Newsletters::2001 January
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
DHS unveils new child support guidelines model
The DHS has unveiled its first draft of their new "income shares" model, to completely restructure child support guidelines. While the attempt was made to be fair to children, as expected, the end result will most likely mean higher child support for all obligors, especially those with joint physical custody, who have less than 45% parenting time. It is strongly urged that this legislation be defeated!!
It starts with a fairly simple premise: That parents share in the costs of raising children, which is allocated in proportion to each parent’s share of their combined gross income. It does away with deductions for taxes, union dues, retirement, and health insurance. While on the outset that might seem fair since it applies the same to both parents, it unfairly punishes obligors with higher incomes than obligees. This is because the obligor’s higher tax rate results in the obligor’s gross income being higher, proportionately, than the parties’ proportional net incomes, which is what they really have to spend. It is especially true, considering that the obligee enjoys head of household status, and often the tax exemption, childcare credit, and earned income credit.
The DHS has looked at studies showing what actual costs of children are, which are based on tables, using combined income of the parties. (The tables were not fully developed when they did their handouts on December 9, but they used an Arizona model for illustration purposes). The tables are based on studies using intact families (i.e. where mom & dad & children live together). Their big "leap of faith," is that the "obligee," meaning the person with at least 56% parenting time, incurs all of those costs (less a nominal "discount," to reflect visitation time,) and that the obligor incurs NO COSTS while he or she has the children.
To find out what it costs to raise a child, the United States Department of Labor asks people. Categories are housing, food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care and education and miscellaneous (entertainment). Some things are simply divided by the number of people in the family, such as non-employment use of the automobiles, housing and entertainment. By these estimates, the cost of raising a child depends strictly on income and does not vary with the costs of things people buy. One obvious conclusion, from the report, is that more money makes a child sicker. It appears that the reported cost of raising a child is three times higher than the actual cost. In fact, when there are five or more children in a home, there is nothing at all left for the parents to live on. Obviously the data is flawed!
Analysis (arithmetic) was used to show the obligation of raising a child for various income levels. Base child support was taken from Representative Smith’s draft. Medical and dental were estimated to be six percent of gross, which is what the DHS says it costs, but with a cap of $300/month (about what private insurance costs). Day care was taken as $506/month per child, which is slightly less than the DHS says it costs. For the months children are in school, day care was estimated to be half of the $506/month. No day care was assumed for children age 15 or older.
The payment of obligation assumed only one wage earner, as when a custodial parent quits work and goes to school to finish high school and college, or is incapacitated in some way, or remains on public assistance which must be paid by the non-custodial parent. No birth medical costs, or attorneys fees, or psychological fees or interest on arrears was assumed. When the obligation was greater than the maximum federal garnishment rate of 60 percent of net income, the balance was assumed to become arrears to be paid from future earnings.
For two children, the obligor earning minimum wage would pay support and arrears for 56 years, which is 38 years after the twins become emancipated. With two children, an obligor who earning the median wage (half above and half below) would pay support and arrears for 30 years which is 12 years after the twins became emancipated.
For four children, the obligor earning minimum wage would pay support and arrears for 95 years which is 77 years after the youngest child became emancipated. If the obligor earned median wage, the support and arrears would last 50 years.
The label of joint physical custody, or sole physical custody, will not matter. Only in cases where there is at least 45% parenting time, will the actual costs be allocated between the parents. In that instance, the costs of raising a child (from the as-yet unpublished table) would be augmented by 50%, and then apportioned between the parties, assuming that each party already assumes half of those expenses. As I understand it, half of the augmented combined expenses is then credited against each parent’s proportionate share (based on income) of those expenses, and any difference is paid from one parent to the other. That makes perfect sense for those cases where there is at least 45% parenting time. However, if you have 43% parenting time, your financial contribution to the children is not only ignored, but it is assumed that your child’s expenses are all being incurred by the other parent!! A reduction to child support for the noncustodial parent’s expenses during their parenting time should be done with all situations.
The new guidelines also change allocation of daycare, by allocating before transfer of child support, instead of after child support, as is done under current law. Also, there is no reduction to the custodial parent’s share by virtue of the dependent tax credit, so the custodial parent receives a windfall!
Medical costs are also allocated, which they are supposed to be under current law, but as noted above, there is no deduction from income for health insurance costs.
To its credit, the new proposed guidelines give an automatic deduction from income (again, based on tables) for other children who are in the care of a parent.
Knute Gladen has developed some Excel spreadsheets to show how child support might look under this still-developing plan. For a copy, email him at kgladen@uswest.net
The DHS must review guidelines every four years. Four years ago, they tried something similar, and it failed. The meetings leading up to this report were held in secret, behind locked doors, so that members of the public could not watch, much less comment.
Their draft of the final report was shared with members of the Bar Association Family Law Section, and is currently in the process of being codified into a bill.
Tim Theisen, Esq., and Knute Gladen
Never-married obligors can claim child as tax exemption
Under a newly interpreted IRS policy, parents of children born out of wedlock, who pay for more than half of the child’s expenses, are primarily entitled to claim the child as a tax exemption, regardless of who has custody. The IRS has recently interpreted a 1984 law, to distinguish children of divorce, for whom the custodial parent automatically is awarded the exemption, unless the CP waives, or is court-ordered to "waive" it.
If there is already a court order allocating the exemption, that might take precedence. However, if there is no court order, a noncustodial parent may be well advised to file ASAP, since the IRS puts the burden on the second person to claim the child, when two people try to claim a child. Of course, getting your own legal and tax advice is recommend. A good article explaining this is located at http://www.teleport.com/~dads/tax.htm
Tim Theisen
Parenting Plan statute takes effect
The new parenting plan statutes are now effective, as of January 1, 2001. What effect this will have on parental rights is yet to be seen. Articles on parenting plans are in prior newsletters.
Report About Our Lawsuit Against Taxpayer Funded Gender Bias
On July 17, 2000, R-Kids of Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota in Federal Court. The purpose of the lawsuit is to stop tax money from being used to promote gender bias. Minnesota is using its tax money to fund many organizations that reach all 87 counties in the state. The stated purpose of these organizations is to assist victims of domestic abuse. However, these organizations will not provide assistance to male victims. Research reports, included with the lawsuit, show that men are victims of abuse as often as women, are more often likely to be assaulted with a weapon and suffer equal or greater damage.
On November 29, 2000, our attorneys met with the Magistrate and with opposing council. The following summary is from information reported by Attorney Jack Graham.
It was necessary to file an amended complaint to comply with recent changes in procedural issues and other changes that have occurred since the complaint was first drafted.
Copies of 78 of the 117 studies on abuse of men by women were presented. An indexed list of the 117 studies were presented. The Defendants had been claiming ignorance of the abuse of men by women. After this submittal, they cannot deny the existence of the studies.
The Magistrate saw the gravity of the situation and was impressed with the pleadings.
The State asked that the matter of STANDING be addressed first, before the complaint issues regarding the case could be heard. (Such bifurcation is a delaying tactic.) The Magistrate ruled that both items should be handled concurrently.
Standing will be addressed by providing affidavits that the plaintiffs are taxpayers of the State of Minnesota. Additional affidavits are required to show that certain biased documents, which were published at taxpayer expense, are currently being distributed. One example is the "power wheel" which is exhibit 1 of the complaint.
The Magistrate will prepare a schedule. Pleadings will be filed in February. The next hearing is expected in late April or Early May.
The documents may be viewed from the R-Kids web page. http://www.r-kids.org. Click on Legal Action Committee. Click on SEE COURT FILE DOCUMENTS. Click on whichever of the menu items that you want to see.
To summarize:
- The Magistrate was interested.
- The case was well pleaded.
- The Magistrate will not allow bifurcation, and a schedule will be set.
Attorney sent back to jail in Scott County visitation case
Published Wednesday, December 13, 2000
Jim Adams / Star Tribune
Eagan attorney Dale Nathan, jailed for contempt of court a month ago, will stay in the Scott County jail after a judge decided in a court hearing Tuesday that he was hindering efforts to find his client.
Nathan, 66, is representing a mother who is opposing a court order that her 4-year-old daughter eventually have unsupervised visits with the girl's father. The parents were never married to each other.
District Court Judge Tim Blakely issued an arrest warrant for the woman last month after she fled her home and refused to make her daughter available for a child protection evaluation related to the visitation order.
Nathan was a government contract attorney before going into general practice, said friend Duane Oberg of St. Paul. Oberg said that Nathan has been a foster parent and that "he's got a soft spot in his heart for kids."
Nathan said in Scott County District Court on Tuesday that he doesn't know the whereabouts of his client and her daughter but can get word to them through her family. He said in an interview afterward that he can't order the mother to come forward or provide authorities with confidential attorney-client information that might help find her.
Blakely said in court Tuesday that his visitation order was based on recommendations of case workers, including visitation investigator Kathleen Morris, a former Scott County attorney. He said the attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to Nathan's situation.
"Mr. Nathan is substituting his judgment for the court's decision and is disobeying the court's order for unsupervised visitation after a supervised transition period," Blakely concluded. He said the girl's father, who was in court Tuesday, is being denied his right to see her.
Nathan's attorney, Rick Mattox, said, "We don't control clients like judges try to control attorneys." He asked Blakely to recuse himself and is filing to the state appeals court to ask that Nathan be released from jail.
Nathan said his client hired psychologist Sara Werner, who met with the girl for five hours and found she was troubled about visiting her father. Werner wrote in a letter before Nathan was jailed that the girl said, with her stepfather present, that she never wanted to see her natural father again.
Because of Werner's opinion, the mother is afraid of coming forward without an agreement that the girl won't be taken from her or have unsupervised visitation, Nathan said in an interview in the jail Tuesday after he was returned from court.
The girl's father said claims that he abused his daughter are "absolutely absurd." He said he seen the girl in four months and had hoped to see her open her Christmas presents. He said the girl's mother is trying to turn her against him.
Nathan said in court that he advised the mother before he was jailed that she could be held in contempt and jailed if she defied a court order to produce the child. He said she wants her daughter evaluated but is afraid the girl might be placed in a foster home.
Several longtime Twin Cities lawyers have said it is unusual for attorneys to be jailed on contempt charges. Attorney Marshall Tanick of Minneapolis said the more common practice is to appeal the order while the attorney isn't in jail.
Tanick said lawyers tell clients not to give them information subject to disclosure. For example, Tanick said he'll get general information such as the country where someone is, but not exactly where. He said he tells clients, "I don't need to know that. It might compromise the integrity of the case."
Nathan's problem is similar to when a judge orders a journalist to reveal sources, said C. Peter Erlinder, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law. "Each lawyer has to handle this delicate ethical situation," he said.
Erlinder said that court orders can't be ignored and that information on a current wrongdoing isn't protected by attorney-client privilege. He said it's important to tell the client exactly what the privilege covers and the consequences of providing nonprivileged information so the client can decide what to tell the attorney.
Although the underlying child visitation case is confidential, Blakely opened Tuesday's hearing after a request by the Star Tribune and after attorneys involved raised no objections.
President's Message
January 2001
I hope everyone had a good holiday season or at least survived it. I know the holidays can be the toughest time of the year when you are without the children. It is to be hoped that next year will be better. We here at R-KIDS are going to do all the we can to see that it is.
This new year (and according to the purists, the new millenium) offers to potentially be the year when we can actually make some serious changes in the way the state of Minnesota handles family law. R-KIDS has a golden opportunity to influence the course of events and we must seize it.
In the legislature, there may be a bill introduced that would substantially rewrite sec. 518. Of course you all should recognize that section as the one dealing with divorce and custody issues. The author has provided us with a draft of the proposed bill. Members of the Legal Action Committee and the Board of R-KIDS are studying this bill and it will certainly be an important part of our legislative agenda for this session. We must use this opportunity to demand that Minnesota take the lead in the nation in protecting and promoting the Constitutionally protected right to be an EQUAL parent to our children.
This is the best opportunity I have seen in my years with R-KIDS to bring our concerns before the legislature. We will have the chance to testify before the legislators at hearings, probably before more than one committee. We must ALL HELP in this effort. We will not be able to persuade the lawmakers with the reasonableness or justice of our arguments. That is not how things work. Not when you consider the industry at stake and the special interests involved. Lawyers, social workers, GALs, feminists and the state of Minnesota itself all profit from the system as it is. They will all oppose any changes that affect their money or their power. We must bring pressure on the legislators to do what is right. Politicians understand two kinds of pressure. One of course is money. We do not have lots of money for our lobbying efforts. We cannot make generous donations to this political party or that legislator's re-election fund. The other pressure politicians (and that's what the legislators all are) understand is voters and the power of numbers. We have all recently witnessed how close an election can be. Only a few people can make the difference for each and every lawmaker between continuing to enjoy the perks and prestige (and power) of a political career and having to find honest work. Therefore I am asking each one of you to make a commitment to attend at least one hearing this session. I know that these hearing are often held during the day, during the week and I know that they can be boring, hot, stuffy and disorganized. Welcome to the democratic form of government folks.
It is so important that we have a presence at these sort of things that several members of the board and other committees have given up vacation days or personal time to attend task force hearings that have been occurring all year. I don't think that it is asking too much of our members to do the same. The love of one's children is a powerful motivation and I actually expect people to be eager to have the opportunity to tell their stories to the people who can change things for the better. We will provide the times and places of upcoming hearings that we need to attend. We have experience in testifying before committees and we will offer training at upcoming members' meetings for those who will be doing it for the first time. It really is pretty easy. No one can afford to, or should be, intimidated by the process because if YOU don't speak up for your children or grandchildren, who will? We have the capable assistance of several experienced lobbyists and other members are keeping a close watch on the house and senate schedules to determine what hearings we should be at and what hearings we must be at. We will provide as much notice as we can so you can make plans to attend. We would like to have a goal of at least 10% of our membership at each and every hearing and more if we can. I am making a personal appeal to each one of you to please attend the hearings when we need you. We have a great chance this year, let's not blow it!
Writing letters to your own legislator is another way to influence legislation. Knute Gladen has developed a successful program to produce large numbers of letters targeted on our problems. I encourage him to continue and expand upon this promising approach. Upcoming members' meetings will include a letter writing session under Knute's direction. I encourage every member to participate in the sessions and to take what you have learned back with you to continue on your own. I don't mean to imply that writing a letter means you don't need to testify in person. We need everyone involved in both activities throughout the session to be effective.
On the legal front I can report that our lawsuit to have the Minnesota Battered Women Act declared unconstitutional is proceeding. A summary on the latest report from our attorney concerning the appearance before the federal magistrate is printed elsewhere in this newsletter. Check it out. For those who would like to know more about this aspect of R-KIDS efforts see our web-site to view the complaint in it's entirety at www.r-kids.org.
R-KIDS is also developing a court watcher program to provide support for our members who may be facing a court hearing, possibly alone. I know from personal experience that it is less intimidating to stand in front of a judge and plead your case if you know there are people in the courtroom who are on your side. When you are there alone and the only other people in the courtroom are your ex and her lawyer plus maybe a GAL or social worker ready to testify against you it can be overwhelming. The R-KIDS court-watcher program is intended to help with this aspect of the situation. The other reason for the program is to put judges, lawyers, bailiffs and other denizens of the courtroom environment on notice that we are there to observe the proceedings and that they had better make sure they do what they are supposed to do and nothing else. Court watch programs can be effective in reducing errors and corruption in the court system. Please consider signing up as an R-KIDS court watcher. You just might learn something as well! More information on the R-KIDS court watch program is also elsewhere in this newsletter. To have your name added to the list of court watch volunteers just call me at 651/770/6164 or e-mail me at <steveblake53@yahoo.com. We have only five or six people on the list now. We need more, especially in outstate areas.
R-KIDS will also be producing a video on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). That is the deliberate poisoning of children's mind against one parent by the other. We will be working with our own Mike Seeber, director of Seeber Video and Anna Rivera, a Research Analyst into this problem. She lives in Milwaukee WI. and in cooperation with Richard Gardner MD, Clinical Professor of Child Psychology at Columbia University, will provide the content. We intend to make this video available to social service agencies to use in training their people to recognize this form of child abuse that actually can kill the love between a child and parent. We are also planning a TV show to be broadcast on local cable access channels across Minnesota. Stay tuned!
R-KIDS will be promoting our cause at rallies and protest marches in the coming year. In the spring we will be joining the American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC) in a nationwide rally to promote Fathers rights. We intend to be a visible and persistent advocate for parents, grandparents and children. Whether on TV, radio, in the newspapers or in the streets, we intend to make our voice heard until R-KIDS is a household name in Minnesota as the premier parents, grandparents and children's rights organization in the state. We are tired of being ignored and we will make them listen to us. We love our kids and we shall prevail because we are right. THIS IS THE YEAR WE BEGIN TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!
Steve Blake President R-KIDS of Minnesota
Letter from new member
I'm a new member, so please excuse my chutzpah in speaking out, but my children and I have been abused by the Ramsey County "Family" Court system for 16 months now. The lawsuit that you are filing is nice, but it is not where all this time and energy should be put. What about fighting to the end to put due process and the Constitution back into domestic "abuse" cases? You guys are fighting a public relations battle, basically, while men and their children are being abused by unstable women who use the system and it's hired thugs on a whim. What about going after the incompetent and arrogant "professional" family therapists and pseudo-psychologists that work both independently and for the county and who wield disproportionate power over peoples lives? How can we stop them from continuing to promulgate their bigotry and hatred towards men based on their personal radical feminist beliefs? How can we destroy the system of Napoleanic law which pervades the county family court systems and which strips tax-paying citizens of their rights to a fair trial and protection given in the takings clause? How about filing class-action civil suits against court referees who play games with procedures that prevent fathers from seeing their children for an extra month just because the referee's feelings were hurt by a lawyer's decision? How about suing referees who rule on the basis of an article that they read in some pseudo-scientific sociology journal instead of the facts of the case and testimony that they just heard? How about suing and censuring county psychologists who write biased and false statements regarding what a client told them in confidence and exaggerate negative interpretations of standard psychological test results? I could go on and on, but I won't. I think that you get the point. I get really frustrated reading these minutes of meetings that are concerned solely with legal machinations and game playing, when there are children who need their fathers, but who are being jerked around by incompetent femi-nazi social workers, judges, and bureaucrats, while you guys are arguing with some assholes about the names that they call fathers on posters!!!! Let's get real here! Thanks for listening,
Paul Storch
paul.storch@mnhs.org
Knute Gladen responds:
Dear Paul
Thank you for your interest in the R-Kids activities. Your suggestions are all good. You get no argument from me.
Please come to our next few meetings and implement some of your suggestions.
Have you written to your legislators about your problem? The legislators say they don't hear about these problems that you describe.
Do you have divorced friends? Can you get them to write to their legislators. Can you get them to join R-Kids and come to the meetings and help to initiate activities that you would like?
Do you know how to raise money to initiate lawsuits? Do you have friends that know how to raise money, or will conduct lawsuits for free?
How does one change the attitude of the general public? How does one get the newspapers to stop being biased when they report about visitation and child support? Can you write letters? Do you know someone with influence that can help?
People ask about the lawsuit. I try to tell them something to keep them interested. Thursday, I drove to Windom to meet with the legislators in that area. What did you do?
Others are doing as much as they can. They can not do any more. Do not expect to give these people instructions and have your instructions followed. If more is going to be done, you are the one who must do it, and you must do it without disrupting the activities of the others who are doing what they think is the most important. R-Kids will provide an umbrella organization within which to work but you, and those you recruit, are going to have to raise the money and do the work. There is no one else.
Welcome to the divorce industry. Come to our meetings and find out how much money is involved. Find out how little money there is to fight against discrimination. Find out how many lawsuits have been filed and thrown out of court. Find out about people who have paid $100,000 or $200,000 for court costs and pseudo-psychologist fees. Find out how Minnesota Courts are responsible for the School shootout in Jonesboro, Arkansas by poor Michael Johnson.
It is obvious that you agree with us that R-Kids is not doing enough. Come to our meetings with a plan of what you are going to do.
Knute Gladen
Member seeks info on parental rights denial in Olmstead County
In January I shall be in Washington on business. I hope to meet with one or more attorneys to discuss federal lawsuits related to the "parental kidnap" business against me a year ago and the dishonest and illegal actions of Olmsted County Court. On the latter, my Minneapolis attorney won't file a State Appeal since he feels that the State court judges won't rule against their buddies in a county court. Thus I may try to pursue a federal suit against Olmsted County Court, the State of Minnesota, and personal injury / abuse of authority, gender bias and collusion against the individual Olmsted County judges (Joseph Weiners, Steven Chase, Jodi Williamson, Debra Jacobson, Gerald Ring and .. Birmbaum).
My purpose in contact R-KIDS friends is that I believe that there would be higher chance of getting the matter into federal court if it were a class action rather than a single individual. Hence, could you have anyone who has a clear case of illegal action by Olmsted County Court / judges contact me ASAP if they would be willing to join a class action suit.
I don't know many people in Minnesota since I never had a legal domicile in Minnesota. In fact, I never even set foot in the state of Minnesota until November 1994 after my (now) ex-wife moved to Rochester with our children while I was working out of the country. I was forced into a divorce in Minnesota even though my legal domicile (and that of my ex) was Houston, Texas, where we owned a home (that the Olmsted County Family Court forced me to sell at a loss so that my ex could get half of the money).
In January 1995 I tried to take my son (then age 8) from my ex's house in Rochester to return to Texas with me. I was illegally stopped from doing so by the Rochester police. In the subsequent "separation" papers filed by my ex she openly stated that the police came back to her house and told her to lock up the children since I had legal right to take them back to Texas. When I tried to take my son, my ex claimed that I struck her when all I did was try to move her aside from blocking my son from leaving his bedroom with his suitcase (he was willingly coming with me).
In her illegal abduction of my 6 year old daughter, Savannah Rose Weinstock, from the Philippines in late October 1999, my ex told the U.S. Embassy that I had several times struck her when we were married (when, I don't know) and that I was armed and dangerous. When I was subsequently illegally arrested by the Philippines Bureau of Immigration (illegal since I had diplomatic status, as did my daughter), my home was broken into by armed men on my ex's report that I was "armed and dangerous" and that I was an "international refugee hiding in the Philippines". 1) I am a pacifist (registered in 1970 as a pacifist with the old military draft at age 18 and classified 1-0) from a family with at least 3 generations of know pacifist - both of my grandfathers immigrated to the U.S. fleeing the Russian army, 2) I have never owned any guns, was never allowed even toy guns as a child and never allowed my children to have toy guns, military toys or violent games or to watch violent TV / movies, and 3) I was living at the same address in the Philippines for more than 2 years on a diplomatic visa as an employee of the Asian Development Bank.
In a written statement my ex made for the July 2000 Olmsted Family Court hearing on child support, she made various false claims including that I had argued with the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines. I have never met or talked to U.S. Ambassador, and actually don't know his name.
But does anyone give a damn about the truth in the state of Minnesota? I have yet to see any evidence of this.
Cheers & , Joseph Weinstock
jweinstock@adb.org
N.J. appeals court endorses Internet visitation plan
Associated Press
TRENTON, N.J. -- A state appeals court said a divorced woman can move with her daughter to California and rely on the Internet to help the girl keep in touch with her father back in New Jersey.
Friday's ruling appears to be the first in New Jersey -- and perhaps anywhere in the United States -- in which a court allowed the Internet to be used as a visitation tool, said the mother's lawyer, John D'Anton.
Kyron Henn-Lee's former husband had objected when she told him she wanted to take their 9-year-old daughter, Katherine, from New Jersey to Brea, Calif., and build a Web site for father and child to communicate.
But a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of New Jersey's state Superior Court said the Internet would provide a "creative and innovative" way for Thomas McCoy and his daughter to keep in touch.
Under the ruling, the online visits through a Web site with video capability will not cost McCoy any of the 66 days he is entitled to spend with his daughter in person each year.
The appeals court reversed a trial court judge's ruling that denied Henn-Lee's request to take Katherine to California.
David Levy, president of the Children's Rights Council, an advocacy group for children of divorce, said the New Jersey case is the first one in the United States to involve Internet visitation.
Levy said he believes the ruling is the beginning of a troubling trend.
"It's totally unacceptable. The parent did not give birth to an Internet baby," Levy said.
The couple have had an amicable joint custody relationship since their 1994 divorce, according to court records.
Henn-Lee said moving to California would allow her to take a better-paying job with medical benefits and flexible hours.
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!
