Arizona Enemies
The Division of Child Support Enforcement is part of Crazy AZ's Economic Security Department.
Cochise County Attorney's office provides Child Support Services.
But the other county attorneys, including the Maricopa County Attorney, refer questions concerning child support to the Economic Security Department. See Maricopa County Attorney FAQ page.
Pima County Attorney's office declares that it will no longer provide child support enforcement services!!! Remember to vote for Barbara LaWall next time you see her name on a ballot, she might actually be an Ally, not an Enemy.
Pinal County Attorney still runs a Child Support Unit.
This is reflecting a pattern in some of the western states: In California, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona, we see child support enforcement responsibilities moving away from the elected county prosecutors and toward the state governments. For one possible explanation, see the Idaho Enemies page. To further build on that explanation, perhaps the public is not as enthusiastic about cracking down on noncustodial parents as it used to be, if it ever was. As President Bush's base of support is in the very rural counties that seem to or are abandoning the enforcement of support as a responsibility, perhaps he should rethink his support for this insane system in light of his oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Antipeonage Act is a law of the United States.
If the enforcement of child support is indeed as popular with the public as we are lead to believe, then every elected public official would be proclaiming enthusiastic support for it. The California District Attorneys would have loudly opposed transferring the control and responsibility over their Family Support Sections to the state government. They did not. The elected county prosecutors in Idaho, Utah, Montana, and Arizona would loudly proclaim on their web sites their enthusiastic efforts to enforce the support obligation. They do not. While many of the county prosecutors in Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii loudly proclaim their enthusiastic enforcement of support, prominently listing child support as a responsibility on their web sites, some of the more rural county prosecutors in these states do not.
It is like with the Metric System. If it was universally popular with the public, the road signs would change and the elected officials would fall over themselves taking credit. It is not, and the road signs, at least in the United States, do not change. Elected school board members go silent when asked about the track meets and the math curriculum. When local elected public officials wash their hands of something, it is because it is not popular with the public upon whom they depend for re-election.
There is hope for us, folks!
Article 2 Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution declares the supremacy of the United States Constitution.
Article 2 Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution is the state Due Process Clause
Article 2 Section 15 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits excessive fines and bails and cruel and unusual punishments.
Article 2 Section 18 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt except in cases of fraud. I guess child support is a fraud.
Article 2 Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution provides for the right of the individual citizen to bear arms for defense of himself or in defense of the state.
Article 2 Section 32 of the Arizona Constitution declares that its provisions are mandatory, unless declared otherwise by express words. So which provision has the express words declaring that the Arizona Constitution is not mandatory in cases of child support?
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.
Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] with any information that you have to share.