SB 1067 Created in Conjunction with UN to Fulfill the Objectives of Agenda 21

Much misinformation has ensued following the attempt to pass SB 1067, The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, through the house where it was stopped. What most people do not understand is that this bill is not about child support, it is about the federal government subjugating Idaho to international law from a United Nations (UN) affiliated organization. Per federal mandate this bill mandates Idaho to change existing Idaho law to include provisions of the Hague Convention.
There is a tangled web of how this federal mandate came about. Here is a time line of those events.

The Hague Convention, also known as the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), develops and services multilateral (countries working together) legal instruments. Countries, referred to as states, who are members of the Hague Conference are shown on this map. The United States is a member state of this convention and signed onto the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance which outlines the requirements for the state to follow. It was not ratified by the U.S. Senate, but Hague protocols allow ratification when all 50 states are forced to adopt their requirements into state law. Here is the vision and mission of the HCCH, “…for the development and implementation of common rules of private international law…”. This HCCH document outlines how to implement the Child Support Convention. Special attention should be paid to pages 4 & 5 under Methods of Implementation.

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2008) (UIFCA) and Hague Treaty Provisions were created with consensus by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), U.S. Department of State, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), and state and local child support practitioners. These groups decided that the UIFSA would be the appropriate vehicle to integrate the treaty into U.S. law via state legislation. In 1996 the UIFSA was modified to enable U.S. states to enforce child support orders across our state lines.
Hague involvement with the United Nations:
1. The Uniform Law Commission, also know as The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), is a certified UN NGO. The federal Department of State and Health and Human Services (pg 3) worked with the NCCUSL to use the UIFCA for implementation.
2. Hague reinforces the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child through its Intercountry Adoption Section. The U.S. ratified this in 2007.
3. This document outlines how Hague actively works with UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT, both UN organizations for conventions and other instruments of international law. This document identifies how Hague worked under the auspices of UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT on child support enforcement, pg 6, III, J, 6.
From the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE):
“In 2009 the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted hearings and in 2010 the full Senate gave its Advice and Consent to the ratification of the treaty (Hague). The House of Representatives passed implementing federal legislation in 2013. In 2014 both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed implementing federal legislation. The bi-partisan bill is titled Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, Pub. L. 113-183.” This is the federal bill mandating states to implement the law through through UIFSA. Notice it will also “extend and improve adoption incentives”, where the Hague Convention reinforces the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Page 12 of this document outlines how this treaty moved through the U.S. Senate in 2010. It interesting to note that Sen. Jim DeMint successfully passed an amendment to the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support and Family Maintenance stating “…the Treaty does not create any obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of United States or international law.” How is it possible for the U.S. to not adhere to this when it is imbedded in the treaty? The treaty requirements were eventually inserted into H.R. 4980.

On October 9, 2014 an action transmittal was sent out …”requiring all states to enact any amendments to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)… which integrate the appropriate provisions of The Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support…”. This is how it ended up in the lap of Idaho. Starting from a UN affiliated convention the US signed on to, through our federal government with UN affiliated consensus, and forcing states to insert it into state law without any ability to amend.

As one of the Hague Convention requirements, SB1067 also opens up the door to shared databases between Idaho and foreign countries including, but not limited to, the IRS, Social Security, VA, Department of Defense, and the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS). Page 9 of this document outlines databases that will be searched by the “central authority” (in the U.S. the central authority will be the Department of Health and Human Services), and states the process will be followed per the Hague Convention. But fear not, the HCCH has it all figured out with their iSupport program, funded by the European Union, and how that information will be “secure” when shared with foreign countries. In the above link the OCSE states that data will not be shared, that when a request is made by a foreign country OCSE will search the FPLS and provide only the state of residence of an individual to the foreign country. What OCSE does not say is how all the other database information is shared.

H.R.4980 – Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act became law on 9/29/14, requiring states to enact the amendments to the UIFSA. Under the Child Support Enforcement section, Title III: Improving International Child Support Recovery Grants, “The entity designated as a Central Authority for child support enforcement in a foreign reciprocating country or a foreign treaty country access to the Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS)” and “Revises state law requirements involving the use of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.” This is how Idaho data would be opened up to foreign countries. Idaho would have no ability to change any aspect of this law.

Vicki Turetsky, in her 2013 testimony as Commissioner for The Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provides justification for ratification of the Hague Convention, “…Hague Convention establishes a new and more effective international system…” asked for “…Ratification of the Convention…”, and supported “…legislation would mandate that all states enact the 2008 version of UIFSA…”. Interestingly, she notes that current international cases are only one percent. She believes international law is the answer for all. The U.S. already has laws to conduct child support enforcement on an international basis. The difference with Hague is the door is open to international governance and data sharing. She makes it all sound so wonderful.

Once again Idaho is being held hostage to the federal government. The federal government has threatened Idaho that all funding will be stopped for child support enforcement unless this is passed. But this is not just unique to Idaho, the feds are also commanding other states to adopt the same because all 50 states must comply with this mandate in order to ratify the International Recovery of Child Support treaty. A complete illegal bypass of our Constitution that all treaties must be ratified by the Senate, Article VI. This is nothing more than the typical back door maneuver that is the gold standard of UN tactics, laundering their crime behind a front just like the mafia.

Agenda 21 is wrought with using NGOs to influence governments to embed its goals and objectives into legislation. This is just one stark example of how it is done. A UN NGO working with our federal government to put us one step closer to a global, UN controlled, world. Although the document itself does not specifically state an international or cross-boundary law for child support enforcement should be made, under the word development it can easily be seen that efforts to enhance a parent and child’s right to economic resources by a court should be honored through an international law. Chapter 39 is devoted to the use of International Legal Instruments and Mechanisms again as it relates to development meaning societal development, especially for women and children. Chapter 40.8 states “In addition to the strengthening of existing development-related data collection, special attention needs to be paid to such areas as …rights of access to resources, as well as special groups, including women, indigenous peoples, youth, children…”

The following chapters say it all:

40.16 “All countries, particularly developing countries, with the support of international cooperation, should strengthen their capacity to collect, store, organize, assess and use data in decision-making more effectively.” Decision making in child support enforcement decision making will be more easy if SB 1067 is passed.

40.19. “Existing national and international mechanisms of information processing and exchange, and of related technical assistance, should be strengthened to ensure effective and equitable availability of information generated at the local, provincial, national and international levels…”

40.23. “Governments should consider supporting the efforts of governmental as well as non-governmental organizations to develop mechanisms for efficient and harmonized exchange of information at the local, national, provincial and international levels, including revision and establishment of data, access and dissemination formats, and communication interfaces.”

40.25. “Countries, international organizations, including organs and organizations of the United Nations system, and non-governmental organizations should exploit various initiatives for electronic links to support information sharing, to provide access to databases and other information sources, to facilitate communication for meeting broader objectives, such as the implementation of Agenda 21, to facilitate intergovernmental negotiations, to monitor conventions…transfer technical data. These organizations should also facilitate the linkage of different electronic networks and the use of appropriate standards and communication protocols for the transparent interchange of electronic communications… Mechanisms should also be established to carry out the necessary transfer of information… ”

Our government continues to engage with the UN to implement goals and objectives of Agenda 21. This is just another example of how it is done.