(Child Support Division): an Exposé
The inefficiencies of a bumbling, incompetent, arrogant, out-of-control, mismanaged, poorly-run bureaucracy. An inside look, from a former employee.
A Case Where the AG Really MeEssed Up
In a 1994 case that went up on appeal
(Attorney General of Texas vs. Cartwright, 874 SW2d 210), the Attorney General screwed up so badly that the Court awarded sanctions against them - basically, the Court made the AG pay a fine because of the outrageous way they handled things. The Court's opinion stated, "When the State [i.e., the Attorney General] enters the Courts as a litigant, it must observe and be bound by the same evidentiary and procedural rules that apply to all litigants. We find that the Attorney General's actions constitute good cause to support Rule 13 sanctions and the trial court properly imposed such sanctions."
Other cases where the AG messed up:
In re A.C.B., 103 SW3d 570 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2003) A man was ordered to pay his child support through a registry, but the order was signed late, and the account at the registry wasn't set up for several months, so he paid child support directly to Mom. The AG couldn't figure this out, even though he explained it to them. They sued him
for contempt and reported him to the credit bureau. In the end, the Court hit the AG with $500.00 in sanctions and ordered them to notify any entities they had previously contacted that the Dad was NOT behind on child suport.
In re A.M., 101 SW3d 480 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 2002) After the divorce, Mom dumped the child with Dad. The AG sued him for unpaid child support. Dad responded by suing Mom for reimbursement for a 58-month period when (a) he had the child living with him but (b) child support kept coming out of his check anyway. The AG then purported to represent Mom in defending her against Dad's reimbursement claim, even though Texas law says the AG can't represent anybody but the State [231.109(d), Texas Family Code]. The result? Because of the AG's action, Mom ended up with a judgment against her for $5,846.00.