-: SJC 13687, Bharathan Jeevanandam
versus Vanikala Bharathan, Department of Revenue,
Child Support Enforcement Division, third-party defendant.
-: Okay, Attorney Kravitz, whenever you're ready.
-: Good morning, thank you, and may it please the Court.
My name is David Kravitz,
appearing on behalf of the DOR
Child Support Enforcement Division.
Joshua Fishbein, the agency's general counsel,
is with me at the counsel table.
The division exists for one reason and for one reason only,
and that is to establish and create an effective
and comprehensive child support enforcement program.
And as this Court has explained,
that sort of has two dimensions.
One, of course, is the best interest of the child,
and the other is to ensure that, to the extent possible,
it should be the parents rather than the government
who provides for the financial needs of the child,
of course, with the government stepping in as necessary.
And so to that end, the legislature in chapter 119-A
has conferred upon the division
an enormous array of remedies that it has
to ensure that child support is timely paid
and if it's not timely paid, to collect those arrearages.
And these remedies, as you know, range from wage assignment
to liens, levies, attaching assets,
driver's licenses, passports.
It's an enormously powerful filing for contempt.
It's a powerful array of remedies,
but they are all devoted to the enforcement
of child support orders.
That is the reason that they have those remedies
and they're cabined in that way.
-: Mr. Kravitz, -: Yes.
could I ask you one, I read your brief and it's very clear.
I was surprised that there are no citations
to support the point you're making
in the sense that we have no cases having dealt with this.
You'd think there'd be thousands and thousands of these.
So around the country and here.
David: Yeah.
-: So I'm, that gives me pause that this has not come up.
-: To our knowledge, it has not come up,
at least in this form, in the sense that
the division has been asked to enforce an order
that is clearly not a child support order.
I mean, that's the key to the case.
The term support order is defined in section 1-A.
-: Well, it's a fight that arose
out of a child support order.
David: I'm sorry.
-: It's a fight that arose out of
a child support order. David: Correct.
But I, and I get your distinction,
and you do it very clearly and nicely.
I just, it just, I'm just surprised
this hasn't happened before.
But you, when we send our law clerks back out,
we're not gonna find anything on this to support?
We're not gonna have any administrative decisions or cases
that draw the distinction you're drawing?
Not that you're aware of.
-: Not that I'm aware of.
I mean, I will say, you know, in a lot of case,
you know, so retroactive terminations,
as we mentioned in the brief, are not terribly uncommon.
It does happen when it's unclear
when the support order is supposed to end,
and then there's a subsequent judgment and so forth.
It is often the case that when that occurs,
it will be pursuant to a modification
rather than a termination.
And so then, you know, the amount can be adjusted
and then you sort of do an offset.
The thing that's different here
is that it was just a flat termination,
and of course, the amount is, you know,
quite substantial in this case.
And so, you know, as I say, you know, I mean,
if your law clerks are able to find something,
my hat is off to them.
We weren't able to find anything.
-: Counsel, you raise the part that troubles me.
So you draw this distinction
because there was a retroactivity component
to terminating it. David: Correct.
But why doesn't the same rationale apply to a modification?
So there's an order of support for $300 a week in support,
and then down the line, the Court orders a modification
to $150 retro to a date
that there's an overpayment now of $150
for some amount of time. David: Right.
And you just conceded,
which I just read in the statute as well,
that the Court is authorized to do an offset
for those amount of monies that were paid in error.
That according to your definition in your brief
is no longer child support.
So why is it in a modification you can do it
and the division hasn't the authority
to offset payments to come to reimburse the obligor,
but they can't do it in a situation where they say,
"No, you shouldn't have been paying at all
"so I'm going to order the entire $300 to be paid back
"to the obligor." David: Yes.
What's the meaningful difference in the two?
-: So the meaningful difference,
and I think this really is sort of the key to the case,
is that it's up to the Court to, you know,
determine if an offset is appropriate and so forth.
And then if, after it does that,
there's something left that is still required to be paid
over from the non-custodial parent
to the custodial parent, that amount, whatever it is,
whether, you know, the original order was $300,
there's an offset of $100,
so now it's gonna be $200, let's say.
That $200 is still being paid over for the support
and maintenance of a child.
In other words, that's what's left of the support order
and DOR and that amount of that order
is within DOR's purview and DOR can enforce it.
So that's the difference because here,
because there was a termination
and there was no longer any existing obligation either way
to pay child support.
Now, when the mother repays this debt to the father,
that payment is not for the support
and maintenance of a child.
It is simply to adjust an obligat-,
it's a private debt between private parties.
And, you know, it's worth stating that, of course,
the father, once this debt is reduced to judgment,
the father has, at his disposal,
as any judgment creditor does, a wide array of remedies.
He simply can't enlist DOR in its enforcement
because it's not for the support and maintenance of a child.
-: So when the Court says,
"I'm going to go back and say from this date forward,
"you had no further,
"or you had no child support obligations whatsoever,
"and all of the monies that were paid
"with all the people thinking they were
"for child support orders,
"that recasts that for purposes of the statute."
David: Let me make sure I understand your question.
-: Sure, I didn't say it very artfully.
So you've got the father who has to pay?
David: In this case you're talking about?
-: And he pays. David: Yes.
And during the course of DOR taking that money
and paying over to the obligee,
everybody understands and acknowledges
that's a child support order. David: Correct.
Now, you come down to this hearing where they find
that perhaps, not perhaps, it should not have been ordered.
David: Right.
-: And the probate judge, like he does now, says,
"You overpaid and you should have stopped as of that date."
David: Right.
-: So everything forward from that date,
even though you paid it at the time
as a child support order,
is now recast as nothing.
David: Well, it's not nothing.
-: Well, it's not, it's.
-: But it's not child support.
And that really is again, that, you know,
I sort of sound like a broken record,
but that is the key to the case.
When there's a current order in place
that requires money to be paid from,
usually the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent,
that is a child support order code.
It is supporting and maintaining a child.
And in the, you know,
I think perhaps somewhat unusual circumstances
of this case, Justice Georges: Yeah.
we end up with a substantial debt going the other way.
But that debt was created by the retroactive termination
that came months after the child support obligation
was ended.
And so when that order goes into place, it creates a debt,
but the creation of that debt doesn't have anything to do
with supporting and maintaining a child.
And so it is not within DOR's authority
to enforce that aspect of that debt.
Because the payment of it,
it adjusts the party's obligation.
-: Can I do a hypothetical for you?
So say he can't make the payment
because he needs that debt paid
in order to make his child support payment.
Would that be okay?
Was that, so he falls into debt.
He needs this money paid back and he has,
and this child comes out of this home
and he has to pay child support.
It still wouldn't be child support?
David: So are you saying?
He's broke, he needs that $15,000
to pay future child support?
I know that's not the facts of this case.
David: Okay, so just pay future child support.
-: Right, I'm just trying to think,
would that bring this back into the mix?
-: It, so there's a couple of ways of answering that,
I think.
The, if it were, if there was like a subsequent order
essentially within the same case,
within the same sort of docket,
for the father to down the road at some point
have to pay child support,
if you're asking is it possible for the Court
to then offset those obligations.
Justice Kafker: It then becomes an offset.
-: It would be an offset
and it would be up to the Court to do that.
And so my answer would be very similar to Justice Georges,
which is that if there's anything remaining
after the Court orders the offset,
then that would be a payment of child support
and DOR could enforce it.
-: Can I ask one other question?
So again, I'm nervous you don't have any support for things,
so, but you say the sky may fall if we do this.
The feds may come down and, you know, take away our money.
Are there cases where they do that for this kind of stuff?
Or is that again, paranoid?
(David chuckling)
-: So I mean, I don't know of an example.
I can't give you an example where an agency has,
well, first of all, I can't give you an example
of where an agency has enforced an order of this kind
because we, as we've said, you know,
I don't know that it's happened before.
-: But are there, again, are there examples
where the feds have cut you off
for this kind of marginal, you know?
-: So the feds do audits, routinely,
of the child support system.
And as, you know, if you look in the CFR
that we've cited, you know,
there's a wide variety of metrics
that the agency is required to adhere to.
I think the amici talk about this a little bit as well,
that, you know, if we don't stick to the metrics,
the feds get upset with us.
I don't know
that there has been a financial penalty imposed,
but they do place demands on us.
So, you know, we are mindful of our federal obligations
and, you know, we try to, you know, keep everybody happy.
-: Well, counsel, there's also another component to this in,
along with Justice Kafker's point about,
don't see a lot of support about it,
but let's just talk to practicalities for a minute.
The order of the probate and family court
still required the father to have a, not,
a disproportionate, I don't mean to connote unfair,
but a disproportionate payment of incidentals
or expenses going forward.
David: Uninsured medical, yes.
-: Uninsured medical,
but some, David: Yes.
it could be some other things, right?
And when you consider that there is a,
there may be considerable costs,
because from the record there are some challenges.
Why is it that, you know, we are taking this position
that for child support obligations, perhaps,
but what if the father needs that money
to cover the 80% of the uninsured medical expenses going?
I'm struggling with the fact that we don't have any support
for your interpretation other than,
"Hey, look at the words
"and this is what we're telling you it means."
But there's a parade of horribles
that happens to the obligor that doesn't pay.
You can be held in contempt, you can be jailed,
you can get your license taken away, all of these things.
But yet when you have an obligor who's clearly has overpaid,
we say, "I can't do anything for you
"from DOR's perspective,
"even though we know you have
"all of these other concomitant obligations of support
"for medical expenses and so forth."
That there's somehow, we can't read this
to affect what the probate and family court judge here
was clearly focused on.
And that was fairness.
-: So let me say a couple of things in response.
First of all, in terms of there being no support, agreed,
we don't have case support, we haven't found any.
What we do have is the consistent interpretation
of the division itself, which is the agency, you know,
charged with administering, enforcing the statute.
So there is a deference component to this case
that we've mentioned in the brief.
-: [Justice Wendlandt] And you have the plain words
of the statute.
-: That is, of course, our primary argument,
that we don't need to resort to deference,
but to the extent the Court finds any ambiguity,
we think the deference would be appropriate,
-: Although it's not so consistent that the lawyer
that was called up knew the answer, right?
It's not like that there's a lot of application of this
out there, right?
-: So again, it doesn't happen terribly often,
but the lawyer that,
he didn't know it off the top of his head,
but as I think what happened if you read the transcript,
so he's sort of, you know, on the fly
trying to figure out what's going on.
But as soon as he does, as soon as he realizes,
even before they take the recess,
as soon as he realizes what's going on, he says,
and I think this is at page 70 of the appendix,
he says, "It's because it's not a support order,
"that's why we can't enforce it."
And so, and that's exactly right.
And then he goes back and they, after the recess,
they talk about the statutes and so forth.
But the basic reason is present immediately.
It's because it's not a support order.
-: So certainly not as weighty as garnishment,
there's a contempt option to the father here, correct?
David: I mean, if someone is.
-: Go back to probate court and try to seek the money
back from the payor, correct?
-: He, so the father could do that, yeah.
I mean that would be one of the remedies that is available
to any private creditor when they have a judgment
is to go to court and try to enforce it.
And I suppose contempt would be one of those, yes.
I don't know the details of how you can go about collecting.
Our sort of role here is limited
to saying that it can't be DOR that is involved with that.
But as I said, there's a wide array of other remedies
that are available to private creditors to enforce,
you know, any sort of money judgment and this would be one.
-: And so your position is that the father
could pursue one of those other remedies in the happenstance
that he doesn't have enough money to pay the 80%
of what's been ordered for medical care.
David: Or even if he does,
I mean, -: Right.
if he has a judgment, -: Right.
he can seek to enforce it.
-: Yeah, but in response to the hypothetical that was posed,
if he needs the money, he can,
it's not like DOR is the only avenue.
David: That's correct, DOR is not the only avenue,
that's correct.
-: [Chief Justice Budd] Okay.
-: If the Court has nothing further.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
Okay, Ms. Bharathan, do you have any?
Okay, we're gonna.
Good morning.
-: Good morning, Your Honor.
I respectfully submit as follows.
Firstly, the plaintiff appellee
has appealed before this Court
and has provided details that are not relevant
to the core issue in order to create records
and gain sympathy of his inconsistent financial position
to evade child support now and for future.
As a single parent,
I have been taking care of my son from the time he was born
to til current
and I've done the maximum that I'm capable of doing.
Even if my child resides in the residential school,
I visit him once or twice every week.
I take him out for shopping, restaurants,
and other activities.
I also maintain his doctor's appointments, therapies,
and other needful things.
In case of an emergency, I'm always there
and I just take care of his need promptly.
My child being special need
and have complex issues and multiple needs.
It takes me 45 minutes to one hour from my place
to reach his school.
To take him for appointments,
I have to take half a day leave from work.
So when my son had a surgery, I was constrained
to take three months leave.
I could resume to work only after his therapies
have been completed.
This also has resulted
in further financial constraint for me.
The plaintiff appellee has disclosed in his brief
that he has been on and off the job
and it's inconsistent financial position on it is vague
and there is no record to prove the same.
I've been paying $25 every month to my son's pharmacy
for medication delivery totaling for $240.
In addition to this,
there is medical bill for doctor's visit
for the amount of $769, which is not unpaid.
As per Department of Revenue report,
the total amount that need to be reimbursed is $12,971.35.
Whereas the plaintiff appellee has claimed
that the amount owed is $15,821.06.
Based on Department of Revenue,
I have sent a check of $1,000 on April 1st, 2024,
and a copy of the medical invoice of $3,933
for the service provided for my defendant's child.
Eighty percent of the uncovered medical amount is $3,146.76,
which is owed by the plaintiff appellee.
I have not got any acknowledgement for the check amount.
And further, with regards to the medical bill
of $3,386.76, that has been no response with regard
how it is to be adjusted to other total reimbursed amounts.
Hence, I'm not in a position to remit
the subsequent weekly amount and take action in this regard.
-: [Chief Justice Budd] Okay. -: That's all.
-: [Chief Justice Budd] Thank you.
Justice Georges: Thank you. -: Thank you.
-: Okay, Mr. Jeevanandam.
-: Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you.
So this is a case of, it's all about equality,
fairness, no bias, no discrimination.
So when I approach Department of Revenue
to collect the money,
because they were involved from the beginning, from 2010,
I've been paying child support.
So they are taking a stance that all of a sudden
this is not a support.
This is actually, there's an existing order
as Judge Georges and Judge Kafker asked,
or mentioned, rather, that I still on the hook to pay 80%
of Anu's medical insurance, my son,
and remember this child is a special need child
with complex medical issues.
He just had a knee surgery
and I took him to the knee surgery
and, you know, therapy, he's going through therapy,
he's still not completely healed.
So this is a child with a lot of medical issues
and challenges.
And when the judge made a decision
that I no longer need to pay child support
because he lives in a residential school full-time, okay?
So he doesn't need that.
So, but she made a careful decision that from 50%
of uninsured medical, she increased that to 80%, right?
So I am paying, I supposed to pay more.
So all of a sudden,
how can you say this is not a support order?
This is a order that's existing.
I'm an ongoing support for my son, probably lifelong, okay?
And again, this child with complex medical needs.
So how can you say all of a sudden
this is not a existing order, this is a private debt?
It's not.
-: Did you, did the,
did you seek from the probate and family court an offset
of the overpayment amount against your ongoing obligations
for medical reimbursement costs?
Bharathan: I did not yet.
-: Okay.
-: Because I'm unemployed right now, I don't know what to do.
I have a lot of things going on in my life.
I need to do, go through a surgery myself.
I have my own medical challenges,
so I have to deal one thing at a time.
So that's something that I need to get on
because I'm, I don't have any money right now.
-: Have you sought any kind of enforcement order
from the probate and family court
for the amount of overpayment
such as attaching a bank account?
I take it, I understood from your brief that you believe
that the overpayment amounts currently reside
in the mother's bank account.
Bharathan: Yeah and.
-: Did you seek an attachment against the bank account?
-: I did not do that yet.
Those are valid suggestions, Your Honor.
But understand.
-: I'm not suggesting anything.
I'm just trying to find out
what alternate forms of relief, if any,
did you seek from the probate and family court?
-: No, I have not done any of that.
But understand that this is a ongoing issue.
I have a lot of other life challenges.
So why do I have to go keep going back to the Court?
The court order added something simply
after a careful trial it happened.
So I was able to prove that mother used this money to,
I mean she used a lot of money.
It's in my brief, more than $55,000, okay?
There is no account for it.
And she couldn't answer.
That's the reason why the child support has stopped.
But in doing so, the judge carefully said,
"Okay, you know what, we are gonna take this off,
"but you still need to pay uninsured medical from 50 to 80."
So she made a careful adjustment.
And this is not just one judge.
Judge Michael Anderson,
he's the one terminated the child support.
And then on top of it,
when the trial went in front of Judge Bisenius, Theresa.
-: Can I ask, did the same judge who gave you,
did the same judge who gave you the DOR order?
Bharathan: Right.
-: Is that the same judge who increased you
from 50% to 80% on? Bharathan: Yes.
It is the same judge?
-: Same judge.
So yeah, so it started with Michael, Judge Michael.
-: By the way, did that happen at the same hearing, too?
Or is it a different,
did that happen earlier before this occurred?
-: I don't remember exactly, but it's probably in my brief.
But it started in 2022, July, 28, 2022
when Judge Michael Anderson,
he's the one terminated child support.
And then it went to a trial.
In that trial, Judge Theresa Bisenius ordered again,
affirmed that order from the judge.
So the two judges saw this problem
and they did the right thing.
So I don't know why DOR cannot do this.
-: I just wanna make sure you, yeah, you understand
that the question is, it's legal question.
It's not, you know, whether or not it was okay
for them to stop the payments.
That's not even, I mean,
we understand your position on that.
Bharathan: Yeah.
-: All we have to decide right now is whether or not
the judge could make that order
for DOR to garnish the mother's wages.
That's what we're trying to figure out.
-: Yeah, but like I think Judge Kafker
and Judge Georges asked,
"Do you have any precedence on this?"
There is no precedence
because this is apparently happening to a lot of parents.
Most people don't make a case out of it.
Unfortunately, I'm doing it. -: [Chief Justice Budd] Right.
So this is gonna be a landmark situation.
I think to your credit, I think you made a comment,
I think you had some address in December of this year
that the overarching issue that we are facing
is the lack of faith and trust in our legal system.
And I think that's a valid point.
And if you look at the Department of Revenue rating,
it's 1.3 out of five, okay?
And you try to reach out to them, they're not available.
They only work two days a week and it's only on the phone.
They're not coming to office
and it's only from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM only two days a week.
So how do you work with the agency just like that?
And they don't even talk to you
and they don't give you a clear explanation
why they can't do this.
There is no procedure followed.
So a government agency whose job is to administer legal.
So if they don't respect the law,
I don't know who can respect the law.
So that's why I'm very perplexed.
I came here for justice.
This is extraordinary case.
I think this is going to set the precedent
for a lot of cases.
And this is going to set more.
I mean, if you do the right thing here,
it will increase the faith in the court system.
It will increase the faith and confidence in the system
that it will do the right thing
for everybody equally and fairly.
So that's why I'm standing here.
Justice Georges: Well, going back to that first question.
-: Yes.
-: It may be that there are not a lot of these cases
because the orders that have been changed or modified.
Bharathan: Right.
-: They're still in existing orders
of support going forward, where you don't have that,
and maybe there aren't a lot of those cases.
So is there a distinction here that you could find
that because you have no further child support obligations,
you might still have other,
and you do have other financial obligations.
Bharathan: Yeah.
-: That this is different because the,
can you tell us why this isn't different
the way that your brother counsel
discussed Bharathan: Right.
about why it's different than a modification
because there might still be continuing obligations
to pay support that you have a framework to work against.
Here there isn't because your child support obligations
were terminated.
-: But if you look at this, I mean I think we are caught up
with this language here, right?
What is the right thing to do?
So the Department of Revenue involved from the beginning,
okay?
From the beginning,
they were charging child support on my account.
They would levy me, they garnished my bank account.
They even threatened to.
-: Their role is, they're there to protect the child.
That's their job.
That's why they get these special powers
'cause they're concerned about the kids.
You're fighting with your spouse
and who owes what is a different kind of fight.
You can find justice on that in other ways.
Bharathan: But why do I have to go through that?
I mean.
-: Well, because again, they're saying,
I'm not saying they're right,
but they're saying that their job is only to protect the kid
and you're fighting among yourselves about who owes what.
And that they say is you're in the wrong forum.
You should be in court rather than in the DOR.
I'm not saying they're right,
but that's their argument to you.
Bharathan: But that.
-: Why is that wrong?
-: Yeah, I'm saying that argument is flawed
because ultimately the person who's victimized
is my son.
Because if you think about this,
I don't have a job right now,
and I have, I'm on the hook to pay 80%
of the medical expenses, okay?
And if I don't have this money, how can I pay that?
And remember this is a child with special needs.
-: [Justice Wolohojian] But that's the argument.
-: He has complex medical needs.
-: Isn't that the argument that you need to make
in a complaint for modification
to the probate and family court?
Bharathan: I know.
-: We can't modify your obligations here.
-: Yeah, I can't, but I'm just saying
why do I have to go through that again and again?
Why I have to go through, I mean this took three years
to get here, okay?
Why somebody has to go through this again and again?
Why can't we fix this system?
-: Well, I mean I think that the answer
that the DOR would say and has said
is that yes, that is a problem,
but the DOR is an agency of limited power
defined by the statute
and it can only enforce orders for child support.
And this is an order to reimburse a debt.
And so I'm not suggesting that's right.
I'm wondering what your response to that is.
They're saying, you know, Bharathan: Yeah.
we're, DOR is not in charge of justice, equality,
making sure that everything runs smoothly,
that you get your money back.
That they are an agency of limited power
that has the authority by statute to enforce orders
for child support and maintenance.
And that this order requiring the mother to reimburse you
is not an order for child support.
-: I'm arguing that this is child support
because there is a case still open.
I have an outstanding order to support my son.
Again, this is a childhood with complex needs
and how this is, I mean if you look at the definition,
I looked into the chap, I'm not an attorney, okay,
I'm a pro se guy here.
But you guys can read the language here.
I looked at the chapter 119-A, 1-A, section 1-A.
If you go to the definition,
and if you go to the bottom of it,
there is a definition for support order
to include reimbursement.
So how this is, I don't understand this.
I think we are just getting caught up
with this language thing.
It's really doing the right thing.
And look at the case-by-case situation
where there's a child with special needs,
complex medical condition and, you know,
from 50% to 80% it's a big jump.
And given that medical condition, it's a big,
big amount of money that I supposed to support this
and this child need probably lifelong support.
So you have to look at the case-by-case situation here
and then make an adjustment.
So this is not like a blanket case where you come in
and say, "Oh, this is not a child support anymore."
You can go whatever you wanna do.
Or you can go to the.
So this is not like that.
That's why I'm fighting what I'm fighting.
And then I looked into other,
the Department of Revenue's manual and policies
and they have an explanation.
They don't, they didn't gimme any explanation.
They never wanted to talk to me.
So that the way it treated me, it's also not fair.
So all these things, again,
I'm not making this, we can Google it.
You can go to the website, check it out.
Department of Revenue has 1.3 out of five rating.
Now you know why?
I mean, if you see that 1.3 out of five,
I mean that's only a few people are saying it.
Imagine if everybody's saying it's probably even less,
probably less than 1.3.
-: [Justice Wendlandt] So do you think your position
would be different if they had a five out of five rating?
-: Yes, and they didn't treat me nicely, too.
I mean they, for example, a clerk here, Looney,
she treated me very nicely, very organized.
Everything was properly explained.
Everybody was treated equal.
And all I'm asking is equality, fairness,
and look at the case by situation, what's happening.
You can't just make a blanket decision.
And they have not given me any example
why can't they use it?
Why can't they, they didn't gimme how many, they say,
keep saying, "It's gonna open the floodgate."
Show me the example, how many gate you have.
They didn't gimme any explanation.
So why, they are making a statement.
Why do we have to blindly believe,
especially when you have a rating 1.3,
why they have any credibility, I don't get it.
And they gave me conflicting information.
You don't know how many times I went to Woburn office,
Boston office, all the Department of Revenue.
Nobody wants to talk and they don't give you an explanation.
And their policy manual states
that if they don't do any help, they need to write,
give a written explanation.
They didn't gimme anything to date.
So why an agency that's acting rogue
should be go with nothing?
I mean, you know, people are watching it, right?
So that's why people don't have a good faith in the system,
a system that's not doing the right thing.
And this court has an extraordinary opportunity
to do the right thing.
So that's why I'm here.
-: [Chief Justice Budd] Okay, anything else?
Okay.
-: And I looked into other states' statutes,
which may not be applying to Massachusetts,
but there is checks and balances.
And they talked about federal funding cutoff
because if they do this, actually federal,
I looked at the federal statute, too.
It states that not doing reimbursement,
following the procedure, giving explanation, those things,
actually not enforcing it, they're actually jeopardizing
getting the money from the federal.
So by enforcing it, they're actually getting the money.
But not doing it actually can jeopardize their,
them getting the funding.
So they, again, they didn't gimme any proof.
So, but I looked at the federal manuals.
It says reimbursement's also a part of the federal guidance.
That's part of the audit process.
So if they do an audit, this will fail,
this will flag, and they will not get the funding.
-: [Chief Justice Budd] Okay.
-: That's all I have to say.