The State plan shall provide that:
(a) The IV-D agency will undertake:
(1) In the case of a child born out of wedlock with respect to whom an assignment as defined in § 301.1 of this chapter is effective, to establish the paternity of such child; and
(2) In the case of any individual with respect to whom an assignment as defined in § 301.1 of this chapter is effective, to secure support for a child or children from any person who is legally liable for such support, using State laws regarding intrastate and interstate establishment and enforcement of support obligations. Effective October 1, 1985, this includes securing support for a spouse or former spouse who is living with the child or children, but only if a support obligation has been established for that spouse and the child support obligation is being enforced under the title IV-D State plan.
(3) When assigned medical support payments are received and retained by a non-IV-A Medicaid recipient, the IV-D agency shall notify the Medicaid agency whenever it discovers that directly received medical support payments are being, or have been, retained.
(b) Upon receiving notice of a claim of good cause for failure to cooperate, the IV-D agency will suspend all activities to establish paternity or secure support until notified of a final determination by the appropriate agency.
(c) The IV-D agency will not undertake to establish paternity or secure support in any case for which it has received notice that there has been a finding of good cause unless there has been a determination that support enforcement may proceed without the participation of the caretaker or other relative. If there has been such a determination, the IV-D agency will undertake to establish paternity or secure support but may not involve the caretaker or other relative in such undertaking.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0960-0385 and 0970-0107)
[50 FR 19647, May 9, 1985, as amended at 51 FR 25526, July 15, 1986; 51 FR 37731, Oct. 24, 1986; 56 FR 8003, Feb. 26, 1991; 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999; 68 FR 25303, May 12, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2023 · leading case:
In Re Rood
In Re Rood (2009)
mich · cites it 2×
“666; 45 C.F.R. 302.31(a)(2). To this end, Michigan law permits the DHS to seek child support from a noncustodial parent and requires the prosecuting attorney to represent the DHS in such matters.”
LaMoure v. LaMoure (2011)
calctapp
“§ 654 (4)(B)(ii); 45 C.F.R. §§ 302.31 (a)(2), 301.1 (2010)) is either inapplicable or actually supports the proposition that withholding assets in father’s IRA account to pay spousal support was proper.”
Cunningham v. Superior Court (1986)
calctapp
“3 Congressional studies also established that “the largest single factor accounting for the increase in the AFDC rolls is illegitimacy.” 4 Consequently, state and federal legislation was enacted to require absent parents of children receiving AFDC to repay all—or at least a…”
City and County of San Francisco v. Thompson (1985)
calctapp
“§ 654 ; 45 C.F.R. § 302.31 (1984).) Under federal law a noncustodial parent is liable to reimburse the state either for the amount specified in a court support order or, if there is no *657 court order, for the “amount determined by the State in accordance with a formula…”
S.N.S. v. North Dakota Department of Human Services (1991)
nd
“This includes support payments received in the current month and any amounts due to the IY-D agency under the IV-D State plan provisions for recovery of retained direct support payments at 45 CFR 302.31(a)(3)(ii). 45 C.F.R. 232.12(b) (1990).”
Goodrich v. Norman (1979)
nycfamct
“The Commissioner of Social Services pursuant to the same section also has the right to institute said proceeding, but the commissioner also has failed to do so even though mandated by the Federal Government regulations (see 45 CFR 302.31). Such *36 inaction by interested parties…”
Nusbaum v. Nusbaum (2019)
mdctspecapp
“45 C.F.R. § 302.31 (a)(2). As OCSE points out, this means that once child support is no longer owed, its agency cannot be used to enforce a remaining spousal support obligation.”
Nordgren v. Mitchell (1981)
utd
“45 C.F.R. § 302.31 (1980). The Little Court noted in analyzing the third Eldridge factor the valuable procedural safeguard that blood test evidence represents, and the relative insignificance of the state’s purely financial interest.”
Mitchell v. Hopson (1988)
pa
“See 45 C.F.R. § 302.31 (1987). The *174 Department of Public Welfare is Pennsylvania’s “IV-D Agency.”
Rivera v. Heintz (1990)
connappct
“1980); 45 C.F.R. 302.31. Under 42 U.S.C. 602 (a) (26) (B), the caretaker and the child born out of wedlock must cooperate with state efforts to *686 determine paternity unless good cause is shown for refusing to cooperate.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 302.31(a)(2) — 1 case
In Re Rood (2009)
mich
“666; 45 C.F.R. 302.31(a)(2). To this end, Michigan law permits the DHS to seek child support from a noncustodial parent and requires the prosecuting attorney to represent the DHS in such matters.”
— 45 C.F.R. § 302.31(a)(3)(ii) — 1 case
S.N.S. v. North Dakota Department of Human Services (1991)
nd
“This includes support payments received in the current month and any amounts due to the IY-D agency under the IV-D State plan provisions for recovery of retained direct support payments at 45 CFR 302.31(a)(3)(ii). 45 C.F.R. 232.12(b) (1990).”
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.