Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services: Kristina Gaston’s Child Support

Update: August 29, 2006

Kristina has not received her child support for August 2006. Kristina’s father has missed so many payments, we have lost track of what she is entitled too. We have repeatedly informed the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (IDHFS). IDHFS cannot or will not get the court ordered child support payments enforced. Kristina’s father receives money from our Social Security system. Kristina’s father has never work or contributed any money to our Social Security system. Kristina’s father has medical issues stemming from substance abuse and alcoholism. Our legislative government has determined child support payments cannot be taken from a person’s Social Security income. It is my belief our legislature created this law thinking a person’s Social Security income is isolated from debt collection. This is probably a good thing for those whose income is limited due to their inability to work. It was probably put in place because those individuals receiving Social Security contributed to the system. Nevertheless, this law should not be so overly broad as to include those who have not worked and who have not contributed to the system. We, the taxpayers, are also paying their medical bills. Something is definitely wrong with this picture. When Kristina does receive child support payments it is not through direct deposit has requested. My wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, submitted the appropriate documentation to IDHFS. We may be getting punished because we raise this issue for public viewing.

Update: August 12, 2006

Kristina has not received her child support money for August 2006. Her father is far behind in his payments. He receives social security benefits and possibly other benefits from the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

The Illinois legislature needs to seriously look for change in the child support laws, the social security insurance statutes, and public aid benefits. Individuals who are receiving social security benefits and public aid benefits due to illnesses brought about by substance abuse and alcoholism, who may have hardly had employment, should not be receive Social Security Benefits or any other benefits from the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services.

Many of these individuals also receive food stamps, financial support, and medicaid and/or medicare. Individuals who work hard everyday and have a family, when faced with unemployment cannot get food stamps, financial support, and medicaid and/or medicare if their unemployment benefits and family income from the spouse takes them beyond financial guidelines for receiving food stamps, financial benefits, and medicaid and/or medicare.

It appears most of this financial support for those who have hardly worked come from programs created for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. It appears these programs are created for those who do not want to work or who have issues of substance abuse and alcoholism, yet these programs are paid for by hard working taxpayers who cannot utilize them when they are unemployed. What should we do as taxpaying citizens?

Update: June 11, 2006

As of today, June 11, 2006, Kristiana has not received her child support payments. Mr. Barry Maram, Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, nor his employees has not informed us of why Kristina’s child support payments are coming through the U.S. Mail instead of being a direct deposit into the bank account on file.

Update: May 13, 2006

On or about May 9, 2006 Kristina received a one month child support check, in the mail, for $100.00. We do not know what month this payment represents. Kristina’s child support payments are supposed to be direct deposits. For some unknown reason to us, the last checks have been sent through the U.S. Mail.

Update: May 7, 2006

Kristina did not receive her May or April 2006 child support payment.

Update: April 6, 2006

Kristina did not receive her March 2006 child support payment. So far, Kristina has not received her April 2006 child support payment. I guess the system really does not work Mr. Blagojevich.

Update: March 22, 2006

Kristina has not received her child support for March 2006. Is anyone listening? I know Illinois’ Cook County Central is monitoring my website at 8:30 am everyday. Are you listening? What are you looking for? Assist Kristina since you are interested in what I write.

Update: February 22, 2006

Kristina received her child support payment of $100.00 in the mail on February 21, 2006. Her father was ordered by the court to pay $25.00 a week in child support payments. Kristina’s child support is supposed to come to her by electronic mail to her mother’s bank account. This payment comes from the office of Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes, and countersigned by Judy Baar Topinka, Treasurer of Illinois. Shouldn’t someone inform Kristina’s mother why this child support did not travel through the channel she requested?

Kristina’s child support court order also reports she should receive a penalty amount when the child support is late. Of course, the Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services and the State’s Attorney’s office report they cannot enforce the court order. Too bad for Kristina, but this is our present Illinois government in action.

As of February 14, 2006, Kristina has not received her child support for February.

November 26, 2005

Illinois Department of Healthcare & Family Services
Mr. Barry S. Maram, Director
201 South Grand Avenue
Springfield, Illinois 62763-0001

Re: 2004 D 650237 Darlene Bouyer-Nance (petitioner) vs. Lawrence Gaston (respondent) with child support for Kristina Gaston

Mr. Maram:

This is a follow-up to the 3 previous letters published and posted on http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/, which this letter is also published and posted.

This is the 4th letter sent to your office requesting enforcement of a judicial court order demanding Mr. Lawrence Gaston pay child support every month, by the 3rd of the month, of $100.00 as ordered by the court. As of November 26, 2005, Kristina Gaston has not received her allotment of $100.00 for November 2005. This brings the total owed to Kristina to $450.00 using the figures submitted to us by your Acting Administrator, Pamela Compton, which is in your system’s database.

A letter dated September 6, 2005, addressed to my wife Darlene Bouyer-Nance, from Ms. Compton states, in part, “…Research shows that Cook County court order 2004D0650237 became effective August 13, 2004. This order obligates Mr. Gaston to pay $100.00 per month in current support for your child, Kristina Gaston…As of August 26, 2005, the balance due on your account is $350.00.” This does not include charges to Mr. Gaston for late fees as outlined in this court order.

Ms. Compton continues her statement, in part, “…Your desire to see legal consequences and penalties imposed on Mr. Gaston is acknowledged….While recommendations are made and specific penalties may be requested, the decision rests solely with the judge hearing the case on what penalties he or she will impose.” It appears no recommendations or penalties will arise because your office is punishing Kristina for bringing this to your attention and posting it to the Internet. In order to have this case brought before a judge, the Cook County States Attorney’s office must act.

Ms. Compton reports, “…These penalties are not imposable by the Division of Child Enforcement; they are judicial penalties. The failure to pay child support is a civil, not criminal, matter.” Mr. Maram, you need to change the name of your department from “Child Support Enforcement” to something else because it is surely not child support enforcement. Your department is not “enforcing” any child support court order in this matter. It is merely an entity to pass the buck.

My wife and I have attempted to address this issue in open court with Illinois’ Cook County State Attorney’s office, to no avail. A Cook County States Attorney presented this matter when the judicial court order became effective. It was not civil then, unless the Cook County States Attorney’s office handles civil matters. It would seem to us laymen the Illinois State Attorney’s office would work with your “Child Support Enforcement” in gathering the necessary remedies to comply with the judicial court order. It is ludicrous for the public to believe child support is enforceable by civil remedies paid out of the pockets of a child’s parents seeking enforcement of a judicial court order. It is ludicrous to believe this court order should be enforced through “civil” remedies. This is absurd.

We, the voting public, cannot depend on any promises from this administration under Governor Rod Blagojevich. As outlined in previous letters to you, Mr. Blagojevich has implemented new “laws” to supposedly crack down on “deadbeat” dads. If his new agenda means anything to his appointees, they should be active in implementing his strategies. It appears the only thing enforceable under this administration is retaliatory acts from this administration upon my family for bringing to the public’s attention the non-actions and ludicrous statements of this present government.

Mr. Gaston now lives with another daughter and her mother in Southern Illinois. Has Mr. Gaston alerted “your” system of moving his residence? He would not be hard to locate if research were done to find the mother of the other child who may be receiving some sort of public assistance. Mr. Gaston and his other child are using the “public aid” system to pay for their medical treatments. Mr. Gaston is seeing doctors who are billing the “public aid” system for his medical expenses. If I remember correctly, the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services is Public Aid now, isn’t it?

Nevertheless, it appears we are reaching your “magic” number of $500.00 for some sort of relief. At last count it seems Mr. Gaston owes $450.00. Ms. Compton reports, “The 9% interest for past due current support was also mentioned in your husband’s correspondence. At this time, our database is unable to calculate and add interest to account balances.” What a statement by a government entity that spends millions of taxpayer dollars!!! If the 9% were calculated, Kristina would be at $490.50. I did these calculations with a small hand-held calculator. Even so, Kristina is almost at your “magic” number of $500.00.

We, and probably the public who view my website, would like to know what will happen when Kristina reaches your “magic” number of $500.00. C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality is being viewed as far as Australia, Africa, New Zealand, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada. People need to know how politics and nepotism work in Illinois. We, the people, need to know how “our” tax dollars are spent.

I would like to take you to an earlier statement made above, which Ms. Compton made, it is “The failure to pay child support is a civil, not criminal, matter. There is something seriously wrong with your department’s thinking. Unless it is what is commonly known as “mainstream” thinking. Mr. Barack Obama is familiar with this thinking. He believes in “mainstream” thinking. This must be the thinking of our Illinois Governor. How long does Kristina wait for justice, or is there no justice for the children of Illinois?

Respectfully submitted,

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

cc: Mr. Rod Blagojevich, Governor of Illinois
Mr. Barack Obama, United States Senator of Illinois
Mr. James Meeks, Illinois Senator
Mr. David Miller, Illinois State Representative
Mr. Dick Devine, Illinois Cook County States Attorney
Ms. Colleen Glass, Illinois Cook County States Attorney Supervisor
Mr. Durman Jackson, Illinois Cook County States Attorney Supervisor
Ms. Barb Radtke

Cook County Courts: Daily Operating Policies and Procedures and Unprofessional Behaviors of Elected and Non-Elected Officials

Update: August 15, 2006

The Honorable Dorothy Brown responds:

August 7, 2006

Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Social Policy Analyst

Dear Mr. Nance:

I am writing at the request of the Honorable Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, in response to your fax dated July 24, 2006.

The Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the “Clerk’s Office,” makes every effort to serve our customers with an efficient, effective, and ethical manner. To that end, the Clerk’s Office implemented a new integrated cashiering system, which has been in use for approximately one year. As part of the implementation, extensive training was conducted in all operational areas to ensure effective use of the new system.

In your fax, you stated that you were overcharged for copies. You stated that your transaction was processed through the cash register one time for four copies, then you asked for an additional four copies, and the cashier started a new transaction to charge you for the second set of copies. By doing this, you were charged the statutory rate of $2.00 for the first page and $.50 for the next three pages, and then were again charged $2.00 for the first page and $.50 for the next three pages for a total of $7.00.

As I explained to you on the phone, I apologize that the cashier and manager did not follow the proper procedure in processing your transaction. When you requested the four additional copies, the cashier should have voided the first transaction and started a new transaction to charge you for all eight copies at once. In that way you would only have been charged $2.00 for the first page and $.50 for the next 7 pages for a total of $5.50.

Because you were over billed by $1.50, I am enclosing a check to you in that amount.

Again, I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and we look forward to serving you in the future.

Sincerely,

Elena Shea Demos First Chief Deputy General Counsel

cc: Hon. Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Warren Howlett, Acting Associate Clerk, Criminal Bureau
Wasiu Fashina, Comptroller
Leopoldo Lastre, Chief Deputy Clerk, Criminal Division
Gloria Legette, Assistant Chief Deputy Clerk, Criminal Division

Update: July 29, 2006

No one has responded from Ms. Dorothy Brown’s office. Maybe they believe my issue is too petty for them to address. If what happened to me, is happening to others, the monies received for photocopying may be enormous. Ms. Brown’s office should justify charging the consumers these extra cost.

Update: July 26, 2006

July 24, 2006

Ms. Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 1001
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602

Re: Reproduction Cost at 26th and California, 5th Floor

Ms. Brown:

On July 24, 2006 I went to the 5th floor clerks’ office at 2650 South California at approximately 2:15 pm to review a file. As I reviewed the file, I requested copies of documents in the file. I was informed I had to pay $2.00 for the first copy and $.50 for the next 19 pages. At 2:40 pm I requested 4 copies at $3.50. As I was receiving the copies I thought of something else I wanted from the file.

I looked over the file again. I requested 4 more copies from the same file. Your clerk informed me I had to pay another $2.00 for the first copy and $.50 for additional copies. I informed him he just took $2.00 for the first copy. Your clerk told me it was the policy to collect another $2.00 for the first copy since I wanted more copies. I asked to speak to a supervisor.

Ms. Yolanda informed me the clerk was correct. I asked her was she a supervisor. She reported she was a clerk. I asked her to let me speak to the manager of the department. Ms. Peggy Anderson reported she was the manager. She informed me I had to pay $2.00 for the first copy and $.50 for any additional copies because their machine calculates the copies in a manner where they cannot go make additional copies without charging a new fee. I informed her I had paid this fee already and that I wanted to make additional copies as described earlier. Ms. Anderson informed me she could not do anything. I informed her I would write you about this issue. I paid an additional $2.00 for the first copy again and $.50 for the additional copies I wanted, giving another $3.50. I have two different receipts.

Ms. Anderson gave me a copy of your reproduction charge list. She highlighted the area where the photocopies are reported. Your chart reports “For reproduction of any document contained in the Clerk’s files: First page $2.00, next 19 pages, per page $.50….” It does not say anything about being charge an additional $2.00 for the first page if I want additional copies of the same file. Your chart does not inform the consumer to make all request needed the first time you order copies.

Ms. Brown, I did not leave the clerk’s office. I requested additional copies after getting copies from the same file, and after paying the initial $2.00 the first time. I should not have been charged an additional $2.00 because your machine calculates it that way. I request a refund. Attached to this letter are the receipts I received.

Why would your office have a policy where a customer would have to spend additional monies for reproduction of documents from the same file?

Thank you.

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Social Policy Analyst

cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/

Update: January 25, 2006

On January 25, 2006 I received the comment below from the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Honorable Dorothy Brown, on this matter. Her representative dated the letter January 20, 2005. The year of the letter is a common error made by most of us when a new year begins. This is not important.

What is important is the investigation conducted by Chief Judge Timothy Evans’ staff on this matter. Again, nepotism and political patronage reigns in Chicago. Our Mayor Daley is attempting to clean his house because of scandals. Nevertheless, Judge Kathleen McGury and her staff allowed her “white” friends to get a court date I could not have.

In addition, On January 25, 2006 Judge McGury allowed Attorney Margaret Benson’s objection to my Bystanders report and proposed Bystanders Report to be entered into the record, even though it was filed late on January 10, 2006. This is clear error on the part of Judge McGury.

The black female clerk stated to Attorney Margaret Benson, opposing counsel, “Judge McGury wants to know if you want to speak to her before this case (Ashford) is called?” This is totally inappropriate. We can assume Judge McGury has been discussing this case with opposing counsel without my knowledge or invite to the discussion. Judge McGury is subject to the Codes of Judicial Misconduct.

I filed my Notice of Appeal in Case No. 00 P 1267 (Estate of Romeo Ashford) on November 28, 2005. Ms. Benson had 28 days to file her proposed Bystanders Report. Ms. Benson filed her proposed bystanders report on January 10, 2006. I filed my proposed Bystanders Report on December 6, 2005. Ms. Benson had 14 days to file her objections to my proposed Bystanders Report. Ms. Benson filed her proposed Bystanders Report on January 10, 2006. I filed my objections to her proposed Bystanders Report on January 18, 2006. On January 25, 2006, Ms. Benson admitted in open court her filings were late. Judge McGury allowed her motions to stand and become part of the record anyway.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) states, in part, “The proposed report shall be served on all parties within 28 days after the notice of appeal is filed. Within 14 days after service of the proposed report of proceedings, any other party may serve proposed amendments or an alternative proposed report of proceedings.”

Supreme Court Rule 323(c) directs the trial court, upon presentation by the parties of proposed bystander reports, to “promptly settle, certify and order filed an accurate report of proceedings.” 166 Ill.2d R. 323(c). The Supreme Court Rules are not merely suggestions to be complied with if convenient but rather obligations which the parties and the courts are required to follow. Clymore v. Hayden, 278 Ill.App.3d 862, 869, 215 Ill.Dec. 512, 663 N.E. 2d 755 (1996). Ms. Benson presented and misrepresented Medow v. Flavin, 336 Ill.App.3d 20, 782 N.E. 2d 733, 270 Ill.Dec. 174 (2003), where I took the above quotes from to further support my position of how litigants are supposed to respond to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c).

The Medow case, in part, is about a judge committing clear error granting a bystanders report, which the judge in the Medow case openly acknowledged that the bystanders report contained deficiencies.

“This is not the case here.” Judge McGury has not made a remark about my bystanders report, yet she allowed Ms. Benson’s objections and motion to stand with the Medow case as Benson’s support for her filing a late bystanders report. Judge McGury has committed clear error. Yet, I continue to suffer. The fiasco continues.

Judge Kathleen McGury has set February 15, 2006 as the day for further amendments to “both” bystanders report. Judge McGury has set February 23, 2006 as the date for a hearing in room 1806 of the Daley Center Courthouse in Chicago Illinois. I will “not” honor the February 15, 2006 as it applies to amending my bystanders report because Judge McGury’s decision is clearly erroneous in the matter of my bystanders report of proceedings.

The Notice of Appeal I filed has positioned this matter in the Illinois Appellate Court, First District. I will file an emergency motion on or about January 30, 2006 requesting this court overturn or reverse Judge McGury orders on the bystanders report proceedings sending instructions to Judge McGury to “promptly settle, certify, and order filed a bystanders report without Ms. Benson’s objections or her proposed bystanders report of proceedings.

On January 26, 2006 I received an order from this Appellate Court granting an extension to March 1, 2006 for me to file the record on appeal in this case. I requested an extension on January 18, 2006 because of this matter, along with other issues surrounding my earlier writing posted regarding the Illinois Cook County Court Reporters Office.

Lets see how the Appellate Court of Illinois responds to my emergency motion. I will put the Medow quotes along with the “clear” language of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323(c) , mentioned above, as precedent to support my position of Ms. Benson and Judge McGury’s error in opposing my bystanders report of proceedings.

This is judicial justice in Chicago Illinois presently under the reign of Chief Judge Timothy Evans. Look for my book on the judicial and government processes in Chicago and its suburbs coming soon, especially the retaliatory acts from these entities when one speaks out as I have.

Lets not forget about the Honorable Judge Paul Foxgrover and others caught up in Operation Greylord of the 80s in Chicago.

January 1, 2006

Ms. Dorothy Brown
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County
Richard J. Daley Center, Room 1001
50 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois, 60602

Re: Record on Appeal – Case No. 00 P 1267

Ms. Brown:

I, Fred L Nance Jr., visited your office on or about December 6, 2005 filing a formal complaint with Ms. Philippa Akem, Deputy General Counsel Compliance Officer, about the character and behavior of the court room clerk (Caucasian, elderly lady) in room 1806, presently Judge Kathleen McGury’s court room. I received a letter last week from a representative of your office reporting the court clerk in room 1806 did not act inappropriately when scheduling my date of January 20, 2006 for my motion requesting a hearing for a Bystanders’ Report of Proceedings. I believe this is an incorrect analysis by your office.

On December 6, 2005 I complained the “white” clerk in court room 1806 purposely scheduled my date for a hearing to January 20, 2006 to harass, intimidate and discriminate against me. I have complained of this clerk before. The previous complaint against this clerk was submitted when Judge James Riley sat in court room 1806 in 2001.

On December 31, 2005 I received a motion to reschedule my hearing of January 20, 2006. “Your” court room clerk apparently allowed this motion for a hearing on January 10, 2006 at 10:00 am. The motion was sent from attorney Margaret Benson of the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation. My basic complaint in the courts of indifferent treatment stems from the “special” treatment “your” court room clerks give to opposing counsel, that is, Ms. Benson and attorney Theresa Ceko, who are “white”.

My basic complaint about “your” court room clerk in room 1806 is that she treated me indifferently than others participating in this litigation. “Your” clerk is white. Ms. Benson and Ms. Ceko are white. I am black. Do you catch my allegation of purposeful indifferent treatment because I am black?

“Your” clerk told me on December 6, 2005 that she had no open court date before January 20, 2006. Now it appears she has an open date for her “white” friends. The motion I received has no “clerk of the court stamp” on it displaying the date it was filed in the court/at the Daley Center. The motion I received has no signature on it. It appears to come from Ms. Benson’s office but Ms. Benson’s signature is not attached to it. In every “pro se” court filing I have done and participated in, whether it was local, state, or federal, I have always followed the rules of law especially when it comes to sending “a filed stamped copy” with all appropriate signatures attached to all parties involved. I would not send a copy of a motion or complaint to any opposing counsel, whether pro se or attorney, without attaching a signature or filing stamp from the appropriate clerk of the court. The Illinois Compiled Statutes clearly outline the appropriate procedures. This is appalling. What is going on at the Illinois Daley Center Courthouse is a mess. It is the good “ole boy” buddy system working at its best.

I filed my motion for a hearing on December 6, 2005 and mailed it on December 7, 2005. I am sure opposing “white” counsel had plenty of time to know what their proposed schedules were before December 31, 2005.

Therefore, I will not honor this motion from Ms. Benson. I will not honor a motion coming from “your” court room clerk who allows her “white” friends to have dates I could not have; who refused to give me an earlier date than January 20, 2006, which I complained about to Ms. Philippa Akem of your office. “Your” clerk has a lot of nerve. In order to get a date in court room 1806, you have to get it from the clerk of that court room. The open racism is apparent to me because I have lived with it from this “clerk” since I filed my first complaint in this court room in 2000. Your court room clerk knew I needed to have an earlier date to meet my deadlines in the Illinois Court of Appeals.

With this “bogus” motion suggesting a continuance of my date for hearing on January 20, 2006, the actions taken by “your” court room clerk and by Ms. Benson is a direct attempt to prolong and delay my Appellate action with this “bogus” motion suggesting a continuance of my date for a hearing on January 20, 2006. “Your” clerk has already delayed my action giving me a court date on January 20, 2006 when I filed my motion in court room 1806 and with the official clerk of the court on December 6, 2005.

If this motion is honored and the January 20, 2006 date is cancelled, I will have to motion the Appellate Court requesting an extension for filing my brief in this matter. This would cause undue harm and would be a direct insult to the judicial system and its proposed ethics of character and behavior. The tactics used by “your” court room clerk and Ms. Benson is not rocket science. I am familiar with racial discrimination and its operation on all levels. The record on appeal is due January 30, 2006. My brief is due 35 days after.

I am surprised and appalled that two (2) African-Americans of power and position, such as the Honorable Chief Judge Timothy Evans and yourself, allow such deliberate and purposeful discrimination to take place against another African-American. This is disgraceful and dishonors the Illinois Judicial Court system.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

cc: Timothy Evans, Chief Judge (hard copies sent; faxed also)