Newsletters::2003 July
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
R-Kids Cost Shares Bill 2003
By Knute Gladen
Changes to child support guidelines are being recommended by two competing bills in this legislative session which includes year 2004. R-Kids is sponsoring COST SHARES (HF664/SF600) which includes parenting time and tax benefits shared between both parents. The Minnesota Department of Human Services is sponsoring Income Shares (HF778/SF758) which has no provisions for parenting time for the Non-Custodial Parent below 45 percent and does not share the tax benefit at all.
R-Kids funded Attorney John Remington Graham and Economist R. Mark Rogers to write the COST SHARES bill. Note that these individuals are DEFENDERS, whereas the Department of Human Services are PROSECUTORS!
COST SHARES bill was introduced in year 2002 by Representatives Dawkins and Smith, and by Senators Neuville, Vickerman, Wiger and Limmer – three Democrats ant three Republicans. It did not get a hearing. However, we received credibility by having the bill introduced. During the Summer of 2002, the Association of Matrimonial Attorneys, invited R-Kids to make a presentation at their meeting because they had invited Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) to also make a presentation. R-Kids brought in R. Mark Rogers to speak. John Remington Graham also attended that meeting. The R-Kids presentation was strong. The DHS presentation was extremely weak to non-existent.
In November, R-Kids contacted Senator Tom Neuville, who said he would sponsor COST SHARES. He absolutely refused to submit our bill to the Revisor’s Office. Finally, in late February we were able to get Representative Eastlund to help us. Then Senator Neuville also introduced our bill, but failed to contact the other Senators who had expressed interest in sponsoring the bill. Subsequently, Senator Neuville dropped COST SHARES like a hot potato and became the Senate Sponsor of Income Shares child support guidelines. R-Kids brought R. Mark Rogers in to speak to the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee on Family Law, to the House Judiciary Committee and to the House Civil Law Committee. COST SHARES passed the House Judiciary Committee and was slated to next go to the House Health and Human Services Policy Committee before going back to the Civil Law Committee. Somehow, both the House and Senate refused to provide hearings on COST SHARES child support guidelines.
Income Shares Bill (very bad!) was incorporated into the Omnibus bills HF778/SF758. The house bill passed all committee hearings and was passed by the House. However, the Senate Income Shares bill, SF758, (sponsored by Neuville) was marginally late in passing all Senate Committees. Senator Neuville then sponsored the bad House bill (HF778) in the Senate. We do not know of Senator Neuville’s wish. Did he want the (dreadful) house version to pass? We do note that Senator Neuville refused to introduce the R-Kids COST SHARES legislation on Child Support Guidelines. Within seconds of the Senate adjourning until January 2004, Senator Neuville withdrew HF778 from the Senate Floor. We do not know the reason for that particular action.
What is next? R-Kids has invested too much money and time to capitulate. Senator Neuville, in a comment to the newspaper, has promised summer hearings. DO NOT BELIEVE IT! The hearings that Senator Neuville has promised are simply closed hearings of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Family Law. Public Testimony will not be allowed.
In the meantime, we are continuing our letter writing campaign. In June, 215 letters were sent. At the last R-Kids Group meeting at the library, we wrote and mailed 18 letters. Additional letters are anticipated at the rate of at least one per month to all legislators. We have compiled tables that compare child costs for COST SHARES, current guidelines and Income Shares.
New Child Support Laws - 2003
From Barry W. Bloomgren, Hennepin County
Editors note: MFIP means Minnesota Family Investment Program which is another euphemism for welfare. CP means Custodial Parent. NCP means Non-Custodial Parent. NPA means Non-Public Assistance. IW means income withholding.
June 16, 2003. The Legislature passed a number of new laws pertaining to child support during the 2003 Session. We've now had a chance to review the 900 page Omnibus Bill, and believe that we have found all the changes that affect our child support work. These changes are listed for you in the order of their effective date. Some of the changes were made as a direct result of your suggestions. Shortly, we expect to be asked by DHS for new ideas for the 2004 Session. So, if there's something in the child support laws that are missing, or could be modified to make the delivery of child support services more efficient or effective, please share them with us by July 1st.
Earlier this year, there was a lot of discussion regarding new proposed child support guidelines based on the Income Shares model for calculating child support responsibility. This proposal did not pass both houses of the legislature. We're told that the bill will be introduced again in the 2004 Session, and that public hearings will be held later this Summer to provide further citizen input for the legislators to consider.
2003 LEGISLATION - CHILD SUPPORT CHANGES:
- Beginning July 1, 2003 changes to state law will affect MFIP families who do not cooperate with child support. Many details are still being worked out, but here is what we know so far.
- The grant sanction amount will increase from 25% to 30% for not cooperating with child support.
- The MFIP case will be closed after being in sanction for six months (medical assistance is not affected).
- The six months of sanction do not have to be consecutive.
- Before closing MFIP for non-cooperation, the CP will get another opportunity to claim good cause.
- Once closed for non-cooperation, MFIP must stay closed for one full month before the CP can re-apply.
- The CP must cooperate with child support before the MFIP case can be reopened.
Families who are already in sanction on July 1, 2003 for not cooperating with child support will receive a notice from MFIP of the increased sanction amount and will begin their six-month sanction limit. The first MFIP closings for non-cooperation should be in January 2004.
- Beginning July 1, 2003 changes to state law will make it easier for the IV-D office to suspend a drivers or occupational license of an obligor who fails to remain in compliance with an approved written payment agreement.
- Prior to suspension the agency must send notice to obligor's last known address advising of intent to suspend and the right to request a hearing within 30 days of the notice.
- If the agency does not receive a written request for hearing within the 30 day period, the agency may proceed with license suspension.
- If the agency receives a written request for hearing within the 30 day period the agency must schedule a hearing and serve the obligor at least 14 days prior to the hearing specifying date, time and location of the hearing.
- Beginning August 1, 2003 changes to state law will affect all applicants for Minnesota license and identification cards.
- All applications for drivers, game, fishing licenses and identification cards must include the social security number.
- If the applicant does not have a social security number they must certify that he/she does not have one.
- The social security numbers are private data and under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act will be made available to child support for enforcement purposes.
- Beginning July 1, 2004 the State will assess and collect a 1% fee to all NPA obligee applicant collections.
- The custodial parent must be NPA for 24 consecutive months in order for this provision to apply.
- NPA clients and applicants will be advised of the fee and be allowed to "opt out" of IV-D system and income withholding. It appears this will require a court hearing, to stop the IW, but we will wait for guidance from the State office.
- The fee will be collected before disbursement of collections to the NPA obligee
- The fees collected will be used to fund the state IV-D incentive program.
- Beginning July 1, 2005 the State will assess and collect a 1% fee to all NPA obligor applicant collections.
The same provisions as noted above (a, b, c and d) apply here, too, only to the NPA obligor.
From: Otis.Courtney@co.hennepin.mn.us Subject: 2003 Legislation on Child Support To: Knute Gladen,
I would be interested in your comments. Thanks,
From: KNUTE GLADEN To: Otis Courtney and AAMC members.
The changes to the laws drive another nail into the coffin of African American Males, age 18 to 30. These changes will cause more young men to be spending time on street corners because their driver's licenses have been taken even though they were not aware because the notification has been sent to the wrong address.
Children need both parents in their lives. All unbiased research shows that when fathers are involved in children's lives, they are more likely to stay in school, have fewer physical ills, have fewer mental problems, be less likely to become unwed teen parents and are much less likely to be involved in crime.
The DHS needs to change its policy. Current policy is to be as brutal to fathers as possible so they can collect Federal funding for child support enforcement. The cost of incarceration comes out of a different budget. Each year, child support debt increases by $100,000,000 per year. Current debt is 1,200,000,000 as of June, 2002.
Child support payment guidelines are unfair in current law. The Non-custodial parent is expected to pay all of the child costs, plus provide a profit to the custodial parent. The Income Shares bill that did not become law is no improvement.
I have compiled an extensive table that compares (good) COST SHARES child support with (bad) Income Shares child support. The information is available to anyone interested. Copies of two pages have been sent to each of the Hennepin County Commissioners. If Barry can not get a copy of my letter to the County Commissioners, I will send him a copy.
Knute Gladen, AAMC, R-Kids
The only real news from the legislature is that filing fees have increased. The fee to start a new file (divorce, paternity, etc.) went up from $145 to $245, effective July 1, 2003. This is a one time fee that lasts the life of your case. If you’ve already paid it, you won’t have to pay it again. There is now a $55 fee to file any motion, except for child support motions, which remain at $20.
Case law review
Published decisions of the Court of Appeals
Frieson v. Pahkala, C8-02-708
Date Filed: 2002-11-19 Court: Minn. App. published Decision: Reversed and remanded Reviewed by: MSBA Categories: Paternity
Appellant challenged the district court’s “order denying his request for blood tests to determine the paternity of a child.” The Court of appeals reversed the order and remanded because Respondent had met the statutory requirements necessary to compel a blood test. Appellant’s original petition for paternity indicated that he did not have sexual relations with Respondent during the period of conception. However, his amended petition and affidavits accompanying his motion to compel blood tests alleged sexual relations during the conception period and continued contact with Respondent, who implied the baby was Appellant’s child.
Respondent, however, denied sexual contact during the period of conception, sought an order for protection against Appellant and had not indicated any parent-child relationship when seeking that order. After the child’s birth, Appellant married another man, who had signed a “Voluntary Recognition of Parentage” form. The district court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to blood tests given his inconsistent statement regarding sexual relations, his criminal activities and evidence suggesting he abused Respondent, as well as Respondent’s consistent statements regarding paternity.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision. Minn. Stat. § 257.62, subd. 1, states that a court shall order tests upon the request of a party and that the mother and alleged father shall file affidavits alleging or denying paternity and setting forth supporting facts. The Court relied on the plain language of the statute to conclude that “the mandatory term ‘shall’ requires a district court to compel blood testing once an alleged father files an affidavit setting forth the requisite facts.” The district court must assume the truth of the affidavit supporting the request. It has no discretion to deny a motion properly supported and cannot make credibility determinations or consider the child’s best interests. Appellant’s allegations of sexual activity, a relationship between him and Respondent, and Respondent’s indication that he was the father sufficiently supported Appellant’s motion and “entitled him to blood tests to determine the child’s
paternity.”
C8-02-1051
C9-02-1057
Filed February 11, 2003
In re Paternity of: J.M.V. and R.R.V., minor children.
Cindy R. Valento, vs. James K. Swenson, AND In re: Ramsey County, Lori Elaine Christensen, vs. James K. Swenson,
- When calculating support for a subsequent child under the statutory guidelines, the court should deduct support that the obligor is paying pursuant to court order for older children and consider the needs of all the obligor’s children.
- Consideration of an obligee’s motion for a modification of child support should take into account the needs of subsequent children.
- For purposes of Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5f (2002) subsequent children means younger children.
This is an interesting case. I think the best part of it, is that it may stand for the proposition that if you have support orders with two different obligees in two different counties, it makes judicial sense to hear them simultaneously before one judge. -Editor
In re: Debra Ann Strandberg, vs. Brian Paul Strandberg (published), C6-02-2246
Filed July 22, 2003
In determining the child support obligation for a child who receives a state adoption subsidy, the subsidy is a resource of the child and should be considered.
UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
In re: Dakota County, Tonya Shark n/k/a Tonya Marschinke, vs. Michael E. Johnson. C3-02-583
Filed January 2, 2003
A father of a 15 year old child, and a 10 year old child by two different moms, wanted to reduce his child support so he could attend school. His idea was that he could set a good example for his kids, and send them to college. One court allowed him to reduce support for the 10 year old, but the other did not allow him to reduce it for the fifteen year old.
Held, “The statute does not identify returning to school, promising to pay increased support later, promising to provide support for an emancipated child, setting a positive example, or being a role model by pursing higher education as considerations for a court in deciding a motion to modify child support.” A dissenting judge argued that the decision “seems to preclude, as a matter of law, any attempt by support obligors to educationally, economically, or otherwise to improve themselves when the period required for improvement exceeds the period that the child who is the subject of the obligor’s obligation is expected to receive support.”
Hacker v. Hacker, C8-02-1356
Date Filed: 2003-02-04 Court: Minn. App. unpublished Decision: Affirmed Reviewed by: MSBA Categories: Custody, Parenting Time
Appellant-mother appealed the district court’s denial of her motion to relocate with her two children. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Upon dissolution of their marriage, the parties agreed to joint legal custody of their two children and the court awarded Appellant sole physical custody. Respondent has liberal visitation. Appellant recently asked the court to allow her to relocate to Iowa.
One of the children, A.H. has been in therapy in an effort to address her “unexplainable fears.” The therapist diagnosed “separation-anxiety disorder and psycho-social stressors,” which include frequent past moves. The Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) did not recommend relocation based on A.H.’s separation-anxiety disorder and the distance the move would place between the children and Respondent. The district court denied Appellant’s motion and concluded that the move was not in the children’s best interests and would endanger A.H.’s health and well-being.
The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion, despite the statutory presumption allowing a custodial parent to move out-of-state, and rejected Appellant’s argument that Respondent had not overcome the presumption because he had not shown endangerment. The Court relied on the therapist and the GAL’s testimony that a move would be detrimental to A.H. because of her separation-anxiety disorder and the importance of her father, the children did not want to move, and the GAL testified that “there’s a great possibility” the move would cause psychological harm. Appellant presented no contrary expert opinions. The Court noted that the evidence of endangerment necessarily also met the required showing that relocation is not in the children’s best interests.
In Re the Marriage of: Higgins v. Higgins, C7-02-1056
Date Filed: 2003-02-11 Court: Minn. App. unpublished Decision: Affirmed Reviewed by: MSBA Categories: Custody, Civil Procedure
On appeal, pro se Appellant-husband challenged “the district court’s denial of his motion for a judgment declaring that the statutes permitting respondent to have sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor children are unconstitutional.” The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The parties divorced in 1994. Some time later, Appellant brought a motion for a declaratory judgment that any custody arrangement other than joint legal and physical custody was unconstitutional. Appellant asserted that he had a “constitutionally protected right to be an equal parent.” The Court of Appeals rejected this argument because, pursuant to the terms of the relevant statutes, the “best interests of the children” are paramount. And, even if parents had the fundamental right claimed by Appellant, “the state’s interest in protecting the best interests of their children would justify depriving them of that right.” The Court also noted that the issue was not properly before it because Appellant had not notified the attorney general that he was challenging the constitutionality of a statute as required by the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wilke v. Wilke, C1-02-1344
Date Filed: 2003-04-08 Court: Minn. App. unpublished Decision: Affirmed Reviewed by: MSBA Categories: Child Support, Attorney Fees, Civil Procedure
Appellant-father appealed from the district court’s order regarding his child support obligation. Respondent-mother sought attorney fees on appeal and to strike portions of Appellant’s appendix. The Court of Appeals affirmed and denied Respondent’s motion for fees and motion to strike (considering the resolution of the appeal in her favor).
Pursuant to the parties’ original stipulation, Appellant agreed to pay the children’s education expenses to attend Blake School. When Respondent and the children moved to Hawaii in 1995, the parties’ stipulation did not further address the education expenses issue. Appellant continued paying private school expenses through June 2001. That fall, he moved to reduce his obligation, claiming reduced income since 1996 and that he was obligated to pay school expenses only if the children attended Blake.
The Court of Appeals first affirmed the district court’s determination that the stipulation regarding school expenses was ambiguous – (a) Appellant either agreed to pay expenses only for Blake or (b) Appellant agreed to pay any comparable private school tuition, considering Respondent’s right to make these decisions pursuant to her sole legal custody, and the agreement that he could pay Blake directly only related to convenience. The latter interpretation was supported by Appellant’s continued payment of school expenses for several years after the children left Blake. This fact also supported the factual finding that the underlying judgment required Appellant to pay reasonable expenses related to any private school education.
The Court rejected Appellant’s further argument that the court should have forgiven certain child support arrearages related to the educational expenses, insurance expenses, and medical, dental and transportation expenses. The district court had discretion not to give weight to Appellant’s documentation regarding his alleged substantial change in circumstances, which it clearly did not, where Appellant waited several years to bring the motion after the alleged change, Appellant continued to pay his obligations without objection, and the actual change in circumstances was contested. On a related issue, the Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of Respondent’s testimony and calculations regarding arrearage expenses.
Editor’s note – Instead of getting a medal for paying the excessive child support after his higher income ended, this guy’s generosity was used against him.
Hawkes vs. Hawkes, C1-02-1666
Filed May 6, 2003 Reviewed by Tim Theisen, Esq.
This is another case where a guy paid too much support and got screwed over for doing so. The husband was ordered to pay support, but his daughter ended up living with him. So for a couple years, he had custody, but his paychecks continued to get garnished for support. By the time he got around to bringing a motion for custody, the mom agreed, but she wouldn’t give back the support he had paid her while he actually had custody. He relied on Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.57 subd 3, which states
[t]he court may conclude that an obligor has satisfied a child support obligation by providing a home, care, and support for the child while the child is living with the obligor, if the court finds that the child was integrated into the family of the obligor with the consent of the obligee
The trial court correctly (in my opinion) ordered the mom to reimburse him for the $10,000 in support he had paid while had actually had custody. But the Court of Appeals said this statute only applies to child support arrears, not to child support that has been paid already. “We find no reported case in which section 518.57, subdivision 3, has been used to effect a retroactive modification of a child-support order; rather, it has uniformly been applied to relieve an obligor of the obligation to pay some or all of a claim for arrearages under an existing child-support order.” Bottom line, if you followed the law, paid your support, tough luck. But if you thumbed your nose at the law, and avoided a court order, we will reward you by forgiving your child support arrears. The Court of Appeals has given this statute an absurd reading. This statute needs to be modified, to be put right into 518.64, and to make it clear that it applies to crediting child support, regardless of whether it has been paid.
Pasket v. Hale, C0-02-1884
Date Filed: 2003-06-10 Court: Minn. App. unpublished Decision: Affirmed Reviewed by: MSBA Categories: Child Support
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s award of the tax dependency exemption for the parties’ child to Respondent-mother and the award of past child support. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
When the child was born, Appellant signed a recognition of parentage form. After the parties separated, Appellant paid some child support to Respondent, who eventually sought a formal support determination. Appellant sought to establish paternity. A referee set Appellant’s child support obligation and determined Appellant owed over $8,000 in past support. The district court approved the referee’s order.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision to give Respondent the tax dependency exemption, despite Appellant’s argument that he could not meet his own expenses. Even assuming the accuracy of Appellant’s alleged expenses, Appellant had less of a monthly deficit than Respondent. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the award of past support. Although the district court did not cite any support for the award, the complaint sought past child support pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 256.87 and 257.75. Past support was appropriate under Minn. Stat. § 257.75, which allows establishment of a support obligation, including for the two previous years, based on the recognition of parentage. Additionally, past support could have been awarded in Appellant’s paternity proceeding under Minn. Stat. § 257.66, subds. 3 and 4. Thus, Appellant’s correct argument that Minn. Stat. § 256.87, subd. 5, which addresses past support if the custodian has the consent of a custodial parent or court approval, is inapplicable and did not require reversal.
The Court of Appeals also rejected Appellant’s argument that the district court made insufficient findings regarding the amount of the past-support obligation. The court need not have made findings required in McNeal v. Swain, 477 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991), because section 257.66, subdivision 4, was amended after that decision. The court appropriately addressed only the findings required by the amended statute, rather than those outlined in McNeal.
Additionally, any error related to the use of Appellant’s current income, rather than his prior income of which the county may have had information, to set his past support obligation was de minimus. The Court declined to reverse the decision on the basis of a $42-per-month difference in the two income figures, noting that Respondent and child had a larger deficit than Appellant and that Respondent had not sought past child-care costs.
Editor’s note – This is another disappointing decision from our bureaucrats on the Court of Appeals. The statute regarding past support when paternity is established makes it quite clear that we should look at the needs of the child, and not the income of the obligor. Here’s what the statute says:
The court shall limit the parent's liability for past support of the child to the proportion of the expenses that the court deems just, which were incurred in the two years immediately preceding the commencement of the action. In determining the amount of the parent's liability for past support, the court may deviate downward from the guidelines if:
- the child for whom child support is sought is more than five years old and the obligor discovered or was informed of the existence of the parent and child relationship within one year of commencement of the action seeking child support;
- the obligor is a custodian for or pays support for other children; and
- the obligor's family income is less than 175 percent of the federal poverty level.
So basically, if you suddenly find out that you have a child who’s over 5, you have other kids, and you’re poor, we can deviate from guidelines. Because this exception was added after another case (McNeal) that basically said you can’t enrich the custodial parent, the Court of Appeals is now saying that you can ignore the first sentence of the statute. In other words, who cares if the custodial parent is awarded far more in back support than she ever spent on the kid? That is, we will always go with the guidelines in determining back support, unless you meet these 3 criteria (and how often does anybody ever fall into that category??) So what appears to be a helpful amendment to the statute, has now been interpreted to mean we no longer need consider the expenses of the child in setting a back support obligation. I suggest we get that part of the statute (the 3-part exception) repealed, especially now that we have the “second families” legislation in place, which should help out anybody who falls into the very narrow 3-step criteria above.
In re: Widmer v. Riederer, C7-02-1946
Date Filed: 2003-06-17 Court: Minn. App. unpublished Decision: Affirmed Reviewed by: MSBA Categories: Child Support
Appellant-county appealed the order denying its motion for an increase in Respondent-father’s child support obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Respondent’s child support obligation was initially set below the guideline amount because he was supporting two subsequent children. An increase in Respondent’s income since that order created a statutory presumption that the current obligation was unreasonable and unfair (based on the difference between the amount of the obligation and guideline support at his new income). The child support magistrate (CSM), however, found the current obligation was not unreasonable or unfair considering Respondent’s expenses and obligation for subsequent children and denied the motion to increase Respondent’s obligation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the CSM incorrectly stated that the current obligation was presumed to be unfair, it implicitly found that the presumption was rebutted by a finding that guideline support would be unreasonable and unfair given Respondent’s circumstances. A court is required to consider the needs of subsequent children when an obligee requests a modification of child support for prior children, but should not favor the subsequent children. Here, the district court did not favor the subsequent children, as evidenced by the fact that the prior child receives more support on a per child basis than the subsequent children do.
Child tax credit
Congress saw fit to “bolster the economy” (actually their chances of election next year, in my opinion) by increasing the $600 per child tax credit to $1000, effective with your 2003 taxes. Instead of just letting everybody add $400 to the $600 when people do their taxes next year, Congress thought it would be a good idea to put stamps on enough envelope to send every parent in the country an advance on their 2003 tax credit. They will figure out whether you are entitled to this, based on whether you claimed an eligible child in 2002. (Whoever claims the tax exemption, also automatically gets the tax credit). What does this mean for people who are allowed to claim their child in alternating years? Good question. Presumably, the money will be sent to the wrong parent. Good news if you claim your kid in even years, but if you get your kid only in odd years, your ex will get your $400 tax break. Take her back to court to get your support reduced accordingly if that happens. And if you win, send us a copy of the Order, so everybody can cite to it. Another caveat is that if you’ve separated since last year, and have direct deposit of your tax return last year, this refund might go into the same account that you used for last year’s return, so make sure that account is not in your ex’s control.
Cost of Collecting Child Support
Here is another fact sheet published by DHS on year 2002 support.
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/newsroom/facts/ChildSupFS.htm
Total cost for Minnesota to collect child support in the year 2002 was $136 million. Actual cost to the state, when one subtracts the federal (bounty) payment, is about $ 16.32 million, and county costs are another $ 16.32 million, according to the report. Use whatever number you want ($120 million or $136 million), but be prepared to explain if you are asked. That way you will have credibility.
I printed out the reference you provided (see below) and did some analysis. My question was: why is a child support payment so very high, yet average collection per child is so very low.
Collections from “never assistance cases” was $5,362 each, in year 2000. If one assumes COLA increases of six percent for two years, then collection from “never assistance cases” in year 2002 was $6025 each, or child support payment of $502/month.
When one assumes that $6025 is about 25 percent of the obligor’s net income, and taxes are 27 percent, the obligor’s gross income is $30,607 per year. As near as I can tell, this is very near the median income (half above and half below) of all full-time wage earners.
How many cases are in the “never assistance cases” ? There were a total of 230,000 cases in year 2002. Of the 181,000 non-public assistance cases, 26 percent, or 47,060 were never on public assistance at any time. This is 19.8 percent of the total 230,000 cases in year 2002.
How much was collected from this 19.8 percent? Multiply $6025 and 47,060 and one gets $284 million. Total collections were $553 million in year 2002. So $284 million is 51.2 percent of the total amount collected in year 2002.
Does this mean that 80.2 percent of the children of divorced or never married parents are from the lower half of the wage earning public? Why do 19.8 percent of the children receive 51.2 percent of all child support paid?
Obviously, the guidelines are way out of reason and COST SHARES is much more appropriate. It surly shows that the government is collecting most of its money from those who would pay anyway. (There is a whole book on this topic, available on the internet, "The Multiple Scandals of Child Support” written by K. C. Wilson.)
The total amount of arrears was $1.0 billion two years ago. Now it is $1.2 billion. That means child support arrears are increasing by $100 million per year in Minnesota. COST SHARES would help, since obligors would be better able to pay their arrears
There were 20,000 driver’s license revocations up to June 30, 2002. Most of those people are driving anyway, and without valid insurance.
This analysis started with the effort to determine how many people were incarcerated for non-payment of child support. We found a few references to daily jail costs, and were trying to estimate a saving to the state if Cost Shares became law.
Hope I didn’t boor you with this analysis. It is unfortunate that the government tries to hide information from us.
Best of wishes.
Knute Gladen
R-Kids of Minnesota
-----Original Message----- From: GCFKIRSTIN@aol.com [1] Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:02 PM To: kgladen@attbi.com Subject: Re: R-Kids Bill Support Letter
Thanks Knute -
The $120 million per year spent on collections is from the "2001 Minnesota Child Support Performance Report". I actually have it footnoted in the letter I'm sending, it didn't translate in the email.
Here's the link. The 2002 report is not available yet.
http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/ecs/Reports/2001%20Child%20Support%20Performance%20Report.pdf
MNBWA PRESS RELEASE
National Coalition of Free Men R-KIDS of Minnesota Men’s Defense Association Contact Information: Tom James, 440 N. Broadway Ave., Cokato MN 55321, (320) 286-6425, Shondells@cmgate.com Organizations Challenge Constitutionality of Minnesota’s Battered Women Act
(Minneapolis, June 16, 2003.) Sixteen individuals sponsored by three organizations--the National Coalition of Free Men (Twin Cities Chapter), R-KIDS of Minnesota (Remember Kids In Divorce Settlements), and the Men’s Defense Association filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court on June 6, 2003 seeking to strike down the Battered Women’s Act (Minn. Stat. §§611A.31-611A.375) on the grounds that it unconstitutionally promotes discrimination against men.
The Act, which establishes programs and services only for adult female victims of domestic violence, was originally adopted in 1977, at a time when it was erroneously believed that domestic violence is always initiated by men, and that the victims are always women. There now are over 130 scholarly studies demonstrating that women initiate domestic violence about as often as men do, and that nearly as many men are victims as women. Many of these studies were conducted by university women with doctorates. Dr. Martin Fiebert of the Department of Psychology, California State University at Long Beach, has compiled a bibliography of these studies; it is available at www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
The lawsuit maintains that the Minnesota Legislature has simply chosen to ignore this body of research, as evidenced by legislative enactments prohibiting discrimination against battered persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, marital status, disability or sexual orientation, yet not providing any protection at all against gender-based discrimination, i.e., discrimination against battered men.
Three of the sixteen individual plaintiffs bringing the suit are women. Each of the sixteen plaintiffs is a member of one of the named organizations, and all contend that the Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it provides funds for programs and services for battered women but not for battered men.
Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women’s shelter in England and a pioneer in the study of domestic violence, commented that “I was aware from the beginning that domestic violence was not a gender issue. The whole subject of domestic violence was hi-jacked by the feminist movement, looking for a just cause and also for funding. This is the first time I have seen any action taken that might, at last, make some real changes.”
Spokespersons for the organizations point out that the lawsuit seeks neither to ban shelters nor to establish new ones, but rather, to end public funding which promotes sex discrimination against men, and to oblige the Legislature to enact laws that are reasonable, non-discriminatory, and based on the findings, opinions, and recommendations of the leading experts in the field, such as Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Straus, Martin Fiebert, Michelle Corrado and Erin Pizzey.
The lawsuit is No. 03-9557 on the docket of Hennepin County District Court.
The purpose of this litigation is not to get battered men's centers. We are seeking an end to public funding which produces sex discrimination against men in family courts and state government, because such discrimination and the prejudice generating it are harmful to society.
If the legislature wishes to deal with this question in the future, our position is that the legislature, before acting, should conduct hearings on the findings, opinions, and recommendations of the best experts in the world on how the public sector can most effectively become involved. Last time they did not act impartially upon actual facts. This time, if they are to become involved, they must act on sufficient information, for just purposes.
Anyone interested in learning more about the lawsuit, or ways that they can help, should get in touch with any of the three organizations listed above. Jack Graham will be in Minnesota from August 4 to August 11. He is trying to recruit more attorneys to do the constitutional challenge of Minnesota's Child Support Guidelines. If you have interest in finding our more, call him at (418) 888-5049
MN Family Law Reform website group
A message from robertwenck@yahoo.com
Hello All,
I am Bob Wenck, a family advocate here in the Twin Cities. I created a free Yahoo Group where we can get together and exchange information and files - "MN Family Law Reform".
This group is for those that have wish to make life better for families in MN regarding custody, support, access, etc. This group will be as active as we make it. Ask questions and offer your knowledge.
This group is not affiliated with any one local group. But two local groups are well represented here – The Center for Parental Responsibility and R-Kids of MN.
My personal belief is that children deserve two equal parents who share in providing for their children according to their ability to do so. I believe in Joint Custody - unless there is proof that a parent is unfit. I believe in cost based child support shared between parents - Cost Shares methodology by Mark Rogers.
You will need a Yahoo ID to join. It’s quick and easy. The URL is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MNFamilyLawReform
Thanks! Bob
Moms deadbeats, too
Letter to the editor of the St Paul Pioneer Press, printed January 7, 2003 If refusal to financially support one's children is the definition of a deadbeat parent, then more moms fit the definition than dads.
Every year, hundreds of thousands of women give birth to and demand custody of children they have no intention of supporting financially. They know society will force someone else — taxpayers — to foot the bill for their choice.
These deadbeat moms apply for welfare knowing the state will never hold them financially responsible. It's free money to them. Someone else has to repay the state. As too many heartbroken dads have learned, the state also will never hold them responsible for perjury (false accusations of abuse) or denial of parenting time.
Since sole mother custody is overwhelmingly correlated to every major social pathology, the state should also overhaul its family laws to discourage sole custody of children. Ninety percent of child support payers are men; if 90 percent were women, would anyone dare deny that extreme gender bias exists in Minnesota's Legislature and courts?
Fathers are not willfully abandoning their children by choice. Government policy is forcing them out. End gender bias. Children are not women's chattel.
BARBARA STARR
Welfare laws create perverse incentive to have child out of wedlock
J. David Ekstrum
Published June 20, 2003 – Star Tribune
I have the following comments regarding the Star Tribune's June 14 editorial "AAA for children / The rating state has put at risk."
As I understand it, if you have a child out of wedlock and have no income, you get:
- Free income for a while but must get a job.
- Free job placement services and counseling.
- Income supplement once you get a job (reverse income tax).
- Nearly free day care.
- Nearly free housing.
- Nearly free health care.
- Free education.
- Free extracurricular activities.
Isn't there an incentive here to have and keep a child out of wedlock? Or without adequate means? Especially for a young woman who isn't working toward any kind of vocational goal?
How many dysfunctional families have been created by this perverse incentive? How many kids were born that shouldn't have been because the parents had no intention of taking care of them? How many young women elect to have a child only because they know the state will take care of them? They're going to get "a check."
No matter how carefully these "children's welfare" laws are crafted, the perverse incentive is still there. Way too much stuff is still free.
Maybe cutting back on the benefits will discourage some young women from becoming welfare mothers. Maybe they'll instead pursue building their own life first before bringing another life into the world. The cuts could turn out to be a good thing, just like welfare reform.
Better yet, why not stop creating the impression that women have a "right" to welfare -- just get rid of all these programs. In this day of "the pill," of legal, immediately available, nearly free abortion, and with childless couples lined up around the block to adopt a baby, what excuse does a young woman have to bring a child into the world before she has adequately prepared for it?
J. David Ekstrum, Minneapolis, is a retired chemical engineer.
Editor’s note – Whoever this guy is, he hit it right on the head. Our society offers huge financial incentives to have kids out of wedlock. Let’s not forget that the mom can also qualify for a free attorney when the dad surfaces & decides he wants to raise the kid outside of the “cycle of poverty.” The dad gets sacked with thousands in attorney/guardian/custody evaluator fees while the mom gets a free ride for all these things, either on the state or on the dad. And now for a bit of my story; my GAL said that I would have to do all the visitation driving because she didn’t have reliable transportation, so I co-signed on a this-year’s-model car for her (because of course she had bad credit) so she could do half the driving. So there she was in a luxury car, luxury apartment, with head of household tax credits, earned income tax credits, and about half my income, free health insurance for herself, just cuz we had some fun one night. A total upgrade to her lifestyle. And of course, she crashed the car, spent the insurance money, and gave it back to me when the she used up her miles on the lease, and I ate another $1000 loss on co-signing the car. But I did eventually get custody, so I ain’t complainin’!!!
40 years ago, there were hardly any births out of wedlock compared to today, because there was a strong social taboo against it. This still exists in many countries. While we can’t legislate morality, we can make it more difficult to make money off kids. I say if a parent wants to go on welfare, we make them go live in a dormitory. One with a bathroom at the end of the hall, just like I lived with for two years of college. A shameful place with lots of losers, where a person would want to get the heck off welfare. No persons of the opposite sex allowed after 9 PM. If you can’t find a job, you go to classes during the day to learn a skill. With all the cash grants for section 8 housing assistance, etc, I would think that it would be cheaper for the state to warehouse welfare recipients like this, and it would substantially reduce the incentive to be on welfare. Not quite as bad as jail; just a college dorms with a bunch of losers where you can see what a loser you are for being on welfare.
Child support 'reform' bill unfair to noncustodial parents
Posted on Mon, May. 19, 2003, St. Paul Pioneer Press
BY BOB CARRILLO
Guest Columnist
Twenty years ago, child support in Minnesota was determined by finding the actual cost of raising the child, then making both father and mother share the burden in proportion to their resources.
This standard presupposes that men and women were equal before the law, and that the interest of the state was to assure that each child enjoy a fair minimum to supply his or her basic needs. This standard is not only a matter of humanity and reason, but also a demand of constitutional principle. In those days, delinquencies in child support were infrequent, and for obvious reasons which will become clearer.
In 1983, the Legislature adopted child support guidelines for our family courts. These guidelines are statutory presumptions, which say that, unless the evidence shows otherwise, the noncustodial parent should pay a certain percentage of his net income to the custodial parent. They were supposed to be scientifically derived from economic data on what it costs to raise a child and to distribute the burden fairly between the father and mother.
These guidelines soon were strictly applied. The possibility of deviation from the amounts suggested by the guidelines was gradually diminished by statutory amendments and judicial practice, unless, of course, the deviation was upward, in which case almost anything was allowed.
"Child support" awards skyrocketed. Because custody, and thus the right to receive child support, suddenly became a great windfall, devastating to the noncustodial parent, children got caught in vicious court battles. The guidelines granted tax-free alimony under the guise of "child support" and thereby redistributed wealth.
"Family" lawyers love these guidelines — because they promote divorce, generate custody fights and increase legal fees. Whatever hope there once was for divorce with dignity has been lost forever in divorce with pain and bitterness. Children now had a price tag attached to them.
In 2001, a Senate subcommittee held a hearing to find out what had gone wrong. A veteran economist explained that the guidelines used in Minnesota were never designed to deal with most private divorces. Rather, they were designed for welfare reimbursement. The guidelines assumed a stay-at-home mother with no income and an absent father on a low-paying job, the economist said, and were designed to be applied only after a fair self-support reserve had been set aside.
Further, the economist said, when applied to private divorces, the guidelines produce grossly inflated awards having nothing to do with the actual costs of raising the child or the equal duty of both parents to support their child on an ability-to-pay basis.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services admitted in writing that the guidelines are unrelated to the actual cost of raising a child, and assume only one breadwinner.
After imposing these guidelines over many years to increase their child support collections and earn federal incentives, driving many thousands of mostly male parents underground and inducing chronic misery for untold more thousands of them, the Department of Human Services proposed to "fix" the problem.
It came up with slick "shared responsibility" guidelines which, in theory, distribute the "responsibility" between both parents, but then define the "responsibility" so far out of touch with economic reality that the obligor in most private divorces would pay the same or much more than he pays now.
In this legislative session, Rep. Steve Smith, R-Mound, introduced the DHS wolf-in-sheep's-clothing legislation, House File 778.
The problem for Smith and the DHS has been R-KIDS of Minnesota, a citizens' organization, that came up with guidelines, called "cost shares," taking shape as HF 664. The bill draws data on the actual cost of raising a child, and then distributes the burden between mom and dad according to their resources. HF 664 has no built-in tricks. It will not make the DHS fat. It will not make the divorce racket rich. But it will get kids what they need, and both mom and dad will
pay.
In this session, Smith has pulled strings to prevent a hearing of HF 664, and to push HF 778 in hopes of foisting on us the same old thing in new dress — but no justice and no relief — a great lie.
Smith has not made any friends with those who need real child support reform. Smith has demanded apologies and threatened reprisals for a recent revealing report exposing the truth. He's hardly a champion of true reform.
Carrillo, communications director for R-KIDS of Minnesota, served on the DHS Guideline Child Support Task Force, 1998-2001. Contact him at (651) 770-6164.
Sincere Understanding Allah. Executed by mom.
Pioneer Press July 14 2003, Opinion page, Letters To The Editor, as follows:
If a woman asked for sole custody of her children because her ex-husband was mentally unstable, had multiple personalities and signs of manic depression, had attempted suicide and threatened to kill himself and his son, too, would a judge give dad custody? Not a snowball's chance.
Sincere Understanding Allah is just another of numerous cases of children dying because of pervasive gender bias in family courts.
In spite of overwhelming evidence that father absence is the primary risk factor for child abuse, child homicide, teen suicide, criminal behavior, drug abuse, teen parenthood and school failure, judges continue to place children in harm's way by removing fit, loving fathers from the child's home.
Sincere Understanding Allah. Executed by mom. Death warrant signed by the judges and referees of Ramsey County District Court.
BARBARA STARR
More letters to the editor
To whom it may care:
I'll make this short and sweet. I don't even make enough money to survive (1600.00 month) but have to give $800.00 month for child support. If it were not for my dad I would not have had a place to live. This is now coming to an end and I may have to move out of state because at least I will be able to live with my mom but 1600 miles from my kids. Now I believe I should have to pay child support however I also feel it is to high for what I make. I was told that if I take a part time job my support will go up and if I need to have it changed I will have to file a motion( do that with no money).
In my case I pay $118.00 month for day care when mom and I could easily work out a schedule (she is self employed through a business I started). I have to pay back medical insurance (approximate. $1000.00) at $114.00 month when the kids mom wouldn't sign health insurance papers for the kids so that I could insure them (she went through the state instead). As soon as mom found out that she may have to pay child support my visitation went from half time (three days one week four the next) to one day one week two the next. The last thing I would like to mention is that the county worker (Beth Cohen of carver county) could only say to me "even my seventeen year old son could get a job making $12.50 an hour. At this time I had my kids half the time and was self employed selling and marketing, with a small base pay and commissions in hopes it would go somewhere I have been in my business seventeen years and sold my business and never got paid. That is why I was in financial trouble and have yet to recover. I took care of my oldest 90% of the time for the first two years of his life. I love my children and I will say the government, state, county whatever you want to call is making it so that I may end up as a so called dead beat dad only at their hands. My 81 year old grandfather’s advice was "I wouldn't let anyone work me over that way, who can blame a guy for disappearing". In closing I would like to say that there are probably more hurt children today than when I was a kid. My father paid child support but he also had unlimited overtime and made more money than me and never paid as much as I do. Something has to be done. Just a suggestion, if a dad wants to be involved how about allowing it and only going after those that don't instead of making every dad a dead beat dad right off the bat.
--- Daniel Vielbig --- dvielbig@earthlink.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 2:03 PM Subject: child support
Tim Do you have any more outlets or additions you need done? Because I might need your expertise soon. I have been talking to several people who pay child support, and that's it. Why is it that I have to pay child support + medical/dental ins. + child care costs + braces + school activities, and whatever else she can come up with,to get more money out of me? I was looking at your website and I noticed that it said you deal with "child support (which includes medical ins. and child care reimbursements)." Maybe I'm taking it wrong, but it sounds like medical and child care should already be in my child support, not an extra. My child support was based on $1667/mo. With support plus the Hennepin support plus all the extras adds up to $1216.80/mo, this adds up to way more than the 30% guidelines I should be paying. I really could use your help on this because it's starting to affect my time with my children. I still live in my fiance’s parents’ basement and my kids are not wanting to come over anymore. They don't have their own rooms, or any of their own stuff here, (it's all still in storage). I have found a nice little farmhouse to rent, which my children can't wait to move in, but now I'm going to have to tell them we can't move in, because I can't afford it. The rent will be $850/mo. With rent plus child support it's impossible.
My ex lives in a nice house, drives a Lincoln Navigator, and does not work. There is something wrong here. I don't get how one parent can have everything, and one parent who works has to struggle through life just to make ends meat. You have no idea what kind of stress this brings on my kids, fiance, and me. We are at the end of the rope, and don't know what to do anymore. I will not be able to pay January's child support this month due to lack of work. I have been doing little jobs just to keep busy, but that's only $50 here and $50 there, not nearly enough. I have sent my ex a letter begging her to help me out, but I know it's not going to do any good, that's why I'm asking for your help, before she takes me to court for not paying.
There are also some other issues I need some help on. I have sent several letters to the county asking for the child care costs verification, but they have only sent me minimal proof. For 2 months of child care I was charged for 210 hours, and they only sent me verification for 90 hours. The county told me that's enough verification to charge me for the entire 210 hours, and they don't need show me any more proof. I have made an appointment for mediation with my ex, but I don't think that's going to do any good either.
Please help me in any way you can about these issues, I would really appreciate it a lot. Thanks, Dan
Editor responds:
Child support is 30% of your net. Daycare and medical are in addition to child support. They are "included" because the total amount of base child support, health, and daycare are all considered "Child support" so they can enforce it all.
While you are paying a great proportion of your income in support, that is the law. Our child support guidelines, which were enacted in 1983, have been indexed for inflation at the high end (the "ceiling") but have never been indexed at the low end. The result is that a guy like you who makes a meager income, and supports kids to two different moms, can simply not afford housing on your own. I would suggest you contact your legislator http://www.leg.state.mn.us/ and let them know of your plight. R-kids http://www.rkids.org/ ,with the help of Sen Neuville, has introduced legislation that would greatly assist lower-income obligors such as yourself. While I don't wholeheartedly support that legislation, (for a number of reasons that I won't get into), it is a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure how they are charging you for daycare if your ex is not working or going to school. Judges can be very particular in ensuring that daycare costs are bonafide. If the county is giving you a hard time, you should consider having a judge review it. One suggestion is that whenever you request proof of daycare costs, whether it be through the county or your ex, do it in writing and keep a copy for your own records. Phone calls are worthless in my opinion.
Sincerely,
Tim Theisen www.theisenlaw.com
Major study finds children of single parents suffer more serious psychological problems
Emma Ross
Associated Press
Published Jan. 24, 2003
LONDON -- Children growing up in single-parent families are twice as likely as their counterparts to develop serious psychiatric illnesses and addictions later in life, a study has found.
Researchers have for years debated whether children from broken homes bounce back or whether they are more likely than kids whose parents stay together to develop serious emotional problems.
Experts say the latest study, published this week in the Lancet medical journal, is important mainly because of its unprecedented scale and follow-up -- it tracked about 1 million children for a decade, into their mid-20s.
The question of why and how those children end up with such problems remains unanswered. The study suggests that financial hardship may play a role, but other experts say the research also supports the view that quality of parenting could be a factor.
The study used the Swedish national registries, which cover almost the entire population and contain extensive socio-economic and health information. Children were considered to be living in a single-parent household if they were living with the same single adult in both the 1985 and 1990 housing census.
About 60,000 were living with their mother and about 5,500 with their father. There were 921,257 living with both parents. The children were aged 6 to 18 at the start of the study, with half in their teens.
The scientists found that children with single parents were twice as likely as the others to develop a psychiatric illness such as severe depression or schizophrenia, to kill themselves or attempt suicide, and to develop an alcohol-related disease.
Girls were three times more likely to become drug addicts if they lived with a sole parent, and boys were four times more likely.
The researchers concluded that financial hardship, which they defined as renting rather than owning a home and as being on welfare, made a big difference.
However, other experts questioned the financial influence, saying Swedish single mothers are not poor when compared with those in other countries, and suggested that quality of parenting could also be a factor.
"If you really thought that it was the income that makes the difference, you would think that Swedish lone mothers would do a lot better than the British or those in the U.S., but they look very similar," said Sara McLanahan, a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, who was not involved in the study.
Other experts agreed.
In the last 20 to 30 years, poverty has been greatly reduced everywhere in Europe, but psychiatric problems in children have not, said Dr. Stephen Scott, a child health and behavior researcher at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who was not involved in the study.
Judge Declares Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Unconstitutional
On February 10, 2003, Judge Sidney L. Nation, Sr., Chief Judge of Rockdale Superior Court, Rockdale County, Georgia, granted the motion of Laura Jean McFall to declare the Georgia Child Support Guidelines Unconstitutional in a temporary order.
Judge Nation granted the motion based upon the Supremacy Clause or Article VI of the Federal Constitution because Georgia has failed to comply with the Federal mandate for the state to adopt and periodically revise the guidelines in line with current economic data.
Judge Nation stated as follows:
“The evidence before this Court is clear and uncontroverted that the State of Georgia has not complied with federal requirements in setting and/or revising its child support guidelines. It has not considered economic data on the cost of raising children nor analyzed case data in reviewing the guidelines as contemplated by 45 C.F.R. §302.56(e) and (h). Georgia’s failure to comply wit the federal mandate makes the application of the state’s child support guidelines inconsistent with federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which this Court is bound to uphold.
Until such time as the General Assembly brings O.C.G.A. §19-6-15 into compliance with the federal mandate pursuant to which it was adopted, this Court stays the application of Georgia’s child support guidelines and declines to apply the statute in future cases. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions for Modification of Child Support and Declaratory Judgment are GRANTED.”
Need a divorce? Get it online
Tracy Correa, Fresno Bee
Published June 24, 2003
Nancy Mackey had witnessed the long, drawn-out divorces endured by friends and their constant complaints about attorneys and high fees. So, when her marriage of 26 years ended, she opted for the click of a mouse over calling an attorney. The Visalia, Calif., special education teacher turned to an online divorce company that helped her settle her divorce in less than a year for $900, which included the court filing fees. Now, when she hears people complaining about the divorce process, she tells them: ``I just pushed a button online.
With fees that can range from $50 to several hundred dollars, many couples are opting for divorces with assistance from online companies. And with 50 percent of all marriages ending in divorce, companies such as LegalZoom.com, CompleteCase.com and ourdivorceagreement.com are gaining in popularity.
There is no shortage of clients. About 1.2 million American couples get divorced each year. The do-it-yourself Web sites are typically used by couples whose divorces are uncontested and who possess few assets. Some companies will handle child custody arrangements. What they generally deliver is case paperwork, sometimes reviewed by lawyers but most often by paralegals. Typically, the client is responsible for filing the documents at the local courthouse. A few companies, including divorcewizards.com, the one Mackey went with, file documents on behalf of their clients.
It has been two years since Mackey's divorce was finalized, and she praises the way divorcewizards.com in Newport Beach, Calif., handled it. She refers friends to the company's Web site and tells anyone who wants to know about her own experience. That company only handles divorces in California. ``My divorce was very easy, she said. ``Any question I had, I e-mailed and had a response within 24 hours, even on weekends.
Brian Lee, president of LegalZoom.com in Los Angeles and a lawyer, said his company and others are filling a need nationally. ``What we are doing is helping individuals who otherwise can't afford an attorney, he said. LegalZoom handled about 2,000 divorces in 2001, the company's first year in business and about 15,000 divorces last year. Lee is one of four co-founders of LegalZoom.com. Robert Shapiro, the Los Angeles attorney who helped defend former football star-turned actor and celebrity murder defendant O.J. Simpson, is another.
Mackey said she considers the $900 she spent on her divorce a bargain considering the thousands of dollars most of her friends led out in attorneys and court fees. The average cost of a divorce is an estimated $18,000 per person, or $36,000 a couple.
Some Internet divorce companies allow clients to download the appropriate legal documents. Others prepare all the documents, based on information supplied by the client, and mail them with a list of instructions for how to proceed with filing. Some Web sites have in-house lawyers while others rely on paralegals. And personal communication with the client varies, depending on the company.
Not everyone appreciates this new trend in divorce. Some divorce lawyers disagree with the practice, which could take a large bite out of their business. James Wasson, a family-law attorney for 27 years in Fresno, Calif., said those seeking to dissolve their marriages online should be cautious. He questions the confidentiality of supplying personal information over the Internet. He also warns that without legal representation, couples can get into trouble if it turns out what they wanted was not what they got. ``They can make a horrendous, horrendous mistake. And by the time they figure it out, it's too late, he said.
Wasson also said that without legal representation, one of the divorcing parties can dominate the process at the expense of the other. Online divorces often go awry, he said. ``They jack it around and screw it up so much, they have to call (lawyers) to fix it. He understands the high cost of divorce is fueling the growth of Internet divorce. ``Divorces are expensive. A good lawyer is going to be over $200 an hour. ... But getting married is expensive.
Wasson suggested that those looking to cut corners and simplify the divorce process could end up being ``penny wise and pound foolish. ``For anyone with a long-term marriage and children, this is not the way to go, he said.
Sandra Morris, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said consumers need to be aware of the complexities involved in a divorce. ``It's really worth it to pay for a consultation with an attorney, if just that, Morris said.
While there is some concern that this growing industry is unregulated, lawyers with the academy don't feel the online companies represent a real threat to their profession, based on a recent poll, Morris said. The Web sites ``are probably providing a good service to couples whose divorces aren't complex, Morris said.
Editor’s note: I had a client that had tried www.completecase.com, and the forms looked pretty good to me. It cost $249. This client was a Ph.D. student, and he still had difficulty understanding all the directions, what documents get signed, which documents were necessary & which weren’t, when & how to serve & file, whether a hearing was necessary, etc. So he ended up coming to me, and I did the whole thing for $600. That way, he knew it would get done correctly, efficiently, and he wouldn't have to worry about trying to become a lawyer when he was busy being a student. The form also didn't explain to him that he was entitled to get reimbursed for his $10,000 premarital down payment on the house, off the top when the house was sold. So his attorney’s fees more than paid for the investment.
I can also say that I have had clients who got their paralegal or online divorce kit, and it was so botched that they spent a lot more on an attorney to fix it than they would have spent if they had just gotten an attorney at the beginning. Yes, these online services do represent competition for attorneys, and in very uncontested no-kid divorces, where people don't mind taking the time to figure things out, and don't want to have face-to-face contact with someone who's looking out for their interests, they may be a better deal than getting an attorney. But you do get what you pay for. I could probably buy a tax software program for $50 & save the $500 I pay on an accountant for tax preparation. But I hire a professional so I don’t miss a big deduction.
But then again, this is just my point of view, and I make a living doing divorces. If I was afraid of these websites doing a better job than me, I wouldn’t promote these websites by putting this article in this newsletter. It might work for some people. I am an advocate of good help for people who simply can’t afford an attorney. Although I’m nowhere the advocate of Walter Kuckes, who is the champion of that cause. (see November 2002 newsletter).
-Tim Theisen. Esq.
RKIDS newsletter editor since 1997
www.theisenlaw.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! 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!
