CIVIL DOCKET NO.

 )

{names removed}, )

ANCPR, INC. and A MATTER OF JUSTICE, INC, ) COMPLAINT FOR

Plaintiffs ) DECLARATORY RELIEF

vs. ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

)

Defendants )

)

BACKGROUND SUMMARY

1. This action is brought for the purpose of seeking to declare unconstitutional and enjoin enforcement of Title 42 U.S. Code Section 666(a) 9(c), commonly known as the "Bradley Amendment" ("the Amendment"), as well as 22 CFR 51.70(a)(8) and Title 42 U.S. Code 652(k), the regulatory statutes for passport revocation due to child support arrearages. (Exhibits A, B & C)

 

2. Plaintiffs include individuals faced with child support arrearage obligations and are unable to retroactively modify their arrearages due to the Amendment, and who also have had their passports revoked or who are ineligible for a passport due to their child support arrearages.

3. Plaintiffs believe that the Bradley Amendment is violative of the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution both on its face and as applied and set forth their grievances below. Plaintiffs believe that the statute and regulations affecting their eligibility for a passport similarly violate their rights to substantive due process guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment and their natural rights to travel under the Ninth Amendment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, 1361 and 2201. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e).

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

6. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

7. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

8. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

9. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

10. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

11. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} owes arrearages in child support.

12. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

13. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support. {name removed} has been unable to obtain certain jobs due to the revocation of his drivers license and inability to obtain a passport.

 

14. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence at {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

15. Plaintiff {name removed} is a natural person with a usual place of residence in {name removed}. {name removed} is in arrears in child support.

16. Plaintiff ANCPR, Inc., is a California non-profit corporation with a usual place of business in Beverly Hills, California. It is an organization which advocates the repeal of the Bradley Amendment and whose membership consists of non-custodial parents, who are affected by the Bradley Amendment.

17. Plaintiff, A Matter of Justice, Inc. is a non-profit corporation with a usual place of business in Dahlgren, Virginia. Its membership includes a number of non-custodial parents burdened by child support arrearages.

18. Defendant Attorney General Janet Reno heads the United States Department of Justice which is the agency of the United States Government responsible for the enforcement of federal statutes including the statute at issue in this case.

19. Defendant Donna Shalala is the Secretary of Health and Human Services which oversees the formulation of child support enforcement policy which is at issue in this case.

 

20. Defendant David Gray Ross is the Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement which issues federal directives to state agencies concerning the collection of arrears accruing under the Bradley Amendment.

21. Defendant Madeline K. Albright is Secretary of State of the United States who issues and revokes passports.

 

22. In 1986, Congress adopted and the President signed the Bradley Amendment. In relevant part, the Amendment requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations.

23. In essence, the Amendment provides that child support arrearages may not be retroactively lowered prior to filing of a motion or complaint for modification by an "obligor." The arrearages allegedly owed prior to the filing of a complaint or motion for modification cannot, because of the Bradley Amendment, be lowered.

24. The Plaintiffs have suffered great hardship as a result of the enactment and implementation of the Amendment.

 

25. As a direct and proximate result of the Amendment, certain of the Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated have:

a) been deprived of driver’s licenses.

b) been prosecuted and imprisoned.

c) had their passports revoked.

d) been forced to live at below poverty level.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the Amendment, certain of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons have literally had their lives severely damaged in that they have had difficulties in holding a job, maintaining a bank account or having any kind of meaningful access to the economy.

27. In its effect, the Amendment often operates to prevent non-custodial parents from ever reaching a point in which they can satisfy the obligations imposed on them by the state court in which they have been made an obligor.

28. In its effect, the Amendment prohibits obligors from retroactively reducing their arrearages prior to the date of filing an action for modification.

29. As a consequence, persons unable for a variety of reasons, (including, but not limited to financial hardship, illness, imprisonment, disability, geographic distance, inability to represent oneself pro-se or afford counsel) to file a motion or complaint to modify their support obligation have a permanent obligation that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, and often forces poor individuals into illegal activities or the underground economy.

30. A number of individuals have been forced to leave the United States as a direct result of the Amendment.

31. The Amendment disproportionately impacts males as, on information and belief, over ninety percent of custody awards in state domestic relations cases are given to females.

32. In the implementation of Child Support Enforcement obligations precipitated by operation of the Act, the Defendant Albright, in her capacity as Secretary of State, pursuant to 22 CFR 51.70(a)(8) et seq, and 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) suspends the passport and right to foreign travel of non-custodial parents, in violation of their natural rights pursuant to the Ninth Amendment and in violation of their right to substantive due process in accord with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

33. Similarly, occupational licenses, drivers licenses, and food stamps are suspended as a means of implementing the child support collection and enforcement scheme precipitated by operation of the Amendment.

 

SPECIFIC HARM FACED BY PLAINTIFFS

34. Plaintiffs named herein all face specific harm as a direct and proximate result of the Bradley Amendment.

35. Plaintiff {name removed} was found by a {name removed} court to owe a child support obligation based on imputed income. The income imposed to him was determined arbitrarily and capriciously and had no relationship to his actual income.

36. Because of the Bradley Amendment, the arrearage owed by Plaintiff {name removed} not only accrued, but remains permanently affixed by the State of {name removed} court system as he cannot seek a retroactive downward modification. {name removed} has also become ineligible for a passport and can not obtain a {name removed} driver’s license.

37. Plaintiff {name removed} was medically disabled from 1993 to 1999. Despite his disability, income was "imputed to him" of $52,000.00 yearly. He had no current income at the time the court decision was made.

38. Due to the Bradley Amendment, Plaintiff {name removed} cannot retroactively modify the obligations assessed to him. His driver’s license has been suspended twice, his credit has been damaged, he has repeatedly been subject to arrest, contempt, and garnishment of income and tax returns. He has also been notified that his passport may be suspended.

39. Plaintiff {name removed} has been unable to meet his obligations imposed upon him by the Iowa Support Recovery Unit. As a consequence of this, his bank accounts have been seized and he is unable to have a bank account any longer.

 

40. Due to the Bradley Amendment, Plaintiff {name removed} cannot retroactively modify his support obligation.

41. Plaintiff {name removed} became in arrears with the Department of Child Support of {name removed}. His wages were garnished three times and, as a result, he became unemployed. Subsequently, his unemployment checks were also revoked.

42. Plaintiff {name removed} driver’s license was also revoked.

43. As a union electrician, Plaintiff {name removed} was subject at times to work fluctuations. He was unable to modify his arrearages due to the Bradley Amendment, and is ineligible for a passport under the statutes and regulation in question.

44. Plaintiff {name removed} has been unable to modify his child support retroactively. During periods of unemployment, he was unable to afford an attorney and child support obligations accumulated which cannot be reduced due the Bradley Amendment.

45. Plaintiff {name removed} has been threatened with loss of his passport.

46. Plaintiff {name removed} was unable to keep up with his child support payments and lost his driver’s instruction permit. Consequently he lost his job. The revocation of his permit was due to his failure to maintain child support payments.

47. Plaintiff {name removed} driver’s license was revoked in Nevada and California.

48. As a consequence of his job loss, Plaintiff {name removed} suffered psychological depression and a suicide attempt for which he was hospitalized. He nevertheless was unable to modify his child support.

49. Plaintiff {name removed} has had, due to child support arrearages, his social security disability check garnished. He has disputes as to the assessment of child support arrearages and cannot modify his arrearage due to the Bradley Amendment.

50. Plaintiff {name removed} has also had his driver’s license suspended despite his need for medical treatment.

51. Plaintiffs {names removed} also have been placed in serious financial strain by the assessment of child support arrearages. They have good cause to seek a downward retroactive modification of their arrearages but cannot do so because of the Bradley Amendment.

52. Plaintiff {name removed} was, in fact incarcerated for several months in 1995. His child support obligations continued to accrue while he was imprisoned.

53. Plaintiff {name removed} arrearages cannot be retroactively lowered due to the Bradley Amendment.

54. All of the Plaintiffs are ineligible for a United States passport due to their child support arrearage.

55. Each and every allegation stated above is realleged and is incorporated herein by reference.

56. The Bradley Amendment, both on its face and in it application, is so unfair as to shock the conscience of reasonable people in a civilized community.

57. Therefore the Bradley Amendment denies the rights of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons to substantive due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

58. Each and every allegation stated above is realleged and is incorporated herein by reference.

59. The Bradley Amendment, both on its face and in its applications violates the rights of state citizens in state courts to judicial independence and to the sovereignty each state is entitled by the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The federal government, through the Bradley Amendment is acting beyond its constitutional authority in restricting the power of state court judges.

 

60. Each and every allegation stated above is realleged and is incorporated herein by reference.

61. The Amendment in its application has a vastly disproportionate impact on persons of the male gender.

62. Because over ninety percent (90%) of custody awards are to females, males are overwhelmingly the non-custodial parents, who suffer damage as a result of the harsh and arbitrary enforcement of the Bradley Amendment, in violation of the due process and equal protection rights of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons.

63. Each and every allegation stated above is realleged and is incorporated herein by reference.

64. As applied, the Bradley Amendment and the passport restriction statutes cited above violates the natural rights of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons by:

a) Restricting their right to travel by revoking and/or suspending their drivers licenses and passports

b) Revoking their eligibility for food stamps.

c) Depriving them of their right to a livelihood by suspending occupational licenses.

65. Additionally, the Bradley Amendment often imposes a financial obligation on a parent when no parent-child relationship exists, and often years after the father even knows he has a child.

66. The father is then adjudicated in arrears many tens of thousands of dollars, is subject to draconian collection enforcement and becomes unable to participate in the economy, with his right to have a job, own a business or establish a bank account, have a drivers license or travel abroad, all nullified by the Bradley Amendment.

67. Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated to the plaintiffs literally have their lives destroyed and are denied basic human rights.

68. Plaintiffs have all been damaged or in danger of suffering some or all of the damages enumerated above.

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray this Court:

I. Issue declaratory relief to the effect that the Bradley Amendment (Title 42 U.S. Code § 666 (a)(9)(c) is unconstitutional and that 22 CFR 51.70 (a)(8) and Title 42 USC § 652(k) are unconstitutional.

II. Issue injunctive relief and such other relief as is deemed appropriate and just.

III. Enjoin the Defendant Madeline Albright from denying or suspending any further passports of persons in arrears on child support

IV. Enjoin defendants Janet Reno and David Gray Ross from enforcing the Bradley Amendment.

V. Award attorneys fees and costs to the Plaintiffs.

For the Plaintiffs

By their attorney,

____________________________

David C. Grossack Esquire

Post Office Box 90

Hull, Massachusetts 02045

(781) 925-5253

BBO # 212890

December 14, 2000