U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— SOCIAL SECURITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD-WELFARE SERVICES › Part Part D— Child Support and Establishment of Paternity

42 U.S.C. § 658

Repealed. Pub. L. 105–200, title II, § 201(f)(1), July 16, 1998, 112 Stat. 657

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: In Re Marriage of Lappe, 680 N.E.2d 380 (Ill. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Marriage of Lappe, 680 N.E.2d 380 (Ill. 1997). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 658 (b) (1994). The incentive payments will generally equal 6% of the state's support collections in AFDC cases and 6% of the state's support collections in non-AFDC cases in a particular year.”
Rosie Quarles v. Fred St. Clair, Individually & as Comm'r of the Mississippi State Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 711 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 658 (a). This 12 percent incentive comes out of the federal share of the money which constitutes reimbursement for federal payments for past AFDC benefits.”
In Re Joshua W., 617 A.2d 1154 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1993). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 658 ; see also S.Rep. No. 98-387, supra, at 24, reprinted in 1984 U.”
Lawson v. Lawson, 108 P.3d 883 (Alaska 2005). “” He further argues that the federal child support scheme, 42 U.S.C. § 658 , “creates an incentive and rewards state [jjudges for taking children away from perfectly fit parents by telling [sjtate [jjudges that the [fjederal government will pay the [sjtate 6% of what the [jjudge…”
Baylor v. Dept. of Human Servs., 561 A.2d 618 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989). “Moreover, amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 658 have enhanced the states' incentives for tracking down nonresident parents who are delinquent in making child support payments.”
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Merry, 592 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1979). “SSA § 458, 42 U.S.C. § 658 . Further, an assignment to a state of a child support obligation under 42 U.”
Plummer v. Hegel, 535 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Therefore, the County *573 Council need not make appropriations for the incentive payments as the placing of incentive monies into the prosecutor's operating budget will not affect the county treasury.”
Jackson Ex Rel. Forrest v. Mullany, 708 F. Supp. 483 (N.D.N.Y. 1989). “Moreover, amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 658 have enhanced the states’ incentives for tracking down nonresident parents who are delinquent in making child support payments.”
Leibowitz v. Cnty. of Orange (In Re Leibowitz), 218 B.R. 96 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1998). “42 U.S.C. § 658 (p) (emphasis added) (West Supp.”
Stroop v. Bowen, 870 F.2d 969 (4th Cir. 1989). “Moreover, amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 658 have enhanced the states’ incentives for tracking down nonresident parents who are delinquent in making child support payments.”
Shehan v. Hogan, 818 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “" 42 U.S.C. § 658 (a)(2). One express purpose of the Service is to obtain information with regard to assets owned by individuals with child support obligations in order for that information to be transmitted to Title IV-D agencies.”
Dietz v. Fink (D.S.D. 2024). · cites it 2× “1-1 at 32 (asking this Court to investigate alleged fraud caused by the State of South Dakota for incentive payments under 42 U.S.C. § 658 ). He also requests the Court investigate “the relationships and negative ex-parte communications .”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.