Awareness seems to be spreading rapidly on how often civil restraining orders, personal protection orders, and domestic violence restraining orders are improperly used in our civil courts across America. On July 13, 2009 we discussed how “Wasteful Restraining Orders Clog Rock County Courts” which came out in Wisconsin. It was a not-so-surprising revelation and created an awareness that will likely continue across other publications in the United States.

Last week in the Detroit Free Press, L.L. Brasier, contributed the piece “P.P.O. requests, petty spats clog up courts” which opened up “A rift between two neighbors over grass clippings, a potty-mouthed text messenger sending notes to a woman he barely knows and a squabble that began four years ago with an empty pizza box — all seemingly bad behavior by people who, it could be argued, should just learn to get along.”

The article also discusses that it has been 15 years since the legislature last acted on the issue of personal protection orders as a tool “against domestic violence.” In Michigan Domestic Violence “Personal Protection Orders” are found in the following sections of law for spouses, ex-spouses, and individuals engaged in stalking or other prohibited conduct beginning at MCL 600.2950 and then continuing sections MCLA 600.2950a-j.

With some jurisdictions claiming 25% and higher increases in personal protection order claims and orders, it may be time to look at their effectiveness and how they are being applied. In some jurisdictions it had been found that evidentiary standards were too low in civil restraining order cases because an individual that is claimed to be violating such an order is subjected to “immediate arrest.” This certainly raises certain constitutional issues with an individual being arrested without probably cause, and raising the evidentiary standard might definitely weed out the more silly claims.

The other issue is federal funding awards to states for the issuance of orders, which seems to cause a rush for judges to err on the side of caution rather than erring on the side that may be right. Federal funding awards to the states and subsequently to the courts seems to place prosecutors and judges in control of their own budgets and how they rule. Constitutional protections were put into place to prevent unnecessary intrusions into the peoples’ lives by their government and ultimately when followed prevents the courts from being clogged with frivolity in the first place.

A final note: Courts currently are performing under contracts rather than remaining impartial arbiters, and when over participation clogs our courts like what you see here, the time for reform to limit the number of cases is necessary. Limiting the caseload starts by increasing the burden of proof to a reasonable standard.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Embezzlement and Misconduct of office certainly are not new terms in the realm of the nation’s federalized child support enforcement program, also referred in part as Title IV-D program. The Child Support Enforcement program continues to be plagued over the past several years of documented fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more. Just take a look at the snapshot attached to this article, and know that this is hardly a comprehensive look at the problems that exist throughout the nation with this “free for all welfare program.”

Many of these stories are reported in local newspapers, regional publications, or localized news reports on various television stations, so they escape widespread national scrutiny. The fact remains that theft of records, fraud, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more have been popping up from state to state which should lead federal authorities to review the guidelines of the program and reduce it to a more management front for needy families. Some initial/preliminary guidelines for changes in the program are listed at Nationwide Blueprint.

In them most current scheme, former clerk of the court Elizabeth Smith is still being investigated on possible misuse of child support enforcement funds that might have been diverted to county Drug Court, over which her husband, Manning Smith, presided according to Solicitor Duffie Stone. Needless to say Judge Manning Smith’s judgeship has been rescinded by South Carolina Supreme Court Justice Jean Toal ,days after his wife was indicted and resigned.

The charges so far, stemming from a grand jury indictment, are embezzling more than $23,500.00 from two public accounts to buy insurance policies for relatives and make payments on a home on Pawleys Island, of which Smith has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Initial charges were handed down on July 20, 2009.

This news has been widely reported in WALB-TV, Hilton Head Island Packet, WTOC, WMBF, and indirectly in Myrtle Beach Sun News. For more information on the Title IV-D program you can visit Nationwide Blueprint.

With the growing number of cases of widespread misuse of funds, it is only a matter of time before sweeping federal audits begin to protect the taxpayers and victims of a free-for-all welfare program gone out of control.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The first thing that we have to clear up here is what exactly is “Title IV-E Funds.” According to Nationwide Blueprint, a site that discusses Welfare Reforms, Foster Care, and Child Custody reforms Title IV-E of the Social Security Act starts at 42 USC 670. It’s appropriation and purpose section define the purpose of the program. Quoting Sec. 470 of the Social Security Act :

For the purpose of enabling each State to provide, in appropriate cases, foster care and transitional independent living programs for children who otherwise would have been eligible for assistance under the State’s plan approved under part A (as such plan was in effect on June 1, 1995) and adoption assistance for children with special needs, there are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year (commencing with the fiscal year which begins October 1, 1980) such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this part. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans under this part.

The program requires state plans for foster care and adoption assistance, allows for federal block grants to the various states, and rewards states for improved adoption scores through incentive programs associated with the operation of state programs.

Pennsylvania has had some recent corruption problems, which it is unknown if that is the cause of the federal government freezing funds across the state, pertaining to judicial corruption. See Pennsylvania Judicial Corruption: What About Judges Jailing Parents for Cash (Feb. 12, 2009)

According to WJACTV.COM, Blair County Commissioners announced Tuesday that they will have to figure out how to survive without $571,000 from the federal government. Blair County is not the only county being affected, with information leading to the entire state’s funding being temporarily frozen. Several counties and the State may have to pay back funds to the federal government due to possible accounting problems with state records.

This move by the federal government could mean that they are starting to pay attention to other areas of concern with programs managed under the Social Security Act, including Title IV-A, Title IV-D, and Title IV-E. For more information about these programs, please see Nationwide Blueprint.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites