;D
Hit 'em where it hurts - Funding!!!!!!donnellyjustice.me/2013/01/18/hit-em-where-it-hurts-funding/Michigan Analysis,
"Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."
freedominthe50states.org/overall/michiganMichigan relies heavily on Federal Grants, Title IV-D grant contracts at the county level (corporate welfare purported to be child welfare) keeping the local county governments afloat; welfare fraud when taking into consideration Title IV-D incentives, Partnerships, and Stake Holders; together separating families, and children from a parent and or parents.
Child Support "congressional intent" was originally created as a cost recovery to recoup tax payer money spent on specific welfare services for children whom where willfully abandoned by a parent and or parents and left to rely on government. Now it has become an unconstitutional cost avoidance scam defrauding the tax payer through the Child Welfare Industry (divorce industry); bringing in more money to the county than any other county agency including the sheriff's office.
Governmental Child Abuse causing untold damage!
Remedy specified in the Act, such as the federal audits
The Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 
APPENDIX C vide pages 7, 8, & 11.
nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/March_2011/Edwards_3.pdf The effectiveness of impact litigation has been seriously limited by the United States Supreme Court decision in Suter Vs. Artist M, which held that private persons may not enforce the Act's "reasonable efforts" provision either under the Act itself or under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Thus the children and families in Suter who sued the social service agency for its failure to provide caseworkers to children in a timely manner were without a remedy except those specified in the Act, such as the federal audits described infra.
nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/March_2011/Edwards_3.pdfComplaint Regarding, Title IV-D funding, plus incentives, paid to Title IV-D agencies/contractors and regarding their handling of specific cases where there was never any ADFC nor TANF, and or reimbursement that which exceeds the amount so paid out to the families..... for specific welfare services, if a child and or children were not willfully abandoned by a parent and or parents nor left to government to self-sustain. The intent of federal IV-D legislation is to recoup taxpayer money already spent on providing these welfare services to children who have been willfully abandoned by a parent and left to rely on the government to self-sustain.
achildsright.typepad.com/followthemoney.pdfProhibitions; Requirements
(A) General.— “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”
www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0408.htm#act-408-a-3Whether the court has signed the orders making the necessary findings Vs. rubber stamping and or robo signing.
www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/legal-experts-call-%22rubber-stamping%22-child-removal-orders-illegal;-wayne-county-practice-must-stopComplaint Letter Addressed to:
US Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General
ATTN: OIG HOTLINE OPERATIONS
PO Box 23489
Washington, DC 20026
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Federal Audit concerning Title IV-D No.: xxxxxxxxx
United States Post Office Certified Mail Article No.: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Greetings: Mr. Levinson, Inspector General
The purpose of this transmission is to set in motion an audit concerning [YOUR] County contractor’s Title IV-D federal reimbursement claim regarding Title IV-D No.: XXXXXXXXX created without a mutual consent divorce “following contract principles” nor a signed court order making the necessary judicial findings “cases of this type the Family Court must ensure meaningful compliance with the Child Welfare Act of 1980”. In doing so, the Family Court must interpret and apply the federal and state statutes to determine their application to a given case. Thus, where termination of parental rights is sought primarily on the ground that a parent has failed, or was unable, to plan adequately for a child’s needs, and if that rather vague criterion is to survive constitutional scrutiny, the trial court is required to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusion of law as to the state’s bona fide efforts to meet its own obligations. Without that, no case of this sort, and all its enormous consequences, will pass appellate muster.
Constitutional scrutiny focusing on, county welfare in the guise of child welfare: Michigan relies heavily on Grants, Title IV-D grant contracts at the county level (corporate welfare purported to be child welfare) keeping the local county governments afloat; a form of welfare fraud when taking into consideration Title IV-D incentives, Partnerships, and Stake Holders; together separating families, and children from a parent and or parents. Welfare Part A, Child Support Part D "congressional intent" was originally created as a cost recovery to recoup tax payer money spent on specific welfare services for children whom where willfully abandoned by a parent and or parents and left to rely on government. Now it has become an unconstitutional cost avoidance scam defrauding the tax payers through the Child Welfare Industry (divorce industry).
Sec. 409. [42 U.S.C. 609] (a) In General.—Subject to this section:
PENALTIES (7) Failure of any state to maintain certain level of historic effort.--
www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0409.htm----------------------------------------------------------
408 (a)(3) of the Social Security Act. 45 CFR 301.1 definitions; 45 CFR 302, all child support recovery claims must be Assignments from 301.1 coming from 408 (a)(3); Section 301.1 of the definitions in Title 45CFR., Title 45 section 302 says all child support recovery assignments in which the custodial parent receive TANF comes from a assignment from 301.1, which states the assignment came from 408 (a)(3) when the custodial parent receives assistance. In this case the child received ZERO TANF and the Friend of the Court is attempting to collect under an assignment from 408 (a)(3) imputed wages, exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, and contrary to the proper application of the state friend of the court bureau’s child support formula, as required by the Legislature, which is a question of law reviewed de novo. Paulson v Paulson, 254 Mich App 568, 571; 657 NW2d 559 (2002), citing Burba v Burba
www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20001483610NW2d873_21461.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
