The State plan shall provide as follows:
(a) An assignment of support rights, as defined in § 301.1 of this chapter, constitutes an obligation owed to the State by the individual responsible for providing such support. Such obligation shall be established by:
(1) Order of a court of competent jurisdiction or of an administrative process; or
(2) Except for obligations assigned under 42 CFR 433.146, other legal process as established by State laws, such as a legally enforceable and binding agreement.
(b) The amount of the obligation described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be:
(1) The amount specified in the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or administrative process which covers the assigned support rights.
(2) If there is no court or administrative order, an amount determined in a record by the IV-D agency as part of the legal process referred to in paragraph (a)(2) of this section in accordance with the requirements of § 302.56.
(c) The obligation described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed for collection purposes to be collectible under all applicable State and local processes.
(d) Any amounts which represent support payments collected from an individual responsible for providing support under the State plan shall reduce, dollar for dollar, the amount of his obligation under this section.
(e) No portion of any amounts collected which represent an assigned support obligation defined under § 301.1 of this chapter may be used to satisfy a medical support obligation unless the court or administrative order designates a specific dollar amount for medical purposes.
[64 FR 6248, Feb. 9, 1999, as amended at 68 FR 25303, May 12, 2003; 81 FR 93562, Dec. 20, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1977–2019 · leading case:
Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1991).
Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1991).
· cites it 4× “1(2) and the directors’ policy and practice of setting the state debt at the total amount of AFDC benefits paid violated the provisions of 45 C.F.R. §§ 302.50 and 302.53 and the due process and supremacy clauses.”
Jackson v. Rapps, 132 F.R.D. 226 (W.D. Mo. 1990).
· cites it 2× “45 C.F.R. § 302.50 (1989). Missouri’s state plan for child support enforcement, as originally enacted in response to the federal mandate, provided that where no court order addressed the duty to provide support, that the State would administratively establish support arrearages…”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Thompson, 172 Cal. App. 3d 652 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
“” ( 45 C.F.R. § 302.50 (a)(2) (1984).) To the extent California’s section 11350 seeks reimbursement of benefit funds paid before there has been a support order or an administrative determination of paternity, the section is not mandated by federal AFDC law or regulation.”
Jackson v. Rapps, 746 F. Supp. 934 (W.D. Mo. 1990).
· cites it 4× “45 C.F.R. § 302.50 (1989). Missouri’s state plan for child support enforcement, as originally enacted in response to the federal mandate, provided that where no court order addressed the duty to provide support, that the State would administratively establish support arrearages…”
State of Ohio v. Barron, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 495 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).
“) Additionally, the provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations cited ante, do not limit the recovery of arrearages to the amount paid by the state when there is no support order. They specifically provide the amount of support due when there is no court order will be computed…”
Warlick v. Pub. Welfare Div., 562 P.2d 223 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “45 CFR § 302.50 (a) (1976). The obligation may be established, as in this case, by a court decree.”
Fenton v. Miller, 391 S.E.2d 744 (W. Va. 1990).
“45 C.F.R. § 302.50 [1984], which we quoted in Huffman, supra, sets out the federal requirements for State proceedings for recoupment of AFDC payments.”
Cnty. of Contra Costa v. Lemon, 205 Cal. App. 3d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
“§ 656 (a); 45 C.F.R. § 302.50 .) California law requires some noncustodial parents to reimburse the state for past AFDC payments made (Welf.”
Hunt v. Hunt, 784 S.E.2d 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).
“Chapter 110, Article 9 of the North Carolina General Statutes, entitled "Child Support," lays out the framework for the "administration of a program of child support enforcement" in this State. This Article provides that "[a]ny county interested in the .”
Terry Skelton v. William Rapps, 187 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “465, whose support obligations have not been established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and whose "state debt" was set by the Director of [DCSE] without consideration of the formula mandated by 45 C.F.R. § 302.50 and 45 C.F.R. § 302.53 .”
Boyer v. State ex rel. Stuerke, 851 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “These payments to the court serve to revive all amounts due for ten years prior to each payment pursuant to section 516.”
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.