U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-07-2012, 10:13 PM
 
14 posts, read 32,049 times
Reputation: 17

Advertisements

I found it Poncho, I hope and pray this information can help other Veterans... God Bless You All and Thank You for what you do/have done to protect us all.

quote "Last year Robinson successfully worked to pass California SB 285 (Wright) which protected disabled veterans’ VA disability compensation, and has worked with advocates and legislators from several other states on similar legislation. One of the first of these is Arizona HB 2348. F & F did an Action Alert in support of the bill in January. The bill has now passed both the Arizona House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee and the Rules Committee and is being fast-tracked to the Arizona House floor for a full vote." Source.... Major Announcement: Fathers & Families Introduces 4 Bills into California Legislature « Fathers & Families

and

California Bill Launched to Protect Disbursement of Disabled Veterans' Benefits Compensation


The California Alliance for Families and Children is thrilled that nearly 10 months of work have resulted in the introduction of a bill in the California Legislature that will uphold existing federal law (USC, Title 38, Section 5301) governing third party disbursement of disabled veterans’ benefits compensation. Although the United States Code is very clear in its wording and intent, civil court judges nationwide have routinely ignored federal law and calculated veterans’ disability compensation into divorce settlements as a divisible asset or income. And it’s just not men; disabled female veterans are also experiencing this problem when they get divorced or declare bankruptcy.
CAFC’s Executive Director, Michael Robinson, first became aware of the issue mid-year in 2008, after hearing from other veteran groups about the problem, and we’ve been working to correct this issue in California ever since. Though CAFC spearheaded the issue in California, we asked one of the veterans groups with whom we’ve had a long association, the American Retirees Association (ARA), to make the formal request to Senator Wright’s office to be the bill’s official sponsor. The bill, SB 285, is being carried by California Senator Rod Wright (http://dist25.casen.govoffice.com/ - broken link). You can learn more about the specifics of the bill and the US Code by reading the CAFC Fact Sheet or SB 285 author, Senator Rod Wright’s Fact Sheet. source... California Bill Launched to Protect Disbursement of Disabled Veterans' Benefits Compensation | Veterans Today


Again I pray this information can help other Veterans

Last edited by Poncho_NM; 12-02-2013 at 04:21 PM.. Reason: Spelled my name correctly...
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:46 PM
 
14 posts, read 32,049 times
Reputation: 17
Default Further research shows SB 285 Failed by "1" Vote, but don't loose hope...

Because this has been such gulling work I promised myself that I would share my research in an attempt to help make it easier for others in the same position as my friend.

This is the information that is helping him as California residents...

Looking at write ups regarding SB 285 and SB917

Military retirement, combat-related disability bills die in House committee

has some good information for oral argument.
================================================== =====

Below are edited notes taken during the House Judiciary Committee meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011. It is not a record of every bill discussed during the hearing. Links are provided so you can get more information on each bill, including the actual text and a summary.... to continue reading Notes from the House Judiciary Committee meeting 4/11/11

================================================== ====

Tucker cited Rose v. Rose, a 1987 child support case, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that military disability benefits are intended to provide compensation for disabled veterans and their families.
The court said that disability payments may be exempt from attachment while in the U.S. Veterans Administration’s hands, but after they are delivered to the veteran, a state court can require that they be used to satisfy a child support order.
Tucker said SB 917 seeks to undo that decision.
“I don’t think the state can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
The dispute has become a national topic, Tucker said.
“The entire country is looking at Oklahoma,” he added.
Of SB 917, retired Colonel Jerry Shiles said, “This is really harmful to the family.”
He said it tells injured service members they do not have a duty to care for their children.
“To me, they’re anti-family,” Shiles said of SBs 917 and 528.
FOCUS: SB 917, the


================================================== ===
FOCUS: SB 528, the “Military Retainer Pay Protection Act”

April 8th, 2011 · 1 Comment · House, Senate

Attorney Phil Tucker is vice chairman of the Military Law Committee of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association.


FOCUS: SB 528, the


================================================== =====

[SIZE=4]BACKGROUND: Section 459 of the Social Security Act, as amended, provides for the garnishment of certain Federal payments for the enforcement of child support and alimony obligations. However, benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are specifically excluded with one exception [42 U.S.C. 659(h)(1)(B)(iii)]. The test to determine if a payment is subject to garnishment is whether the payment is remuneration for employment as defined in section 459 [42 U.S.C. 659(a) and (h)]. While Federal salaries fit this test, and Title II Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits (OASDI) can be garnished (entitlement to these benefits is based on employee contributions into FICA), VA monetary benefits, entitlement to which is generally based on either the veteran’s disability and wartime service (pension) or disability from service-connected injury or disease (compensation), is generally not considered remuneration for employment."

=================================

[/SIZE][SIZE=4]The one that actually passed... [/SIZE]HEA 1165


(12) A disability benefit awarded to a veteran for a service connected disability under 38 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. This subdivision does not apply to a service connected disability benefit that is subject to child and spousal support enforcement under 42 U.S.C. 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V).
03/12/2010 H Signed by the Governor 03/25/2010 H Public Law 53 03/25/2010 H Effective 07/01/2010 Enrolled Act, House Bill 1165[SIZE=4]
[/SIZE]

Back to the search and research.... Giving up is never the answer
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2013, 03:15 PM
 
2 posts, read 14,568 times
Reputation: 11
Spousal Support
Many times this is where a lot of heat and anger comes up from the veteran community. It is obvious how the veteran is being hurt. Since the spouse is not a dependent any more, they are removed from the veterans family and payment is reduced. Having more taken out to pay for someone with their own resources cripples the veteran. Still, people will try to hold a veteran accountable even though they are means-tested funds. What they don’t realize is they are hurting the ex-spouses even more by giving them the money.

How can giving someone money hurt them? I know you might think I’m off my rocker but the law has many indirect effects. When a judge awards an ex-spouse support using Title 38 payments, what they are doing is changing the legal status of that money. They are changing Title 38, non-taxable, means-tested, protected funds into taxable garnishable funds usable as income. Once changed into “spousal support income” this money is counted against them for public assistance. It makes them ineligible for means-tested and transition assistance programs that would collectively put more money in their pockets.

This specific issue is one of controversy. There are certainly lawyers out there that are very ethical and pushing this in courts because they have fallen for bad case law or improper arguments. However, I have personally seen evidence of lawyers who do this for profit. They fully know it will hurt their clients but it allows this money to be put in their pockets to pay their fees. Either reason will spur up an already heated divorce.

Here is a typical and real case. An ex-wife is awarded support of $1,000 based on Title 38 funds. She was awarded this money because she was a stay at home mom and considered not to have the skills to care for herself, be employed in a way to survive and grow. She’s only 40 and the kids just left for college. Because she was awarded support she was denied HUD, Food Stamps and many other programs. She lives with her mother. She has no resources to get out of her situation. If she tries to get a job she will most likely lose the little money she receives through a modification. Obviously hurting the veteran but the ex-spouse as well. She has no way to become productive for the next 30 workable years.

Here is another case I have; a woman was awarded no support. She qualified for Food Stamps, HUD, utility assistance and many education grants. All education costs are paid in full with standard available grants like Pell. On top of that, she is currently receiving over $2,200 a month in public assistance; $950 of it as cash. This woman is attending college full time, currently 2 terms away from a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and putting her dependence on public assistance behind her. She is excited about her future and looking at jobs with starting pay ranging from $35,000 to $55,000 a year. Maybe I’m a bit proud for helping on her case but it’s a good example of the system working as designed.

What about cases where the veteran was abusive and the ex-spouse award is based on that abuse. Well if you’re dealing with a disabled veteran and that’s their only income, you’ve shot yourself in the foot. The DVA will not accept garnishment and social security will only let you take up to 50% of their Social Security Disability in the enforcement under consumer protection acts. The ex-spouse in the first case is not receiving the full award for this very reason. Although you can order the support, you can’t enforce it.

During a divorce, a spouse is still a spouse and entitled to an apportionment. It’s only until final decree that they are removed from the veteran’s family and the payment reduced. If a spouse is living separate and still married, they are just entitled to an apportionment as a child. They can’t be used to disqualify her for public assistance.

While States might have “no-fault” divorces, the DVA awards compensation because it is the fault of being in the military. It doesn’t matter if you are currently active duty or a veteran. Soldiers past and present are held to a higher standard. Sure, if a spouse is making too much they may not qualify for means-tested benefits. But physical abuse, infidelity or sexual abuse can play a lot of weight with the DVA, including ignoring the means-testing requirements.

Sure, a spouse can be denied because they had an affair or abused the veteran. They can also be awarded a large amount if the veteran had the affair, was abusing drugs or the spouse. In a proper case, a spouse would have applied for an apportionment the day after they moved out. Once an initial or temporary award is set by a court, the judge can make a statement about abuse of the spouse and the actual need being higher than they can award. Just like in a child case that is important information to the DVA and the spouse can provide a copy of this temporary award. The award can be modified to reflect the need identified by the court.

As legally separated, the spouse can now apply for public assistance and still receive an apportionment. This can give an abused spouse a big advantage for getting help. The protections of Title 38 funds apply to ALL beneficiaries. It can not be taken from them or garnished by bill collectors. They can not be used in any legal or equitable process. Since the spouse is a civilian and the apportioned benefits have not been changed to income they are still protected.




References

Laws
38 U.S.C. § 211, 3101-3107 version 1987
38 U.S.C. § 511, 5301-5307 current
10 U.S.C. § 1408
42 U.S.C. § 659 and § 662 version 1997
42 U.S.C. § 659 and § 662 current

Regulations
5 C.F.R. § 581.103 – 581.104
38 C.F.R. § 3.451 – 3.459
45 C.F.R. § 301 – 305

Policy
OCSE-AT-83-02
ACF – PIQ-90-11
OCSE – AT-93-07
US DHHS – IM-98-03
ACF – PIQ-06-01
ACF – PIQ-09-01

Cases
Wissner v. Wissner – 338 U.S. 655 (1950)
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo – 439 U.S. 572 (1979)
McCarty v. McCarty – 453 U.S. 210 (1981)
Rose v. Rose – 481 U.S. 619 (1987)
Mansell v. Mansell – 490 U.S. 581 (1989)

Print
Green Book – U.S. House, Way and Means Committee – March 2012
VA Disability Compensation and Divorce – Mark Sullivan – March 2011
[url=http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=2414]News Releases - Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs[/url] – Employment Questionnaire
[url=http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/cost/financial_assessment.asp]Health Benefits :: Financial Assessment[/url]
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2013, 03:19 PM
 
2 posts, read 14,568 times
Reputation: 11
The Legal History of Veterans, Child Support and Spousal Support


By Peter Barclay





Preface: 3
The Legal Separation of Soldiers 4
Veteran Jargon and Common Misconceptions 4
Public Assistance versus Support 6
Apportionment – Establishment or Enforcement 6
Legal Specifics and Citations 7
The First Case to Answer Many Questions 7
Child Support 8
Spousal Support 10
The Disclosure Controversy 11
Defeating Disclosure for the Self-Support Reserve 12
In Lieu of Retirement 13
Current DVA Attitude 14
Final Notes 15
Case Examples 16
Guaranteed Payment 16
Child Support 16
Spousal Support 17
References 20
Laws 20
Regulations 20
Policy 20
Cases 20
Print 20


Preface:
There are many questions which are asked regarding this issue all over the Internet. On top of all of the legal facts, there are many political opinions provided claiming to be the legal facts. An example of this is a paper published through the ABA Legal Eagle and written by Mark Sullivan of North Carolina. It is titled “VA Disability Compensation and Divorce – Facts and Fallacies”, when in reality it is the furthest thing from the truth and filled with fallacies.

While Mr. Sullivan is an attorney he is also a political activist. There is nothing wrong with being a political activist or a lawyer. When I read his testimony at Senate Hearings, that is exactly where his passion is needed. Where Mr. Sullivan has gone wrong is by publishing his rhetoric as law.

Veterans can be just as politically charged as Mr. Sullivan. Most get involved because they have been wronged. When they stand in defense of Title 38 funds their conclusions are sometimes right but their approach, incorrect legal arguments, ulterior motives and inability to see things from multiple points of view can sabotage efforts and reinforce opposition. They make those with the correct information impossible to be heard. Many times when confronted with opposition to their views, the response is with directed anger towards the individual giving them the bad news. It burns bridges and makes progress impossible.

The following information is based on what the law says. I do comment on how politics drove changes or were embarrassed by rulings. However, this document is geared towards doing what is best for everyone and looking at how the law came to be in its current state. It doesn’t matter which side you may be on, this will help you see the bigger picture.

The topics are about payments under Title 38 for veterans. I only briefly touch active military pay checks and retirement covered under Title 10. This is only to prevent confusing those funds with Title 38. It does not include civil service workers employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is about Title 38 for veterans, their means tested status and exclusion from calculations of income. It is also about the proper legal process of dividing these funds when a veteran is living separate from family members called Apportionment. The quick and dirty answers to the use of VA payments are:

For the legal processes of “establishing” a child or spousal support award, funds under Title 38 including funds received in lieu of retirement may not be used. They can not be used in consideration or direct calculation. Although, I am asking the VA to permit the use of the self support reserve process in child support calculations only.

For the legal processes of “enforcing” a child or spousal support award, a garnishment may only be sent to the VA if the funds are to be received in lieu of retirement. Any other funds or property purchased with traceable funds may not be used or taken.

The Legal Separation of Soldiers
When the Bill of Rights was written, it was created to guarantee the rights of the public but also to protect them from the military and the government. When a young man or woman joins the military they are becoming part of the government. They are trading their Bill of Rights for a gun so they can guarantee no one else has to give them up. Many people say they respect a soldier for their sacrifice but they forget what that sacrifice is.

An example which helps break down the paradigms is the right to bear arms. Although some States are more stringent, in many States a simple phone call for background check is the only requirement. The public can purchase as many hand guns or rifles they wish with no wait or tracking on what they own. A solder does not have the right or choice to bear arms; they are told when they can or can not carry.

To purchase a personal weapon, a soldier must receive permission and register their weapon with the military. In many cases they must store their private weapons in a base armory at a fee, ask permission to check it out and may then use it. A veteran with an “Honorable Discharge” has open permission but not the right. If they receive a “less than honorable discharge”, they do not get this permission and will fail a background check.

In 1930 and when public assistance programs were being created Congress needed to address the needs of soldiers. It had to be legally separate from the public. If a soldier is discharged but earns a retirement they are still handled under Title 10 for the Department of Defense. When discharged without retirement a soldier can not become public; they become veterans. “Once a soldier, always a soldier”. To address the needs of discharged soldiers who had not earned a retirement but had lost the means to care for themselves, Congress created Title 38, the Veterans Administration (VA) and payments for veterans.

Veteran Jargon and Common Misconceptions
The laws and programs for veterans are just as complex as they are for the public. Veterans are legally a completely separate entity. They are less than 1% of the population. Thus the need to know the law is uncommon and access to expert knowledge is hard to find. The complexities grow when veteran laws intersect with other laws.

Confusion begins because politicians hate using negative or controversial wording. For instance, they did not want to call it a veteran welfare program; they called it the “Pension” program. If you read the definition and law, you see this it is a program of completely means-tested money to care for low income veterans who have lost the ability to care for themselves. Careful attention must be taken to exact wording and definitions.

Common wording causes most of the confusion when dealing with the strict language of the law. The big difference between Compensation and Pension is compensation has the eligibility requirement of having a “service connected disability”. Because of this it is commonly called VA Disability. But under the language of the law compensation and disability are very different.

This confusion is also perpetuated by veterans saying they “earned” those payments. The public are given the right to public assistance. By serving our country, soldiers have contributed and thus earned the right to benefits. It’s the right that they earned, not the benefits. Judges do not earn judicial immunity. They earned the right to have it by sacrificing their First Amendment rights. In the strict language of law, compensation is to make up for a loss of ability, loss of quality of life or for pain. Public disability payments are remuneration for employment. Payments under Title 38 are strictly excluded from this legal concept.

Some times people question how funds under Title 38 are means-tested when they see the amount of money a veteran is receiving. No single public assistance program will pay $2,000 a month. That’s right and these programs are not based on a single program. With veterans being less than 1% of the population it’s just not possible to replicate 1600 public assistance programs. Veterans only have about 20 programs and are based on a combination of programs such as HUD, Food Stamps and others.

If you look at the Compensation program, the numbers get even higher because it starts with money to compensate for loss of abilities. It can be seen in the pay chart. There are small increases based on percentage of how it affects quality of life all the way to 90%. Then almost doubled between 90 and 100% as this is where the loss is total and the veteran needs funds to care for themselves and family. When an injury is the fault of the military it’s called “Compensation” and the means-tested money is added on top of money for loss of abilities.

Compensation and Pension are not income. No credence is given to individual contributions of rank or time in service. All payments are equal. The pay chart is a single page. When it is not the fault of being in the military it is only mean-tested funds and called a “Pension”. The “service connected” status of the injury or disability is the eligibility factor and the difference between compensation and a pension.

The last common wording to mention is the term “Benefits”. When people talk about things given to veterans they are all wrapped in the common term benefits. In the law, a court or government office we think of benefits as a bonus to the norm. Although everything under Title 38 is called a benefit, they are not under that simple definition. Burying a soldier’s body or compensating them for loss of abilities and loss of quality of life is not a bonus. They are restitutions.

Benefits are ways people say thank you, applaud someone or pay their respect for someone willing to put their life on the line. When veterans are given a store discount, free camping or waived DMV fees, these are benefits. Soldiers are not the only ones who put their lives on the line and not the only ones shown respect. Many highways are named for fallen police officers and rightfully so. Our risk of life gives us the same respect, but a soldier’s sacrifice of their rights makes them legally separate. There is a big difference between respect and restitution.

Public Assistance versus Support
The concept of the moral requirement of an individual to care for an ex-spouse or child through support becomes nullified if the individual doesn’t have the ability to care for themselves. Anyone who has been on a plane knows you put your mask on first then your kid. Because of the tools of our society, whether it is a mask or public assistance, our moral instincts can be backwards to doing what is right for everyone.

When someone can not care for themselves or family, they fall under assistance programs. This country does not condone debtor’s prisons and will not take the need to survive from one to give to another. Each individual or cohabitating group is required to go through the eligibility process to determine their needs. It is the responsibility of the program to calculate or modify payments to eligible beneficiaries.

The purpose of public assistance programs is to help care for those who can not care for themselves. While some may never get back this ability, the system is designed to assist and then encourage with education the growth of an individual so they may become self reliant again. Only then can we place the additional weight of moral responsibility for supporting others on their shoulders. Getting a person back on their feet and able to be responsible as a contributing member of society is the goal of public assistance.

Apportionment – Establishment or Enforcement
Many mistakes are made trying to qualify apportionment one way or the other. The confusion is easy because it is both and neither. It is both because it is used mostly in child support cases and neither because it is legally eligibility and provisioning. Apportionment is the legal process the DVA uses to determine eligibility based on separate living status and then make direct payments to individual beneficiaries.

When the DVA performs the eligibility calculation it is confused with establishment of support instead of assistance because their decisions can be highly subjective. The DVA will consider situations of abuse and other findings. Public programs won’t consider these factors and rely solely on math. Public programs do not have the added weight of ensuring veterans maintain a required higher standard. Cases with equal income can receive opposite findings by the DVA. In one case a party could be denied and in another they could be awarded a large sum of money regardless of income because of abuse.

Another way to look at it is to remember how public assistance is awarded. If a person has a small amount of income, they might be awarded $200 in food stamps. They may have enough for rent and utilities but not enough for food. Since Title 38 funds are means tested an apportionment is also meant to fill a gap between income and need.

Provisioning and enforcement can be confused as well. However, the DVA will not enforce outside calculations and refuse garnishments. States who calculate support on all funds can make the mistake of giving a credit for apportionments. Credits for apportioned funds can hurt the kids by widening the gap. Credits for education funds are appropriate because they made above the need. When the DVA makes an apportionment they are saying they can help meet the need, which is higher than what the State has awarded.

While a judge or people in a state agency may want to take punitive actions in some cases, they are ill equipped in standards and ability for cases involving veterans. States must enforce laws equally and to the standards for the public. Veterans are not equal to the public. They are not better or worse but not equal under law. The DVA can hold veterans to the higher standards required for the respect they are given.

The best way to make an impact in these cases is by sending in statements to the DVA. Judges and case workers are on the front line and their rulings and statements carry considerable weight. If they feel a child, spouse or veteran is being abused or mistreated these people can make a big difference in rectifying the situation by reporting it.

The correct legal process is for a State agency to calculate a support award excluding any funds under Title 38. To divide Title 38 funds, complete an application for apportionment to fill the gap and meet the need. Those wishing for subjective information be used should send statements to the DVA. By allowing the DVA to perform the apportionment you are working together to fill the gaps and meet their needs. Do not provide a credit for apportioned funds because you are widening the gap. Although, some states will provide a credit to help correct issues from the misuse of VA benefits. Misuse has generated high levels of arrears for many veterans. A credit can help correct these situations.
Legal Specifics and Citations
The First Case to Answer Many Questions
In 1950 in the case of Wissner v Wissner page 338 U. S. 659, The US Supreme Court expressed their extreme distain over the idea of awarding any support out of a veteran’s version of means-tested public assistance payments. The court overruled 5 cases from 5 States which had used the money in calculations of establishing support. They proceeded to scold every one of them by saying: “We shall not attempt to epitomize a legal system at least as ancient as the customs of the Visigoths”.

This was not just an insult to the State courts about their archaic thinking. It was a historically legal insult to those courts for treating veterans under a single set of legal code for the public and treating funds under Title 38 as income. The court ruled that using funds under Title 38 in a calculation before receipt or ordering payments to be sent with these funds after receipt was the act of “seizure”. This was against the specific language of § 3101 which protects beneficiaries against seizure before and after receipt.

The Court did accept the legal concept of community property rights of a spouse as separate from support. In the case a veteran had invested in a life insurance plan which he had named his mother as beneficiary. The Federal law said it was the sole property of the veteran to assign a beneficiary. The State community property rights conflicted and were therefore superseded. Since the mother had been named the beneficiary, the mothers benefits were protected the same as an injured veteran beneficiary under § 3101.
Child Support
Most significant changes happen in failure. The VA was supposed to be accepting apportionment applications and directly providing benefits to a veteran’s family when they live separately. Primarily used in conditions of a veteran being hospitalized the VA was refusing to get involved in messy family issues. Under great pressure to complete veteran injury claims the VA back-burnered apportionments. This was a big mistake.

In 1987 the failure to perform apportionments by the previous Veterans Administration was identified. The Supreme Court of the United States made the infamous Rose v. Rose ruling. The court ruled the existing language of 38 USC § 211 did not provide sole authority. If the administrator did not make a decision, others could. They also said it was only on decisions of eligibility and provisioning. They ruled it did not include state courts, only federal courts of the US. As insult the Supreme Court said the law did not even "obligate" the VA to do its job.

38 USC § 211 - "The decisions of the Administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans' Administration providing benefits for veterans and their dependents or survivors shall be final and conclusive and no other official or any court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.."

This failure brought disgrace to Congress and to the President. Congress had just declared federal authority over establishment and enforcement of child support. The States are granted permissions but “the federal government plays a major role in dictating policy and structure” (US House, Green Book). Through the enactment of the Child Support Enforcement Act, the federal government had taken a large chuck of authority over family law out of State hands and then ordered the States to perform it and report to them.

This Act was made because the States had let kids fall onto the AFDC child welfare system instead of holding absent parents responsible. Because the VA was failing to perform apportionments it was this act which forced States to take over the Federal Government’s job under the VA. President Reagan and the Republican controlled Senate were hugely embarrassed. It was disgraceful political irony. The federal government took over child support because the States had failed to do it, thus ordering the States to do the VA's job because they were failing.

From the disgrace and failures of the Veterans Administration for not performing apportionments, Congress responded with extreme magnitude in comparison to previous cases. In Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo and McCarty v. McCarty the court ruled the Federal law did not give the States permission or guidance in family law, thus earned retirements could not be used. Retirements are considered jointly earned by both people in a marriage working as a team. Only brief additions of family law were needed in the Federal code to give permission and guidance on dividing that earned income (see 10 USC § 1408).

For veterans and their families, President Reagan with Congress responded with the Department of Veteran Affairs Act of 1988. They addressed the issue of exclusive and sole authority over any legal issue for veteran funds. It now prohibits the States from making any decisions which affect these benefits not just the eligibility process. The language of the new § 511 is inclusive of all courts not just federal. This language is so thorough an exception had to be made for claims appeals. It obligates this new Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) to assert this authority and perform their duties.

38 USC § 511 - “The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.”

To ensure the new Department of Veteran's Affairs did its job, Congress left the enforcement part of the ruling under Title 42 open for 10 years. This part said the law only protected the VA from receiving a garnishment and not the veteran. Leaving this portion of law in place gave the child support agencies a means to get the funds if the new DVA continued in its failures. It also provided a way to continue getting funds on existing cases while transitioning.

On the 10 year anniversary of the case in 1997 Congress discussed this matter at length at the Senate Arms Committee. To ensure the process of Apportionment was properly being followed and claims were being processed, DVA representatives testified. They assured the committee they had learned their lesson and were currently paying monthly on over 20,000 completed applications and States were modifying awards accordingly.

At which point Congress over-ruled the enforcement part of the case by repealing 42 USC § 662. This change now prevents garnishments of any Title 38 funds from being submitted to the veteran after receipt of benefits. Hence this is when IM 98-03 was provided to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and instructed them the only legal process the States are allowed to follow is Apportionment.

The new DVA has also learned not to be a bully with its authority and to work hand in hand with the ACF and State agencies. The IM recommends applications be taken to the State Office of Child Support to request they submit form vba-21-4138 with the application for apportionment. By submitting these together, it helps prevent a 2 week delay in processing caused by a request to determine the need of the child being sent and received between these agencies. The DVA works with the States because each has its own economic standards and each case can have a different need of a child.

The State office needs to specifically identify how much child support is awarded based on not including any payments under Title 38. They also need to specifically identify a monetary amount for the “Need” of the child. This can either be the state standard or based on special needs as long as documentation is provided. Any conditions of abuse or other factors of the child’s life should be included with documentation. This enables the DVA to work with States to fill that gap and hold veterans accountable.
Spousal Support
Many people confuse the conversations of the court on 38 USC § 3101 (now § 5301) to think the veterans have unfair protections against support obligations or debt. This law protects means tested funds from being taken or used in any legal process. However, it is followed by 5 very lengthy laws § 3102-6, (now § 5302-6). An example given says a veteran can not put the money in a bank account with another persons name on it so that they may spend the money. These are anti-corruption laws which prevent means-tested funds from being taken or given away for any reason. These are the same protections for public assistance to ensure they are used as intended and only by the people intended.

In the Rose v Rose case the veteran made arrangements with the Appeals court to make payments under immunity of being prosecuted under these laws. This way the children were cared for while an answer was found. Conversely, Mr. Rose does not appear to have always been this amenable. There are statements that appear the court was irritated with him for not making these arrangements sooner. While he did not argue the amount of child support with the US Supreme Court he did argue this point with the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The opinions on § 3101 were only in regards to spousal support. When the case got to the US Supreme Court it was no longer about spousal support because the Tennessee Court of Appeals had overruled the decision of spousal support. They had said the ruling for spousal support was a clear conflict with the federal authority and therefore superseded. They also said divorce separates a spouse from the veteran’s family but not the children. Thus, why there would be a decrease in benefits as a spouse no longer exists but the children remain. Legally removed from the veteran, the ex-spouse was now able to apply for their own means-tested benefits under the public assistance system.

As part of the US Supreme Court’s ruling on page 481 at 625, they applauded Tennessee and agreed with their ruling. However, Justice O’Conner did not agree with this. While she agreed with the ruling over child support she wrote a dissenting opinion on the matter of Spousal Support. In her opinion of the previously § 3101, she believed congress had not "intended" the law to have been written so ironclad to provide the level of protection against the claim of spousal support or those of a family.

It is important to note, just as they had been offended in the 1950 case, the Court was hugely offended by Justice O'Conner's opinion. It was stated to be “an opinion to which this court distains". That might not sound too harsh but “distain” is a very harsh word by the Court. It is the feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior. In an extreme interpretation, they were so disgusted by her ridiculous opinion it was unworthy of conversation.

Unworthy of conversation or not, both Justice Scalia and Justice White wrote individual responses specifically to hers. Contrary to Justice O’Conner, Justice White was on the complete opposite pole and dissented against the child support ruling. Because the focus of these benefits is to compensate an injured soldier for loss of abilities, Justice White's dissenting argument over child support was not distained.

President Reagan and the US Congress also responded to Justice O'Conner. They let her know they "intended" the law to be that ironclad and they distained her opinion as well. In less than a year, they enacted the Department of Veteran Affair's Act and not one change to the wording was made when renumbered to § 5301. This wording has gone unchanged for over 20 years.
The Disclosure Controversy
There are 2 main arguments which have shut down any use of Title 38 funds even for the legal process of disclosure. Courts and offices have placed States in danger of being sued by veterans for violations of their rights. Veterans will go straight to federal courts on issues of their rights. Since they have very few actual rights, states can be hit punitively hard when violating them.

This first opinion is mostly used because it goes to HIPPA where courts are very clear. Requiring a release of medical information to the courts is a big taboo. If a veteran is required to release how much they are paid, it is publicly traceable to a list of their symptoms. The DVA web site publishes the pay chart based on disability rating. The review methods are published with symptom requirements for those ratings. This makes release of a veterans benefit amount private and protected.

The second argument is simply under the language of 38 § 5301; specifically where it says “shall not be liable… under any legal or equitable process whatever”. This makes it not liable to the legal process of disclosure. Some have argued against this idea saying the law only makes the process of seizure not liable. However, that is really stretching the way law is read. Either way would make it excluded.

The real truth is it doesn’t matter which argument you like. When you remember how the US Supreme Court ruled on the McCarty and Hisquierdo cases the answer is, no exclusion of law is required to pre-empt or supersede the States. Those retirements could not be used because there was no federal law granting the States permission to use the funds. Even in the Rose case it required the indirect law of the Child Support Act. The burden of proof is on the States to show they have permission to require disclosure.

Because of this, the veteran can not be required to disclose the "amount" of benefits they are receiving. However, a veteran can be required to disclose to the court if they are in receipt of funds under Title 38 on behalf of a child. The State is acting on behalf of the child. Armed with just the knowledge benefits are available an application for apportionment can be filed with the DVA and they can determine the amount.

Under Title 10 USC § 1408 the veteran can be required to disclose if they are waiving a portion of their retirement for the purpose of receiving funds under Title 38. While they are excluded from calculation, this allows for garnishments to be send to the DVA or veteran for those funds specified under 42 USC § 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V).

Defeating Disclosure for the Self-Support Reserve
I have worked with so many States on how each one works. The States are granted so many purviews. Even with the ACF dictating structure and policy there are many variables to how it can be done. I’ll say it a million times; I’m also very big on making sure kids receive proper care. So when some States say they use a self support reserve, it just makes sense to honestly try to find a flow of law that allows this without conflicting.

The idea of a Self-Support Reserve is the idea of making sure a parent has the ability to care for themselves. You can’t very well care for someone else if you can’t even take care of yourself. Simply done, the State takes their specific poverty level and subtracts that from a person’s income. The remainder is an amount of money that can be available for a child support award.

With people on Public Assistance, this gets a little more difficult. Public Assistance is money to care for someone. It can not be used as available income but can be used to reduce the amount of the self support reserve before subtracting. All those funds under Title 38 are means-tested and a veteran’s version of public assistance? Then why can’t they be used to reduce if not eliminate the self support reserve. Because the funds have been misused as income by too many places, veterans are quick to jump even if they get close to being used.

One way to alleviate the issues with the HIPPA argument is to prevent public release. Require the VA funds to be released on the same document the Social Security Numbers and other private data. This would allow the court or agency to know the amount without violating the veteran’s privacy.

This is one way to remove the issue of the § 5301 argument. Treat the process of the self support reserve as a completely separate process from the support calculation. Similar to the way tax law is compartmentalized. You make the Self-Support Reserve an eligibility deduction. People are eligible for a standard deduction minus all means-tested benefits received. If a veteran chooses to apply for the deduction, they can choose to release the amount. It’s the same legal premise the US Supreme Court said when ruling Obama Care was legal. If having a choice makes it legal as a tax, choice makes the deduction legal.

I have had lawyers review this method for allowing Title 38 funds to be used for the self support reserve. I have to admit the legal arguments are on the fence. All of them agree to this. This method has never been questioned by a court and if the amount can actually be kept private, I can’t think of a judge who would not allow it. How could a veteran stand in a court and try to deny this specific use of the funds for which they are intended.

The alternative to administratively doing this would be to make a State law; disqualifying all veterans to the self support reserve deduction under the assumption the DVA is meeting their needs unless the veteran is willing to prove otherwise. The problem here is the public would likely see an enactment of this as a snide means of discriminating against veterans. Most if not all Veteran’s groups would give rise and be very angry.
In Lieu of Retirement
When a soldier serves 20 years they become eligible to receive a retirement. Military Retirement is not guaranteed. When a soldier is granted a retirement they do not receive the same open permissions as a veteran. A retiree can still be recalled while a veteran can not once they have complete their 8 year commitment. Last year the US Air Force denied retirement of 154 officers from lack of budget.

Many retirees despise the creation of the Former Spouse Protection Act. In part because of the bitter feelings of a divorce but also because of the 50:50 split. Military retirement is not equal to the public. Because of the continuing contribution and life long commitment of the retiree a 50:50 split isn’t appropriate in all cases. The law says State courts “may” do this to enable them to apply their discretion in cases of abuse. Instead many courts will use the maximum as a standard.

A retiree can waive a dollar of taxable retirement for each dollar of non-taxable compensation. A veteran could once receive both retirement and disability then changed so only one or the other could be received. Under Title 10, these in lieu funds can’t be used as income but under Title 42, they can be garnished.

Why would Congress leave garnishment open for VA compensation if it is received by a retiree but not a veteran who didn’t serve 20 years? Many feel that way; especially in cases where a veteran’s retirement is less than what they receive in compensation. It was tested in the case of Mansell v Mansell. This was Congress’s decision for a balance between the needs of a veteran and respect for a spouse’s contribution to retirement.

The Mansell case is often misunderstood to protect Title 38 funds. In the Mansell case the Court was asked about “the retirement” a veteran must waive in order to receive VA compensation; must “the retirement” be excluded in calculations of spousal support? The answer was, yes, it must be excluded, there is an exception. The problem is some have interpreted this to be the court saying only funds in lieu of retirement are excluded and not funds received on their own. This is a backwards and a wrong interpretation. It’s like saying the Court ruled “the sky is blue” thus “only the sky is blue”. It’s bad logic.

The proper way to interpret this ruling is, under Title 10 for DOD and retirement funds, the waived retirement funds are excluded from calculations. The retirement money in question is identified as the money waived to receive Title 38 funds but Title 10 is not what actually protects Title 38 funds. You have to go to Title 38 to see how to use those funds. They are simply excluded from indirectly being used under Title 10.

Even though these funds are protected against being used in establishment, under Title 42 the in lieu of retirement funds are indirectly available in the legal process of enforcement. This is done with many types of funds. The simple legal premise is, we will exclude the funds in calculation to determine an amount, but if you fail to pay, we’ll get that correct amount from wherever necessary to care for an ex-spouse or child. A legal way of saying the means justify the end, and no harm is done. The veteran is still left with the amount intended.

For veterans getting more in Title 38 funds than Title 10 retirement, they see this as being punished for retiring. If they had never retired their money would be protected from establishment and enforcement. I can appreciate their point of view as feeling punished but I can also see from the ex-spouses view. If the money could not be used for enforcement it would nullify any right they have to money which they jointly helped the retiree earn. The ex-spouse is already losing out on the full amount of retirement in the calculation. Neither side is being punished, it’s called compromise.

Under new laws, some retirees can receive an offset payment which in effect enables what is called “concurrent receipt”. This offset is provided under Title 10 and is included as income for calculations of spousal support. For these few veterans eligible for the offset, the law becomes more balanced to ex-spouses. The missing retirement fund are now available for calculations but the in lieu funds are still available for garnishment.
Current DVA Attitude
I’ve been asked many times, why isn’t the VA more aggressive about making sure this is done? If they have this authority and their predecessors were actually fired over this, why aren’t they making sure people use the apportionment process? Their answer is; it’s not the VA’s fault, they aren’t the ones making the mistake this time.

If an application for apportionment is send to the new DVA, they will process it. They will send a letter to the State requesting the amount awarded and the need. They will then calculate the amount and send the money to the dependent. However, if no one sends them an application they don’t have to do all of that work. When a State uses the funds to calculate child support the DVA can not double dip the funds. If the funds are used as income, it makes a dependent ineligible and the DVA can quickly close the application.

If you look back, the reasons they were not doing apportionments are still there. The apportionment process is extremely simple in comparison to an injury or pension claim. As means-tested funds there is a verification process every year to check against the veteran’s income. The process of apportionment is at least double the amount of work of employment verification.

To verify income, all 150,000 Compensation and Pension beneficiaries are sent VA Form vba-21-4140-1 Employment Questionnaire. The 50,000 beneficiaries of other programs are sent VA Form 10-10EZ. They have to print, stuff envelopes and put on postage. While automated this is a costly annual process. The human cost of opening an envelope, looking up a record and entering the data, collectively cost even more.

According to a DVA news release for automating Compensation and Pension, “It also allows VA to redirect more than 100 employees that usually process EVRs to work on eliminating the claims backlog”. The DVA is not failing veteran families by refusing to complete apportionment applications. The States through bad process and legal understanding are failing to send them the applications. Because they are not receiving apportionment applications they can redirect those employees to the claims backlog.

Final Notes
I’d like to use this to ensure people see the respect I have for Soldiers, Veterans, Judges, Legislators, Case Workers and everyone involved in our government systems. Each of these groups is filled with people and therefore some can be bad. However, most people as a whole and each of these groups have many people doing their best for everyone. There has been a lot of talk of failure. All of these groups have taken a beating to their respect as no one is perfect in the 20/20 vision of hind sight.

A special note should be made about Justice O’Conner. Some may say this article demeans her by demonstrating how everyone condemned her statement. To me it is quite the contrary. As much as I too might personally distain the actual opinion, I wish every judge nationwide had her same level of integrity. She knew this is how everyone felt and still had the integrity to make her statement. I like to believe Justices Scalia and White saw this and paid her respect by responding. No matter how ridiculous someone feels her opinion was, her integrity demands it worthy of conversation.

If the laws in place were perfect we would have no need for judges and would simply use computers and translate legal code into computer code. But it’s not perfect and we need Judges to make rulings in conflict with the law when the facts of the case demand it. I would simply ask Judges to use their discretion on the facts of the case instead of trying to justify a ruling under the law.

To all judges, I apologize for the way some soldiers will react in contempt to judges who have mistakenly included Title 38 Funds. People are hurt most by those closest to them. Judges are the closest relatives of a Soldier. Their legal balance must be maintained by providing judicial immunity but they give up First Amendment Rights, to be unbiased. The veteran is simply hurt because they see the mistake as a lack of empathy for kin.

Imagine if every time a judge’s ruling was overruled by an appeals court, the judge was pulled into a hearing by legislators to ask why they ruled in conflict with the law. Imagine hearing a judge say “The law is clear; I have judicial immunity” and they replied, “We don’t care, we will punish you any way and there is nothing you can do”.

Judges would feel discriminated against for not having equal protection under the law. They sacrificed their rights to do the job and to give them an equal level of protection; they are protected by judicial immunity. Every time a judge misuses their benefits, the veteran is in shock. A soldier must sacrifice 20 times more rights than a judge and all they are asking for is their assistance payments to be treated the same as the public. VA benefits and judicial immunity are not earned, the protections and rights to them are.

Just like soldiers, people forget why to respect Judges. We aren’t supposed to respect a soldier because they are away for the holidays. We aren’t supposed to respect a judge out of fear of judicial immunity. Judges must give up their rights to do their job and held to a higher standard of Judicial Codes of Conduct. We need to remember it is their sacrifice of rights and why we speak of Honor when speaking of judges and soldiers.

Case Examples
For some people reading this, they are simply trying to get the exact meaning of the law and correct process. Case examples aren’t too important to them. However, they are very helpful for the people dealing with cases. There are also those who feel deeply about these issues and have a personal interest in doing what is morally right for everyone. Case examples help explain a very important point. The law is not perfect and people can fall through the cracks but if we don’t follow the law we guarantee even more people will.

I will not use names but these examples come from real cases. Obviously I do not want to embarrass anyone. Nor do I wish for someone to take something I say wrong and persecute someone. I’m also protecting agencies who for all the best intensions are trying to help everyone. Some times our moral instincts cause us to jump before fully understanding. We just need a little insight or education to help us do things right.
Guaranteed Payment
When the DVA makes a payment to a beneficiary the money is guaranteed to be in their bank the first of the month. The beneficiary can be the veteran, spouse or a child after an apportionment. It is legally required to be on time. The requirement is higher than political budget delays. If a budget isn’t signed in time some payments can fail. DVA payments can not. If the DVA fails to get the money to the bank and a floated check bounces, the DVA is required to pick up all bank fees and costs.

This means if the state is allowing the veteran to get the money first and not using the apportionment process they are actually delaying the payment. The money goes to the veteran, they take their sweet time in paying the child support office. The office has to cash the check and run it through the computers for disbursement. The typical delay is 30 days but sometimes as high as 90.

Child Support
When the DVA only adds $100 for a child to a 100% disabled veteran’s benefits of $2,800, they don’t actually believe that is all the kid needs. The VA system is made as an addition to Social Security Disability (SSD). SSD is not public assistance or means tested. It is an income and something everyone, including soldiers, pay into when they work. Congress knew the veteran would be getting SSD. If they have kids, they will get an additional award equal to 50%-80% just for the kids within that system.

When a child is living separate from a veteran parent, it is the responsibility of the DVA to award an apportionment for their child. However, there are many reasons why a child may not get an award. If the custodial parent is making a considerable amount of money they won’t qualify for food stamp much less the means tested benefits under the DVA.

When it comes to abuse, it doesn’t matter what demographic you want to look at, not all parents are good parents. Veterans are no exception. I can’t ask anyone to respect veterans and their protections if we do not hold ourselves accountable for the standards that earn us that respect. By not following the law, a veteran can get away with behavior which the DVA can hold them accountable.

In cases of abuse, this is where the courts and county offices can do the most wrong by including DVA compensation in their award. A court might try to use its power to make a very high award based on abuse, but with the DVA refusing garnishments, there is no enforcement ability.

I’ve seen courts go as far as threaten a veteran with jail. Even though most veterans will stay and fight the courts, others will simply leave the state. As good as we are at finding absent parents; you will notice the DVA will not surrender addresses. There is a whole collection system within the DVA for over payments, tax debts and medical co-pays. The DVA is very cooperative with the ACF and Child Support agencies till they refuse to follow apportionment and start threatening veterans.

If the state provides a credit to veterans for apportionments, they can actually nullifying veteran accountability. The DVA Apportionment is meant to fill the gap or as shown in abuse cases hold veterans to high standards. If you let the DVA do their job, you will find they can be very helpful in holding veterans accountable. If a State provides a credit it must be evenly be given to all veterans. At that point it won’t matter if the DVA has decided to take part of the veteran’s award to compensate for child abuse, the kid won’t see it. Because it is meant to meet the need a credit will double the gap.

If a veteran has abused their child, regardless of parent eligibility for means-testing, the DVA has the authority to apportion ANY and ALL funds. While the DVA rarely goes over 50%, rarely does not mean never. Once the State awards an amount based on not including Title 38 funds they can request an apportionment and specify a case specific need of the child. Don’t be afraid to ask or be blunt. The DVA can award a large amount and with full authority get that money in the kids account on the first of every month.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2013, 02:24 PM
 
18,868 posts, read 16,117,834 times
Reputation: 24948
Just be very careful when you want an increase, a veteran wanted an increase, requested congressional intervention, his file was examined completely, he had a bad conduct discharge. No more benefits, at all. And a huge overpayment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2013, 10:54 PM
 
16 posts, read 42,535 times
Reputation: 15
Default State court violation-separation of powers- DISABLED VETERANS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminator Barbie View Post
Because this has been such gulling work I promised myself that I would share my research in an attempt to help make it easier for others in the same position as my friend.

This is the information that is helping him as California residents...

Looking at write ups regarding SB 285 and SB917

Military retirement, combat-related disability bills die in House committee

has some good information for oral argument.
================================================== =====

Below are edited notes taken during the House Judiciary Committee meeting on Monday, April 11, 2011. It is not a record of every bill discussed during the hearing. Links are provided so you can get more information on each bill, including the actual text and a summary.... to continue reading Notes from the House Judiciary Committee meeting 4/11/11

================================================== ====

Tucker cited Rose v. Rose, a 1987 child support case, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that military disability benefits are intended to provide compensation for disabled veterans and their families.
The court said that disability payments may be exempt from attachment while in the U.S. Veterans Administration’s hands, but after they are delivered to the veteran, a state court can require that they be used to satisfy a child support order.
Tucker said SB 917 seeks to undo that decision.
“I don’t think the state can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said.
The dispute has become a national topic, Tucker said.
“The entire country is looking at Oklahoma,” he added.
Of SB 917, retired Colonel Jerry Shiles said, “This is really harmful to the family.”
He said it tells injured service members they do not have a duty to care for their children.
“To me, they’re anti-family,” Shiles said of SBs 917 and 528.
FOCUS: SB 917, the


================================================== ===
FOCUS: SB 528, the “Military Retainer Pay Protection Act”

April 8th, 2011 · 1 Comment · House, Senate

Attorney Phil Tucker is vice chairman of the Military Law Committee of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association.


FOCUS: SB 528, the


================================================== =====

[SIZE=4]BACKGROUND: Section 459 of the Social Security Act, as amended, provides for the garnishment of certain Federal payments for the enforcement of child support and alimony obligations. However, benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are specifically excluded with one exception [42 U.S.C. 659(h)(1)(B)(iii)]. The test to determine if a payment is subject to garnishment is whether the payment is remuneration for employment as defined in section 459 [42 U.S.C. 659(a) and (h)]. While Federal salaries fit this test, and Title II Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits (OASDI) can be garnished (entitlement to these benefits is based on employee contributions into FICA), VA monetary benefits, entitlement to which is generally based on either the veteran’s disability and wartime service (pension) or disability from service-connected injury or disease (compensation), is generally not considered remuneration for employment."

=================================

[/SIZE][SIZE=4]The one that actually passed... [/SIZE]HEA 1165


(12) A disability benefit awarded to a veteran for a service connected disability under 38 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. This subdivision does not apply to a service connected disability benefit that is subject to child and spousal support enforcement under 42 U.S.C. 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V).
03/12/2010 H Signed by the Governor 03/25/2010 H Public Law 53 03/25/2010 H Effective 07/01/2010 Enrolled Act, House Bill 1165[SIZE=4]
[/SIZE]

Back to the search and research.... Giving up is never the answer
================================================== ======================

The “separation of powers” doctrine is completely ignored by Oklahoma and most state court judges, acting like doctors, holding themselves as qualified, as a provider of health care, outside their jurisdiction. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals awarding as alimony a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation. To allow what has been happening, was this the intent of Congress?
=
OKLAHOMA
Section IV-1: Departments of government - Separation and distinction.
“The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and
neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.”
=
If the United State court of appeals, in VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, December 13, 2011, ruled, “As much as we may wish for expeditious improvement in the way the VA handles mental health care and service-related disability compensation, we cannot exceed our jurisdiction to accomplish it,” then, Oklahoma courts are in no legal position to do so. Despite the law, it continues.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 03:49 PM
 
18,868 posts, read 16,117,834 times
Reputation: 24948
I understand protecting pensions. But I do not see why a veteran receiving disability payments from the VA should be exempt from paying child support out of that income.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2013, 04:55 PM
 
4,572 posts, read 4,203,545 times
Reputation: 5188
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
I understand protecting pensions. But I do not see why a veteran receiving disability payments from the VA should be exempt from paying child support out of that income.
Strictly a guess:
It is often needed for THEIR sustainment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2013, 09:09 PM
 
18,868 posts, read 16,117,834 times
Reputation: 24948
It may be compensation, but bottom line, it is considered income. Otherwise, 100% SC veterans would be eligible for food stamps. And veterans use SC compensation as income to qualify for loans.

I agree, the compensation should not be used in determining alimony, but child support, yes. Have a child, support the child.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2013, 07:54 AM
 
18,868 posts, read 16,117,834 times
Reputation: 24948
Veterans I know who receive an SC pension are usually recieving a VA pension, not social security, as that is double dipping, and the VA pension is at a higher rate, when A&A is factored in.

Not all veterans spend any time with their children. Or any money.

The best way a parent can get child support from a veteran, is to literally go on welfare for a period of time, that way, the state and fed gets involved with aggressively seeking reimbursement for AFDC money. Otherwise, a parent not on welfare, does not get any support for garnishment of income. Sadly.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top