NCP Name: XXXXX XXXXX CP Name: XXXXXXX XXXXXXX OAG Number:XXXXXXXXX LAC: MMCSXXXXXXXXXX

CAUSE NUMBER X-XXX, XXX

IN THE INTEREST OF XXXXXX XXXXXXX A CHILD

IN THE XXXTH DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONDENT S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO SUIT: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF STATUS AND MOTION FOR FURTHER ORDERS

GENERAL DENIAL Respondent, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, denies all claims made in the above and entitled suit. Said lawsuit is frivolous and contains false claims that would result in an unjust enrichment to the non-custodial father, Movant, XXXXX XXXXX. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT Respondent, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, is the joint managing conservator possessing certain exclusive rights not held by the child s non-custodial father, Movant XXXXX XXXXX, to the child

subject of this suit, XXXXXX XXXXX. Such exclusive rights held by Respondent XXXXXXX XXXXXXXinclude: (1) the exclusive right to establish the primary domicile of the child (2) the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures, and to psychiatric and psychological treatment (3) the right to receive and give receipt for periodic payments for the support of the child and to hold or disburse these funds for the benefit of the child (4) the right to represent the child in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child (5) the right to consent to marriage and to enlistment in the Armed Forces of the United States (6) the right to make decisions concerning the child s education (7) the right to the services and earnings of the child (8) except when a guardian of the child s estate or a guardian or attorney ad litem has been appointed for the child, the right to act as an agent for the child in relation to the child s estate if the child s action is required by a state, the United States, or a foreign government The child s non-custodial father, Movant, XXXXX XXXXX, made a request to Respondent for additional access to the child starting in mid-October 2009 and Respondent merely accommodated the father s request, as is allowed in the existing order, AGREED DECREE OF PATERNITY (Page 6, part 2, subpart (b) Mutual Agreement or Specified Terms of Possession

which states that XXXXX XXXXX shall have possession of the child at all times as the parties may mutually agree. ). Movant and Respondent mutually agreed that such additional access time was in no manner a change in the custodial status of the Respondent.Respondent has in no way relinquished the primary care and possession of the child, XXXXXX XXXXX. Movant s claim of voluntary relinquishment of the primary care and possession of the child by Respondent is false. Movant s claim for return of support is frivolous. Movant s claim for insurance is frivolous. Movant has failed to maintain health insurance as court-ordered. Movant has failed to reimburse medical expenses owed to Respondent as court-ordered. Movant has failed to adhere to the notice requirements set forth in the AGREED DECREE OF PATERNITY. Furthermore, Movant has not only failed to pay certain medical balances owed, but has also falsely stated to providers of these medical services that balances are the Respondent s responsibility, which has caused Respondent s credit rating to suffer. Movant s claim for child support is frivolous. An order entitled, AGREED DECREE OF PATERNITY currently exists specifying the current terms of possession and support for the child. This order cannot be revoked and applied retroactively. JURISDICTION This suit is being prosecuted by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas Child Support Division on behalf of the Movant, XXXXX XXXXX.

The Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division is a Title IV-D agency federally funded under the Social Security Act sTitle IV-D specifications. The Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division therefore has no jurisdiction in this suit. The Social Security Act Title IV-D specifies that all agencies receiving funding under said Act must only appropriate funding for the purpose of enforcing support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children. Respondent is the legally adjudicated custodial parent under the current order AGREED DECREE OF PATERNITY. Therefore, the Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division is acting outside of their legal jurisdiction and is misappropriating federal funds granted under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act in this suit against Respondent. The Social Security Act Title IV-D Section 451 (42 U.S.C. 651) APPROPRIATION states: For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State program funded under part A) for whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part. The Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division has no jurisdiction in suits for child custody. Such suits are private suits to be prosecuted privately by the respective parties. The current order specifies that Respondent is the custodial parent and the Movant is the non4

custodial parent. The current order can only be changed through judicial means instituted through an award of custody in a private suit for child custody and cannot be prosecuted by a Title IV-D agency. Respondent has made numerous communications with the Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division office in seeking assistance in enforcement of medical arrears, medical coverage of the child, as well as needed corrections on faulty payment records on regular child support payments. The Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division has failed to enforce these matters as required under the Social Security Act Title IV-D. Furthermore, Respondent asserts that the prosecution of this suit by the Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division against the Respondent, who is the legally adjudicated custodial parent, not only violates the provisions of the Social Security Act Title IV-D funding, but is also discriminatory in nature. The majority of custodial parents (as well as the Respondent in this suit) in the State of Texas--specifically those needing Title IV-D services--are women; therefore, the unlawful pursuits of actions against these custodial parents by the Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division creates a financial and legal disparity that impacts this protected class. This disparate impact created by the Texas Attorney General s Child Support Division against women (and furthermore, minority women) violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The initiation of this suit is a violation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

PRAYER Respondent prays that the Honorable Judge of this said Court will dismiss this suit based on its lack of proper legal jurisdiction. Respondent prays that said Honorable Judge will award Respondent with all remedies or relief that may be available to said Respondent. Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________________ Pro Se Respondent, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX Street Beaumont, TX 77707

10

11

12

13