Follow-Up to Meeting W/ State Rep

[POC]

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9th - In light of the evidence presented to him, he conceded that the basis of FL's guideline tables is terribly out of date.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

[socrateaser]

Mr. Thompson probably wanted to know who the opponents were, so he could calculate the votes on each side of the issue. Of course, the votes are always pretty much 50/50, except for those with a vested interest in the system who will vote against any changes.

It's a tough road. And, while I know that you would like to make a constitutional issue out of this, the problem is always the same. Courts do not want to touch legal issues that appear to injure the weak -- in this case children. So, even if you start with the argument that giving both parents anything less than a 50/50 split, absent a showing of parental unfitness, you are wandering in the land of substantive due process -- an area in which there are two U.S. Supreme Court Justices (Scalia, Thomas) who are on record as believing no such constitutional right exists. As for what Roberts and Alito think, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both would lean heavily against substantive due process arguments.

That's four stacked against you before you petition for certiorari. And, Stevens could pass away any day, in which case President Bush will start looking for stealth candidates to try to pass by the Democratic majority. If Bush succeeds, then there will be no substantive due process, and your case is over before it starts.

Thus, I suggest you continue working the legislative angle -- which you seem to be doing remarkably well.

[POC]

>Mr. Thompson probably wanted to know who the opponents were,
>so he could calculate the votes on each side of the issue. Of
>course, the votes are always pretty much 50/50, except for
>those with a vested interest in the system who will vote
>against any changes.

I was prepared for that. I even said to him that I thoroughly expect him to see what voters think. That's why I asked him if he could think of a more liberal state, in which women's rights groups would have any more influence than Massachussetts. Of course, he said no. Then I gave him this - http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/inthenews/2004/shared%20parenting%20initiative%20results%20chart.htm


Courts do not want to touch legal issues that appear
>to injure the weak -- in this case children.

That is why I showed the results for children who are relegated to sole custody compared to their counterparts who are allowed to benefit from joint custody.


So, even if you
>start with the argument that giving both parents anything less
>than a 50/50 split, absent a showing of parental unfitness,
>you are wandering in the land of substantive due process

I have not made the mistake in thinking that anyone cares about my rights. I just stick to the kids.


>area in which there are two U.S. Supreme Court Justices
>(Scalia, Thomas) who are on record as believing no such
>constitutional right exists. As for what Roberts and Alito
>think, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both would
>lean heavily against substantive due process arguments.

Interesting, thank you. I guess I really need stay focused on how children are being harmed by being denied access to two fit parents when they are available. There is no evidence that children benefit from being denied substantial access to a fit parent.
>

>Thus, I suggest you continue working the legislative angle

That's my goal.

>which you seem to be doing remarkably well.

Thanks for the kind words.