Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Topics - POC

#1
Make sure you write your legislators and encourage them to support the changes in criteria for support and custody for the Future of Florida Families Committee.
#2
Ch. 61.30 of FL's statutes defines a substantive amount of time with the NRP as being 146 overnights or more out of the year. Ask them:

1) Do they believe that FL law should assure that two fit parents be allowed share a substantive/meaningful amount of time with their children, as substantive time is defined by FL statute?

2) Will they support legislation that changes the child support guidelines so that they seamlessly apportion an equitable amount of money between the parents for their children's needs across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society?
#3
Child Support Issues / FL Child Support Bill
Mar 29, 2006, 06:36:49 AM
Here is the link to action taken by the Future of Florida's Families Committee yesterday -

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/ ... _28_06.pdf It takes a while to load, so be patient.

There was a lot that went on, but the child support bill starts on page 154 of the document. It passed the committee with amendments 7-0. The Speaker will move it on to other committees. The shared parenting formula starts on line 799. Again, there were amendments, but I don't have that wording to provide to you yet. The amendments were to be favorable. Although not quite there yet, Florida is close to getting it right. I look forward to the opportunity to address other committees as the bill makes its way through the legislature.

POC

#4
From:
http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/

New York's Shared Parenting Bill has reached a critical point and we want to help give the bill a strong push forward.

New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood. Family law has been in the spotlight there, as the New York Matrimonial Commission has held hearings on family law across the state. The Commission recently recommended no-fault divorce for New York.

A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill, is sponsored by the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, the New York affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

What the Bill Would Do

Today joint custody is rare in New York and sole custody for mothers is the norm. A330 would "require the court to award custody to both parents in the absence of allegations that shared parenting would be detrimental to the child." It would place the burden of proof that shared parenting would be detrimental where it should be--on the parent requesting sole custody.

The bill also establishes an order of preference for custody, the top preference being joint custody. If the court decides against joint custody, it must state its reasons.

How to Take Action

The bill is slated to be heard by the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee within a few weeks. Nearly three dozen New York State Assemblypersons have signed on to the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, giving the bill momentum. This momentum will be lost if the bill dies in committee. That's why I want all of you to write to the committee members with your support for this bill.

According to FAFNY, letters and calls from anywhere in the country help because they give the bill attention and show the broad national support for shared parenting.

Like California, New York is a battleground state for family law because what happens there has a great impact on the family law of other states. A victory on A330 would reverberate across the country, aiding in ways large or small every child of divorce.

Hearing from so many of you over the past several years, it would be hard to put into words the amount of pain and misery caused by our current family law system and its sole custody, win/lose orientation. Now is your chance to help change the system.

Go to the following web page to find further instructions and links to communicate with the committee members:

http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/

#5
Dear Legislators:

Children's needs should supersede any designation which is assigned to a parent. As such, children need to be provided for 365 days per year, nothing less. By only providing for the needs of children on days that they are at custodial parent homes, New Hampshire's child support guidelines have left kids in the lurch on days that they are to be with their non-custodial parent. These child support monies should be apportioned to meet the needs of the child. Inexplicably, the current apportionment of New Hampshire's child support does not provide even a dime for needs as basic as food, shelter, clothing, and transportation when they are with their non-custodial parent. How the Legislature could have overlooked such basic needs of children is nothing short of a tragedy.

Including custodial parent income in the calculation of child support, in addition to non-custodial parent income, which has always been considered, will put hundreds of millions, if not billions of additional dollars on the table, which had not previously been considered for the benefit of New Hampshire's children. If it was already assumed, the custodial parent was spending that money for the benefit of their child, then they should have no problem with a calculation that proves such responsibility.

Not only is HB 1580 fair and just, it will provide for the needs of children where the state of New Hampshire's child support currently leaves them to do without. That depravation of children must not continue. I urge New Hampshire's senators to join their colleagues in the House and pass this legislation that will better provide for children.

Sincerely,

POC


If you want to send the same or a similar letter, here are the email addresses to send to:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


Here is a link to the bill - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legisla ... b1580.html

#6
Saturday, January 14, 2006

Child-support payments criteria called outdated
State-sponsored panel urges revision of law

By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A committee gathered by the Department of Social and Health Services has concluded that the criteria judges use to determine child support payments are outdated and need to be revised by the Legislature.

The 31-page report on child support guidelines was issued earlier this month by a panel of 22 community members from social services and law enforcement.

The document includes several recommendations regarding the standards used to determine child support payments.

But the most important recommendation in the panel's report, according to a DSHS spokesman, was that the Legislature change the law to make sure that the child support schedule be reviewed at least every four years.

Child support payments are determined by tabulating each parent's income; the number, ages and health of the children in question; and sometimes also by the relevant visitation arrangements.

A judge decrees the final monthly payment.

The standards used to determine child support payments need to be updated "to make sure the basic needs of the children are met," said David Stillman, director of the DSHS Division of Child Support.

The panel also recommended that the child support schedule be revised to make sure that judges consider children from earlier marriages when determining what parents owe in child support.

The Legislature can choose to adopt or reject each of the report's recommendations, said DSHS spokesman Adolfo Capestany.

Gov. Christine Gregoire asked the DSHS Division of Child Support in March to assemble the panel.

P-I reporter Sam Skolnik can be reached at 206-448-8334 or [email protected].


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/255724_childsupport14.html
#7
Florida House of Representatives
Proposed 2005-2006 Interim Project


PROJECT TITLE

Review of Florida's Child Support Guidelines

STAFF WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLETION

Carol Preston, Chief Legislative Analyst

PROBLEM STATEMENT

States are required by federal law to review their child support guidelines at least once every four years in order to ensure that their application results in child support award amounts that are fair and appropriate.  As a part of that review process, states must analyze case data related to the application of and deviations from, the guidelines. States must also consider economic data related to the cost of raising children. Staff of the Florida House of Representatives has traditionally taken the lead in completing the reviews to meet the federal mandate.  The 1993 and 1997 reviews were conducted by staff with the Committee on Judiciary, the 2001 review was done by staff with the Committee on Family Law and Children, and, if approved, this review will be overseen by staff with the Future of Florida's Families Committee.  In spite of timely guideline reviews, the Florida Legislature has not adjusted the guideline schedules since 1993.  Since the underlying data for the current schedule enacted in 1993 is the 1972-1973 Consumer Expenditure Survey, the schedule is considerably out of date.

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The proposed interim project will meet the federal review mandate. In preparation for the project, the Florida Legislature entered into a $175,000 contract in March 2003 with the FSU Department of Economics to update the existing schedule amounts and examine related issues, including visitation arrangements, problems arising when there are prior and subsequent children, and problems experienced by low income families.  

The interim project should include the following components:

•   One or more "roundtable" type workshops with all stakeholders (e.g., Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Department of Revenue, Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives, Florida Legal Services, and custodial and noncustodial parents);
•   Consultation with researchers at FSU;
•   Review of child support guidelines literature;
•   Review of child support guidelines models;
•   Review of guidelines currently in use in all other states as well as guideline review reports recently issued by other states;
•   Case law review; and
•   Public input.





EXPECTED FORMAT FOR OUTCOME

The review will result in a formal written report and proposed legislation for the 2006 legislative session.

ANTICIPATED TIMEFRAMES

A progress report will be presented to Chair Galvano and the members of the Future of Florida's Families Committee in September 2005.  The formal report will be completed by December 31, 2005 and proposed legislation (with the request for introduction of a Proposed Committee Bill) will be submitted for approval to the Speaker's Office by February 1, 2006.
#8
Child Support Guideline Changes in Minnesota and Australia

June 17, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Roger F. Gay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Australian government recently announced a new proposal for their child support guidelines. The design, presented by Patrick Parkinson, has been dubbed the Parkinson formula. But the basics of the formula are not new. They are in fact quite similar to guidelines fathers' rights advocates in the states have been complaining about since their introduction in late 1989.

Australia, like several states in the U.S., has been using a percent formula in which basic child support is assessed simply as a percent of a payer's income adjusted for the number of children being supported. Several states, including Minnesota have considered switching to the more popular variation based on what is known as the Income Shares model.

The Income Shares approach was proposed by child support collection entrepreneur Robert Williams (Policy Studies, Inc.) at the request of the federal collection agency in the U.S. (Office of Child Support Enforcement within the Department of Health and Human Services). Government enforcement agencies receive bonuses from federal funds based on the amount of child support paid through their system. Pseudo private collection agencies, such as Williams', retain a percent of the amount paid as commission for their services. Both groups favor formulae that arbitrarily increase support orders because of the increased income their agencies receive as a result.

Introducing the proposed change, John Hirst of The Australian reports that "It is hard to estimate the proportions of winners and losers in this scheme." Not really. Professors Sanford Braver at Arizona State University and David Stockburger at Southwest Missouri State University have already done a great deal of work on analyzing the differences between the two models. When looking at "new" proposals, the public should have greater awareness that child support issues are far from new.

The effort to replace judicial child support decisions with child support formulae began two decades ago. The use of presumptively correct child support formula began in the U.S. and Australia in 1989. Prior to that, state courts, local bar, and other professional associations worked on child support guidelines. More than one effort and some scientific analysis appeared in publications.

Aside from that, state courts in the U.S. had more than two centuries and Australia more than one to perfect child support decision theory. Even those efforts had a starting point in British common law that had evolved over hundreds of previous years. The effort to codify issues related to divorce presented in a commonly familiar written record goes back literally to the time of Moses, and there is archeological evidence that divorce issues and their settlements predate even that in a variety of cultures.

Despite the fact that the problem of making appropriate child support decisions has such a long history, it is widely agreed that child support formulae in use today do not do a proper job. In preparing new proposals for governments, serious work on developing a valid mathematical decision model is ignored.

Australians and Minnesotans are being told that the Income Shares model takes a step toward fairness compared to the percent formula. While there may be some slight truth to this view, for the most part the switch is from one formula that produces arbitrarily high results to one that produces a different set of arbitrarily high results. Neither model has been developed from the principles that emerged from hundreds of years of experience in adjudication of child support on several continents. Both were created to arbitrary increase the size of payments.

The recent history of child support reform in both the U.S. and Australia hinges on a single fundamental change. Child support (as well as other family issues) has been transformed as a matter of law from the private domain to the public. Decisions are now taken en masse and entirely open to political manipulation. The connection to principles of purpose and fairness were lost in the transition.

John Hirst puts the task of altering child support guidelines in the current context; "can the burden on fathers be lifted without harming children and outraging their mothers, supported by a strong feminist lobby?"

Not long ago, such a question would have been treated with contempt. Courts were, until recently, required to make independent and objective decisions. The suggestion that special interest groups may influence such decisions would have immediately been labeled for what it is: corruption. Any judge known to bow to such pressure may have been dismissed for bad behavior. When legislators bowed to such pressure, it would have been seen as a scandal at the very least.

Roger F. Gay

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2005/gay061705.htm
#9
Yesterday, Georgia, one of the last states with an obligor only set of child support guidelines, passed a new income shares set of guidelines. Although it was not the income shares model desired by many behind the reform, the changes made by this legislation are significant.

Not only does the new bill now include the incomes of both parents, it also gives some credit when children spend 100 days or more with their NCP. Conversely, the formula increases the child support award if the child is not able to spend at least 60 days per year with their NCP. There are still easily identifiable mathematical flaws about the formula, and extreme changes in support awards result from irrationally small differences in time spent between both homes. Even so, it is a significant step towards child support being based upon costs for children, better known as a costs shares child support guideline.

The Georgia Senate amended the original House Bill 35-9, and passed it back to the Georgia House, where it finally passed 104-41. The legisation now sits on Republican Sonny Perdue's desk for signature.

For more info see - http://www.gachildsupport.org/index.php?POSTNUKESID=a36875d9113bbe1af762ac961e711f09
#10
Dear Mr. POC,

Thank you for taking the time to drive up to Tallahassee. After a follow up meeting with Carol Preston, I have decided to take up legislation next Legislative Session regarding the guidelines centering around the 40% visitation threshold.

More importantly, Ms. Preston has informed me that there will be a work group on the issue over the summer, which I will be a part of.

I will keep you informed of our progress.

Sincerely,

Mike Davis
Representative, District 101
Serving Collier and Broward Counties

#11
Michigan attorney general dumps poster campaign

Cox bows to criticism from fathers group over his child support billboard contest

By Jim Lynch / The Detroit News

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox is pulling the plug on a controversial part of his PayKids child support program — a contest critics say places children between warring parents.

Three weeks ago, Cox's office announced a contest calling for children 17 and younger to create artwork for a Michigan billboard. Contestants were to create scenes "encouraging the payment of child support."

On Tuesday, however, Cox changed his mind about the contest. In an e-mail to The Detroit News, Cox said he had made a mistake and would stop the contest immediately.

"It was not an attempt to turn children against one parent or another," Cox wrote, "it was an attempt to use children's artistic abilities to positively address a social problem."

The announcement comes after fathers' rights groups blasted the program as insensitive.

Ron Brown, a Detroit resident and founder of the Fathers Helping Fathers Network, said the contest "is creating messages for the child, and those messages may be telling a child that one parent is not a good person."

Murray Davis, vice president of the National Family Justice Association, said he was "stunned" to hear of the contest when it was announced in September.

"In most divorce decrees," he said, "there is language stating that parents are not to disparage or denigrate each other to keep children isolated from emotional turmoil. This puts children in the middle of it."

A spokesman for the Attorney General's Office said the end of the contest would be announced today.

"We're disappointed that certain groups chose to cloud or distort the message we were trying to convey," said Randall Thompson, an office spokesman. "And that is that, while there are a lot of good parents out there, there are others with the means to pay child support but don't over many years. They're called felons."

You can reach Jim Lynch at (313) 222-2069 or [email protected].

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0410/13/c01-302103.htm
#12
Next time someone says that child support payments need to be more aggressively enforced, keep in mind what it is that is being enforced. Child support is not based upon the needs of children. No amount of the money is even required to be spent for children's needs. What it is based upon is expenditures for tobacco and alcohol. Somoeone please explain how those items benefit children!

The following excerpts are taken from the website of former Atlanta Federal Reserve Economist, Mark Rogers (//www.guidelineeconomics.com):

Current Income Shares Definition of Child Costs:

In the mid-1990s, Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI) asked David Betson of the University of Notre Dame to revise the Income Shares methodology. He also used an income equivalence approach, borrowing a technique from Erwin Rothbarth. The Rothbarth methodology compares changes in levels of household spending on purely adult goods to determine child costs. The idea is that looking at pure adult goods reduces the problem of shifts between adult and shared goods after having a child or an additional child. For measuring child costs, Betson specifically uses a particular bundle of adult goods to measure a household's level of well being-this bundle being adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco. In other words, he simply replaced the food-only indirect measure with spending in three adult-only areas. Because the cost tables are based on a Betson version of Rothbarth's earlier research, they are sometimes referred to as Betson-Rothbarth tables.

For intact families — ones with an additional child and ones with no additional child — the difference in expenditures between the two families is the child cost when both families consume equal dollar levels of adult clothing, alcohol and tobacco. Child costs are defined by comparing changes in consumption of adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco.

This definition is dependent on the assumption that having children does not change adult preferences for alcohol, tobacco, and adult clothing. However, common sense tells us that after having children, there is social pressure to reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption. This leads to overestimating child costs, similar to the problem with the Espenshade-Engel definition


Underlying Assumptions of Income Shares Child Support Guidelines:

The household is intact.

The custodial parent cares for the children 100 percent of the time and the non-custodial parent has no parenting time or costs.

There is additional income when a child is added to the family: additional income to bring the standard of living back to its previous level.

Tax benefits attributable to the children are not cost offsets; are not negative costs.

For Betson-Rothbarth based Income Shares guidelines, the best method of estimating child costs is to compare household consumption levels of alcohol, tobacco, and adult clothing before and after having an additional child.
#13
My formula is primarily derived from the Costs Shares formula of former Atlanta Federal Reserve economist, Mark Rogers. However, I tweaked his formula to account for inequities that he may not have considered. I give full credit to Mr. Rogers for his formula, and in no way claim any rights to this formula. With these acknowledgements, my proposed formula is as follows:

1.   Use USDA data on the costs of raising children, except marginal (not per capita) housing costs, and base the level on the parents' average income, not their combined income. Basic Child Costs Per Month (In this example, we will assume that amount is $1,000)
2.   Determine which costs are fixed and which are variable costs. Regardless of how much time a child spends with their parent, fixed costs do not decrease. Examples are rent/mortgage, bed, dresser, car seat. Variable costs increase in or decrease depending on how much time a child spends with each parent. Based on USDA data percentages are derived for both fixed and variable costs. For arguments sake, we will assume that fixed costs are 30% and variable costs are 70%. (Fixed costs $300, variable costs $700)
3.   Prorate NRP's fixed costs by multiplying percentage of time with the NRP by two. For example, if the child spends 40% of his/her time with the NRP, then the prorated portion of fixed costs would be 80% of what ever the fixed costs are. Therefore, the prorated portion of fixed costs would be 24% (.30 x .80). Or, $1,000 x .24 = $240
4.   Multiply amount in line 1 by percentage in line 3 and add that amount to the amount in line 1 to arrive at the total amount needed to provide for the child. In this example it would be the amount in line 1 x 1.24. ($1,000 x 1.24 = $1,240).This equitably accounts for the reality that it costs more to provide for the child at one home than it does at two homes. But, at the same time, it accounts for the fact that the child benefits from the fixed items at the primary home for longer periods of time than he/she is able to at the NRP home. Child support monies are proportioned accordingly.
5.   NRP's total costs are percentage of time at NRP's home multiplied by (variable costs) in line 2, plus prorated portion in line 3 multiplied by line 1. In this example, ($700 x .40 + $1,000 x .24) = $280 + $240 = $520 (NRP's Basic Costs)
6.   Primary Parent's (PP) total costs are percentage of time at the PP home multiplied by (variable costs) in line 2, plus the full 30% of fixed costs of line 1. In this example, ($700 x .60 + $1,000 x .30) = $420 + $300 = $720 (PP Basic Costs)
7.   *    Combining the final figures of lines 5 and 6 totals up to the total amount of basic needs for the child, as described in line 4.
8.   Add actual payments made by NRP for medical and child care to line 5. (NRP's Total Costs)
9.   Add actual payments made by PP for medical and child care to line 6. (PP's Total Costs)
10.   Subtract what ever tax benefits (income tax deduction, child tax credit or deduction for day care) the NRP receives (annual benefit of deductions /12) from line 5. NRP's Net Costs
11.   Subtract what ever tax benefits (income tax deduction, child tax credit or deduction for day care) the PP receives (annual benefit of deductions /12) from line 6. PP's Net Costs
12.   Calculate NRP's net monthly income, minus a self-support reserve of ($982 poverty level income) for amount of available income to support the child.
13.   Calculate PP's net monthly income, minus a self-support reserve of ($982 poverty level income) for amount of available income to support the child.
14.   Divide figure in line 12 by line 12 plus line 13 to arrive at NRP's available income percentage.
15.   Divide figure in line 13 by line 12 plus line 13 to arrive at PP's available income percentage.
16.   Multiply line 14 by line 11 to arrive at NRP's share of PP's Costs.
17.   Multiply line 15 by line 10 to arrive at PP's share of NRP's Costs.
18.   If line 16 is greater than line 17, then the difference is the presumptive child support award that the NRP would pay to the PP. If line 17 is greater than line 16, then the difference is the presumptive child support award that the PP would pay to the NRP.


Any mathematical formula worth its salt can be tested for validity at any point of the spectrum for validity. The above formula seamlessly proportions an equitable amount of money for children's reasonable needs (as defined by the USDA) across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society. In situations where stay-at-home-moms earned no income before and after a divorce, the father would still provide for 100% of the financial needs of the child. In situations where there is equal parental incomes and 50/50 time sharing, there would be no child support award, except to equitably account for actual differences of one parent paying more for day care and medical than the other, or because of tax benefit implications. When a child spends 100% of his/her time at one household and none at the other, all of the money to support the child is proportioned to provide for the child's needs at said home. All of this is accomplished with the same mathematical formula. The sheer presence of a deviation formula is an admission of a flawed basic child support guideline formula. Children deserve not to have the money that is intended to meet their needs so misproportioned. Every step in my formula more equitably provides for the needs of children than do current guidelines.

Now, when you argue that the child support guidelines are unjust and inappropriate, and when the rebuttal is, "come up with a better one" you have your reply to them.
#14
Moms Without Custody / To Moms W/O Custody
Aug 17, 2004, 08:23:51 PM
One of the reasons I chose ParentOfChild (POC) as my user name was that I always wanted to make it clear that I was not asking for anything as a father that I did not think mothers should have too. I hope the focus of this forum will always be not to ask for things for mothers that you would also not want fathers to have. There are two primary areas that would make things fairer and better for those involved, especially children:

1) Presumptive equal parenting time - long/short, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the court of wrong-doing, parents should share as equal of parenting time as is practical.

2) Child support should place more importance on providing for the needs of children at each parent's home than it does on a parental label. Custodial parent support is a more accurate term than child support is. Only CP's receive it, and there is no requirement that it even be spent on children.

Apply these two common sense approaches to family law and Waylon could start a different type of website.
#15
I just wanted to let you know how my meeting went. First, Rep. Nick Thompson is not the Vice-Chair of FL's House Committee on Healthy Families. That was a typo on the state website. However, he is a member of the committee.

2nd - he does not expect legislation concerning custody, presumptive parenting time, or child support to be taken up this Session.

3rd - He was somewhat astonished at the factual information about FL's child support guidelines that I presented.

4th - He tended to agree that it should be presumed that fit parents and their children ought to be allowed to spend substantial time with each other, while acknowledging that the statutes define what that amount of time is. Ch. 61.30 defines that amount of time to be 146 or more overnights out of the year.

5th - He was very inquisitive as to who the opposition to presumptive shared parenting is, as well as who opposes a seamless (with respect to income and time) set of child support guidelines. Long/short, I told him it was the divorce industry and women's rights groups.

6th - He wanted to know why those groups opposed it. I told him that I didn't want to get into throwing verbal jabs at any groups, but to look at what everyone had to gain or lose by the vast majority of fit parents and their children being allowed to spend substantial time with each other.

7th - I preemptively supplied a plethora of studies comparing and contrasting the various measurements of results for children in joint physical custody to their counterparts who are relegated to sole custody. I told him the reason that I did so was because he was sure to be bombarded with disinformation that children would be forced to stay with abusive fathers.

8th - Since he is in fact the Vice-Chair of the Juvenile Justice Committee, I was sure to point out studies which indicate that growing up with natural fathers are a better indicator to crime rates than socio-economic factors. Not so subtly, the question was raised, "So why are perfectly fit fathers and their children denied the ability to spend a substantial amount of time with each other?"

9th - In light of the evidence presented to him, he conceded that the basis of FL's guideline tables is terribly out of date. He also conceded that the 146 day threshold is arbitrary.

10th - He was glad that I provided a copy of the 2005 USDA Estimates of Expenditures for Children by Families. He also asked to keep the book, "Investing in Children" by Thomas J. Espenshade, which serves as the basis for FL's guideline tables. When told that the date is older than 13 members of FL's House, he said he remembered that from my previous correspondence.

11th- I demonstrated that the base child support guideline formula can not even be applied at the simplest point to check it for its mathematical validity - 50/50 time and identical parental incomes. I reminded him that if we were to go to any middle school Algebra teacher that they would confirm that if a formula is flawed at any point, then it is flawed. In fact, the FL House Judicial Oversight Committee came to that same consensus back in the fall of 2001.

Finally, I can't help but think that if I were to challenge the constitutionality of me and my son being denied substantial time with each other, as well as the grossly out of date economic basis of the guidelines and egregious mathematical flaws about the formula that my challenge would be successful. That said, I don't intend to pursue those issues myself. There are other reasons why it would not make sense for me to do so. However, I'd love to help someone else seek justice to the countless others.

Even though Rep. Thompson said he might look at sponsoring legislation next year, and that I came away more impressed with him than any such other past meeting, I have no confidence that that will occur. I realize that I did not ask you any questions. That is because I don't really have any. I just wanted to let you know what occurred.
#16
Soc,

I'm scheduled to meet with the Vice-Chair of the FL Committee on Healthy Families to discuss substantial parenting time, and FL's child support guidelines. Ch 61.30 -- (11) (b) 10. of FL's statutes defines a substantial amount of parenting time as 146 or more overnights out of the year - http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0061/SEC30.HTM&Title=->2006->Ch0061->Section%2030#0061.30

Here is an excerpt of correspondence of mine with Rep. Thompson that led to the scheduling of our meeting -

"Dear Mr. POC,

I recognize there are needed improvements in our Family Court laws... I look forward to discussing these issues with you when we meet.

Sincerely,

Nick Thompson"



"Rep. Thompson:

I have three over riding beliefs that I also believe the vast majority of other Floridians would agree with:

1) Courts should not deny fit parents and their children substantial access to each other.
2) Child support guideline tables should be based upon reasonably up to date economic data, and that basing Florida's guideline tables upon data from 1972-73 unreasonably defies economic realities for children in today's society.
3) When a child spends just one day's difference out of an entire year at either parent's home, the child support guideline formula should not result in thousands of dollars difference in child support.

Sadly, those are merely beliefs. Reality for children in Florida is that judges routinely deny them substantial access to one of their fit parents, the economic basis to the child support guidelines is older than 13 current members of the House of Representatives, and an arbitrary threshold exists in the child support guideline formula that draws a line between fit parents, because thousands of dollars are at stake."

I am trying to limit the scope of my message to those three beliefs. However, I would appreciate it if you are able to lend any legal or personal insight that might better convey those beliefs and/or help compel Committee and Legislature to seek an equitable remedy.

I have wording for what I believe would be equitable remedies to the problems if/when that is requested of me. I am also prepared to contrast the results for children in joint custody to their counterparts in sole custody situations, as well supply USDHHS statistics about who the perpetrators of child abuse and murder have been. I believe that information speaks directly to the issue of the "best interests of children".

Questions:

1) Without running the risk of overwhelming the Vice-Chair with too much information, is there some glaring legal point(s) that I am missing? If so, what?
2) Do you have any other suggestions, ideas, or comments for my meeting that might help bring about more equitable laws to Florida's family laws?

If you need be to clarify any of my points I will.

Thanks,

POC
#17
Dear Socrateaser / Last Sunday's News Script
Oct 07, 2006, 09:45:35 AM
Soc,

This link - http://www.nbc-2.com/NewsScripts/061001_nbc11pm.HTM#FATHER'S

is to the script of a story that I appeared in last Sunday night. Not disclosed to the reporter prior to the airing of the story was that the attorney was none other than that of my ex-wife. That is why the ex was not available for comment. Not in the script but said on air, the attorney stated that because every situation is different, you can't have a law that is the same for all parents. Needless to say, my attorney is able to reference several laws that do just that.

1) Was anything improper committed by my ex's attorney for not disclosing her representation of my ex, and if so do you have any suggestions that I might want to discuss with my attorney?

2) In your opinion, would a presumptive substantial parenting time law preclude judges from taking into account the factors cited by Ms. Rawson? Is it not possible to consider those factors in all cases, yet still order that both parents be allowed substantial parenting time when it is in the child's best interests?

3) Wouldn't the effect of the presumption be that the substantial parenting time of both parents is in the child's best interests?

Finally, the reporter wants to do another interview when the Florida website is up and running. The goal is to get candidates on record as to whether they would support legislation to assure that fit parents and their children be allowed substantial parenting time with each other, or not. So far, and as the story indicates Skip Campbell, candidate for Florida's Atty Gen has said that he would publicly support such legislation.  
#18
Soc,

A person very close to me is a manic-depressive. He is on permanent disability from the military. He has been named as the father to a child. The mother is a manic too. She is in jail and the baby has been in foster care since birth. He has a court date regarding the child in a month. There have been discussions of a member (sister) in his family possibly trying to adopt the child. But, her family has not decided if they are ready for that. There would undoubtedly be problems with him and the child. When he is good he is great. When he is bad, well, he's a manic-depressive.

Yes, he and she had been a couple. But, it is not clear that he is in fact the father. The military has assigned a bank to be in charge of his finances, pay his bills, etc... He has proven incapable of managing his money himself. Also, the mother, baby, and suspected father are all in Colorado. His family is in Florida.

Q. 1) Would his family have the first opportunity to adopt the child?

Q. 2) Does his bank have fiduciary responsibilty to him, or is it merely required to pay his bills as best it can? I'm not sure if that is important or not, but I'm wondering if the bank would be compelled in any way to ask for a DNA test on his behalf to establish paternity. If the bank were truly looking out for his financial well being, it only seems reasonable that it would require proof that he is responsible for a bill, in this case 18 years of child support.

Q. 3) If the child is put up for adoption, would both parents still have a duty to provide for the child?

Q. 4) If the family adopts the child, would that leave either parent with rights to the child if somehow they were later determined to be fit parent(s)?

Q. 5) Is there any sort of statute of limitations for questioning paternity in this type of situation, especially given the documented inability of him to make his own decisions?

Q. 6) Does his family have grounds request a DNA test to determine paternity, even if they do not have other rights to act on his behalf? Again, if the child is not blood related they would not consider adoption. But, if the baby is blood related that would change their thought process. But, they don't know what to do since they are uncertain if the baby is related, or not.

Those are just the questions I can think of. Any other insight you might be able to lend would be appreciated. His family wants to do the best it can. But, under the circumstances it has no clue as how to go about it.
#19
Dear Socrateaser / Separation of Powers Issue
Feb 27, 2006, 10:36:50 AM
Soc, I've run into a group of people who have shed light on an interesting issue. Florida's State Constitution Article II, Section 3 states:

"SECTION 3.  Branches of government.--The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein." In 1949 the Florida Bar was unified with, and became a part of the Supreme Court (See Petition of Florida State Bar Assn. 40 So. 2d 902.)

Q 1) Is such a petition invalid, thereby not actually making members fo the FL Bar Officers of the Court?

Q 2) If FL Bar members are in fact Officers of the Court, does serving in another branch violate Section 3 of Article II?

Q 3) If the answer to 2 is no, then would it be permissible for officers of the other two branches to serve as justices?

Q 4) Does dropping out of the Bar, but still practicing law before the court, serve as a sufficient separation of power if a Bar member wished to serve in one of the other branches?

Section 5 appears to further clarify Section 3 -

SECTION 5.  Public officers.--

(a)  No person holding any office of emolument under any foreign government, or civil office of emolument under the United States or any other state, shall hold any office of honor or of emolument under the government of this state. No person shall hold at the same time more than one office under the government of the state and the counties and municipalities therein, except that a notary public or military officer may hold another office, and any officer may be a member of a constitution revision commission, taxation and budget reform commission, constitutional convention, or statutory body having only advisory powers.

#20
Dear Socrateaser / Familial Status
Jun 22, 2005, 06:30:58 AM
I am not sure if I am right. But, I thought employers were barred from asking one's familial status. I thought the logic was that it was an Equal Rights issue.

1) Is that true?
2) Is that a federal law?
3) If so, doesn't that make it unlawful to discriminate, based upon familial status in other situations?
4) You know where I am going with this;)
#21
Dear Socrateaser / Equal Protection Question
Jun 21, 2005, 09:51:06 AM
In your opinion, does the federal statute that only requires child support guidelines to consider all of the NCP's income, but not necessarily the CP's income, violate the Equal Protection Clause within the Constitution?
#22
Dear Socrateaser / Interesting Article
Jun 21, 2005, 05:13:57 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/grossman.child.support/index.html

Since you brought up the compelling state interest argument in my last post, I thought I'd bring up this Wisconsin Supreme Court case. Here are my thoughts:

The chilren's needs are in no jeopardy of going unprovided for. To the contray, the father is even setting aside an additional $400 per month for their college savings. The only state interest in this case is one of a public taking for a public purpose (federal welfare money). If that issue (nneds) had been properly dealt with, then the court would not have found itself in such a quandary. It is little wonder the court was so torn in which way to act. It is ill-equipped to make parental decisions, when two fit parents are there to decide them for their children. This is a clear example where the fact that the parents don't agree that the courts still don't need to get involved. If these parents were married and having the same argument about her not wanting to go back to work, the court would not get involved. The children are in no danger from her refusal to work. As such, the court has no reason to rule.

How would that do in court?

#23
Dear Socrateaser / Need Clarification
Jun 19, 2005, 07:12:04 AM
Not that it is big news, but I am confused. I had a discussion in the General Issues forum with a mediator. He said, "Coloraado does not mandate parental financial support for a college education (nor do most states if any) unless there had been a prior agreement betweenthe parents to do so."

I read through the Colorado statutes, and to me, the law appears to read differently. The issue at hand is whether the law provides rights to children of divorce that children from intact families do not receive.

Q. With regards to college expenses, do children of divorced parents receive unequal protections from the law than do children of intact families, and if so is this a violation of the constitutional rights of children from intact families in Colorado?

Applicable statutes below:

(1.5) (a)

III) If the child is still in high school or an equivalent program, support continues until the end of the month following graduation, unless there is an order for postsecondary education, in which case support continues through postsecondary education as provided in subparagraph (I) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (1.5). A child who ceases to attend high school prior to graduation and later reenrolls is entitled to support upon reenrollment and until the end of the month following graduation, but not beyond age twenty-one.

(b) (I) If the court finds that it is appropriate for the parents to contribute to the costs of a program of postsecondary education, then the court shall terminate child support and enter an order requiring both parents to contribute a sum determined to be reasonable for the education expenses of the child, taking into account the resources of each parent and the child. In determining the amount of each parent's contribution to the costs of a program of postsecondary education for a child, the court shall be limited to an amount not to exceed the amount listed under the schedule of basic child support obligations in paragraph (b) of subsection (10) of this section for the number of children receiving postsecondary education. The amount of contribution which each parent is ordered to pay pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be subtracted from the amount of each parent's gross income, respectively, prior to calculating the basic child support obligation for any remaining children pursuant to subsection (10) of this section. In no case shall the court issue orders providing for both child support and postsecondary education to be paid for the same time period for the same child regardless of the age of the child. Either parent or the child may move for such an order at any time before the child attains the age of twenty-one years. Either a child seeking an order for postsecondary education expenses or on whose behalf postsecondary education expenses are sought, or the parent from whom the payment of postsecondary education expenses are sought, may request that the court order the child and such parent to seek mediation prior to a hearing on the issue of postsecondary education expenses. Mediation services shall be provided in accordance with section 13-22-305, C.R.S. The court may order the parties to seek mediation if the court finds that mediation is appropriate. Postsecondary education includes college and vocational education programs. If such an order is entered, the parents shall contribute to the total sum determined by the court in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes as defined in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (10) of this section. The order for postsecondary education support may not extend beyond the earlier of the child's twenty-first birthday or the completion of an undergraduate degree. The court may order the support paid directly to the educational institution, to the child, or in such other fashion as is appropriate to support the education of the child. If the child resides in the home of one parent while attending school or during periods of time in excess of thirty days when school is not in session, the court may order payments from one parent to the other for room and board until the child attains the age of nineteen. A child shall not be considered emancipated solely by reason of living away from home while in postsecondary education.
#24
Soc, sorry for the long background expalnation, but at least it is somewhat amusing.


My sister is happily married to a Seminole Indian. He is a great brother-in-law, so there is no trouble there. I've learned that a lot of white man rules don't apply to them, especially when they are on the Reservation. They consider themselves to be a sovereign nation.

The possible problem on the horizon is with his brother, who is a good guy too. Unfortunately, he has been shacking up with a girl with no apparent redeeming qualities. It has his family on pins and needles that she might become pregnant. No one can fathom that these two would ever stay together. Personally, I don't know, but admit that I have trouble seeing what the attraction is as well. She doesn't work, doesn't cook, doesn't clean, is dumb as a post, is hateful to her boyfrineds nieces and nephews, and this list goes on. Oh, and did I mention, she is fat and ugly too?

The only thing I can figure is that he has to be getting the most outstanding sex ever. But, come on, there is no way that can keep them together for long. So, what happens if they have a child? My sister says not to worry, because if he would get the kid, because he is a Seminole Indian, and the courts do everything that they can to have Indians brought up in their culture. Obviously, I am aware of how difficult it is for fathers to get custody - even if the mother is a dumb b*tch.

Before you answer 1 and 2, it is worthy to note that all Florida Seminole Indian Tribal members receive approximately $3,000 per month as a tribal dividend, plus many other tribal perks, that includes children, even babies. The parents control a portion of that amount and the tribe puts the rest into a trust account for the children. If my BIL's brother were to become a father his children would qualify to become a member of the tribe. However, it is the tribe's policy that children not in custody of tribal parents do not qualify as tribal members, nor would they receive any tribal benefits.

1) Of course, none of us want a pregnancy to occur. But, if it does and she decides to move back with her folks in Louisiana before he ever even knows that she is pregnant would he have any special custodial rights, due to his being a Seminole Indian?

2) If she did not inform him that he was a father until the child was say three years-old, would the fact that he is an Indian dictate that he get custody of the child at that time?

3) Would he be on the hook for child support, retroactive to the birth of his child?
#25
Dear Socrateaser / GA's new guidelines
Apr 01, 2005, 10:19:44 AM
Soc,

I'm not sure if you were aware, but GA just passed new CS guidelines yesterday. They don't take effect until July, 2006. The current guidelines had 18 factors that judges could base deviation of CS awards upon. Visitation and incomes of the parents were two of those 18. The new guideline is an income shares model with credits given for visitation.

Q. 1) Would the court be within its discretion to apply the new guidelines now based upon taking into account those factors that will be required to be considered in just a short time?

Q. 2) Would the court be over-stepping its authority by partly basing such a decison to apply the new guidelines early on grounds that it would prevent the parties from coming back to court as soon as the new law takes effect, thus avoiding senseless litigation?
#26
Dear Socrateaser / GA's HB 1452
Aug 15, 2004, 12:40:42 PM
Soc,

I have given you and others a break for a while by not posting too much at SPARC for a while. But, I am curious as to what your legal thoughts are regarding HB 1452 in GA. One area of particular interest to me is the basis of child support guidelines on child costs expenditures in intact families. Of course, as we all know, CS guidelines are not applied to intact families. This results in the guidelines only being applied to the very class of people who were specifically excluded or represented from the surveys upon which the guidelines are based. I liken that to trying to find the cure for sickle cell anemia by studying Norwegian ancestry.

Anyway, I would like to hear your thoughts about:

1) Application of the guidelines to only the very group of people specifically excluded from economic data.

2) Your thoughts on HB 1452 in general if you have any.

Here is a link to the bill - http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/hb1452.htm
#27
Dear POC,

I recognize there are needed improvements in our Family Court laws... I
forward to discussing these issues with you.

Sincerely,

Nick Thompson
#28
It's been a while since I've posted at SPARC. How is everyone? I've been trying to get something started a bit more locally in FL, but am not quite there. Here is a link to the start of what is to come - http://flcfc.com/. Let me know what you think.

Sorry I've been away for so long.
#29
General Issues / Last Sunday's News Script
Oct 07, 2006, 09:12:24 AM
I thought you guys might like to read about this - http://www.nbc-2.com/NewsScripts/061001_nbc11pm.HTM#FATHER'S  There should be another story after the Florida site is up and running. If you know of anyone knows of webs savvy guys that would like to get the Florida website up and running go ahead and respond. Here is a link to the demo site - http://flcfc.com/
 
Carl
#30
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/may ... rold_girl/

Being in my town, I had to post in the blog.