Messages

just wanted to move this to the top

"The 13 year old went 4 weeks ago to visit as usual and was slapped across the face"

That is an important piece of info missing.  Like a car missing tires.  That changes things.


I have to go pick up my son now.


I just wanted to say Good Luck!  Stay claim!  You sound like a good, caring, loving mom.  You will do the right thing when the situation requires.

God bless!

Typo "Your 13 year old is a  very, very common problem."

Should have been:

You are experiencing a very, very common problem with your 13 year old.

Lookinnomoe you said "he was given custody May 14,2001 with no mention of visitation at all."

In my humble opinion I would conceder "what is best for the children" NOT what the law says.

1. Is there any risk to the children?
2. If not YOU ARE THE PARENT.  The children are under your guidance/protection.  It is your responsibility to explain to your 13 year old child he/she must go.

What if you child starts using drugs.  Are you going to let them continue because the child wants to and is going to throw a temper tantrum?

The children should visit their MOM!!!

Yes,, video taping is a good idea.  Having witness would be a good idea.


Question -> does this mean that the eX has NOT seen the children since May 14.


P.S. please do NOT take this the wrong way.  You might want to take a parenting class.  I have and they are GREAT!!!  And a lot of FUN!! Your 13 year old is a  very, very common problem.

How to get rid of a GAL

Ohio, NCP male, one child 4 ½ years old

QUESTION:
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?

OR

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 <<

HISTORY:
- 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.

QUESTION:
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?

OR

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

[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.]

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

Democrats        

MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
KEN SALAZAR, CO

           

Republicans

CHARLES GRASSLEY, IA
ORRIN G. HATCH, UT
TRENT LOTT, MS
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME
JON KYL, AZ
CRAIG THOMAS, WY
GORDON SMITH, OR
JIM BUNNING, KY
MIKE CRAPO, ID
PAT ROBERTS, KS



STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - March 07, 2007)

________________________________________

 

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:

------

 NATIONAL CONFERENCE
   OF STATE LEGISLATURES,

   Washington, DC, March 6, 2007.

U.S. SENATE,

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.

   Sincerely,

   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.

------

   NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION,

   March 6, 2007.

Hon. JAY ROCKEFELLER,
Hon. JOHN CORNYN,
Hon. HERB KOHL,
Hon. OLYMPIA SNOWE,
Hon. NORM COLEMAN.

   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,

President.

------

 

 NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER,
CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY,
COALITION ON HUMAN NEEDS,

   March 7, 2007.

Hon. JAY ROCKEFELLER,
Hon. JOHN CORNYN,
Hon. HERB KOHL,
Hon. OLYMPIA SNOWE,
Hon. NORM COLEMAN.

   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.

   Sincerely,

   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,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

   SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROVISION ENACTED TO END FEDERAL MATCHING OF STATE SPENDING OF CHILD SUPPORT INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

    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.

["Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity" on a special edition of 20/20 Friday, May 4, at 10 p.m. EDT]

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

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3067518&page=3


By JOHN STOSSEL

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...

DAN WEINBERG: Yes.


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.

Subject: Cynthia Brown - pizza boxes  April 11, 2007

Glenn Sacks
http://glennsacks.com/blog/


Background: Recently Ohio's Butler County ChildSupport Enforcement Agency launched a highly-publicized new campaign which putsmug shots of the County's "Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents" on pizza boxes. Theidea was the brainchild of Agency Executive Director Cynthia Brown. To learnmore about the story, click here.


Three representatives of the fathers'movement have debated Cynthia Brown over the past few weeks:

 
1) Brown debated family law attorney Maury Beaulier (top right) on Fox & Friends. To watch, click here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERcTrWA5JLE

 
2) Dr. Stephen Baskerville, president of the American Coalition or Fathers andChildren, debated Brown on CNN. Video is not yet available, but the transcriptof the debate is below.


3) I debated Brown on FOX News' nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mikeand Juliet on Tuesday (below right)–to watch, click here.  http://www.glennsacks.com/blog-files/video/morning-show-032707.wmv

 

BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: A wanted poster delivered with your pizza, of allthings, is happening in a suburb of Cincinnati.Mugshots of parents accused of not paying child support appearing on pizzadelivery boxes. A child enforcement worker came up with this idea and pitchedit to pizza places in Ohio's Butler County.

While this may sound like a good idea, to many, it does have its critics.One of those critics being Steven Baskerville of the American Coalition forFathers and Children. There he is. And he joins us from Washington. And from Cincinnati, Ohio,this morning, the woman who came up with this idea, Cynthia Brown. Good morningto you both. Read the restof this entry »

Parent's on Pizza  Boxes

by Minnesota Attorney Maury D.  Beaulier
http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/deadbeatfathersonpizzaboxes/

 

 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

Copy/paste link if not working.  THANKS

http://www.krightsradio.com/07vid0008.php




Use this link to view and vote.

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