Report: Review of Allegations in Hershfeldt v. Hershfeldt (Case No. 2015DR000229)

1.0 Introduction and Case Summary

The purpose of this report is to analyze the documentary evidence submitted by Petitioner Gerald Paul Hershfeldt in support of claims alleging significant administrative, procedural, and jurisdictional misconduct by Colorado and South Dakota child support enforcement agencies. The petitioner’s filings assert a decade-long pattern of enforcement actions predicated on a legally void order, compounded by systemic accounting errors, jurisdictional ambiguity, and violations of due process. This report synthesizes evidence presented in court filings to provide a clear narrative of the allegations for oversight and review.The core legal proceeding is the Dissolution of Marriage between Petitioner Gerald Paul Hershfeldt and Respondent Brooke Erin Hershfeldt (Case No. 2015DR000229).

The investigation centers on the petitioner's claim that state agencies have, for ten years, enforced a child support order that the court's own record indicates was never formally entered. This foundational claim calls into question the legal validity of all subsequent enforcement actions, including wage garnishments, credit reporting, license suspensions, and a 2022 order modification. The investigation begins with an examination of the foundational evidence underpinning these claims.

2.0 The Foundational Claim: Enforcement of a Void Order

A valid, entered court order is the sole legal basis for state enforcement actions such as wage garnishment, driver's license suspension, and adverse credit reporting. Without an order properly entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, an agency's collection and enforcement activities lack legal authority. The petitioner's primary claim challenges the very existence of this foundational document. The case hinges on a minute order entered into the official court record on June 10, 2015, which reads in its entirety:

"UNABLE TO ENTER SUPPORT ORDERS AS WE ARE MISSING SSN FOR CHILDREN"

According to the petitioner's motion, this minute order is dispositive evidence that no enforceable child support order was ever entered. Consequently, all enforcement actions taken over the subsequent decade are alleged to be legally baseless and void ab initio. The petitioner cites Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), which allows a court to relieve a party from a void judgment. The petitioner's argument posits a logical impossibility: that an order the court explicitly stated it was "UNABLE TO ENTER" could later be legally "modified" in 2022. The central conflict presented is the direct contradiction between the court record and agency actions, as summarized below.

AllegationSupporting Evidence from Court Record

No valid child support order was ever entered.The June 10, 2015 Minute Order explicitly states the court was "UNABLE TO ENTER SUPPORT ORDERS."

A decade of enforcement actions occurred.

Documentation of wage garnishments, license suspensions, and credit reporting based on the allegedly void order.This fundamental discrepancy over the order's validity is compounded by numerous alleged administrative and calculation errors that have significantly impacted the case's financial landscape.