Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Bolivar

Pages: 1 23 4 ... 6
Custody Issues / How to get rid of a GAL
« on: Sep 17, 2004, 10:16:26 AM »
How to get rid of a GAL

Ohio, NCP male, one child 4 ½ years old

It’s been 2 years since divorce.  I would like to go back to court next month (OCT 2004) and again ask for more parenting time.  I need to get rid of my current GAL how do I do that?


Is their a better way than a GAL to get an evaluation of the parents the judge can use to make a decision?

>> I have included my history with the current GAL if it will help to answer this question.  Sorry, turned out to be a long post <<

- Divorce started Jan 2002
- Had no idea what a GAL was.
- Feb 2002 attorney said a GAL would help case.  
    - Attorney recommends one and I made an appointment.
    - GAL was confused, said “judge orders the GAL intervention”. I said “my attorney said a GAL would help my case and to hire your.”  He said get the judge to sign the order. My attorney got judge to appoint GAL.

-- Interaction with GAL --
* GAL would contact me directly.  
* GAL went through eX attorney with questions.
* I went alone into his office where he asked me questions.
* eX took attorney to answer GAL questions in office.
* During mediation session I went alone.  
* During mediation session my eX always brought her lawyer.  My eX NEVER talked.  

- Divorce Ended Nov 2002 - written into my divorce decree is the line:
   “Guardian ad litem Robert G. Reese will remain available to the parties, at the request of either party, in the event either party has continued concerns or issues with the implementation of exercise of visitation of other issues regarding the parties’ minor child.”

- labeled NCP and give “every other weekend (6pm Friday to 6pm Sunday)” and “every Tues 3-6pm”

- April 2003 around 3 months after divorce I requested intervention from GAL biased on sentence in my divorce decree.  I wanted to spend more time with my son.  He said a judge must initiate his intervention.

-*- GOT NEW ATTORNEY July 2003

- Oct 2003 I went back to court asking for more parenting time. Asking for “every Thursday 3-6 pm” and pick up son at 4:00 pm from daycare the Fridays I have him.

- GAL was appointed by judge to make an opinion.

- I told GAL that he would have to go through my attorney because of my experience last time.

- GAL tried to contact me directly. I would not take the call.  I then called MY attorney and told her that GAL tried to contact me directly.

- MY attorney called GAL and explained the proper conduct of communication.

- bla, bla, bla GAL plays games.  My attorney is pissed at GAL. I had spent about $2,500 so far to try and get an extra few hours a week with son.  Nothing was getting done.  I CLOSED THE CASE.  I did NOT get more parenting time and the experience cost me $2,500.

It’s been 2 years since divorce.  I would like to go back to court next month (OCT 2004) and again ask for more parenting time.  I need to get rid of my current GAL how do I do that?


Is their a better way than a GAL to get an evaluation of the parents the judge can use to make a decision?

Father's Issues / Senate Committee on Finance - Bill [S.803.IS]
« on: May 11, 2007, 06:38:12 AM »
Senate Committee on Finance - Bill S.803.IS

(1)  January 2006 the “2005 Deficit Reduction Act” passed which reduces the Federal Governments incentive payments and reimbursement funds it makes to the States’ Child Support.

(2)  on 3/7/2007 Senator John D. Rockefeller  IV introduced in the Senate Bill S.803.IS  

Which is to REPEAL the CUTS (incentive payments and reimbursement funds) the Federal Government makes to the States child support.  (The cuts go into effect October 2007 unless the Senate passes this Bill which stops the cuts)

 (3)  That same day 3/7/2007 the Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Finance


Please write the Senate members on the Finance Committee (below) to advocate you oppose Senate Bill  S.803.IS
That the Bill should NOT be passed.


An example: (This is way to long but you get the idea.)


The Honorable  John D. Rockefeller IV
United States Senate

Dear Senator Rockefeller IV;

In strong opposition to the Bill S.803.IS   Title: To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive payments.

The Federal incentive payments and reimbursement funds it makes to States Child Support have corrupted our states family law statutes and designed them to ensure the operations of their family courts leverage the maximum return from a vast array of federal grant sources.  

 Our states' family law statutes are no longer designed to dispense justice or operate in "the best interest of the child."  Nor are they the true governance over the daily operations of our courts.  They are designed to make certain that rulings are made that generate the highest return from an assortment of federal "incentive programs."  Most of the programs providing the grant money to family law were major parts of our failed welfare reform effort of the 1990's.

 The failure of "welfare reform" is found in its core principle of basing the federal incentives primarily on the money the state's collect in child support, not primarily on the percentage of cases they collect successfully.

 Until federal child support incentive programs pay the states the same amount per successfully collected case no matter what the dollar value is this is the way it is going to be.  Middle class families will be destroyed while the poor will continue to be underserved.  Nothing about this sounds like a public assistance program, does it?

 If at this point you have any doubts that family law is based on dollars and NOT on justice, equal protection under the law, or the best interest of the child. Ask North Dakota's Governor, John Hoeven.

 Among the usual and customary items on the ballet in 2006, North Dakota had ballet item for "Presumptive Equal Parenting." Governor Hoeven himself spoke out against this ballet initiative.  

 Rather than defending the wellbeing of his state's children, Governor Hoeven's stated reason for opposing this initiative was due to the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money such a law would cost his state.  That, by the way is a significant portion of the states expected annual revenue and revenue that is considered greatly in the state's budget requests.

 The Governor did this even though he was informed numerous times that scientific studies clearly show children in Equal Parenting arrangements after a family breakup excel at almost the same levels as those in intact, healthy families with both their biological parents present and far better than single parent homes.

 He was also made aware that the large majority of teens in juvenile detention, who become pregnant, smoke, run away, do drugs, and other social problems are in primary custody arrangements (single parent homes).

 Governor Hoeven was also aware that in their biennial report “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support” (1999, 2001, and 2003) the US Census Bureau reports that parents with equal parenting arrangements are far more likely to pay their child support, in full and on time without any enforcement actions then any other parenting arrangement. Where parents who have limited, disrupted, or no visitation with their children are likely not to pay a cent.

 Governor Hoeven's decision was not based on the best interest of the child or family values; it was all about the money.

 Currently, despite the established facts that children do better with equal access to both of their parents and the most effective to insure the children receive the support they need, it is easily concluded that for a cost effective method of child support enforcement is enforcing custody and visitation, instead of a federal incentive programs under our failed welfare reform are paying the State to limit the time children spend with one of their parents.


US Senate Committee on Finance









By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KOHL, Ms. SNOWE, and Mr. COLEMAN):

   S. 803. A bill to repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive payments; to the Committee on Finance.


Mr. ROCKFELLER:. Mr. President, today I am proud to join with bipartisan colleagues, Senators CORNYN, KOHL, SNOWE, and COLEMAN, to try to increase investments in the successful Child Support Enforcement program.

   Our Federal child support enforcement is an extraordirary program. In 2005, the program collected $23 billion to serve 16 million children and families, with a Federal investment of only approximately $4 billion. For every dollar invested in this Program, there is a return of $4.58. This program is a real bargain.

   Child support enforcement is a program that deserves more investment because it works, and because it provides long term support for children. The historic welfare reform of 1996 changed Federal assistance to families with children to a temporary program that only provides 60 months of support. Currently 3.4 million children are cotered by welfare reform. Child support serves more children, and helps to ensure that their parents provide support until the age of 18. This program is essential for families, and it promotes our fundamental value of parental responsibility.

   As part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, new limits were imposed on Federal incentive funds to prohibit the match. While this provision saved almost $3 billion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that children and families would loose $8.3 billion. That is a bad deal.

   Our bill is designed to fix this problem and continue to invest in a program that has been proven to work so well for our children and families. In my personal view, it is better to encourage families to rely on child support from their parents first.  

   In the past, my State of West Virginia has used its incentive payments and matching funding to support computers and staff investments. According to our West Virginia Bureau, prior to incentive funding, the agency had 18 percent to 20 percent staff turnover. But with incentive funding, staff turnover has been reduced to 10 percent and West Virginia collections are up to $180 million. This is very good for my State.

   I believe this bipartisan bill will be a good deal for child support enforcement, our children and families, and our States.

   I ask unanimous consent that, three letters of support and the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD. I truly appreciate the support of National Conference of State Legislatures, The National Child Support Enforcement Association, and the joint support of advocacy groups of Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Women's Law Center and the Coalition on Human Needs.

   There being no objection, the letters and bill were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:



   Washington, DC, March 6, 2007.


Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATORS ROCKEFELLER, CORNYN, KOHL, SNOWE, AND COLEMAN: NCSL strongly supports your legislation repealing the provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that prohibits states from using child support incentive funds to match federal funds for the program. When this action was taken, the Congressional Budget Office identified the cut as an intergovernmental mandate that exceeds the threshold of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.

   States have used incentive funds to draw down federal funds used for integral parts of the child support enforcement program. The funds have allowed states to establish and enforce child support obligations, obtain health care coverage for children, and link low-income fathers to job programs. The cut ignored the fact that funds for child support enforcement are used effectively and responsibly. In fact, the child support enforcement program received a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) rating of ``effective,'' and continues to be one of the highest rated block or formula grants of all federal programs.

   Consistent child support helps save children from being raised in poverty. Reductions in child support administrative funds inevitably lead to lower child support collections, leaving families less able to achieve self-sufficiency.

   State legislators applaud your efforts to undo this ill-considered action of the previous Congress. We urge the 110th Congress to adopt your bill. Please have your staff contact Sheri Steisel or Lee Posey for further information or assistance.


   Sandy Rosenberg,  Delegate, Maryland, Chairman, NCSL Human Services and Welfare Committee.

   Leticia Van de Putte,  Senator, Texas, President, NCSL.

   Donna Stone,  Representative, Delaware, President Elect, NCSL.



   March 6, 2007.


   DEAR SENATORS: I am sending this letter on behalf of the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) in strong support of your bill to restore the authority for states to use performance incentives as match for federal funds for the child support enforcement program.

   NCSEA is a nonprofit, membership organization representing the child support community--a workforce of over 60,000. NCSEA's mission is to promote the well-being of children through professional development of its membership, advocacy and public awareness. NCSEA's membership includes line/managerial/executive child support staff; state and local agencies; judges; court masters; hearing officers; government and private attorneys; social workers; advocates; corporations that partner with government to provide child support services and private collection firms.

   The child support enforcement program operates in all states as provided by Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act. The program enjoys healthy partnerships with the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and a large and varied group of stakeholders. Courts and law enforcement officials carry out many of the day to day functions; employers collect almost 80% of child support through income withholding, hospitals assist with paternity acknowledgment, and other state and local agencies provide enforcement services and related services to assist obligors in finding and maintaining employment. We share a common mission that is reflected in the program's National Strategic Plan:

   To enhance the well-being of children by assuring that assistance in obtaining support, including financial and medical, is available to children through locating parents, establishing paternity, establishing support obligations, and monitoring and enforcing those obligations.

   One of the unique features of the child support enforcement program is that unlike government public assistance programs, it has a major interstate component, and requires close collaboration among the states to provide services on behalf of children whose parents live in different states. In today's mobile society, strong interstate collaboration and comparable levels of service across state lines are essential. Collectively, the program provides services on behalf of over 17 million children--representing nearly one quarter of the nation's children. If one or more states do not have the resources to operate effective programs, there are repercussions across the entire network of states in the child support system. The bottom line is that some of the children who depend upon the program will fall through the cracks.

   We are proud of the accomplishments of the program, but are continually striving to do more. The program is cost effective, goal oriented, and accountable for results. It has received recognition from the highest levels of government at the federal, state, and local levels. One of these was an OMS Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) score of 90 percent, representing the highest rating among all social services and block grant/formula programs.

   The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), passed by a closely divided Congressional vote, made major cuts to child support funding, including eliminating the purposeful federal match on incentive payments, reducing the match rate for paternity testing, and imposing a collection fee on parents. States were required to implement the collection of the fee in October 2007 unless legislation was required. The first two provisions are effective on October 1, 2008, unless reversed by Congress.

   States and child support organizations have been working hard to address these drastic funding reductions, and with all honesty, the plans that are being made are not good for the families served by this nationally recognized program. Our members report that vital services may be eliminated or substantially reduced as budgets and staffing are cut. Important to the effectiveness of the program is the ability to take action quickly to establish paternity and an obligation to support. States report that early intervention results in more regular support payments and more involvement of the father in the life of the child. Just as importantly, close monitoring and on-ongoing enforcement are vital to the regular receipt of child support payments. This close monitoring and interaction with the obligor ensures that those parents who need assistance in finding and maintaining employment are helped.

   As states lose resources, they will be less able to timely perform ``core'' functions such as paternity establishment, order establishment, enforcement and distribution of payments. The progress the program has made toward improved performance will be jeopardized. In addition, states will have to make tough choices, perhaps sacrificing customer service, outreach to incarcerated parents, and fatherhood programs in favor of funding only the ``essential'' service areas.

   The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that child support collections would be reduced by $8.4 billion as a result of the federal cuts contained in the Deficit Reduction Act. (The actual number may be higher based on new scoring from the CBO.) CBO assumed that states would make up half of the funding gap resulting from federal cuts to the program. While states are working to secure adequate funding for the program, as of today no state has had a budget increase approved by its state legislature. Twenty-three (23) states have not yet made a request for additional funding. Many state budgets are so tight that a request for additional funding is not feasible. It is also important to keep in mind that even if additional state funding is approved during the current budget cycle, it does not guarantee adequate funding in the future.

   As the Congress works to address needs of America's families both in the federal budget and in other funding authorization bills, we urge you to consider the needs for strong and fair child support enforcement. Children who don't receive regular financial support from both parents are disadvantaged in a number of ways. Children need the resources provided by child support payments from parents to compete in our complex society. Parents need access to a child support system that determines equitable child support awards, monitors and enforces obligations, and transfers payments from the obligor to custodial parent quickly. State and local child support agencies have a successful history of performing these important tasks, doubling their child support collection rates since Congress enacted the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Taxpayers are well served by a strong child support program that increases family self-sufficiency and decreases dependence on public assistance.

   Your interest in the child support program and commitment to the families served by the state and local programs is once again evidenced with your sponsorship of this critical funding bill. The child support program has long enjoyed strong bi-partisan support and we are most pleased to see that support clearly shown in your sponsorship.

   Please consider NCSEA as a resource to you and to your colleagues and staff as you proceed with this legislation. We stand ready to provide you details on what we do, how our members use federal funds, the impact of funding reductions, our efforts to improve the quality of our services to families, and any other information you need to make an informed decision.

   Thank you for your advocacy on behalf of children and families served by this important program.

   Sincerely yours,

   Mary Ann Wellbank,





   March 7, 2007.


   DEAR SENATORS: The National Women's Law Center, Center for Law and Social Policy, and Coalition on Human Needs, organizations that have worked for years to strengthen child support enforcement, strongly support your bill to restore funding for child support enforcement to ensure that children continue to receive the support they deserve from both their parents.

   The federal-state child support enforcement program provides services to over 17 million children. In FY 2005, it collected $23 billion in child support from noncustodial parents at a total cost of $5 billion to the federal and state governments: $4.58 in collections for every $1 invested, making it highly cost-effective. All families in need of child support enforcement services are eligible, but most of the families that rely on the

program are low- and moderate-income families. Families that formerly received public assistance make up nearly half (46 percent) of the caseload; current recipients represent 16 percent of the caseload.

   Child support helps families escape poverty, provide for their children's needs, and avoid a return to welfare. But the cuts to child support enforcement funding included in last year's Deficit Reduction Act will significantly reduce child support collections for families and impede paternity establishment, as states and counties reduce staff, forgo computer upgrades, and abandon promising initiatives. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that $8.4 billion in child support will go uncollected over the next 10 years.

   Your bill would protect child support enforcement services by restoring the federal match for incentive funds that states reinvest in the child support program. This match is a key part of the results-based incentive payment system, overhauled by the Child Support Performance Incentive Act (CSPIA) of 1998, that has given states the incentives--and the resources--to dramatically improve their child support programs. Over the past 10 years, child support collection rates have doubled, and the program has been strengthened on a nationwide basis, thanks to the implementation of child support reforms enacted by Congress as part of the 1996 welfare reform law.

   On a bipartisan basis, Congress has enacted significant reforms to child support enforcement that are making a real difference in children's lives. Your bill would prevent this progress from unraveling.

   We thank you for your leadership on behalf of children and families.


   Joan Entmacher,   Vice President, Family Economic Security, National Women's Law Center.

   Vicki Turetsky,   Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Law and Social Policy.

   Debbie Weinstein,   Executive Director, Coalition on Human Needs.


   S. 803

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Support Protection Act of 2007''.


    Section 7309 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171, 120 Stat. 147) is repealed.

   Mr. CORNYN:. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Child Support Protection Act of 2007 so State child support enforcement agencies may continue the extraordinary progress and cost-effectiveness they have developed in child support collections in recent years.

   This legislation is necessary to avoid a reversal in the dramatic improvements in the child support program's performance over the past decade. Without it, many families may be forced back into the welfare caseload.

   Child support enforcement reduces reliance on Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other social service programs. Effective enforcement enables former welfare families, and working families with modest incomes, to receive this important source of supplemental income and gain the self-sufficiency to avoid having to draw on government resources through public assistance programs. In fact, over 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through the child support program in 2002.

   In 2004, collections nationwide totaled $21.9 billion, while total program costs were $5.3 billion. For every $1 spent in child support enforcement, $4.38 is collected for children who need it. Because of this rate of return, the President's budget continually rates the program as ``one of the highest rated block/formula grants of all reviewed programs government-wide. This high rating is due to its strong mission, effective management, and demonstration of measurable progress toward meeting annual and long term performance measures.''

   In particular, the Texas child support program has made significant strides over the past seven years in collections, performance, and efficiency, all of which will be seriously undermined without this vital legislation.

   I speak with authority on this matter. During my tenure as Attorney General of Texas, the Child Support Division made dramatic increases in collections from deadbeat parents, and the office continues to bring in record collections each year. Texas now ranks second in the Nation in total collections--with collections in Fiscal Year 2006 surpassing $2 billion--a figure that has doubled since Fiscal Year 2000.

   This outstanding performance has earned the program the second highest Federal performance incentive award for the past 3 years. Because the Texas program has achieved that level of performance, the prohibition on using incentive payments to draw down matching Federal funds for program expenditures will have a much greater impact on Texas than on the 48 other States ranked below it. The loss of the match on incentive payments effectively punishes Texas's success. Unless we pass this legislation, the Child Support Division in the Office of the Texas Attorney General will face a dramatic reduction in federal financial participation and may be forced to close many offices throughout the State.

   I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the following letter from the National Child Support Enforcement Association supporting this legislation.

   I look forward to this bill's consideration in the future.


  Mr. KOHL:. In Congress, we rarely have the opportunity to consider a simple, straightforward issue. It is uncommon when we can debate an issue with significant bipartisan support; one that the Senate has a strong record on. And it seems exceptional when we are able to show our support for a Federal program that really works.

   But the legislation my colleagues and I are introducing today gives us that rare opportunity. Our legislation restores cuts to the child support enforcement program. The program helps States collect support that is owed to hardworking, single parent families. It is one of the most effective Federal programs, collecting more than $4 in child support for every dollar spent. And the Senate already has a strong record in support of the child support enforcement program, with 76 Senators voting for a resolution that rejected cuts to the program.

   Which is why I was so disappointed when conferees included in the Deficit Reduction Act a provision to prevent, States from receiving Federal matching funds on incentive payments. While the scope of this provision may have seemed narrow to the conferees, the impact has been felt throughout the country. And my State of Wisconsin has felt it more than most--as a high-performing State, Wisconsin stands to lose more Federal funding than a State with a poorer enforcement record. Congress should not send the message to States that they will be penalized for success--but that's exactly what the child support funding cuts did.

   I fought against the Deficit Reduction Act, because I knew these cuts would hurt Wisconsin families. The impact has been clear. The cuts are so damaging--and the program so important--that one Wisconsin community has decided to hold a raffle, to raise funds for their child support enforcement program. I have heard from child support directors who will be forced by budget cuts to fire staff. And I have heard from scared constituents who are owed child support that they worry they will never see.

   That is why I am proud to join Senators ROCKEFELLER, CORNYN, SNOWE and COLEMAN in introducing this legislation. By repealing the DRA cuts, we help our States, our counties--and most importantly--we help those constituents relying on child support payments.

   I urge my colleagues to take this rare opportunity--to do what's simple, to support the Senate's record, and to vote in favor of a program with proven success at helping our nation's children.

   I thank my colleagues.

[font size=“+3”]"Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" on a special edition of
20/20 Friday, May 4, at 10 p.m.  EDT



You shouldn't swear at an 11-year-old, no matter what, but stories I've done on divorce help me understand why a parent could react with that kind of frustration.  [font size=“+5”]Fathers often get a bad deal in the courts, often exacerbated by credulous reporting of bad studies by liberal reporters.[/font]

MYTH: Divorce hurts women much more than men, and many men abandon their kids.

TRUTH: Both men and women suffer after divorce, and lots of men want to give more to their kids.

The media (including the men, for psychological reasons involving guilt or other factors best left to Dr.  Phil), see men as inviting, politically correct targets.  When experts start trumpeting statistics that add up to "men are bad," reporters listen.

For years, I heard bad things about deadbeat dads.  They were living it up, while their ex-wives and children had to scrape by.  It's a recurring story, and the media regurgitates it regularly.  It's also group slander.

[font size=“+5”]In 1985, Lenore Weitzman, then a sociologist at Harvard, published data showing that men prosper after divorce, while women and children suffer terribly.[/font] Weitzman's report was appalling: Men's standard of living rose 42 percent after divorce, while women's declined by 73 percent.  The media couldn't get enough of this exciting news.  Those figures were cited not only in news stories, but in 348 social science articles, 250 law review articles, and 24 appeals court cases.

Around that time, government officials also reported that Census data showed that about half of the divorced fathers in America didn't pay child support they owed.

The evening newscasts and the papers featured both claims uncritically.

The stories fit comfortably into the media's "save the victim" rut.  But get the shovel: The stories didn't deserve the airtime or the headlines.  A little reportorial digging would have burst the sanctimonious bubble.

Digging was finally done, but not by the media.  Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver set out initially to examine the reasons for the shocking data.  Why were those divorced fathers acting so irresponsibly? How could a dad abandon his child?

[font size=“+5”]Braver was surprised to discover that the Lenore Weitzman figures were wrong, the result of a mathematical error.  Lenore Weitzman later admitted she was wrong.  She said a computer analyst had made a mistake -- a mistake, in this case, heard around the world.[/font]

Braver conducted his own study of four hundred divorces, the biggest federally funded study ever done on divorced dads.  His findings turned conventional wisdom, and all those media stories, on their heads.  

The 42 percent better for men, 73 percent worse for women data wasn't even close.  

"Our results," he said, "show that men and women come out almost exactly equally."

Braver then found that the Census data about deadbeat dads was way off too.  

[font size=“+5”]The data came from questions asked of the custodial parent only.   The custodial parent was almost always the mother.  [/font]

[font size=“+5”]"Everything we knew about non-custodial fathers" in the Census report, Braver told me, "we knew from custodial mothers." [/font]

[font size=“+5”]Did some of the angry ex-wives lie?   Probably, but we don't know, because the Census workers didn't bother to ask the fathers!!!![/font]

After my conversation with Braver, I went to Washington to meet with Dan Weinberg, the man who headed up that data collection for the Census Bureau.  As often happens to me in Washington, I felt I was in another world:

STOSSEL: So the Census worker says, how much in child support payments were you supposed to receive this year? And the woman remembers…


STOSSEL:  I just have a hard time believing that these people, many of whom are angry, are going to give honest answers.

DAN WEINBERG: Actually -- well, the anger may help them remember what they're supposed to receive.

STOSSEL:  Why not go to the man and ask, is it true?

DAN WEINBERG: We would be violating the confidentiality of the custodial mother.

STOSSEL:  Is there any cross-check?

DAN WEINBERG: No.  We don't check any of it.

STOSSEL:  But wouldn't they lie just because they're mad at the man?

DAN WEINBERG: People are basically honest.

The spirit of George Washington's cherry tree lives on along the Potomac.  I too cannot tell a lie: [font size=“+5”]The media both distort and oversimplify the issues of custody and child support.  That reinforces the myth that many divorced dads never bother to see their children -- the "runaway dads" so beloved by headline writers.[/font]

Some men are every bit as despicable as the media portray them, but [font size=“+5”]Braver's study showed that the majority of divorced dads do try to see their kids.  In many cases, "fathers were impeded in their efforts," Braver told me.  "The mother just simply said, 'No, you can't see your kid.' "[/font]

We videotaped one such heartbreaking scene.  

A divorced father went to see his five kids for what he thought would be a full-day visit.  He was entitled to that, under a court order, and the court also ordered the mother not to discourage the children from spending time with their father.   But she clearly had poisoned his children's minds against him.  The father stood just outside his ex-wife's house and begged his children, "Would you like to go out with me today?" "No," said one kid after another.  Then the mother ordered the kids back into her house.

What comes through on the tape is the unbridled satisfaction of the mother and the helplessness of the father.  

But that's not the picture you get from the media.  

 [font size=“+5”]The media automatically cast divorced parents in the roles of villainous father and heroic mother.  Many mothers are heroic, but so are many fathers.  But a divorced mother as the villain? Heaven forbid! That would stand the world of media victimology on its head.[/font]

Portions of this story taken from John Stossel's book, "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," coming out in paperback May 1.

Father's Issues / Parent's on Pizza Boxes
« on: Apr 19, 2007, 09:06:55 AM »
Parent's on Pizza  Boxes

by Minnesota Attorney Maury D.  Beaulier


 In Butler County Ohio, Cynthia Brown, the head of county child support enforcement office decided that it was a good idea to put, what she calls, "deadbeat parent's" on pizza boxes.

 Maury D.  Beaulier has spoken out against this practice as a method that is harmful to the children and a method that also highlights the disparity in our legal system that treats parents as wallets and pocket books rather than parents.


 Maury D.  Beaulier wrote:

Many people have asked me what is so wrong with seeking child support payments by including parent's pictures on pizza boxes.  My answer is multifaceted but is focused primarily on three issues.

1)   First and foremost, the practice harms children.

2)   Second, treating child support paying parents and, particularly, father's like criminals by creating a most wanted list ignores many of the reasons that child support arrears accrue in the first place.

3)   Finally, the practice clearly highlights the disparity between enforcement of child support and enforcement of parenting rights.


Reasons Child Support Arrears Accrue.

There is no doubt that there are a minority number of child support obligors who simply refuse to pay child support.  However, such parents are the exception and not the rule.  Yet, our state collection efforts, whether Minnesota or Ohio, paint them all with the same broad brush.

It is compelling that a great majority of people who fall behind in their support do so unintentionally or for understandable reasons.  These may include:

     * Parents seeking to rationalize why they are unable to enforce their parenting rights but must still pay child support;

    * Parents who fall victim to life circumstances which may include job loss, injury or other family tragedies;

    * Parents who fall victim to mental illness or to feelings of hopelessness and despair rendering them unable to act to resolve their child support issues.

Further complicating these issues is the fact that our legal system has grown complicated and confusing, often placing it outside of the understanding of ordinary people.  Parents who are behind in child support often to not have the resources to hire legal counsel.  As a result, they must attempt to navigate the murky bureaucratic waters related to finding appropriate legal forms, filing them correctly and serving the other party.

Even if the administrative procedures are followed correctly, pro se litigants often fail to support their motions with adequate information or evidence since they have not been trained to understand legal burdens of proof or what evidence the court may demand in a particular case.  In such cases, motions may be denied, income imputed while financial problems mount and arrears continue to accrue.

Support for the contention that the most significant negative impact of our child support laws falls on the lower income is highlighted in Butler County Ohio.

First, it is a concern that, as of this writing, out of 20 deadbeat parents pictured on pizza boxes, 18 were fathers.  Further emphasizing the problem is the fact that each of those fathers possessed few employable skills and were qualified only for the lowest paying unskilled positions.  Those financial circumstances would make any child support obligation difficult and it would clearly place the parent precariously on the brink of insolvency should even a minor event impair their earning capacity.

What is also compelling is the non-modifiable nature of child support arrears.  Despite the fact that unforeseen circumstances can occur and despite the fact that the legal system is difficult to navigate without counsel, child support arrears cannot be retroactively modified except under very special circumstances.

As a direct result, the ends of collecting child support against such parents does not justify the means which includes attempting to shame the parent with their face on a pizza box.


Punishing the Child

 One thing that Cynthia Brown seems to ignore is that by putting parents on pizza boxes, in the end, it is the child that is punished.  Ms.  Brown contends that any parent who is placed on a pizza box already has destroyed their relationship with a child.

 My response is that, first, such a contention is irresponsible and unfounded.  A failure to pay child support does not mean a parent does not seek a relationship with the children whether it has been denied or not by the custodial parent.

 However, assuming, arguendo, that Ms.  Brown's point is valid, the child is still victimized.  The practice of putting a parent's face on a pizza box serves to harm the child in the following ways:

    * Alienate a child from the parent;

    * Punish the child by exposing that child to shame among their peers;

    * Destroy the child's sense of self identity because, regardless of how close their relationship is with a parent, that child, draws part of their sense of self identity from that parent.  It conveys the message that if my parent is bad and a criminal, I am bad.

    * Expose private family matters to public scrutiny which further impairs the ability of a parent to find gainful employment and to pay support.


Potential for Error.

 Even with the best laid plans, making a mistake is possible and the consequence of an error is extreme.  For those who have dealt before with the state and county child support systems, it may even be accepted without argument that the possibility of a mistake is probable.  Child Support Enforcement Agencies are presented with a great volume of information that must be processed monthly, often with uninitiated workers due, in part, to a high turnover rates in child support departments.  As a result, mistakes happen.  They happen regularly and they happen often.

 Mistakes may range from failing to credit a child support payment to applying a payment to ongoing support rather than arrears to improperly reflecting child support obligations.

 Despite overwhelming evidence that mistakes occur regularly, Ms.  Cynthia Brown has claimed on numerous programs that "we do not make mistakes." This arrogance underscores the potential for error and, in the case of placing photographs of parents on pizza boxes, it may brand a parent long term.

 What is even more alarming is the fact that in Ohio, Ms.  Brown acknowledges that two "Wanted" posters are circulated each year on pizza boxes.  Those posters are not recalled.  As a result, even after a parent brings their account current, the deadbeat parenting poster remains in circulation wrongfully picturing a parent as a "deadbeat" that is actually current in their obligation.


Parents as Wallets

 One thing that cannot be ignored is the fact that our legal system and its administrative machinations treat enforcement of child support in a much different way than it treats enforcement of parenting rights.

 Parents who fall behind in child support regardless of circumstance are exposed to numerous perils as part of the collection process.  Parents may be jailed based on both state and federal criminal charges.  Parents may be jailed based on civil contempt.  Parents may have licenses suspended including automobile licenses, work licenses and sporting licenses.  Parents may have their passports invalidated.  they may even appear on most wanted posters and, now, pizza boxes as "deadbeats."

 Yet, there is no similar treatment for parents who ignore court orders and obstruct parenting time.  Civil contempt remedies are rarely supported by the courts.  Jail time for contempt related to parenting schedules is almost unheard of.  Certainly, there are no remedies related to license suspension or passport invalidation.

 What type of message does this send?   In essence we put the emphasis on parents as wallets rather than as parent's who provide care.


For a consultation call (952) 746-2153

Father's Issues / Vote to "Greenlight" - "Illegal and Immoral"
« on: Jan 18, 2007, 07:45:13 AM »
And The Truth Continues...

There is an opportunity for the Truth To Be Told To Mllions.

[FONT SIZE=+2]Krights' recent report "Illegal and Immoral"  has been chosen for a public vote by Current-TV  to appear on their Television Network. [/FONT]

Krights is asking for your Vote to "Greenlight",  this submission.

We need your vote!

*You must register to vote but it is a very simple and painless process.

We are stunned, and ask you to help Push The Truth Through. Krights is simply the messenger, you are the suffered!

Use this link to view and vote.

Current TV - View To Vote Link!!!
 [A HREF=http://www.krightsradio.com/07vid0008.php]

From Krights Thank You - Where The Truth Continues...

Father's Issues / WATCH D.O.G.S. (Dads Of Great Students)
« on: Oct 09, 2006, 01:57:08 PM »
This might be something of interest that you would like to start or get involved with in your local school.


WATCH D.O.G.S. is a national innovative program focusing on the prevention of violence in our children’s schools by using the positive influence of fathers and father-figures for a two-fold purpose:
(1) to provide an unobtrusive presence in schools, and
(2) to be a positive and active role-model for children at their school.

WATCH D.O.G.S. Across America® strives to:

•**Raise the banner of positive fathering through the forum of schools across America and the world.

•** Awaken fathers to the values and benefits of committed fathering.

• ** Change culture by where every child has a father or father-figure to connect with in a positive way at school.

•** Help every school in America be positively impacted by the committed involvement of fathers and father-figures in their children's life.

Father's Issues / series called "What About The Kids?"
« on: Sep 14, 2006, 09:00:28 AM »
[FONT SIZE=+2]Making Shared Custody Work[/FONT]

[A HREF=http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2003321n]
There is a short commercial then the series.

In a series called "What About The Kids?" Tracy Smith looks at no-fault divorce laws. She visits with a divorced couple who have shared custody of their three kids. Is it too much for the kids?


Basically what Tracy Smith is saying in her series called "What About The Kids?" in the segment “Making Shared Custody Work” concerning 50/50 custody is if Mom creates conflict she gets the kids. (sorry, I’m generalizing)

Very disappointing. Tracy Smith obviously is uneducated about the BIG picture of divorce and what is taking place.

They gave Glenn Slacks 3 seconds air time. I’m sure his interview was much, much longer. I wonder why she cut so much out?

Tracy Smith thinks 50/50 will work if:

1) Parents Live close by
2) Parents get along
3) Parents are Flexible and work together
4) Parents Both nice houses
5) Something about a nanny.

Tracy Smith said:
“Kids do better in an unhappy marriage (than divorce) as long as there’s no abuse or fighting.”

Father's Issues / Ohio - EQUAL PARENTING Rally
« on: May 15, 2006, 01:45:21 PM »
We are a group COMMITTED to fairness in the child custody process, since before the new millennium.

Children NEED BOTH Parents!!!!

Our goal is to ensure that children of divorce continue to have meaningful relationships with BOTH parents, regardless of marital status. We advocate on behalf all non-custodial parents to ensure they get equitable treatment in court and continued access to their children. In addition, we work to promote gender equality in Divorce and Custody issues.

We recognizes the value of fatherhood and supports the concept of true Joint Custody/Equal Custody, where parents work together for the best interests of their children.

We are devoted to ensuring the right of every child to the loving care of both parents regardless of the marital status of the parents.

[FONT SIZE=+10]Ohio Equal Parenting Rally![/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=+2]When: June 17th Starting at 11:00AM[/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=+2]Where: Columbus Ohio on the State House steps![/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=+2]Why: Because kids need BOTH parents![/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Family friendly event to fight for equal parenting rights in Ohio.

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Giant mobile billboard from Fathers-4-Justice as they announce their national launch!

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Motorcycle Rally.

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Superhero mothers and fathers.

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Guest speakers from around the USA.

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Knights radio will be broadcasting from there!

[FONT SIZE=+2]*[/FONT] Plenty of music, chanting and etc.

For more information, got to�

Or call:
(614) 309-5572

John Fowler
US Coordinator/Board Member
Columbus, Ohio

PO BOX 14954
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414-0954

Membership to Fathers-4-Justice-US is tax-deductible.


Fathers-4-Justice-US is a Federally recognized 501(c)(3) charitable organization.
Families-4-Justice-US will soon be a Federally recognized 501(c)(4) charitable organization.


Fathers-4-Justice and Families-4-Justice-US are 100% volunteer driven.

Watch a 6 minute F4J video:

[IMG SRC="http://www.equalparent.info/ohio001001.gif" BORDER=o]

[IMG SRC="http://www.equalparent.info/f4j_billboard_truck.pdf.jpg"   BORDER=o]

From: John Fowler [mailto:john.fowler@fathers-4-justice.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: The Gauntlet has been thrown and F4J has now arrived in Ohio


Yesterday I(John Fowler) was able to testify in front of the Ohio Juvenile and Family Law Committee on behalf of Fathers-4-Justice in favor of HB_479.

HB_479 allows a parent who is called to active military duty to file a motion with the court to temporarily modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities.
Bill Summary:
- Allows a parent who is called to active military duty to petition the court to temporarily modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities to grant reasonable companionship or visitation to a designated relative.
- Requires the court to give the temporary modification case calendar priority and handle the case expeditiously.
- Limits the duration of the temporary modification to the tenure of the parent's active military duty.


This was, to say the least, an interesting experience that I would like to share with you all as I would hope that most of you would have a similar opportunity in the future. First of all, we were aware that HB_479 will probably have no trouble passing as is. I saw this as an opportunity not only to practice testifying, but more importantly to give the Juvenile and Family Law Committee a rather interesting introduction to Fathers-4-Justice and send a message that we are here, we are watching and that from this day forward it will not be "business as usual" regarding Family Law legislation in Ohio.


[FONT SIZE=�+10�] Let me set the stage. [/FONT]

There were seven Juvenile and Family Law Committee members in attendance. There were about 10 people beside the committee members in attendance including myself supported by fellow F4J member Robert Mendris (Thank you Robert!).

Both of us were wearing our black long sleeve F4J shirts which contrasted very well with the suites and ties of the other attendees. I do not believe they we expecting any testimony and I was the only one who testified. I have pasted a copy of my testimony below. Notice I used the opportunity to raise a few other "issues".

The testimony took about 8 minutes. After I was finished I was asked two questions.


[FONT SIZE=�+3�] Representative Willamowski, whom we know to be a supporter of Equal Parenting, asked if we had any suggestions on how speed up the process to petition for the temporary change in custody because military personnel are often called to duty very quickly. [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�]I responded that I agreed that could be a problem and that would ask our members for suggestions and get back with him. Any ideas would be appreciated. I learned later that there is already a modification in the works that would require the court to give the motion priority and hear the motion within 10 days. I think Willamoski knew this but was looking for our ideas and opinions. [/FONT]


[FONT SIZE=�+3�]The second question was asked by Rep. Jennifer Garrison of Marietta. A Democratic domestic attorney. Obviously not one of our bigger fans. The one change that I recommended was that if a plan for reasonable companionship or visitation is rejected, that the court be required to state the specific reasons for the rejection. [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�] Rep. Garrison reminded me that Judges are not currently required to do this in custody cases so why should they be required to do this in this situation. I responded by saying that I am aware of the lack of that requirement in the ORC however we as an organization to not agree with current law and that does not prevent this committee from making a positive change in HB_479 and that I would still recommend that change be made since parents deserved to know why their plan was rejected. Somehow I believe my answer did not convince her. [/FONT]

 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½.  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[FONT SIZE=�+3�]After the hearing I was approached by Rep. Jennifer Garrison who interrupted a conversation I was having to state that she has been a Domestic Attorney for 20 years (hoping I would be impressed and intimidated) in a rural area of Ohio (Marietta) and that the courts there were extremely fair to both Fathers and Mothers. [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�]Not knowing much about judges in Washington County I told her that may very well be and I hoped that was the case but I did not believe that was the case everywhere in Ohio. I told here that we believed that a Father and Mother should always enter a court as equals in custody disputes. She said that she believed that they currently do. I responded by telling her I respectfully disagreed as she turned around and walked away without so much as a goodbye.[/FONT]


[FONT SIZE=�+10�] Now it gets really good! [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�] As we were getting ready to leave we approach by another gentleman who when asked we found was the Aid to high ranking Republican representative was the main sponsor to HB479.  He had overheard our conversation with Rep. Jennifer Garrison and gave us some background as to why HB479 was introduced. Apparently a military father being deployed to Iraq in Medina County had asked for temporary custody for his children while he was deployed. [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�] The reason was that his Ex had made it clear that while he was gone that she would not allow the children to see their paternal grandparents or anyone from is side of the family. The judge was also aware of her position.  The temporary custody was denied. [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�] I asked if the Judge Paulett Lilly. He looked surprised and asked how I knew. [/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�] I told him we were aware of her and will probably be looking to make sure she was not re-elected. I think he was shocked and impressed that we were so well informed and were looking to take action. Judge Lilly was on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Task Force and opposed every positive and fair change suggested by PACE'S Don Hubin prompting him to formally resign form the task force in protest.[/FONT]

[FONT SIZE=�+3�] This contact may turn out to be a very good friend as we begin to move forward and advocate for major changes.[/FONT]


[FONT SIZE=�+10�]All this in only one hour. Just imagine the impact that our Rally JUNE 17 on the Columbus State House steps For Equal Parenting will have. [/FONT]




The following is my testimony given to the Juvenile and Family Law Committee regarding HB_479



Members of the Juvenile and Family Law Committee,

My name is John Fowler, I am the Ohio and US Coordinator Fathers-4-Justice and member of the board of directors. Fathers-4Justice is a not for profit organization advocating for major reform in family law.  

Thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding HB 479, the bill allowing a parent who is called to active military duty to file a motion with the court to temporarily modify a prior decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities.  

I will try to be brief and to the point.  

Fathers-4 Justice fully supports HB 479 and urges the members of the Juvenile and Family Law Committee to send this bill to the legislature for a vote without significant delay.

While I have never had the privilege of serving in the military, I am a non-custodial parent of 3 children and have been divorced almost 17 years. As with many non-custodial parents I was �granted� very little time with my children as is the case with many of our military parents (mostly fathers and some mothers) Because another parent saw little value in our children spending time with their father it was a struggle to enforce what little time I was granted.

An unfortunate bi-product of this struggle was that my children were denied the ability to have any significant relationship with their paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.  

As difficult as this was for me and my children, it is even be more difficult to maintain any type of relationship between children and their extended family for a military father or mother when deployed.

The winners of this legislation will be our children who will benefit from the wisdom and love of BOTH their maternal and paternal extended family who are also represent that connection to the parent deployed.

I also request that the committee consider one minor change to the bill. As noted in the copies of HB 479 that I have provided I am asking that, if a plan for reasonable companionship or visitation is rejected, that the court be required to state the specific reasons for the rejection. Without this specific requirement plans run the risk of  being rejected without justification just as courts in Ohio and other states currently reject shared parenting plans without written justification. If this bill is to have any positive impact, Judges must be made to justify why they have denied any plan submitted.  This is a very reasonable change and our military men and women deserve nothing less.

Through my discussions with parents and organizations around the country I have learned over the years that Ohio has gained the unfortunate national reputation for having a family law system that is anything but progressive. This system has been especially cruel to those serving our military. HB 479 would allow Ohio to take one very small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately HB 479 addresses on one issue our military personnel face relative to out domestic courts.

One common problem faced by our military across the country (mostly fathers) is that time away from children as a result of calls to active duty currently counts against military parents in custody determinations. In Michigan a bill sponsored by Rep. Rick Jones, Michigan HB 5100 signed into law by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm amended their Child Custody Act, prohibiting courts to use absence of a parent while serving in the Army National Guard or as a reservist as a negative strike against the parent in custody determinations. It also does not allow for a permanent change in custody arrangements while a military parent is away.  

There are numerous examples where military fathers have come home from serving their country overseas and are surprised to find an empty house, their children and spouse gone and a huge child support arrearage. This is an injustice that must also be corrected in future legislation.

Once again, Fathers-4-Justice fully supports HB 479 and strongly recommends it be sent to the legislature for a vote without delay with the minor change suggested.

On behalf of Fathers-4-Justice I would like to thank you for the time to express our views and opinions.

Thank you again.

John Fowler
US Coordinator/Board Member
Columbus, Ohio


John Fowler
US Coordinator/Board Member
Columbus, Ohio

PO BOX 14954
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414-0954



Membership to Fathers-4-Justice-US is tax-deductible.


Fathers-4-Justice-US is a federally recognized 501(c) (3) charitable organization.

Families-4-Justice-US will soon be federally recognized 501(c) (4) charitable organizations.


Fathers-4-Justice and Families-4-Justice-US are 100% volunteer driven.


Watch a 6 minute F4J video:


Father's Issues / U.S. Census Bureau News
« on: May 04, 2006, 07:51:18 AM »
Recently released data.


U.S. Census Bureau News
U.S. Department of Commerce * Washington, D.C. 200233

[em]FACTS for Features[/em]

CB06-FF.08April 28, 2006

Father’s Day: June 18

The idea of Father’s Day was conceived by Sonora Dodd of Spokane, Wash., while she listened to a Mother’s Day sermon in 1909. Dodd wanted a special day to honor her father, William Smart, a widowed Civil War veteran who was left to raise his six children on a farm. A day in June was chosen for the first Father’s Day celebration — June 19, 1910, proclaimed by Spokane’s mayor because it was the month of William Smart’s birth. The first presidential proclamation honoring fathers was issued in 1966 when President Lyndon Johnson designated the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day. Father’s Day has been celebrated annually since 1972 when President Richard Nixon signed the public law that made it permanent.

* 66.3 million
Estimated number of fathers across the nation today. (From unpublished data.)

*Remembering Dad Nearly 95 million
The estimated number of Father’s Day cards given last year in the United States, making Father’s Day the fourth-largest card-sending occasion. (Source: Hallmark research)

Percentage of all Father’s Day cards that are purchased specifically by sons and/or daughters. Nearly 20 percent of Father’s Day cards are purchased by wives for their husbands; the remaining cards are bought for grandfathers, sons, brothers, uncles and “someone special.” (Source: Hallmark research)

Percentage of Americans who plan to celebrate or acknowledge Father’s Day. (Source: Hallmark research and National Retail Federation.)

   *** Neckties lead the list of Father’s Day gifts. A good place to buy dad a tie or a shirt might be one of 9,189 men’s clothing stores around the country in 2003.  

   ***Other items high on the list of Father’s Day gifts include those items you may find in dad’s toolbox such as hammers, wrenches and screwdrivers. You could buy some of these items for dad at one of the nation’s 14,864 hardware stores or 5,795 home centers in 2003.    

Number of sporting goods stores in 2003. These stores are good places to purchase traditional gifts for dad such as fishing rods and golf clubs.

  *** More than 68 million Americans participated at a barbecue in the last year — it’s probably safe to assume many of these barbecues took place on Father’s Day.  , 2006 edition, Table 1230.

* Mr. Mom

Estimated number of “stay-at-home” dads. These married fathers with children under 15 years old have remained out of the labor force for more than one year primarily so they can care for the family while their wives work outside the home. These fathers cared for 268,000 children under 15.  

* 20%
Percentage of fathers with employed wives who were the primary caregiver for their preschooler.In contrast, 6 percent of fathers provided the most hours of care for their grade-school-aged child.  

Percentage of fathers who regularly worked evening or night shifts and were the primary source of care for their preschoolers during their children’s mother’s working hours. For fathers working part-time, the proportion was 38 percent. For fathers who were not employed, it was 52 percent.  

* How Many Fathers?

* 26.4 million
Number of fathers who are part of married-couple families with their own children under the age of 18.

Among these —

  *** 22 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old (among married-couple family households only). !

  *** 2 percent live in the home of a relative or a nonrelative.

 *2.3 million
Number of single fathers, up from 400,000 in 1970. Currently, among single parents living with their children, 18 percent are men.

Among these fathers —
   *****    11 percent are raising three or more of their own children under 18 years old.
   *****   42 percent are divorced, 39 percent have never married, 15 percent are separated and 4 percent are widowed. (The percentages of those divorced and never married are not significantly different from one another.)
   *****   16 percent live in the home of a relative or a nonrelative.
   *****   22 percent have an annual family income of $50,000 or more.

*Child-Support Payments

* 4.6 million
Number of fathers who provide child support. All in all, 84 percent of child-support providers are men, who provide median payments of $3,600 annually.

Following is a list of observances typically covered by the Census Bureau’s Facts for Features series:

African-American History Month (February) Labor Day (Sept. 4)Valentine’s Day (Feb. 14) Grandparents Day (Sept. 10)Women’s History Month (March) Hispanic Heritage Month (Sept. 15-Oct. 15)Irish-American Heritage Month (March)/ Halloween (Oct. 31)

St. Patrick’s Day (March 17) American Indian/Alaska Native Heritage Month Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month (May) (November) Older Americans Month (May) Veterans Day (Nov. 11) Mother’s Day (May 14) Thanksgiving Day (Nov. 23) Father’s Day (June 18) The Holiday Season (December) The Fourth of July (July 4) Anniversary of Americans with Disabilities Act (July 26) Back to School (August)

Editor’s note: The preceding data were collected from a variety of sources and may be subject to sampling variability and other sources of error. Questions or comments should be directed to the Census Bureau’s Public Information Office: telephone: (301) 763-3030; fax: (301) 457-3670; or e-mail: .

Pages: 1 23 4 ... 6
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.