Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #1 

This is a pretty important bill for us to watch. I tried to post it several ways on this site and it just doesn't work. This is a long bill because it appears to be more of a legislative package, and sandwiched in between all of the garbage, is requirements that cell phone companies and other utilities check names of their customers against a "deadbeat" parent list that the state has and if your name appears on that list, the utility and or cell phone company will have to give your personal information to the state of Iowa. There are also provisions in there for self employed people, etc. It's a large bill. I posted it over on my site because it actually works over there. If you want to view the bill, click HERE and you can leave comments there if you wish, or here. At the bottom of the page over there, there will be a link in my signature line that you can click to come back here to IowaFathers.  


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 

Declarations for Bryan Iehl


FEBRUARY 21, 2008 13:13:30

HF  2309
A bill for an act relating to child support recovery including
assignment of support to the state relative to receipt of family
investment program benefits, garnishment of money held by the state
for a person who owes delinquent child support, the reporting of
delinquent child support obligors to consumer reporting agencies,
access to cellular telephone numbers for the purpose of the
computer match program by the child support recovery unit,
collection of support from certain obligors, the information
included in a notice regarding the administrative levy of an
account, and medical support of a child, and providing effective
and retroactive applicability dates. (Formerly HSB 624)

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 21, 2008
Against      IA. Fathers .Com





                          HF  2044
A bill for an act relating to the setting aside of a portion of
child support payments in a separate fund to be invested and
reserved for the child.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 18, 2008
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  264
A bill for an act relating to grandparent and great-grandparent
visitation.  (Formerly SF 33.)

Bryan Iehl MARCH 14, 2007
Against      IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  507
A bill for an act relating to joint physical care of children in
dissolution cases and establishing a rebuttable presumption that a
request for joint physical care is in the best interest of the
child.  (Formerly SF 315.)

Bryan Iehl MARCH 14, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  235
A bill for an act relating to joint physical care of children in
dissolution cases.

Bryan Iehl MARCH 6, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  315
A bill for an act relating to joint physical care of children in
dissolution cases and establishing a rebuttable presumption that a
request for joint physical care is in the best interest of the
child.  (See SF 507.)

Bryan Iehl MARCH 6, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com



                          SSB    1281

Bryan Iehl MARCH 5, 2007
Against      IA. Fathers .Com





                          HF  102
A bill for an act establishing a child endangerment offense for the
mother of a newborn child who caused an illegal drug to be present
in the newborn child's body, and providing a penalty.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          HF  312
A bill for an act relating to repayment of support to an obligor
following disestablishment of paternity.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          HF  315
A bill for an act relating to leaving an unattended child or not
properly supervised child in a motor vehicle, and providing a
penalty.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  127
A bill for an act relating to extracurricular school activities and
noninterference with parental visitation rights.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
For          IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  33
A bill for an act relating to grandparent and great-grandparent
visitation.  (See SF 264.)

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
Against      IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  6
A bill for an act relating to the child and dependent care and
early childhood development tax credits and including a retroactive
applicability date provision.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
Undecided    IA. Fathers .Com





                          SF  61
A bill for an act relating to the establishment of state and school
antiharassment and antibullying policies, providing data collection
and reporting requirements, and providing for immunity and other
related matters.  (Formerly SSB 1048.)  Effective 7-1-07.

Bryan Iehl FEBRUARY 9, 2007
Undecided    IA. Fathers .Com



__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #3 

Our opponents both in and out of the government freely advance ways to remove every freedom a non-custodial parent may have but care nothing for visitation enforcement.  Gronstal will be happy to advance this bill....

Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #4 

This bill is coming out of the house, not the senate. There are those in the house too who wish to advance the cause of the other side. The house is where the bills came from last year that bit us in the hind end. While I was watching the senate last year, the house did the dirty work. This is why I say that we need to be vigilant of both houses and keep a sharp eye out for any of these "sleeper" bills. This bill in particular is disturbing because it sandwiches many terrible things in with some procedural stuff that needs done in order to make Iowa compliant with federal regulation. It's like hiding a worm pill in a ball of hamburger for your dog. We have our work cut out for us on this bill. I don't see how the state can require any private agency to check it's customers against a "deadbeat" parent list and then forward private information to them? How can this sort of thing be legal? We need the ACLU notified of this and we need to challenge this one in court if passed. This is unAmerican to the core.


BTW, I'll have to review the HF315 about leaving a child unattended. It all depends on what unattended means. My mother used to leave us out in the car while she went in and grocery shopped. It was nice weather and I was 9 or 10 at the time. I don't think that should warrant a penalty. My wife runs in and writes a check at the gas station in sub zero temperatures with our 1 y.o. out in the van so she doesn't have to keep dragging her in and out of the cold. I don't think that should warrant a penalty. However, these parents that leave their children in vehicles in extreme heat without ventilation while they have their hair done is another story. I'll take a look and see if I agree or not.

Here's one good part of HF2309 : NEW PARAGRAPH.  f.  If a health benefit plan is not
10 33 available, and the noncustodial parent is receiving assistance
10 34 or is residing with any child receiving assistance as provided
10 35 in section 252E.2A, subsection 1, paragraph "c", subparagraph
11  1 (3) or (4), the unit shall seek an order that the noncustodial
11  2 parent shall provide a health benefit plan when a plan becomes
11  3 available for which there is no premium cost for a child to
11  4 the parent.

 

Now, that ain't bad. It's just the other stuff that's packaged with this bill that's bad. This is the tactic used at the federal level to get pork barrel spending through.




__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #5 

HF 2309 - Last 3 Actions:

Feb. 19 08 Introduced, placed on calendar. H.J. 319.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #6 
 If a health benefit plan is not
10 33 available, and the noncustodial parent is receiving assistance
10 34 or is residing with any child receiving assistance as provided
10 35 in section 252E.2A, subsection 1, paragraph "c", subparagraph
11  1 (3) or (4), the unit shall seek an order that the noncustodial
11  2 parent shall provide a health benefit plan when a plan becomes
11  3 available for which there is no premium cost for a child to
11  4 the parent.


I personally don't think this will solve much, they know darn well that ncp's don't usually qualify for any assistance even if they need it and they wouldn't be paying support if the child resided with them.

__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #7 

This is probably one of the scariest bills moving through the chambers right now and I don't even hear the crickets chirping on this one. This bill has serious civil liberties issues with it and I cannot believe that this bill isn't being denounced publicly and that the alarms aren't sounding to the news agencies about this.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #8 

That is why we need to move to become recognized as a separated class of citizens and seek the protection of the civil liberties associations, because no one cares if a bill is unconstitutional as long as it done to effect a non custodial parent. We need protection from being defined as a separated class. We need to file federal suits against the U.S for thier crime.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #9 

Bill History for HF 2309
By Human Resources.
A bill for an act relating to child support recovery including assignment of support to the state relative to receipt of family investment program benefits, the reporting of delinquent child support obligors to consumer reporting agencies, access to cellular telephone numbers for the purpose of the computer match program by the child support recovery unit, the information included in a notice regarding the administrative levy of an account, and medical support of a child, and providing effective and retroactive applicability dates.


February 19, 2008Introduced, placed on calendar. H.J. 319.
February 26, 2008Fiscal note. HCS.
February 27, 2008Passed House, ayes 97, nays 3. H.J. 420.
February 27, 2008Immediate message. H.J. 421.
February 27, 2008Message from House. S.J. 407.
February 27, 2008Attached to similar SF 2204. S.J. 407.
March 4, 2008Substituted for SF 2204. S.J. 450.
March 4, 2008Amendment S-5043 filed, adopted. S.J. 451.
March 4, 2008Passed Senate, ayes 46, nays none. S.J. 451.
March 4, 2008Message from Senate. H.J. 488.
March 4, 2008Immediate message. S.J. 451.
March 4, 2008Senate amendment H-8062 filed. H.J. 498.
March 6, 2008House concurred in Senate amendment H-8062. H.J. 524.
March 6, 2008Passed House, ayes 93, nays none. H.J. 524.
March 6, 2008Immediate message. H.J. 525.
March 10, 2008

Message from House. S.J. 494.
 
This bill will become law.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!