Veterans of the United States Armed Forces are people that should be celebrated and supported in an effort to show appreciation for their time-in-service.  Unfortunately, that is not the reality for our soldiers as they return home and must often fight many non-combat battles.  Homelessness, mental health issues and unemloyment often plague veterans as they transition from military to civilian life.  Along with these difficulties of adjustments are debt-related issues such as spousal and child support obligations.  Based on federal law, veteran’s benefits should not be garnished, but, regrettably, this law is not always honored in veteran child support cases.   According to the American Bar Associate or ABA (2011), under U.S.C. §5301 (a) (1), benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are not subject to levy, seizure, or attachment.  Since child support money is deducted through an order of garnishment, VA benefits should be excluded from such collections.  This is not always the outcome when decisions concerning child and spousal support are being argued in favor of the custodial parent.    We, as Americans, see again that certain rules and laws apply to certain individuals and in certain situations.  These rules and laws seem to be used more when they are used to shelter those that need little protection and attack the most vulnerable. Laws should always protect veteran benefits and should not be used as a convenience to those that the government deem worthy of protection.

One key reasons that supports the government’s ability to garnish veteran’s benefits is that ‘family’ support and ‘child’ support have been decided to mean exactly the same thing as far as deductions are concerned.  Even though a veteran’s disability benefits are compensation for the veteran, certain courts have forced the vet to satisfy debts accrued due to family obligations.  A veteran can be held in contempt of court and jailed if he/she fails to pay support even if their disability is proven to be their only form of income.  This is because the disability compensation somehow belongs to other people besides the person that sacrificed life for country. According to the ABA (2011), in the case of Rose v. Rose (1981), the Supreme Court held that neither the Veteran’s Benefits provision of Title 38 nor the garnishment provisions of The Child Support Enforcement Act of Title 42 indicate unequivocally that a veteran’s disability benefits are provided solely for the veteran’s support.  This ruling and others that are similar, cross a very thin line as to who is entitled to a veterans’ benefits after that individual has been harmed during duty.  Disability compensation, as defined by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, is a tax-free monetary benefit paid to veterans with disabilities that are a result of disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service.  That should mean that disability money is paid for the sole purpose of caring for the needs of the veteran.   If there is a need, other money should be set aside to care for children similar to the system practiced by the Social Security Administration.  Based on the legal definition, there is no mention of the veteran being required to share the compensation payment nor is there a mention of who may be entitled to receive money from the disability payment.  The seizing of money paid to compensate a person for pain and suffering should not be available for garnishment or offset in order to satisfy a debt. 

Another underhanded manner in which the federal government is able to garnish allegedly exempt veteran compensation is by invoking a clause listed in Section §3.750-1, the Retired Military section of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). Military retired pay is payment received by a veteran that is classified as retired by the Service Department.  There are many areas included under this umbrella of employers, including the Armed Forces and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but the same rules apply when garnishments or deductions are attached to payments.  The retirement money and disability compensation can be received concurrently and in full in certain situations.  According to Cornell University (2009), a veteran who is entitled to military retired pay and disability compensation for a service-connected disability rated 50% or more, or has a combination of service-connected disabilities, is entitled to receive both payments.  This entitlement is subject to phase-in periods.  The phase-in period is a 10-year period in which military retirement pay was increased 10% each year until the recipient began receiving full military retirement pay (Ryan Guina, 2014).   A veteran may be awarded both forms of payment after 20 years of service and in compliance with Chapter 61 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.  In all other situations, veterans receiving both retirement pay and disability compensation must file a waiver to receive full benefits.  This waiver is required, as explained by the Department of Veterans Affairs (2009), if the veteran’s disability retired pay exceeds the amount of retired pay that the veteran would have received based on length of service.  The money that is waived is subject to garnishment.

While it is somewhat true that the money is, and should be, considered disability compensation, the money in question has raised serious doubts as to its real exemption status.  On one hand, the money should be considered disability as it pertains to providing income to a soldier who was injured during his or her service.  This money should not be considered retirement money.  Under this premise, these benefits are specifically exempt by federal law of child support withholdings, (Bureau of Fiscal Services, 2005).    The federal government has even found a way to ignore this law and garnish these protected benefits.  There have been several cases over the years that contradict the federal law and have granted garnishment orders against a veteran’s supposed protected income.  According to the ABA (2011), child support may be awarded based on disability payments to either parent being considered as income.  There are no mentions of retirement waivers or phase-in periods.  Even though the federal law prohibits veteran disability money from being touched, veterans are still having their money withheld. 

One reason that has been provided by the court system is that federal law does not prohibit treating child support obligor’s veteran administration disability benefits as income under support guidelines, (ABA, 2011).  Again, the federal statute clearly states that child support withholdings cannot be deducted from these specific benefits.  The statutory exemption, 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a), was not considered when the Supreme Court held that a father was forced to be forced to pay child support from his disability compensation.  The justification provided by the US Supreme Court was that the benefits were intended to support not only the veteran but the veteran’s family as well, (ABA, 2011).  It seems as if the rules and laws are meant to be followed except when it comes to the state and federal governments and how officials collect money from citizens.  It is quite insulting that one government agency exempts a certain form of income from offsets, while another agency bypasses the statute in order to steal money from our wounded veterans.  Many veterans rely on their disability compensation as their only source of income.  This does not deter the judges from attaching garnishment orders to that money.  Again, in the case of Rose vs. Rose, the law was altered in order to abide by the laws of garnishing disability benefits.  The Montana Supreme Court ruled that none of the garnishment provisions of The Child Support Act of Title 42 preempt the authority of state courts to enforce a child support order against a veteran, (ABA, 2011).  This directly violated the garnishment rule mandated by 38 U.S.C.  Furthermore, the court ruled that the child support can be enforced even where the veteran’s income is composed of VA disability benefits, (ABA, 2011).  This money is supposed to provide disabled veterans some financial stability as they battle life after service.  It was not meant to be returned to the federal government as free money. 

Homeless veterans face a more difficult time when dealing with child support issues.  One way these vets receive some type of assistance with child support and other issues is by offering Stand Down Events.  These events are hosed by several organizations and a number of resources to the most brave Americans  One of the most important of these resources, along with health screening, food and shelter, is the legal counseling provided to homeless vets.  Child support issues are covered in these counseling sessions.  According to Administration for Children & Families or ACF (2012), about half of the states have more than 10,000 veterans in their child support caseload.  The government being permitted to garnish the compensation money could mean the difference between having a home and becoming or remaining homeless.  It has already been established that veterans face an array of barriers in addition to those faced by nonveteran non-custodial parents.  In addition to the difficulty of finding employment and earning low-incomes, veterans are older than other parents, they are more likely to have an interstate case and they are more likely to have higher child support arrears, (ACF, 2012).  When dealing with arrears, a majority of the money owed is comprised of interest, late fees, penalties, and court fees.  If and when the disability money is garnished, as with any payment received for child support, the state will deduct money owed to it before disbursing any money to the families.  This is money that could be used to assist the disabled veteran and his or her children. 

The states have no right to, first, disobey the federal law and garnish untouchable money and second, retain the money so that no family member benefits from the garnishment.  There is very little being done to help our heroes deal the child support obligations when they cannot afford the payments.  The three day Stand Down events may help temporarily but there is no information detailing the long-term success or failures of these events.  Counties boast about distributing pamphlets to parents or reviewing case files, but there are little remedies available to assist veteran parents dig themselves out of their deep financial graves.  Child support obligations not only hurt financially, but it can have a negative impact on one’s mental well-being. Child support debt can also be a psychological barriers to reestablishing family relationships, (ACF, 2012).  Couple this with other mental illnesses often suffered by veterans such as post-traumatic stress disorder or depression, the end results are bound to be disastrous. 

The government must be held accountable for disobeying its own laws.  By taking money paid to compensate injuries suffered under the threat of death in order to satisfy an often exaggerated debt is akin to stealing benefits from 9/11 survivors to cover debt that accrued after they responded to the terrorist attack.  These people deserve every medal, every honor, and every dollar earned during their commitment to our country.  If more money is needed to support children of veterans, the federal government should provide that money.  The federal government has already declared this money exempt from liens, seizures and attachments so states should not be permitted to loophole itself into the bank accounts of our disable veterans.  As this country fights for reform to the child support system, we must consider our brave women and men who have been promised compensation if injured during service to the country.  The US must restore that promise, and it must start by enforcing the statutory exemption 38 U.S.C.  Until we force a change in child support guidelines, we must force the government to, at least, abide by the laws that are already established.  It is time to starting to start treating our veterans, disabled, and otherwise, with the respect that they truly deserve when they return home.

References:

Administration for Children & Families. (2012, November). Child support participation in stand down events | Office of child support enforcement | Administration for children and families. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/child-support-participation-in-stand-down-events

American Bar Association. (2011, September). Fact sheet-V.A. payments and family support. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/.../201109_flmc_vapayments.pdf

Bureau of Fiscal Services. (2005, March). Treasury offset program. Retrieved from https://www.fms.treas.gov/.../dmexmpt.pdf

Concurrent receipt rules - Concurrent retirement disability pay (CRDP). (2014, March 4). Retrieved from http://themilitarywallet.com/concurrent-receipt-military-retirement-pay/

Cornell University Law School. (2009, April 5). 38 CFR 3.750 - Entitlement to concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation. | LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.750

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). Compensation home. Retrieved from http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/

 

 

 

 

 

 


Comments

Lisa Bon
01/28/2015 11:21am

I am the full time care taker of a disabled vet, who served his country for 25 years. His kids are Grown Adults, yet the State of NJ still orders him to pay his ex wife Lifetime Alimony. He often says, while she was at home in her pajamas, baking cookies, I was in the desert, risking my life. Why do I have to pay her until I die? She tortures and exasperates his PTSD condition, every chance she gets, and so does the court system. There were many threats to throw him in jail for being behind.

N.K.
01/28/2015 12:24pm

Lisa, we know that there is a huge difference in what the government is supposed to do when dealing with family court issues, and what is actually been done to the people involved. People can always throw out their opinions and post this article or that case, but it is what is happening in reality that matters. There are a lot of things that the government is not legally permitted to do in legal preceding but they do them anyway and get away with doing those things. It is time for change and we must start with our veterans.

02/26/2015 10:09pm

Hi, first thank you for serve dose who serve once. this benefits are protected from garnishment under title 42 sec. 659 and last rule Garnishment of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments: Final Rule (31 CFR Part 212) and also is protected from any legal process what ever.... under title 38 section 5301, also VA benefit are based on an annual budget and not on remuneration for employment that's means that is governed by social welfare for a especial group and not by the department of labor see history of welfares in U.S. and the congressional history of VA benefits that date back from early 1600 and the first law enacted in 1828 with additional benefit for dependent see: VA History in brief. Due that this benefits are not remuneration for employment it's not a divisible assets and also is not a marital property.

01/28/2015 11:56am

I don't know who wrote this but they are just as behind as many others. This question has been answered and it's only because people are omitting facts that this continues.

Rose v Rose was overturned.
Congress explicitly stated they were overturning it with the Veteran Judicial Review act. We have exclusive jurisdiction for benefits decisions and provided an specific DUE PROCESS for making sure dependents living separately or "claims of the family" are provided a proper due process

Belton v. Department of Veterans Affairs 107 F.3d 14 “38 UCS § 511(a) vesting in Secretary exclusive jurisdiction over questions of law and fact that affect the provision of veterans benefits”



Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011),
“[W]e lack jurisdiction to afford such relief because Congress, in its discretion, has elected to place judicial review of claims related to the provision of veterans’ benefits beyond our reach and within the exclusive purview of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. . . . As much as we as citizens are concerned with the plight of veterans seeking the prompt provision of the health care and benefits to which they are entitled by law, as judges we may not exceed our jurisdiction.”

THIS IS THE RULING OF A COURT HIGHER THAN ANY STATE COURT. If they don't like the ruling they can push it to the US Supreme Court. Failing to abide by federal ruling can get them arrested. Yes, even a judge. But you have to actually TELL them the facts. Please get them straight. The omission of this information is the ONLY reason they get abused.

N.K.
01/28/2015 12:21pm

With all due respect, Peter, I have researched this topic and the facts presented in my blog are just that, facts. Even though rulings have been overturned, veterans are still losing their benefits because of state laws. There was a man in Michigan recently facing a prison sentence for refusing to pay child support from his compensation benefits. Yes, there are ways to fight and one of those ways is by refusing and by going to prison. This is an unfortunate reality. Too many people have been forced to accept what the courts hand out because they feel helpless. We need to change this ASAP. Just because the laws are written does not mean that the government abides by the laws in every case. The system needs to be reformed. The judges and state officials are abusing their authority everyday.

Peter Barclay
01/28/2015 6:39pm

N.K. I don't think you understand my comment. I wasn't calling you stupid. I'm telling you, that you are missing information. The rulings of state judges are no longer valid. I have rulings by the federal court of appeals, HIGHER COURTS than the states. I am currently working on the next step which in to file a lawsuit against judges and the states. I'll be walking into that same court now with an injunction on states courts ordering them to comply. If you like please feel free to join the conversation at https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectveteranbenefits/ We have all the legal citations and documents you need.

M.B
01/28/2015 1:24pm

My daughter was stolen at age 8, and its been 4 years since I have seen her, and Im not allowed to talk to her (Ex-husband) not courts. My disability made getting to court, impossible at times. AKA They said a disabled woman was making 60-80k like my ex at NASA. Here in Florida, I have been more than abused by the entire Judicial System, and it took 3 yrs for SSA and the VA to start paying me. Im sure this trick is next, But attorneys do not want to deal with this, or messy divorces that were illegally done in the State and County where they need to brown nose the Judges.

N.K.
01/28/2015 1:39pm

That is the unfortunate reality that too many vets face. You should look at the cases that Peter posted and see if you can use that information in your cases. Good Luck!!

Lisa Bon
01/28/2015 2:12pm

We are working on it. I mean working on justice, citing the Federal Law !!! We will take our knowledge and spread it Federally through Divorce Corp National Federal Law Reform Group :) once we have succeeded.

William Heino Sr.
06/13/2015 9:17pm

States... victimizing veterans.

Article VI U.S. Constitution: “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof:…under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The reason disabled veterans are denied benefits.... Oregon.

Guided by state and federal law, the promised protections, the due process (the conduct of legal proceedings), are legislated into Oregon law supposedly to protect Oregon’s veterans benefits. Activist state court judges, defying all reason, will have nothing to do with legislated law. With purpose and their vision of law, with specific intent, trashed enacted laws (listed below) to punish Oregon’s disabled veterans for claiming disabled veterans VA compensation benefits as exempt (38 U.S.C. 5301(a)) in divorce proceedings.

How can there be any meaningful reform at the VA? When veterans disability compensation payments, enacted by Federal statute, the purposes and objective intent of Congress, administered by Veterans Affairs, it’s governing control (38 U.S.C § 1159) purposely handed over to state divorce courts, without thought. And all the while with VA consent, judges continue, to rule according to,… a whim, bias’… dislike of the law, or the disabled veteran and their issues. Making new law in the process. Where is it written in States rights, is the Veterans Administration, the VA authority, when a state judge can “hold oneself out as qualified,” and arbitrarily overrule the VA? Second guessing the VA medical doctors and other medical professionals’ that determine a veterans’ medical disability rated compensation? VA compensation payments primarily and purposely for maintaining the health, care and well being and overall rehabilitation of disabled veterans. A health care system with congressional oversight and regulations, negligently allowing state court judges to do damage, and with the wave of a hand to the perhaps punish, in order to accomplish the task of plaintiff lawyers in awarding alimony.


A state courts one example of a “whim”
OREGON. Marriage of KAREN M. LANDIS, and JAMES E. LANDIS
"Husband, according to his affidavit, did not serve in the military long enough to receive retirement pay. Like many veterans who receive disability benefits, his are neither directly nor indirectly ‘retirement pay.’ They fall outside of USFSPA's protective scope.”

10 USC 1408. Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders; states, “…authorizes state courts to treat as community property disposable retired or retainer pay.” The Mansell v Mansell decision, “… specifically defining such pay to exclude, inter alia, any military retirement pay waived in order for the retiree to receive veteran’s disability benefits.” VA disability compensation is not, or considered “disposable pay”. Clearly disabled veteran’s James Landis and James Barclay are considered "retired" (10 USC 1201). Both fall under USFSPA’s scope of protection along with the thousands of other Oregon’s disabled veterans.

How Oregon’s court judges will explain the reality of VA disability compensation to a disabled veteran after losing both feet to a roadside bomb in Iraq. A lifetime disability after only serving a total of 5 months in the military. This veteran “did not serve in the military long enough” is the reason Oregon courts rule a veteran’s VA disability compensation is divisible in divorce. The judge is supposed to do justice, not make it up.

Oregon disabled veterans are denied VA benefits. Illegal rulings, like a cancer spreading among states. Disabled Oregon Air Force veteran James Barclay argued at his Linn County Oregon trial that to include his VA disability pay in calculating spousal support would violate the law that excludes disability compensation from the definition of "net disposable income" considered divisible under the USFSPA. Clearly, VA disability compensation is not "disposable pay" (10 USC 1408). Contrary to the law, the Oregon court ignored that argument, as did the Court of Appeals of Oregon, affirmed this decision. This did not need to happen,… if only Oregon applied the promised protections according to Oregon law.

As a result, these Oregon laws do not apply to veterans.

OREGON LAW
18.600 Definitions. (b) “A benefit payment from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that is protected under 38 U.S.C. 5301(a);”

34 § 411.837¹ Compliance with state and federal laws required
10 § 409.040¹ Federal law supersedes state law.
26 § 279A.030¹ Federal law prevails in case of

William Heino Sr.
09/21/2015 10:24am

A flawed disabled veterans federal agency directive

For decades, a flawed federal agency directive have cost disabled veterans their benefits.

September 25, 1998.
TO STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTRERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS.
SUBJECT: Obtaining financial support for children from benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
BACKGROUND: Section 459 [42 USC 659] “Consent By The United States to income withholding, garnishment.. for enforcement of child support.. ], of the Social Security Act, as amended provides for the garnishment of certain Federal payments for the enforcement of child support and alimony obligations…”

Directive enforcement based on Example #2. Department of veterans Affairs… Pursuant to 38 USC 5307 [Apportionment], and 38 CFR 3.450(a)(1)(ii), “provide that, if the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse, or if the veteran's children are not residing with the veteran and the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse's or children's support.”

The Department of Health and Human Services Child Support Enforcement agency reasoned, 38 USC 5307 “apportionment” as an enforcement issue under their directive to State agencies. SUBJECT: “Obtaining financial support for children from benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

38 USC 5307 is a Dept. of Veterans Affairs internal administrative law. Apportionment is “as may be prescribed by the Secretary,” having absolutely nothing what-so-ever of being in a court room, or an issue of garnishment. Administrative law adjudications are not part of enforcement. Under the “apportionment” statute “as maybe prescribed by the Secretary” there is no enforcement, only administration.

As anybody taking the time reading the statute, 38 USC Sec. 5307 Apportionment of Benefits, it concerns a disabled veteran that is institutionalized, hospitalized, incompetent or unable for what-ever reason to make decisions personally. The inability to function, restricted in discharging his or her normal personal business, household, daily responsibilities. Therefore, any pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation may be apportioned, not by any court, but as “prescribed by the Secretary.”

Since 1998, and most likely, beyond, lawyers, activist state court judges, and plaintiffs refer to this United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement directive for guidance and preparation. A directive based on a purposely false, sloppy, inaccurate information (apportionment), deliberately to mislead disabled veterans and their attorneys, and setting the stage to partnership with every overbearing activist state court judge in the country to administer their justice.


Disabled veteran, Charlie Wayne Rose (1987) was done in by the United States Supreme Court, State of Tennessee, Dept. of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support agency, and Congressional Act 38 CFR 3.450 (a)(1)(ii) “The regulations broadly authorize apportionment if "the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the . . . children's support." Rose, a disabled veteran, triple amputee, blind in one eye, requiring constant care, was jailed, lost his appeal in 38 USC 5301 protections of his VA disability compensation claim. It was this agency, Office of Child Support Enforcement, that provided highly inaccurate, false, and misleading information in a very questionable and inaccurate directive. “Apportionment” was used in the U.S. Supreme Court argument Rose v Rose 37 times. And it worked!

If this directive wasn’t a sloppy careless preparation of regulation law, it was then intentional, in order to mislead. Lost forever is veterans rights in protection of VA disability benefits, to fair and equal justice, by a regulation rewritten to falsely accuse and irresponsibly suggesting, “the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse’s or children’s support .”

Although “apportionment” has only one special meaning through the Congressional legislative intent in United States Code (38 USC 5307), however, the court in redefining it‘s special specific purpose, in order to force judgment, lacking was the compulsory constitutionally required legislative intent by Congress! Due process requires judicial review.Invoking 38 USC 7292, review by United States Court of Appeals.



Regretfully, it took this issue of a groundless, manufactured directive to reveal another means of the further undoing of veterans benefits by clever creative regulatory writing. This is not about child support, as there are other legal remedies available. It’s about the illegal expropria

William Heino Sr.
09/21/2015 10:33am

A flawed disabled veterans federal agency directive

For decades, a flawed federal agency directive have cost disabled veterans their benefits.

September 25, 1998.
TO STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTRERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS.
SUBJECT: Obtaining financial support for children from benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
BACKGROUND: Section 459 [42 USC 659] “Consent By The United States to income withholding, garnishment.. for enforcement of child support.. ], of the Social Security Act, as amended provides for the garnishment of certain Federal payments for the enforcement of child support and alimony obligations…”

Directive enforcement based on Example #2. Department of veterans Affairs… Pursuant to 38 USC 5307 [Apportionment], and 38 CFR 3.450(a)(1)(ii), “provide that, if the veteran is not residing with his or her spouse, or if the veteran's children are not residing with the veteran and the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse's or children's support.”

The Department of Health and Human Services Child Support Enforcement agency reasoned, 38 USC 5307 “apportionment” as an enforcement issue under their directive to State agencies. SUBJECT: “Obtaining financial support for children from benefits paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

38 USC 5307 is a Dept. of Veterans Affairs internal administrative law. Apportionment is “as may be prescribed by the Secretary,” having absolutely nothing what-so-ever of being in a court room, or an issue of garnishment. Administrative law adjudications are not part of enforcement. Under the “apportionment” statute “as maybe prescribed by the Secretary” there is no enforcement, only administration.

As anybody taking the time reading the statute, 38 USC Sec. 5307 Apportionment of Benefits, it concerns a disabled veteran that is institutionalized, hospitalized, incompetent or unable for what-ever reason to make decisions personally. The inability to function, restricted in discharging his or her normal personal business, household, daily responsibilities. Therefore, any pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation may be apportioned, not by any court, but as “prescribed by the Secretary.”

Since 1998, and most likely, beyond, lawyers, activist state court judges, and plaintiffs refer to this United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement directive for guidance and preparation. A directive based on a purposely false, sloppy, inaccurate information (apportionment), deliberately to mislead disabled veterans and their attorneys, and setting the stage to partnership with every overbearing activist state court judge in the country to administer their justice.


Disabled veteran, Charlie Wayne Rose (1987) was done in by the United States Supreme Court, State of Tennessee, Dept. of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support agency, and Congressional Act 38 CFR 3.450 (a)(1)(ii) “The regulations broadly authorize apportionment if "the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the . . . children's support." Rose, a disabled veteran, triple amputee, blind in one eye, requiring constant care, was jailed, lost his appeal in 38 USC 5301 protections of his VA disability compensation claim. It was this agency, Office of Child Support Enforcement, that provided highly inaccurate, false, and misleading information in a very questionable and inaccurate directive. “Apportionment” was used in the U.S. Supreme Court argument Rose v Rose 37 times. And it worked!

If this directive wasn’t a sloppy careless preparation of regulation law, it was then intentional, in order to mislead. Lost forever is veterans rights in protection of VA disability benefits, to fair and equal justice, by a regulation rewritten to falsely accuse and irresponsibly suggesting, “the veteran is not reasonably discharging his or her responsibility for the spouse’s or children’s support .”

Although “apportionment” has only one special meaning through the Congressional legislative intent in United States Code (38 USC 5307), however, the court in redefining it‘s special specific purpose, in order to force judgment, lacking was the compulsory constitutionally required legislative intent by Congress! Due process requires judicial review.Invoking 38 USC 7292, review by United States Court of Appeals.



Regretfully, it took this issue of a groundless, manufactured directive to reveal another means of the further undoing of veterans benefits by clever creative regulatory writing. This is not about child support, as there are other legal remedies available. It’s about the illegal expropria


Comments are closed.