It depends when you got divorced.  I got divorced in 1986 and my case still
has to stay in the court where my original divorce was.  I know I have tried
to have my case switched where my children and I live.  I was told in April
2000 that because I was divorced in 1986 it has to stay in that state and not
my current state.

ACFC Nationwide Child Support Agency Peaceful Protest

Tuesday,  August 8, 2000

1-800-978-3237 or www.acfc.org for more details


There have been numerous newspaper articles and complaints from child support
payers regarding an increasing number of child support agency billing errors. 
Many policies and procedures used within these agencies are unjust, and don't
allow for due process. There is an assumption that child support payers are
guilty until proven innocent. Also of concern is agencies' refusal to correct
mistakes and change policies in a timely and fair fashion, which causes
tremendous and intolerable suffering for an increasing number of families --
both emotionally and financially.

Some of the complaints reported are errors in the amounts of child support owed,
fathers being billed for children they didn't father, numerous interstate child
support billing problems, wage garnishments paid through their employers by
non-custodial parents for child support that isn't going to their children in a
timely manner, or, in some cases, it never arrives at all. There is also a
complete disregard for child support payers who may have experienced job loss,
illness, injuries, or disabilities that adversely affect their ability to pay.
In some cases child support is set unfairly and unrealistically high. Child
support can be based on a capacity to earn and imputed income rather than on
actual earnings.

Regardless of how many public documented reports there are of child support
agency problems, and despite the floods of calls from child support payers to
child support agencies, legislators, and the media, attempting to publicly
expose problems within these agencies that are hurting not helping their
families, the public outcry and news reports go virtually unnoticed.

Instead, the punitive measures for so-called deadbeat dads and crackdowns
continue, and in full force. Some of the measures being used now are: income tax
refund interceptions, loss of professional, business, and drivers licenses,
seizure of assets, loss of hunting and fishing licenses, and jail. New programs
have been implemented such as jack booting cars, and interceptions of gambling
winnings. Recently, President Clinton renewed his pledge to crack down on unpaid
child support. Can the agencies guarantee that their reports of child support
owed are accurate? Due to newspaper reports, our ACFC child support survey, and
the floods of calls ACFC receives nationwide regarding child support billing
error complaints, we believe that the data is not at an acceptable level of
accuracy.

Banks are also being drawn into the crackdown. Banks are now being mandated to
hand over banking information on their customers to child support agencies. Some
smaller banks are given the option to send information on all their customers.
Due to the new hire registry, and wage assignments, employers are often forced
to pay for additional staff to handle child support issues. This causes a
financial strain on companies, and especially on small businesses. Employers and
banks are put in the precarious position of being mandated to hand over
information to child support agencies on their customers and employees, who in
turn, may be emotionally and financially destroyed by potential child support
agency billing errors, and policies.

In intact families the focus on the children's best interest is to ensure that
children receive both emotional and financial support from their parents. Yet,
when parents separate or divorce, the focus by the courts shifts towards
financial child support by the non-custodial parent, and less about emotional
support. Very little is being done to ensure that both parents have a strong
emotional relationship with their children. In fact, access and visitation
issues are one of the most critical issues faced today in the era of high
divorce rates. Does this only affect fathers? No. Many family members are
disenfranchised from a loving relationship with their children such as:
grandparents, second wives, non-custodial mothers, sisters, relatives, friends,
and the list goes on.

Punitive measures and crackdowns that can result in innocent citizens being
harmed and families potentially destroyed should not be tolerated. Therefore, it
is necessary to actively call for a halt to punitive efforts and to have the
agencies investigated for wrongdoing and/or incompetence. The truth about what
is currently happening in child support agencies nationwide must be exposed.
Since the agencies do not seem to feel accountable to the public or to public
scrutiny, it is necessary that public attention - through non-violent protests,
educational efforts, and media coverage -- be achieved.

ACFC is calling for coordinators nationwide to protest at their local (or a
nearby) child support agency. The protest will be scheduled for August 8, 2000.
This is a call for Unity. We must all work together -- men, women, and
children -- to create positive change for our families.

ACFC
Copyright@2000

___________________________________________________________________________
Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based communications center.
Visto.com. Life on the Dot.

From: JoniH@... [mailto:JoniH@...]

In a message dated 5/21/00 4:36:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cheryl@... writes:

<< ... my ex went on unemployment,
and informed me that the court ordered support was automatically reduced,
and no arrearage is acruing. Wouldn't I be notified of a court date when a
modification was being considered?
    >>

Here in NC, it would not have been automatically reduced and it would
suprise
me if anything automatically happened without a motion and order.   For one
reason, generally the court can impute income and may find that unemployment

is voluntary to reduce or avoid support.  You would have the right to be
present to raise the issue of voluntary un or UNDER employment.   Also,
yes,
you definately should be notified, at the very least of any order reducing
support, but for due process reasons, you sould be notified prior to any
reduction.   Typically the court may forgive arrearage back to the filing of

a motion to reduce so it may be that arrearages would not be accruing
pending
a hearing.

Recommendation:  contact the court and the support enforcement agency in
your
town tomorrow morning.   You need to find out, at a minimum, 1) if he has
filed anything and if any orders have been entered, 2) the procedures your
specific area has in a case of unemployment, and 3) what if any court
hearings or appeal mechanisms are schedule or exist.

[Cheryl Miller]

Thank you. I've written and cc'd the Vegas office, where kids and I were
living, opened a new case CA where we moved to and written cc'd them, and
written and cc'd the da's office where they have support jurisdiction where
my ex used to live. I haven't heard from any. I haven't been able to reach
any by phone, except my local who doesn't know anything. I wrote them that
when he was fired from job in England (home office was CA), he moved to be
near brothers rather than his kids or near new wife's kids, in an area he's
unlikely to find a job, and I learned that tho his brothers live 1/2 hr away
from him, they're selling their homes to live near my ex and start internet
business.

The case is complicated cuz '91 his company moved 4 kids and I to Vegas, but
company never moved there as promised. My husband commuted for a year,
started a CA affair, lost his job, moved back in for a week, then left for
good. I filed in Vegas, he filed in CA. NV and CA talked, and decided NV had
jurisdiction.  He was supposed to drop the CA action. He didn't. I was broke
and my lawyer (a very good man) dropped me cuz he was becoming a family
support judge. Kids and I on food stamps, about to be evicted, I reached a
CA attny who promised to address the CA situation. He didn't. 6 month time
limit to address the default was coming up. I faxed my story to Judge Stock,
OJ Simpson's attny btw. She was very understanding and investigated.
Unfortunately I had been served, and she couldn't do anything.  1 1/2 years
later I managed to pay CA attny $2000 to drop CA action (there was a 2 year
window). There was a sub for Judge Stock. Sub refused to even hear the case
and told my attny, "You are NOT getting anywhere with this." I learned that
day that tho NV had assigned $530 for child support and spousal 3 years, in
CA if I'd been there I would have been receiving $1600 child support/spousal
lifetime cuz 20 year marriage.

A year later CA DA, who had ignored my letters to modify support before the
usual three years, more than tripled support to $1295. That day my ex served
me with papers to reduce support to $220 a month. I felt devastated and
frightened, rather than jubilant about the higher support amounts.

3 months later support was reduced to $866 a month cuz, for instance, he
wanted to start exercising 20% visitation. That was ok with me. The girls
needed their dad. They're better off for him to have finally given them
attention they needed.

So 5 years later ex goes on unemployment and he's discovered that 1 year ago
CA & NV DA attorneys were trying to resolve who had jurisdiction (gee, I
guess I didn't have to throw away $2000 trying to do that myself '92?), and
they decided CA has jurisdiction. (I'm asking rhetorical questions) Why
wasn't I notified about that so I could have some input?

Now my ex was furious cuz CA attached his CA state income tax of $1200,
which ex said paid off CA arrears, and NV attached his $1600 federal tax
return that CA is telling my ex was fraudulent and irresponsible. (5 years
ago when CA attached $330 income tax, ex called me demanding I give him the
money I hadn't even received yet. I told him I couldn't, it would show as
payment at DA's office.) Ex says they're slamming NV over the matter.
*shaking my head* How come they don't consult with me? How come they don't
realize my ex created this mess? (rhetorical questions).

Thank you for a reality check. I'll keep putting one foot in front of the
other.







____________________________
Cheryl Miller cheryl@... <mailto:cheryl@...>
"The only people we should try to get even with is those who have done us a
good turn."
-- Babatundi Olatunji, Master Drummer and Spiritual Teacher from his song --
Edume


Redondo
<http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/California/Localities/
R/Redondo_Beach/> Beach MBW Family Multimedia Web Site http://www.mbw-nv.com
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/>
ACOA <http://www.mbw-nv.com/acoa>  incest survivor
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/incest>   <http://www.mbw-nv.com/articles/meetus.htm>
MBW Family known for wedding pranks <http://www.pranks4thememories.com/> ,
divorce pranks, <http://www.mbw-nv.com/divorce/>  redhead jokes
<http://www.redheadjokes.com/> , the Oh No A Bear
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/album/MBWFamily/onoabear.htm> Picture, Colorado
resident Marvin the Martian <http://www.mbw-nv.com/marvin.htm> ,
Spirituality  <http://www.mbw-nv.com/spirituality/stories/1.htm> Stories,
Casper <http://www.mbw-nv.com/casper> , Amaryzingrace's Tweety
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/marygrace/> , Angela's Taz
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/angela> , Brittny's and Drew's Angelica
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/brittny/angelica.htm>  and Tommy
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/drew/playground.htm>  from Rugrats Playground. The
guys won't want to miss my co-worker and model Marina Blackwell's photo
gallery <http://www.mbw-nv.com/album/friends/marina/1.htm> .





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OK............ My name is David Wilson and I have been protesting on the
steps of the US Capitol for the last 2 years on the steps of the US Capitol.
In 98' there was 7 of us. In 99'   our numbers grew considerably.

  This year....?  all I know is we are going to close down Constitution Ave
and walk the talk.

  If you want to know anything concerning the upcoming www.FathersDay2000.org
email me personally.............

As for what some of you have said concerning a united effort among the
Fathers Rights groups..........................YOU SAID A MOUTHFUL.........

I started protesting in DC at the White House and Supreme Court all alone
years ago. I saw the problems associated with the FR groups across the
country and felt the heck with this....something needs to done.
  I had something to say and didnt care if anyone joined me.

This will be the 3rd year that we have protested on the steps the US
Capitol.
How many will be there this year........? who knows........
Why havent the ACFC said anything....... they have...but very little.  The
reason..... if it isnt their ball game...they dont want to play........ you
said it very well below.

As for the ACFC and their planned protests........ 3 years ago when I
learned of the ACFC.... their stance was.... they did not do
protests........ but now they have and are planning protests........... or
trying to.

I have been sending people to the ACFC website for over three years. Many of
their state people came through me and my other website www.FARCE.org  it's
rather annoying to know that you do your best to enlist others to and for
the ACFC only to have them turn their backs on what we are doing this
Fathers Day.

We made these plans one year ago........ and did......or have the Fathers
Rights groups come together...?. no they havent. There is still the.........
if we dont with my ball.......I'm going home mentality.

One reason is what you said below....... ego's.

When a father gets the shaft in court.... he gets a few guys together and fo
rms a group. They usually start out being all fired up...until they learn
that there is no unity among the various FR groups.  Do a search of the web
for Fathers Rights.... you will be amazed at how many different groups there
are.

Women have harnessed the internet...... men havent.
It is going to take a little more time before the men in this country feel
they can work together effectively.

and your comment.....want something done... hire a woman.... holds true.
For the life of me I just dont understand how or why the 8,000 + fathers
rights groups in this country have not banded together.

I have learned that back in 78'  a group of Fathers protested and marched in
DC....... then they went home and never returned. I guess all of our
problems were solved with that one march. If it were me....... we would have
been marching for the last 22 years.

I too am on over a dozen mailing lists......... I spend hours each day
sorting through emails.

When the mothers and sisters of these fathers come to me... I send them to
the Women for Fatherhood .........as well as Secondwives......

No one knows more than I do the lack of unity among the FR groups..........
so knowing that....... after establishing www.FathersDay2000.org    I saw
that it will take at least one more year to bring these groups
together....so I bought the domain  www.FathersDay2001.org   (this site will
be up by the end of the week)
If you cant make it to DC this year..............you can't say you don't
have enough of an advanced noticed for next year. We are going to march on
Washington every year from now on........


I've enclosed an article that might be of some interest to some of you.....
this problem with the FR groups has been around for years........... it's
time to change and come together.

Thanks........ email me ........... David   FD2000@...  or at
FathersDay@...   (I couldnt believe this screen name was available on
AOL after all of these years...)

This article by James is worth reading........ it's time to come together.
We will have this opportunity in June. Please send your comments to both
James and myself. Thanks....   David    www.FathersDay2000.org
_______________________________________

   FTDMag@...

http://www.fathersworld.com/fulltimedad/volume8/issue3/movement.html


THE FATHERHOOD MOVEMENT
     "for all pretense and purposes"

In several articles discussing the recent upswing in fatherhood in this
country, one of the reasons sited was the Fatherhood Movement. Just to set
the record straight, the fatherhood movement is a myth, and I ought to know,
for I am alleged to be one of its leaders. With that said, let me explain
what is going on out there.

There is motion afoot, individual dads are doing it, but there is no
movement, although some groups are shouting about it. These groups do a
great job of calling attention to themselves, which implies a movement, and
lends an air of importance, but too often they lack any real substance
beyond the occasional sound bite or press release. They are groups of
individuals, with personal goals, agendas and motives or they are groups
with specialized motives and not representative of all, or even most,
fathers.

Since there is little money to be gained or earned from all of this, greed
does not seem to factor into it. More often, the motive is ego, the need
to make a name for "leader" or to draw attention to themselves. And, it is
also this Ego that keeps the groups from joining together; everyone wants to
lead.

There is no leadership, and no cohesion. There is no cohesion
between/amongst the leaders. There is no National Organization, or committee
not even a clearinghouse. There are no annual meetings, conventions or
symposiums. New groups are popping up as quickly as the old groups fade
away. I know this because eventually they all get around to contacting
Full-Time Dads. (Last year I was contacted by three different groups looking
to organize
a "Take Your Son to Work Day" and two others who were countering with a take
your child to work day. None were aware of the others and none seemed
interested in joining forces and the event never occurred.

There is a "Men's Movement," guys trying to regain their masculinity in
today's society. It has been around since the women's movement started to
have an impact and grew stronger and more vocal with the "Iron John"
phenomena. Fatherhood is a part of their stance, but secondary to their
overall agenda.

Perhaps, the most vocal of these groups are the housedads, single dads and
divorced dads.
There have been several attempts to create a National At-Home Dads
Organization, however the very name has caused a controversy. They wish to
become the National Voice of fatherhood, and considering their "In the
Trenches" role, it is probably a good idea. But, every attempt has failed
and most likely will continue to do so. There is an annual At Home Dad
convention, but of the estimated two million potential attendees, fewer than
100 show up. However, there is the Dads to Dads organization, that has met
with some success but it has no board, bylaws, dues, or any of the trappings
of a true organization. Dad To Dad consists of totally autonomous localized
groups, who's only affiliation is the name. And even with its limited
success, there are still attempts by fledgling organizations to compete with
it.

There are many Fathers Rights Groups which deal with Divorce and Custody
laws and often limited to the State Level. (Even on the State and local
levels there are often several groups working separately from each other and
sometimes against each other.) Some of these groups are so angry, volatile
and openly hostile that they are dismissed out of hand and cause credibility
problems for the others. Several attempts have been made to create a
national
organization of these individual groups but always the organizer insists
that each follow under his *banner*. As should have been expected this met
with much reluctance. After all, we all know how us guys can be about our
flagpole.

And even greater oddity to the Father's Rights Movements is that they are
often started and run by women. Many (myself included) question the
motives and reasons behind this. To support and participate in such a cause
as father's rights, is understandable, even noble - many men were active in
the Women's Rights Movement. But hearing a woman speak passionately about
Fatherhood is much like listening to a man speak, in depth, about
childbirth.


James F.X. McLoughlin
Publisher/Editor
Full-Time Dads Magazine ... because parenting isn't a hobby!
The oldest, longest running parenting magazine for fathers in the country!









----- Original Message -----
From: "Shannyn T." <stchoub@...>
To: <FamilyWars@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [FamilyWars] What's up with this FATHER'S DAY thing?


>
> I've been saying for some time - and so do many of the father's rights
groups themselves - that the problem is that no one can put principles
before personalities.
>
> None of these groups want to unite into a single front, and that is why no
one takes them seriously.  That is why I don't bother with most of the men's
groups - if you want to make a difference, contact Women for Fatherhood, as
they're taking a different slant than most of the guys.
>
> Yes, there's a protest in DC - organized by Father's Day 2000.  Turnout
for it - who knows... I was going to go, as my family is in DC to start out
with, but it doesn't look like we'll be able to afford the trip (GEE, I
wonder why...)
>
> Yes, there's a rally in Denver - by the folks at Children's Justice - the
guy running the show over there is very competent, and I think he's got some
big names lined up to speak and is working on some media coverage.
>
> I e-mailed ANCPR about the DC protest - never got an answer.
>
> The FD2000 protest has only recently been mentioned on the CCJ forum...
>
> Haven't heard squat from ACFC about it either.
>
> ACFC is organizing nationwide protests in August - I'm the San Jose
coordinator for that - it seems like the most cohesive effort - but... who
knows...
>
> Nobody wants to publicize other people's ideas.
>
> Or maybe I'm the only one who's signed up on more than one list-serv and
knows that there's events going on that one group is promoting and no one
else knows about - or maybe if I read the other 468 e-mail messages in my
various in-boxes, I'd find out more about all these things being circulated
widely.  But, probably not.
>
> I'm trying to start researching this diversity problem, and trying to
think of a way to combine the efforts - maybe if we're sneaky enough about
it, these guys won't realize they've been tricked into working together.
>
> For now, I concentrate on the two or three things, and let the rest go.  I
get tired of more little web-groups popping up by the day, because everyone
thinks they can build a better wheel.  I deal with Women for Fatherhood
mostly, I'm a protest coordinator for ACFC's protest, and I moderate an
action board on the Second Wives Club and try to recruit there for WFF.
After that, I read the rest of what the other groups say, but don't really
get involved.
>
> ST.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:    Mariellen  mariellen99@...
> Sent:    Sun, 21 May 2000 19:06:19 -0000
> To:      FamilyWars@egroups.com
> Subject: [FamilyWars] What's up with this FATHER'S DAY thing?
>
>
> OK, ya'll.
>
> I've been researching the info. on the protest planned for Father's
> Day 2000 at the Capitol. I've been also looking into other protests
> planned around the country...there is going to be a big rally in
> Denver.
>
> Now...here's the problem as I see it. It's called LACK OF COHESION.
>
> This is a perfect opportunity and I don't see a lot of participation
> or even unification.
>
> NOW, I'm not running down this effort, I'm just trying to understand
> the lack of participation.
>
> I, personally, e-mailed my Point of Contact a few months back and
> heard from him once. He asked if I could help HIM because he was too
> busy.
>
>
> WHAAAATZUPPPP with this?
>
> How can we all get together on this effort and make it a success?
>
> Are we going to have to hire the Moms to do it for us?
>
>
> They got 750,000 at the Capitol last Sunday...are the Dads going to
> be able to do the same.
>
> I guess it's really the same old story.
>
> If you want something done, you have to ask a woman.
>
>
> Now, give me some feedback all you people out there who talk the talk
> but can't walk the walk....
>
>
> Mariellen
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based communications
center.
> Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Save 75% on Products!
> Find incredible deals on overstocked items with Free shipping!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/4013/9/_/_/_/958940688/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> FamilyWars-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>

General response to all of you who are having difficulty enforcing visitation
provisions in court orders, from an attorney's perspective.   NOTE:  I
practice in NC.  I have previously practiced in Colorado and Minnesota.   My
comments are general and your specific state law will determine the exact
procedures, etc.  (LOL  Leave it to a lawyer to start a foum post with a
disclaimer, eh?)

1.   Log all visitation attempts.   Just get a little notebook and jot down
contemporaneous notes on phone calls, missed visits, letters, etc.   It will
become a diary which can generally be introduced as evidence or, at least,
used to refresh your memory on the stand.   When you got to court, remember
to make two copies of the notebook so that you can introduce it as an exhibit
and provide one to the other side.  Be sure to note when you miss visitation
because of something YOU have done or had to do.  It lends credibility to
your journal.   Also, be very sure to inform the other parent when you aren't
going to visit and also try to talk to the kids to explain.   My little
subject matters tell heartbreaking stories of times they have waited for a
parent to come for visitation and the parent just never showed up, called,
anything.   If custodial parent denies your talking to the children, be sure
to note that also.  If you are making long distance phone calls or cell phone
calls, keep the bills because it is good evidence showing that you really did
call.

2.  Try your very best to be current on child support.   You do not want YOUR
hearing to suddenly become a hearing against you because of child support
violations.   If you can't stay current on support, you should look at filing
a motion to modify support.  The Judges I deal with are as passionate about
access for the non-custodial or secondary custody parent as with the payment
of child support.   If posible, don't let the second issue murk the waters of
your access issues.  By the same token, don't give up on your visitation
because of child support problems.   They are not linked as rights and
obligations.

3.  File a contempt motion.   Most states will allow you to do this pro se
(representing yourself)   I am under the impression that some states even
provide forms for you to use.  Some states have mediation services where you
can just reopen your original custody case and ask for another medication
session without involving an attorney.  This is  often limited to a certain
time frame after the original order is entered so may not always be available
even where there is mediation.   I would also always at least talk to an
attorney prior to filing.   Most attorneys will offer a free or reduced cost
initial consultation and you can get a lot of information which you can use
if you end up having to or choosing to represent yourself.  Be sure to go to
an attorney who regularly practices family law in the where you will be
heard.   Specific knowledge is always best.   If possible, I recommend using
an attorney.  Very often in contempt proceedings, you will be able to get
attorney fees awarded which may help to reduce or defray your attorney fees.


4.  Request a modification if other factors interfere with visitation.    If
your work schedule or travel time or something on that line makes it
impossible to exercise your visitation as it is set forth and your X or the
order provides that visitation is forfeited if not exercised on time, or
within a reasonable time frame, file a motion to modify and get those
obstacles addressed.   I believe that almost any Judge would respond
favorably to a parent wanting to exercise visitation but unable to because of
some legit obstacle, particularly such as work.   Change the terms of
visitation.   You may want to and be able to do this in conjunction with your
contempt motion.   You may need to do it first if the X isn't technically in
contempt because of the impossibility or the wording of your order.  In
either event, be sure to document in that little access notebook all attempts
to set up alternate visitation when you legitimately cannot exercise
visitation as set forth.

5.  Ask for a provision allowing for law enforcement assistance.   We have
had good success in asking our Judge to include a provision that all
appropriate law enforcement personnel assist in the peaceful enforcement of
the custody order, including visitation.   You will be requesting that it be
mutual so that if for any reason YOU don't return the children, the X would
also be able to use law enforcement to assist.   When you ask in this way, I
believe most Judges will grant the request, particularly in a contempt
proceeding.

6.  At all time show respect for the other parent and the court.   Whether
you feel it or not, you gotta look like you do -- at all times, in and out of
court.  For one thing, you don't want to give the X testimonial bits of
ammunition.  Courts like the good guy and do generally reward good parent
behavior ... eventually!    When a witness is there radiating hostility,
there is a logical tendency to believe that there may be some exaggeration or
provocation going on and you will be less likely to get all that the help you
could get from the Court.   When the X can testify credibly to specific
incidents of bad behavior, it weakens your position.   Most people don't lie
very well but they can tell a true story of hostility with gusto.   Don't
give the X bullets to shoot you with.

So, that's my for-what-it's-worth opinion on visitation orders.   Good luck.

The view is much better from the high road.

Joni

In a message dated 5/21/00 12:44:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
michlt@... writes:

<<  You simply file a Foreign Decree, and the state in which it is filed will
subsequently be the enforcing jurisdiction. >>

responding to the ressponse from CFox@techtrek who wrote:

<< I believe that if neither party lives in the original state, either can
change jurisdiction to the state they are in, whomever changes it first.>>


This is not entirely correct.   Jurisdiction questions can be tremendously
complicated and my following answer will by necessity be very general,
superficial, and basic, however, I hope it helps to clarify some of the
questions floating around.

First, let me note that child CUSTODY jurisdiction and child SUPPORT
jurisdiction are not the same so that there won't be any confusion.   CUSTODY
typically goes with the residence of the child under the Uniform Child
Custody and Juridiction Act (UCCJA) or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act (USSJEA).   Most of the definitions in those two acts
(one of which is in effect in all states, to the best of my knowledge) are
also consistent with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).
Essentially, at the time of an initial custody determination only the state
which is the HOME STATE of the minor child may enter a custody order, home
state broadly being defined as where the child has lived for the past six
months.   (some excpetions apply)   After the initial determination, that
state retains jurisdiction until or unless there is a court determination to
change juridiction, most typically done if neither party continues to reside
in the state.  IF neither party resides in the state then the state which is
the child's primary residence would normally assume jurisdiction for any
modification.    Even where one parent continus to reside in the original
state, a state where the child has been living may make modification
determinations is the originating state declines to exercise jurisdiction
because the new state is a more appropriate forum ... usually because that is
where most of the evidence is now available.

ANY state may enforce the custody order of another state if the order is
registered and recognized as a valid order.   This falls under the Full Faith
and Credit provisions of the US federal constitution.  Generally, only the
original state that entered the custody order or the current home state of
the child if the original state declines may modify custody orders.

As to child support jurisdiction, the primary enforcement proceedings
generally takes place where the paying party resides.  An enforcement action
may be initiated from the state where the recipient party resides, however,
unless that state has direct personal jurisdiction over the payng party, it
cannot enter support orders or even enforcement orders.   Direct, personal
jurisdiction would exist if the parties, for example, lived in that state
together at the time of separation.   Direct, personal jurisdiction over the
paying party in the recipient party's state would typically not exist if both
parties had moved from their original state to other states.  There must be a
significant connection between the party and the state.

A further note on child support enforcement:   I have read many comments here
on in other forums on huge arrearages and aggressive enforcement.  The
arrearage seems to often occur after a period of unemployment or other
reverse in financial ability.   It is ESSENTIAL for the paying party to
immediately file a motion to modify support when something like that occurs.
  Most courts have forms and procedures where you can file this without an
attorney (though I recommend talking to one before you actually file it.
Get some basic information even if you are going to represent yourself.)
Child support enforcement generally gets aggressive when the paying party
just seems to be ignoring or avoiding an order.  If someone has changed jobs
to avoid a garnishment, moved without informing the court, ignored court
dates, etc., the Judge gets the notion that the party just doesn't care.   In
my experience, If the paying party files a motion, asking for relief, shows
up with reasonable and credible evidence and a decent attitude, a
modification, at least on a temporary basis, generally IS granted.   Often,
though, the state law prohibits a retroactive modication beyond the date of
the filing of a motion to modify.  This means that you must file that request
as soon as the circumstances arise.

If you have an arrearage, the court will allow a repayment plan and if the
paying party is the one to come forth voluntarily, I have found the courts
here very liberal in the terms.   I frequently achieve repayment plans of $25
- $100 a month even on huge arrearages where my client is the one who
voluntarily requests a plan.   Even in an enforcement action where a client
really has been ducking enforcement for a long time, we have been quite
successful in structuring payment plans which are not too onerous if the
client seems ready to comply with the order entered.  Attitude really is
important, folks.   A "screw you" attitude will very often result in a "no,
I'll screw you' Order.   It's sort of understandable.

Another important thing about child support:  Under the support guidelines of
most states, a Court can (and here usually does) impute income if the court
finds that a party is voluntarily under or unemployed.   If you seek a
reduction in support because of a reduction in pay, you need to be able to
show that the reduction was due to factors beyond your control.   I have had
a lot of clients who told me point blank they would quit their job to get a
lower support payment or to avoid child support.    I show them our
guidelines and explain that this would be self-defeating.

Tragically, child support laws have evolved because of the exceptions ... the
people who have not been responsible.   They now also hit the good people who
are out there every day trying.   My experience has been that if a Judge can
see you are one of the good people, the Judge will be reasonable.   Attitude
and evidence are the two keys to success in court ... no matter which side
you are on, in my opinion.   I recommend at least talking to an attorney who
practices regularly in that court.   That attorney wil know the attitudes of
the Judge who will be hearing your case, the type of argument and
presentation which is most effective with him, the type of thing which will
irritate him.   Most attorneys will give you a free or fairly reasonably
priced initial consultation and you can get a great deal of specific
information during that appointment.

Remember Judges are human too.   Most of the Judges I know try to separate
their personalities from their decisions, but there are limits to what is
possible.   For example, any human who looks at someone in court who appears
to not be following a court order and who shows up for court wearing a
t-shirt emblazened with the slogan "FUCK THE SYSTEM" is probably not going to
be very sympathetic.  (True story!!)   Of course, that is only topped by the
guy who showed up in court for a driving under the influence charge wearing a
t-shirt that read "I LIVE TO DRINK"  (also a true story)   Perhaps this is
why our jurisdiction finally instituted a no t-shirt rule.  No doubt a good
rule, but it is far less interesting these days.

Keep up the good fight.

Joni

A recent posting to this forum included the following:

<< She has never been able to accept responsibility.  She started having
babies at age 16.  Tell me what kind of life this woman has.  She is a high
school dropout ..... >>

and so forth.    Men, boys, countrymen: lend me your ears!   Make babies with
women like this and expect problems.   Same applies to all the women and
girls.  Stop playing with bad mommy or daddy material is you expect to parent
with a good mommy or daddy! Similarly:  Everyone! ... if he or she wasn't
working, had a drug problem, job hopped, spent money mostly on booze and fun,
hit you, etc. etc. when you met and married (or just screwed), what the hell
makes you think he or she will change once a baby arrives?  These babies
don't just happen; there are two of you romping.    Look beyond the sex
organs when doing things which may result in a new life.  PLEASE!   I'm so
tired to helping people sort through the pieces and trying to protect the
kids.

It is all sort of like when a client comes in dumbfounded that his or her
spouse is having an affair with someone else when that is how THEY had
started in the first place.   All of this, by the way, appears very
definately to be an equal opportunity insanity phenomenon.   To put it in a
literary context:  so many of the cases I see have no mystery plot
whatsoever.  They are more tragic sagas with all the necessary elements for
disaster revealed in the first chapter, long before the marriage or children.
  The ensuing chapters just make us watch and suffer with our hero until the
inevitable, painful, final scenes.

Joni the Tired

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/rand01.htm

<A HREF="http://www.divorcesource.com/NH/ARTICLES/ward1.html">Click here:
Divorce Source: Family Wars: The Alienation of Children</A>
http://www.divorcesource.com/NH/ARTICLES/ward1.html

There are some great articals here....
http://www.singleparentsnetwork.com/legalarti.html


>  Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:09:39 EDT
>     From: prplunicrn777@...
>  Subject: Re: I'm at the end of my rope with this man.
>
>  I am tired of the BS with this rotten jerk.  Just received another
>  letter--restricted delivery.  What the hell is he up to?  That makes twice
>  this week.  I haven't picked the letter up from the post office but this
>  rotten creep has totally messed with my life and I am tired of it.
>  ~~~VENT~~~.  I am literally sick over all this.  Being at battle with him
is
>
>  not tolerable for me and everytime I get notice of another letter, I am
sick
>
>  to my stomach and shaky.  I don't know why but I just can't tolerate his
>  ignorance anymore.  I have put up with this BS from him, his wife and her
>  mother and boyfriend for over two and half years now and I just dispise
> these
>  people.
>  Can anyone help here.  I just don't understand why this is happening.  I
> have
>  truly been nice to these people and worked with them when i could and they
>  put me through hell.  First in 1997 they keep the children after summer
> visit
>  and claim I am abusing my children so they don't let me see them for over
a
>  month and a half or talk to them.  Since I fought them on that one and
won,
>  they just keep doing things like refusing to talk to me, sending me
>  restricted delivery (little jabs), cutting me down to my children,
>  belittling me to the FOC.  Two and a half years of this has just about
> turned
>  my life upside down.  I just want him to leave me alone and quit lying and
>  putting the children in the middle of his problems and take responsibility
>  for himself and his actions.  That goes for any man or worman that has
>  children and pulls these petty bullshit games.  In the long run they are
>  hurting the children the most.
>  As far as what he has done to me, he has messed with my head from the time
> we
>  were married so why should he stop now?
>
>  Any suggestions, advice please advise.  Thank you for listening to me rant
> on
>  about the ass.
>  Have a nice day.
>
>  Toni
>

In a message dated 5/17/00 2:41:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, odin@...
writes:

<< My ex wife was and still a drug user when I complain to the welfare frued
  unit as well as to the social services. >>

For anyone out there with similar issues .... it is my strong recommendation
that a motion to modify custody be filed rather than a complaint to welfare
or social services.   Judges do very often, regularly in fact, change custody
when there are drug use issues in the home.  I have done it frequently.   Of
course, my following comment to not apply to all states of countries, however
... generally:  The standard and options available to a Judge when social
services are involved are very different from regular family court.  When you
deal with social services, there is generally a statutory mandate to keep the
family together or reunify the family if a child has to be removed from the
home.   In other words, when such a mandate exists, social services and the
Judges deciding those cases MUST try to keep the child in the home or return
the child ASAP.  The tricky part of this is that "home" is defined as where
the child was at the time social services gets involved.   Now, let me
strongly, vehemently say that this is something which I believe we should NOT
try to change because social services is also involved in many intact
families and they SHOULD have to try to leave the children with the family
when possible.   I do not want social services to be deciding where children
will live on a grand scale.   But, it is a serious problem when the child is
only with one parent at the time of social services' initial involvement.
The standard in family court is entirely different and a Judge in that arena
can change custody in a heart beat if there has been a substantial change of
circumstances, particularly when the moving party can show an adverse impact
on the child.   Some states require that there be an adverse impact shown,
others do not.   I urge my clients never to involve social services.   If you
are concerned enough to involve social services, file a motion to mofidy and
use that same information to try to get primary custody and restrict the
behavior of the other parent.

Joni

How many times have a divorced dad not been able to
watch the pokemon show with his children or to bring
his kid to see a hockey game because his ex-wife feels
that piono lessons are more important? Would Bill
Clinton be so unwilling to unite that Cuban kid with
his sole surviving parent if that parent was his
mother instead of his father?
In fact how often do divorced fathers ever get a say
in how their kids are raised?
Please see my website. link to it if you want. Just
spread the world about it in case I get arrested or
something for saying this. Please tell as many people
as possible about my site as quickly as possible.
I want to take legal action in the supreme court
concerning the disgraceful human rights violations of
fathers in this country - similar to Nazi Germany
persucution of minorities in WW2.
See Here:
http://www.ilovemydadto.com/
Sincerely
Norman
Father who has seen his kids 18 days in the past 7 years.

I got this letter this morning.... I asked Tracy if I could share it with
you..........

Never give up.......

Hi Dave, I just read the article about the divorced dads and other issues.
As
far as spreading the word besides the Internet, have you prepared anything
for the newspapers around the country and sent it to them to get the word
out
about the Father's Day 2000 at the Capitol? I am sure there is a lot of
father's who don't have Internet access; but do read the paper. I just think
the word about what the father's rights groups are doing to give father's
more involvement with their kids needs to get more attention. After what
Chris has been through with his daughter, I see first hand what the system
will do to a man and child and how it can effect their closeness. It's not
good on the child not to see the noncustodial parent more often than they
order through the courts.

Here's an example of a women (my sister) who divorced my brother in law
recently. In the beginning of the separation the court immediately gave her
temp. custody and child support, because his lawyer told him he didn't have
a
chance being a father to get temp. custody before the divorce hearing, that
the women almost always wins. Even though she moved out and their son
  Age:7
) would leave his home he was born and raised in and would have to be taken
to school because she moved out of the school district. She convinced the
father also she was a women and he would never get the child. He was even
convinced of that. I told him this is your child too that you raised that's
bullshit, get rid of the asshole lawyer and find another one that can do
something for you besides just give in right away. I gave him the book
Father's for Custody and a video on custody. He got a new lawyer and started
custody proceedings. My sister told him to stop wasting his time and money
because she was going to win. She then went to the house and cleaned every
bit of furniture out and took everything. Because he started to fight, she
got defensive and thought by cleaning out the house and leaving him with
nothing she could bring him down once again. Didn't work! She never gave
this
dad the chance to have their son during the separation and would leave him
with baby-sitters (me, my sister, and parents) for days and even with men
she
was seeing at the time. I told her why not give his Dad the opportunity to
take him when she had to leave town. She told me that she didn't want her
son
to see him much because she would get the child support reduced. Well, the
court ruled joint custody in April and now she has to pay child support ($4)
because she makes more money than dad. She wants him to drop the child
support order. He has been advised not to. They get him every other week now
and on Wens. nights during the other parents week. This child was so
stressed
out before; but now he is so much happier getting to spend more time with
his
dad again. Sometimes the system does work if a father is willing to fight,
and I know this dad did. My relationship with my sister has changed, and we
aren't as close; but I felt she was wrong in what she was doing to limit her
son's contact with his Dad. And I am the type of person who will let my
thoughts rip if someone comes to me and tells me the things she did. She
told
me I should side with her. I told her he was my newfew and blood also, and I
didn't care how she felt of my opinion, and I wasn't siding with anyone but
their son.
Guys need to learn that they do have rights. I saw first hand this father go
from a total beat down victim because he thought only mother's had rights,
to
a Dad who started speaking up and defending his rights and his sons. So, the
system sometimes does play a fair role for men. Especially if they have the
right direction from a good attorney and people who have been through the
system.
I wrote a lot I know, sorry, I know your busy; but just wanted to share this
story of a happy ending in Michigan. Talk at U later, Tracy


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paying  too much for organizational calls? Join beMANY!
And pay less each month.
http://click.egroups.com/1/4166/2/_/565243/_/958577350/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Week long protests will be held at both the White House and the US Capitol
the week of June 12th through June 18th- FathersDay.  Make plans to join us
during the week or at FathersDay2000.



Subscribe: FathersDay2000-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: FathersDay2000-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: FathersDay2000-owner@onelist.com

I found a site that you can plead your case and it's called "Citizens For
Justice."                      http://www.citizensforjustice.org

There is a really good book called Child Support Survival Guide by Bonnie
White.  How to get Results through Child Support Agencies.

In it she explains how to get the Enforcement Agency has the obligation to
review and adjust child support orders based on both parties incomes.  This
agency is supposed to make sure that the correct amount of child support is
being charged to the noncusotidal parent.

Just how many judges how this agency accountable to do their jobs.  How many
child support orders are completely incorrect???

Just how many NCP know that they have a right to call the child support
agency and request a review and adjustment?

NCP are taxpayers too.  They have just as much right to utilize the child
support agency as the CP.  It is just a matter of making them do their jobs,
and complaining to all of their higher ups when they refuse to do it.

thanks
gf

From:  CatyLawinFla@...
Re:   "Deadbeat" Loving Dad Needs Help"
This is the article that should be attached:

The Florida Bar Journal Articles
        THE FLORIDA
        BAR JOURNAL

        Selected articles - March 2000
       Frustrated by a Deadbeat Parent?
       Try Invoking the Dog Law
       by Judge O.H. Eaton, Jr.
       Family practitioners occasionally run into the deadbeat parent who
simply
       refuses to obey the order directing payment of support. These cases are
       frustrating for several reasons.
       True deadbeats have no money or assets. They live off of the income of
       others, usually day by day, or they rely upon the generosity of friends
       for assistance through the hard times.
       Deadbeats believe they have nothing to lose. They have no job. They
have
       no status. They have no property. They perceive themselves to be
creatures
       deserving of sympathy due to their pathetic state which was caused by
the
       custodial parent who now is to blame for the whole thing.
       The usual civil remedies such as income deduction orders and writs of
       execution or sequestration do not produce needed monetary support. To
add
       to the frustration, the custodial parent is usually destitute, or
nearly
       so, and cannot afford counsel.
       Sometimes the court files in these cases are voluminous because the
       deadbeat is pro se and is making a career out of dragging the custodial
       parent to court over trivial matters, thus jeopardizing employment and
       putting the custodial parent even more at the mercy of the deadbeat.
How
       should the family law practitioner and the courts approach these cases?
       One approach is to apply "dog law." Now, I do not claim this concept to
be
       original with me. I learned the concept during a lecture by Professor
       Calvin Woodard of the University of Virginia College of Law several
years
       ago.
       According to Professor Woodard, there are two kinds of law: "human law"
       and "dog law."
       "Human law" is the law of reason. It assumes that human beings are
       rational and are able to obey the law or weigh the advantages and
       disadvantages of violating the law by assessing the risk of being
caught,
       evaluating the possible penalties, and deciding whether violating the
law
       is worth the risk. By way of example, "human law" principles are
assumed
       in criminal statutes, zoning ordinances, and the law of contract.
       "Dog law," on the other hand, does not include any rational reasoning.
       When a dog jumps up on a couch, the couch gets dirty. The dog does not
       realize that this is a problem. If the dog's owner slaps the dog, he
will
       get off of the couch. After being slapped a few times, the dog will not
       jump on the couch. This is not because the dog understands that he is
       getting the couch dirty, but because the dog knows he will get slapped
if
       he jumps up on it.
       "Dog law" is particularly applicable to deadbeat parents. It is not
       rational to refuse to pay child support. It is not rational for an
       ablebodied person to refuse to earn a living in order to avoid paying
       child support. Deadbeat parents justify their irrational behavior as a
way
       to get back at the custodial parent or to get the custodial parent
back.
       Most family practitioners fail to recognize the realities of the
situation
       with deadbeat parents and attempt to use civil contempt as a remedy to
       enforce payment of support. Civil contempt is the application of "human
       law," and it will not work. Let me explain.
       Civil Contempt
       Deadbeat parents are confident that they will not suffer loss of
liberty
       through civil contempt. This confidence is justified. Although it is
easy
       to initiate, civil contempt is impossible to prove in the case of a
       deadbeat parent. Civil contempt requires proof that the defaulting
party
       has the ability to pay all or part of the support obligation. Since the
       deadbeat parent has no ability to pay, civil contempt will not be
       available.1 This is true even if assets have been squandered and income
       has been lost through R.A.I.D.S.2 The deadbeat parent knows that the
court
       cannot force him or her to obtain gainful employment through the use of
       civil contempt.3 The only effective remedy in these situations is the
       invocation of "dog law" through indirect criminal contempt.
       Indirect Criminal Contempt and Dog Law
       Indirect criminal contempt differs significantly from civil contempt.
       First, it is punitive, not coercive.4 This means the deadbeat finally
has
       something to lose that matters  liberty. Second, the awful engines of
the
       criminal process take over the case. This includes such eye-opening
events
       as arrest, being booked and fingerprinted, posting bond, attending
       arraignment, being prosecuted by an assistant state attorney, and, most
       significantly, having to explain lack of payment of support to a
       six-person jury. A jury trial is essential because it is publicly
       embarrassing and a jury verdict authorizes the trial judge to sentence
the
       deadbeat to the county jail for up to a year.5 A nonjury trial reduces
the
       maximum penalty to six months.6
       Of course, the deadbeat is entitled to all of the constitutional rights
of
       a criminal defendant including the right to counsel (the public
defender
       must be appointed since the deadbeat is indigent) and be given a
       reasonable time to prepare for trial.7 Upon conviction, the public
       defender is required to seek a lien for services rendered.8
       Invoking the criminal process is without cost to the custodial parent.
The
       taxpayers pick up the whole tab. This is a great benefit, because the
       custodial parent is usually destitute due to lack of payment of
support.
       Initiating an indirect criminal contempt proceeding is nearly as simple
as
       initiating a civil contempt proceeding. The process is started by the
       filing of a motion for order to show cause.9 The motion must be
verified
       or be accompanied by an affidavit of a person who has knowledge of the
       facts.10 It is presented ex parte along with an order to show cause.
The
       order to show cause must state the essential facts constituting
       contemptuous conduct.11 The order can be issued like a summons or a
       capias.12 If it is issued as a capias, a bond can be required.13 The
       sheriff is the officer who serves the order without costs. Once the
order
       is served, an arraignment and trial are scheduled.
       I have presided over criminal contempt proceedings, so my observations
may
       be of benefit to those who have not had the experience.
       Jurors have little sympathy for deadbeat parents, and I am amazed at
the
       number of people in jury pools who not only pay child support, but also
       have never missed a payment and are proud of it. The deadbeat will
realize
       things are going badly during the first few moments of the trial.
       After the jury has been selected, it is a simple matter for the state
       attorney to have the support order admitted into evidence and establish
       the amount of arrearage. The state can then rest because of the
       presumption that the deadbeat had the ability to comply with the
       requirements of the support order when it was entered.14
       At that point the deadbeat has no choice but to take the stand and try
to
       explain away the failure to pay support. No matter what excuse is
       presented, the deadbeat cannot survive cross examination. Remember, the
       true deadbeat makes no payments, not reduced payments. It is not
possible
       for the deadbeat to answer the following questions satisfactorily:
         "Q: Mr. Doe, you have made no child support payments in the past two
         years. Are you telling this jury that you could not have paid even
one
         dollar during all that time?
         "Q: Are you telling this jury that you could not have obtained a
minimum
         wage job in this economy?
         "Q: Did you ever seek employment from an employment agency or labor
         pool?
         "Q: Did you try to convince a judge that you deserve relief from the
         support order?"
       After the deadbeat rests and final argument is presented, the court
will
       give the following instruction to the jury:
         "If you find it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there
was
         a court order requiring (defendant) to pay child support and
(defendant)
         was aware of the order, it is presumed that (defendant) had the
ability
         to comply with the order and has willfully disobeyed the order.
         (Defendant) has the burden to come forward with evidence to dispel
this
         presumption."
       Conviction is inevitable.
       It is important for the trial judge to sentence the defendant on the
spot
       while the jury is present. The judge should explain the concept of dog
law
       to the defendant so that it is clearly understood. The deadbeat should
be
       told that the court understands the defendant does not think
rationally,
       otherwise support would have been paid. Accordingly, the sentence
imposed
       should be accompanied with the promise that another order to show cause
       will be issued 60 days after the defendant is released from custody
unless
       there is regular payment of support. The deadbeat should be informed
that
       upon a second conviction, the sentence may be greater than the first
       sentence. A third conviction may result in a sentence of a year in
jail.
       The deadbeat should be assured that this procedure will continue until
       support is regularly paid.
       Trial judges have a lot of sentencing options in indirect criminal
       contempt cases besides a straight jail sentence. For instance, the
judge
       can place the deadbeat on probation under the supervision of the
       Department of Corrections. This is particularly therapeutic in certain
       cases because the deadbeat gets the opportunity to be supervised by a
       probation officer like other criminals. Special conditions of probation
       can be imposed, such as serving a jail sentence, completing a program
at a
       probation and restitution center, or requiring participation in a work
       release program while incarcerated. Community service can be required
in
       addition to other sanctions. The deadbeat can also be required to pay
       court costs and the public defender lien.
       The judge has up to 60 days from the date of the contempt judgment to
       amend it.15 This is useful in many cases.
       For example, in one of the cases I tried, a private attorney suddenly
       appeared after the sentence had been imposed and filed a motion for
bond
       pending appeal. The attorney did not seriously think he would prevail
on
       the bond motion because he had no fairly debatable issue on appeal, but
he
       used the hearing to discover what I might be willing to do to change
the
       sentence.
       Surprisingly, a prospective employer appeared at the hearing who said
he
       simply had to have the deadbeat on his payroll. He agreed to co-sign a
       note with the bank across the street from the courthouse for the full
       amount of past due child support, which came to over $15,000. I agreed
to
       vacate the sentence upon deposit of the money with the clerk and to
place
       the deadbeat on probation for a year with the single condition that he
pay
       child support as each payment became due. I also required the deadbeat
to
       deposit enough money to pay the public defender lien.
       Criminal contempt is not the answer to every deadbeat parent case. It
may
       only be appropriate to a very few. However, it is available in the
court's
       arsenal and, if used sparingly, it can be most effective. As an added
       bonus, it allows the overworked family practitioner to rely upon the
       criminal justice system for collection of past due child support
payments
       in cases where there is little possibility of success through the use
of
       the usual civil remedies.



       1 Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985); Fishman v. Fishman, 656
So.
       2d 1250 (Fla. 1995); Coogan v. Coogan, 662 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.
       1995); Miller v. Miller, 587 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1991); De
Molina
       v. De Molina, 463 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1985).
       2 Recently Acquired Income Deficiency Syndrome.
       3 Some judges have tried to use civil contempt to force nonpaying
parents
       to obtain employment. This only works in cases where the nonpaying
parent
       is not a true deadbeat. If the deadbeat refuses to obtain employment
and
       goes to jail, he still has no ability to pay and is entitled to
release.
       4 Featherstone v. Montana, 684 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1996).
       5 Wells v. State, 654 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1995).
       6 Id.
       7 Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274; Gidden v. State, 613 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 1993).
       8 Fla. Stat. §938.29(1)(a).
       9 Fla. R. Crim P. 3.840.
       10 Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1995); Lindman v.
Ellis,
       658 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1995); Hill v. State, 643 So. 2d 1178
(Fla.
       2d D.C.A. 1995); Aiello v. State, 338 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.
1976).
       11 Wood v. State, 700 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1997).
       12 Ex parte Biggers, 95 So. 763 (Fla. 1923); State v. Golden, 571 So.
2d
       49 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1990).
       13 Gidden, 613 So. 2d 457.
       14 Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274.
       15 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c).



       O.H. Eaton, Jr., is a circuit judge in the 18th Judicial Circuit. He
       graduated from the University of Florida College of Law in 1968 and was
       elected to the circuit bench in 1986. Judge Eaton is vice chair of the
       Criminal Rules of Procedure Committee and a member of the Florida
Courts
       Technology Commission and chairs that commission's Trial Courts
Technology
       Subcommittee. He is currently assigned to a civil division that
includes
       family cases.
       This article is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Ky M.
Koch,
       chair, and Mark A. Sessums, editor.

Don't Re-invent the wheel.  Browse on over to
http://childrens-justice.org/petition-online.htm -
this site automatically sends a fax to your federal
representatives *AND* senators - all you do is fill
out the form.

Please spread this far and wide...

Alan


=====
Are you tired of the breakdown in the Family?  Are you sickened by its effects
on our Children and our society??
You can help force a change in the Family Court System by following this
link.... http://www.deDicAtedDadS.org and signing the petition!!
We *CAN* change this *NOW*!!  You can help!!
Do it NOW and get others to do the same!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Thought Id send this in.
I ran across this and found it interesting....

by Diane Chambers


The concept of "custody" is archaic by today’s standards. The roots of child
custody can be traced to the Roman Empire two millenniums ago when fathers
could sell their children or condemn them to death for just about any reason.
However, at age seven, these children were viewed as no longer needing
physical care from their parents, at which time they usually became servants
to others. During times of English Common Law and on into the nineteenth
century, children were seen as valuable property to parents because of their
income-producing capabilities. It was not uncommon during the industrial
revolution to find a seven-year-old working fourteen to sixteen hours a day.
By the early 1800s in the United States, fathers were given superior rights
of custody over mothers because it was believed fathers had the income and
resources to take care of their children. In other words, they could protect
their “property investment� better than mothers could.

By the turn of the 20th century, the status of women began to improve, and
with that came an increased interest in child welfare and the enactment of
child labor laws. The "tender years" doctrine was adopted by most courts at
the time, which said that mothers should be the ones to physically care for
children, while fathers were expected to be financially responsible for them.
This resulted in women being in charge of the private sphere of the family
and men being in charge of the public sphere. By the 1970s, however, the
divorce rate was up, a record number of women were in the work force, and the
gendered lines between the private and public spheres of the family became
blurred. This, then, led to the courts deciding on custody based upon the
"best interests of the child," which continues to be the way courts typically
make decisions today. The best interests concept allows for either parent or
both parents to share in the responsibilities of raising a child based on
what is in the best interests of the child. In other words, the courts
advocate for the child - not for either parent.

This brief historical look at how child custody has evolved over the
centuries should help us to see that children are no longer our property to
fight over and divide up like the weekly paycheck. Yet, we still continue to
hear parents use phrases like "giving up" or "keeping" my kids. We hear of
parents demanding fifty percent custody in lieu of paying child support, as
if they can put a price on spending time with their kids. We hear custodial
parents express paralyzing fear that the other parent will try to "take the
kids away" from them and, likewise, non-custodial parents complaining that
the primary custodian is using the kids to get more child support.


From SoloParenting.com

Got it from a forward from the fathers-issues e-group.

Here's the link -

USDA child costs for 1995 - 1999 may be viewed at:
http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/using2.htm

I pasted below a bit of commentary below on it too - it is VERY important to 
note the fact that the USDA used per capita methods for calculating housing and
transportation costs instead of marginal cost estimates.  (IE, for a four-person
household, they attribute a full quarter of the housing cost to each person -
instead of assuming that the adults would have to have a place to live anyway
and using an estimate of the difference between a one-bedroom and a
three-bedroom to attribute the housing costs for children.)

It is an interesting read - they go into an explanation of their methods, and
they have separate sections and estimates on the costs of raising children in a
single-parent household, as well as a dual-parent.

ST.

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

The Agriculture Department has released its estimates of the cost of raising a
child.  Excerpts from the story and links to related information are included in
this post.

When reading the Agriculture Department data, note that they use proportional
accounting for some of the costs (housing and transportation).  Proportional
accounting is an unfortunate method of allocating costs for a child and is
particularly inappropriate for determining housing and transportation costs.

If a couple living in a home has a child, the cost of that home does not
increase.  However, the couple does accrue marginal housing costs such as an
increase in utility costs resulting from arising at night to change diapers or
feed the child.  However, extending to the child a 1/3 ownership cost of the
home and all utilities is inappropriate.

Transportation is another example.  Marginal costs extend to a small increase in
fuel, maintenance, and depreciation for the auto as a result of increased trips
to the supermarket or to the pediatrician. However, extending to the child a 1/3
ownership cost of the vehicle is inappropriate.

*********

4-27-2000
Child-Rearing Costs Jump To $160K

WASHINGTON (AP) -- That new baby will cost a bundle. The cost of rearing a child
born last year will be $160,140 for a middle-income family, up about 2 percent
from 1998, the government said Thursday.

For low-income families, those earning less than $36,800, the cost of rearing a
child through age 17 is lower -- $117,000 -

The department estimates a middle-income family could expect to spend $8,450 to
$9,530 a year on each child, depending on the age.

In 1960, total child expenditures for a middle-income family were estimated at
$25,230.







-----Original Message-----
From:    Tim and Shelly Olson michlt@...
Sent:    Sun, 14 May 2000 14:40:53 -0700
To:      FamilyWars@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [FamilyWars] costs of raising children


Shannyn,
Where did you find this table?

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
And your crybaby whiny-butt opinion would be...?
----- Original Message -----
From: Shannyn T. <stchoub@...>
To: <FamilyWars@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: [FamilyWars] costs of raising children


>
> Personally,I think that since the USDA already spends the time and money
doing a study of "Expenditures on Children by Families" every year, perhaps
they should...um... try using their own bleeping numbers...
>
> Plugging in our incomes, ages of the children, and so forth into the
USDA's tables - the EX is contributing about $140 a YEAR to her own
children.  We're paying the rest.
>
> Yep, the government confirms what I've know all along...
>
> The level of support we actually pay would be an "equal" share for a
INTACT household earning $96000 a year.
>
> ST.
>
>

___________________________________________________________________________
Visit http://www.visto.com/info, your free web-based communications center.
Visto.com. Life on the Dot.

Go here: http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/04/0138


Tim and Shelly Olson wrote:
>
> Shannyn,
> Where did you find this table?
>


--
Char Fox • General Mgr • http://www.techtrek.com
*****************************************************
http://www.geocities.com/almostheaven ICQ: 1539888
http://geocities.com/Thundertek
http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/133/
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BPQ552
*****************************************************

Step-Dads - For More Support Check Out...
Step Parents & Friends Message Boards
Http://www.delphi.com/stepmomx3

I've been reading the "ex-wife / New Wife" messages.  I see that both
sides of the issue are being discussed.  One is the position and
feelings of the ex-wife, and the other is the position and feelings
of the new wife.  I happen to be the third side of the issue... I'm
the poor S.O.B. in the middle!  This poor guy is trying to cooperate
with his ex, and trying not to make any decisions that will put him
in hot water with his new.  His new wife thinks that every little
favor the ex asks for should be denied (probably because the ex
doesn't do many favors for him).  The ex thinks that he is being
manipulated, and controlled by the new, and the new insists that the
ex is the manipulator.  The new wife is jealous of the ex, because
she got all the bennies of a younger man, and the ex is jealous (or
at least frusterated) because she really can't believe he went out
and replaced her that easily.  They will only get along when they
both quit putting him in the middle.  The ex (secretly) hopes that
she will cause conflict between him and his new wife, just so he
won't be happier than he was with her.  The new wife is (also
secretly) half scared that he will fall back in love with his ex, so
she has to constantly nurture the negative feelings he has / had
about the ex.  All this does one thing for sure: Destroys his will to
talk to either of them.  If the new wife would just be confident that
he has no desire to be with the ex - in fact, if there were no
children involved, the ex would have ment little more than any of the
ex girlfriends he broke up with throughout his life. The ex needs to
understand that the new wife is now his life partner, and he will
consult her on all family issues which may include discipline, and
education while the children are under their care.  Her opinion is
now as important to him as the ex's once was (a long time ago, in a
land far away).  They both need to quit putting all that on his
shoulders.  When he breaks, they will both lose, and so will the
children.

http://law.about.com/newsissues/law/library/howto/ht-cross.htm
<http://law.about.com/newsissues/law/library/howto/ht-cross.htm>


____________________________
Cheryl Miller cheryl@... <mailto:cheryl@...>
Redondo Beach MBW Family Multimedia Web Site http://www.mbw-nv.com
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/>
ACOA <http://www.mbw-nv.com/acoa/Default.asp>  incest survivor
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/incest/Default.asp>
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/meetus.htm> MBW Family known for wedding pranks
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/weddingpranks/> , divorce pranks,
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/divorce/>  redhead jokes
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/redhead/> , the Oh No A Bear
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/album/MBWFamily/onoabear.htm> Picture, Colorado
resident Marvin  <http://www.mbw-nv.com/marvin.htm> the Martian,
Spirituality  <http://www.mbw-nv.com/spirituality/stories/1.htm> Stories,
Casper <http://www.mbw-nv.com/casper/default.htm> , Amaryzingrace's Tweety
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/marygrace/> , Angela's Taz
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/angela> , Aaron's only cat lovers allowed
Peppertail's <http://www.mbw-nv.com/aaron/peppertail.htm>  page, Brittny's
and Drew's Angelica <http://www.mbw-nv.com/brittny/angelica.htm>  and Tommy
<http://www.mbw-nv.com/drew/playground.htm>  from Rugrats Playground. The
guys won't want to miss my co-worker and model Marina Blackwell's photo
gallery <http://www.mbw-nv.com/album/friends/marina/1.htm> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Things I am assuming that happens behind closed doors often
----- Original Message -----
From: <Genovato@...>
To: <Genovato@...>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 6:25 PM
Subject: Judge slammed for joking email


> This NEWS.COM (http://www.news.com/) story has been sent to you from
Genovato@...
>
> Message from sender:
> Reality is judges do screw fathers over. Its not about how decent you play
the game, but how bias and discriminatory judges continue practicing. This
is par for the course in my opinion of judges in Sonoma County, California
and Marion County, Indiana divorce courts.
>
> Gene Jackson
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Judge slammed for joking email
>
> July 7, 1998, 9:20 a.m. PT
> http://home.cnet.com/category/0-1005-200-330951.html
>
> SAN FRANCISCO--California's Commission on Judicial Performance admonished
a superior court judge for calling a lawyer "chicken" and sending an email
message saying he intended to "screw" a litigant.
>
>   The language used by Judge Gregory Caskey, who handled juvenile cases at
the Shasta County Superior Court, showed inappropriate bias, a joking
attitude, and neglect for the dignity of the court, the commission said
yesterday.
>
>   It said Caskey, in an email to a lawyer appearing in a case before his
court last November, wrote that he was inclined to deny a hearing requested
by attorneys representing the father in a custody case.
>
>   "I say screw [the father] and let's cut [the attorney] off without a
hearing. OK? By the way, this message will self-destruct in five seconds..."
the email stated.
>
>   When the recipient of the message wrote back that he was uncomfortable
responding, the judge sent back a one-word reply: "Chicken."
>
>   The commission voted unanimously to admonish Caskey, although it noted
that the judge had a long record of distinguished judicial service, no prior
record of discipline, and had expressed remorse.
>
>     Story Copyright  1998 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>

guess it would help to remember to put the web page.  (my son bumped me with
a hug and I sent this out SORRY):

http://www.spyman.com/laws.htm

One and Two Party Telephone Tape Recording Laws
One party state: One party to the telephone conversation has to have
knowledge and give consent to Recording of the conversation.

Two Party State: All parties to the conversation must have knowledge and
give consent.

Note - In Two Party Recordings for Evidentiary Requirements. a notification
Audible beep must be provided every 15 Seconds, Notifying all parties that a
recording was taking place.

   STATE BY STATE LIST

   This List has not been verified, any errors in this list will be corrected
if you E Mail me at pi@....
   State Laws change from time to time, so you are advised to check your
State and Local laws in your area.


   Alabama: One Party
   Alaska: One party
   Arizona: One Party
   Arkansas: One Party
   California: Two Party
   Colorado: One party
   Connecticut: Two Party
   Delaware: Two Party
   District Of Columbia :One Party
   Florida: Two Party
   Georgia: One Party
   Hawaii :One Party
   Idaho: One Party
   Illinois: One Party
   Indiana One Party
   Iowa One Party
   Kansas: One Party
   Kentucky One party
   Louisiana One Party
   Maine: One Party
   Massachusetts Two Party
   Maryland Two Party
   Michigan One party
   Minnesota One Party
   Mississippi One Party
   Missouri: One Party
   Minnesota: One Party
   Montana: Two-party
   Nebraska: One Party
   Nevada: One Party
   New Hampshire Two Party
   New Jersey: One Party
   New Mexico: One Party
   New York: One Party
   North Carolina: One Party
   North Dakota One Party
   Oklahoma: One Party
   Oregon One Party
   Ohio One Party
   Pennsylvania Two Party
   Rhode Island: One Party
   South Carolina One Party
   South Dakota: One Party
   Tennessee One Party
   Texas One Party
   Utah One Party
   Vermont One Party
   Virginia One Party
   West Virginia: One Party
   Washington Two Party
   Wisconsin One Party
   Wyoming: One party

     -----Original Message-----
     From: odin@... [mailto:odin@...]
     Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 7:59 PM
     To: FamilyWars@egroups.com
     Subject: Re: [FamilyWars] Illegal wiretapping


     Have you ever read the fine prints of the law about wiretapping???

     There was a case that a judge try to throw out - due to that a party
must
     have the knowledge of being recorded - The defense, it does'nt matter
   which
     party was informed, at least one of the parties knew the tapping was
     recorded and if your the one taping the conversation, that's all there
has
     to be...............................Odin



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



   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   --
     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     FamilyWars-unsubscribe@egroups.com





   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


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




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   FamilyWars-unsubscribe@egroups.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

www.FathersDay2000.org
FathersRightsMarch & Rally-June 12th - June 18th-FathersDay

Protests at both the White House and on the steps of the US Capitol
beginning June 12th and ending with a march and rally from the Ellipse to
the west side of the Capitol on June 18th-FathersDay.

Dont like what's going on in courts......?
Got something to say....?
Then make plans to be there.

David

For your information,use and assistance


Gene Jackson
----- Original Message -----
From: ACFC Website <acfclist@...>
To: <acfclist@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 3:17 PM
Subject: ACFC: SHAMING "DEADBEAT PARENTS" A BAD IDEA


> As indicated in the following Times-Picayune article from Louisiana,
> ACFC Executive Director, Dianna Thompson, has been working
> aggressively to bring out the truth about family courts, and the child
> support system.  A new measure was passed in Louisiana that would
> allow child support agencies to publicly shame so- called "deadbeat
> parents" for non payment of child support.  This measure introduced
> by Rep. Flavin passed 36-0 in the Senate and 99-0 in the House.
> After commenting on the "Deadbeat Parents" list in a Times-Picayune
> article last July, Thompson was interviewed on 2 large Louisiana radio
> stations.  During these interviews Thompson cautioned Louisiana child
> support agency director, Gordon Hood, and Rep. Flavin that shaming
> alleged delinquent child support payers is a.....bad idea.  She has been
> proven right.  The day after the "Deadbeat parents list" was posted, 264
> names had to be removed because of errors!   Please see the following
> ACFC posts on the 264 errors.  ACFC will continue to expose the truth
> about family courts and child support agencies as they stand today.
>
> ACFC
>
> *************************************************
>
> (Re-typed)
>
> The Times-Picayune, April 27, 2000
>
> Copyright 2000 The Times-Picayune Publishing Co.
> The Times-Picayune
>
> April 27, 2000 Thursday, KENNER
>
> SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. A01
> LENGTH: 1035 words
> HEADLINE: DEADBEAT PARENTS LISTED ON WEB SITE
> BYLINE: By Angela Rozas Kenner bureau
> BODY:
>
>     Hoping to shame deadbeat parents into paying what they owe,
> Louisana went public Wednesday with more than 30,000 names of
> mothers and fathers who haven't made child support payments in
> more than a year.
>
> The list, compiled to fulfill a 1999 law, includes the names, birth
> dates, last known hometowns and the amount owed by 30,403
> mothers and fathers who don't have custody of their children and
> are more than a year in arrears with child support payments.  About
> a third of the people are from the New Orleans area.
>
> The list was posted on the state Child Support Enforcement Office's
> World Wide Web site:
>
> www.dss.state.la.us/index.htm
>
> "We think this will have a huge effect.  Hopefully, people will become
> so embarrassed at seeing their names that they'll come in and pay it
> off right away," support enforcement director Gordon Hood said.
>
> But opponents of the tactic question whether it is the parents or their
> children who will bear the brunt of the shame, and they wonder whether
> inaccuracies in the list could humiliate parents who have already
> fulfilled their obligations.
>
> "Are we really shaming parents, or are we just going to shame their
> children?  You'll be branding these kids with that kind of exposure.
> How is that going to help the child?" said Dianna Thompson, executive
> director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, based in
> Lake Forest, Calif.
>
> *** Computer glitches ***
>
> The list was supposed to be ready in January, but a number of
> computer glitches in the Child Support Enforcement Office's program
> delayed the release almost four months.
>
> It contains delinquencies ranging from $500 to $108,000.  The total
> amount in arrears is about $233 million, an average of about $7,600
> per person.  The total for the New Orleans area is $70 million, an
> average of about $7,000 per person.
>
> The list was culled from the estimated 150,000 court orders that the
> Child Support Enforcement Office handles each year.
>
> As soon as a parent misses a payment, the office notifies him or her
> in writing, and after 30 days of non-payment, reports the offender to
> credit bureaus.  Depending on the case, the office then tries various
> tactics to enforce the orders: payroll deductions, interception of federal
> and state income tax refunds, denial of passports or suspension of
> licenses to drive, run a business, practice of profession, hunt or fish.
> The office even has the authority to intercept lottery winnings.
>
> If, over a year, those tactics fail to produce any payments, the name
> goes on the list.
>
> Louisana based its deadbeat list on Montana's, Hood said.  But Hood
> said changes must be made to make it more user friendly.
>
> ***Compiling regional lists ***
>
> For instance, the list has the names in alphabetical order.  Hood said
> his staff will spend the next few weeks grouping the names by town so
> that they can compile regional lists of the worst offenders.  Those lists
> will be sent to the Child Support Enforcement Office's 14 districts, as
> well as to newspapers and television stations in each area.
>
> "We'll send these names back and put more pressure on our
> department to get these parents to pay," Hood said.  The office is
> also considering buying radio air time to advertise the Web site.
>
> The names will remain on the Web site for an entire year, even if the
> delinquent parent comes in to make a payment.  The only way a name
> will be removed is if the parent reduces the arrears to an amount less
> than 12 months of that person's payments, Hood said.
>
> "Some of these people would have to pay thousands of dollars to
> do that.  But there are people out there who could, and they just
> haven't yet," he said.
>
> New names will be added only when the list is updated next year,
> he said.
>
> The Times-Picayune tried Wednesday to call about 60 of the worst
> offenders on the list but found that almost all of them had unlisted or
> disconnected telephone numbers, or were not at home.
>
> The deadbeat list was required in a 1999 bill sponsored by Rep.
> Dan Flavin, R-Lake Charles, and signed by Gov. Foster in July.
>
> *** More harm than good ***
>
> Critics said it will do more harm than good, possibly by condemning
> mothers and fathers who for various reasons can't pay up, or who may
> be fighting erroneous billing.
>
> "It's not always willful when someone doesn't pay.  There are so many
> factors to consider and unforeseen circumstances that could affect
> the situation like job loss, injury or disability," Thompson said.
>
> "We believe these agencies are rife with billing errors.  You put
> their names on a public list like that, and you could be faced with
> some serious liability."
>
> She points to Louisiana's delay in posting its list as an example of
> the Child Support Enforcement Office's inefficiency.
>
> "If they can't even release the list on time because of 'computer
> glitches,' how can they expect to get an accurate list?" she said.
>
> Child support enforcement advocates said the shame tactic might
> not be pretty, but it's necessary.
>
> "It's unfortunate that we have to take these drastic means, but we
> do.  If this is what we need to do to protect the children, then let's
> do it," said Debbie Kline, national project director for the
> Association for Children for Enforcement of Child Support.
>
> Conventional enforcement tactics, such as payroll deductions,
> don't work on parents who are self-employed or who hide income,
> she said.
>
> "These are the people who are really going to be shamed, and who
> need that good credit to do their jobs.  This is really going to work
> on them," Kline said.
>
> State Sen. Art Lentini, R-Kenner, said posting the list on the Web
> merely uses modern technology to tackle an age-old problem.
>
> "These people have abandoned their families, their children, and
> so far, have been successful at avoiding the law.  With this kind of
> technology, we're making it harder and harder for them to run,"
> Lentini said.
>
> As to how effective the list will be in bringing in delinquent parents,
> Kline said it depends on how much publicity it gets.
>
> "A strictly online list isn't going to make that much of a difference.
> But if the papers and TV stations pick it up, it could get some
> people noticed," she said.
>
> * * * * * * *
>
> Matt Scallan of the Kenner bureau contributed to this report.
>
> GRAPHIC: THE TOP 10 Parents owing child support in Louisana
> Name Age Last known residence Amount owed  [ACFC note:
> names deleted for this post]
>
> LOAD-DATE: April 27, 2000
>
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Children Need BOTH Parents!
>
> The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
>
> For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS
> or see ACFC's homepages at: http://www.acfc.org
>
> To subscribe send a message to:  acfclist@...
> Message in subject line: subscribe acfc
>
> To unsubscribe send a message to:  acfclist@...
> Message in subject line: unsubscribe acfc
>
> The ACFC List Serve provides timely information to fathers, second
> wives, and others seeking restoration of fatherhood in America and
> the world.  ACFC does not endorse or approve the views or opinions
> expressed by contributors, which have been provided only as a
> service to our list serve subscribers.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Judge Defends Legal Fees to Political Contributors

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

  DALLAS May 04 -- Within the legal profession, some call it "Pay for Play."

The phrase refers to big donations which go to judicial political
campaigns... and accusations that judges refer legal work to attorneys who
were big contributors.

News 8 Investigates has spent the past month examining judicial campaign
records and the fees that certain lawyers have collected in Dallas child
custody cases.

Specifically, what we've been looking at are guardian ad-litems -- attorneys
appointed by a judge to represent children and what is in their best
interest.

Some of these in Dallas County are private-pay cases; others involve poor
children in which the county picks up the tab.

This story focuses on the county-paid cases because while guardian ad-litems
cannot charge more than $100 an hour working for the county, there are some
who have managed to make a fortune.

It's in the corridors outside the family courtrooms where most children await
their fates.

Some are there to be adopted; others are being removed from their family
because of abuse.

Many times it is their parents bitterly squabbling over who gets possesion of
them.


Diane Snyder is a Family Court attorney. "The litigants are supposed to
litigate, and the ad-litem is supposed to make sure that in all this smoke,
fire, and fury that the child isn't left behind... that people aren't so
caught up in the litigation and they forget about the child," Snyder said.

A News 8 investigation of all seven Dallas County Family Courts found that in
the past ten years, the largest contribution given to any judge during an
election year by a lawyer or law firm was $3,000.

Most donations were about $500 or less until the 1998 campaign of Judge Craig
Fowler, who -- in one contribution alone -- received $14,000 from an attorney
who frequently works as a guardian ad-litem in his court.

"Well, first of all, all the other judges that you read off did not have a
contested election," Judge Fowler explained. "I was the only one here that
you are apparently looking into that had a contested election and a contested
runoff election, but I can tell you there is absolutely no basis for any kind
of payback or favoritism."

But documents with Judge Fowler's signature show that the guardian ad-litem
who made the $14,000 contribution to his campaign made nearly $115,000 during
the past two years in only 16 custody cases in Fowler's court -- an average
of about $7,000 per case.

Another guardian ad-litem who was among Fowler's top ten biggest biggest
contributors and who volunteered on Fowler's campaign donated $1,700 and
received $57,000 on just three county-paid cases -- that's $19,000 per case.

Judge Fowler said he believes all of the fees were reasonable, but no other
Family Court has paid a single guardian ad-litem that much money.

"I don't have any reservations," Judge Fowler insisted. "I have a very clear
conscience about this."

SMU law professor Walter Steele is one of the best-known experts on legal
ethics in the country. "It may not be illegal, but it is wrong," he said.
"And not everything that any politician -- whether it is a judge or any
politician -- does that is wrong is illegal, nor is it unethical. It is just
wrong, and that's where the voters come in."

Attorney Diane Snyder said she currently has a case in which Judge Fowler
appointed a guardian ad-litem, and none of parties invovled were indigent.

"There is no one who checks to make sure that the attorneys ad-litem that are
billing are billing for the work that is actually performed," Snyder noted.

Thus far, documents show the ad-litem has collected nearly $30,000 in fees
from Dallas County.

Snyder said she believes the guardian ad-litem in this case has prolonged the
custody case.

Dallas County Commissioner Jim Jackson has been studying the evidence in this
case. "I suspect there could have been some activity... some kind of
collusion, but in some cases there may have been bills that did not reflect
true time or true services rendered," he said. "I don't know that, but just
looking at the numbers I would have to suspect that."

Commissioner Jackson contacted the district attorney and county auditor
demanding investigations.

"This smells," Jackson wrote after News 8 did a report on a court-appointed
pyschologist who collected more than $265,000 in fees from the county.

Although Fowler had already removed him from the public dole, we just
recently learned that the Judge continues to appoint Dr. Clifford Kary to
private-pay cases.

Kary was Fowler's third biggest contributor at $5,500.

"I agree with you, Valeri, that there's there's an appearance there that the
public should be and probably is concerned about because of the appearance,"
Judge Fowler said, "but I can assure you that this court is run on a basis of
what is right and what is in the interest of the children."

The investigations Commissioner Jackson called for, however, are going
absolutely nowhere.

The district attorney's office says it is not "equipped" to handle the
intricate research required for reviewing the guardian ad-litems' bills.

The County Auditor's office says it is not allowed by law to scrutinize
attorneys' bills once a judge has approved them.



Reporter: Valeri Williams
Copyright: 2000 by WFAA-TV Co. All Rights Reserved.

MEMORANDUM IN FAVOR OF JOINT CUSTODY AND SHARED
PARENTING

The Best Interests of the Child Requires Joint Custody


In recent years whenever the marital status of two
parents changed from married to divorced the child
loses one parent in most instances. In nine out ten
cases, the child loves with the mother and "visits"
with the father every other weekend. Dr. Richard
Warshak, The Custody Revolution (1992) at 14 15.
Indeed, this is so common that it is called "standard"
visitation, In short, it is the arrangement that is
meted out to children in the absence of compelling
proof that some other arrangement would better serve
the needs of the child. While the child is continually
told that the divorce is "not your fault" the child is
routinely punished by the change in marital status of
his parents by the loss of one of those parents as a
major factor in the child's life.

This brief takes the position that this current state
of affairs is a destructive holdover of the prevailing
cultural paradigms in existence at the time that
divorce rates began to rise. The scientific evidence
concerning the results of these policies points
clearly to the damage suffered by children and society
when the relationship with either parent is
significantly weakened. It further indicates that,
contrary to the cultural assumptions in existence in
the decade which spawned the high divorce rate, men
and women are equally good at parenting and equally
important to the well being of the child. Finally, it
is argued that any schema which impairs the
parent/child relationship without clear and convincing
evidence of a compelling state interest for doing so
violate the Equal Protection and Due Process rights of
both the parent and the child.

Dr. Richard Warshak, America's leading expert on
father custody, described the history of routine
custody arrangements as follows: "In earlier times it
was assumed that men, by nature, are better suited to
protect and provide for children. Since 1920, it has
been assumed that women, by nature, are better suited
to love and care for children.

"These assumptions, which so powerfully affect so many
children's lives, are based on nothing more than
folklore and sexual stereotypes .... As guidelines for
custody dispositions, folklore, sentiment, and
stereotypes are poor substitutes for factual
information. In the last two decades, social
scientists have examined different custody
arrangements and their effects on children's
development. If this information is ignored, and we
continue to allow myth and sentiment to rule custody
decisions, we short change our children and we short
change ourselves." Id. at 33Ä34.

Extensive evidence will be presented in this brief
which indicates that it is imperative that the
child/parent relationship with both parents be
maintained as much as possible.  Unfortunately,
current arrangement do not routinely maintain both
relationships.

Indeed, the current policy results in a situation in
which 42% of fathers fail to see their children at all
after divorce. Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine
Winquist Nord, "Parenting Apart: Patterns of
Childbearing after Marital Disruption," Journal of
Marriage and the Family 47, no. 4 (November 1985):
874, cited in Sylvia Ann Hewlett, When the Bough
Breaks
(1991) at 286-87. As the rate of divorce triples
between 1960 and 1982 before leveling off at the 50
percent mark, a generation of children raised in
fatherless families has been extensively studied.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that children need
both parents -- even after the dissolution of a
marriage -- America has been slow to change the
paradigm it holds which presumes that the post-divorce
family will have only a single parent. "The main
obstacle to progress is not ignorance, but the
illusion of knowledge." (1)

A. Overwhelming Research Favors Joint Custody as the
Preferred Alternative

In all actions involving child custody of visitation
the issue is. "What are the best interests of the
child'?" or, in other words, "What disposition
serves the best interests of the child?" See, e.g.
Burich v. Burich, 314 N.W. 2d 82, 85 (1981). The most
recent scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that
paradigms of family law which do not give a preference
to joint custody must ne viewed as a threat to the
best interests of children who find themselves with
divorcing parents.

Research of the past decade has revealed new insights
into how children of divorce are affected by the
custody and visitation arrangements imposed on
them by the family law courts of our nation. Numerous
shibboleths about so-called impracticalities of joint
custody or expansive parental contact arrangements
have been disproved. The evidence is simply
overwhelming that joint custody or expansive parental
contact is the optimal way to promote the best
interests of the child.

The Children's Rights Council conducted a
"comprehensive survey of more than 50 studies showing
the greater risks (on a variety of indicators) for
children raised in single- parent homes...whether the
single parent is a father or a mother." D. Levy, Ed.,
The Best Parent is Both Parents, A Guide to Shared
Parenting in the 21st Century, Children's Rights
Council (1993) at p. 118, fn. 38.

The majority view of the psychiatric and pediatric
profession is that mothers and fathers are equals as
parents. See J. Atkinson, "Criteria for Deciding Child
Custody in the Trial and Appellate Courts, " Family
Law
Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No 1 (Spring 1984). A close
relationship with both parents is necessary to
maximize the child's chances for a healthy and
productive life.

Dr. Richard Warshak described the results of the most
recent research as follows:
"Much of the earlier work in infant development
concerned the 'bonding' between the mother and child.
Under the influence of the motherhood mystique, we had
always assumed that these bonds were the exclusive
providence of mothers and children.  "We were wrong.
Numerous studies have established beyond a doubt that
infants form close attachment bonds with their fathers
and that this occurs at about the same time that they
form attachments to their mothers. Although father and
mother usually play different roles in their child's
life, 'different' does not mean more or less
important.***

"Psychologists Ross Parke, of the University of
Illinois, and Douglas Sawin, of the University of
Texas...carefully observed fathers and mothers
bottle-feeding their newborns. They found that fathers
were as sensitive as mothers to their baby's signals.
Fathers, like mothers, responded to their infant's
clues by stopping the feeding for a moment, talking to
the baby, and looking more closely to see what was
wrong. Moreover, the amount of milk consumed by the
infants with their mothers and fathers was nearly
identical..

"Another series of studies has found that men -- even
bachelor college students -- are as sensitive as women
in discriminating among different crying patterns of
infants. Whether or now we want to attribute these
findings to a 'paternal instinct,' these, and many
similar studies conducted at universities throughout
the world, have established beyond a doubt that
women have no monopoly on child-care skills."

One of the most telling revelations from this research
is that the developing child is affected much more
deeply than previously thought by the nature and
duration of the visitation that the child enjoys with
a
noncustodial father. See, Hess, Robert D., and
Kathleen A. Camara, Post-Divorce Family Relationships
as Mediating Factors in the Consequences of Divorce
for Children, Journal of Social Issues; 1979; 35(4);
79-96; Palen, John M. An Analysis of the Father-Son
Relationship in Mother-Custody Post-Divorce Families,
Chicago Doctoral Dissertation, Dec. 1985; Hodges,
William F., Interventions for Children of Divorce,
Custody, Access, and Psychotherapy, ch. 7, Wiley and
Sons, 1986.

Dr. Frank Williams, a leading authority on the effects
of divorce on children compared joint custody to
traditional visitation arrangements in his October 20,
1990, address in Washington, D.C. (2) "It is the
continued parental bonding, not the number of homes or
vehicular travel, that will be the crucial determinant
of children;s forward psychological development
following divorce. In these days, when both parents
frequently work, and rely on sharing the child-rearing
with each other, with other family members, and with
housekeepers and day care personnel, the concept of
one 'primary psychological caretaker' is outdated..
Frequently there are two psychological caretakers, or
a network of caretakers, supervised by two parents."
The emotional stability of children of divorced
parents is directly related to the quality of their
continuing relationships with both of their parents..
"We have repeatedly described the dissatisfaction of
so many youngsters who felt they were not seeing their
fathers often enough, If custody and visiting issues
are to be within the realm of the 'best interest of
the
child,' then such widespread discontent must be taken
very seriously. "J. Wallerstein and J. Kelly,
Surviving the Breakup, 142-143 (1980) . See also,
D. Luepnitz, Child Custody, A Study of Families After
Divorce, (1983).

In a revised version of an address presented by Dr.
Joan Kelly, who has performed extensive research on
the effects of divorce upon children, at the annual
meetings of the American Psychological Association in
1987, Kelly wrote: "The primary negative aspect of
divorce reported by children in numerous studies was
loss of contact with a parent (Hetherington et al.,
1982; Kurdek & Berg, 1983; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980,
Warshak & Santrock, 1983). The traditional visiting
pattern of every other weekend, most often a maximum
of
four overnights spent with the father per month,
created intense dissatisfaction among children, and
especially young boys. Youngsters expressed profound
feelings of deprivation and loss, and reactive
depressions were frequently observed in young
school-aged boys (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980)." Id.

Indeed, sole custody arrangements with limited
visitation by the non-custodial parent have resulted
in children suffering a broad range of emotional
disorders including deep feelings of loss and
abandonment, strained interactions with both parents,
disturbances in cognitive performance, and sex role
identification problems. Trombetta, Joint Custody:
Recent Research and Overloaded Courtrooms Inspire New
Solutions to Custody Disputes, 19 J. Fam. L. 213,
217-20 (1980).

Researchers Alston and Williams noted that "[a]
significant relationship was found between father
absence and self-concepts of the boys. They placed
less
value on themselves, had less stable relationships
with peers, less interaction with family members and
showed a weaker scholastic performance. D. Alston and
A. Williams, "Relationship Between Father Absence and
Self-Concept of Black Adolescent Boys," Journal of
Negro Education, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Spring 1982),
134-138. See also, Richard Koestner, et al., "The
Family Origins of Empathic Concern: A 26-year
Longitudinal Study," J. of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 58, No. 4 (1990), 709-717; K. Covell
and W. Turnbull, "The Long- Term Effects of Father
Absence in Childhood on Male University Students'
Sex-role Identity and Personal Adjustment," J. of
Genetic Psychology, Vol. 141, Pt. 2 (December 1982),
271-276 (Males who had experienced father absence
prior to age five scored significantly lower on
self-esteem, self-confidence and social interaction);
J. Guidubaldi, et al.,

"The Impact of Parental Divorce on Children: Report of
the Nationwide NASP Study," School Psychology Review,
Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 1983), 300-323; Doris Jacobson,
"The Impact of Marital Separation/Divorce on Children:
I. Parent-child Separation and Child Adjustment," J.
of Divorce, Vol 1, No. 4 (Summer 1978), 341-360
(Findings suggest that the amount of time lost in the
presence of the father is a crucial aspect of
adjustment following separation of parents).

The importance of the father was again pointed out by
Professor Daniel Shybunko in his 1989 study:
"... The father-child relationship was found to be a
good predictor of social competence regardless of
marital status. Moreover, the importance of the
father-child relationship increased dramatically in
the divorced family.. This supports the view
(Hetherington, Cox & Cox, 1978) that availability of
the father is associated with positive adjustment and
social relations, especially with boys." Daniel
Shybunko, "Effects of Post-divorce Relationships on
Child Adjustment", Children of Divorce: Developmental
and Clinical Issues, ed. Craig A.Everett (1989),
299-313. See also J. Santrock and R. Warshak, Father
Custody and Social Development in Boys and Girls," J..
of Social Issues, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1979), 112 (in
divorced families, contact with additional adult
caretakers was associated with positive social
behaviors shown by the child).

The implications of the social science research on
single-custody families was translated from bland,
euphemistic terms of art such as "positive social
behaviors" and "predictors of social competence" into
graphic reality by Professor Stanley Page, while
writing for a general audience: "The homes lacking a
father are, obviously, mostly the product of ...
divorce ... Having opted for divorce as the solution
to family and marital problems, our society has
created a built-in child-destroying machine. And
since there is not, as yet [in 1984], even the
proposal of an idea for remedying the inevitably
resultant distortion of the child-father relationship,
we can be confident that the seeds of a vast army of
sociopaths have been sown. Bred in fatherless homes
and filled with boundless and amorphous rage for which
they are not to blame, they will overrun this land.
They are sure to make it even more uninhabitable for
peace-loving citizenry already troubled by major
breakdown in morality and by all manner of rampant
vice and criminality."

Dr. Stanley Page, "Fatherless Families Spawning
Virulent Form of Child Abuse," New York Tribune, June
6, 1984, joint custody has become a more
widely-recognized alternative. More specifically, the
risk factors for suicide are reduced by substantial
parental contact as provided in joint custody.
Professor Patricia Davis conducted "[a] review of
several studies indicating that suicide attempts by
adolescents are strongly correlated with father
absence. One study concluded that it was not the loss
of a love object per se that is so distressing but
the loss of love, such as the reciprocal intimacy,
spontaneity, and closeness that one experiences in a
primary relationship. Another study presented the
profile of a suicidal male, in which one of the
hallmarks was the lack of a close father-son
relationship." Patricia Davis, Suicidal Adolescents
(1983), 26-33.

As the divorce rate tripled from 1960 to 1982, the
suicide rate for teenagers ages fifteen to nineteen
tripled between 1960 and 1986, going from 3.6 to 10.2
deaths per year per 100,000 persons in that age range.
In 1986, 10 percent of teenage boys and 18 percent of
teenage girls attempted suicide. Select Committee on
Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Children and Their
Families: Current Conditions and Recent Trends, 1989
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. House of Representatives,
1989), pp. 188-189.

The reduced educational attainment of children in the
past two decades has also been linked to the
destructive paradigm in which the child has
significant contact with only one parent. As Sylvia
Ann Hewlet noted When the Bough Breaks We are left
with the conviction that a father's contribution to
family life goes way beyond his paycheck. All of this
research linking father absence to psychological
stress, drug use, cognitive deficits, and poorer
performance in school serves to underscore a basic
theme of this book: America's shortfall in human
resources is intimately linked to its overburdened and
fragile families.  Specifically, the decline in
American educational performance over the past
generation -- which is most pronounced in science and
mathematics -- seems to be directly related to the
rapid increase in the number of father- absence
households. Hewlet, op. cit. at 94. See also, Sheila
Fitzgerald Krein and Andrea H. Beller, "Educational
Attainment of Children from Single-Parent Families:
Differences by Exposure, Gender and Race,
Demography, 25, no 2 (May 1988): 221-33.
According to [Henry] Biller[, one of our country's
leading authorities on the father's role in child
development,] and Margery Salter, "There is a
great deal of data indicating that strong father-child
relationships, even in infancy, can facilitate the
child's intellectual competence." One research team
discovered that a father's impact on mental
development begins as early as five to six months of
age. Frank Pedersen, Judy Rubinstein, and Loen Yarrow
found that baby boys who have more frequent contact
with their fathers have more precocious mental skills
and curiosity than those who have less contact.
Warshak, op cit. at 40.

Dr. Richard Warshak noted research indicating that
this carries over to old boys also.
Robert Blanchard and Henry Biller studied boys in the
third grade to see what impact, if any, their fathers'
availability had on their academic performance.
Academic performance was measured by classroom grades
and scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, the
computer-scored test that public-school children take
every year. They found that boys whose father spent
the most time with them earned far superior scores and
grades and performed above third-grade level. Id. at
41.

Nor is the positive influence of extensive parental
contact limited to boys.. Warshak noted again that,
According to Biller and Salter, "Data from a
number of studies when taken together indicate that
high paternal expectations derived from a context of a
warm father-daughter relationship are conducive to the
development of autonomy, independence, achievement,
and
creativity among females." Id, at 42. This ought not
surprise us when we recall that in a landmark study
Chicago sociologist James S. Coleman has shown that
family background matters far more in determining
student achievement than any attributes of the formal
educational system. Across a wide range of subjects in
literature, science and reading, "the total effect of
home background is considerably greater than the total
effect of school variables." Overall, Coleman
estimates the home to almost twice as powerful as the
school in determining student achievement at age
fourteen. James S. Coleman, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, National Institute of
Education, "Effects of School on Learning: the IEA
Findings," presented at a Conference on Educational
Achievement, Harvard University, November 1973, p. 40.
See also James S. Coleman, E. Campbell, et al.,
Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Office of Education, 1966); and James S. Coleman and
Thomas Hoffer, Public and Private High Schools: The
Impact of Communities (New York: Basic Books, 1987),
pp. 90-91.

Professor Lawrence D. Houlgate has proposed a
normative model of the family as a "community: like a
community (and unlike and organization") ..., the
rights and responsibilities of its members arise not
from contract or shared goals but from the "internal
relationship of 'being a family member'". L. Houlgate,
Family and State: The Philosophy of Family Law, (1988)
at 37.

Professor Houlgate concludes that the very nature of
the family relationship that provides a foundation for
a court hearing (i.e., the rights and duties arising
from being a member of the family), requires a joint
custody arrangement where the parents have not been
able themselves to agree upon a shared custody
arrangement. Id at 130.

If Professor Houlgate is correct, one would expect
that those divorce parents whose parental rights and
responsibilities were felt most strongly would be
where joint custody was ordered. Because both parents
were still "members of the family", payment of child
support should be higher where a parentectomy had been
performed. In fact, "[t]he Census Bureau reported
similar results in 1992, in the first survey it ever
made on the relationship between joint custody,
visitation and support. The Census Bureau found that
[parents] with joint custody paid 90.2 percent of
their
support, [those] with visitation paid 79.1 percent of
their support, and [those] with neither joint custody
nor visitation paid only 44.5 percent of their
support." U.S. Bureau of Census, "Child Support and
Alimony: 1989,"Current Population Reports, Series
P-60, No. 173 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1991), cited in
D. Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents, A Guide
to
Shared Parenting in the 21st Century,, Children's
Rights Council (1993) at p. 22, fn. 37.

The complex dynamics of childhood development within
the context of divorce and recent scientific data
related thereto strongly militate against the any
paradigm that does not prefer joint custody
arrangements. A simplistic guideline of alternate
weekend visitation, although quicker to mete out,
inevitably ignores the unique circumstances of each
such child whose life will be shaped by the trial
court's decision.  It is particularly important for a
young boy to have significant blocks of times with his
father as a male role model. Healthy social and
personality development of young boys of divorced
parents is directly related to the quantity and
quality of interaction the boy is able to enjoy with
his father. See Lamb, Michael and Sagi, Abraham,
Fatherhood and Family Policy, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1983; Santrock, Warshak, and Elliott,
Social Development and Parent-Child Interaction in
Father-Custody and Stepmother Families Non-Traditional
Families: Parenting and Child Development, ed. by
Michael Lamb, 1982, Hodges, William F. supra.
Unfortunately, it is still a common phenomenon to see
trial courts bound more by traditional methods of
dealing with child custody and visitation questions
rather than accept more progressive, modern approaches
which better serve the best interests of the minor
child.

Devices which are tempting for judicial expediency are
poorly equipped to deal with the individual needs of
children of diverse backgrounds who will have their
lives so intimately shaped by the decisions of trial
judges. What is called for is a policy which will
expand the range of opportunities for children of
divorce rather than one which imposes such narrow and
restrictive limitations on these children.

Trial courts should endeavor to insure that children
of divorce have the maximum opportunity for both
physical and emotional contact with each parent
unless direct physical or significant emotional harm
to the child will result from this contact. Dr.
Isolina Ricci, Director of California Family Court
Services and author of Mom's House, Dad's House, noted
as early as 1980 that Given any voice in the matter,
younger children will almost always choose the newer
two-home alternative over the traditional one-home
settlement with one parent consigned to the sidelines.


The children I've worked with inevitably go straight
to the heart of the issue, even when their parents are
caught in tunnel vision of a 'real home.' When they
'visit' their non-custodial parent, they stake out
territory ... They shy away from words like 'visit my
Dad.' Instead, they say they're going to 'be with my
Dad' or 'live with my Dad this summer.' And for good
reasons: outsiders visit; families live together.
Isolina Ricci, Ph.D., Mom's House, Dad's House; Making
Shared Custody Work (1980).

A child's right to a relationship with both parents
ought not to be compromised merely because of the
marital status of the parents. The court in Franz v
United States, 707 F.2d 582, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1983) held
that "a parent's right to the preservation of his
relationship with his child derives from the fact that
the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding
life is likely to depend significantly on his ability
to participate in the rearing of his children. A
child's corresponding right to protection from
interference in the relationship derives from the
psychic importance to him being raised by a loving,
responsible, reliable adult." Id, at 599. In Clark v
Jeter, 56 U.S.L.W. 4527 (June 6, 1988), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that an illegitimate child was
denied equal protection by a statutory scheme which
offered that child a shorter time period to seek
support from a natural father than was available to
legitimate children. The Pennsylvania statutory scheme
which made distinctions based upon the legitimacy of
the child was subject to heightened scrutiny and must
be substantially related to an important governmental
objective. Justice O'Conner wrote: "Consequently, we
have invalidated classifications that burden
illegitimate children for the sake of punishing the
illicit relations of their parents because visiting
this condemnation on the head of an infant is
illogical and unjust." Id. The court held that "a
child's interest in her relationship with a parent is
sufficiently weighty by itself to constitute a
cognizable liberty interests." Id at 1419. See also
Strandberg v City of Lelenas, 791 F.2d 744 (9th Cir.
1986).

Just as a child has a constitutional interest in
the parent-child relationship if the parents never
marry, so the relationship is protected if the parent'
marriage fails. Accordingly, we respectfully request
that the court further direct the parents to encourage
a healthy relationship between the children and the
other parent. This can be accomplished by alerting
custody/visitation disputants that the willingness to
allow meaningful and frequent contact between the
children and the other parent, where appropriate, will
be a factor in fashioning custody and visitation
orders. Such a policy will lead to more disputes being
settled without resort to judicial intervention
because each side will have strong motivation to be
reasonable in reaching an agreed upon
custody/visitation arrangement.

B. Only a Presumption in Favor of Joint Custody
Accords appropriate respect to the constitutional
protections surrounding the parent-child relationship.
The U.S. Supreme Court long ago noted that a parent's
right to "the companionship, care, custody and
management of his or her children" is an interest "far
more precious" than any property right. May v
Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, 97 L.Ed. 1221, 73 S. Ct.
840, 843 (1952). In Lassiter v Department of Social
Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27, 68 L.Ed. 2d 640, 102 S.Ct.
2153, 2159-60 (1981), the Court stressed that the
parent-child relationship" is an important interest
that 'undeniably warrants a deference and, absent a
powerful countervailing interest, protection.'"
quoting Stanley v Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 31 L.
Ed.2d 551, 92 S.Ct. 1208 (1972). See also Franz v
United States, 707 F.2d 582, 594-602 and 712 F.2d 1428
(D.C.Cir. 1983) (interest of non-custodial parent in
consortium with child constitutionally protected);
Sherrod v Berry, 827 F2d 195, 207 (7th Cir. 1987)
(parental association a constitutionally protected
liberty interests>

This is not to say that courts should blindly or
automatically impose joint custody arrangements.
Clearly, there are many situation where joint custody
is neither appropriate nor practical. Whenever a
parent/child relationship is restricted by a family
court order, however, such a restriction must be
done in the least restrictive manner.

It is apparent that the parent/child relationship of a
married parent is protected by the equal protection
and due process clauses of the Constitution. In 1978,
the Supreme Court clearly indicated that only the
relationships of those parents who, from the time of
conception of the child, never establish custody and
who fail to support or visit their child(ren) are
unprotected by the equal protection and due process
clauses of the Constitution. Quilloin v Walcott, 434
U.S. 246, 255 (1978). It follows that before the
state, through its family law courts, can impair a
parent-child relationship through issuance of a
limited visitation order, it must make a determination
that it has a compelling reason for doing so.

Trial courts must, as a matter of constitutional law,
fashion orders which will maximize the time children
spend with each parent unless the court determines
that there are compelling justifications for not
maximizing time with each parent.  Maximizing time
with each parent is the only Constitutional manner by
which a parent is able to maintain a meaningful
parent-child relationship after divorce. While
geographic distance, school schedules and the like
must be
factored into the custody/visitation calculus, trial
courts faced with a custody/visitation decision must
accord appropriate constitutional respect to
maintaining a healthy parent-child relationship by
granting each parent as much time as possible with the
child under the circumstances of each case. "No bond
is more precious and none should be more zealously
protected by the law as the bond between parent and
child." Carson v Elrod, 411 F. Supp, 645, 649 (1976).

Application of constitutional protections to
custody/visitation rights is a necessary corollary to
the Bill of Rights because individual liberty cannot
be secured unless "certain kinds of highly personal
relationships" are afforded "a substantial measure of
sanctuary from unjustified interference by the State."
See Karst, The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89
Yale L.J. 624 (1980). Providing constitutional shelter
for a parent-child relationship simply reflects the
realization that individuals draw much of their
emotional enrichment from such relationships and that
the sanctity of family relationship is "deeply rooted
in this Nation's history." Moore v. City of East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977).

If there is any fundamental proposition of government
on which all would agree, it is that one of the
highest goals of society must be to achieve and
maintain equality before the law. Yet this ideal
remains an empty form of words unless rights are
equally enforced. The appropriate manner for
enforcing the constitutional right to a meaningful
parent-child relationship after divorce is for courts
to maximize the time the child spends with each
parent absent compelling reasons to the contrary. "It
is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy;
for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal."
Ashby v White 2 Ld. Raym. 938, 953 (1703).

The federal due process and equal protection rights
extend to both parents equally, for example, in
adoption proceedings. In Caban v. Mohammed, (1979)
441 U.S. 380, the Supreme Court found that a
biological father who had for two years, but no
longer, loved with his children and their mother was
denied equal protection under a New York statute which
permitted the mother, but not the father, to veto an
adoption.

In Lehr v Robinson (1983) 463 U.S. 248, the Supreme
Court held that: "When an unwed father demonstrated a
full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood
by "com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of
his child, ' Caban [citations omitted], his interest
in personal contact with his child acquires
substantial protection under the Due Process Clause."
(Id. at 261-262)

In the Court of Appeal in Jermstead v. McNelis (1989)
210 Cal.App.3d 528, a statutory criteria for child
placement in adoption proceedings of a "best
interest of the child" was weighed against a parent's
dederal constitutional rights to a parental
relationship with one's children: "We are constrained
to read section 7017,subdivision (d)(2) in a manner
which avoids a potential for conflict with the federal
constitution. [Citations omitted.] If read to bar a
parental preference of a natural father who has
appropriately grasped his custodial opportunity
interest the statute would present such a conflict.
The statute, as we said, lends itself to conformity
with the constitutional concerns. In a case where the
natural father has diligently sought to shoulder the
burdens of the paternal relationship, including the
burden of custody, the requirement of parental
preference arises from the federal Constitution.

Accordingly, the statutory criteria of section 7017
for the best interest of the child regarding
retention of parental rights under the statute must be
read in the light of this requirement. The statute
admits of such an accommodation." Id. at 541. Clearly
the "best interests of the child" standard is to be
read in light of the requirement that the
parental-child relationship remain intact.

Nor should the natural father's federal constitutional
rights depend upon the identity of the person
attempting to infringe upon them. That is, the
threshold showing required to impinge upon a parent's
relationship with one's children should not be less
when married than when unmarried. One's rights should
not be less when the biological mother seeks to attack
the protected relationship than when a potential
adopter seeks to attack that relationship.

The courts have clearly held that the degree of
protection afforded parental rights does not depend
upon the relationship between the mother and the
father, The Court of Appeals of New York in striking
down a "living together" requirement in establishing
parental rights unanimously held in In the Matter of
Raquel Marie X (1990) ____ N.Y.2d____ that
"[T]he difficulty with the 'living together'
requirement stems from its focus on the relationship
between father and mother, rather than father and
child..........

Although the State plainly has a significant interest
in fostering the well-being of the child by ensuring
swift, permanent placement [citation omitted], the
State's objective cannot be constitutionally
accomplished at the sacrifice of the father's
protected interest by imposing a test so incidentally
related to the father-child relationship as this one,
directed as it is principally to the father-mother
relationship."

There, the Court unanimously held that a biological
father's federal constitutional rights to a
relationship with his child could not be lessened
because of the nature of his relationship with the
mother. Similarly, the protection afforded the
parent-child relationship is not lessened because the
relationship between the parents has been altered by
marital dissolution.

In every circumstance under which a parental right to
physical custody may be terminated in which the courts
have spoken on the standard proof to be applied, the
holding has been that the proof must be by clear and
convincing evidence. For example, in proceedings to
terminate parental rights under Civil Code section 232
the standard is clear and convincing proof, as the
California Supreme Court enunciated in In re Angelia
P. (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 908, 917, 919. "Acknowledging the
fundamental nature of the respective rights involved
and that due process protections must surround their
assertion and termination, what evidentiary burden
will meet constitutional requirements?........

"We conclude that findings under any subdivision of
section 232 must be made on the basis of clear and
convincing evidence."

Similarly in a Welfare and Institutions Code section
300 proceeding, the standard of proof before a parent
may be deprived of physical custody of a child is
clear and convincing evidence. (In re Katrina C.
(1988) 201 Cal. App.3d 540, 548) The standard is the
same when there is a supplemental petition to remove a
child from a parent's physical custody under Welfare
and Institutions Code section 387. (In re Fred J.
(1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 168, 173-174)

In those cases where joint custody is not ordered in a
divorce setting, the parent without custody has been
deprived of physical custody, just as in any other
setting. The identity of the person who has custody of
the child is irrelevant to the requisite proof
required to deprive one parent of physical custody.
Surely an action to determine whether a parental right
should be retained is as fundamental to the parent
child relationship as an action to terminate that
relationship.

The impact these judicial decisions have on the lives
of all concerned cannot be over estimated. Childhood
passes rapidly and it quickly becomes too late to
unring the bell. Expanded visitation or joint custody
may seem unimportant, but only to those who have never
experienced the hollow time of forced separation. "No
human bond is cemented with grater strength than that
of parent and child." Michelle W. v Ronald W., 39 Cal
3d 354 (1985).

Seton Hall Professor Holly Robinson has spelled out
this argument in detail: It is accepted constitutional
doctrine that the due process clause of the fourteenth
amendment protects interests that are recognized as
constituting "life," "liberty," or "property." In a
number of decisions, the Supreme Court has recognized
that individuals possess a fundamental liberty
interest
-- entitled to constitutional protection -- regarding
such matters as the decision whether to have children,
decisions concerning the upbringing of their children,
and the retention of their children through exercise
of
custody. Red together, the cases clearly establish a
zone of privacy around the parent-child relationship,
which only can be invaded by the state when the state
possesses a sufficiently compelling reason to do so.

As a result, when the marital breakdown occurs, both
parents are entitled to constitutional protection of
their right to continue to direct the upbringing of
their children through the exercise of custody.
Adequate protection of this parental right requires
that parents be awarded joint custody [or expansive
visitation] ... unless a compelling state interest
directs otherwise. H.L. Robinson, Joint Custody:
Constitutional Imperatives, 54 Cinn. L. Rev. 27, 40-41
(1985) (footnotes omitted). See also, Ellen Canacakos,
"Joint Custody as a Fundamental Right", Arizona Law
Review, Vol 23, No 2 (Tuscon, AZ: University of
Arizona Law College), Tuscon, 95721.

This proposition that the parent-child relationship in
a traditional custody/visitation dispute commands
constitutional al respect is admittedly lacking a long
life of specific case authority approving it. This
lack of specific case authority is not fatal to the
proposition's vitality. At least one federal court has
found that the paucity of cases recognizing the
constitutional sanctity of this relationship is
readily explained by the relative rarity of divorce in
American society in the past. That court further held
that the historical absence of a strong tradition
should not result in denial of the constitutional
protection for such relationships as they become
increasingly prevalent. See Franz v. United States,
supra.

Maximizing the child's time with each parent is the
constitutional mandate absent a compelling state
interest of protecting the child from harm. There
is no evidence that maximizing the child's time with
both parents would cause the child any harm. The
evidence is quite the opposite. To further underscore
the need for courts to consider the constitutional
protections which attach in family law matters, one
need only look to recent civil rights decisions. In
Smith v City of Fontana, 818 F2d 1411 (9th Cir.
1987), the court of appeals held that in a civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 where
police had killed a detainee, the children had a
cognizable interest under the due process clause.

The analysis of the court included a finding that "a
parent has a constitutionally protected livery
interest in the companionship and society of his or
her child. Id at 1418, citing Kelson v. City of
Springfield, 767 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1985). In Smith
the court stated: "We now hold that this
constitutional interest in familial companionship and
society logically extends to protect children from
unwarranted state interference with their
relationships with their parents." Id.

A failure to accord appropriate constitutional respect
to the parent-child relationship between the parties
herein and the minor child by failing to award joint
custody or substantial parental contact would be
error. We respectfully request that this Court fashion
a custody order which will maximize the available time
the minor will spend with each parent.

CONCLUSION
Custody orders must bear a direct relationship to the
best interests of the child and must accord sufficient
respect for the constitutional protections inherent in
the parent-child relationship. Where, as here, there
is no compelling reason to impinge upon the
fundamental rights of the family, joint custody or
substantial parental contact should be ordered.

Respectfully submitted,Travis Ballard
Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: May 5, 1994
__________________________________________
(1) Daniel J. Boorstin, quoted in Science News, Nov.
7, 1987, p. 299.
(2) Address to the Fifth Annual Conference of the
Children's Rights Council, aka National Council for
Children's Rights.

Copy permission granted by Travis Ballard, JD, Adrian
MI
Travis Ballard Web Site: http://www.kidndad.com/ncfc
Email to Travis Ballard: travis@...



=====
Are you tired of the breakdown in the Family?  Are you sickened by its effects
on our Children and our society??
You can help force a change in the Family Court System by following this
link.... http://www.deDicAtedDadS.org and signing the petition!!
We *CAN* change this *NOW*!!  You can help!!
Do it NOW and get others to do the same!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

Needham Divorced Father/209A-Defendant Kills Self

Pressures from divorce too much, attorney says
Family, friends, and sympathizers to attend funeral
tomorrow

BOSTON, April 28 - The family and friends of Steven
Cook, along with several advocates for fathers rights,
will attend the funeral of the recently deceased
Needham man, Saturday, April 29. The service is
to be held at the Eaton Funeral Home, 1351 Highland
Ave., Needham, tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. (781-444-0201).
Cook was discovered dead from asphyxiation in his car
Monday evening, behind a public building in Newton
Upper Falls.

Jailed for calling daughter on wrong day of the week
Cook had been involved in a bitter divorce. He had
been accused and acquitted by a jury of assault and
battery of his wife, but convicted of violating the
209A domestic abuse protection order she held against
him. He was found guilty of attempting to call his
four-year-old daughter Colleen on a Monday instead of
a Sunday, as permitted by the conditions of the abuse
protection order, and began serving a 60-day jail
sentence January 29 at the Dedham House of Correction.

He was released April 2.  Cook's attorney Jerome Aaron
characterizes Cook's jailing over the mistimed phone
call as "outrageous."

Friends testify to "unrelenting" pressure

According to his longtime friends Doug Turcotte and
[Ms] Bobene Desmond, Cook, a housepainter by trade,
had been disabled due to a hip injury. He had no
visible means of supporting himself. He had lost his
house in the divorce litigation and no longer had a
home.

With access to his four-year-old daughter restricted
by the restraining order, and seemingly unending
ruinous court orders that made it extremely difficult
for Cook to do simple things like get his tools from
his former home, Cook became so despondent he decided
to end his life.

According to Turcotte: "During my last conversation
with Steven a few weeks ago, he complained that his
wife and her attorney were preventing him from seeing
his daughter."

Longtime friend Berbone Desmond spoke with anguish
over Cook's problems: "She [Cook's wife] stripped him
of everything he had; they sold his mother's house...
he was going to be a stay-at-home-dad because he had a
bad accident years ago..."

Attorney Jerome Aaron concurs: "The process was
unrelenting. She was in possession of the house, all
the possessions, the children."

Family courts punish men, CPF asserts

In a prepared statement, CPF event coordinator John
Maguire states: "Steve Cook was a man who could have
used some help and support. The Massachusetts Probate
Court didn't refer him to any support agency for
stressed-out fathers in this state--because there is
no support system for fathers in this state--no
hotline for the despondent, no fathers advocates in
the courts.

"Steve Cook went into Probate court, and the Court
took away everything he valued: his daughter, his
home, his tools. "These courts are not courts any
more--they are revenge tribunals--where every man is
guilty of nameless, unspeakable crimes--where a pat on
a child's head is suspicious, where opening a door for
a child merits a six-month jail sentence, where even a
phone call to a child is a sinister act."

# # #

For further information, contact:
Jerome Aaron, Esq.
Steven Cook's attorney
(617)964-7389

Doug Turcotte
Longtime friend of Cook
(508) 653-1132 [home]
(508) 652-9891 [bus.]

Ms. Bobene Desmond
Longtime friend of Cook
(508) 303-1965

Mark Charalambous
CPF Spokesman
brontis@...
(978) 840-0268

John Maguire
Event coordinator
jmaguire@...
(617) 232-6154 - Pager:
(781) 758-7675

Ron Cook
Steven Cook's brother
(978) 345-2238

CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition
Statewide general access number
(617) 723-3237
www.fatherhoodcoalition.org



=====
Are you tired of the breakdown in the Family?  Are you sickened by its effects
on our Children and our society??
You can help force a change in the Family Court System by following this
link.... http://www.deDicAtedDadS.org and signing the petition!!
We *CAN* change this *NOW*!!  You can help!!
Do it NOW and get others to do the same!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/