid all of his support over the years on time. The child was 23 years of age at the time this took place.
CAFC has moved to correct these problems through successful efforts to change laws and policy.
Several years ago CAFC started working on correcting the problem of predatory practices by private collection agencies hired to go after support arrearages. In 2003, the California legislature started to take steps to stop the predatory practices of many of the private child support collection agencies: SB 339 (Alpert, 2003), SB 896 (Runner, 2005), and finally chaptered in 2006 in AB 2781 (Leno - Child Support Collectors) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2781&sess=PREV&house=B&author=leno . See also, AB 2781 Senate Committee Analysis http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2781_cfa_20060629_133157_sen_comm.html and Senate Floor Analysis http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2781_cfa_20060808_120022_sen_floor.html
CAFC helped the father in this case get an attorney who advised the private child support collection agency that the father would not turn any records over until the mother had signed a declaration under penalty of perjury claiming that no child support payments were made. The private agency refused the request and to this date there has been no further contact made by them.
Because this has been a serious problem over the years a bill has been introduced in 2008 in the California Legislature to address the issue even more and will address all cases including those handled by DCSS and close the loop holes to assure due process. The bill will mandate that a declaration of payment history must be signed under penalty of perjury, filed with the court and served on the Obligor and require a judicial hearing before any action can be taken against an obligor to assure due process. CAFC has been pushing to see this problem addressed for over 2 years now and we are confident that the problem exists in other states as well.
Regards
Michael Robinson
CAFC Executive Director
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
I have passed this on to a few friends and co-workers so that if a goon squad like this ever tries something they will know how to handle it and make sure that these “people” do not get the money so that their ex and children will.
Very informative article, thank you for the information.
b
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Bernie,
An example of how blantantly bad it can get: h t t p : / / w w w . f o x n e w s . c o m / s t o r y / 0 , 2 9 3 3 , 2 1 9 4 9 7 , 0 0 . h t m l
Also review the Herbert Chalmers and the Dylan Davis cases. Alas the young lad in Florida (Tim Williams) was assailed for delinquet CS for multiple kids... none of which were his. And I can cite numerous other actual instances of CSE monumentally screwing up, and despite the respondants protestations they ignore his innocence completely until the media weighs in on his side.
G_R
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
G_R,
That is just horrific. The people I know are not behind but I am trying to thing ahead for them. I figure if they have pulled what they already have it will not be long until they try to receive the payments directly to get "their cut" and short the ex and the children. I have seen much in my lifetime and I am still amazed that I can still be amazed how unscrupulous people can be. )-:
b
bernies blogs
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
bernie,
Just "horrific"? Does just 'horrific' adequately describe having your son taken from you? Does just "horrific" adequately describe having your 9 yr old daughter turned against you? Does just "horrific" adequately describe having your life intruded upon by DSS operating with the mentality of Gestapo interrogators? Does just "horrific describe having your lifes savings, investments, assets and resources spent hand over fist on college and law school educated legal representation only to have your evidence (costing you tens of thouands of dollars) disallowed by corrupt college and law school educated judges pandering (to protect their political careerrs) to an over zealous with a chip on her shoulder idealistic Utopian (misandrist) 19 yr old social worker with a HS diploma and a cert from a 48 hour seminar?
No guy... "horrific" doesn't even begin to cover it.
It's an absolute disgrace.
GR
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Fox News has been portraying themselves as the fair and balanced News Station. They are generally thought of being on the right in politics but I have always said this is not accurate.
They are right of left .. a good example is the Bill O’Reilly show. If there is ever a gender issue on his show he always has two women lawyers / x attorney generals on .. and every time they take the feminist route ( probably because the law is slanted that way ) and secondly O’Reilly takes the “traditional” stance on women and men … traditional in the sense that his view of women is from the 1950’s and men must men because women are honest and loving and need protecting.
So its no surprise that Fox is running this …
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I do not live in the US and so when a friend of mine brought my attention to this matter I was literally stunned to hear what sorts of things are occuring with obtaining payment for alleged (not I do not say actual b/c I do recognize there are circumstance where things are made up for various reasons) delinquient child support payments. My very first thought was how is such a thing any different than bounty hunters, people out to get money for "catching the bad guy"? This sounds like a completely unethical practice and sounds like it's formation occurred due to a problem with the government system already in place to work towards fair, reasonable payments. I am now aware that there is a law in place that is supposed to help people fight against this but either way it sounds to me like a prime example of taking the money away from where it belongs...from the children it is meant to provide care for. (and don't get me started on how custodial parents who receive child support can do that b/c that's a topic that is too emotionally filled for me).
*please excuse spelling errors*
The child support enforcement where I am is a government run organization which lets you know already how much red tape bs bueracracy your dealing with. The biggest reason why that story had me so stunned is b/c I got to thinking what happens when that trend hits here? When an organization can place a lien on a house for *one*...that's right, *one* late payment even though every other payment for the previous five + years has been made on time that seems to me to be a bit extreme. The latest tactic over the past couple of years on the part of this agency here has been to take the child support payment cheques, place them in their own bank account thereby in effect cashing them and then holding the money for a number of days before they send out one of *THEIR* cheques...not the one the payor sent but one of their own to the person who is to receive the payment. This practice is simply about lining the pockets of the government agencies, not about making sure the children receive what they require. Imagine how many people, primarily fathers b/c in the majority of cases the primary residence of the children is still with the mother, are sending their cheques in each month. Then look at all that money sitting in some high interest account collecting for anywhere from 5-14 days while they "make sure the funds are available in the payors account". It doesn't take that long to make sure funds are available especially not for a government organization.
While we're working on inequalities and government systems lets not forget when something happens that causes a cut in pay...perhaps a work related injury, a vehicle accident etc. At this point the payor is expected to go to the courts to submit a change of order form, they then have to wait up to thirty days for a response from the person receiving the payments, then it gets a court date....essentially you are looking at a bare minimum of two-three months. Yet they are still expected to pay the amount previously desired and will be charged arrears on this amount until the court system potentially agrees to a change in the child support provision amount. This then needs to be filed with the Child Support Maintence system and all the while the arrears are adding up...including the interest on the arrears. Take a guess where the interest on the arrears goes to...not to the child or even the custodial parent of the child. That's right, it goes back into the government agencies pocket.
If the US child support maintence system is anything at all like this...it's no wonder private agencies popped up and that is why I am so very concerned. I'm scared b/c essentially what the government is doing is small time compared to what these private agencies are doing. They are not there for the "poor forgotten children" b/c the "poor forgotten children" are losing out on a large percentage of the monies owed as these private organizations take their cut from the money owed. Yet it is when our own government agencies don't work that the private ones spring up to take their place.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
HORRIFIC
Gunner Retired Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 am
= = = =
You are right G_R ther is no word that describes what people have been through.
b
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Actually I predicted this a couple years ago but no-one listened. I don't specifically mean the predatory child support collection companies. What I had in mind was that, with politicians and others already siding with feminists to garner support for their own personal reasons (for example, to get re-elected), I had also predicted that somewhere out there, there had to be all sorts of potential cottage industries consisting of crooks and ne'er-do-wells, waiting to take advantage of the effects of radical feminism.
May 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 am
Norman,
Some of us saw this coming a decade ago, and tried to get people to listen. We were blown off as misogynists with a persecution complex.
GR
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 am
A few clarifications:
1. Private agencies are hired by custodial parents - male and female - to go out and collect money. They sign a contract for those collections which is a percentage of all money paid. If government agencies would do their jobs, then there would not be a need for private agencies.
2. In the vast majority of cases, when the private agency gets involved, no payments are being made at all. Hence,the private agency can be credited with getting those payments started, and are entitled to compensation for their efforts. Remember, they were hired to do the job by the custodial parent.
3. Yes, a private agency in most states can file a lien in the name of and on behalf of the custodial parent.
4. No, a private agency cannot suspend or revoke anyone's driver's license or passport. Only a government agency can do that.
5. Yes, a private agency is legally able to prepare and submit a wage withholding order to an employer. The law also allows a custodial parent to do the same thing. This provision was put into the appropriate law because often time is of essence with dealing with obligors. When the wage withhold order hits, many will quit their job to avoid paying anything.
6. Yes, private agencies will also go after mothers who are delinquent in the payment of their child support. They are treated the same as a male in the collection process.
7. If the obligor is being forced or whatever to pay more than what the court ordered about is, the purpose is to retire the arrearage. That will benefit the obligor in the long run.
8. The last that I knew, all states but one or two charged interest on delinquent child support. Each state charges a different amount. The interest collected is payable to the custodial parent. However, some states have also adopted the practice that all arrearage interest must be confirmed by a court in a final or subsequent final judgments. Yes, the private agency does charge its regular fees on that interest because it is money being collected that might not be collected otherwise.
9. Some states do regulate the private industry. Texas is one such state - the Department of Banking - and all contracts must be approved by that department.
10. There is a lot of competition between the public and private sector in the process. The public sector tries to act as an advocate for the custodial parent. Who is actually responsible for a collection (other than an income tax seizure) is not all that difficult to determine. You have the private agency with a full record of their efforts and the state agency with a list of the letters that it sent out to the obligor. Anyone that would believe that after receiving 100 letters from the public agency that an obligor finally found his conscience and started paying is living in a fantasy world.
11. While a private agency can make reports to credit reporting bureaus, that job in the vast majority of cases has already been done by the state agency. Yes, a private agency, like any other financial oriented business, does have the authority to access people's credit reports.
12. Most private agencies require a minimum amount of child support to be owed - something like $5,000 or so. Most agencies also will not get involved in a case if there is current litigation. Most agencies will also cease all collection activities if, after their involvement, the obligor initiates legal action for a reduction or other purposes.
The biggest misconception about private agencies is that they are "stealing" money from the children that the money is intended for. Legally, and technically, the money payable is to the custodial parent, not the child or children. It is to be used to and for the benefit of the child or children. If the only way a parent that is dealing with a deadbeat parent can collect any money at all is through a private agency, the fees charged are technically considered to be for the benefit of the child or children. It is not different than hiring a lawyer to go after a deadbeat. The difference between a private agency and a lawyer is that the lawyer is typically unable to enforce the judgments that are received.
No, I do not agree with the private industry on a lot of things that they do. I fought the industry on the fee arrangements. It was a battle that I lost, though my clients did benefit from a scaled down and and more consumer friendly contract. Unfortunately, in the private sector, there are a number of people who believe that capitalism has no limits, thus as throughout all of corporate America, you charge what the traffic will bear.
No - not all private agencies act ethically or legally. Unfortunately, the private industry has been reluctant to regulate itself, due in part to the capitalistic way of thinking. This can, in my opinion, deal some serious blow to the industry,
As for the alleged unethical treatment of obligors, there are a lot of variables that need to be considered. The FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) could be invoked against both private and public agencies, however to do so would then change the nature of the child support order. It would cease to be an obligation, but instead become a debt that is dischargeable in bankruptcy. It would also greatly reduce the amount of money that the public or private agency could collect. Hence, child support collections will continue to remain outside of the FDCPA.
Publication of details about a deadbeat is allowed by the law. That it causes children harm is a misnomer for the simple fact that the children of a deadbeat typically have no relationship with that parent at all. That parent has abandoned them both emotionally and financially.
As for a child support order being more than what the obligor can afford to pay, this too is a subjective argument. At the end of the day, the court order is enforceable - both in and out of court until such time as the order is modified. Judges are often reluctant to modify child support orders for good reasons. They have been lied to and scammed so many times that they are very skeptical about any requests for a reduction. It is truly a situation where a few bad apples make it hard for everyone.
There are reputable private agencies - and there are non-reputable private agencies. The bad ones make the good ones look bad. It is that guilt by association that everyone here is complaining about . That is very much a part of American society - we all are judged by what the worst amongst us does. It happens the same way around the world. Governments typically try to close the barn door after the horse has run out which creates more restrictive legislation for everyone. In the end, the good suffer, and the bad ones just find ways to work around the newly legislated requirements. Ultimately then, nothing changes.
For the record, as for Jim Durham, I made both a personal and business decision well over a decade ago not to have any business or personal dealings with him. The reasons are immaterial.
I do defend the business concept of private agencies. I was one of the founding fathers of the private child support industry. Like the majority of the others that also were involved in the early days of the industry, I retired from the industry. Again, my reasons are immaterial.
Doc
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 am
GR,
that figures.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Doc Says wrote (in part), "Publication of details about a deadbeat is allowed by the law. That it causes children harm is a misnomer for the simple fact that the children of a deadbeat typically have no relationship with that parent at all. That parent has abandoned them both emotionally and financially. "
This is factually wrong. Most people with arrearages do in fact have a relationship with their children and have not abandoned them emotionally or financially. Most people with arrearages have paid some child support, and the amount of their arrearages is often quite small compared to how much they have paid.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Mr. Holsetin, I hate to disagree with your analysis. Your response is no doubt based upon anecdotal information, and not from direct experience. There may also be some misunderstanding in what has been stated.
I refer to the cases where the names are published, and am not speaking in generalities. I am speaking of the serial deadbeats, of which there are thousands of.
i understand that it is politically expeditious for you, and others to try to speak in generalities about the problem of deadbeats rather than focusing on the true, or serial deadbeats. Speaking in generalities will of course make the problem look much more palatable for society and allow you, and others to pursue your agenda for shared parenting and a total reformation of the child support system.
You have your dog in this fight, which is fine. I do not have a dog in this fight, but I do have well over a decade of experience in dealing with the serial and chronic deadbeats who you should be, in my opinion, condemning rather than trying to sweep them under the rug and keeping them out of sight.
Doc