Newsletters::1998 August
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Court Of Appeals Strikes Down Administrative Child Support System As Unconstitutional
The Court of Appeals case striking down the ALJ system is http://www.courts.state.mn.us/c797926.html
In a decision filed in June, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has declared the administrative child support system violates the Separation of Powers clause of the constitution. Essentially, the decision says that matters as important as whether a person should pay upwards of 50% of their income is so important that it should be decided by a district court judge who was elected by the people, not an administrative law judge (ALJ) who was hired by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
R-KIDS first questioned the constitutionality of this process in an article written by attorney Tim Theisen two years ago. It was suggested in that article that a couple of ways around this problem, while retaining the current system, would be to allow either party to "opt out" into district court, and/or to have decisions of ALJ’s be directly appealable to district court on a de novo basis, i.e. the district court takes a new look at it without deferring to the ALJ’s findings. One of the problems with our current system is that it is a self-propelling, cancerous bureacracy - the more child support that the county collects, the more federal money they get, the more cases they can go after, the more support workers they can hire. The more cases the county brings, the more ALJ’s need to be hired. The more people the managers have to look over, the more money they can make. Thus, in many people’s opinions, the Office of Administrative Hearings is motivated to order higher child support, which is not exactly what one would expect from a fair tribunal.
The case is currently under appeal by the State to the Minnesota Supreme Court. A decision may take until early next year. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision, the administrative process will continue working, until and unless the Supreme Court strikes it down. Any prior decisions by an ALJ in other cases, which were not appealed, are still binding.
Social Security payments also credited
The same case also provided that payments, which children of noncustodial social security obligors receive from the federal government, should be credited against child support. This overruled a prior decision, and basically gets Minnesota in line with every other state in the country. However, the decision was unnecessary, as 1998 legislation did the same.
You can view the case by following links at the R-KIDS webpage.
Tim Theisen
R-KIDS Opposes Portion Of Pending Federal Violence Against Women Act
The R-KIDS board has voted to oppose Section 241 of the Violence Against Women Act, which is printed in full below. Most egregious is paragraph 1, which provides that "for purposes of determining child custody, it is in the best interest of children to have a presumption that children should have their main physical residence with their primary caretaker parent unless that parent is unfit." R-KIDS believes that such a provision is entirely unrelated to the problem of domestic abuse, will not solve any problems of domestic abuse, and in fact, is directly contrary to Minnesota law. (Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.17 provides that the primary caretaker is one of 13 "best interests" factors, and that the primary caretaker factor shall not be used as a presumption, and that no single factor shall be used to the exclusion of the other 12 factors. In fact, such a provision could be directly detrimental to the welfare of children, if the primary caretaker is the abusive parent. It should also be noted that paragraph one does not say anything about domestic abuse – in other words, even where there is no abuse, the primary caretaker presumption could take place.
The bill is still sittin’ on Capitol Hill, in several committees.
There are several reasons we oppose this. First, Congress should not be legislating in this area. (It's called less government, and the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers not expressly granted to Congress by the constitution.) Second, Minnesota already has laws more or less stating what they're trying to say here. Third, there really isn't much teeth in this, (it's only expressing the "sense" of Congress) so it's pretty senseless to have a law that cannot be enforced. (Although an argument could be made that under the Supremacy Clause, this Act would supercede Minnesota’s "best interests" factors.) Fourth, it could very well limit the already difficult rights to have visitation that many noncustodial parents experience. While domestic abuse is a huge problem, false claims of abuse can be just as damaging. Fifth, it goes against the trend toward shared parenting.
Importantly, R-KIDS is not in favor of Violence Against Women. We acknowledge that this is a serious problem which demands serious attention whenever it occurs. However, we believe that there are currently plenty of laws at the state level which protect victim’s rights. Additionally, many of our members have found themselves to be "dolphins" unfairly trapped in the "tuna nets" of domestic abuse laws. Additionally, if "primary caretaker" is the only factor a court looks at, it has been many members’ experience that when both parents claim they are the primary caretaker, a court is more likely to believe the woman. We don’t believe that an Act protecting women against violence needs to go so far as to give them an edge in custody disputes.
Another provision of the Act of interest to R-KIDS members is Section 233, which provides defenses to charges of custodial interference when the defendant was fleeing an incident or pattern of domestic abuse. R-KIDS has not taken an official position on that provision.
We encourage all members to write all Minnesota Congressmen and the President to let them know that you oppose section 241 of the Violence Against Women Act. If you send e-mail, be sure to include your home address.
The relevant language from the bill is included in the R-KIDS webpage.
Tim Theisen
Minnesota Congressmen Addresses
Senator Rod Grams 257 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-3244 (202) 228-0956 (FAX mail_grams@grams.senate.gov
Senator Paul Wellstone Washington, D.C. Saint Paul ---------------- ---------- 136 Hart Senate Office Building 2550 University Avenue, W Washington, D.C. 20510-2303 Court International Building St. Paul, MN 55114-1025 senator@wellstone.senate.gov
Gil Gutknecht (first District) 425 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2472
David Minge (Second District) 1415 Longworth Building Washington, DC, 20515 Jim Ramstad (Third District) District Office: Congressman Jim Ramstad8120 Penn Avenue SouthBloomington, MN 55431Phone: (612) 881-4600Fax: (612) 881-1943 Washington, D.C. Office: Congressman Jim Ramstad103 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515Phone: (202) 225-2871Fax: (202) 225-6351
Bruce Vento (Fourth District) Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515-2304
Martin Olav Sabo (Fifth District) 2336 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4755. martin.sabo@mail.house.gov
Bill Luther (Sixth District) 1811 Weir Drive Suite 150 Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 (612) 730-4949 (Phone or TTY) (612) 730-0507 FAX tell.bill@mail.house.gov
Collin Peterson (Seventh District) 2159 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 phone: 202-225-2165 fax: 202-225-1593
James Oberstar (Eighth District) 2366 Rayburn House Office Building U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-6211 FAX: (202) 225-0699
117 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-2306 (202) 225-2271 Phone (202) 225-3368 FAX
To get e-mail addresses of other Representatives: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
GAO Report Says That Child Support Is Insufficient To Get People Off Welfare
The cite to the GAO on the child support report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/bysubject.htm. You then need to go down to "Income Security," and click the report listed. The report will automatically download on to your computer. The report is a ".PDF" format file and requires the Adobe Acrobat reader to read it (available free from http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html ).
A report issued by the Government Accounting Office in August 1998 has determined that child support is insufficient in and of itself to get people off of welfare. The study noted that Minnesota and Washington are two of the states with the highest collection rates of child support.
While this report will hopefully make people realize that noncustodial parents are not the large untapped reservoir for solving the nation’s welfare problem, it can also be read for the conclusion that there needs to be even more child support enforcement (especially in other states that aren’t as "efficient" as Minnesota.
A copy of the report can be found using links on the R-KIDS webpage.
AG positions to be sought
R-KIDS is sending out questionairres to Attorney General candidates, which will go out the day after the primary. Responses will be published in our next newsletter (if before the election) or on our webpage.
Letters to the Editor We need action now. Am I a member of RKIDS? NO. Will I ever be? Probably not. Have I lobbied to congress and numberous state legislatures on family law. YES. WE NEED ACTION NOW.
First, we need money for lawyers to help Mark Olson (attorney) to WIN and PREVAIL in front of the Mn Supreme Court. WHEN WE WIN, we need an all out assualt to tackle the legislature. TO CHANGE THE GUIDELINES. END no-fault divorce. Accountability.
Our strategy with the judiciary and family committees is to put MUCH of the blame on Mn DHHS (L. Kadwell). She WROTE the administ. process, she's the one who has NOT held hearings to review our guidelines. Once we demonize them, we use the legislature to right the wrongs. In some respects, this action could be used to dismantle HHH..........
Please, we need CRC of Minnesota.
We need you to contact EVERY BLEEPIN member you have, you ever had and ever will to get behind the case.
Jon Wood
Member shares Joint Physical Custody experience
Members of KIDS,
After my first KIDS meeting, I was asked if I would write a short letter stating how I was able to obtain joint physical custody of my two boys (ages 11 & 14).
First, let me explain my situation. After 12 years of marriage we separated (for the 2nd and last time). At first I thought like many men....I'm nothing but a pay check to the world and system, even though I'd always been a big part of my boys' lives. It had been an honor and a purpose in my life to do so.
Their mom allowed joint legal, but thought it was in the boys' best interest to have the stability of a single household. (My comeback to that was "why your household then?") My 14 year old reached a point where he wanted to come live with me. I thought that both parents should be equally involved, so I explained to him about JOINT LEGAL. He thought that was the best solution, so I started preceding w/actions needed.
For those who are contemplating pursuing this, be aware that you must have been very involved in your child's life. You must be a straight shooter, because the case study worker has intuition of who you really are. If everything looks good, but they don't have a good feeling about it, I personally don't think they will side with the man.
I won't spend time w/the whole process involved, but I will state my opinions (strictly from my own experiences) on what is looked at and how it is decided. The case worker looks at your personality, your ex's personality, and....the children's personality. In my case both children are very well mannered, respectful, and have a good heart. I think that the case worker looked closely at the children and realized that they turned out that way only because both were good parents. I was completely truthful in all that was said. My references confirmed that. Even her references had little that was bad to say about me.
The bottom line here is that you were an excellent parent and still are. If you believe that in your heart, then you have a chance. For your child's sake you must pursue this. The case study was split financially in half between both sides, and attorneys really weren't involved. Expect the outcome (from the judge) to be what the case worker has decided because they have been appointed by the judge.
The outcome of my situation is a 3 month rotation w/my children. I've asked them how they felt before the arrangements changed, and also now how they feel. They both said that they were sad when they didn't get to see me except on every other weekend. It wasn't enough for them or me. Now they look forward to the time when they move from one parent to the other. My ex gets stressed out and that seems to happen about midway through the rotation. Then she realizes that her time is ending and appreciates them more. They like the change. My youngest said that he wishes the rotation was shorter (like every week).
We are much happier now than before. Both parents aren't so stressed and can appreciate the children even more than before. This is the best possible solution given the circumstances.
Tim Vokaty
Do you want to express your viewpoint or share your story in the newsletter? E-mail to ttheisen@bitstream.net, or mail to Tim Theisen, R-KIDS Newsletter Editor, 2150 Third Av N Suite 300, Anoka MN 55303. We reserve the right to edit. We will use your name unless asked not to do so.
Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund
R-KIDS Charitable fund is a tax exempt, 501(c )(3) foundation. The proceeds WILL NOT BE USED FOR LOBBYING. The fund currently needs money to fund a video on parental alienation syndrome, a seminar on parental alienation syndrome, and to start a legal defense fund. Send your tax deductible donation of $25, $50, or $100 today! Make checks payable to R-KIDS Charitable Fund. Send donation to the R-KIDS PO Box on your return address.
United Way makes giving to the Charitable Fund Easy!
If you work for a company that participates in the United Way payroll deduction program, you can give all or part of your gift to R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund! When you fill out your United Way form, look for the section where you designate beneficiaries for your gift. In that section, mark other, and write in R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund in the space provided. Even though the Charitable Fund is not endorsed by United Way, because it is a bona fide 501(c)(3) fund, they will honor your designation and forward your money to the Charitable Fund!
Upcoming meetings
The next general membership meeting is Wednesday, August 19, at 7:00 PM at the Brookdale Library. Watch the webpage or call the hotline for additional meetings. Are you connected yet?
R-KIDS Organization
At large Board Members
- Steve Blake
- Bob Carrillo
Ex officio (non-voting) board members
- Dan Massman
- Rep. Mike Osscopp
Newsletter Editor
- Tim Theisen, Esq.
Lobbyist
- Chuck Perrin
Webpage operator
- Chuck Perrin
ABOUT R-KIDS OF MINNESOTA
- R-KIDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating law makers, family law professionals and the public with regard to family law and social services and their effects on children, families, and the consequences to the taxpayer.
- Our main concern is for our community of children of divorced, separated, or unwed families. We believe that children need, want and deserve the love, support and involvement of both parents regardless of marital status.
- Founded in 1985, our membership is comprised of both moms and dads, custodial and non-custodial parents, grandparents, stepparents, and professionals such as social workers, doctors, attorneys, and family law practitioners.
- It is the objective of R-KIDS to develop equitable family law legislation in an effort to improve the lives of all Minnesota children.
"ALL CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS AND ALL GRANDPARENTS IN THEIR LIVES"
- Unless those affected by the current family law system voice an opinion and demand positive change, we and our children will continue to suffer. This change will not occur without your help! Legislators and family law professionals need to hear from; parents, grandparents, and constituents. Until they do, things will not change.
R-KIDS CONCERNS AND ISSUES
- The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.
- The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
- Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.
- Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
- The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
- Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well.
- The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
- Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
- Accountability for the use of child support.
- The impact of the no-fault divorce system on families with children and the need for effective education for parents considering marriage, separation, or divorce.
R-KIDS website is http://www.rkids.org
Do you want to express your viewpoint or share your story in the newsletter? E-mail to ttheisen@bitstream.net, or mail to Tim Theisen, R-KIDS Newsletter Editor, 229 Jackson Street, Suite 105, , Anoka MN 55303. We reserve the right to edit. We will use your name unless asked not to do so. Obviously, viewpoints expressed by readers do not necessarily reflect the position of R-KIDS.
Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund
R-KIDS Charitable fund is a tax exempt, 501(c )(3) foundation. The proceeds WILL NOT BE USED FOR LOBBYING. The fund currently needs money for various charitable activities of benefit to children of divorce. Send your tax deductible donation of $25, $50, or $100 today! Make checks payable to R-KIDS Charitable Fund. Mail to R-KIDS PO Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.
This newsletter is distributed via US mail and e-mail. If you are getting it via regular mail, but you have an e-mail address, let us know your e-mail address. Send a note to Editor Tim Theisen, ttheisen@bitstream.net . Not only will you get the newsletter a couple weeks sooner, but you’ll also get certain bulletins between newsletters, and you’ll save us postage costs as well! Also, the e-mail version of the newsletter sometimes has extra articles that didn’t make the editor’s final cut for the print version.
The R-KIDS newsletter does not purport to give legal advice. The information contained herein is general in nature; individual circumstances will always vary.
Feel free to disseminate this newsletter. We want to spread our message!
