On January 8, 2003. Judge Condon ordered Michael Franke to pay $7000 a year for his adult child for college support. This in addition $1800 a month Mr. Franke pays for child support for two minor children.
Mr. Franke's ex-wife showed the court she has 401K money, $10,000 in savings, she gets $700 a month from her live-in boyfriend, she showed ownership of FOUR vehicles, one a new BMW for her boyfriend that is in her name.
Mr. Franke has a baby with his second wife who has medical needs, monthly surgeries for growth's on his throat and will need this medical care until teenage years.
Judge Condon said, first children first, and told Michael that he has no sympathy for his wife or new baby. If he doesn't come up with the $3800 by Jan. 23, he goes to jail for 6 months/work release. They will seize his paychecks 100% so they will have no money to make their house payment or car payments or food for their baby. Plus this situation will deprive a very small and sick child of his father.
We the Undersigned want to show that ALL children should matter and no judge should put any child above another just because they are born of the first marriage. College support is up to the discretion of the judge. It is based on ability to pay. Mr. Franke can not pay due to medical hardship, yet the judge insists on punishing him for being a divorced dad.
If you agree please visit
http://www.petitiononline.com/NCPdad/petition.html
I'm the co-director of SecondWivesCafe.com, and Mr. Franke's wife is a long-time member at the Cafe. She posted there about this outrage yesterday, after court.
When her husband asked how his wife and baby would be able to obtain food and medical care if he were jailed, the judge said, "She'll [Mrs. Franke] have to figure that out herself. Your first children come FIRST and your 2nd family is LAST."
To add insult to injury, the judge stated that since Mr. Franke has not footed the bill for his adult daughter's first semester (and is thus in contempt, in this judge's opinion), Mr. Franke will ALSO be expected to pay his former wife's attorney fees.
Please, sign the petition!
If you'd like to help further, a Chicago-area Cafe member is organizing a protest to be held at the courthouse later this month at the time of Mr. Franke's next hearing. You can send me an email if you'd like to participate.
Thank you!
The judge actually said he would garnish 100% of this guy's pay? That is against FEDERAL LAW, but we all know that judges don't have to abide by laws, do they?
Please keep us posted on this.
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040108/NEWS02/201080428
Senate: Divorced parents can't be made to pay for college
By ANNE SAUNDERS
The Associated Press
Published: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2004
CONCORD - The state Senate voted Wednesday to bar judges from ordering divorced parents to pay their children's college expenses.
The 20-2 vote sent the bill to Gov. Craig Benson for signature. The House had approved it last year.
Judges cannot ordered married couples to pay for college tuition, and it would be unfair to apply a different standard to those who are divorced, said Sen. Frank Sapareto, R-Derry.
"If a college education is to become public policy, it should be for all parents, not just divorced parents," added Sen. Robert Clegg, R-Hudson.
Lawmakers wanted to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling extending a divorced father's child support for his daughter while she attended college.
Clegg said parents can make divorce agreements that cover college expenses even though judges can't. Judges can approve the agreements and enforce them.
Other states allow judges to order a divorced parent to pay college expenses for their children. Studies show the children are less likely to go to college.
The Senate also approved a bill that would seal financial records in divorce proceedings. The Senate said the information can be released if someone can convince a judge the public interest is served.
Supporters of restricting access argue affidavits provide information that could be exploited by stalkers or identity thieves.
But those who want divorce records to remain open say the public can't evaluate the fairness of property divisions and child support orders if they can't see the facts underlying those decisions.
Clegg said the added exception protects the public interest but establishes "a high standard to protect the privacy of divorcing parties."
The bill goes back to the House.
The Senate also approved and sent back to the House a bill that would make it easier to change a child custody arrangement if the court is convinced the existing arrangement is detrimental to the child. The current rule allows for a change only if there is a "strong possibility the child will be harmed" without it.
____________________________________________________________
Keep your eye on this. If I'm not mistaken this bill would set a precedent? Socrateaser would probably know.
Good luck!
When her husband asked how his wife and baby would be able to obtain food and medical care if he were jailed, the judge said, "She'll have to figure that out herself. Your first children come FIRST and your 2nd family is LAST."
[p]Why she can go on welfare! /sarcasm
[p]Petition signed! 1800.00 is a lot of money for two kids. Does that include alimony?
I'm not actually sure if it includes alimony.
One thing I *DO* know is that the biological mother has successfully alienated Mr. Franke's three older children from him, and the adult college student in question refuses to have any contact with him.
I posted this on Free Republic's website.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1054862/posts?page=1
Let me know if I have the correct info posted. This site gets a lot of traffic.
Stepmary, I included a link to secondwivescafe.com. If there is a protest at the courthouse, let us know. Some folks in the Chicago area might be able to help.
She doesn't want any contact with Dad, just his wallet. She'll make a wonderful wife and mother someday...
I passed this on to the NCFCNH ( National Colation for Fathers and Children New Hampshire) group that I am with. I told them to email it to everyone they know and to sign it. I hope it helps.
Good Luck
There is one error in the petition; the hearing should be listed as 2004, not 2003. I contacted the petition author and hopefully she can correct it soon.
One of our moderators (she's a journalist) is putting together a press release today, and we'll keep updating y'all as we get going!
[em]She'll make a wonderful wife and mother someday...[/em]
*********
No doubt will also be a member of that "other" site, whining about the injustices to single momz.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
That's wonderful!
I hope it helps the family.
The Judge on this case disgusts me. There is a defenseless child now caught up in the effects of this and I am NOT talking about the college aged ADULT child!
)( GRRRRRRRRRR!
This is pretty *&$! outrageous, and needs to be signed by everyone. Maybe with enough signatures this judge will get a clue as to how unreasonable his order is.
You certainly are getting the word out! I signed it this morning, when there was less than 200 signatures, and at this time, it's nearly doubled!!
Ain't it amazin' what we can do when we do it TOGETHER????
everyone who signed! We are almost to 400 with a goal of 1000 by Monday!
I love everyone here at SPARC!
LHK (aka FrugalDiva on SWC)
everyone who signed! We are almost to 400 with a goal of 1000 by Monday!
I love everyone here at SPARC!
LHK (aka FrugalDiva on SWC)
Just copied it on Dad's Divorce, so expect an onslaught of signers!
Done!
I never expected that post to get flamed :-(
My reply:
First of all, I posted this on my own. I thought it was outrageous that a judge would threaten to put the father in jail and seize his whole paycheck, which is illegal under Federal law. Whether or not his new baby matters in a court of law, putting this man in jail won't solve anything. He has until January 23rd to come up with 3800.00.
I expected a little more civility from FReepers regarding this. I sure didn't expect to get flamed.
Michaels2ndwife joined Free Republic today to answer some of your questions. I feel that she tried her best to explain the legality of this situation. I need to apologize to her for some of the posts that I've read here. I have promoted both Free Republic and SPARC for several years, and I'm personally embarassed by some of your responses. To those of you who have expressed support, or at least a civil reply, thank you.
In case some of you haven't caught this obvious fact, Michaels2ndwife is that baby's mother.
148 posted on 01/09/2004 3:05:15 PM PST by TheSpottedOwl (Happy Iraqi Independence Day!!!!)
I don't know what to say. Hopefully people will ignore the BS, and sign the petition.
Signed. Judge Condom needs a wake up call. How would HE like to be on the recieving end of this??
Unreal!
#429
posted to young, hip forum as well
signed #486
I just read the posts on that free web from the link up there,, I for one have to say I am shamed of most of those people.
Last I looked the sigs were up to 499
Finally finished with the editorial; the press release is still in the works.
http://secondwivescafe.com/article.php?id=24
________________
January 9, 2004 -- We at the Cafe don't usually get too involved in legal reform. Our mission is to support second wives and stepmoms in their day-to-day lives, and we primarily serve as a source of empathy and compassion for women who find that other people just don't get it.
Today, though, we are getting involved.
Michael Franke, husband to long-term Cafe member Nicole Frank, appeared at a hearing in McHenry County (Illinois) family court yesterday.
What happened there is outrageous, and nothing short of unconstitutional.
Judge Condon told Mr. Franke he has until January 23rd to hand $3,800 over to his former wife, to pay for his adult daughter's college tuition. If he does not, Mr. Franke will be incarcerated for the next six months, on a work release.
His paychecks will be seized 100% until this amount is deducted in full, and he will also be responsible for his former wife's legal fees.
Nicole and Michael Franke have a baby son together. He's just turned one, and has a medical condition -- recurrent growths on his airway -- that likely requires surgery every month until his adolescence. Mr. Franke asked the judge how he could provide for his baby's medical needs, or make car and house payments.
"I don't care about your wife and baby -- your first children come first," Judge Condon replied. "[Your baby's mother] will figure it out."
Mr. Franke's divorce decree states that the parents will pay for college to the extent that they are able at the time, and that ALL financial obligations are to be taken into account.
Judge Condon has chosen to interpret this decree to order what amounts to indentured servitude for Mr. Franke, and to disregard the needs of an ailing one-year-old baby in favor of the wants of Mr. Franke's former wife and his able-bodied adult daughter.
Despite the fact that the former Mrs. Franke earns a salary similar to Mr. Franke's, holds a 401k plan, has more than $10,000 in savings, and owns four vehicles (including a late-model BMW).
Despite the fact that Mr. Franke already pays $21,600 a year in child support to his former wife for their two minor children, and has never been in arrears.
Despite the fact that jailing Mr. Franke will make it difficult -- if not impossible -- for him to put food on his family's table, make mortgage payments, and will deprive a sick baby boy of his father for six months.
In this abuse of discretion, Judge Condon refused to take into account actual net income for either Mr. Franke or his former wife, disregarding Mr. Franke's child support payments and tax burden in addition to his baby son's medical expenses.
Will Mr. Franke face jail several times a year as a result of his inability to pay for his adult daughter's college tuition? This particular ruling covers only her first semester.
An "intact family" would never be forced to sacrifice the health of a younger child in order to provide a college education for a healthy adult sibling. Why then are such draconian sanctions placed on the children of second marriages?
New Hampshire courts recently ruled that forcing divorced parents to pay for their children's college expenses is unconstitutional. Parents from so-called "intact families" cannot be compelled to pay for post-secondary education for their grown children.
It's time for the Illinois courts and every other state family law system to hold themselves to the same constitutional standards as New Hampshire.
_____________
Just so you know I just sent and application to join secondwives Stepmary!
I did not think to ask on the info thingy if it was ok if I used DH's e-mail since we are on a network with only one ISP, and my e-mails are hotmail or yahoo.
DH and I have both signed this. I am still in shock that a judge would even attempt this!!
Good luck and please let us know how it turns out.
Next
WHAT NEXT?
This is taking place in my State.
What ever happened to 'WE ARE ALL CREATED EQUAL?' That baby has a right to a normal life.
Just one more thing to put on the Father's plate. The only thing I have left is blood and that is starting to run thin.
Signed and passed along.
http://sites.atleeridge.us/fr/
...fairness of maintainance awards in marital court!
Oh, the irony...
http://www.iicle.com/booksandproducts/product_description.asp?ID=898
Mr. Sacks wrote a member at the Cafe to say he was going to discuss this issue (both the New Hampshire ruling and the Franke case). He said he welcomed phone calls on the issue. Let's hope this gets some good coverage!
The petition is up to 811 signatures; things have slowed a bit due to the weekend, but are still chugging along.
Good deal. I wish I could have stayed up to listen to him last night. Don't give up because some people are either ignorant or just plain assholes.