Consumer complaint received 2024-10-07
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. ()

* XXXX XXXX CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES ADDRESS XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX WHICH ON MY CREDIT REPORTING PROFILE CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES ADDRESS IS NOT ACCURATE- IT IS MY BELIEF AND INFORMATION THAT THIS CHILD SUPPORT ORDER AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT IS A RUSH TO JUDGMENT INTO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND BOTH ARE A VIOLATION ON MY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. PLEASE VALIDATE THIS CLAIMED SIGNED BY A MAN OR WOMAN UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. 
BY : XXXX : XXXX FOR : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  IN FACT XX/XX/XXXX CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Family Code Section 3010 ( a ) The mother of an unemancipated minor child and the father, if presumed to be the father under Section 7611, are equally entitled to the custody of the child.

THIS PROVISION CLEARLY STATED MOTHER AND FATHER OF A CHILD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. NOTHING IN THIS PROVISION SAID COSTODIAL PARENT, VISITATION, OR THE MOTHER HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THE FATHER OR VICE VERSA IT SAID EQUAL RIGHTS. 

CIVILIAN DUE PROCESS WAS NEVER GIVEN TO ME, A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WAS NOT OFFER, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DOES NOT SUPERSEDES A JUDICIAL ORDER WHICH IS A VIOLATION TO MY 14TH AMENDMENT PROTECTRD RIGHT. 

I ALSO HAVE TO THE RIGHT TO FACE MY ACCUSER IF I INJURE OR HARM SOME ONE. I AM BEING LIABLE FOR AN ALEDGE CRIME I NEVER COMMITTED BECAUSE THERE IS NO VICTIM. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. SECTION XXXX - THE COURT FIND THAT THE XXXX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY v. FREESTONE ET AL. 

XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES XXXX XXXX XXXX FOR THE XXXX  XXXX  No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Respondents, five Arizona mothers whose children are eligible for state child support services under Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, filed this 42 U. S. C. 1983 suit against petitioner, the XXXX of the state child support agency, claiming, among other things, that they properly applied for child support services ; that, despite their good faith efforts to cooperate, the agency never took adequate steps to obtain child support payments for them ; that these omissions were largely attributable to staff shortages and other structural defects in the State 's program ; and that these systemic failures violated their individual rights under Title IV-D to have all mandated services delivered in substantial compliance with the title and its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief, including a declaratory judgment that the Arizona program 's operation violates Title IV -D provisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a XXXX action, and an injunction requiring the XXXX to achieve substantial compliance with Title IV-D throughout all programmatic operations. The XXXX XXXX granted summary judgment for petitioner, but the XXXX XXXX reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous provisions of the complex Title IV-D program or the many rights those provisions might have created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to have the State achieve " substantial compliance '' with Title IV-D. It also disagreed with the XXXX XXXX 's conclusion that Congress had foreclosed private Title IV-D enforcement actions by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services XXXX XXXX ) to audit and cut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with Title IV-D 's requirements. 

Held : Title IV-D does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D. Pp.340-349. 

( a ) A plaintiff seeking XXXX redress must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely of federal law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Three principal factors determine whether a statutory provision creates a privately enforceable right : ( XXXX ) whether the plaintiff is an intended beneficiary of the statute ; ( XXXX ) whether the plaintiff 's asserted interests are not so vague and amor- XXXX XXXX XXXX as to be beyond the competence of the judiciary to enforce ; and ( XXXX ) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the State. See, e. g., XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Even if a plaintiff demonstrates such a right, however, there is only a rebuttable presumption that it is enforceable under XXXX. Dismissal is proper if Congress specifically foreclosed a XXXX remedy, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, either expressly, by forbidding recourse to XXXX in the statute itself, or impliedly, by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual XXXX enforcement, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX pp. XXXX. 

( b ) Respondents have not established that Title IV-D gives them individually enforceable federal rights. In prior cases, the Court has been able to determine whether or not a statute created such rights because the plaintiffs articulated, and lower courts evaluated, welldefined claims. See, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Here, respondents have not identified with particularity the rights they claim, and the XXXX XXXX has not engaged in the requisite methodical inquiry. That court erred in apparently holding that individuals have an enforceable right to " substantial compliance '' with Title IV-D in all respects. The statutory " substantial compliance '' requirement, see, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( XXXX XXXX, Supp. XXXX ), does not give rise to individual rights ; it was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents, but is simply a yardstick for the XXXX to measure the systemwide performance of a State 's Title IV-D program, allowing her to increase the frequency of audits and reduce the State 's federal grant upon a finding of substantial noncompliance. The Court of Appeals also erred in taking a blanket approach to determining whether Title IV-D creates rights : It is readily apparent that many of the provisions of that multifaceted statutory scheme, including its " substantial compliance '' standard and data processing, staffing, and organizational requirements, do not fit any of the traditional criteria for identifying statutory rights. Although this Court does not foreclose the possibility that some Title IV-D provisions give rise to individual rights, the XXXX XXXX did not separate out the particular rights it believed arise from the statutory scheme, the complaint is less than clear in this regard, and it is not certain whether respondents sought any relief more specific than a declaration that their " rights '' were being violated and an injunction forcing petitioner to " substantially comply '' with all of Title IV-D 's provisions. This defect is best addressed by sending the case back for the XXXX XXXX to construe the complaint in the first instance, in order to determine exactly what rights, considered in their most concrete, specific form, respondents are asserting. Only by manageably breaking down the 331 Full Text of Opinion Show Less Opinions Opinions & Dissents Hear Opinion Announcement - XX/XX/XXXX XXXX TERM, XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ET AL. 
XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES XXXX XXXX XXXX FOR THE XXXX XXXX No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX, 1997-Decided XX/XX/XXXX Respondents, five Arizona mothers whose children are eligible for state child support services under Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, filed this 42 U. S. C. 1983 suit against petitioner, the XXXX of the state child support agency, claiming, among other things, that they properly applied for child support services ; that, despite their good faith efforts to cooperate, the agency never took adequate steps to obtain child support payments for them ; that these omissions were largely attributable to staff shortages and other structural defects in the State 's program ; and that these systemic failures violated their individual rights under Title IV-D to have all mandated services delivered in substantial compliance with the title and its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief, including a declaratory judgment that the Arizona program 's operation violates Title IV -D provisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a XXXX action, and an injunction requiring the XXXX to achieve substantial compliance with Title IV-D throughout all programmatic operations. The XXXX XXXX granted summary judgment for petitioner, but the XXXX XXXX reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous provisions of the complex Title IV-D program or the many rights those provisions might have created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to have the XXXX achieve " substantial compliance '' with XXXX XXXX. It also disagreed with the XXXX XXXX 's conclusion that Congress had foreclosed private Title IV-D enforcement actions by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services XXXX XXXX ) to audit and cut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with Title IV-D 's requirements. 
Held : Title IV-D does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D. 

XXXX XXXX CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES BEEN DEFRAUDING ME SINCE XXXX. LEVY MY BANK ACCOUNT, GARNISHING MY WAGES, ENFORCE HOLD ON MY LIFE XXXX DRIVERS LICENSE AND PASSPORT WITHOUT MY CONSENT. I DO NOT WISH TO VOLUNTARILY BE APART OF NO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE CASE IN MY ALL CAP NAME XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
THIS IS EXTRINSIC FRAUD