Walters v. Weiss

No. 03-3674 (8th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55817

Description

Custodial Parents Do Not Have an Enforceable Right Under Federal Law to Challenge Arkansas Officials’ Failure to Distribute Child Support in Compliance with Title IV-D

Abstract

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting defendant Arkansas officials summary judgment in this challenge to defendants’ failure to distribute child support in compliance with 42 U.S.C.§ 657. Plaintiff custodial parents claimed that defendants did not give them prompt disbursement of support and prompt, accurate, timely, frequent, and meaningful notice of support collected. They claimed that defendants had no administrative procedural mechanism to correct errors and delays. The statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 654(27) and 654B do not create an individually enforceable federal right to have child support payments distributed within two business days, and 42 U.S.C. § 654(5) does not create an individually enforceable right to receive prompt, accurate, timely, frequent, and meaningful notice of support collected and disbursed, the district court held. Because Title IV-D does not impose an unambiguous, binding obligation on the states to distribute child support and to give the detailed notice in the manner that plaintiffs demanded, plaintiffs did not establish a liberty or property interest protected by the due process clause. Plaintiffs appealed. Under Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) (Clearinghouse No. 50,109), a statutory provision does not create an individually enforceable federal right unless, the Eighth Circuit found, (1) Congress intended that the provision benefit plaintiffs, (2) the right asserted is not so vague and amorphous that enforcing it would strain judicial competence, and (3) the provision unambiguously imposes a binding obligation on the states. Although Section 657(a) reflects some congressional intent to benefit custodial parents, the court held, the right to “distribution in strict compliance with [S]ection 657” is not unambiguously imposed as a binding obligation on the states and is too vague and amorphous for judicial enforcement. The Eighth Circuit also held that the government’s interest in avoiding plaintiffs’ requested burdensome procedures far outweighed plaintiffs’ interest in avoiding the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the probable value of requiring those additional procedures; plaintiffs did not establish procedural due process violation.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2004-12-17 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: