Minnesota Supreme Court upholds ruling
In 1975, Congress passed a law which included a last minute amendment
to create the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). When signing
the bill, then President Ford commented that it took the federal
government too far into domestic relations and promised to propose
legislation to correct the problem. Over the decade that followed, it
became clear that OCSE intended to grow in size and power to control
all aspects of child support law, seizing that power from the state courts.
The size of the OCSE grew, this decade acquiring a staff in excess of 50,000 and costing taxpayers some $3 billion annually. Child support laws were modified, so that simple mathematical formulae are used to make award decisions. This new simplicity is required due to the low level of education of workers who are assigned as “judges” in child support cases. Extreme consequences defined by new federal laws, often carried out automatically and without trial, give the child support enforcement agency power over tens of millions of individuals that surpasses anything previously seen in the United States.
After almost 25 years since its start, judges in Minnesota finally felt
that they had seen enough. In June of last year, the Court of Appeals
decided that the administrative branch of government had exceeded its
“The administrative child support process governed by Minn. Stat.
518.5511 (1996) is unconstitutional because it violates the separation
of powers required by Minn. Const. art. III, 1.” (STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS C7-97-926 C8-97-1132 C7-97-1512 C8-98-33, Filed
June 12, 1998;
The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the decision in January of this year.
“The administrative child support process created by Minn. Stat.
518.5511 (1996) violates the separation of powers doctrine by
infringing on the district court’s original jurisdiction, by creating a
tribunal which is not inferior to the district court, and by permitting
child support officers to practice law. Therefore, the statute is
unconstitutional.” (STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C7-97-926
C8-97-1132 C9-98-33 C7-97-1512, Filed: January 28, 1999, Office of