USC 42 section 651

goldphoenix · #1 11-30-2003, 11:04 AM

Hi all,

Doing a little reading here and there and hoping for some feedback in order to become more educated and to help anyone who may read these posts.

U.S.C. Title 42, Section 651 reads as thus:
For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State program funded under part A of this subchapter) for whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part
According to the state of Ohio, this section along with Social Security Act 88 Stat. 2351, is the basis on which they define an IV-D child support case. (still looking for ss act)
From what I understand, if certain words are omitted from the language in a "law" there is a reason, otherwise the word&would be included.
Probably nothing, however, I noticed that this USC section states that this section is for the purpose of enforcing support of ncp to "spouse and children (or former spouse)." I noticed it doesn't say "spouse OR children," but rather says: "spouse AND children."
In my case, I have never been married to the plaintiff, common law or otherwise. We dated and lived together for a short time. (one of my many mistakes in life, while I was straying from my true personal belief system)
Anyways, doesn't AND connotate a combination or connection, as opposed to "OR"?
Perhaps I'm mincing words.
It DOES say one of it's purposes is to locate noncustodial parents (in my mind they never proved I was a parent, despite their ability to do paternity tests, the judge decided I was the parent and "made it so.").
It ALSO does say that assistance in obtaining support would be assured and available for&ALL children whom the assistance is requested. I guess jailing alleged fathers for nonsupport is their way of "assisting."
Also wondering if filing the alleged daughter in ucc or copyrighting her name would have any effect. Not knowing 100% if she is my daughter, I don't know if such an act would be honorable to begin with, not to mention i am the NONcustodial "parent."
Just tossing some ideas around. Please feel free to correct/discuss. I figured this is the place to do it!
Best wishes,
Paul

Ice · #2 12-02-2003, 11:32 AM

Paul,

You're on to something there.& And, in the first case, in which the judge "decided" that you were the father -- he acted outside the bounds of his authority... he is not qualified to make that decision -- nor did he perform any test that could verify his assumption and support his decision... therefore - it is one reason that his judgment is VOID.& Since you have doubt that you are the father, you can, and should contest the entire matter, accepting responsibility as the father only upon proof of their claim.

Second, it seems to me that the case would be frivolous and a waste of "taxpayer" dollars since the law does not allow for anything other than "ex-spouses AND their children" to seek relief.& It seems to me that, in the case with your ex-girlfriend, she should file a "civil" suit against you for support.& I say this because it seems to me that the law she is using does not support her position due to the fact that she does not have status as "ex-spouse"... but then, it all depends on the legal definition of "spouse" - doesn't it?& Maybe you should check that out.

&

goldphoenix · #3 12-05-2003, 12:58 PM

Thanks, Ice!

I'll look into all of this. This case began as a civil suit and due to their claim of arrearages and present support of $7000 (which is bogus to begin with, even the papers they used to register the order here were on their face erroneous and obviously so, and I say that because over $4000 of what they were seeking to obtain was for birthing expenses and such paid by the state Medicaid, and was prior to their alleged computation time, i.e. birthing expenses occurred in 93 and their claimed computation time for arrearages was 98 to 01) and due to that amount they long armed me (anything over $5000 or overdue within a year falls within federal long arm statute as well as ucc procedure).

I did find an Ohio statute which states (I can't find it now) something to the effect that all relationships between child and parent will be treated equally regardless of relationship between parents. That could be off from the actual statement, I need to find it again. It's freakin' ridiculous how many rules they write!

Oh, and the judge based the decisions he made on the "referees" report and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the Referees Report.

Thanks, Ice!

Paul