Title IV-D "Reminding Rules"

    Statements of financial papers for all State Office of Child Support Agencies must be registered with the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement Office. The statements include how many 'actual' Title IV-D cases are recorded for the purpose of Federal Financial Participation, ("FFP") reimbursements of $.66 for every dollar spent towards alleged enforcement measures. Meaning, the Office of Child Support for the States need not actually be a success in enforcement, they merely require the variable of the parties, the child, the parents, even if unable for compliance, in their ongoing Ponzi scheme.

      Executive Order requires the Office of Child Support to take actions for modification 'if' the alleged non-custodial parent could spend time in jail and the maximum that an alleged non-custodial parent could spend time in jail is limited to 6 months for civil contempt of court for alleged failure to pay child support. (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/18/executive-order-13563-improving-regulation-and-regulatory-review)(final rules).

   It is listed on several websites and quick google search reveals such truth that States are apprised of such "reminding rules" reinforcing laws pertaining to non-custodial rights, child support modifications, and their rights to access OCS programs. (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/office-of-child-support-enforcement-ocse-final-rules-governing-child-support-enforcement-programs.aspx).
One such rule makes it evident that the Office of Child Support intended to discriminate against Bahji due to her medically-verified disabilities by denying her right to medical care, medical leaves, and the ability to address her medical therapy implementations, by denying her case closure and instead attacking her disabilities. They knowingly violated regulation Section 303.11—Case Closure Criteria Paragraph (b)(8) "states that case closure is permitted when a IV–D agency has determined that throughout the duration of the child’s minority (or after the child has reached the age of majority), the noncustodial parent cannot pay support and shows no evidence of support potential because the parent has been institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, is incarcerated, or has a medically-verified total and permanent disability." Regulation Closure due to Medically Verified Disabilities

      Bahji in the case of Adams v. Vermont Office of Child Support placed such evidence before the Vermont District Court demonstrating that they knew that the Office of Child Support had no "non-Title IV-D" filed on their records and that they had no "non-custodial parents modifications" listed as expenses filed on their records for the State of Vermont. The link below demonstrates Doc 40, filed with the Vermont District Court page. 8 of 17 showing that the Office of Child Support states all agents, officers, state-actors are to be in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act and it further demonstrates on page 9 of 17 that the Office of Child Support shows: "Federal Share" of Title IV-A, "collections" is "$274,323", as well as, "$1,999,176" for Federal share expenditures with a quarterly estimate of "$2,079,016" for the quarter of 2015. Section A expenditure shows for "regular", Title IV-D cost total "$3,239,372" with "$0" cost towards "Non-Title IV-D" at "1c. Administrative Cost: Non IV-D". This is just for the State of Vermont public disclosure. Meaning that the State of Vermont only listed Title IV-D for federal financial participation reimbursement. Showing no non-custodial modification despite the right for non-custodial to access OCS programs for purpose of modification(s).

   Billy Jo Raymond, OCS Federal Program Chief, which states that the Office of Child Support for the State of Vermont, "cannot modify, change, of amend your child support order and must abide by the terms." However, in the prior blogs at https://titleivd.blogspot.com/2019/06/by-thousand-paper-cuts-truth-is-hidden.html this statement is inaccurate and it demonstrates the State Actors understood the two-state process for the application of modification process to have such filed with the Courts in the alleged original state and that the state actors knowingly refused to provide such services to Adams in stark contrast to the Office of Child Supports Enforcement for the Federal Agency demonstrated in the link, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/interstate-child-support-enforcement-case-processing-and-uifsa that they all knew what they were doing, by slicing Bahji's life force with each paper they filed against her and each denial was creating a bleeding of her vital life force piece by piece.

    Furthermore, when Bahji requested reasonable access via accommodations to the Office of Child Support Programs, Paul Wolff sent the information to the same attorney who had been knowingly denying Bahji access to modification based on her disabilities, Kristen Vanckren, page 12 of 17, filed in the Court record of Vermont. Furthermore, January of 2016, after the first unlawful restraint of Bahji Adams, placed in custody back in October of 2015 when Kristen Vanckren, State OCS actor withheld Brady evidence, Agency of Human Resources Letter October 29th, 2015 withholding evidence.The State actors knowingly violated, "§ 303.6—Enforcement of Support Obligations In the final rule, we amended § 303.6(c)(4) to require States to establish guidelines for the use of civil contempt citations in IV–D cases. The guidelines must include requirements that the IV–D agency must screen the case for information regarding the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay or otherwise comply with the order".

     This known action by state-actors lead to a two-day hunger strike, her toes turning blue and her waking up in the middle of the night screaming bloody murder from the inability to feel her legs while in state custody. After which the Office of Child Support began the "illusion" of the two-state process with an email demonstrating that the Central Office of Child Support for the State of Georgia, claimed they never received the application for alleged "modification" of the order that both states claimed they were using simulating process, to implement against Bahji's life and liberty; thus the Paper Wars, domestic terrorism against low-income, individuals with Disabilities, who are parents to children. This behavior is no more lawful kidnapping than any kidnapping is regardless of if the State allows it through the alleged social civilization and sophistication in which they hide and continue the racketeering abuse, see Paper Wars. The co-operative agreement demonstrates they knowingly with intent refused to obey 45 CFR 303.107 co-operative requirements:

The State must ensure that all cooperative arrangements:

(a) Contain a clear description of the specific duties, functions and responsibilities of each party;

(b) Specify clear and definite standards of performance which meet Federal requirements;

(c) Specify that the parties will comply with title IV-D of the Act, implementing Federal regulations and any other applicable Federal regulations and requirements;

(d) Specify the financial arrangements including budget estimates, covered expenditures, methods of determining costs, procedures for billing the IV-D agency, and any relevant Federal and State reimbursement requirements and limitations;

(e) Specify the kind of records that must be maintained and the appropriate Federal, State and local reporting and safeguarding requirements; and

(f) Specify the dates on which the arrangement begins and ends, any conditions for revision or renewal, and the circumstances under which the arrangement may be terminated.

As clarified by the Federal Office of Child Support: "3.§303.107(c): Arrangements must specify that the parties will comply with title IV-D of the Act, implementing regulations and any other applicable Federal regulations and requirements.To ensure that all IV-D functions are performed in accordance with approved State plans and all relevant Federal requirements, the rule requires all arrangements to specify that applicable Federal requirements will be met by the parties to the arrangement. The State should ensure that key Federal and State laws or regulations that apply to the services and actions provided under the arrangement are available to the parties".

Cooperative-arrangements Final Rule

Title 54 CFR 303.107 Co-Operative Agreement

OSCE requirements of OCS State Statements

Vermont District Court Doc. pg. 8 of 17

Learn to Quit the Monkey Mind and Regain Empowerment

OCS Program Performance per State

Turner v Rogers Oral Argument