Claimant appeared in person.
Robert D. Pollitt, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.


Claimant Susan Mann contacted respondent agency in January, 1985, to
obtain information
about a program of respondent regarding delinquent child support
payments. Claimant's divorce
was finalized in February, 1983, in Taylor County Circuit Court. By the
terms of the divorce,
claimant's former husband was required to pay claimant $50.00 a month in
child support. Since
the divorce, he has paid claimant $330.00.

An employee of respondent, now retired, Mrs. Campolio, suggested to
claimant in January,
1985 that claimant attach her former husband's federal income tax
refund. At the direction of
Mrs. Campolio, claimant supplied respondent agency with names and
addresses of her
husband's possible places of employment. She remained in contact with
Mrs. Campolio as late
as October 4, 1985. On that date, Mrs. Campolio advised claimant that
she lacked the forms
necessary to complete the federal income tax wage withholding. In the
beginning of November,
1985, when claimant again contacted the respondent agency's office, she
was advised by
another employee that the deadline for filing the necessary form had
passed. As a result of the
misinformation supplied claimant by respondent's employee, claimant
seeks $865.00 which is
the amount her husband was required to pay in child support as of
December 31, 1985.

Claimant testified that she was unable to provide respondent agency
with any statement of fact
supporting her former husband's entitlement to an income tax refund for
the year 1985. She
further testified that she was unaware whether or not her husband
received an income tax refund
in 1985 or 'whether he had to pay income tax for that year.

Mrs. Campolio testified that the statements of claimant were correct.
She further testified that
she could never locate a place of employment for claimant's former
husband. She confirmed that
if the respondent agency was unable to locate an individual, the agency
could not provide the
service in question. When queried by the Court, she stated that she
never had sufficient
information to file the necessary forms in the case of claimant. The
possible places of
employment which claimant supplied were insufficient.

On the basis of this record, the Court finds that to permit recovery in
this instance would
require speculation on its part. The record lacks a showing that, had
the necessary forms been
filed before the appropriate deadline, claimant would have received
funds. The Court must,
therefore, deny the claim.

Claim disallowed.