pPRESS RELEASE — SUMMARY OF MY JUNE 24 STATE HEARING, CONTRADICTIONS IDENTIFIED, AND CURRENT STATUS Overview On June 24, I participated in a State Hearing with the Department of Child Support Services. The hearing was conducted entirely over the phone and lasted approximately one hour. During this call, I asked questions about dates, records, and the basis for the county’s calculations. Several issues became clear, including the representative answering questions without records, contradictions in the information presented, and an adjustment made to the calculation. After the hearing, I submitted a Post‑Hearing Request for Clarification, but it was rejected because the matter had already been submitted for decision. I am now waiting for the official hearing decision. One‑Hour Phone Hearing The hearing took place over the phone. For one hour, I listened to the representative’s explanations and asked questions about the information used in my case. The phone format made it difficult to verify documents or compare statements with the actual records. Representative Answering Questions Without Records During the hearing, the representative stated he could answer my questions even though he did not have the records in front of him. This was concerning because he also claimed to “know my case very well,” yet several of his answers did not match previous information I had received. This created uncertainty about the accuracy of the statements made during the hearing. Breakdown of Contradictions Identified During the Hearing Throughout the call, the representative provided explanations that conflicted with earlier information from the agency. The main contradictions included: • Case Opening Date vs. Charge Start Date The representative gave a date for when the case supposedly began, but this did not match the date when charges were actually applied. These two dates should align, but they did not. • Timeline of Actions Taken The representative described actions taken by the county at times that did not match the documents I previously received. Some actions were said to occur earlier or later than what the records show. • Missing or Unavailable Records When I asked about specific documents, the representative stated he could answer without having them. This created contradictions between what he said during the hearing and what the records actually show. • Basis for the Calculation The representative explained the calculation using information that did not match the numbers previously provided. This contradiction became clear when he later adjusted the calculation. These contradictions made it difficult to understand how the county reached its conclusions and raised concerns about the accuracy of the information used during the hearing. Adjustment Made to the Calculation During the hearing, the representative acknowledged an issue with the calculation and made an adjustment. This confirmed that the original calculation was not accurate and required correction. Although the adjustment was made during the call, the explanation behind it was not fully clear, and the basis for the corrected numbers was not fully explained. Post‑Hearing Request for Clarification Rejected After the hearing, I submitted a Post‑Hearing Request for Clarification to address the contradictions and missing information. This filing was rejected because the matter had already been submitted for decision, meaning no additional documents could be accepted. The rejection confirmed that the record was closed and the judge would decide based only on what was presented during the hearing. Current Status I have not filed anything further. I am waiting for the State Hearing Division to issue the official decision. Once the decision is received, I will submit the new corrected file that follows the proper process.