Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Young v. Anderson
No. CIV. S-95-942 LKK/JFM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 1998) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50706
Description
Court Denies County’s Motion to Dismiss Challenge to Its Failure to Establish, Modify, and Enforce Child-Support Orders
Abstract
The district court denied the motions of defendant Butte County
District Attorney Family Support Division and three individuals to
dismiss this Section 1983 class action alleging that defendants
failed to provide child-support services in violation of Title IV-D
of the Social Security Act. Plaintiffs asserted denial of the right
of services to locate noncustodial parents, denial of the right to
child-support services when the noncustodial parent resides out of
state, and failure of defendants to establish, modify, and enforce
child-support orders on behalf of plaintiff custodial parents and
their minor children. Rejecting the argument that plaintiffs lacked
standing because any injury they suffered was the result of the
actions of the deserting parent and not defendants, the court found
that there could be more than one cause of harm and that when
federal law requires that participating states provide specific
benefits to individuals, the immediate cause of harm is the failure
to comply with those statutory requirements. The court held that
plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of provisions requiring
services relating to the establishment, modification, and
enforcement of child-support obligations. It did not reach the
question of whether plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of
parent-location services or provisions requiring services where the
noncustodial parent resides out of state. The court also held that
provisions requiring services relating to the establishment,
modification, and enforcement of child-support obligations were
detailed and specific so as to give sufficient guidance for
judicial enforcement; 42 U.S.C. § 654(4) imposed a binding
obligation on the State to provide services for the establishment,
modification, and enforcement of support orders for each child.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
Filed under:
Feeds: Atom
© Copyright 1996-2009 Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
50 East Washington Street, Suite 500, Chicago, Illinois, 60602;
(312) 263-3830 (voice); (312) 263-3846 (fax).