The Malicious Autonomy of Oklahoma Child Support Services
by Robert R
At the time of the original Order in 2003, Obligor held Medical License XXXXX, valid through 2004, but had not actively practiced as a physician in his specialty and training since February 0f 2002. By the end of 2003, Obligor no longer obtained income as a result of his education and training as a physician due to illness. At the end of 2003 it was agreed by both amicable parties that Obligor would pay a reduced amount based upon The Oklahoma Child Support Guidelines at 43 O.S.2001 §
In 2004, Obligee's income was in excess of $50,000 in 2003 and OBLIGOR’s income was $14,941.00. It was verbally agreed upon by both parties that Obligor would pay $600.00 monthly in accordance with Oklahoma Child Support Guidelines. The active and passive gross income for the father (Obligor) in 2006 was $13,617.00 (1040EZ), $26,819.00 (1040EZ) in 2007, and $19,470.00 (1040EZ) in 2008. The $600.00 payments by Obligor were made faithfully and directly to the Obligee as per mutual agreement.
In 2004, Obligor became permanently underemployed as to his education, training, and professional activities. He obtained employment with XXXXXXXXs in April of 2004 as the shipping coordinator at a rate of $7.50/hour with no other sources of active or passive income.
By the end of 2008, neither party had requested a Modification of Child Support since the father had regularly and faithfully maintained his $600.00 monthly payments.
In January of 2008, Obligor relocated from Kansas to Texas and obtained part-time employment as a Medical Instructor for XXX, Inc at a rate of $20.00/hour. From January of 2008 through October 15, 2008, Obligor continued to make his regular $600.00/month payments directly to Obligee in that there was no significant difference in his part-time monthly income when compared to the full-time income derived as an employee for XXXXXXXXXs in Kansas.
In October of 2008, Obligor's position with XXX, Inc was terminated due to lack of available classes. Obligor then applied for and obtained unemployment insurance (hereinafter "UI") compensation at a rate of $812.00 (gross salary) every two weeks calculated at 84% of usual and customary salary from employer of approximately $960.00 every two weeks.
Because The Texas Workforce Commission required an initial base period wherein the claimant receives no compensation, there was no income to Obligor. Obligee was made aware of all issues as to Obligor’s change in income and did not express any objection to Obligor’s request to pay a reduced amount as determined by the Guides.
In December of 2008 Obligee contacted the
Child Support Services (“OCSS”) to enforce payments but did not notify Obligor of her intent or action. Obligor was ordered to pay, but not notified of, a delinquent amount of $1,537.00, and $785.50 per month thereafter as specified in the original Order FD-2001-724, rather than the agreed upon basis of payments to Obligee from Obligor according to the Oklahoma Child Support Guidelines.
In February of 2009, a potential employer for Obligor notified him that there was an adverse report in Obligor's Credit Report. The report was a child support delinquency, submitted by OCSS.
At no time prior to this discovery was Obligor made aware by notification by Obligee or Oklahoma Child Support Services (OCSS) of this adverse credit report prior to the release of the information to the credit bureau pursuant to §56 240.8E.
At no time prior to the release of information by OCSS to the credit bureau was the Obligor given a reasonable opportunity to be heard regarding the accuracy of the information to be released pursuant to §56 240.8E.
Obligor then contacted Obligee where she admitted contacting OCSS without prior notification to Obligor.
In February of 2009, Obligor made payments to Obligee though OCSS. Obligee immediately became extremely dissatisfied with the time involved from the payment Obligor mailed to OCSS and the time she ultimately received payment. Obligor and Obligee then reached a mutual agreement such that the monthly support payments would be directly received by the Obligee rather the manner stipulated in §56-237.3. Obligee requested to her case manager that Obligor was to make direct payments to her and that OCSS would not be responsible for collection and distribution of payments from Obligor. The OCSS case manager verbally acknowledged to Obligor by telephone that he was allowed to submit support payments directly to Obligee. Obligor then directed all subsequent support payments to Obligee as per mutual agreement between Obligee and Obligor
On February 20, 2009, Obligor, upon recommendation by OCSS case worker, hand-delivered his Request for Administrative Review according to §56-237.13 A (b) and §56-237.13 D citing the amount of current support and past amount was incorrect. Following delivery of Obligor’s timely Request for Administrative Review, no review was scheduled pursuant to §56-237.13 E.
As of March 14, 2010 Obligor has never received a notice of a scheduled date pursuant to §56-237.13E.1 and §12-2005.
As of March 14, 2010, Obligor has never receive a notice of failure to appear at hearing pursuant to §56-238.3a.
As of March 14, 2010, Obligor has never received an Administrative Order pursuant to §56-238.13D.
As of March 14, Obligor has never received a Final Order on the Request for Administrative Review pursuant to §56-237.13 E (3)
In May of 2009, the UI initial compensation award to the Obligor and all extensions had been exhausted.
In December 2009, Obligor obtained seasonal part-time employment with XXX as a cashier at a rate of $7.50/hour. This ended in January 2010.
In mid-February 2010, Obligor was hired as a part-time Instructor at XX College and informed Obligee that his first paycheck would be on March 10, 2010.
On February 28, 2010 Obligor discovered online that his personal checking account had been debited in the amount of $68,010.85 by an unidentified source on January 10, 2010. His balance prior to the debit was already -$7.70 due to his monthly bank surcharge.
Obligor then met with a bank the following day to identify the source. A bank representative informed Obligor the source of the debit was OCSS. Obligor then requested, but was denied, an immediate copy of the source debit and was informed he would be sent a copy by mail within 5 working days.
During the first week of March 2010, Obligor received the copy of the "Notice of Levy" from the bank dated January 21, 2009 in the amount of $68,010.85.
Obligee strongly denied any prior knowledge of the OCSS action .
As of March 21, 2010 Obligor had never received a notification that the Child Support Division intended to initiate enforcement proceedings ( §56-240.2A(1), had never received a Notice of Levy ; had never received nor been served a Notice from OCSS (§56-240.22G (2)) and unable to timely respond ( §56-240.2B); had never received a notice from the Division explaining a right to object or to have it modified or reversed (§56-240.23B); and certainly a Levy of the magnitude imposed by OCSS would clearly be inappropriate ( §56-240.22G).
On March 11, 2010 Obligor gave Obligee a cash amount of $300.00 for child support from the initial paycheck from his current employer.
Obligor and Obligee are currently making additional strides towards an amicable solution.
On March 19, 2010, OBLIGOR again directly contacted OCSS on Oklahoma City. The office reported that they had no record of any agreement between OBLIGOR and OBLIGEE regarding the direct payment so none has been recorded-and so the automatic action. The office of OCSS also stated OBLIGEE had not been made aware of the action nor did OCSS require any approval from OBLIGEE to proceed with enforcement. OBLIGOR requested to speak with the case manager and this was denied. OBLIGOR did receive the mailing address for the enforcement division to mail his Excel sheet outlining his payment history. Since OBLIGOR seemed to be locked out from OCSS except for OBLIGOR's FGN: OK IV-D FGN: 0000615800001-OBLIGOR has never had nor been given any direction for the 6 digit magic "PIN", specifically asked for by OBLIGOR:
"I have never been given a pin so how am I to access any information on my case?"-me
"It's on your sheet"-OCSS
"It's supposed to be a 6 digit number as it asks you to input in the voice mail after you enter the FGN but there is no "6 digit" number anywhere on the statement nor anything that remotely says "PIN""-me
"It's 0000-(then she gives me a 12 digit number)" OCSS
"That's more than 6 digits Ma'am so that can't be right. I need the real pin, please" -me
She gave me the same 12 digit number again.
So...I hung up."
As of this writing, I have no legal counsel as I have no available financial resources due to the OCSS action.