Newsletters::2001 June
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Legislative Developments
As of press time, the legislature has adjourned the governor’s special session, and will reconvene soon. The major child support bill is not likely to pass, but rather there will be hearings this summer, especially on the need to consider the costs for the child that are incurred in the noncustodial parent’s home. While the child support touted by Rep. Steve Smith was appreciated and supported by many RKIDS members, others felt that he compromised on too many key issues, especially credit against child support for parenting time. The summer hearings should give more of an opportunity to provide more insight to the legislature. However, since the special session will continue until a tax deal is reached, it is still possible that the DHS will try to sneak something in. We will keep you informed, and a legislative review will be in the next newsletter. Tim Theisen
Dear Friends: As of today (June 2) the only portions of left in the Rep. Smiths Family Law Bill originally HF1446 is as follows:
Pilot program only in the 9th Judicial District which will include 6 month review of original court orders and the accountability clause for support. So basically what we have succeeded in holding off legislators from worsening MN. family laws. W are hopeful that the senate summer hearings on family law will produce legislation that will promote the involvement of both parents in raising their children along with a fair child support obligation if the Children require it.
Caselaw Review
Court holds that parental alienation is not sufficient grounds to deny custody
In the case of Lemcke v. Lemcke, #C0-00-1170 (Court of Appeals, April 3, 2001), the Court affirmed a trial court’s placement with a father who had bad mouthed the mother, and interfered with her parenting time (the new word for visitation), because his bond was stronger. While a court is supposed to consider the disposition of each parent to allow frequent parenting time, that is only one of the 13 "best interests" factors. The Court held that punishing a parent is not the goal in custody determinations. The Court of Appeals missed a good opportunity to make a strong statement in favor of preventing parental alienation. Unfortunately, cases like this only make judges less sympathetic to deprivation of parental rights.
Divorce is not a contract
In Richter v. Richter, C4-00-1656, Court of Appeals May 1, 2001, the Court held that Marriage is not a contract for purposes of the Contract Clauses of United States and Minnesota Constitutions, which prohibit laws abrogating contracts. "That marriage is a contract for determining its validity does not mean marriage is a contract in the usual sense of that term." Huh? It seemed to me like the Appellant made a valid argument, but the Court of Appeals made a poorly reasoned decision, in the usual sense of that term.
Supreme Court allows dad to get blood tests for child conceived from affair
In a 4-3 decision, the MN Supreme Court held that "a putative father who is not a presumed father, upon filing an affidavit establishing the reasonable possibility that he could be the biological father of a child who already has a presumed father, may bring an action to compel the mother and the child to undergo blood or genetic tests to determine whether he is a presumed father." Witso v. Overby, C6-99-1618, MN Supreme Court, June 7, 2001. In this case, a man had an affair with a married woman, but she remained with her husband, who wanted to raise the child, and they did not want to know who the biological father was. (A "presumed father" is someone who is married to the woman, who holds himself out as the parent, or who has blood tests saying 99%+ probability of parenthood.) The most surprising thing about this case was that three justices actually dissented. Their rationale was that a rapist could seek custody. But of course, a rapist could seek custody if there was no presumed father, so that analogy makes no sense.
This is clearly a case of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Certainly, if the fact that the woman was married was a defense for the her boyfriend to pay child support, then maybe it would make sense to say that the boyfriend can’t seek parenting time. But that’s not the way it works – if the dissent had their way, the boyfriend would be SOL, this happy intact family would probably break up within five years anyway, and then boyfriend would get served support papers, and it would be too late for him to establish a parental bond. The dissenting justices are Lancaster, Blatz, and Russell Anderson. What poor logic they had!! Fortunately, four of the justices have their heads screwed on right.
Tim Theisen
Lawsuit Status
Oral arguments on the cross-motions for summary judgment in Scott Booth et al. v. Sheryl Ramstad Hvass et al., No. 00CV1672MJD/JGL on the docket of the United States District Court for Minnesota, 3rd Division, were held before Hon. Michael Davis, United States District Judge, in his courtroom in the Federal Court House in Minneapolis, at 9:00 A. M. on Friday, May 11, 2001. This purpose of this lawsuit is to strike down statutes 611A.202 through 611A.375, which provide tax-funded domestic abuse services for battered women only.
Strategy was to use the TAXPAYER STATUS of the eighteen plaintiffs to request that tax funds not be used to provide services for one gender only, and that the laws be stricken. Taxpayer standing is easily shown. A different strategy, such as showing damages, would have required a more costly effort. Six federal cases were cited wherein taxpayer status was used to stop gender bias.
It was necessary to show a NEED for services for battered men. Copies of approximately seventy scholarly reports were given which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, that men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. An especially strong argument was taken from a book written by Barbara Carlson, the former wife of Governor Arne Carlson. She says: "One night I grabbed a knife from the kitchen and took off after him. When I caught him, I jabbed the blade repeatedly into his arm."
We are cautiously optimistic that the judge will concur with our position. We are well aware that this is a highly political situation, wherein the judge may decide on other factors than the legal merits of the case. If we lose, we can appeal. If we win, the other side may appeal.
Members of three organizations have contributed to this lawsuit. They are Men’s Defense Association, National Coalition of Free Men and R-Kids of Minnesota. All three organizations have provided both time and money, and they deserve the thanks of all of us. We also wish to thank the two attorneys who have contributed their skills and their time. They are John Remington Graham and Mark A. Olson. We thank you one and all!
Anoka County Rally/Deadbolted Dads
About 50 people attended a Rally at the Anoka County Courthouse on June 5, to raise awareness of the plight of noncustodial parents. This was part of similar rallies held across the nation. Here is an article in promotion of the nationwide rallies:
The American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC) is coordinating a nationwide protest of family courts across the country on Tuesday, June 5, 2001. ACFC's goal is to have simultaneous local protests across the country, and other countries. The local protests will occur at family courts or bridges. The bridge protests are symbolic and will represent "Building Bridges to our Children."
The "Bridges for Children" protest will focus on the runaway parental deficits in the area of emotional child support - namely, the phenomenon of "deadbolted dads." The term "deadbolted dads" was coined by Gail Sheehy in a 1998 New York Times article and refers to dads who are locked out of their children's lives after a divorce or family breakup. "Deadbolting" also can happen to non-custodial moms.
We have heard much over the years of so-called "deadbeat dads" and we now understand that the myths surrounding this stereotype have been "shattered." Now we must raise awareness of the tragic problem of deadbolted dads, and some non-custodial moms, who are locked out of their children's lives with no way to get back in.
A large percentage Of the 14 million non-custodial parents nationwide have problems with access denial and child visitation/parenting time interference. These problems can consist of infrequent interference with parenting time to being totally cut off from one's children perhaps through domestic and international child abduction, parenting time access denial, moveaway situations, unnecessary restraining orders, etc. ACFC contends that the point that many political candidates and others consistently miss is that most of these so-called "absent dads" don't leave their children willingly. Rather, they are being pushed and driven away by a failing court system that does nothing to help them see their children. Court orders for visitation or parenting time are routinely not enforced. Many Dads feel like walking wallets with no hope of ever having a meaningful relationship with their beloved children.
And this is a problem that an overwhelming majority of Americans care about...
"According to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans feel 'the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home.' This number is up from 69.9 percent in 1992." (MSNBC website: "Labor Day: where are the fathers?", 1999)
We must raise national awareness that most of these fathers are not "absent" willingly. In fact, the most common refrain heard on the ACFC hotline is, "I just want to see my children."
Loving non-custodial parents find themselves unwillingly relegated to visitor status in their children's lives. Some non-custodial parents are cut off totally from relationships with their beloved children. When this happens, extended family are cut off, too. Loving grandmothers and grandfathers, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts all suffer when a child is unnecessarily kept away by a misguided, vindictive, or selfish parent. A whole heritage can be lost to these children. As mentioned above, this commonly occurs in a variety of ways: domestic and international abductions, moveaways, interference with visitation/parenting time, child access denial, and unnecessary restraining orders.
Needless to say, this has negative effects on children. Negative effects of divorce on children have most recently been described by Dr. Judith Wallerstein who recommends that parents stay together if at all possible for the children's sake.
Many family courts are not enforcing visitation orders. Non-custodial parents know this. Many non-custodial parents experience this firsthand, but many of the general public are not yet aware that it's not so easy to keep going back to court again and again to try to get "visitation."...Dads become emotionally and financially drained. Many dads are spending thousands of dollars just to be able to see their children. This is tragic.
Why aren't the family courts enforcing visitation orders? Shouldn't the courts enforce their own orders that they have issued supposedly in the "best interests of the children?" Doesn't this lack of enforcement show that it is not the children's best interests that drives this system, otherwise courts would enforce the orders? Children have the right to know and love both of their parents. They are being deprived of this basic human right when a healthy relationship with a loving parent is thwarted. As a society, we must all remember that fathers love their children as much as mothers do. Sadly, society seems to have forgotten this simple truth, and we are bombarded with negative images of fatherhood. Furthermore, children love their Dads as much as they love their Moms. We must never forget this. We are bombarded with negative stereotypes such as "runaway dads," "absentee dads," and "deadbeat dads" when the reality is that dads are deadbolted and in most cases, broken-hearted over the loss of their beloved children. And the children are missing their Dads, too.
Even more tragic, many children don't even know that their non-custodial Dad or Mom is trying to be there for them - perhaps thinking that they've been abandoned or rejected when this is far from the truth. The children don't forget their deadbolted Dads or Moms even if the ex-spouses would like to forget the ex-spouse. This situation is deplorable and must change - for the children's sake.
ACFC is asking all men and women, fathers and mothers, second wives, grandparents, aunts, sisters, brothers, uncles, and friends to join together to let the public know that we can no longer tolerate these unfair and unjust conditions that hurt children and families. We must reunite deadbolted parents and their children.
Only repetitive peaceful protests with a strong message will convey our issues. We must undo the damage that has been done over the years that has led to fathers being considered disposable or replaceable. And we must accomplish this by educating the public about the plight of non-custodial parents and children. The public will do what's right when they know the truth. They don't know it in large enough numbers, yet.
We already know what works - we have done it! Our previous protest represented 36 states and Canada! Now, we intend to keep the forward momentum going by joining together and showing the world that non-custodial parents and their families number in the millions, and we want positive change for our families now.
We are attempting to raise awareness of our plight and to offer solutions for positive change. Shared parenting, a 50/50 rebuttable presumption of custody, is the solution. Children need both parents. We are calling for fair and equal treatment in the courts for all men and women, and recognition of the human rights of children to know both parents. Unnecessary and unjust intervention by the courts into the private realm of family life and parenting needs to be exposed and halted. We are calling for fair and effective enforcement of court orders for visitation/parenting time.
This is a call for Unity. Together we can make a difference for our children and our families.
Reader Mail
Mr. Theisen, I was wondering why they are trying to get the increase in child support, as you know I have 5 kids and not one of them cost as much as what they say, and I have 1 that is of special needs.
I also want to know why they think it cost that much, when in fact they at human Resources say that you can only get $437 in cash and $204 in food stamps for a family of 2 (1 child and 1 adult) (Family Wage level for a single parent with 1 child is: $705) (Transitional Standard is $641), where so they get their figures from, California, I know it ain't from Minnesota?
I have contacted my senator on this on numerous occasions and I get the same answer, NONE! They don't know, I find it disheartening! Most people don't even make that on one salary, these people must think that we are all rich and have 40,000+ a year jobs.
If they pass this most dads (and paying mom's) will stop paying and just lay down and die, I myself am outraged by this and I have a few friends that have already decided to skip the country, it's not that they don't want to pay, it's that they now are looking at taking up to 3 jobs just to pay for their child support, how are we little people supposed to live?
-Chris
Good to hear from you Chris. The "little people" become "big people" when they all gripe to their legislators. Keep at 'em; they hear you regardless of whether it seems like it. Sincerely,
Tim Theisen www.theisenlaw.com
More Mail
Minnesota's judicial and legislative history involving child support has all the makings of a great book. I've studied EVERY legal ruling from the Appellate and Supreme court involving child support and families. (1996 on) I've followed every legislative session since 1988 and because I've had tremendous computing resources available to me, I've chronicled and meticulously followed the Federal DHHS/CS and legislative history. The parallels to the legislative and judicial history of slavery in our country are remarkably similar. The Federal legislation that allowed DHHS to force divorced ncp's into the Title IV-D program was an 11th hour amendment that was NEVER debated in the Senate or House. Of course, this twist to that bill was the catalyst of all things gone awry. THe recent Olson? case involving the significance of the "label" shared physical custody and Valento formulas was telling.... the dissent declared the unconstitutionality for allowing it? Of course, Judge Critten sp? got it half right. If R-Kids established an online form to appeal EVERY child support ruling, the system would end without having fired one round (federal court and so on).
Though I have been wrong 100% of the time when predicting the demise of the child support and family law policies, the Mn Appellate courts rulings are reaching the level of self-contradictoral absurdity, that I believe the Federal Courts could not possibly allow their system to continue without a proper resolution to issues raised by the majority opinion in the Appellate court ruling in Holmberg. The major key is to launch a meticulously researched and planned suit that would gut 518 to its core.
Now I see Jack Graham is going before Judge Davis. Judge Davis will rule favorably to the MBWA case, but on appeal the decision will be returned to his court to correct the myriad of muddled logic. The case will drone on for 3 more years. Meanwhile, Mn will set up a battered dad hotline and call it even. Any ruling favorable to men in this case, however screwed up by Davis, will bid very well for the father lawsuit to follow.
We will prevail, but as my black American brothers found out, it only took 100 years and 25% of the white male populations' demise to change the system.
Keep up the great work and allow the Lord to give you strength and courage.
Jon Wood
Barbara Carlson opposes accountability in child support
On Barbara Carlson's radio show last Friday, April 6, she chose to discuss the article that was in the Tribune that day regarding the proposed bills concerning child support overhaul. Barbara's opinion is that the mother, custodial parent, should be able to spend the money however she wants.
Here is an e-mail that one of my co-workers wrote into the show that was read on the air on Monday morning, April 9. I thought it was worth sharing with R-kids members.
Dear Babs,
I totally disagree with your position on child support accountability. I receive child support and have a special bank account for this money. It is used ONLY for my child's needs. I do not put any of it toward mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, etc. I receive more than what my child needs so it will remain in a separate account to be used for his college education when the time comes. I am single and earn about one-third of what my former husband earns so I could easily find uses for it but my conscience tells me otherwise. I am no longer married to him and I will not depend on his money for my expenses. I cringe when I hear of women who continue to rely on their former husband's support for their personal use.
I have also been on the other side of the fence as my child lived with his father for several years. I paid child support and often had to work two jobs. Because he was fully capable of supporting our son, I would have hoped that he had put my child support into a college fund. But, because there is no accountability, I don't have a clue what the money was used for.
I feel the system needs a complete overhaul and that some method of accountability should be implemented as well as a better method of calculating support instead of the across-the-board percentages that are now used.
An every day listener.... Mary
May 6 Board meeting
The officers of R-Kids of Minnesota are: President - Knute Gladen, Vice President - Terry Nyblom, Secretary - Knute Gladen, Treasurer - Chuck Perrin, Director of Communications - Bob Carrillo.
It was moved at the RKIDS Board meeting of May 6, 2001, to abolish the following committees and all subcommittees: Rally Committee, R-Kids Legal Action Committee, Funding Committee, Public Relations Committee, and Phone Communications Committee. Note: The Media Committee with Bob Carrillo as communications Coordinator and chair is the only remaining committee.
Further, the following resolution was passed: Whereas the R-KIDS legal action committee has nearly completed its work in providing necessary technical support for the prosecution of the case of Booth et al. v. Hvass et al., D. Minn. No. 00CV1672; and Whereas several members of the said committee have expressed a desire to form their own organization and to pursue further projects as they deem fit according to their independent judgment, outside the supervisory authority of the board,
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the board of directors of R-KIDS of Minnesota that the said committee is abolished; and
Be it further resolved that the board shall continue active support of the said case as far as may be necessary to accomplish the objectives thereof, together with the Men's Defense Association, the Twin Cities Chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men, the eighteen named plaintiffs, and counsel of record, in keeping with the contract made in contemplation thereof, including any appellate work which may be taken to or anticipated in higher courts.
Summary State Guide Lines Review Process And Outcomes
Information taken from the federal office of child support enforcement.
Extended Custody and Visitation Arrangements
Extended custody arrangements—including split custody, joint custody, and shared custody—are becoming more common, and this was one of the most common issues discussed by State guideline review teams. The teams' investigations showed that States handled the arrangements with a considerable degree of inconsistency and inequity, and the teams recognized that formal methods were needed to remedy this problem. This view was repeated by parents who reported that extended custody arrangements are a common reason to request deviation. Furthermore, in their case studies of deviations, States found that extended custody arrangements were commonly used reasons for deviation. Although the definition of split custody is a straightforward one, States vary considerably in their definitions of extended visitation (i.e., when "normal" visitation becomes "extended") and of what constitutes joint or shared custody. The States also vary in their guideline methodologies for calculating how extended visitation or split custody should affect the order amount. A few methods have been proposed and adopted to handle split custody arrangements, such as computing and offsetting two awards. Several methods have been proposed for handling joint/shared custody, ranging from sliding percentage scales that adjust for the number of days the child(ren) spend with the noncustodial parent, to support abatements for the period(s) of extended visitation. Split custody arrangements apparently are the easiest situations to address in a mathematical fashion, and States should consider addressing these arrangements using this method. Study States that have such a provision used it most of the time, resulting in consistent treatment of families. States should attempt to develop clear definitions of joint/shared custody and extended visitation, although these arrangements do not lend themselves to mathematical solutions as easily as split custody. Because the circumstances will vary greatly from family to family, the decision maker must carefully consider the right approach to an equitable support order. Further guidance on determining the nature of the custody arrangement and on factors to consider would result in greater consistency and equity across cases.
- Deviation Reasons
In 1994 the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement examined State guidelines and compiled a list of deviation reasons that were included in guidelines. The most frequent reason (in 21 percent of the cases) for deviations documented in the case records was agreement between the parties (e.g., stipulated agreements). Second households, extended or extraordinary visitation or custody expenses, and low income of the noncustodial parent (NCP), each was cited in more than 10 percent of the cases. In 8 percent of the cases, the reason given was that the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate, and 4 percent of the cases cited extraordinary needs of the parent.
- Direction of Deviation by Deviation Reason•
Deviations because of low NCP income and because of a second household were the two reasons most frequently listed for a downward deviation (each mentioned in over 90 percent of deviation cases).
- Frequency of Deviation, by Obligor.
Fathers were the obligors in 93 percent of cases. Cases in which the mother was the obligor were more likely to have a deviation (28 percent) than those in which the father was the obligor (16 percent)
TAX CONSIDERATIONS
For parents with middle-to upper-range incomes, tax-related matters are important issues. Child support orders may impact Federal income taxes in two ways. First, the allocation of support to a spouse or child(ren) determines the tax consequences of that amount of money; that is, spousal support is taxable for the obligee and deductible for the obligor, whereas child support is neither taxable nor deductible. Second, the assignment of the dependent tax exemption(s) may have an important impact on one or both parents' income. Tax implications were raised by guideline committees in the following ways: through determination of net income for purposes of applying guidelines, allowable withholdings, and allocation of the dependent tax credit. In the analysis of case records, the most common form of tax consideration was for orders that allocated the dependent tax credit(s). In States where guidelines address provided for tax considerations, cases addressing tax exemptions ranged from less than 5 percent (New Jersey) to nearly 40 percent (Washington). Responses from the 214 persons interviewed by the ABA also varied significantly among States. For example, all persons interviewed in Florida and Massachusetts stated either that tax exemptions never arise or that they arise infrequently when their child support orders are established or modified. In contrast, private attorneys and judges in Arkansas reported that tax exemptions frequently are cited as a basis for deviation from guideline amounts. Tax exemptions were not significant factors for deviation in case studies conducted by other States.
"Evaluation of Child Support Guidelines" Information From Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
Determining the Income Available for Child Support
The determination of available income is an essential step in the process of reaching a child support award amount. Before any guideline formula can be applied, The income sources of one or both parents must be identified. The decisionmaker must decide how much of these amounts are to be used to meet the needs of the particular child or children. [ The particular State guideline formula will designate whether the incomes of both parents are to be considered or whether only obligor income is necessary for the support calculation.
general needs
A family with one child would have a primary need of $220, an additional $165 would be added per child for families with two or three children, and an additional $110 per child would be added for families with four or more children. [ Id .] The judiciary made further adjustments in 1994 so that "all children's needs [would be treated] in a more equitable fashion, while creating an economically sound regressive rate structure considering the needs of children and the parents' income." [ 1994 Delaware Report, supra, at p. 8.] Monthly allowances were adopted: $275 for one child, $485 for two, $660 for three, and $132 for each additional child,
Custody and Care Issues
The Commission concludes that the most serious problem related to resolving custody and visitation issues and promoting active involvement of both parents is the need to get preliminary time-sharing established promptly whenever a divorce, parentage, custody modification or enforcement proceeding has begun. The Commission has determined that (1) children need to have a continuing relationship with both parents early in a case; (2) children need the financial support of both parents; and (3) the promotion of the relationship may have a positive effect on the payment of child support.
Traditional Sole Custody and the Calculation of Support
Once the NCP exceeds the anticipated visitation level in a sole custody case, the issue of support abatement follows. [ Included in this category are cases in which there is more interaction between obligor and child than is expected under the basic guideline but less than would be necessary to constitute joint or shared custody.] Should there be some adjustment to the child support obligation because of the extra time the obligor spends with the child? Reviewers in Illinois rejected the idea of visitation abatement presented by the State's expert: [ Illinois Report, supra , at pp. 26 – 28.] [W]hen the child spends an extended amount of time with the noncustodial parent, that parent realizes both fixed and flexible direct costs of the child's care. When guidelines do not provide for abatement for extended visitation, the...principle that "a guideline should encourage the involvement of both parents in the child's upbringing" is not being fully addressed....When there is extended visitation, it is reasonable that the noncustodial parent should be able to provide an adequate living space for the child and to retain sufficient resources to provide for the child's needs as well as they are provided for in the custodial parent home. Visitation abatement will help to achieve that goal.
Shared/Joint Custody
State materials presented some lengthy discussions about the handling of child support in joint- or shared-custody situations. By and large, the result was a recommendation either to incorporate a joint custody calculation method into the State guideline or to leave the matter to the discretion of the decisionmaker, essentially making this custodial arrangement a deviation criterion. Only one of the States seems to have decided to take no action regarding the issue
Lawsuit Follow-Up Program
Without positive results in reducing domestic violence, the lawsuit will have been a failure whether we win or loose. The worst possible scenario is for the legislature to change "battered women" to "battered person" and to continue with the current programs that are causing so much distress for children, for men and for women. Before changing the laws, the legislature must fund a study to define a better program. A position paper has been developed for discussion and distribution. We need your help to identify and contact people of influence so the efforts of the lawsuit yield positive results in reducing domestic violence.
Problem:
The three rolls of victim, abuser and rescuer all interact and DO CHANGE during domestic abuse. The rescuer may well become the abuser or the victim. Women initiate violence on their domestic partners as often as men do. However, current government funded programs always treat males as the aggressor and females as the victim. Males are required to take training in anger suppression and non-violence. Females are imbued with the notion that they are always the victims, no matter how aggressive and violent they may act, and that they have no need to learn techniques to avoid violence. Treating females as victims, even when they are the aggressors, simply causes more and more violence. State funded counselors (rescuers) often participate in enabling more abuse. Different training is needed! (Reference: Breaking Free by Diane Zimberoff, Wellness Press).
Of domestic abuse victims, 25 percent were male and 75 percent were female in 1998. (Keeping Watch: The 1999 Minnesota Crime Survey, Debra Hagel of the Criminal Justice Statistics Center at Minnesota Planning, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) 296-3985.)
Effectiveness of a shelter at reducing violence depends on whether the person is taking control of their own life. Otherwise, shelters may have no impact. Current advocacy services are not sufficient to reduce the likelihood of further domestic violence. (An Evaluation of Minnesota’s Shelter Program for Battered Women. A Report to the Minnesota Legislature by Stephen Coleman, Center for Applied Research and Policy Analysis, School of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Metropolitan State University, St. Paul, Minnesota, March 2001. (651) 642-0430.)
Solution:
Domestic abuse counselors need training to help them recognize the three rolls of abuse. Otherwise, the partners will continue their violent relationships. Both parties in a domestic violence situation need training in anger management. Both parties need training to avoid conflict. Both men and women need safe places to go, immediately, when their domestic partner is acting in a dangerous manner. A "safety valve" is needed to provide an alternative to frustration, desperation and angry retaliation. Parents need safe places where they may take their children when their domestic partner is likely to cause physical harm. The safe place may be the home of a relative or a government sponsored facility. Different training is needed for officials so each person can get appropriate counseling. Current training received by domestic counselors is incorrect and ineffective.
Program:
An unbiased group of individuals is needed to establish training programs and to recommend legislation that will reduce domestic violence. Such a group must exclude everyone who is, or may be, in a position to gain status or profit from treating one gender as the aggressor and the other gender as the victim. It may be necessary for the government to fund such a group of experts who are recognized as unbiased in the domestic violence field. A list of 117 studies by various recognized and unbiased experts is available. Some of these experts may be willing to act as consultants in establishing programs of education and legislation that will reduce domestic violence.
More news from during the session
Letter from Legislative Assistant
April 17, 2001
To all members and Associates
We received this e-mail today. I called David A. P. Anderson to find out the time frame. There is not time to make changes to HF 1807. His comments were that it would go through, but that there would probably not be a large effect. Hearings will be held on other bills this summer. Your comments can be provided over the next several months, and may be attached to Representative Smith's bill. The plan is to solicit comments from as many people as possible and to build up a case.
The specific Representative he is working with is Bodreau. He is also working with Representatives Bradley, Goodno, Haas, Jacobson, and Wilkin. These latter are all members of the Health and Human Services Policy and/or Health and Human Services Finance committees.
David reports that many things are not federally mandated, even though the DHS says are. They lie.
He is soliciting general comments. For example, individuals are a protected class but obligors are not since they do not have due process. Comment on other unfairness issues. The biggest problem is that the child support guidelines are too high. Think about everything you can, then contact David with your comments. We will discuss this item at our Group meeting on Thursday at the Library. Hope you can attend.
Thank you, Knute Gladen, Secretary R-Kids of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:30:08 -0500 From: "David Anderson" <David.Anderson@house.leg.state.mn.us> To: r-kids@freenet.msp.mn.us
I am working with a Representative in Minnesota to amend language in MN Statute on a Department of Human Service Bill in front of a committee.
The bill puts Minnesota in compliance with Federal Law as it pertains to making arrears an administrative function instead of a judicial function.
Currently those in arrears can not modify retroactively to the date that the change in circumstances, rather they must motion the court to do so and is modifiable only to the date that a motion was filed and served on the parties. This seems rather unfair and does not have any due process protections in place.
Right now Minnesota has a strict 20% sanction in place on income withholding arrears which further makes it difficult to catch up on arrears, because it does not take into account ability to pay and often forces NCP's into other situations like loss of drivers license's and professional licenses. 7000 drivers licenses in 2 years.
I am proposing amending statutes and bill language in the DHS bill that:
- Eliminates 20% as a firm sanction and makes that the maximum on a showing of the ability to pay.
- Striking language in the law that states "It shall be presumed that the obligor is able to repay arrears at the rate which at a minimum equals the current monthly obligation, plus an additional 20% of the current monthly obligation.
- Striking language from the bill and statute that states "in the case of an obligor who is in arrears in child support payments to the obligee, any net income from excess employment must be used to pay arrears until arrears are paid in full.
- Put due process protections in place as far as sanctioning of arrears.
- Direct DHS to develop and implement a streamlined process to modify to meet the notice and notice requirements in the law.
There are no due process protections in MN law to protect an obligor, and there is no streamlined process to modify a support order.
The obligor must go to court in all these cases and the obligee just has to contact county or state social services and the process is put in to place.
I would like your comments regarding due process, the lack of equal protection as obligors are not characterized a protected class, and your feelings of 20% sanctions.
Any other comments you provide will be greatly beneficial to ward off DHS attitude towards this amendment.
Look at HF 1807, Rep. Skoglund's DHS bill.
David A.P. Anderson Legislative Assistant 491A State Office Building 100 Constitution Ave. St. Paul, MN 55155 651-296-4483 email: David.Anderson@house.leg.state.mn.us
Monday, April 30, 2001 6:00 PM
To all R-Kids members and Associates
HF351 is being debated on the House Floor. This bill carries Representative Smith's HF1446.
Representative Lynda Boudreau has just introduced, and had passed by a wide margin, legislation that provides for a limited driver's license in cases where the obligor is behind in child support payments. This would mean that an obligor can drive to work, and can visit the children.
Thank Representative Boudreau for the Driver's license amendment to HF351.
rep.lynda.boudreau@house.leg.state.mn.us (651) 296-8237
Knute Gladen (763) 588-3602 kgladen@uswest.net
You may have heard Law makers didn't finish their work.
This leaves time for anyone wanting to help secure the proposed summer hearings on family law. The Transportation & finance omnibus bill that family law reform is still in, will eventually pass! The goal remains to remove the presumptive child support guide lines. Please consider helping by Contacting members of the transportation & finance conference committee listed. Ask them to remove the presumptive child support guide lines from Hf 2189 and SF 2340. Below is examples of letter writing/phone calls!
Dear Conference Committee Members:
I am very supportive of HF 2189 and senate companion SF 2340 Except The Family Law recodification language. Specifically the Presumptive child support work sheet contained within. We have stated from the beginning of this legislative session that we support family law reform. The new shared responsibility approach for child support is nothing more than a new name with increased support obligations for most obligators. Two or three children do not cost $1500.00 to $2000.00 a month to meet their basic needs, as the work sheet suggests. We know where the problem lies and we believe law makers do as well. Senator Leo Foley has committed to hold public hearings throughout the summer on these issues. I personally believe this last minute push to get Rep Smiths Bill put in to law will stop any chance of Minnesota citizens ever finding out the truth as to what is a fair and just child support obligation. What we would ask our Representatives and Senators to make is the necessary amendment to HF2189 and SF2340 And remove only the Presumptive Child Support Work Sheet from this bill.
We do truly appreciate the efforts and time you have committed to addressing this problem now lets allow the time needed to finish it properly. R-KIDS organization has donated thousands of hours to the people of MN including various tasks forces and providing you folks with facts/statistics. Thus far we have largely been ignored. We have the facts to what is a just and fair child support obligation. Please allow us to be heard.
Sincerely,
Dennis Schwecke
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!
