(a) The State plan shall provide for the establishment or designation of a single and separate organizational unit to administer the IV-D plan. Such unit is referred to as the IV-D agency. Under this requirement:
(1) The IV-D agency may be:
(i) Located in any other agency of the State; or,
(ii) Established as a new agency of the State.
(2) The IV-D agency shall be responsible and accountable for the operation of the IV-D program. Except as provided in § 303.20 of this part, the agency need not perform all the functions of the IV-D program so long as it insures that all these functions are being carried out properly, efficiently, and effectively;
(3) If the IV-D agency delegates any of the functions of the IV-D program to any other State or local agency or official, or any official with whom a cooperative agreement as described in § 302.34 has been entered into or purchases services from any person or private agency pursuant to § 304.22 of this part, the IV-D agency shall have responsibility for securing compliance with the requirements of the State plan by such agency or officials.
(b) The State plan shall describe the structure of the IV-D agency and the distribution of responsibilities among the major divisions within the unit, and if it is located within another agency, show its place in such agency. If any of the IV-D program functions are to be performed outside of the IV-D agency then these functions shall be listed with the name of the organization responsible for performing them.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0960-0253)
[40 FR 27159, June 26, 1975, as amended at 51 FR 37731, Oct. 24, 1986; 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Jenkins v. Massinga, 592 F. Supp. 480 (D. Maryland 1984).
Jenkins v. Massinga, 592 F. Supp. 480 (D. Maryland 1984).
· cites it 2× “” 45 C.F.R. § 302.12 (3). Congress has provided that services established under the state plan must be made available to any individual upon application by that individual.”
Carter v. Morrow, 562 F. Supp. 311 (W.D.N.C. 1983).
“However, in their complaint, plaintiffs have not alleged that defendants have violated either the due process clause or their obligations under 45 C.F.R. § 302.12 (a)(2) to administer the IV-D program “efficiently and effectively” in any way other than by discriminating against…”
Wehunt v. Ledbetter, 875 F.2d 1558 (11th Cir. 1989).
“§ 602 (a)(27); see 45 C.F.R. §§ 302.12 , 303.20. The state must undertake the establishment of paternity and the establishment and enforcement of support obligations for all AFDC children unless it is against the best interests of the child to do so.”
Young v. Young, 2023 Ohio 3918 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
“AGAINST 45 CFR § 302.12 , FED. FED.RCIV.P.19, OHIO RCIV.”
Cervantes v. Noble (D. Ariz. 2025).
“” See 45 C.F.R. 302.12(a). 1 “right to trial by jury”; and that Plaintiff was subjected to “slavery and involuntary 2 servitude” and denied “equal protection of the laws.”
Cervantes (D. Ariz. 2026).
“) The Complaint purported to sue “Heather Noble Through 24 Region 9 IV-D Agency Defendant(s)” in her “official 45 C.F.R. 302.12” capacity and 25 “capacity of Director of Region 9 IV-D agency.”
Campbell (N.D. Tex. 2026).
“11 and 45 C.F.R. § 302.12 , federal laws setting standards for state child support programs.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 302.12(a) — 1 case
Cervantes v. Noble (D. Ariz. 2025).
“” See 45 C.F.R. 302.12(a). 1 “right to trial by jury”; and that Plaintiff was subjected to “slavery and involuntary 2 servitude” and denied “equal protection of the laws.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.