Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunn County child support director outlines services, enforcement tools and casework examples
Summary
Child support director Josie Laliberte briefed the board on the program’s services — parentage establishment, orders, income withholding, tax intercepts and case reviews — and shared enforcement anecdotes showing both impacts to recipients and assistance to payers, including passport-release advocacy and large‑refund collections.
Josie Laliberte, Dunn County child support director, briefed the Board of Supervisors on the child support office’s services, enforcement tools and several case examples that illustrate the program’s practical impact on families.
Laliberte summarized core services: opening cases, locating a noncustodial parent, establishing parentage, setting support orders using state child‑support guidelines, establishing income‑withholding payment mechanisms, enforcing orders and reviewing them at least every three years or sooner for substantial changes in circumstances. "People who owe child support aren't bad people. They're our community members," Laliberte told the board, emphasizing that enforcement often comes paired with referrals to community services.
Why it matters: child support offices both collect and redistribute payments and connect parents to services; the office plays a role in family economic stability and can affect other outcomes such as a parent's ability to travel or obtain employment when liens or intercepts are in place.
Laliberte described enforcement tools the office uses: withholding support from paychecks and certain benefit streams, intercepting income tax refunds, and reporting delinquent payments to credit bureaus. She said the office typically recommends a formal review every three years and will do an earlier review if there is a substantial change in circumstances such as job loss or incarceration.
The director illustrated the office’s work with examples drawn from her 21‑year career: a recipient who received a $27,000 payment after lien verification; a case in which interagency escalation resulted in Florida releasing a passport after a negotiated payment to avoid travel disruption; and a caller who relapsed and contacted the office for help — examples Laliberte used to underscore the office’s mix of enforcement, casework advocacy and referrals to social services.
Laliberte noted administrative and technical limitations: the county’s legacy child support system is several decades old and lacks integrated modern payment features, which can complicate electronic payments across jurisdictions and systems. She also described the office’s practice of collaborating with local human‑services providers, workforce programs and other community resources to help both payers and recipients address barriers to compliance.
Supervisors thanked Laliberte for the overview and the human examples; several members noted the practical value of the office’s casework for constituents. Laliberte invited supervisors and residents to contact the child support office for assistance or to refer community members who need help navigating payments or enforcement remedies.
