I need a lawyers definition of a word I am in the middle of a child support modification. The date of the administrative hearing was to be January 4th. That is the date that CSEA set for the hearing. Nothing has been compiled or sent to either party. The lone woman who does modifications states that she has 6 months from the date of the hearing to send out her recommenation. When asked for a statute, all she could reply was her computer said that was her time frame. CSE.2404. The Administrative Adjustment Recommendation The findings and conclusion of the CSEA shall, within five days of the review date, be incorporated into an "Administrative Adjustment Recommendation" which shall be dated and sent by regular mail to each party. The recommendation shall include notice of their rights to request an administrative adjustment hearing, of the procedures and time deadlines for requesting a hearing, and that the revised amount (if any) will be submitted to the court for inclusion in a revised child support order unless either party requests a hearing on the proposed change within fourteen calendar plus three working days of the date of the administrative adjustment recommendation in court orders. The word I wanted defined was SHALL. From my classes years ago, shall is mandatory, no deviation. I may be remembering incorrectly so that is why I am asking.
I haven't found something for Ohio, but for several states I find this type of wording in legal definition description documents: The word 'may' is permissive, and the words 'shall' and 'will' are always mandatory. Seems you are right, Zodi. Good luck with everything.
Yup, if that statute is current, it appears she must issue her recomendation within 5 days, not 60, of the hearing. However, it seems that you did not have the hearing on the initial date. I am assuming that "review date" is the same as the hearing date. Is it possible that there is an order rescheduling the hearing within 60 days (which has also passed, btw,) and the two issues are being confused? I may be going down the wrong path here, but your comment, "The date of the administrative hearing was to be January 4th," leads me to believe the hearing has not yet occurred. If there was no hearing, the clock has not yet begun to run on the five days. EDIT: MV, are you a lawyer?
You don't have to be hostile towards lawyers; it is a mere 97% of my profession that gives the rest of us a bad name. A doctor and a lawyer were attending a cocktail party when the doctor was approached by a man who asked advice on how to handle his ulcer. The doctor mumbled some medical advice, then turned to the lawyer and asked, "How do you handle the situation when you are asked for advice during a social function?" "Just send a bill for such advice" replied the lawyer. On the next morning the doctor arrived at his surgery and issued the ulcer-stricken man a $50 bill. That afternoon he received a $100 bill from the lawyer.
This is an administrative review hearing. For this hearing, we had to submit all our paperwork (tax returns, paystubs, insurance information) by January 4th. On that day, the modification worker plugges the data into her computer program and it spits out the amount of child support that is to be ordered. It used to be when you asked for a modification you had to go in front of a hearing officer or judge. They have changed that in the past three years to cut down on the court's time. The January 4th hearing was to be the same as a hearing in front of a judge. This process of modification is handled administratively unless one of the parties disagrees with the recommendation, then it is to be heard by the judge. There was no order delaying the hearing sent out to anyone. The only excuse I receive is that they are overworked and understaffed.
If the hearing was held, you don't have a lot of options to force a recomendation. Do you have legal representation? It might not be a bad idea, given the circumstances. Despite our reputation, lawyers can often work within the system and get results that lay persons cannot. Short of that, all I know to tell you is to keep calling your contact person at child services. Be polite but persistent. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Once again, as with all other issues of this kinda importance, I suggest you seek professional advice as well. Its fine to ask us doods here, but in all cases of anything important, dont rely on the OTF, seek professional advice.
You have a dead snake in the middle of the road and a dead lawyer in the same spot. What is the difference between the two? :scratch: There is a skid mark by the snake. :lol:
The problem is..CSEA IS my legal counsel. If I hire an attorney, they will no longer do anything at all on my case.
The CSEA acts on behalf of custodial parents in obtaining child support. They are responsible for the establishment of paternity, support, health insurance and wage attachments. By them not abiding by their own by-laws and codes, they are just as guilty as an attorney who commits malpractice but without the sanctions. The only recourse I have is a state hearing in front of a non-child support hearing officer. They will make a non-biased decision, but from past experience, does not offer any sanctions. I have also contacted the County Commissioners of the county. They are, at the county level, over the CSEA, plus they are elected officials. I cannot even describe all of the crapola that these agencies put people through with no sanctions. I am seriously thinking of starting an ACES chapter (Association for Children for Enforcement of Support) in my area to help myself and others who are in the same boat. Maybe collectively, changes can be made.
