A must read...

[MYSONSDAD]

Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

By Wendy McElroy

At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in
the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The
defendants are the individual states.

The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million
non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal
custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being
violated by family courts across the nation.

Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government
has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades.
Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme
Court precedent and acts of Congress "to vindicate and restore their
various inalienable rights."

In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in
custody matters.

According to the suits, state practices appear to be "willful,
reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of
powers" with a "systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or
otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process"
of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.

In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost
automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.

The 28-plus class action suits are identical, as any future suits will
be. The ultimate goal is for every state and U.S. possession to be
represented in one large consolidated action. Indeed, Torm L. Howse —
president of the Indiana Civil Rights Council and coordinator of the
suits — says that paperwork is under way for submission to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a legal body which has the
authority to transfer such multiple civil cases to a single district
court.

If this happens, every single non-custodial parent in America will be
represented by the class action suit, which is nothing more than a
lawsuit brought by one person or a small group on behalf of an entire
class who shares a grievance.

What specific relief is being sought?

The sweeping legal goals are spelled out in a press release. The main
relief sought from federal court is the immediate
"restoration/elevation to equal custodial status" of all current
non-custodial parents against whom no allegations of abuse or neglect
have been proven and who have an ongoing relationship with the child.

The establishment of equal custody embraces several other reliefs.

For example, the "prohibition of custodial move-aways of minor
children [more than 60 miles] from their original physical residences
with natural parents." Also, the "abolishment of forced/court-ordered
child support in most cases." Support of the child would be borne by
each parent during their own parenting time.

The Plaintiffs argue for restoration of equal custody not merely for
the sake of non-custodial parents but also for children's welfare. The
press release cites a much-touted study entitled "Child Adjustment in
Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements," which was published
in the APA's Journal of Family Psychology. The study concluded,
"Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than
children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in
intact families."

In this sense, the suits also advocate children's rights.

Other reliefs being sought are financial in nature; some of them take
the suits into murky areas. For example, the suits ask for
"reimbursement" from custodial parents to non-custodial parents of any
state-ordered child support that exceeded the "maximum limits of
federal law." This ceases to be an appeal to constitutional or
parental rights and instead pits one set of civil law against another,
with retroactive penalties being imposed.

In addition, the suits ask for "various damages against the Defendant
[the state named] in the aggregate value of $1,000,000 payable per
Plaintiff." The court awards would be "executable upon all monies,
property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interest and anything
whatsoever of any value" owned or controlled by the State. The suits
request that "an appropriate portion" of the award be provided by the
liquidation or direct transfer of title of "unused, abandoned, or
unnecessary state property and assets."

The number of non-custodial parent plaintiffs who sign on to a federal
class action cannot be predicted but it could run into millions; the
collective damages could run into billions or even trillions of
dollars. Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of pursuing profit
rather than justice.

When asked to elaborate on the amount of damages, Howse clarified, "We
are preparing, later this week, to offer proposed settlements that
will waive the vast majority of damages, among other things, in
exchange for a quick restoral of equal custody rights, a few forms of
tax abatements/credits to balance what custodial parents have enjoyed
for years and some other basic and related issues, like the setting up
of neutral visitation exchange centers, and the like."

He added, "It has never been about winning large amounts of money from
the states ... It's about restoring the lives of our children, and
restoring our own lives."

I genuinely hope the settlements come to pass. Stripped of their
financial demands, the suits could go a long way toward removing what
I believe to be the worst laws governing child custody in disputed
divorce.

At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that will
not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents, especially
fathers, to know their children.

And the equal need of children to embrace both parents.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow
for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and
editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty
for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R.
Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer


"Children learn what they live"

[c_alexander]

I had been thinking about joining this lawsuit for some time, ut last year when I was looking for the site, the webmasters e-mails, and ALL of the contacts on the website were invalid so I gave up. Is this lawsuit for real? Is it underway? If so how can I help?

A judge told mye last year that he could NOT keep my ex wife from moving over 1000 miles away because it would violate her consitiutional rights. However it is apparently NOT a violation of my own consitiuational rights for her to take our 9 year old daughter with her against MY will. It is not against my consitutional rights for her to make ALL of the life decisions for our daughter Jessie without consulting or even asking me. It's not against my constitutional rights for her to raise our daughter in a religious setting that goes against everything I believe in. The list goes on and on and on....I think this motion would be MOST benefical to many parents....however it might be dangerous in some cases too. Msot noteable "bad" parents who have lost their visitations for a reason, or parents who jsut don't care.

[Hawkeye]

It's real...  //www.indianacrc.org  More states are filing this week.

[VeronicaGia]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133875,00.html

[rm1759]

Hasn't this kind of thing been tried before?

Could have a major impact on those of us NCP's that already have orders for parenting time?  

If it could have some impact, what kind of time frame would we be looking at?

Obviously no one can tell the future, but I am not a legal expert and I was wondering if anyone else that is more "in the know" about it could give us some light about what is going on...  I have looked at the web site, but I still don't know if this could have any real impact for NCP's like myself...

[c_alexander]

After reading all the info on the case I only see one major problem. From what I understand about the way the Child support payment systems work I seriously doubt the government would allow such a cash cow for themselves to ever be touched. It would be the same as saying "Hey guys no more taxes".

I don't know if this has been tried before, but the fact that they cases have been filed and that they are going ahead with this is fantastic. If this thing gets pulled off it would literally change the lives of millions of parents and children.

[rm1759]

I see your point, the government will be less likely to reduce their own income.  But, for me at least, it's not so much about the money.  What I want is equality, I want to be able to see my daughter more than the eow which equates to about 20% of the year.  


Additionally, I pay for her to have her own room at my house, as well as her clothing and everything else here.  I also pay for it at her mother's house, I would like to see more equality in the child support, and maybe some kind of checks and balances where I can be sure the money I provide is being used to directly benefit my daughter, not her mother...

It seems like this case is geared a  great deal towards the child support, does anyone think it will have any real world effect on custody and parenting time?

[FleetingMoment]

>It seems like this case is geared a  great deal towards the
>child support, does anyone think it will have any real world
>effect on custody and parenting time?

It's very "gender-specific," which doesn't translate to equal opportunity as it's supposed to mean. IF such a class action suit is won, there will be scores of NCP mothers wanted to be included. In turn custodial fathers who already have custody of their children are suddenly faced with the prospect of losing them again.

Not to mention the prospect of custodial mothers rising to a class action countersuit  filing. Then what?

Admirable, but a Pandora's Box.

[Hawkeye]

 "gender-specific,"   ????    It's geared for custodial and non custodial.

Of course it may "appear" to be gender specific, but what gives one "Gender" the advantage over the other, the right to direct, influence and ultimately determine the mind of a child? AND, doesn't that child have a right to it's own mind, undeterred from obnoxious influence from one parent or the other? Irregardless of gender?

Perhaps if we did away with this archaic, adversarial system, perhaps, we could just share our offspring, eh?  Now there's a concept... taught every day in pre-school... SHARING...

Dads have been getting the short end of the stick lately, and not very many Mom's I could cite as "Virgin Marys"....  and of course the Deadbeats can't drum, from their feminazi prison cells.

Kids are not possesions, they are individuals! Adults understand a semblence of time-sharing, condo's, jet-ski's and the like, so, whats the big hubub, bub? Got something against EQUALITY? Differerent but EQUAL?

:)

[Bolivar]

copy/paste from custodyreform.com


Posted by: Gecko @ custodyreform.com

Email: [email protected]

If anyone else wants a copy,  email me.

The Complaint itself is gender neutral...I did a "search" and the words "father" or "mother" was only used once on page 35 section 121 and in regards to suicides attributed to victimization by the family courts.

Since it can't be printed or copied for easier reading, it's going to take some time to get through it (and check reference points), but so far it appears to be well written.

I think the real problem is going to be the "press" it is going to get, as we have seen with Ms McElroy's article.