“You all knew what I would find or wouldn't find, you just hoped I would never find out” - Jerry Hershfeldt
Case Narrative: Enforcement of a Phantom Debt
Memorandum of Evidence in Support of Petitioner's Motion
Investigative Report: Review of Allegations in Hershfeldt v. Hershfeldt (Case No. 2015DR000229)
Imagine being pursued by the state for a debt that doesn't legally exist. For Gerald Hershfeldt, this nightmare was a decade-long reality, costing him $116,000 and his dignity. For ten years, the State of Colorado pursued Gerald Hershfeldt with the full force of its child support enforcement apparatus. The consequences were severe, persistent, and life-altering. What follows is not a story of a deadbeat dad, but a chronicle of a bureaucratic nightmare built on a lie: the child support order that ruined his life never actually existed.
The state-led enforcement action resulted in:A full decade of child support enforcement actions.Three separate driver's license suspensions, including one issued while he was documented as being both homeless and unemployed.*527 days of documented homelessness following an eviction.*Persistent wage garnishments that followed him from job to job.A staggering alleged debt of $116,000 in over payments and arrears.This list represents a catastrophic failure of the civil justice system.
https://youtu.be/3b542HUeszw?si=JEGLvS1yhqpAPb-t
At the heart of this decade-long ordeal lies a single, baffling fact: a formal, enforceable child support order was never actually entered by the court in the first place. This article investigates how a non-existent order became the foundation for ten years of punishment, financial ruin, and jurisdictional chaos.
The "One-Order" Rule: How Interstate Child Support is Supposed to Work
Interstate child support cases, where parents live in different states, used to be notoriously complex, often resulting in multiple, conflicting support orders. To solve this, every state adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The law is designed to create a simple, clear, and fair process. UIFSA established a "one-order" system, meaning only one state's child support order—known as the "controlling order"—is legally valid at any time. Central to this system is the concept of Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ). The state that issues the controlling order (the "issuing state") is the only state with the legal authority to change or modify that order. This exclusive power remains with the issuing state as long as the child, the parent receiving support, or the parent paying support continues to live there. In this case, the original divorce decree was entered in Colorado. Because Mr. Hershfeldt never left the state, Colorado held Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction. Think of it as legal home-field advantage: by law, only a Colorado court held the authority to change the rules of the game. Any attempt by South Dakota to modify or directly enforce its own terms was an illegal encroachment.
Jurisdictional Chaos: How Two States Broke the Law
However, in Mr. Hershfeldt's case, this clear legal framework was deliberately ignored. Instead of following the clear mandates of UIFSA, the child support enforcement agencies of Colorado and South Dakota engaged in an illegal, parallel enforcement scheme. The agencies' own written communications reveal a stunning disregard for legal procedure. South Dakota Supervisor Larry Boyd admitted in emails that his office bypasses UIFSA's legal registration requirements, which are designed to ensure due process. Instead, he described an informal "handshake" arrangement:
"if we gain any information, we share that with Colorado so they can enforce." — Larry Boyd, SD Supervisor, June 4, 2025
"we sent our case outgoing to Colorado child support for them to enforce for us." — Larry Boyd, SD Supervisor, May 30, 2025
Colorado Manager Carleen Johnston confirmed her agency's role in this unauthorized partnership:
"We are working this case per the request of the state of South Dakota." — Carleen Johnston, CO Manager, July 11, 2025
This "handshake" agreement, operating entirely outside the legal framework of UIFSA, created a perfect system for evading responsibility. It created a shield of mutual deniability, allowing both states to enforce a debt while neither took responsibility for its legality. When challenged, Colorado could claim it was merely "assisting" South Dakota, while South Dakota could claim it had "no jurisdiction," leaving Mr. Hershfeldt trapped between two agencies that both claimed authority to punish but not to correct. A Colorado enforcement technician, Susan Martens, told the petitioner that Colorado was merely a collection agent for South Dakota:
"South Dakota is in charge of this case, they make all decisions on what you owe. I'm only here to collect money." — Susan Martens, CO Technician, February 3, 2025
Her supervisor, Jennifer Brant, later apologized for Ms. Martens' "misinformation," directly contradicting her by stating:
"the child support order is a Larimer County Colorado order. This would give us jurisdiction." — Jennifer Brant, CO Supervisor