Newsletters::2002 November
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Supreme Court gives custody back to surviving parent
On August 16, the Minnesota Supreme Court made its decision to REVERSE the decision of the appeals court and to sent the matter back to the lower courts for reconsideration. Review the report on http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/sc/current/c301170.html. N. A. K. is an attractive and intelligent child. When her divorced mother died, her Legal Joint Custody father was denied custody. The child was sold into adoption. Attorneys and adoption agencies received big bucks. You can read about the legal aspects and the child's cries from the Amicus Brief, linked to the R-Kids web page, http://www.r-kids.org. Attorney Jack Graham has explained, with vivid clarity, the situation of the case and the wishes of the child to stay with her father. READ IT!
On October 2, Robert Knauff was awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of his daughter by Hennepin County Judge Wexler, according to Robert Carrillo on his KDWA radio program this morning. There will be another hearing in December, he reported. As you may remember, the child’s mother died and the child was put up for adoption instead of giving custody to Robert Knauff, who had joint legal custody, was paying support and who had an on-going relationship with his daughter. Hennepin County Judge Swenson recused himself after he gave the child to a third party, the appeals court failed to over-ride, the Minnesota Supreme Court did over-ride the appeals court and remanded the case back to District Court in Hennepin County.
Knute Gladen
Appeals court finds new way to determine nonpaternity
Court of Appeals, October 8, 2002 (published)
- C5-02-360 In Re the Matter of: Keelia P. Turner, Ramsey County vs. Lionel Racquint Suggs, Appellant. Hon. Joanne Smith. Ramsey County.
- A motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to vacate a paternity adjudication is not identical to an action under Minn. Stat. § 257.57, subd. 2 (2000), to declare the nonexistence of the father-child relationship presumed under Minn. Stat. §257.55, subd. 1 (2000), or to a proceeding to declare the nonexistence of the father-child relationship under Minn. Stat. § 257.60(2) (2000).
- A man adjudicated the father of a child in a paternity proceeding may bring a motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 to vacate the paternity adjudication.
- Where a man stipulates to paternity of a child based on the representations and sworn statements of the child's mother, and where subsequent genetic tests indicate that those representations and sworn statements were false, the genetic tests may be used to seek relief from the paternity adjudication on the basis of newly discovered evidence and fraud under Minn.R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), (c).
- When considering whether to vacate a paternity adjudication on the basis of newly discovered evidence and fraud under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(b), (c), and where the party seeking relief admits that he may still be adjudicated the child's father in a subsequent paternity proceeding, a district court shall not consider the child's best interests in determining whether to vacate the paternity adjudication.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Anderson, Judge
In an unpublished decision, Kellogg v. Kellogg, C5-02-181, the Court of Appeals upheld a stipulation to waive child support, where the custodial parent made over $300,000 per year. This decision is important in that it says parents can not agree to waive support, but they can agree on a future standard for modification of support.
Letters To Legislators
R-Kids Bill Committee has sent two letters to all House and Senate legislative candidates. If your legislator pretends to not have any idea about our bill or about R-Kids, take him or her to task. Copies of the letters follow. The first letter requested help to sponsor our COST SHARES child support guidelines bill. It included information stating why both parents are important for children (below) and an R-Kids brochure. The second letter explained COST SHARES (below). A copy of charts for two children, comparing our bill with the DHS bill, was also included in the second letter.
FIRST LETTER TO LEGISLATORS
August 12, 2002
Dear Legislator:
With the help of a nationally recognized author and economist R. Mark Rogers, R-KIDS of Minnesota has drafted new legislation designed to allow an equitable calculation of child support (HF3582 and SF3351).
Copies of the bill are available from the Minnesota legislature and from R-KIDS’ web page at http://www.r-kids.org/legislation2002/. Or contact us and we will send you a copy.
This legislation is based upon the real cost of raising a child and a shared responsibility in providing for the physical, emotional and financial needs of children.
R-KIDS needs your help in sponsoring a bill to advance this legislation. We have enclosed a brochure describing the expertise that R-KIDS provides to you as legislators and also a list of statistics, which captures the crisis our society faces.
R-KIDS believes that children should have a meaningful relationship with both of their parents and to that end, strives to remove the barriers that keep children from their parents.
We ask that you review the enclosed material and review the details on our website. (See http://www.r-kids.org/legislation2002/). At your request, R-KIDS will be available to answer your questions and provide you with more information about “ ‘Cost Sharing’ child-support”. Your prompt response will be appreciated.
Mail to: R-KIDS, PO Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.
E-mail to: r-kids@rkids.org Telephone numbers are listed below.
Kevin Hoppe, Legislative Director, Phone (763) 753-8352
Dennis Schwecke, Legislative Manager, Phone (763) 477-6681
(attachment) August 12, 2002
Co-parenting and Shared Parenting: Why it Should Always be Presumed:
Facts About Fatherlessness
In these figures is clear evidence that the greatest advantage to any child is in the maximum number of blood-related caregivers (fathers, grandparents) irrespective of marriage, not the minimum, as imposed by our divorce customs. The same pattern is clear in child abuse statistics: minimize the number of blood care-givers, increase the physical, emotional and mental risks for children. Neither set of statistics makes a statement about being married or single, but our disregard for blood-ties, our worshipping of marriage (a social tie) above family. (See Where's Daddy?, Myth 4.)
[Interpreting these statistics: 43% of US children live without their father. You would expect that same percentage in all areas of life - 43% of any segment come from fatherless homes - UNLESS there is either a benefit or a problem with it as a structure.]
- 43% of US children live without their father. [U.S. Department of Census.]
- 90% of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. [US D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.]
- 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice & Behaviour, Vol 14, pp. 403-26, 1978.]
- 60% of repeat rapists grew up without fathers. Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky, "The Developmental Antecednts of Adult Adaptations of Rapist Sub-Types," Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol 14, Dec., 1987, p 403-426.
- 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father. [U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services press release, Friday, March 26, 1999.]
- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.]
- 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control.]
- 90% of adolescent repeat arsonsists live with only their mother. [Wray Herbert, "Dousing the Kindlers," Psychology Today, January, 1985, p.28.]
- 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.]
- 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centres come from fatherless homes. [Rainbows for all God`s Children.]
- 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988.]
- 75% of prisoners grew up without a father. Daniel Amneus, The Garbage Generation, Alhambra, CA: Primrose Press, 1990.
- 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992.]
- Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [U.S. D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999.]
Fatherless Girls:
Jonetta Rose Barras is a Washington D.C. columnist. In her 2000 book, Whatever Happened to Daddy's Little Girl?: The Impact of Fatherlessness on Black Women [One World Ballantine], she describes the lasting impact of fatherlessness on her and other women.
"Promiscuous fatherless women are desperately seeking love. Or we are terrified that if we give love, it will not be returned. So we pull away from it, refusing to permit it to enter our houses, our beds, or our hearts. To fill the void that our fathers created, we only make the hole larger and deeper.
"If it is true that a father helps to develop his daughter's confidence in herself and in her femininity; that he helps her to shape her style and understanding of male-female bonding; and that he introduces her to the external world, plotting navigational courses for her success, then surely it is an indisputable conclusion that the absence of these lessons can produce a severely wounded and disabled woman."
[Jonetta Barras's book is a moving and powerful plea to men to realize their importance to their children. It is a yearning for male acceptance and understanding that only a father can give, and must be there from birth. But the plea from most fathers is, "LET US BE FATHERS." This is not a simple case of "individual responsibility." If society under-values fathers, there is little one man can do. Society must ask what we are doing to cause these problems. - Ed.]
The material on this page is copyrighted (c) 2001 by Harbinger Press. It may be used and disseminated by citing the author and his book, Where's Daddy? The Mythologies behind Custody-Access-Support.
In the following CRC link, under (news letters) (Fall 2002) you will find on page (5) a great article from a study showing the best interest of children only occurs when shared parenting occurs. Click here: Children's Rights Council
SECOND LETTER TO LEGISLATORS
To all legislative candidates
September 17, 2002
Dear Legislative Candidate:
To overcome the social ills of bad family law, R-Kids is proposing Cost Shares Child Support Guidelines (HF3582 and SF3351). This legislation allows children of divorced or never-married parents to have both parents participate in their lives. Research shows that the result is lower child suicides, school dropouts, teen pregnancies, drugs and crime.
When determining child support, Cost Shares is fair and equitable because Cost Shares:
- Considers both parents income for all cases;
- Considers parenting time and the resultant costs incurred in both households;
- Considers the tax benefit attributable to the children (hundreds of dollars per month);
- Makes a very practical self-support allowance for low-income parents.
Here is the simplified procedure for Cost Shares Child Support Guidelines:
- Calculate the CHILD COSTS incurred by EACH parent.
- Calculate the PERCENTAGE of RESPONSIBILITY of EACH parent.
- From Child Costs & Percentage of Responsibility, calculate CHILD SUPPORT OWED.
See the enclosed page that provides further definition. Also see the comparison charts.
R-Kids of Minnesota and Grandparents Preserving Families thanks each of you who have responded by mail, e-mail or oral communication to our members about this subject. We hope that you will find time to review and analyze the problems of family law before the next legislative session starts. When the session is on, you have little time to understand a new concept, so we are hoping you can spend time before then.
Direct comments to: R-KIDS, PO Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.
E-mail to: r-kids @ rkids.org., Telephone numbers are listed below.
Kevin Hoppe , Legislative Director, Phone (763) 753-8352
Dennis Schwecke, Legislative Manager, Phone (763) 477-6681
(Page 2 attachment) September 17, 2002
Cost Shares Child Support Guidelines – Defined
- Calculate the CHILD COSTS incurred by EACH parent.
- Use Gross Income tables to determine BASIC child costs.
- Use percentage of Parenting Time to determine basic child costs incurred by EACH parent.
- To each parent’s Child Cost, add child care and insurance costs that are paid by that parent.
- Subtract Child Tax Benefit from the Child Cost of whichever parent is receiving the benefit.
- Calculate the PERCENTAGE of RESPONSIBILITY of EACH parent.
- Determine the monthly after-tax income for EACH parent assuming SINGLE status.
- Subtract a self-support reserve of $1021, which is 133 percent of poverty threshold, to obtain an amount that EACH parent has AVAILABLE for Child Costs.
- Combine (add) the AVAILABLE amount of each parent, and calculate the percentage that each parent contributed to this combined amount.
- From Child Costs and Percentage of Responsibility, calculate CHILD SUPPORT OWED.
- Calculate each parent’s support obligation by multiplying that parent’s PERCENTAGE of RESPONSIBILITY by the other parent’s CHILD COSTS.
- Subtract the lesser obligation from the greater. The difference is the amount owed by the parent with the greater obligation.
Copies of the bill (HF3582 and SF3351) are available from the year 2002 Minnesota Legislature. Copies with justification documents, including letters from Minnesota DHS, are available from R-KIDS’ web page at http://www.r-kids.org/legislation2002/. We ask that you review the material. At your request, R-KIDS will be available to answer your questions.
Star Tribune Editorial: 'Dead broke' dads / A new strategy in child support
Published August 26, 2002
Federal agents arrested dozens of "deadbeat dads" last week in a national crackdown on the thousands of divorced and separated parents who shirk their obligation to pay child support. That's a welcome step against an age-old problem. But what about the "dead broke" dads? Researchers estimate that perhaps one-third of the parents who fail to pay child support are themselves poor or unemployed, and that's one reason enforcing support orders always has been such a vexing challenge.
There are several promising techniques to reach these floundering fathers -- most noncustodial parents are men -- including a long-standing experiment in Minnesota. The Bush administration should make sure that it is part of any new child-support crusade.
Such a crusade is in one sense the flip side of welfare reform, the huge social experiment that reached its sixth anniversary this month. Thousands of the single mothers on public assistance are owed millions of dollars in late child support. As a practical matter, poverty scholars estimate that 10 to 20 percent of them could leave public assistance if they simply received the child support owed by the fathers of their children.
There's an equity issue too. Because the vast majority of adults on welfare are single mothers, the welfare-to-work revolution has amounted to a crackdown on poor, single women. As a matter of fairness, the same logic should be applied to the fathers: Society will insist that they take more responsibility for their behavior and their children, but it will offer them the tools to make that possible.
That's the philosophy behind an experiment called Parents' Fair Share, conducted in several counties around the nation during the 1990s. Poor, noncustodial parents who had fallen behind on their child-support orders received skills training, job counseling and new incentives to pay their obligations. Because poverty wasn't the only source of friction in these families, the fathers could also get classes in parenting skills, enrollment in a fathers' support group and mediation services for any disputes with their estranged or former spouses.
A national evaluation of Parents' Fair Share found that it produced only modest gains in employment, but it did improve child-support collections. In Minnesota, Anoka County has experimented with a similar strategy since the late 1980s, and has had good results in finding work for noncustodial fathers and increasing their payment of child support.
Congress has considered expanding this tactic nationwide, but a "Fathers Count" bill that passed the House last year failed to pass the Senate. If Congress and the Bush administration are serious about child support and welfare reform, they should see that bill signed into law this year.
KSTP-TV Report
Channel 5 did a story about Bob Wenck. It can be accessed and downloaded, through his website, http://rwenck.home.att.net
To: Tim Theisen, R-Kids Editor Subject: Availability of Divorce Pro se materials
I was glad to hear that you were impressed with what Hennepin Co. now is doing with pro se litigants. I am also glad to hear you are still with R-KIDS. The last time I was there those who weren’t going to the United Nations were talking about going to the US Supreme Court.
Since you seem to be interested in what the other MN. Counties are doing I thought you might be interested in my experiences. About three years ago I got the enclosed April 9, 1999 memo from Sue Dosal (see enclosed) at one of the Parenting Plan task force meetings at the Supreme Court. While at the St. Paul courthouse on Kellogg Ave. a few weeks later with Warren Higgins I asked for a copy of the Visitation Guide and was told by their Mike Calvert to go across town to the Supreme Court and find out who was going to pay for printing it. I thought this strange and instead of following his suggestion I wrote a letter, made about 50 copies and sent them to everyone whose name I could get in the Ramsey Co. courthouse, e.g. all the judges, county commissioners, state legislators etc. After about four more mailings a judge told me they didn’t know how to distribute these pamphlets and I suggested a plastic rack with all the pro se materials in the hallway. They put one up and it still is there and the staff say they are happy with it and it works out good for them.
I thought Ramsey Co. was the only Co. with problems but found Hennepin also did not provide the visitation Guide when I asked for papers to resolve a visitation problem. However, they immediately added it to their list (see enclosed). I thought they were doing fine until I happened to be in the building about four months ago and found they no longer were making it available when I asked for visitation papers. In fact, they had a cumbersome system, did not comply with Sue Dosal’s memo, nor other Mn. Supreme Ct. requests. We had a verbal disagreement at the counter and four large security people suddenly towered over me and asked me to leave. I did and wrote them a letter like I had done with Ramsey County 3 years ago. I distributed 450 copies of it with its seven references (I probably sent a copy to Knute). Every legislator, the Gove, Att. General, everyone whose name I had from the Supreme Ct. and Hennepin Co., the Court Executive Team, Council of Chief Judges, Legal Aide, ACLU got a copy. For over a month I was too intimidated to return, but finally my curiosity got the best of me. I pulled my hat down over my eyes and snuck into the area and examined the carousel and avoided eye contact and tried to keep my back to the counter. But pretty soon I heard someone shout “Hey you over there. Come over here.” I tried to ignore them, like they must be talking to someone else, and slowly walked toward the exit. They shouted louder “Hey you, I know who you are.” They demanded “come over here. I want to talk to you.” Since not many others were around I couldn’t them any longer. They informed me in no uncertain terms they didn’t want me to write any more letters. If I found they were doing things wrong I should just tell them and they would correct the problem. They insisted upon showing me the three inch thick notebook that was prominently placed on the counter with all the forms. This hadn’t been there previously. They also showed me how the visitation Guide now was in the carousel. They treated me with the utmost respect. I was embarrassed but glad to see the improvements. I have tried to sneak back several times since and everytime they spot me and insist upon showing me their latest improvement. I suggested they place sign in the pro se area that a law library is available on the 23rd floor but I haven’t seen the sign yet. Is it there? If not ask for one.
In the last three years I have visited 86 of the 87 county courthouse pro se areas and repeated my story, i.e. asking for papers for a person encountering visitation problems. Sometimes it takes several trips and many letters before they get it right. In Moorhead they also called security on me when I asked for the papers Sue Dosal said should be available. After escorting me out of the building I talked with the sheriff. He asked me what I was doing and then asked for a copy of the visitation Guide. I asked what he wanted with it and he said “I have two guys in jail right now with visitation problems and I want to give them copies.” He was upset that the court administrator wasn’t handing the Guide out. I wrote Moorhead up and the next time they recognized me and treated me like I was the President of the United States. They continue to do well. In Benson they had absolutely no pro se papers on my first trip but I’ll enclose a copy of their letter.
The best set up for pro se litigants that I have seen is right now in Dakota Co. in Hastings. About 2 ½ years ago they tried to send me to the public library to get the visitation Guide. After a few letters they provided it on a shelf next to the pro se counter. I go there every few months and just make sure it is till on the shelf. Last week I wanted to see what verbal request I would get to my request and they immediately recognized me and showed me a copy of the Guide. They also gave me the enclosed paper for free legal advise and also referred me to the law library on the 2nd floor that had lots of great books, e.g. I sent a copy of a Grandparents book cover to Knute last week. The law librarian was very helpful to me and other pro se litigants, e.g. finding relevant books and sections from them. It was a joy to see the improvements, e.g. from three years ago. Oh yes. The Dakota Co. staff, unknown to me, had noticed me come in and check the shelf for the Guide every few months. It was like Suzanne, the attorney who runs the pro se area in Hennepin County, told me on first meeting her four months ago. Although we had never met, upon finding out what I was up to she immediately said “You are famous.” I was stunned. I asked how she knew about me and she said she had received numerous e-mails with my name on them. Previously in the Willmar area I happened to see two memos instructing the staff to make sure the Guide is available since “an attorney is coming around making sure it is offered” and the other one described me just as a “guy.” The staff refused to give me copies of these two memos from court administrator Otsby of Wilmar.
It feels good to see the improvements, but it still requires reminding court staff to hand out pro se papers. My current project is to also get them to refer me to the courthouse law library when I ask for information to resolve a visitation problem. Right now I’m back to where I started from. That is, last week St. Paul gave me a hard time again, e.g. they gave me a referral paper for free legal advice but didn’t refer me to the pro se rack in the hallway.
I guess I’ve gotten long winded. It was good you thought Hennepin Co. had a good set up. Dakota Co. probably is better. When you go to courthouses please do me a favor. Go to the court administrator counter and ask for papers for someone experiencing visitation problems and see what you get. e.g. the Guide? Visitation motion papers? Contempt of court papers? A referral to free legal advise? A referral to the law library? An offer to view the new pro se video tape from the Supreme Court?????
Oh yes. What is the status or progress of those who were going to the United Nations? Or of those going to the US Supreme Court?
Good luck. Keep up the good newsletter.
Walter Kuckes
Editor responds:
Aug 15, 2002
Dear Mr. Kuckes:
My concern is that not enough is done to apprise NCP’s (almost entirely men in paternity cases) that they can have agreements put down in a court order in the expedited child support court system, and that if they wish to get a court order, how they can go about filling out pro se forms to start a custody & parenting time petition. For instance, I know that many CSM’s start out all proceedings by asking both parties their address, and first saying “Is there any reason the other should not know your address?” I presume they learn that at CSM training. Maybe they could also be taught to say “Do you have any agreements on custody or parenting time that you would like to include in your court order?” And if there is no agreement, to make the appropriate referral. Also, I would like it to be mandatory in the Summons that are initially served in these proceedings, as well as correspondence from county attorneys, apprising NCP’s of these rights.
The other issue that needs to be addressed more is the use of tax exemptions. It should just be a form that the CSM goes through, as far as who should get it. The law allows the court to allocate its use, but the general rule is that if there is no court order, the custodial parent gets it (although a recent IRS ruling would seem to say that in paternity cases, the parent who paid more for the child gets it; presumably child support counts toward what the NCP pays for the child and would almost always entitle a never-married NCP to the exemption.
Sincerely,
Tim Theisen
www.theisenlaw.com
CHILD SUPPORT -the other side
The laws our government has on child support are unjust. Our government was built on the laws of the bible. The bible is the foundation of morality and marriage. As a Christian government we became the most powerful country in the world, but slowly but surely Christianity and our government are separating.1962 the government separated Christianity from our school. Each generation from then on loses more and more morality- and we wonder why? The future of the nation depends upon maintaining good, solid family relationships. There may be exceptions, but let us focus on the rule. The rule is one man for one woman for life, with fornication as the single exception for divorce. Child support laws we have now reward the sinner. And the sinner doesn't even realized he has sinned because he does not know god. We cannot know love without hate. We cannot know what good is if there is not a bad. We cannot know what black is without white. Our government only teaches grey now. There is no morality in grey. Grey is ok because grey is confusion. Do you know where confusion comes from? If you went to school before 1962 you do. The government has no business in the matter of child support. It is a matter concerning marriage, morality and spirituality. It belongs to the church.
The governments only excuse is the law is for the children. Its not. It teaches children nothing morally, but it teaches them if you leave your husband over any little thing you rightfully are owed money. BY LAW .Which is the only law they know. It teaches if you are ignorant of the law of love -the law of god- you can go get pregnant and make money because matter what he makes you get 25% when your sin is the same as his sin. The child support payer has no say where the money goes. You can spend it on whatever you want needed or not.
When the child support payer remarries you can take food and necessities out of the new babies life and still continue to spend it however you wish. The new babies family could be barely getting by while your living high on the hog- AND BEST OF ALL YOU CAN DO THIS TO AS MANY MEN AS YOU WANT! And good men are treated the same as the deadbeats, so then they often have no choice but to become a deadbeat. If you are a man with a disability who is not able to make enough money to get bv after 33% in taxes, 25% in child support YOU JUST BECAME A DEADBEAT DAD matter how much you love your children, no matter what values you have to teach them. Some are even forced to go to the underworld, at least you can get out of taxes down there, but now you cannot spend anytime with your children because you don't want to bring them to the underworld. Eventually you have your drivers license taken away and it becomes illegal for you to drive to work! Is the first baby in the family that receives child support from 3, 4, 5 dads going to suffer or is it the baby who’s daddy is in jail or cant get to work without a drivers license going to suffer. Both children will suffer without a daddy but the baby being brought up in sin and immoral ways will reap the ways of the life he is taught and the other baby never had a chance from the day he was born, but that child will never die fighting for his country when he is old enough to realize what a corrupt government are country has.
I am not saying every mother on child support is abusing the law and ruining lives of other families. Definitely not. This is an easily abused law that needs reform is all I a saying. Christian families should be able to work things out, and if unable to on our own, we can go to the church for guidance. Gods law should come before government law. God has the ability to turn a miserable mess into a blessing. The government doesn't. In non-Christian situations I suppose there should be a government law of child support, but if a father has a responsibility of child support ,he should also have certain rights with that responsibility. The right to have say in how the child is raised, the right to still be able to afford a descent home for a child to visit, the right to be able to influence and develop a child’s mind, the right to marry and raise a family out of poverty. The benefits and the costs, the rights and the responsibilities, need to be negotiated and divided equally. The government can only do this on an individual basis, which does not happen.
The situations I have described above are real, and are common. Most people sympathize with the hardship divorce and child raising brings to a woman, but don't think about the woman on the other side, like myself. I’m the wife of what society would call a deadbeat dad. He is a wonderful husband and father to our child, and loves his daughter from a previous marriage enormously. He has hepatitis c and a chronic back injury that has made it difficult for him to work, he has fallen behind on his child support. Now he has no drivers license, therefore cannot get a job, or drive to a job if he could.. We live 28 miles from town. I have to pick up the slack, work 2 jobs,. seven days a week to pay for the bare necessities our family needs and we are still barely getting by. I love my husband. He is the most spiritual and moral man I have ever met. It is not him that requires me to work long hours away from the family I hold so dear but it is the law, punishing me for marrying a good man, that worked when he could, and now by law cant. His daughter lives in a nice house, her mom drives a nice car- financially they are a lot better off than we are, and still we are being punished as if we were starving the child. His ex-wife has the power to enforce the law or not therefore she has the power to give his license back or take it away, or possibly send him to jail in the future. I have talked to her about the situation and she has told me that this isn't about money for the child, this is about punishing him for past. She is a angry woman who holds the future of our life, and is allowed to make that decision on emotion. She cares nothing about my daughter and neither does the government. I do not know what to do from here. I cannot negotiate with a law and if we had the money we would pay it. I have tried to negotiate with her, but they cannot go back in time and fix all of there marital problems, we cannot change the past, so what could I offer a woman who holds the power of letting us sink or swim? There is a loophole here that gives one person way to much power over someone or some families lives, it could even be dangerous if left to the wrong people. What are we to do? All I can do is pray. I do, and I just find myself writing this letter and I’m not even sure who im writing it too. Hopefully someone will read it who has the power to change this law or maybe it will just give people a different perspective on the big picture. And maybe some people will see- all deadbeat dads are not deadbeat dads- some have no choice.
Brandee Mahar
1202 120th ave
Ogilvie, MN 56358
or
bmahar@e-pbc.com
(320)272-4420
Members Meetings schedule
Thursday, November 21, 7:00 PM
Thursday, December 19, 7:00 PM
Hennepin Ridgedale Area Library
12601 Ridgedale Drive
Minnetonka
Submitted by Knute Gladen for Secretary Bob Carrillo R-Kids of Minnesota
United Way
Here is what TNovachick has to say to R-Kids. (She lives in Farmington.)
FYI, our United Way campaign kicks in next week. I will be sure to list your group for my full contribution, which you will start to get in January 2003. You might want to remind folks AGAIN. I know you sent us something, but it sure does bear repeating.
To reiterate: From only four members, R-Kids received over $600.00 last year. The reason we did not get more people designating R-Kids Charitable Fund for their SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION, is that the form your organization used was incomplete.
Make sure Your Company uses the long form for United Way Contributions. It has an ITEM 4 - Sign Here to Authorize your Pledge and Payment Method. Under item B, Specific Organization, $____ list 100 percent, or the total amount of your pledge. Name of Agency: R-Kids Charitable Fund. Address: P.O. Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.
Else write in the words "Specific Organization", 100 %, R-Kids, etc.
Lets give it a try. R-Kids has so very much going right now that will help children with fair child support, visitation, custody, and much more. If you can direct your contribution to the charitable organization of your choice (R-Kids) you will be helping yourself.
Thank you so very much for all of your support. Best of wishes.
Todd Bouma:
Thanks for thinking of R-Kids. I had mailed sample forms – a good form and a bad form. Both came from the same place on the website. When selecting the forms, there was a place to check for getting the form with option of designating a Specific Organization.
I just entered http://www.unitedwaytwincities.org/campaigners/pledgecard/card.cfm. The form that came up had the option for Specific Organization designation.
If American Family Insurance uses the other form, try writing at the bottom of the form:
Designate my gift as follows:
Specific Organization: $______________ (100 percent, or all of your contribution for the year, in dollars)
Tax-exempt 501( c )(3) non-profit or other United Way
Name of Agency: _________ R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund
Address: _____ P. O. Box 24658
City: Edina, MN 55424 Agency Code * ______ none assigned.
Do (not) forward my name to the organization above.
Here is how to do your own Pledge Card.
http://www.unitedwaytwincities.org/campaigners/pledgecard/pledge_1.cfm
click on “Go to Step Two”
On this page, make sure that “Include All Designation Options” circle has a DOT in the selections choice.
Click on “Go to Step Three”
Click on “Go to Step etc” until the form shows.
Print and use the form.
Thank you.
Knute Gladen
R-Kids of Minnesota
This year United Way has a website for pledging I don't know if all companies are using it, but we are here at Land O'Lakes. I was still able to designate R-Kids charitable fund with little fuss. In order to designate to R-Kids using the web site you need:
Name (ie R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund) address phone number contact person
I put your P.O. Box address and Knute’s name as the contact
Best Wishes Ken Schamberger
Sniper's frustrating custody battle helped trigger murders
Posted on Sun, Oct. 27, 2002. Saint Paul Pioneer Press BY BOB KEEFE COX NEWS SERVICE
TACOMA, Wash. — Before John Allen Muhammad became the killer authorities think he is, he was a stern but devoted father who taught his kids about football and karate and respect for their elders and themselves.
Unsuccessful as a businessman, unsuccessful as a soldier, Muhammad had little more left in his life other than his children. His own fatherless childhood and his conversion to Islam reinforced in him the importance of being a strong family leader, a patriarch.
So when Muhammad's ex-wife took his son, 12, and two daughters, 9 and 10, away, it was so devastating and stressful that it may have led him to kill innocent strangers, some say.
"People don't just go crazy and start shooting other people," said John Mills, a Tacoma lawyer who represented Muhammad in a custody battle with his ex-wife Mildred. "If you look through his divorce files, there's a fairly clear explanation."
Mills, of course, doesn't believe that Muhammad's alleged actions were justified or that his failed family was completely to blame.
But as investigators search for what caused Muhammad allegedly to snap and start killing people in the Washington area, they may discover it has less to do with his religion and training as a soldier and most do with his shattered family life.
"Family problems can definitely be a factor that can set someone off," said Jackie Helfgott, an associate professor of criminal justice at Seattle University. "I'm sure that has to have been a trigger for this particular person."
Muhammad was born in Louisiana and spent much of his adult life Tacoma. He had no reason to be in Maryland, where he and John Lee Malvo were arrested Thursday and charged — except for the fact that his ex-wife and children had fled there from Tacoma.
Clearly, Muhammad had been looking for his ex-wife and children. According to Mills, Muhammad had been trying to find her for more than a year so she could be served with court papers. He was trying to get her into court to try to regain custody of his kids, or at least gain visitation rights.
"I suspect he went to Maryland because some friend of a friend let it drop that she was in Maryland," Mills said. "I think if he would have actually located her, we would have seen his violence more directed at her, not others."
Mildred Muhammad had reason to hide from her ex-husband. She filed for divorce in 1999, but their bitter fight over custody and visitation of their children lasted long after that.
In the months after the divorce filing, Muhammad would try to visit his kids regularly and often the visits broke down into fighting between parents. Police were called more than once.
One day in March 2000 Muhammad came to the home to see his kids. He picked them up, but didn't come back.
Instead, he fled with his daughters and son to Antigua, in the Caribbean.
In Tacoma, Mildred was frantic, so much so that at one point she ended up briefly in a Tacoma hospital.
While there, according to court records, Muhammad called her and threatened to kill her.
Muhammad also had tried to gain custody — also unsuccessfully — of a child he had with his first wife.
After son Lindberg visited his father in Tacoma in 1995, Muhammad filed a court motion to gain custody, claiming that Carol Williams abused their child and was an unfit mother. He had made similar statements when the two divorced.
A judge nonetheless decided that the child belonged with his mother, in part because Muhammad's own brother testified against him.
While Muhammad was apparently vengeful toward his former wives, some who know him say he wasn't that way with his kids.
Like everything he did — be it his life in the military, his conversion to Islam, his mastery of auto mechanics — Muhammad took fathering seriously.
As a result, he was certainly stern and demanding, family and friends say, but never mean-spirited. He could control their behavior with little more than a stern look.
"He made his kids run," said Sheila Tezano, whose sister Carol was Williams' first wife, "but I wouldn't say they were afraid of him."
At karate class, Muhammad would pressure his son to be more forceful, more disciplined. A former high school football player himself, Muhammad filmed his son's flag football games and watched for errors.
Despite being a taskmaster, friends and family say Muhammad always seemed happy playing with his kids.
"John was a fun person," said Yvonne Bradford, who is married to Muhammad's uncle. "He was the type who was good with the kids."
Muhammad's estrangement from his own children, both in Louisiana and Maryland, may have also played a role in his strange relationship with John Lee Malvo.
In Washington state and in Louisiana, Muhammad introduced Malvo to friends and family as his son, sometimes his stepson. Malvo referred to him as his father.
At a homeless shelter in Bellingham, Wash., where the two lived, managers thought the two were father and son. At a YMCA, they thought the same thing.
Malvo's mother, Uma James, knew better, though, and tried to get her son from Muhammad's influence.
On Dec. 14, James walked into the Bellingham Police Department to get help in recovering her son from Muhammad, said Bellingham Lt. Dac Jamison. Police contacted Muhammad and Malvo at the Lighthouse Mission, where they were staying. But neither Muhammad nor James could prove any parental lineage, said Jamison, and Malvo was briefly turned over to child-protective services.
How Muhammad, James and Malvo came to know each other is unclear. They may have met in the Caribbean when Muhammad fled there with his children.
On Dec. 18, James and Malvo were arrested by the Border Patrol and held for about 3½ weeks on charges that they entered the country illegally. They were released when James posted a $1,500 bond. A court hearing to consider their deportation is scheduled for next month in Seattle.
In a report, Immigration and Naturalization Service officers said James and Muhammad had "some sort of custody dispute" over Malvo.
"Police told John Muhammad to leave and not to interfere with the mother and son," INS officers wrote in the report.
But Muhammad continued to interfere.
Within a few months, Muhammad and Malvo were together again, shooting a .223 caliber rifle into a stump outside a duplex in Tacoma. Shortly after that, the two set off for the Washington, D.C. area.
How Muhammad's shattered family life factored into his relationship with Malvo and with his alleged sniping spree may never become clear. Investigators have said little about whether the two are cooperating with authorities or giving any clues to motive.
In the meantime, some say Muhammad's failed family life can't be overlooked. Familial problems, especially involving custody fights, often lead to violence, experts say. Dominating personalities such as Muhammad's also can be a big factor.
"If someone's in a family situation where they're in control, and all the sudden they lose control, they can do something like this to send a message," said Helfgott, the Seattle University professor. "They want to show they're still in power."
Bob Karls runs a self-help group near Seattle for fathers who are separated from their children. Over the years, Karls said he has seen fathers affected in myriad ways by losing their kids. Sometimes, they turn to alcohol or drugs. Other times they simply become depressed. Occasionally, they turn to violence.
"You're talking about your own flesh and blood," Karls said. "It's very stressful thing … that mentally or emotionally can be more than some guys can take."
Mills, the Tacoma attorney, said he has no doubts Muhammad's prolonged and frustrating custody battle and his other familial problems helped trigger his client to kill, as authorities allege.
"It is surprising to me that the John Muhammad I knew would turn violent, because of what I know about him," Mills said.
"But at the same time, it's not surprising to me that any person might become violent after months and months of frustration," over trying to see his children.
Editor’s note – Maybe the mother fled because he was an abusive, paternalistic, homicidal maniac.
CLASS ACTION SUIT
CRC President David L. Levy and Board Chairman John L. Bauserman, Jr., J.D. have announced that CRC will file a class action on behalf of a child's constitutional right to two fit parents. There are 25 million American children who have been deprived of a relationship with one of their parents as a result of unconstitutional laws for determining custody of minor children. CRC believes that there is a constitutional right to shared custody by parents and that the denial of that right harms millions of children throughout the country.
Opportunity to comment on family-unfriendly child support rules
On May 28, 2002, Dr. Sherri Z. Heller Commissioner of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) indicated a need for a more realistic child support awards.
Commissioner Heller addressed the historical issue of child support agencies not always being the most supportive agencies in the world-especially for fathers who are struggling. But she noted that this is changing. She referred to this as a "Cultural shift" in child support agencies all across the country-where the word "father" is used instead of "obligor" or "defendant."
Commissioner Heller also credited this "cultural shift" to judges and child support professionals to "realizing that the most effective way to get child support paid it to start with more realistic child support orders...and even consideration to the need to modify arrears when current support is paid in some cases." (emphasis added)
DR. Heller is now requesting feedback to identify "family-unfriendly" child support rules. ACTION TRANSMITTAL (DCL 02-20) dated August 5, 2002 Click here: DCL-02-20, Family-Unfriendly Child Support Rules
WHO - SHOULD BE CONCERNED: All Concerned Citizens interested in Preserving the Family System More Positively after a Break up ... and getting justice for the non-custodial parent (usually father). Because, what's right for both parents is right for the kids.
Non-custodial parents are consistently being denied visitation - negatively impacting children.
Non-custodial parents are consistently being robbed out of his hard earned money leaving him no money to support his kids because everything goes to the mother (due to excessive child support orders) - negatively impacting the child from the first divorce or the second family.
The father that has to pay and does not get any visitation even though he is a fit father - this is nothing more than an indentured servitude.
The non-custodial parent who has had his drivers license taken away due to child support debt - negatively impacting ability to earn and negatively impacting his ability to see the children.
The non-custodial parent who feels like their natural rights and freedoms have been taken away by a government system that will not let him have his natural right to be a parent because the mother signed up for 4-D services with the county.
The non-custodial father who has never been married to the mother of his child and finds himself losing all rights.
The grandparents who have no time with their grandchildren (due to the alienation of the custodial parent) The grandparents who are supporting the non-custodial parent with food and shelter (due to excessive child support orders preventing the father from self-sustaining)
The grandparents who are tired of having no say. Anyone excluded from a child's life and financially broken by a county child support process.
Anyone who knows anyone excluded from a child's life and financially broken by a county child support process YOU!!!!!
WHY - THE GOVERNMENT CHILD SUPPORT REGULATIONS ARE UNFRIENDLY TO FATHERS WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY UNFRIENDLY TO CHILDREN:
Please help identify any child support rule, administrative policy, court room practice, county attorney procedures, or lack of support by a case worker, GAL, family court services evaluator, ANYONE or ANYTHING that prevents you from achieving any of your rights. Ask yourself: would the government require this same thing if I was married? If not, it's family unfriendly.
Examples of "family unfriendly" rules and practices:
Courts and child support case workers don't require the mother to allow visitation as listed on the court order - courts are not, in practice, doing anything to prevent mothers from interfering with visitation - courts don't sanction the mother and it costs the father endless legal fees to fight for the rights they already have - when the kids don't see the child during this alienation, it hampers the fathers relationships with the kids and creates life-time problems for the kids. Mothers get away with parental alienation.
Courts and child support case workers prevent fathers from getting the 50-50 custody even when they want it and are fit to have it. This prevents fathers from taking responsibility. Mothers are allowed to use an OFP, without due process, and without valid evidence, just to keep the fathers away from the children - increasing conflict in the family and preventing fathers from seeing their kids.
Fathers are not allowed equal protection - they are not allowed the SAME FREE legal services that the mother gets from the county for merely filling out the 4-D application. Mothers making $80,000 a year are getting the county to provide free legal, free case worker, free everything, while a father making $30,000 a year has to pay all his own legal fees - and often can't afford to fight the system because he is not allowed equal rights.
Fathers are put into poverty with child support orders while mothers income flourishes under the color of law to "let the child have the same standard of living" while the father lives in squalor or with his parents - this teaches young girls there are no financial consequences for divorce and if you marry rich the first time, have your kids, get on the child support gravy train, THEN you can marry for love the second time. It teaches kids that dad's are only there for money - their love, affection, and time, are unimportant.
Fathers are losing their jobs everyday in this bad economy and unable to find equal paying jobs, but the child support system says the federal government doesn't allow modification or downward deviations and call the dad "voluntarily underemployed." If the local government says the federal government won't allow modification downward...why do we spend millions on modification court - its a fraud against the citizens to let people think it is possible.
Fathers who want to pay but have an inability to pay are charged with felony non-support, because they can't modify the excessive child support orders....then when the fathers are convicted felons they can't find a job ANYWHERE - very few people hire a convicted felon - what does this do to the child - how is this in the best interest of the child when a) their dad was put into jail because of them, and b) they can't find a job to ever support them again.
It takes the county often times 2-3 months to get the first invoice out after the first court order...most fathers start out on their FIRST invoice from the county with 2-3 months in arrears, even though that is NO FAULT of their own and even though they have been paying the mother - any payments to the mother and not through the county ARE NOT COUNTED AS CHILD SUPPORT payments. The father gets chastised for not paying the mother without a court order, but when he does the money isn't counted.
When the father starts out 2-3 months in arrears he could immediately be charged with 1 year in jail for gross misdemeanor non-support.
USE THESE IDEAS ...ADD TO THESE IDEAS...WRITE UP YOUR OWN.
SO LET THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT KNOW WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING.
Put your ideas into writing. Mail your written ideas to the attention of: Lily Matheson @ OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AeroSpace Building 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, DC. 20447
Or Call @ 1-202-2401-9386 "Cc" your response to your U.S. legislators. YOUR FEEDBACK MUST BE IN BY OCTOBER 31, 2002.
Tennessee declares child support guidelines unconstitutional
By Shirley Downing downing@gomemphis.com August 10, 2002
The Tennessee Court of Appeals in Jackson on Friday declared unconstitutional the guidelines judges use to determine child support payments.
Though the impact was unclear because the state has 60 days to appeal, family law attorneys said it could result in lowered payments to many children.
The appeals court decision stems from a Shelby County case in which a Memphis father had argued the expense of raising two children in his current marriage should be considered in figuring how much he should pay to support a third child from a previous relationship.
The guidelines prohibit consideration of any children other than those covered by court-ordered child support. The father, Troy Thompson, lost his argument that the rule is unconstitutional and appealed.
The appellate court, in an opinion written by Judge Holly Lillard, reversed the juvenile court judge, finding the child support guidelines "violate the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions." "We . . . find no rational basis for flatly prohibiting the trial court from considering a parent's support of other children," Lillard wrote.
"This is fantastic news, said Gail Sevier, one of two attorneys who filed Thompson's appeal. "The court paved the way for a more equitable distribution of support dollars among all children of any payor."
Thompson could not be reached for comment.
The state had not decided Friday whether to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.
Tennessee Department of Human Services spokesman Paul Ladd said it is too early to know what impact the decision would have on child support collections in this state.
"We have 393,000 active child support cases in Tennessee," Ladd said. "For fiscal year 2001 we took in $375 million in child support . . ."
But other attorneys said the ruling could have significant impact, with Juvenile Court spokesman Dan Michael predicting a possible flood of new work for the court system.
"This opinion could create several new issues that will have to be resolved before the guidelines settle down," said Michael, counsel to Juvenile Court Judge Kenneth Turner.
Webb Brewer, litigation director for Memphis Area Legal Services, said the court ruling was "fair" and "proper" and could have significant impact.
"My first reaction is that there was a real flaw in the statute and that it was unconstitutional in that it seemed to treat children that were subject to a child support order different from children that weren't subject to an order," Brewer said.
The Shelby County case is similar to two others heard in East Tennessee, one of which is now before the state Supreme Court.
Thompson's case involved a child he had with Elisa Connell Hulbert in 1993. When a 1996 blood test showed Thompson was the father, he agreed to pay $375 a month in child support. In the meantime, he married Andrea Thompson, and they had two children.
In 2000, Hulbert asked juvenile court to set child support for the child. Using the guidelines, the court ordered a $300 increase. Thompson argued that paying the additional money would result in "a slow death . . . for my financial situation."
The juvenile court said Thompson failed to show the kind of hardship that would allow a deviation from the guidelines.
The guidelines compute payments based on the paying parent's net income, which is then multiplied by a percentage based on the number of children subject to the child support order.
One child would get 21 percent of the parent's income; two children, 32 percent; three, 41 percent; four, 46 percent; and five or more, 50 percent.
In his appeal, Thompson argued that "the guidelines treated his later born children less favorably than his first child and, therefore, violated his children's constitutional rights to equal protection."
At Juvenile Court, Michael said the ruling leaves the door open for many requests for adjustments because it did not state whether payments should be adjusted retroactively.
"We could have a flood of parents coming in saying that you set my child support two years ago and I want you to recalculate it," he said.
The question then becomes how to recalculate support.
"Consider if you have a single mom who has given birth to a child out of wedlock to a man who is married with three children. He possibly has the benefit of his wife's support for those three children," Michael said.
"Under the current guidelines, the court cannot consider household income but just his. So now, if the single mom's support is reduced, he is actually gaining the benefit. I wonder how single moms (with much smaller support payments) will react?"
Staff reporter Jacinthia Jones and The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Child support equity on the way
by Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
The Tennessee Court of Appeals sent an important message this month: Second families count.
The court ruled in a case in which a Memphis father faced an 80 percent increase in his child support. The father argued that the expense of raising two children in his current marriage should be considered in figuring how much he should pay to support a third child from a previous relationship.
Tennessee's current child support guidelines prohibit financial consideration of children from second families, except under extreme circumstances. The court found that these guidelines violate the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.
The court's recognition of the needs of children of second families is long overdue. According to Jan Larson, author of Understanding Stepfamilies, one of every three Americans is a stepchild, step-parent, step-sibling, or some other member of a stepfamily.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports more than half of all first marriages end in divorce, and roughly 75 percent of divorced men and women will remarry. Yet our laws, family courts and public discourse generally ignore second families and their concerns.
Some states allow a second wife's income to be factored in to determine the child support a divorced father pays his first wife. Thus, second wives' income is used to support their stepchildren, even when first wives are not working.
Second families also are affected by the way state agencies and family courts mistreat divorced fathers. For example, many fathers fall behind on their child support payments because they lost their jobs or became disabled.
Yet according to Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute, even among fathers who experience income drops of 15 percent or more, fewer than one in 20 are able to get courts to reduce their child support obligations. While these fathers are unable to work, their arrearages mount, along with interest (10 percent or more in many states) and penalties. Federal law prohibits these debts from being forgiven retroactively.
Many other fathers are the victims of child support billing errors, which audits and evaluations have shown are responsible for a third of all arrearages in some states and counties. It is very difficult to get child support agencies to correct their errors, cease collection efforts and refund mistakenly collected money.
In addition, states often change their child support guidelines, sometimes quickly doubling or even tripling the support owed. These factors can trap many divorced fathers and their second families in a spiral of child support debt, interest and penalties - often forcing second families to empty their savings, sell their homes or declare bankruptcy.
Many divorced fathers work overtime or at second jobs to try to meet their support obligations to their first families and to help their second families. Yet courts often use these fathers' sacrifices against them by raising their support obligations based on the extra income they earn.
Thus fathers are often compelled to work long hours and be away from their families. And overtime hours that were available one year are often unavailable the next, saddling divorced dads with support levels they cannot meet.
Second families' other grievances include "move-away moms" – custodial mothers who move their children hundreds or even thousands of miles away from their fathers. Other custodial mothers can interfere with or deny a divorced father's visitation and access to his children.
Such obstacles often make it impossible for men to be fathers to the children of their first marriages, and also necessitate costly legal battles that can drain second families' financial resources. Second families often are left feeling that they must maintain a permanent defensive posture, and that they have lost control over their lives.
The Tennessee court's ruling is a sign of the increasing awareness that the needs of all children, regardless of birth order, must be considered. New child support guidelines must balance the needs of children from first families with those of second families.
After all, what parent would dare put the needs of one child above another?
Julian Pettigrew knows that four plus four equals eight, but Tennessee's child support system has always told him that not all eight are equal.
Pettigrew has eight children. Five are from previous relationships, one is from a current marriage and two are stepchildren he's raising. Under current state child support rules, he gives about 60 percent of his monthly take home pay to the first four children while he, his wife and the other four kids live on the rest.
"I'm a father who believes in taking care of my children," said Pettigrew, a hub manager at Federal Express. But he said the family is barely staying afloat.
Pettigrew is among the thousands of Tennesseans who could be affected by two recent state Appeals Court rulings that call for an equalization of support payments among a payor's children.
Current state rules do not allow the court to consider any children other than those named in a support order when a judge sets monthly payments. So, a parent like Pettigrew could be spending more money on children from previous relationships than on children born later of an existing marriage.
The first ruling is on appeal before the Tennessee Supreme Court. If upheld, courts across the state could expect a flood of requests from parents to modify child support.
The impact to custodial parents, and to the state, could be tremendous, officials said, noting the state counts almost 400,000 active child support cases, and collects more than $1 million a day in payments.
If the appeals court ruling is upheld, expect a crush of paperwork and an increased judicial caseload, some observers say.
That could lead to lower child support payments for many custodial parents - possibly thrusting many back onto the welfare rolls – and considerably fewer dollars to the state Department of Human Services as reimbursement for welfare payments. "It will have an impact on child support collections at the state level because the amount of money that is collected is diminished," said Dan Michael, chief counsel to Juvenile Court Judge Kenneth Turner.
"Say you have a mother with one child born out of wedlock and the father then married and has three other children.
"The support to that first mother may be cut by two-thirds because now you would have to consider those children in the home. And if that money (collected in child support to the first family) was going to repay the state for funds expended through welfare benefits, that money then will drop. So it could very easily affect not only what the mother receives but what the state receives."
Reaction to the rulings is mixed. The Tennessee Department of Human Services, which sets state child support rules, and Juvenile Court, which enforces them, are taking a wait-and-see position.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issues broad guidelines for the collection of child support but requires states to establish the court-ordered rates. Consequently, rules vary from state to state, said Bill Duffey of Nashville, project director for child support policy with Tennessee DHS.
Current guidelines call for a portion of the payor's net income to be paid for each child in a support order, ranging from 21 percent for one child to 50 percent for five or more children.
Duffey said the state decided to set payments based on a percentage per child because that made it fairly easy for the court, attorneys and parents to understand.
He said it was assumed the rules would cover a majority of cases, while allowing a judge the discretion to vary the amount, depending on circumstances.
Critics hope the Supreme Court review will trigger a look at the whole system, which they feel is sharply skewed against the non-custodial parent.
Kay Farese Turner, a Memphis family law attorney, said that under current guidelines, a father making $200,000 a year would be required to spend 21 percent of his net income - possibly $2,000 to $3,000 a month - for a small child whose needs may be no more than $500 or $600 a month.
The difference essentially goes to the custodial spouse as nontaxable income, "which is like a windfall to her, better than alimony because it is nontaxable," she said.
Divorce lawyer David Caywood said he has long felt the guidelines, which date to 1989, were unconstitutional because they allow unequal payments to a payor's children.
Another portion of the law penalizes small business owners, he said. Guidelines don't allow for the deduction of office expenses when arriving at a parent's income for support purposes, a rule he called "grossly unfair."
"The people who wrote the guidelines never had to make a payroll," Caywood said as he called for more oversight of child support collection.
Some critics said the only fair way to calculate child support is on an individual basis, - not with a chart - but that means more work for judges.
"There is just no incentive for DHS or the judiciary . . . especially juvenile court . . . to reform," said Larry Henson, a father's rights activist and flight dispatcher at FedEx. "To reform child support and base it on the actual and provable costs of the child would drastically reduce the money coming into Juvenile Court and DHS coffers."
Henson believes child support is a moneymaker for the state and courts, and noted that for years, courts charged a 5 percent collection fee until the federal government put a stop to the practice last year.
Much of the government's child support collection efforts are based on wrong assumptions, he said.
"For years, the myth was that the majority of women were on welfare because the fathers were refusing to take part and pay support. But in reality, most of the women on welfare are having children with men on welfare, so you have got two people in poverty having kids that they can't support," Henson contends.
Many of the men who fall behind on child support simply don't have a job or the education to get one, he said. "You can't get blood from a turnip."
But at Juvenile Court, Michael said he believes the current system is fair. "Guidelines are promulgated by the feds so that states are assured of collecting child support to reimburse the state for welfare payments or to make sure the custodial parent receives what is due. Any time you norm down a rule, there are people on either end that it is not going to impact equally. The guidelines are an attempt to fit the norm. In those cases where they don't fit the norm, the court has always had the discretion to deviate from those guidelines and we continue to do that, but judiciously."
Michael said he grows weary when he hears a parent complain that he has to pay a large part of his income to support a child or children. "Child support guidelines are designed to ensure that children get what they need in their lives," he said. "That is the whole point of child support."
Copyright 2002, GoMemphis. All Rights Reserved.
Commercial Appeal/GoMemphis Home: http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/home/
Related articles:
Child support equity on the way Tennessee Appellate Court Sends Message: Second Families Count http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/opinion_columnists/article/0,1426,MCA_539_1339424,00.html by Thompson & Sacks -- GoMemphis, 23 Aug 02 DHS keeps child support rules intact Waits for high court to settle issue http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_1322102,00.html by Shirley Downing -- GoMemphis, 13 Aug 02
Tennessee child support rules struck down Appeals court favors Memphis father http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_1317783,00.html by Shirley Downing -- GoMemphis, 10 Aug 02
The Importance of Parent-Child Relationships: By Dr. Kathryn Kuehnle and Tracy Ellis
Dr. Kathryn Kuehnle and Tracy Ellis have written a article that every one should read in the interest of Families & Children, titled: The Importance of Parent-Child Relationships: What attorneys need to Know About the Impact of Separation.
This publication was published in the Florida State Bar Journal/News October 2002. The Family & Youth Institute is pleased to announce that we have been giving authorization to reproduce it and make it available on our web site.
It can be found in our publications section at, www.FYIonline.org NOTE: You will need Acrobat Reader Version 5.0 or greater.
Good article here on international child abduction & custody struggles
Submitted by
michael.a.fry@kodak.com
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!
