Obama's Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act

Apparently part of Barack Obama's platform on family includes the following:

Strengthen Fatherhood and Families: Since 1960, the number of American children without fathers in their lives has quadrupled, from 6 million to more than 24 million. Children without fathers in their lives are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. As president, Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.

This is not an endorsement but is certainly interesting. I'm always concerned with the "crack down" language in reference to purported support dodgers without corresponding language about parental rights, accountability, etc...

Back From The Dead (Sort Of) And More News To Make You Mostly Nauseous

Hello, Hello - It's Been Too Long....

What can I say? I know I mentioned back in April of 2006 that I had taken a new job which I anticipated would severely limit my blogging opportunities. What even I did not realize then was how much this position would take away from my "blogging time."

Those who have spent much time with me (And you are out there ~ I've been getting your emails!) may have noticed that 95% of my posts were made during what is generally work hours on weekdays. Every once in a great while I would blog from home because I simply had to say something right away - but for the most part I allowed my company to pay me to blog.

This is not to say they minded, as they did not. Nor is it to say that it took away from the quality of my work, as it certainly did not. But that I took advantage of the free time I had during my workday and spent my nights and weekends enjoying my wonderful little family and not allowing myself to be consumed with this horrible reality 24 hours a day.

Where I was generally on the road for around a month a week at my last job - now, I am lucky to be home for a whole week at a time. Where my last position seemed to go from manic to dead and average about the same time period of each - this job never seems to dip below steady rush. Where I used to make catty comments about people who had a cell phone permanently attached to their ear - I recently sucked it up and bought the blue tooth headset thing as I swear I was starting to suffer from wrist fatigue. Where I used to scoff at airline mileage programs as I did not fly nearly enough to warrant understanding all the fine print - I just flew my sister to and from Hawaii for a wedding on miles alone.

This job has certainly changed a lot about my life.

And the point of all of this... It has turned me into a lousy blogger. More, it has made me the kind of blogger I hate - those who post on what appears to be a quarterly basis for what can be assumed no other point but to amuse the four friends who may check in or in the desperate hope to continue to accumulate a few cents from adsense.

I assure you I am neither - but you certainly couldn't tell from my abysmal posting of late.

My job slowly ramped up that by the end of the holidays I was functioning at full speed (or more so) and it seems if I am not in a meeting, or on a plane, in court, or driving (always, of course, on my cell phone), at soccer, baseball, basketball, football, class parties, feeding the gaggle of children my step son has brought home, or trying to have a meaningful conversation with my husband, I am crumpled into a small ball on the couch of the hotel of the day or preferably in my living room. Blogging has fallen precipitously on the list of priorities. If it makes you feel any better, I had to quit my book club outright.

And yet, when I (extremely infrequently) find time to check my personal email, I see new subscribers to the blog signing up almost daily and lots of email from readers checking in to see if I am still kicking around somewhere. Thank you all for your kind notes ~ I truly appreciate your thoughts.

I feel desperately uninformed lately. I have no idea if all the links on the site are still active and I could not provide any idea as to the state of my fellow bloggers. I have received suggestions for reciprocal links that I have ignored, requests for help or information that I have been unable to answer, and reader questions that continue to sit in my inbox (I suppose with the idea that someday soon I will sit down and answer them all in some great flourish).

And as I sit here on my first Friday evening home in three weeks - I mostly feel anxious to wrap this up.

But I owe you better than that - and I glanced at the most recent newsletter from Glenn Sacks which contained some (surprise, surprise) horrific examples of legal inequities and feminist nonsense that I feel compelled to pass on.

But first, let me be clear that I don't anticipate (unless I get fired) my postings to get any more frequent. And the little I have posted lately has for the most part been a regurgitation of information that can easily be found in readily available sources. I can't recall that last post I made in which I included a reasoned argument of my own. And while I will leave the blog up because I feel it continues to serve as a good resource - my contributions will be minimal and likely detached from the movement as a whole.

So... that being said, if there are any readers out there who feel as though they could "pick up the torch" so to speak and would like be able to post on the blog, please just shoot me an email (which I probably will not look at for several weeks - but be patient, eventually I will). You can find my email address under the links session on the main page. I have little criteria except for a belief that joint custody (legal and physical) should be the default and custody arrangements outside of this breakdown should have to be justified, move aways should never be allowed except under the most necessary and extreme circumstances, that there are both crazy/bad mothers and fathers, that when dealing with issues of family, divorce and custody there can be no absolutes, that kids (who have to be children of divorce) fair SUBSTANTIALLY better with two involved and cooperative parents, that this blog will always allow for dissent, that this blog will always provide reasoned and articulated positions with supporting evidence if at all possible and that this blog will never be used as a pulpit to simply attack those of other opinions or genders.

Hmm, maybe I had more criteria than I thought.

I started this blog in January 2004 - it has been a big part of my life up until recently. While I would love to have additional people to post, I would like to stay true to the reasons I began it in the first place.

Enough about all of that ~ on to the news....

All of the following came from a Glenn Sacks newsletter which you can access yourself by clicking here....

Colorado has a new paternity fraud bill SB 56.

Glenn wrote the following article: 'Duped Dad' Bill Could Foster Closer Ties.

Excerpts from the article:

SB 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 which prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it. If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.

On Point: Suffer the children offer a different point of view. Excerpts:

Dads, if you are the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link with your child, make sure to get a DNA test during a divorce. That way you can establish without a doubt whether your wife deceived you - and if the kid isn't yours, you may be able to toss the tyke overboard with a minimum of fuss, avoiding that everlasting nuisance of child support.

What's that, you say? A kid might grow to love or depend upon a "duped dad" as much as if the two shared a genetic profile? Tough luck. This is an age when adult convenience and autonomy trumps the interests and expectations of mere children. And that, not incidentally, is why it's so important that all right-thinking adults (or at least right-thinking men) support Senate Bill 56, which would allow a duped dad to take the DNA test any time during a child's life with an eye toward ditching child support.

Take a look at this press release about Sherri Donovan's new book Hit Him Where It Hurt$: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony, Custody, Child Support. My favorite excerpt:

Eighty-five percent of the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed.

I suppose at least she admitted women initiate the majority of divorces.

On a better note, Utah Senator Mark Madsen sounds like he might be a reasonable guy. In this article, Child-support delinquency could cost parents their licenses, it stated:

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, said he wanted to see more punishments for those who interfered with the visitation rights of non-custodial parents before he could support another measure for collecting child-support payments.

"I'd like to see some parity," Madsen said. "There is already a disproportionate amount of methods (for punishing those who don't pay their child support)."

There is lots more in the newsletter like:

"A study in the January/February issue of the journal Child Development found that when nonresident fathers are involved with their adolescent children, the youths are less likely to take part in delinquent behavior such as drug and alcohol use, violence, property crime and school problems like truancy and cheating.

and

"Meanwhile, lobbyist Mike Robinson said that he has found multiple sponsors to draft legislation that would amend California's domestic-violence laws to apply to 'victims,' rather than only to women. He said the language has been approved by the Legislative Counsel. There are several Republicans who have said they are willing to sponsor the legislation, Robinson said, but he is trying to line up a Democratic co-author."

and

"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

plus

I've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.

I've noted that Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child's best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.

Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner's appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner's relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.

and finally (though there is more I haven't mentioned in the newsletter)

"A proposed bill may force some Kansas parents to pay child support until their child reaches age 23. The bill was introduced last week in Topeka by the judiciary committee.

So visit Glenn Sacks to read the newsletter in its entirety.

Finally - Signs, Pictures and Billboards I Like (Or Don't)

What the hell is this? Apparently a marketing scheme by Court TV....

borrowed from Cartoon Barry Blog

We have seen this one before from ACFC:

As well as this one from NHCustody.org:

TN Supreme Court Upholds Child Support After Parent's Death

TN Supreme Court Upholds Child Support After Parent's Death

Excerpts:

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled Monday that a noncustodial parent still has child support obligations when a youngster is placed in the custody of a third party.

In a 5 to 0 decision released in Knoxville, the court ruled that a father must still pay child support even though the mother of his children died and her parents were granted custody.

Glenn Sacks - Louisiana Bill Says One Parent is Better Than Two

Louisiana Bill Says One Parent is Better Than Two

Excerpts:

"Current Louisiana law states 'To the extent it is feasible and in the best interest of the child, physical custody of the children should be shared equally.' This is reasonable--it presumes that as long as both parents are fit and there are no extenuating circumstances, they should both share in parenting their children. HB 315 weakens the law's wise preference for two parents instead of one. Under the bill all that children receive is a vaguely defined 'as frequent and continuing contact as is feasible with each parent.' However, research establishes that shared custody is what's best for kids."

The counterattack against shared parenting is based on allegations that fathers only want shared parenting in order to reduce their child support obligations. We wrote:

"Unfortunately, rather than putting the need to preserve children's relationships with both parents at the center of the discussion, advocates of HB 315 are instead focusing on child support. In Louisiana, like most states, how much time each parent spends with his or her children helps determine how much child support is ordered. Rep. Shirley Bowler (R-River Ridge), who authored the bill, asserts that dads seek shared custody as a way to decrease their child support obligations. She promotes HB 315 as a way to 'remove this angle' in the current law, which she claims divorced dads are exploiting.

"While it is true that there are fathers who put their pocketbooks above their children's best interests, Bowler and the bill's supporters ignore the obvious converse. If a dad may seek 50% physical time with his children simply to lower his child support obligation, doesn't it also hold that a mother may seek 85% physical time in order to increase it?

"Similarly, critics charge that the child support provisions of current law amount to paying men to spend time with their children. In reality, the provisions simply acknowledge that both moms and dads have child-related expenses."

For more information contact Louisiana Dads.

Arizona Divorce, Custody & Support Info

Arizona Constitution

Arizona Revised Statutes Title 8 - Children Title 25 - Marital and Domestic Relations

Arizona Child Support Guidelines and Calculator

Arizona Self Service Legal Forms

AZLawHelp.org

Arizona Legal Services Resources

FAMILY COURT WEB SITE

ARIZONA FATHERS' RIGHTS

Alaska Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alaska Legislature

The Alaska Constitution

Alaska Family Law Self-Help Center

Filing for Dissolution, Divorce or Custody

Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 (Child Support Awards)

Alaska Child Support Calculator

Alaska Legal Services Corporation (Help resolve serious legal problems of low-income Alaskans)

Alabama Divorce, Custody & Support Info

The Alabama Code and Constitution can be viewed here.

Title 30 (Marital and Domestic Relations) can be viewed here.

Alabama Child Support Guidelines

Alabama Child Support Calculator

Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children(ALCFC)

Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA)

Alabama Legal Services Programs

THE ALABAMA LEGISLATURE

Child Support Calculators

SupportGuidelines.com maintains a fairly complete list of state specific child support calculators.

Other sites with calculators include alllaw.com and divorcelawinfo.com.

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue - CA

Child Support Rulings Could Be In Jeopardy Due To Oath Issue

This is a rather long article so if it is applicable to you please link and read it in full.

Excerpts:

Who’s William S. Hochman?

According to the Marin County Bar Association and the title he uses, he’s a commissioner with the Marin County Superior Court, rendering decisions in the Department of Child Support Services and in essence, involved in administering a $90.2 million contract between the Department of Child Support Services and the Judicial Council of California.

How much Marin County receives in federal and state reimbursements appears to be directly tied to how Hochman rules and may constitute a significant conflict of interest in that the higher he sets child support awards, the more money the county receives which indicates that may not be concerned about the facts of the specific case but rather how much revenue he can generate for the county.

But according to the website for the Marin County Superior Court, he’s not a commissioner.

There are four commissioners listed for Marin County----and William S. Hochman isn’t one of them. http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/MC/main/commissioners.

Is he a state officer, a county officer or is he legally in office at all?

Is he appointed or elected or is he an employee or an independent contractor?

No one in Marin County will say but yet the county bar calls him a commissioner and in a February, 2005 Bar newsletter, lists his address as the Marin County Superior Court in San Rafael.

The “program” which Hochman presumably oversees reportedly nets Marin County about $654,000 a year for his services although his salary is allegedly in the neighborhood of $150,000 with retirement contributions reportedly about $90,000.

When a California resident attempted to utilize a subpoena to obtain the public information concerning the administration of the state and federal monies and information concerning Hochman’s appointment and compensation, Hochman himself quashed it.

According to the statutes and Constitution of the State of California, it appears that Hochman is performing the duties of the office without legal authority, going so far as to imprison individuals without allegedly having the legal authority to do so. So far, officials in Marin County have been reluctant to comply with the state’s laws concerning public records about Hochman.

As a result of his alleged non-compliance of the law in regard to filing his oath and bond, any and all decisions that he has made in regard to setting child support could be legally challenged and perhaps vacated.

Neither Marin County nor state officials can or will produce either an oath of office or a bond for Hochman, both required. Without an oath and bond being subscribed to and filed in the county clerk’s office, Hochman can’t legally perform judicial duties and can’t legally be paid by county tax dollars.

Scott M. Beseda, human resources manager of the court, refused to respond to the request and did not produce a copy of the requisite oath required to be filed by Hochman, saying that in California, “the judicial branch of government, including the Superior Courts, its employees and contractors, are not subject to the Public Records Act”.

The Secretary of State also indicated that there was no oath on file in Sacramento either for William S. Hochman, indicating that while he’s doling out child support orders totaling thousands of dollars of individuals, rendering lives in total upheaval, it appears that he is doing so in total absence of jurisdiction and without legal authority. In fact, it appears that Hochman is doing so in violation of state law and the Constitution.

Child-support plan prompts outcry - NH

Child-support plan prompts outcry

Excerpts:

The bill would give divorced parents who pay child support credit for the time they spend with their children, reducing their payments to the primary parents. Rep. David Bickford, the bill's lone sponsor, said the state's existing child-support guidelines are a relic from the days when divorces often resulted in one parent gaining full custody of the children. The system can penalize divorced parents who have partial custody, said Bickford, a New Durham Republican.

Bickford's plan would pro-rate child support so that a parent who makes payments would owe only for the days the other parent cares for the children.

Opponents said the bill could provide the wrong motivation for divorcing parents when negotiating time with their children.

Lawmakers who oppose Bickford agree that the system is imperfect, but they say that the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act needs time to be observed before more changes are made.

"I think we need to not be so impatient," said Rep. Carolyn Gargasz, a Hollis Republican who opposed Bickford's bill on the House floor.

Bickford said his ultimate goal is to reform the New Hampshire child-support formula so that it's based on the cost of raising a child, not the income of divorced parents. Hiring the economist is the first step in that direction, he said.

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts - Michigan

Joint custody could improve state's child support efforts

Excerpts:

One thousand seven hundred employees now work full-time in Friend of the Court offices as referees, counselors, clerks, and support staff in all 83 Michigan counties. In addition, many employees of the criminal justice system devote a major portion of their workday to this last vestige of debtor's prison.

So it is no surprise that there was consternation in Lansing over a federal plan that cut nearly a quarter billion dollars in Michigan subsidies for child-support enforcement. But one state legislator, Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, has introduced a bill that could reduce the need for devoting so many resources to child support enforcement.

It would simply amend the Child Custody Act of 1970 to create a presumption that parents who divorce maintain joint custody of their minor children. Both would retain the legal right to authorize medical treatment, have access to school records and so forth. Both would have physical custody of their child(ren) for alternating and substantially equal periods of time.

The legislation makes provision for rebutting the presumption of joint custody -- if a parent is either "unfit, unwilling or unable," or moves residence so far away as to preclude maintaining established school schedules. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, it will simply give defendants back some control over their own fate.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

Question of the Day

I'm going to start the "Question of the Day" (hereafter QoD) based upon the search criteria people are using to get to this site. This is not to say there will actually be one every day - but on on days I am posting where I see a common question I will post it and try to answer it.

The question today: "Does child support include income from a new spouse?"

As with many questions involving divorce, custody and support - the answer appears to be state dependent. In my state, I was under the impression that while my income could not be considered in a support order - joint investments certainly could be looked at in a big picture sense.

When my mother remarried and stopped working the court did not look at her husbands income per se but they continued to impute an income to her equivalent to what she made while working.

Personally, we have one joint checking account through which we run joint ventures, investments, etc... However, we both maintain independent accounts through which most of our expenses are paid. Our paychecks are deposited into our individual accounts - household expenses come out of our individual accounts - very little is done through the joint account.

Answers:

From Free Advice: I'm marrying a man who has children from a previous marriage. He regularly pays his child support. Since I earn more than my fiance, we want to protect my income from any future increase in support payments should the ex- seek more. What are our options?

Some states, California for example, provide that a new spouse with income, cannot be held liable for the support of a step-child except under extreme circumstances. Your State may have similar exemptions. However, for the time being, and for purposes of financial safety, set up and maintain separate savings and checking accounts. That way, your funds do not become commingled with your husband's, and a court, should the question ever arise, will always be able to calculate whose income is whose and where the funds came.

From DivorceNet: Illinois Appellate Court opens the door to include new spouse income in determining child support.

Further, the traditional view in establishing child support obligations or modifying child support obligations is that the financial resources of a new spouse are not to be considered in the calculation or determination of child support. That view took into account the lack of legal obligations a stepparent has towards the financial support of a stepchild.

However, the law on this issue has developed and evolved as stated in a recent Second District Illinois Appellate Court decision, which holds "a trial court may equitably consider the income of a parent's current spouse in determining an appropriate award of child support." In Re the Marriage of Drysch, 2000 WL 815278, (ILL.App2 Dist.).

From DivorceHQ: If one of us remarries, how does that affect child support?

Remarriage is frequently a concern during mediation negotiations, and your mediator will help you plan for changed circumstances. You can negotiate a parenting arrangement with an alternative plan in the event of remarriage, or you may agree to return to mediation if one of you decides to remarry. So long as your children's standard of living can be protected, the courts are likely to go along with your agreement.

If your child support agreement is based on your state's child support guidelines, child support may be subject to modification. If your agreement requires modification on a periodic basis based on the guidelines, in some states this is what might occur:

If you are receiving child support and your ex-spouse has a child in the new marriage, that event could reduce the child support payments because the court takes into account the best interests of all children.

If your ex-spouse pays you child support, and his new spouse's income is available to help pay his living expenses, you may be able to get an increase in child support on the principle that he now has a greater share of personal income available for his own use.

If you are receiving child support and you remarry, in some states your ex-spouse may be able to get a reduction in child support on the same basis- you and the children have the benefit of your new spouse's income for your personal living expenses.

Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

Kleptocracy in Virginia

This is an article about proposed child support increases in Virginia. Click the article title to read it in full.

Kleptocracy in Virginia

Excerpts:

Yet another rigged government panel is groping for any justification to railroad through higher child support, though it already is at punitive levels. Under current guidelines, a father clearing $2,100 monthly, pays $1,137.50 and lives on less than $1,000. Add-ons for health insurance can easily bring it to $2,000. This is how Virginia officials subsidize divorce, plunder fathers and create instant criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

Twice their efforts failed when the chicanery was exposed in this newspaper in 1999 and 2001. Now Richard Byrd, a divorce lawyer, has devised a new excuse: Child support must be increased because of inflation. Never mind that child support adjusts automatically for inflation because it increases with income. This is like saying taxes must be raised due to inflation.

Mr. Byrd hopes to tie child support to the Consumer Price Index, based largely on adult consumption of adult clothing, tobacco, alcohol, taxes and the like. His proposal is an admission child support is not really for children but more for the enrichment of grown-ups. Officials are in open violation of federal law, plus Section 20-108.2 of the state domestic relations code and Senate Joint Resolution 192 specifically requiring them to examine "the costs of raising children in Virginia." Officials claim that study "would cost millions" and have never done it, despite receiving federal funds to do so.

The self-serving economics of child support has been harshly criticized by scholars. Yet the panel only consults "experts" who urge increases. They ignore scholars like Bryce Christensen, who notes "evidence of the linkage between aggressive child-support policies and the erosion of wedlock," and who writes in Society that "the advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support ... have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state."

Feminists' Double Standards About Child Care

This is the latest article by Phyllis Schlafly. I tried to make some cuts to keep the post relatively brief - but this is in fact most of the article. Click on the article title to link to the source and read it in full.

Feminists' Double Standards About Child Care
by Phyllis Schlafly

Excerpts:

Feminist ideology taught that the duties of the housewife and mother were (in Friedan's words) "endless, monotonous, unrewarding" and "peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls." Society's expectation that a mother should care for her own children was cited as oppression of women by our male-dominated patriarchal society from which women must be liberated so they can achieve fulfillment in workforce careers just like men.

Demanding that husbands take on equal duties in child care, the National Organization for Women passed resolutions in the 1970s stating, "The father has equal responsibility with the mother for the child care role."

n 1972, "Ms." Magazine featured pre-marriage contracts declaring housewives independent from essential housework and babycare, and obliging the husband to do half the dishes and diapers.

Then-ACLU attorney Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her 1977 book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code" that "all legislation based on the breadwinning-husband, dependent-homemaking-wife pattern" must be eliminated "to reflect the equality principle" because "a scheme built upon the breadwinning husband [and] dependent homemaking wife concept inevitably treats the woman's efforts or aspirations in the economic sector as less important than the man's."

Feminist literature is filled with putdowns of the role of housewife and mother. This ideology led directly to feminist insistence that the taxpayers provide (in Ginsburg's words) "a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."

The icon of college women's studies courses, Simone de Beauvoir, opined that "marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution," and easy divorce became a primary goal of the feminist liberation movement. Three-fourths of divorces are now unilaterally initiated by wives without any requirement to allege fault on the part of the cast-off husband.

As divorces became easy to get, the feminists suddenly did a total about-face in their demand that fathers share equally in child care. Upon divorce, mothers demand total legal and physical custody and control of their children, arguing that only a mother is capable of providing their proper care and upbringing, and a father's only function is to provide a paycheck.

Gone are the demands that the father change diapers or tend to a sick child. Feminists want the father out of sight except maybe for a few hours a month of visitation at her discretion.

Suddenly, the ex-husband is targeted as a totally essential breadwinner, and the ex-wife is eager to proclaim her dependency. Feminists assert that, after divorce, child care should be almost solely the mother's job, dependency is desirable, and providing financial support should be almost solely the father's job.

It is settled law in the United States that parents (note the plural) have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of the upbringing of their children. But feminists have persuaded the family courts, upon divorce, to acquiesce in feminist demands that the mother typically be given 80 to 100 percent of those fundamental rights that belonged to both parents before divorce.

What's behind this feminist reversal about motherhood? As Freud famously asked, "what does a woman want?"

The explanation appears to be the maxim, Follow the money. Beginning in the mid-1980s, the feminists used their political clout to get Congress to pass draconian post-divorce support-enforcement laws that use the full power of government to give the divorced mother cash income proportional to the percentage of custody time she persuades the court to award, but unrelated to what she spends for the children or to her willingness to allow the father to see his children.

Since the father typically has higher income than the mother, giving near-total custody to the mother enables the states to maximize transfer payments and thereby collect bigger cash bonuses from the federal government. When fathers appeal to the family courts for equal time with their children, they are opposed by a big industry of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, domestic-violence agitators, and government bureaucrats who make their living out of denying fathers their fundamental rights.

It's time for a national debate and discussion of the taxpayer incentives that favor divorce, the anti-marriage feminists, and the resulting exclusion of fathers from the lives of their children.

Michigan House Proposes Reduction in Federal Child Support Enforcement

MichNews.com

Excerpts:

The House bill proposes a $5 billion, 40 percent reduction in federal child support enforcement. This is a refreshing surprise, and it may finally raise awareness that child support has been a failure and should be phased out in favor of alternative types of agreements between parents. Recently, Fathers’ rights movements have sprung up all over, advocating a fairer system that doesn’t doubly punish the non-custodial parent and incite hostile relations. Handing impoverished custodial parents free money will not give them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty, but requiring them to make it on their own will. Eliminating part of the federal bureaucracy responsible for chasing fathers down sends a much-needed message that child support is one government function that should be abolished.

Mlive.com

Excerpts:

It was approved by all nine Republican Michigan House members and opposed by all six Democrats as part of the sweeping Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Differences between the House legislation and a Senate cost-cutting bill are being worked out by a conference committee this week.

The effective 24 percent cut to the budget for child support enforcement would jeopardize positions in the 2,800-member work force that processes child support cases throughout the state, she said.

The cuts would result from a gradual reduction in federal funding for child support enforcement from 66 percent to 50 percent over five years.

"Child support is the safety net for most families ... this is money for groceries, for gasoline, for heat," said Susan Thorman, president of the Friend of the Court Association and Shiawassee County Friend of the Court.

But the Atlanta, Ga.-based National Family Justice Association, which advocates for noncustodial parents, backs the cuts and calls them a move toward improving child support agencies.

"If a system or service is broken or not functioning properly, the U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay outrageous sums of their hard-earned money while the system is not held accountable for their inadequate performance," Murray Davis, who is based in Southfield and serves as group's board president, said in a written statement.

Public hearings scheduled to start Monday on new child support guidelines - Georgia

macon.com

Excerpts:

Georgians will get to comment on the state's new child support guidelines at a series of public hearings across the state scheduled to start Monday evening.

The guidelines were developed because of a new state law that stipulates that judges setting child support payments must consider the incomes of both parents - not just the ones without custody.

The hearings are planned in Albany, Atlanta, Columbus and Savannah.

Report: Men need some help - NH

Concord Monitor

Report: Men need some help
Trouble areas: health, schools, legal system

Excerpts:

In the group's first report, New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of Men recommends that the state devote more resources to correcting the gender biases men face in divorce and domestic violence cases, as well as promoting the role of fathers in families.

The commission, the first of its kind in the country, was established in 2002 as a counterpart to the state-funded women's commission. Most of its seven members have some background in social welfare, mental health or family law.

Much of the report is concerned with what commission members describe as the biases leveled against men in divorces, child support arrangements and custody disputes. In research and in meetings held over the last year, the commission found that many fathers feel they are treated unfairly in family court disputes. Many complained of judges who automatically side with mothers, child support guidelines that leave the father with little income, and a general lack of understanding of the benefits of a father-child relationship.

Citing numerous studies that show children who spend time with their fathers are better-adjusted, the report recommends that the state provide funding to the men's commission so it can launch a public awareness campaign to support bringing fathers and children together. The commission does not receive any public money.

The report also discusses domestic violence. Men told the commission that some women accuse men of assault so that the judge will award the woman custody of the couple's children. Judges tend to take the woman's side, the report states, which can make it difficult for the man to dispute the charges later.

The commission also studied the traditional assumption that all domestic violence is caused by men, and it found studies suggesting that women assault men just as often. Domestic violence education and advocate training programs tend to compound the bias by referring to perpetrators of violence in male terms.

"Efforts to get relief from the domestic violence problem have been unduly influenced by special interests who have successfully sold the problem as solely a responsibility of males over the years," the report states. "The whole truth on this emotionally charged dichotomy isn't being fully revealed."

Senators striving to revamp Family Court- South Carolina

Anderson Independent Mail

Excerpts:

For three of those senators, top goals for the bill include: • Making mediation mandatory for all family court cases. • Reducing marriage-license fees for couples who complete pre-martial counseling. • Updating the formula used to decide how much a parent should pay in child support. • Giving the Family Court system more power to have contempt-of-court charges issued to someone if they fail to pay child support. • Assigning hearing officers to handle minor family court cases, leaving judges to handle the more serious cases.

After listening to concern after concern, Sen. Bryant said he wants to see an incentive given to couples for enrolling in pre-martial counseling. This idea, he said, would hopefully lighten the caseload that family court judges must handle.

But he also wants to see a statewide requirement for pre-trial mediations in family court cases.

"Right now, the families are going directly into court and there it is a battle," Sen. Bryant said.