From R-KIDS of MN and GPF

Contents 1 Legislature Defines New Child Support Process 2 Supreme Court Task Force On The Parenting Plan 3 Questionnaire To Counties On Domestic Abuse 4 Questionnaire On Domestic Abuse For Divorcing Parents 5 Training Is Minimal For Divorce Judges 6 Judge's Training Does Not Follow The Law 7 R-KIDS Legal Action Committee 8 Visitation 9 Nationwide Study Finds That Minnesota Has One Of Highest Support Obligations 10 Social Security Offset Declard To Be Retroactive 11 Cops Refuse To Enforce Visitation Orders 12 More Reader Mail 13 ABOUT R-KIDS OF MINNESOTA 13.1 R-KIDS CONCERNS AND ISSUES 13.2 Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund

Legislature Defines New Child Support Process

In light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement that the administrative process for child support hearings violated the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution, the legislature has created a new system for child support. The legislature has deferred back to the Supreme Court, the ultimate responsibility for setting up the new system. Instead of administrative law judges, there will now be magistrates to decide child support issues. Each judicial district will have the option of deciding who to appoint as magistrates, and they may just appoint the same old ALJ's to be the magistrates.

The new statute also more specifically limits the role of nonattorney employees of counties. It will take effect July 1, 1999.

This statute resulted from the combined efforts of a large committee of many groups. It remains to be seen what benefit this will have for noncustodial parents, children, and the administration of justice. Keep us informed!

Supreme Court Task Force On The Parenting Plan

The Parenting Plan Bill of 1998 was referred to the Minnesota Supreme Court to conduct a study. The final report is due in December, 1999 before the start of the year 2000 legislative session. Bob Carrillo is the R-Kids representative on this group. Other R-Kids members have been attending, and have assisted by providing information to the Task Force Members. The task force has three sub-committees dealing with the following subjects: 1. Parenting plan for parents who plan to divorce. 2. Child support issues. 3. Reduction in conflict during a divorce.

The latest report is that the tone of the meeting has changed. The chairperson of the Parenting Plan Subcommittee spoke in favor of the parenting plan (whereupon the advocate for the women's groups went hyper, with clucking and shaking of finger and rude expressions).

Questionnaire To Counties On Domestic Abuse

Walter Kuckes prepared a multiple-choice questionnaire that has 25 items covering visitation, child support, mediation, parenting plan and education of judges about family law (divorce). This questionnaire was sent to all 87 counties in Minnesota on May 7, 1999. Replies were received from 37 counties by May 18, 1999. The questions and preliminary results are:

1. Our county has someone to help facilitate visitation. Yes - 63%
2. Facilitating visitation is helpful. Agreed - 81%
3. Both parent's income should be considered in setting child support. Agreed - 89%
4. We find that child support is the same regardless of the custodial parent's income. Agreed - 57% 5.) Mandating parents to develop a parenting plan, rather than have it litigated, is in the children's best interest. Agreed - 93%
5. All divorces should be screened for a history of domestic abuse. Agreed - 83%
6. Mediation is preferable to litigation in resolving divorces. Agreed - 91%
7. Facilitating visitation is in the children's best interest. Agreed - 92%
8. Mandated mediation is effective Agreed - 67%
9. Children who maintain a relationship with both parents do better. Agreed - 100%
10. Obstruction of visitation provokes the withholding of child support. Agreed - 88%
11. Mediation results in better compliance with court orders. Agreed - 96%
12. Minnesota's make up visitation law has helped. Agreed - 67%
13. Non-custodial parents with legitimate complaints of interference with visitation can usually afford the litigation to correct this. Disagreed - 100%
14. Litigation is effective in correcting obstruction to visitation. Agreed 56%
15. Facilitating visitation increases anger and violence. Disagreed - 100%
16. Mediation should be mandated to facilitate visitation. Agreed - 83%
17. In some cases, if we had better correction of obstruction to visitation, there probably would be better compliance with child support payments. Agreed - 84%
18. Mediation results in increased anger and violence. Disagreed - 100%
19. Mandating parents to mediate causes problems. Disagreed - 77%
20. Facilitating visitation reduces anger and violence. Agreed - 96%
21. Parents should be mandated to develop a parenting plan prior to any litigation. Agreed - 93% 23.) We are aware that Minnesota divorce judges may have as little as a total of three hours of family law education in their entire lifetime. Aware: 18%, not aware: 82%. No one said the statement was incorrect.
22. If the above is true, it is adequate training for judges who write divorces involving children. Disagreed - 95%
23. Mandated mediation should be discontinued. Disagreed - 96%

Questionnaire On Domestic Abuse For Divorcing Parents

The State of California mandates that every county make an assessment for domestic violence at the time that a divorce is initiated. Walter Kuckes has received a copy of the violence assessment form used by the Family Court Services, Alameda County Superior Court, California. Both parents in a divorce are required to fill out the form which requests information on the other party. The form has 28 questions that pertain only to the past year. Numerical scales are provided for each question for quantifiable rating. Walter reports that both men's groups and women's groups have responded favorably to use of this questionnaire. He is trying to get the Supreme Court Task Force to recommend use of this questionnaire.

Training Is Minimal For Divorce Judges

New judges are required to take the Judicial Orientation Program sometime within the first year. This program requires only three hours of training in family law. In the meantime (up to one year without even this minuscule training) the judges are impacting children and parents. It would seem reasonable, since their decisions have such a large impact on the lives of human beings, that the judges receive much more training and receive it before acting as a divorce judge. Judicial education is another area where the Supreme Court Task Force has been requested to make recommendations. Walter Kuckes is spearheading this effort.

Judge's Training Does Not Follow The Law

A handout given to judges when they are trained in child support states that "In keeping with original legislative intent, judges should interpret the child support guidelines as the minimum level of the noncustodial parent's obligation, rather than the maximum."

This is not the law - the law is written in the statutes. Anyone could come up with a contrary "legislative intent."

R-KIDS Legal Action Committee

R-Kids has formed a legal action committee for the purpose of implementing legal action addressing discrimination in family law.

It has been discovered that the legislature knew that the Battered Women's Act was discriminatory against men at the time that it was passed, but refused to change the wording of the original bill. The Federal Battered Women's act was declared unconstitutional by the Fourth Judicial Court. Research and preparation of court action is being undertaken.

Further, it has been discovered that Minnesota's Administrative Law Judge law (declared unconstitutional) and the law SF23 pertain, by wording of the law, only to cases wherein government support (welfare) is involved. This issue has been targeted as the second effort for the R-Kids Legal Action Committee.

Visitation

The Supreme Court is mandating that every Minnesota Courthouse provide the pamphlet "A Parental Guide to Making Child-Focused Visitation Decisions". It is to be supplied free of charge to anyone expressing difficulty with visitation. You would help everyone if you just called your courthouse, or went there, and asked for a copy of it. If they have a copy, get it. If they don't, tell them to call Sue Dosal at 651-296-2474 and check it out. Get back to them until you actually get a copy from your courthouse. If necessary, call Sue Dosal yourself, and let her know that your county won't provide the pamphlet. Your action will help everyone have a better chance at getting visitation.

Knute Gladen

Members Meetings schedule: Members meetings are held at the Brookdale-Hennepin Area Library, 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center. Meetings are scheduled for: Thursday, July 15, 1999 at 7:00 PM. Thursday, August 19, 1999 at 7:00 PM.

Nationwide Study Finds That Minnesota Has One Of Highest Support Obligations

A study completed in February by the National Legal Research Group compared child support rates in all 50 states. Because child support will vary depending on the fact situation, the authors used three hypothetical situations.

Hypothetical #1 - NCP net monthly income - $2542 CP net monthly income - $941 Annual health insurance - $1080 Annual daycare costs - $2730 Unreimbursed medicals - $685

Minnesota's rank - Fourth

Hypothetical #2 - NCP net monthly income - $3895 CP net monthly income - $1591 Annual health insurance - $1105 Annual daycare costs - $3510 Unreimbursed medicals - $669

Minnesota's rank - Second

Hypothetical #3 - NCP net monthly income - $1202 CP net monthly income - $491 Annual health insurance - $654 Annual daycare costs - $1522 Unreimbursed medicals - $592

Minnesota's rank - seventeenth

The report is 46 pages long, and we're trying to find out if, and where, it can be found on the internet.

Social Security Offset Declard To Be Retroactive

More good news for those who are on social security. The old news is that last year, the legislature got Minnesota in line with 48 other states, by declaring that the child's social security benefits were to be applied toward the child support obligation. Then, in the Holmberg decision, the Supreme Court basically independently made the same determination.

Now, in a recent Court of Appeals case, the Court has held that the Holmberg case may be applied retroactively! This could mean you could get a refund, if you had been paying child support out or your social security check. If this fits your situation, you should contact an attorney right away.

Cops Refuse To Enforce Visitation Orders

Larry Nelson and I had a "go-around" with the local polizei today.

Here's a paraphrase version of the fun...(the words are not exact, but the content is representative of the discussion.)

We went to pick up Larry's kids (I drove). When the kids were not present, Larry called 911.

An officer came out and gave Larry his usual duck and hide talk about "I don't know if she's just late or what...' Larry insisted, so the cop agreed to accompany us to his ex's house. Upon going to the door, no one was home.

Larry pointed out that this was interference with visitation and deprivation of parental rights. The cop said "This is not deprivation. I've handled a thousand calls like this and it is not deprivation."

I chimed in. Here's the statute which defines deprivation of parental rights (609.26), and I read him the first clause. The cop said "This is not deprivation. I've handled a thousand calls like this and it is not deprivation."

I pressed on. "Why not? Larry has complied with the provisions of his signed court order. His ex is now withholding his children."

The cop said "This is not deprivation. The children are with her, she's their parent. I will not arrest her for deprivation of parental rights."

I pressed on. "Can't a parent deprive the other of his/her parental rights? The statute says 'WHOEVER'. Does that include if I deprived Larry of his children? What about if you deprived Larry? Doesn't 'WHOEVER' include anybody?"

"The county attorney would never prosecute this, it's a civil matter."

I pressed on. "Isn't an OFP a civil matter? You go out on them every day. For misdemeanor violations of an OFP. Now you are at the scene of a felony deprivation of parental visitation. Don't tell me it's a matter you cannot act on. It ceased to be a civil matter when Larry proved to you that he is in compliance with the order of the judge, but his ex is denying him visitation. Now it is a violation of a section of the criminal code, chapter 609.26."

"But the children are with their parent, so there's no criminal violation here."

I pressed further. "Have you ever seen an 'Appendix A' which is by law a part of every divorce decree in the state of Minnesota? Appendix A is addressed TO THE PARTIES of the divorce, and advises them that deprivation of parental rights is a felony. Why would the court make that point clear to the parents if parents cannot be guilty of violating 609.26?"

"I disagree with how you interpret the law."

I pressed on. "Police officers, who have no evidence other than that Larry's ex is not complying with the court's order granting him visitation are not to then argue about interpretation of the statute. Read it! The law is clear. Your job is to enforce the law. You are not entitled to deprive the judge of his right to do the interpretation of the law!"

"I'm not going to read it."

I pushed further. "You therefore state that you know the entire volumes of Minnesota Statutes, what 609.26 says exactly, better than what the statute itself reads as I hand it to you here in black and white? Read it! Show me where it DOESN'T apply here today."

"I don't need to read it. This is not deprivation. I'm not going to make an arrest here today." Then he reached out and tried to appease us by offering to call his supervisor to come talk to us.

About 15 minutes later a sergeant arrived. About the same time Larry's ex also drove up, without the kids. We went back through the whole thing: the statutes, Larry's orders, the vacation visitation schedule he submitted, etc. He jumps right into the exact same dissertation that the first cop had given! "It's NOT deprivation."

I pressed the sergeant. "Show me where Larry has not complied with the judge's order. You cannot. Show me where this statute grants a parent immunity. You cannot. Therefore, either she brings Larry his kids, or you have a felony crime scene here. If you refuse to do your duty to enforce the law, then you forfeit your immunity from liability as well."

The original cop asked what I meant by bringing that up. I told him it was simple..."If you refuse to do your job in compliance with the law, you lose your customary immunity from civil and/or criminal charges related to this incident." He took that as an idle threat.

The sergeant went to talk to Larry's ex. (He talked to her for quite some time.) Then the cop's cell phone rings, it was another sergeant. In a bit he asked to talk to Larry. Larry started chewing his ear. Then he talked with the cop again. The cop talked again with the sergeant that was on the scene.

They came back and told us that they weren't going to do anything, and wished us a good evening.

I pressed on. "Oh, yes you are going to do something. You are going to file a report on this incident."

"No, I decide if I'm going to file a police report, and I'm not going to."

"But you are a mandated reporter, and therefore you MUST report this to social services. 609.26 requires that, so you WILL comply with the law. You stand here and refuse to read the statute, so obviously you KNOW that you are required to report this to social services, right?"

He got into the "that's your interpretation" defense. Larry jumped in to back my argument. "No, this is not our interpretation, it's exactly what the statute says."

"What do you do for work?" the cop asked. He was trying to impune Larry's qualification to read the law.

I pressed real hard. "So would it make any difference if Larry was a cop? Would he then be qualified to read you the statute? Your job is NOT to stand here at a crime scene interpreting the law. It's in black and white, clear English. Your job is to enforce the law as it stands. It is the sole right of the judges of this state to make interpretation decisions. You don't want to obstruct a judge's right to do that, do you?!"

"Listen. We've been through this a dozen times. I'm going to handle this in accordance with department policy."

I jumped on it harder yet. "So you're going to put your 'department policy' and past failure to uphold the law up as a defense for not complying with the law?!"

"We're not going to arrest Ms. Nelson. What if she sued us for false arrest?"

I said, "You don't have to! You simply need to see that Larry's kids are turned over to visit in compliance with his court order. Then there will be no need to enforce 609.26. You will have done the job of a law enforcement officer, so that will maintain your immunity. You cannot be sued if you show that you were complying with the clear law as it stands. You will give the judge his opportunity to clarify the law if that is needed."

"Sorry, guys. Our supervisor told us not to spend any more time on this. Hope you have a better night. Larry can have his kids Monday morning for Memorial Day."

I left him with "You have a great night too. And we'll see you in court...let me see, conspiracy to deprive a parent of visitation and parental rights... no immunity..."

Kel Krosschell

Richard Doyle just sent an E-Mail requesting groups to join Men/Fathers/Children International (MFCI). For information, web site is http://www.mfci.org.

More Reader Mail

Interesting newsletter in that it sounds as if R-kids is pleased with the legislative solution to the Mn ALJ problem. However, that bill is "worse" than the current law, if that is at all possible. SF23 codifies the extreme powers that are currently assumed by child support workers. I'm willing to accept SF23 if Foley is willing to pass a law for the death penalty for any child support worker who drafts any legal documents representing the state, the county or my children. Allowing social workers, most of whom are former welfare recipients with an axe to grind against fathers are going to have the right to sieze property, your bank accounts and your professional driver's license. Foley should be hung for treason to the constitution.

Is R-Kids a subgroup of A.C.E.S?

Sincerely,

Jon S. Wood

It has come to our attention that certain individuals may claim that they are endorsed by, or otherwise representing, R-KIDS, when in fact they have not been so anointed by the board of R-KIDS. Only the board of R-KIDS, or its designees, may make statements on behalf of this group. We encourage diversity among our members, but we caution against being labeled as an extremist organization. If you have a pet project, feel free to contact the board to get approval. If you suspect that someone is improperly using our name, please let us know.

ABOUT R-KIDS OF MINNESOTA

• R-KIDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating law makers, family law professionals and the public with regard to family law and social services and their effects on children, families, and the consequences to the taxpayer.
• Our main concern is for our community of children of divorced, separated, or unwed families. We believe that children need, want and deserve the love, support and involvement of both parents regardless of marital status.
• Founded in 1985, our membership is comprised of both moms and dads, custodial and non-custodial parents, grandparents, stepparents, and professionals such as social workers, doctors, attorneys, and family law practitioners.
• It is the objective of R-KIDS to develop equitable family law legislation in an effort to improve the lives of all Minnesota children.

"ALL CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS AND ALL GRANDPARENTS IN THEIR LIVES"

• Unless those affected by the current family law system voice an opinion and demand positive change, we and our children will continue to suffer. This change will not occur without your help! Legislators and family law professionals need to hear from; parents, grandparents, and constituents. Until they do, things will not change.

R-KIDS CONCERNS AND ISSUES

1. The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.
2. The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
3. Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.
4. Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
5. The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
6. Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well.
7. The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
8. Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
9. Accountability for the use of child support.
10. The impact of the no-fault divorce system on families with children and the need for effective education for parents considering marriage, separation, or divorce.

R-KIDS website is http://www.rkids.org

Do you want to express your viewpoint or share your story in the newsletter? E-mail to ttheisen@bitstream.net, or mail to Tim Theisen, R-KIDS Newsletter Editor, 229 Jackson Street, Suite 105, , Anoka MN 55303. We reserve the right to edit. We will use your name unless asked not to do so. Obviously, viewpoints expressed by readers do not necessarily reflect the position of R-KIDS.

Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund

R-KIDS Charitable fund is a tax exempt, 501(c )(3) foundation. The proceeds WILL NOT BE USED FOR LOBBYING. The fund currently needs money for various charitable activities of benefit to children of divorce. Send your tax deductible donation of $25, $50, or $100 today! Make checks payable to R-KIDS Charitable Fund. Mail to R-KIDS PO Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.

This newsletter is distributed via US mail and e-mail. If you are getting it via regular mail, but you have an e-mail address, let us know your e-mail address. Send a note to Editor Tim Theisen, ttheisen@bitstream.net . Not only will you get the newsletter a couple weeks sooner, but you’ll also get certain bulletins between newsletters, and you’ll save us postage costs as well! Also, the e-mail version of the newsletter sometimes has extra articles that didn’t make the editor’s final cut for the print version.

The R-KIDS newsletter does not purport to give legal advice. The information contained herein is general in nature; individual circumstances will always vary.

Feel free to disseminate this newsletter. We want to spread our message!