CAUSE NUMBER X-XXX, XXX

STATE OF TEXAS, Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division IN THE INTEREST OF XXXXXX XXXXX A CHILD Vs XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, Custodial Parent of XXXXXX XXXXX

IN THE XXXth DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO DISMISS Respondent, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, comes now to motion before this Honorable Court in the above numbered and entitled suit. Respondent Motions said Honorable Court for the dismissal of this suit. FACTS SUPPORTING MOTION FOR DISMISSAL: Lack of Legal Capacity to File Suit/ No Legal Standing/No Legal Jurisdiction: This suit has been filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Child Support Division (hereafter referred to as the AG s office ) on behalf of Movant, XXXXX XXXXX, who is the non-custodial father of XXXXXX XXXXX, a child. The AG s office has no legal capacity, no legal standing and no legal jurisdiction to file this suit against the Respondent. The AG s office is a Title IV-D agency receiving federal funds under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

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. 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. Respondent is the legally adjudicated custodial parent under the current order AGREED DECREE OF PATERNITY. (See Exhibit A, and Exhibit B) The AG s office is not authorized to file suit in order to obtain support on behalf of a non-custodial parent; therefore, the AG s office 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 AG s office has no jurisdiction in suits for child custody. This suit is a prima facie child custody case guised under the title Status Change. Child custody suits are private suits to be prosecuted privately by the respective parties in which the AG s office has no legal standing or jurisdiction. To initiate a change of custody suit from a current legally adjudicated custodial parent to a non-custodial parent via a Status Change suit is a violation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Civil Rights Violations: The current order, AGREED DECREE OF PATERNITY 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. Not only is this suit a violation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, but it is also a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, respectively. The majority of custodial parents in the State of Texas are women, especially those who require services through Title IV-D agencies, such as the AG s office. Any legal action initiated by a state agency, such as this action by the AG s office, which would create a legal and financial disparate impact on this protected class, and thereforeis discriminatory. The Respondent, the custodial parent of XXXXXX XXXXX, is a woman who requires Title IV-D services through the AG s office.
2

This suit has a disparate impact on the Respondent, and is therefore sexually discriminatory toward the Respondent. Due Process Violation: Furthermore, the actions in this suit against the Respondent namely the attempt to revoke an existing court order and pursue retroactive child support is also a violation of the Respondent s due process rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. An existing order cannot be revoked or amended without proper due process. An essential element in due process is the legal standing or legal jurisdiction to file suit. It is a violation of due process and state and common law to retroactively apply an order that is newly instituted when a previous order existed to cover the period of time in which a party or state agency, in this action is seeking retroactive remedies. Summary: The AG s office lacks legal capacity, legal standing, and legal jurisdiction to file suit against the Respondent. Moreover, this suit against said Respondent is a violation of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, respectively, as well as a violation of the Respondent s 14th Amendment rights to due process and violates various state and common law. Prayer: Respondent prays that the Honorable Judge of this said Court will dismiss this suit based on its lack of proper legal standing and lack of legal jurisdiction, its discriminatory nature toward the Respondent, and the suit s violation of the due process rights of the Respondent. Respondent prays that the said Honorable Judge will award Respondent with all remedies or relief that may be available to said Respondent. Respectfully Submitted, MOTION GRANTED BY: ________________________________ ___________________________________ Pro Se On this______day of___________2011 Respondent, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX (Presiding Judge)