Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Court Rules Administrative
Child Support Process Unconstitutional

On January 28, the Minnesota Supreme Court
struck down the state's administrative child support
process as a violation of the separation of powers
doctrine. In the last fiscal year, 10,026 of the
18,080 cases the OAH handled were part of this
process. The Supreme Court struck down the process for
cases after July 1, 1999 -- giving the 1999
Legislature an opportunity to craft a new system. The
OAH would continue to decide child support cases until
then, and its decisions would be enforceable.

In its ruling in In Re Holmberg, the Court
found the administrative child support process
violated the state constitution by infringing on the
district court's original jurisdiction, by creating a
tribunal that is not inferior to the district court,
and by permitting child support officers to practice

Chief Administrative Law Judge Ken Nickolai
said the OAH's future work load would not be clear
until the end of the 1999 Legislature, probably in
mid-May. While the OAH almost certainly will lose its
duties regarding child support cases, the Legislature
might assign other work to the office.

Nickolai noted that the Court's objections to
the child support process did not seem to apply to any
other work of the OAH. The Court appeared to go out of
its way to distinguish workers compensation -- the
only other area of OAH responsibility that the ruling
might have affected, Nickolai concluded.

Delaying the ruling's effective date, Nickolai
said, will permit a smoother transition to whatever
replaces the current system.

The key in this ruling: [“by permitting child support officers to practice law”]. Washington State RCW 02-48-210 prevents child support officers from doing what Minnesota Supreme Court struck down. The oath of office must be on record. Support officers have no such oath which makes Washington State process a clear violation as well. [“While the OAH almost certainly will lose its duties regarding child support cases, the Legislature might assign other work to the office.”] The Minnesota Supreme Court is saying what any intelligent person across the United States has been promoting for many decades. The State agency is not needed because the State lacks the power to force payment to another person for the purpose of supporting a child. SUPPORT MY CHILD AT MY HOUSE WHERE I LIVE.

Perry L. Manley
Seattle Washington


Blogger The Geezer said...

Support my child in the house where I live.

Very, very good.

Only thing is they totally ingore your need to do that. They force children to sleep on the floor, couch or whereever at the NCP's house.

Hmmm, that must be in the best interest of the children, since that is the overarching principle here, right?

6/08/2005 08:19:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Swanson said...

Did you ever wonder how you're supposed to ever get married again and have, support, and raise any future children when you're paying arbitrary and cupricious amounts of child support from a previous relationship?
Doesn't that violalte any future children's 14th Amendment rights to equal protection of the law? Why most the latter child suffer at the expense of the former? Are they not equal?

6/10/2005 03:25:00 PM  
Blogger Ron Rhea said...

The fallacy of Child Support, which is continually upheld, is that it is for the child. Child Support is not for the child, but instead is an experiment in Social Justice. It is actually a carefully cloaked form of alimony. Nothing more.

5/16/2013 07:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main