If you live in NorCo and are separated or divorced with children, you likely have come into contact with Domestic Relations, an arm of the Courts. It establishes support orders and paternity, locates absent parents and enforces. This is required by federal regulations and state law in order to ensure that non-custodial parents contribute toward the support of their dependents, allowing them to stay off the welfare rolls and therefore save taxpayer dollars. Some of my readers have complained and even sued over the way Domestic Relations handles support. But it collects and pays out a lot of money, $41.5 million support in 2018. It also received $85,000 in fees. That's just 0.0002 in administrative costs. This important part of the courts, which helps our children was recently audited by Stacy Duke and Controller Tara Zrinski for compliance with internal controls, policies and procedures. Here's what they found:
"Our audit of the Domestic Relations Section (Domestic Relations) revealed that internal controls over cash, receipts and disbursements are functioning as intended. The three financial analysts and their support staff are able to properly segregate duties and retain complete and proper documentation for the financial transactions. Receipts for support payments and other fees are collected and accounted for by DRS financial staff and then properly recorded in the statewide PA Child Support Enforcement System (PACSES). Support payments are deposited the following business day in the PACSES support bank account which is swept daily by the State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCDU) for distribution to plaintiffs. Payments collected by DRS for certain other fees are deposited in the County’s common bank account via the Revenue Division."
The following items were tested:
Determine if receipts (support) are deposited intact daily and into the proper bank account.
Determine if SCDU funds sweeps from the support account were for the correct amount and if the detailed support payments entered into PACSES by DRS were accurate.
Determine if there were any withdrawals from the bail account during the period being audited.
Determine if there were any withdrawals from the support account that were not initiated by SCDU during the period being audited.
Determine if bank accounts are being reconciled monthly by an accountant and then reviewed by the director of DRS.
Determine if there is $100 in “change” in the cash drawers before any transactions are taken into account.
Determine if the activity posted to the DRS Agency fund is accurate.
18 comments:
This audit seems to have missed the fact that the Northampton County Domestic Relations System routinely abuses the wage garnishment system to take money from parents without engaging in the due process specified by the legislature. There is a requirement when attaching wages to notify the garnishee of when and how they may challenge the amount of garnishment. In Northampton County, a parent having their wages garnished never gets such a notice, and often times becomes aware of garnishment only when up to 50 percent of their wages are absent from their paycheck. When conference officer Jeanine Orlando was cross examined in a record proceeding in front of Judge Kassis last year regarding this glaring ommission of due process, she admitted on the record that these legislative procedures are not followed, and excused the lapse by stating that the system is automated. Functionally, this means that every dollar brought in by wage garnishment in Northampton County has been collected illegally and without proper due process. Neither Judge Kassis nor Director McGrogan-Rush seemed to care. This should not be at all surprising as the general attitude of the bureacracy in norco is "we are right, the law be damned, there's nothing to see here, just do what we say". If Zrinksi wants to conduct a real audit of this lawless section, she can contact me and I would be pleased to tell her exactly where to look and exactly what statutes are being violated, as the example above is just one of many statutory violations. Northampton DRS is a lawless organization that needs to be held accountable.
Here are some other common violations that DRS has been caught red handed in:
1)failure to provide proper and tinely notice of hearings
2)violations of the self support reserve that punish those in the county with the lowest incomes
3)Brian Lawser, DRS Solicitor, took it upon himself to attempt to bar access to the courtroom and prevent members of the public from viewing the drs proceedings. Solicitors have no such power, especially given that Judge Morganelli was presiding and took no issue with observers in the courtroom
4)failure to use financial determinations provided by the department of human services
5) incarceration of individuals while failing to adhere to purge provisions set in place by the Supreme Court of the United states
There is ample material for a motivated auditor to work with.
One might say that the audit was conducted by the Controller's office personnel. That would be more accurate.
7:55, Yes, let's not give any credit to the people who signed off on and took responsibility for the audit. Heaven forbid that the Controller can be credited for doing her job.
Matt, Flower, Ordinarily, a controller conducts financial audits and checks that internal controls are in place and that laws regarding the money are being followed. A controller rarely performs a performance audit and usually only does so under very specific guidelines at the request of county council.
Some of the statutes I refer do absolutely qualify as "laws regarding the money".
It's ALL about the money.
When I read this at 3 a.m I made a mental note to come back knowing MF would comment. Especially since you mentioned him without naming him. Not only did he sue because of his child support ruling, he made up 5 case law documents to try to support his case. Classy. Luckily the judges in Philadelphia saw through this and couldn't be outsmarted. I've never dealt with NorCo domestic relations but sounds to me from this article they're doing their job right. I was really disappointed when Zrinski won. I was worried she'd be a lazy controller. I'm happy she's proving me wrong and her office has been putting in the work.
Zrinski won even though she wasn't qualified for the job, because her opponent ran a non-existent campaign. Her hand is being held by people who know what they're doing.
Wage attachment is mandatory and automatic per federal statutes. Anyone who reads their child support order or does a quick Google search knows this.
Pennsylvania Statutes Title 23 Pa.C.S.A. Domestic Relations § 4348. Attachment of income
So are the required notices and rights to challenge such a garnishment. But those mandatory communications don't happen in Northampton County.
I don't believe the original comment is suggesting that automatic wage garnishment is illegal, but rather that automating a system which skips a due process step would be a violation and that it would affect a large group of people due to the violation built into the automatic system.
There is a right to be notified and to have the opportunity to challenge the calculation of the garnishment prior to the money being seized.
It would appear that this statutory right has been ignored in Northampton County.
It seems like a simple fix if the system is indeed automated.
Keep reading section 4348, specifically subsection e.
The garnishment must commence within 10 days of the section providing ADVANCE NOTICE.
The notice must also include the amount to be garnished and when the amount may be challenged.
The section completely fails to comply with these required safeguards, and furthermore, has admitted it in open court.
ADVANCE NOTICE is provided when your support order is entered. You can contest the amount of your support order within 20 days of it being entered. Read page 4. The State says your support order meets notice requirements, so take it up with them if you disagree.
Most of these subject matters are audited by state regulators on a regular, I believe annual, basis. Perhaps you could contact the state to follow up and see how Northampton County has performed?
But honestly most of these "issues" you're referencing, like low income assessments and ssr, are probably more appropriately redressed through an appeal to superior court. That is how the system works.
She won because she out works everyone. Just ask LVH, she will have a hard time getting elected without Tara on the ballot doing all the work.
You are confusing notice of a support order with notice of garnishment. The statute provides specific notice requirement for the time that garnishment commences, which could be months or years after the initial support order is entered. It is a logical impossibility to provide legal notice of a garnishment (including required monetary calculations for total arrears and amount of garnishment at the time of the entry of the wage attachment) months or years before such a garnishment is ever put in place. While automatic garnishment is authorized by statute, that process only occurs when specific criteria are met (also explained in the statute) There are very specific requirements dealing with the commencement of a garnishment. Not only can you look these up in the subsection of the statute I referred to in my previous post, but we also have a conference order on the record stating that the garnishment notice requirements as written are not complied with in Northampton County. It's not something we should be happy about, but it is a fact that does not even seem to be disputed by the local DRS.
You're wrong. Notice of garnishment is contained on page 4 under Legal Notices in every PA support order entered after July 1,1990. It applies to future orders, future employers and is automatic and mandatory, unless you don't owe overdue arrears and the plaintiff agrees in writing to no attachment.
Title 23
All orders of support entered or modified on or after July 1, 1990, shall, as part of the order, provide for the mandatory attachment of income
Post a Comment