Well it November 17, 2005 and no child support for Kristina Gaston. Policies are guidelines for implementation. Governor Blagojevich may promise and sign anything he wants, but if his appointees to particular offices do not carry out his agenda, it means nothing to us. Do not think this will happen to me and not to you.
Visit the website of Dr. Eric Wallace, who is attempting to run for Lt. Governor of Illinois. He man of moral ethics and family values. He probably does not share my views or the way in which I approach governmental issues, but he is a man of integrity. Who ever he appoints to an office will carry out their duties in a professional way with integrity and thought to why the policy is instituted.
Vote Governor Blagojevich out and his cronies will follow. They are denying Kristina the right to have child support on time, and in an amount that would be suitable for a child. If it were their friends or relatives believe me they would not have this problem. The problem with this administration is their is no integrity or honesty.
Vote for Dr. Eric Wallace for Lt. Governor of Illinois. Integrity and family values are top priority with him.
The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Service, formerly known as Public Aid, is seriously flawed regarding child support. What Governor Blagojevich seems to have addressed in his revamping of the system is apparently still operating against a child's right to have child support.
On October 12, 2005 I spoke to Ms. Barbara Radtke about Kristina's child support payment being late. Ms. Radtke informed me there was payment made on October 11, 2005. I asked about the late charges and/or penalties for being late. Ms. Radtke informed me there is no real late charge for being late with payments. She informed me the Court ordered penalties for being late mean something other than a monthly charge to the parent ordered to pay child support.
As I read the Court order, it states if the child support is not paid on the 3rd of every month a $20.00 fee is attached to the payment. As Ms. Radtke interprets the language she reports a $20.00 fee is not a fee attached to the monthly payment. Ms. Radtke also continues to report the agency cannot collect from this parent because the source of his money is from SSI and is non-attachable. In summation, this means the child support can come anytime it wants, if it does not come so what, and the Court ordered penalties are null and void.
What a wonderful system to be part of, I guess. I guess its up to us voters who should represent our interest. If we don't say anything, you can believe nothing will be said.
The Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services wrote us stating, basically, there was nothing they could do about Mr. Gaston unpaid child support because it has to reach $500.00 before they can do anything. This is absurd. The Court Order means nothing.
As of October 12, 2005, I have not received any correspondence from Senator James Meeks, Illinois State Representative David Miller or any other entity copied. There is something seriously wrong with our State Representatives when they refuse to respond to their constituents.
September 11, 2005
Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services
Mr. Barry S. Maram, Director
201 South Grand Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62763-0001
Re: 2004 D 650237 Darlene Bouyer-Nance (petitioner) vs. Lawrence Gaston (respondent) with child support for Kristina Gaston
Mr. Maram:
On September 10, 2005 we received a check in the amount of $136.00 from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois stating case # 2004D0650237. This is not the normal check that comes for child support. The child support court order reports a monthly payment of $100.00 plus $25.00 if the payment is late. This payment is supposed to be made to the child support division on the 3rd of every month.
We have yet to hear from Ms. Radtke regarding the outcome of our complaint. We do not know why the “$36.00” was added to the monthly allotment. We have not heard anything about the 2 monthly payments not received, with late charges. We have not heard anything about the late charges for other monthly payments.
Therefore, we respectfully request a reply to our letters for 2 past child support payments and the late charges due.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr.
cc: Mr. Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois; Mr. Barack Obama, United States Senator (c/o Nubia Chaidez); Mr. James Meeks, Illinois Senator; Mr. David Miller, Illinois State Representative; Mr. Durman Jackson, Ms. Colleen Glass, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorneys Supervisors; Ms. Barb Radtke, DCSE Customer Service.
September 8, 2005
Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services
Mr. Barry S. Maram, Director
201 South Grand Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62763-0001
Re: 2004 D 650237 Darlene Bouyer-Nance (petitioner) vs. Lawrence Gaston (respondent) with child support for Kristina Gaston
Mr. Maram:
On August 17, 2005 I, Fred L Nance Jr., wrote regarding the non-receipt of two (2) child support payments for Kristina Gaston. I received a call from Ms. Barb Radtke stating she would respond within 2 weeks. Ms. Radtke requested and received a “Consent To Release Confidential Information” from my wife Darlene to discuss the issues of this matter with me, Fred L Nance Jr. Darlene and I have not heard anything from your office Mr. Maram or from Ms. Barb Radtke since August 17, 2005.
In addition to non-receipt of 2 child support payments, Kristina has not received her child support for the month of September 2005. This is the 3rd child support payment Mr. Lawrence Gaston has not paid. The child support payments should be a direct deposit to my wife’s bank account. My wife submitted a “Direct Deposit Authorization Agreement” to the Illinois State Disbursement Unit on or about January 24, 2005 and August 13, 2005 faxing it to 630-221-2312. Even though my wife faxed this request on January 24, 2005, she continued to receive child support checks through the U.S. Mail. She has not received any child support payments since faxing this document, a second time, by direct deposit to her bank account.
We copied the letter of August 17, 2005 to Mr. Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois, Mr. Barack Obama, United States Senator, Mr. James Meeks, Illinois Senator, Mr. David Miller, Illinois State Representative, and supervisors Colleen Glass and Durman Jackson of Illinois Cook County’s Child Support Division. Of the copied letters sent, the only one who responded was Senator Obama suggesting his office does not handle child support; reporting forwarding the documents I sent to Senator Meeks stating his trust Senator Meeks responds in a timely fashion to the issues. As usual, we have heard nothing from Senator’s Meeks office.
We received a telephone response from Illinois’ Cook County State’s Attorney Chris Johnson and Mark (who reported he was the Deputy Supervisor; I did not get his last name) stating they could not prosecute and would have to wait until this office, Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services, investigation and request to file a petition in Court regarding this issue. Evidently, there is no investigation, and therefore, there will not be a hearing in Court on this matter of 3 non-payments, with late charges, of child support for Kristina Gaston.
Mr. Maram, we hope to hear from your office soon on this matter of receiving the Court ordered child support, and late fees from past child support payments and non-payments from Mr. Lawrence Gaston. I will fax this letter to the individuals listed below, along with posting it with the letter of August 17, 2005 on my personal Blog
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Mr. Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois; Mr. Barack Obama, United States Senator (c/o Nubia Chaidez); Mr. James Meeks, Illinois Senator; Mr. David Miller, Illinois State Representative; Mr. Durman Jackson, Ms. Colleen Glass, Cook County Assistant State’s Attorneys Supervisors; Ms. Barb Radtke, DCSE Customer Service.
August 17, 2005
Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services
Mr. Barry S. Maram, Director
201 South Grand Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62763-0001
Re: 2004 D 650237 Darlene Bouyer-Nance (petitioner) vs. Lawrence Gaston (respondent) with child support for Kristina Gaston
Mr. Maram:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am writing this letter in behalf of my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance. On March 14, 2005, my wife filed a “Rule To Show Cause” to be heard on April 29, 2005 in room 209, in front of the Honorable Judge Panici, at the 6th District Courthouse in Markham, Illinois, that is, 16501 South Kedzie Parkway (attached). On April 29, 2005, my wife could not attend because of work-related issues and I attended in her stead seeking a short continuance. On April 29, 2005 in Judge Panici’s courtroom 209, I informed the State’s Attorney of the short continuance. The State’s Attorney informed me my wife’s motion for Rule to Show cause could not be presented before the Judge because the State’s Attorney’s office did not file the motion. The State’s Attorney informed me child support violations are not filed until the respondent is 6 months late with child support payments. This is absurd.
According to Governor Rod R. Blagojevich’s press release, on or about August 2, 2005, stating, “Official Proclamation Recognizing Strengthened Enforcement and Increased Collections for Illinois’ Children”, the report states, “…August is Child Support Month and honored the Division of Child Support Enforcement with an official proclamation recognizing its success in strengthening enforcement and increasing collections for Illinois’ children. The press release also reports Governor Blagojevich recently signed five bills into law that further improve the state’s child support services under the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS)”. With my wife’s issues, this appears to be a fallacy.
The five pieces of Child Support legislation signed this summer by the Governor are:
Making the child support process more efficient: House Bill 785, makes child support collection more efficient by updating the process to reflect current practices. The law is effective January 1, 2006.
Adding interest to unpaid alimony: Senate Bill 95, an initiative of the Illinois State Bar Association, provides that any new or existing order including any unallocated maintenance obligation (alimony) shall accrue simple interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum, just as child support obligations. This law is effective January 1, 2006.
Improving ability to legally serve notices on non-custodial parents: Senate Bill 955 improves the Department's ability to legally serve notices on non-custodial parents. This law is effective immediately.
Making sure the family receives interest payments first: Senate Bill 452 simplifies the calculation and distribution of interest on unpaid child support and ensures that collections of interest are paid to the family first. This law is effective January 1, 2006.
Making payments easier through currency exchanges: HB 783 allows a non-custodial parent to give certain information to a currency exchange so that their child support payments can be made there, giving the non-custodial parent more access to places where they can make payments.
The Governor also states in his press release, “This dramatic turnaround follows years of poor child support collection.” It appears this poor child support collection is still being produced under the leadership of Mr. Barry S. Maram. It seems no one in the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services has a clue as to how the processes work. My wife and I have received conflicting information from Child Support entities at 32 West Randolph and 28 North Clark (both entities operate in the City of Chicago).
On Monday, August 15, 2005, my wife and I went to the State’s Attorneys office at the Markham Courthouse seeking information on how to pursue additional non-payment of child support and the Rule to Show Cause filed with the Court on March 14, 2005. The State’s Attorney we talked to gave us information to call 1-800-447-4278. We informed the State’s Attorney at the Markham Courthouse that my wife was informed that Mr. Gaston’s child support payments were being paid by company check. We informed the State’s Attorney that Mr. Gaston informed the Court that he was receiving Social Security and had no other income. We asked the State’s Attorney what could we do to have the Court look into Mr. Gaston’s income. The State’s Attorney at the Markham Courthouse stated we should file a motion for “Modification of Child Support Payments and Rule to Show Cause” in this matter. My wife informed the State’s Attorney that the person she talked to at the 1-800-447-4278 number told her she could not get any information on the business location of the check submitted to the Child Support payment center by Mr. Gaston to present to the Court. The person at this 1-800 number told her that the State’s Attorney is only privy to this information. My wife was denied the information regarding the respondent, Lawrence Gaston, employment to present to the Court.
My wife reports the person she talked to this morning, August 17, 2005, informed her that pursuit of child support payments does not take place until the respondent is 90-days late. In addition, my wife was told this morning, August 17, 2005, she had to go to 28 North Clark, Chicago, to file a motion for this back child support payments. This is ludicrous. What are we supposed to do? There are mixed messages given to us to pursue the child support payments.
In addition to the petition for “Rule to Show Cause” submitted on March14, 2005, the respondent, Lawrence Gaston, did not pay child support for July 2005. Also, the August 2005 payment of Child Support was received at our home on August 12, 2005. My wife has recently faxed and mailed a hard copy requesting direct deposit.
Nevertheless, Mr. Gaston is 2 months delinquent with child support and has not paid any late fees for other past payments of child support, which were late. Regarding the March 14, 2005 petition for “Rule to Show Cause” my wife reports Mr. Gaston telling her he did not have to honor her motion because it was not filed or pursued by the State’s Attorneys office.
We are clearly receiving mixed messages about the collection procedures for past and current child support payments. Please have the entity responsible for collection of child support payments, that is, past- present- and future contact us by phone and mail. How can we file anything if no one will honor it? The State’s Attorney suggested to us we should have a private law firm pursue the issue of child support. This is ludicrous. Why should we employ a private attorney to do what the State of Illinois is responsible for?
Therefore, we are aware that the Governor’s legislation does not become “technically” effective until January 1, 2006. Nevertheless, his press release noting August as Child Support Month and honoring the Division of Child Support Enforcement with an official proclamation recognizing its success in strengthening enforcement and increasing collections for Illinois’ children would and should create a proactive stance with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.
It would seem to us and to others that the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services would work in concert with the Governor and the women who have “deadbeat” dads assisting those who are disenfranchised and disadvantaged by the “system” of child support. Who will assist us? Shall we wait until January 1, 2006 for assistance?
My wife and I would appreciate an immediate response. My wife has received and returned by fax a document to Ms. Barb Radtke giving the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services authority to discuss any and all information with her husband, Fred L Nance Jr. regarding case number 2004 D 650237, Darlene Bouyer-Nance (petitioner) v. Lawrence Gaston (respondent) regarding minor child Kristina Gaston.
I am faxing a copy of this letter to the individuals below, along with a faxed copy to Mr. Barry S. Maram c/o Barb Radtke. A hard copy of this letter and attached motion for Rule to Show Cause of March 14, 2005 will be sent by U.S. Mail to Mr. Barry S. Maram.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: Mr. Rod R. Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois, Mr. Barack Obama, United States Senator, Mr. James Meeks, Illinois Senator, Mr. David Miller, Illinois State Representative
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Darlene Bouyer-Nance, )
on behalf of, )
Kristina Gaston, a minor, ) Court No. 04 D 650237
Plaintiff/Petitioner ) C. No. C 01581611
vs. ) Calendar No. 86
) Room ________
Lawrence Gaston, ) Judge __________________
Defendant/Respondent. )
NOTICE OF FILING MOTION
TO: Lawrence Gaston Ms. Dorothy Reed, Chief Deputy Clerk
6856 So. Crandon State’s Attorney of Cook County
Chicago, Illinois 60649 Child Support Enforcement Division
28 North Clark Street, Suite 200
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Mr. Durman Jackson
State’s Attorney of Cook County
Child Support Enforcement Division
28 North Clark Street, Suite 200
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Please take notice, on March ____, 2005 plaintiff/petitioner shall file her Motion for Rule to Show Cause with the Clerk of the Court at 16501 South Kedzie Parkway, Markham. On ___________________, 2005 in room _____, at approximately ________, or as soon thereafter as plaintiff/petitioner may be heard, plaintiff/petitioner shall appear before the Honorable Judge ____________ or whoever sits in his stead to hear her Motion for Rule to Show Cause.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Darlene Bouyer-Nance plaintiff/petitioner (pro se) on behalf of Kristina Gaston a minor, certify that I caused the above notice and attached motion to be served upon parties above, by depositing the same in the United States Mail on March ____, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Bouyer-Nance, B.S.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION
Darlene Bouyer-Nance, )
on behalf of, )
Kristina Gaston, a minor, ) Court No. 04 D 650237
Plaintiff/Petitioner ) C. No. C 01581611
vs. ) Calendar No. 86
) Room ______
Lawrence Gaston, ) Judge _________________
Defendant/Respondent. )
MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Now Comes Plaintiff/Petitioner, Darlene Bouyer-Nance on behalf of Kristina Gaston a minor, respectfully requesting this Honorable Court find the defendant/respondent in contempt of this court for the following:
On August 3, 2004 the Honorable Judge Luciano Panici entered an order instructing the defendant/respondent to pay $100.00 a month toward child support starting on August 3, 2004.
There was no true [prove-up] investigation by the State’s Attorney’s office into the financial position of the defendant/respondent for child support.
Nevertheless, according to the child support order, payments are made between the 1st and 3rd of each month.
Defendant/respondent has not paid $100.00 for August 2004 and March 2005.
Defendant/respondent did not make the October 2004 payment until November 2004.
The Court order states that if the defendant/respondent is delinquent he will pay an additional $20.00 per payment for each month he is delinquent.
In October 2004, the plaintiff/petitioner called the Illinois State Disbursement Unit asking them if a payment had been made to them for August and October 2004 by the defendant/respondent.
The Illinois State Disbursement Unit informed the plaintiff/petitioner that they did not received a payment from the defendant/respondent for August and October 2004.
Plaintiff/petitioner has contacted the Illinois Department of Public Aid and did not get a response leading to recouping delinquent payments mentioned above.
Plaintiff/petitioner has contacted the Assistant State’s Attorney Office for the Child Support Enforcement Division, 28 North Clark Street, Suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
No one has assisted or gave the plaintiff/petitioner relief toward her child support.
Defendant/respondent paid the October 2004 payment with the November 2004 payment, which the payment was $200.00. The defendant/respondent did not make the $20.00 delinquent fee for the October 2004 payment.
Defendant/respondent did not make the child support payment for March 2005.
On March 13, 2005 Plaintiff/petitioner had her daughter, Kristina Gaston, call her father [defendant/respondent] asking him for her monthly payment of $100.00 for March 2005.
Defendant/respondent told his daughter, Kristina, to have the plaintiff/petitioner [her mother] call him and he will explain the March 2005 payment.
Plaintiff/petitioner called defendant/respondent asking why she had to call him about their daughter’s March 2005 child support payment.
Defendant/respondent states “the money will continue to be late until I am able to visit with my daughter.”
Plaintiff/petitioner has never refused the defendant/respondent visitation, if he wants to pick his daughter up.
Defendant/respondent wants the plaintiff/petitioner to drop-off his daughter [when he decides he wants to see her] and pick-up their daughter.
Plaintiff/petitioner has informed the defendant/respondent to go to court if he wants “court ordered” visitation.
Plaintiff/petitioner has informed defendant/respondent that it is not her responsibility to drop-off and pick-up their daughter when he decides he wants visitation.
Plaintiff/petitioner also informed defendant/respondent that there is a court order for child support, and getting visitation has nothing to do with the court ordered child support.
Defendant/respondent rarely calls his daughter.
Plaintiff/petitioner’s husband graciously allowed defendant/respondent to call our home when he wants to speak to his daughter.
Defendant/respondent disrespected plaintiff/petitioner’s home some time ago by calling cursing and threatening her husband with bodily harm.
Plaintiff-petitioner’s husband decided defendant/respondent could not call his home because he disrespected and threatened him with bodily harm.
Through litigation in another court between defendant/respondent and plaintiff/petitioner’s husband, defendant/respondent was informed that he should buy a cell phone to contact and call his daughter.
Defendant/respondent bought a cell phone for his daughter.
Defendant/respondent turned the cell phone off telling plaintiff/petitioner that he turned it off because his daughter does not call him.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/petitioner prays this Honorable Court find the defendant/respondent in contempt of this court for violating the child support order of August 3, 2004, Order defendant/respondent to pay the child support of August 2004 and March 2005 with the delinquency payments, Order defendant/respondent to provide future child support payments in a timely manner, Order defendant/respondent to provide his daughter, Kristina, with telecommunication equipment for means of calling or contacting him, Inform the defendant/respondent that the order for child support has nothing to do with visitation, and whatever other relief this court deems necessary and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Bouyer-Nance
Plaintiff-petitioner’s husband decided defendant/respondent could not call his home because he disrespected and threatened him with bodily harm.
Through litigation in another court between defendant/respondent and plaintiff/petitioner’s husband, defendant/respondent was informed that he should buy a cell phone to contact and call his daughter.
Defendant/respondent bought a cell phone for his daughter.
Defendant/respondent turned the cell phone off telling plaintiff/petitioner that he turned it off because his daughter does not call him.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/petitioner prays this Honorable Court find the defendant/respondent in contempt of this court for violating the child support order of August 3, 2004, Order defendant/respondent to pay the child support of August 2004 and March 2005 with the delinquency payments, Order defendant/respondent to provide future child support payments in a timely manner, Order defendant/respondent to provide his daughter, Kristina, with telecommunication equipment for means of calling or contacting him, Inform the defendant/respondent that the order for child support has nothing to do with visitation, and whatever other relief this court deems necessary and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Bouyer-Nance
