Statue Creates Federal Mechanisms to Assist States including Federal Courts

The Federal Office of Child Support explains the roles of the Federal Courts regarding the Title IV-D programs, by its statement, "The Statue" meaning the Social Security Act Title IV-D, pub.l. 93-647, targeting the issue of "creates several Federal mechanisms to assist the States in performing their paternity and child support enforcement functions. These include use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Federal Courts, and the FPLS." The Jurisdiction is authorized in federal courts, the United States; is limited by the application of the Secretary which must approve jurisdiction on behalf of the States desire to access the United States Courts, individuals are not limited to such scope. This does not mean that individuals are not legally and lawful authorized pursuant to Civil Rights Acts or Congressional Acts of 1983 claims in which to access the jurisdictions of the United States Courts, in order to address alleged enforcement or denial in equal access to the Federal-State Co-Operative for States violating under abuse of color of law. Congress "authorized the use of Federal courts to enforce interstate cases,"; which provided jurisdiction to individuals who are being denied equal access to alleged programs and services, as they would have that right before any alleged State court could request via application for the Federal Court to be granted powers to oversee the State for alleged enforcements measures within the Federal Courts. Since Congress enacted the jurisdiction, one would reason, for alleged enforcement measures, they authorized individuals jurisdiction in which to resolve abuse under color of law, for the Federal Courts to oversee the proper implementation of the programs, as it is Federal funds which are paying for the majority of the co-operative programs.

In 2001 the Demographic Trends demonstrated over 11.5 million single-parents and their minor child or children(s) lives could be impacted and those suffering from abuse via state-actors who have egregiously used the program to pad their own pockets or finical interest would be held accountable thus protecting those 11.5 million lives for the betterment of society, the heart of the goal of pub.l. 93-647.

Adams v. Vermont Office of Child Support, filed in Vermont District Court is a perfect example that regardless of the laws enacted, the jurisdiction granted, the Judicial Courts of the United States, the States Courts, are no longer the governing bodies in the checks and balance system they have once been designed to be. That is not to say that every Judge who holds the "sitting" of such "offices" and wields the power on behalf of the "people" in which they serve are corrupted by the absolute power; however it does demonstrate a great concern for absolute power corrupting absolutely. The Court in this case, denied jurisdiction for issues and facts pertaining to alleged enforcement, access to the OCS programs, equally for the rights she and her minor offspring could have benefited from by the services and programs which are clearly established.

Section 8 Child Support Enforcement Showing Federal Jurisdiction