Newsletters::2000 August

From R-KIDS of MN and GPF

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Legislative Summary

FAMILY LAW

VISITATION

CHAPTER 444, Articles 1 and 2

The term "visitation" will be replaced with "parenting time" in all family court laws applicable to parents. Parenting time is defined as the time a parent spends with a child regardless of the custodial designation regarding the child.

Effective January 1, 2001.

STANDARD FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY

CHAPTER 444, Article 1, Section 5

Responding to the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Frauenshuh v. Giese, the legislature added language allowing the court to change a custody arrangement if it finds it is in the best interests of the child and the parties previously agreed, in a writing approved by the court, to apply to the best interests standard in Sec.518.17 or Sec.257.025. Any such agreement approved by a court on or after April 28, 2000 is valid only if both parties were represented by counsel when the agreement was approved or the court found the parties were fully informed, the agreement was voluntary, and the parties were aware of its implications.

Effective April 28, 2000.

VOLUNTARY PARENTING PLANS

CHAPTER 444, Article 1

This new law incorporates recommendations from the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Parent Cooperation Task Force and authorizes voluntary parenting plans. Courts must approve parenting plans agreed to by both parents unless the court makes detailed findings that the proposed plan is not in the best interests of the child. If both parents do not agree to a parenting plan, the court may create one on its own motion, although the court cannot do so if it finds that a parent has committed domestic abuse against a parent or child who is a party the matter before the court. If an existing order does not contain a parenting plan, the parents cannot be required to create one as part of a modification order under Sec.518.64.

Effective January 1, 2001.

DELEGATION OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY

CHAPTER 458, Section 1

A parent wishing to execute a designation of parental authority under Minn. Stat. Sec.524.5-505 is now required to mail or otherwise provide a copy of the document to any other parent within 30 days of its execution. Exceptions to this requirement are if the other parent does not have the visitation rights, or has only supervised visitation, or if there is an existing order for protection in effect against the other parent to protect the parent executing the delegation of powers.

Effective August 1, 2000.

STANDBY OR TEMPORARY CUSTODIAN

CHAPTER 404

Repeals the designated caregiver statute in Minn. Stat. Sec. 257A and replaces it with Sec. 257B, the standby or temporary custodian statute. Allows a parent with legal and physical custody or legal custody to designate a standby custodian to assume their duties with regard to the child upon a triggering event. A triggering event is any specific occurrence stated in the designation (for example, death). A hearing may be required under certain circumstances. The designation must be in writing and the statute provides a recommended form.

Effective April 15, 2000.

NOTICE TO REMOVE

CHAPTER 372, Section 1

Minn. Stat. Sec. 542.16 was amended to make it consistent with Minn. R. Civ. P. 63.03. Language requiring notice to remove must be submitted within one day after it is known which judge is to preside is deleted and replaced with language requiring notice to be served and filed within tens days after the party receives notice of which judge will preside, or, if no notice of a hearing is served with the summons, then within the time to answer the summons, whichever is later. This does not apply to proceedings under Sec. 484.702 (the expedited child support hearing process).

Effective August 1, 2000.

ACCESS TO ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

CHAPTER 458, Section 4

Amends Minn. Stat. Sec. 518.255 to allow a party to obtain an ex parte order where there is an existing IV-D case. The party may obtain an ex parte order requiring the public authority to serve legal documents on the other party by mail if the party submits a sworn affidavit meeting certain requirements. The public authority shall certify to all parties the date of service by mail, but proof of service must not include the place or address of service.

Effective August 1, 2000.

PROTEST RALLY ON AUGUST 8, 2000

R-Kids will be coordinating a rally at the Ramsey County Government Center W. 50 Kellogg Blvd. W. in St. Paul it will be held on Tuesday, August 8, 2000, from 2:00pm to 4:30pm. We will have speakers, signs, balloons and excitement.

American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC) are sponsoring this national rally on August 8. They have 170 coordinators in 35 states. We expect press coverage.

WHAT TO DO

  1. Show up. PLEASE CALL (651) 770-6164 to let us know you WILL be coming. Please leave a message with your name and telephone number.
  2. PLEASE BRING AS MANY OF YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS AS POSSIBLE!
  3. Bring a sign & attach a picture of your children. If you can’t bring a sign tell us and we will provide one.

WHAT NOT TO DO

  1. Do NOT bring children
  2. Only designated persons will be allowed to talk to the media.
  3. Confrontational, rude, uncooperative conduct will not be allowed. We encourage persons and members of organizations who believe that parents should share their rights and responsibilities equally to participate in this rally.

Signs can be made on poster board using markers and making large bold letters. You can punch holes and use a rope or twine to wear it around your neck. Use big bold letters and a short message so your sign can be seen from a distance.

SUGGESTIONS FOR SIGNS:

  • Kids need grandparents
  • Honk for Fairness to non-custodial parents
  • Stop Punishing Innocent non-custodial parents
  • Due Process for non-custodial parents
  • Can't support kids if you take my license.
  • Stop debtors' prison non-custodial parents.
  • Respect for non-custodial parents
  • Child support agency injustice must stop
  • Accountability for child support payments.
  • Stop child support agency injustice.
  • We just want to love our kids.
  • We hope you will be able to attend and make this rally a success!


State Officials Consider Amnesty For Overdue Child Support

Jean HopfenspergerStar TribuneSunday, June 25, 2000After years of using the stick to prod parents to pay overdue child support -- taking away drivers' licenses, intercepting tax refunds and staining credit records -- Minnesota soon may hold out a carrot.

For the first time, state officials are considering offering an erase-your-debt amnesty plan, or at least a debt reduction plan, to certain parents. These would be lower-income parents who can demonstrate financial hardships and whose children were or are receiving public assistance.

Officials hope that parents will step forward and start making their monthly child-support payments if they don't have to pay off a mountain of debt in the process. Tens of thousands of parents potentially could take advantage of the debt reduction plan.

The move is driven by the skyrocketing child-support debts owed to the state, a debt that has soared from $512million in 1993 to nearly $1billion today. Simply watching the debt grow isn't solving the problem of parents not supporting their children, state officials said.

That's particularly true for parents who don't have the money -- and may never have the money -- to pay it off, said Laura Kadwell, child support division chief for the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

"We're looking at this as a way to encourage people to become part of the child support program," she said. "But we have to be really careful. We don't want to jeopardize the trust and responsibility of those people who have been paying their child support all these years, the people who have moved into smaller apartments, bought smaller cars and paid their kids."

The state now oversees about 229,000 child support cases, which include families on public assistance and higher-income families who choose to use the state as a go-between. About 109,000 of the cases involve overdue payments.

It's unclear how many cases would be eligible for any debt reduction scheme, because exact policies haven't been finalized.

But the program would not be available to parents who don't pay their child support through the state.

And Kadwell stressed that not all parents in the state child support system would get the debt reduction option. Cases would be reviewed individually, she said. And any debt forgiveness would be tied to "on-going behavior," such as the continual payment of current child support, she said.

For example, if a parent begins paying child support, the state could hold the debt in abeyance, she said. And if the parent continues paying for a certain amount of time, the debt may be forgiven.

The debt reduction idea is part of a broader set of changes the department is considering to erase the debt and to stop it from accumulating in the first place.

If Minnesota launches a statewide debt-reduction plan, it would be the first in the nation, said Michael Kharfen, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The department is encouraging all states "to become more creative" in collecting overdue debt, he said.

Minnesota got in the business of collecting child support 25 years ago, when it began collecting support owed for children on welfare. The money was collected to reimburse the state for welfare payments. In 1984, however, the state began collecting overdue child support for people of all incomes. About half of the cases now are public assistance.

Kadwell stressed that the state can only negotiate the debt owed to it -- for public assistance, medical assistance, hospital costs -- not debt that one parent owes to another.

However, children would benefit from the plan because the debt reductions are likely to be tied to ongoing payment of child support, she said. And the custodial parent would be part of the negotiation process, she said.

The state collects two-thirds of the current child support owed to the children in its system, one of the highest rates in the nation. A big reason it doesn't collect the remaining third is that noncustodial parents often don't earn enough money to pay their support or overdue debt, Kadwell said.

For example, a recent study of 5,200 parents with overdue payments showed that half made less than $18,000 a year, according to the state. Those debts have discouraged many parents from stepping forward and paying support, she said. So they sink deeper in the red.

The debt often begins in the hospital birthing room. If the mother is on public assistance, the father may be required to pay the hospital bill for the mother and infant. The debt can grow when the child support order is set by a district court. Sometimes the court sets the order unrealistically high, especially if the noncustodial parent doesn't show up for the hearing, Kadwell said.

Even when parents can afford the child support, they often fall behind on payments if they hit a financial crisis such as a major car repair, medical problem or job loss.

To complicate matters, many parents don't understand how to change their support orders or how to tap community resources for help. And many are intimidated or angered, by judges and the whole child-support process. So they just stay away, said Steve Onell, a program coordinator at the Fathers' Resource Center in Minneapolis, which offers advocacy and a variety of services to fathers.

"A lot of these fathers are living from check to check," he said. "Now someone is proposing to take $160 or so a month. Then they tell them to take a second job, but if they do that, their income will go up so their support order will, too.

"Sometimes they ignore it; they think it will just go away," Onell said. "But it doesn't."

Vern Bolle Jr., a St. Paul father of two, is typical of the fathers with big overdue debts -- about $34,000 in his case. Bolle became a father at age 17, right before marrying and joining the Army in 1987. The marriage ended within two years.

Paying child support while in the military wasn't difficult, he said. But when he returned to Minnesota in 1991 and began working $8-and $9-an-hour jobs -- driving a truck, cleaning windows -- he couldn't afford the roughly $400 a month in child support, he said.

"I tried to lower the order, but they [his caseworker] said I needed an attorney," he said. "I called around and attorneys wanted a $750 to $1,000 retainer. Where was I supposed to get that?

"So I took a job, and if they caught up to me, I'd quit and go to a new one."

That's when his small debt began mushrooming. Today he owes $27,000 in support for his 12-year-old son and $6,500 for his 4-year-old son from a different relationship.

Bolle said he now is paying support, plus $10 a month to pay off his debt. And he is training for a new job that he hopes will help him pay off more of his debt each month. He credits his new career path to the Parents Fair Share program in St. Paul, a program that helps noncustodial parents get jobs and pay child support. He found out about the program this year, but it has been around since 1995 in Ramsey County.

Many fathers are dropping out of the system because they don't know where to turn for help, he said. They don't know such programs exist.

"The system is one-sided," Bolle said. " It has to look at both parents, and then show them the ropes."

Bolle has a mixed reaction to the prospects of a debt reduction plan. On one hand, it can help a lot of children whose parents are dodging the child-support system, he said. On the other hand, "doesn't the child still deserve that money?" he said.

Bolle said he wants to pay back his entire debt.

"I ran from it too long," he said. "I'm 30 years old. I want more out of life than being in debt. I want a house, retirement. You can't do that if you owe $33,000 -- and it's on your credit report."

Policies that may benefit parents such as Bolle are expected to be in place by the end of the year, Kadwell said. The state will monitor how they're working, and the information will be used to create permanent policies.

"It's likely that a person will have to come forward first," she said. "We're not going to send out notices to people saying, 'We're going to help you reduce your debt.'"

The state doesn't have the money or the resources for a high-profile publicity campaign, she said. Given its limited resources, its top priority is to collect child support, not to forgive debts, she said.

Minnesota also is examining policies that help create these huge debts.

Those policies include:

The required payment of hospital birth costs.

The formula for setting child-support orders and how it affects low-income noncustodial parents.

The system's sometimes failure to consider the financial needs of the noncustodial parent or the financial strengths of the custodial parent.

The system's slowness in responding to job losses and other changes in a parent's economic circumstances.

"I think as we move to the future, we'll need to differentiate between the guy who makes $5 an hour and the banker who just doesn't want to pay support because he doesn't like his wife," Kadwell said. The proposed changes are a first step in that direction, she said.


Meeting with Representative Steve Smith

On June 20, the R-KIDS child support group presented its request for changes to the

child support and visitation law.

Attending:

  • Representative Steve Smith, Chair of Civil Law Committee
  • Dennis Virden, Assistant to Steve Smith
  • Joe Cox, Legislative Analyst/Attorney
  • Bob Carrillo, R-Kids
  • Chuck Perrin, R-Kids Lobbyist
  • Diane Anderson
  • Knute Gladen, R-Kids

We were scheduled for 30 minutes, but Rep Smith stayed for 50 minutes, until a messenger came and dragged him away to another meeting that had already started. Dennis Virden had us stay for about another 10 minutes.

We presented copies of these documents. Those who attended our meetings in Windom and Brooklyn Park are familiar with some of these items.

  • Presumptions - 1 page
  • Goals - Fair Divorce Laws - 5 pages
  • Goals - Marked copy of Fair Divorce Laws
  • Dollar comparison - existing law vs. our proposal using
  • Washington State - 1 sheet
  • Line graphs showing the comparisons - 5 sheets
  • Marked copy of the law we would like to change - 15 sheets
  • List of studies showing benefits of both parents
  • Texas guidelines on visitation which specify equal time

Representative Smith thanked us for giving him exactly what he had asked for. He said he was "impressed and happy". (Political statement, but it was encouraging to those who prepared the presentation.)

Smith plans to re-write the 518 law on child support to "help dads and mothers survive divorce". He has two goals:

  1. Custody - make children more accessible to dads.
  2. Make child support more fair to the "guy or gal" who is paying, and hav it reflect time with each parent.

He does not plan to hold hearings until the bill is introduced in January. Hearings are time consuming and he wants to spend time with re-writing the law, which includes discussions with key people.

Dennis Virden commented that even the Democrats are becoming disappointed with the Department of Human Services. People from the DHS do not tell the truth and do not provide requested information.


Here are some of the documents drafted by an RKIDS committee which were given to Sen. Smith:

DEFINITIONS:

NET INCOME: Income shall be based on a 40 hour work week. Net income is well defined in the existing law, except that existing support shall not be subtracted from the net income assigned to the next child. Children shall be treated equally, no matter when they were born.

PARENTING TIME RATIO: The presumption is that the child will spend half of the time with each parent, 50/50. The parents may decide, in their parenting plan, to use some other ratio. The amount of time the child spends with each parent will be divided by the total amount of time in a year, in order to calculate the percentage of time the child is with each parent. The parenting time ratio, for each child, shall be stated in the court order.

BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: Children need both parents and their extended families. The amount of time the child spends with both parents is just as important as the amount of child support that is paid. The best interest of the Child factors should be modified. The emphasis will be on factor 13 - who is the most cooperative parent that will encourage a relationship with both parents.

The focus of the divorce will no longer be on the past history of the parents. The courts will make decisions on what is best for the child in the future - not the past. The courts will decide on how the child will be cared for in the future: (1) When and (2) How.

  1. The When is the weekly and holiday schedule. The decisions will be based on the parent’s work schedule, situation, and present evidence of availability. The schedule will be consistent.
  2. The How will be the residence:

Home Same school district Transportation RECOMMENDED FAIR DIVORCE LAWS

  1. Parenting time shall be equal between both parents:
    Children need to spend time with both parents. If one parent does not want equal parenting time, the court can make an exception and base the time on what the parties agree to. It is important to support the visitation rights of grandparents. It is very important for the child to have relationships with their grandparents and extended family members.
  2. Child Support Guidelines Chart:
    want to base the cost of raising a child on the USDA figures. Washington State’s child support guidelines economic table was derived from the USDA report of the costs of raising children. Washington State’s chart uses the combined monthly net income of both parents. The chart we designed converted the figures in the Washington State chart to percentages. The chart we designed will have each parent’s income applied separately to the appropriate income level and percentage on the chart.
  3. Both parents are required to pay for costs of raising the child:
    The court shall order each parent to pay the guideline amount, based on that parent’s net income, multiplied by the parenting time ratio of the obligee parent. The guidelines chart shall be made a part of the court order, and shall be followed throughout the period when child support is paid. Payments are made to the public agency responsible for child support collection services, so the amount can be verified for Federal incentive funds. Amounts are then forwarded to the appropriate parent.
  4. Both parties responsible for paying existing debts:
    The existing marital debts shall be divided equally, 50/50, between the parties. Each party will be responsible for half of the debt. (This is the way it is done in Community Property states).
  5. Minimum earning power:
    Minimum earning power is defined by the existing law, except that minimum wage, rather than a higher percentage of minimum wage, shall be used.
  6. Spousal maintenance shall not be provided:
    The divorce shall assume that the other party no longer exists as far as providing spousal support. Each divorced party is no longer providing a service to the other party, and should not be compensated. This is similar to someone who is fired from a job or who voluntarily quits working. The compensation stops.
    Both parties should realize that a marriage may end. Both parties must obtain training for earning a living in order to provide for their own future. If they do not, then they shall have a different standard of living than if the divorce had not occurred. Each party must expect only what is within their power to earn for themselves by whatever training or special skills that they may possess.
  7. Joint legal and joint physical custody shall be presumed:
    A parenting plan shall be provided by the divorcing parents that describes how they intend to parent the children. Both parents shall be responsible. Differences shall be resolved by mediation per the parenting plan laws.
  8. Punishment for blocking parenting time of the other parent:
    Courts shall provide punishment to a parent who denies parenting time of the other parent. Reference year 2000 bills HF3124 and SF3647 which state that such denial of parenting time constitutes contempt. Such contempt requires a returnable amount as security for future compliance and states that the court may impose incarceration.
  9. Allegations of abuse:
    The procedure for handling abuse allegations needs to be changed. People will not be allowed to use allegations of abuse to prevent a parent from having custody or parenting time. The types of abuse that would restrict parenting time need to be defined and a screening process for abuse should be established. Finding out about abuse or bad behavior is very important, but will not be used as a way to show guilt. The reason to define the abuse will be to design provisions in the parenting plan to overcome the abuse. The new procedure will be to design a way to correct the problem and to put in provisions in the parenting plan to do something about the ad behavior. The percentage of time ratio will not be changed for child support purposes until the court has determined the allegation of abuse is true and there is a need to make a change to the parenting time.
  10. Duration of child support:
    The court order shall specify that child support payments shall not be required for a child who has reached age 18 or who has graduated from high school. Documentation shall be provided to the public agency responsible for child support collection services. No court action shall be required for the change of payment amount. Payments will be recalculated by the public agency, based on the obligor’s remaining children that require support per the section on multiple children of either parent.
  11. Multiple children of either parent:
    Support payments shall consider all children of an obligor parent as equal, regardless of when they were born and regardless of whether more than two parents are involved. The amount of child support that a parent must pay shall be determined from the guidelines table based on income of the parent and the number of children. This amount shall then be divided by the number of children of the obligor parent who are under 18 years of age and who have not graduated from high school, including children for which there is no court order for support. The amount for each child shall then be determined by multiplying by the parenting time ratio of that child with the obligee parent. Payment shall be made to the obligee parent(s) for each child having parenting time with the obligee parent(s). Payments are not made for children having no court order for support, although such children are included when the guidelines table amount is apportioned.
    Whenever there is a change in the number of children of the obligor, who are under 18 years of age and who have not graduated from high school, including children for which there is no court order for support, either parent may notify the public agency responsible for child support collection services. The public agency shall verify the information received under this provision. Within 30 days, the authority shall notify all parties involved of any changes, and the date that the change will take effect, which date shall be within 30 days of the notification to the agency. The employer of the obligor shall be notified of the new amount to withhold, and the date on which to change.
    The public agency responsible for child support collection services shall correct any errors within 24 hours upon notification and proof of a discrepancy, and shall again notify all parties involved, including employers, of the correction.
    The court order shall contain words describing this issue such as the following:
    "The amount of child support payment shall be changed per the guidelines, without any legal action on the part of either party, when either party notifies the public agency responsible for child support collection services that there has been a change in the number of children of the obligor, who are under age 18 who have not graduated from high school. The public authority shall verify the information received under this provision before changing the amount of the obligor’s child support payment."
  12. Paternity cases:
    In cases where paternity is in dispute, a father shall not be responsible for support until paternity is established and adjudicated. If a person files a court claim that the person is not the child’s parent, support payments shall be placed in escrow until the validity of the claim is established by the court. Where it is found that parenthood was wrongfully established, the escrowed amount shall be returned to obligor and no more support payments shall be required. If it is found that the claimant is the child’s parent, the amount in escrow shall be given to the obligee parent and support payments shall resume.
  13. Maximum child support payments:
    Child support payments shall be limited to an amount, on the chart, corresponding to an income of $7000.00 per month in year 2001 and shall be indexed by the cost of living for subsequent years. Child support payments greater than the indicated amount will not be spent on the child and become untaxed alimony income to the recipient. Children shall not be expected to support their parents, and their parents friends and relatives, simply because they are children.
  14. Minimum child support payments:
    Minimum child support payments shall be determined from the basis table by the parent’s income multiplied by the parenting time ratio of the other parent. In general, minimum child support shall be $25.00 per child multiplied by the parenting time ratio of the other parent.
  15. Insurance coverage for the child:
    Insurance for each child shall be provided by the parent whose employee insurance, or other insurance, provides the best coverage for the child. If neither parent has a job that provides family insurance, the two parents shall select an insurance carrier. Amounts for insurance fees that are not covered by the employer shall be paid by both parents based on their net incomes. Mediation shall be used to resolve disagreements over selection of the insurance carrier.
  16. Unreimbursed medical expenses:
    Unreimbursed medical expenses shall be the responsibility of each parent based on their net incomes. Payments not covered by insurance shall be made, by each parent, directly to the medical care provider or to the person or agency who has paid the medical care provider. Such expenses would include co-pay amounts for doctor’s visits, medicine not covered by insurance, etc.
  17. Day care costs:
    Each parent is responsible for day care costs based on their net income. With the assumption of equal parenting time, this provides fairness for payment of daycare costs. Each parent may provide the day care service to reduce or eliminate the cost. Each parent may make arrangements with a separate day care provider during their own parenting time.
  18. Governmental day care assistance:
    Government payments received by a parent for day care assistance shall be applied to the day care costs. Each parent is responsible for the remaining day care costs based on their net income.
  19. Parent unable to pay:
    A parent shall not be required to pay child support if that parent has had no income for the last 30 days because of (1) doctor verified illness, (2) incarceration by any government, including foreign governments, (3) work layoffs that allow (or would allow) receipt of reemployment insurance. Court action will not be required to change the payments if the proper documentation is provided to the public agency responsible for collecting child support and to the recipient of the payment. In cases where the obligor parent is unable to contact the public agency responsible for collecting child support, as in incarceration by a foreign government, the authority shall correct its records and inform the recipient at such time that the obligor is able to contact the authority. If the obligor makes a good faith effort to contact the authority as soon as possible, no penalties shall be assessed. Payment amounts shall be forgiven during the time that the obligor was not receiving an income.
  20. Maximum Payments per US Code Title 15, Section 1673:
    Payments shall not exceed the maximums per US Code Title 15, Section 1673. This is the consumer credit law on garnishment that provides a obligor with at least 35 percent of the net income for survival. Payments includes the sum of all marital debt payments, support payments, medical payments, day care payments, attorney fees, court costs, fines, fees and other payments associated with the costs of caring for the child and with the divorce. Payments shall be reduced by increasing the parenting time or other means, so the total of all payments is within the federal law.
  21. Documents required with payment:
    See existing law.
  22. Transportation for parenting time:
    Each parent shall be responsible for one-half of the cost of transportation of the children between residences for parenting time. However, if one parent moves to a location such that the travel distance is more than 30 miles, that parent shall be responsible for all of the transportation cost of the children between residences for parenting time.
  23. Welfare child support:
    See existing law 518.551 (c) (6)

PRESUMPTIONS FOR CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES

  1. Both parents are responsible to financially provide for the children. Neither parent can opt out of financially providing for the children.
  2. Child support will be based on the net income of both parents.
  3. Both parents are entitled to the same amount of parenting time.
  4. Child support will be based on cost of raising the children.
  5. Child support payments shall be capped at a level such that the support payments are used for the child and not for support of others who may be living with or otherwise associated with the child.
  6. The cost of raising the children has been derived from the USDA Expenditures on Children by Families, United States Department of Agriculture, publication #1528-1998.
  7. Both parents will be responsible for the payment of extraordinary medical expenses which shall be based, proportionately, on their net incomes. Payments will be made directly to the medical care provider.
  8. Both parents will be responsible for day care costs which shall be based, proportionately, on their net incomes.
  9. Each parent shall make payments to the public agency responsible for child support collection services, for disbursement to the other parent. Therefore the public authority will not loose the Federal incentive payments.
  10. When determining multiple orders for the same parent, all children will be considered to have equal needs and are entitled to equal amounts of the parent’s income.


Appellate Case Update

The Court of Appeals issued a disappointing decision on May 23rd, in the case of Goplen v. Morse, C4-99-1679. In that case, a child support obligor erroneously paid child support for a year and a half, after the child turned 18. He then applied to have the county garnish the money back from the custodial parent. He overpaid 18 months child support, in the amount of $4200.00. The trial court ordered this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, stating that only a child support obligor can be garnished. The Court’s analysis seemed to ignore the well-established rule that either parent can be an obligor for purposes of child support. For many cases, such as joint physical custody, both parents can be obligors. Sometimes, there is a change in custody while a child is a minor, and the Court needs to collect overpayments from the "obligee," especially when the new custodial parent has not sought child support, but merely wants to get back the money that he or she may have overpaid. This decision makes little sense to me, and can be a dangerous precedent, although hopefully it will be confined to its specific facts in future cases. I doubt it as being appealed to the Supreme Court since Mr. Morse did not have an attorney, and the amount in controversy was only $4200.00.

Another update on the Rogers’ case, which was summarized in our last newsletter. As you may recall, the Court of Appeals that when a non-custodial parent has a "significant amount" of visitation, that the Court must apply the valento cross award, which is normally just used in joint physical custodial situations. In the Roger’s case, the non-custodial parent (who is a woman, for those to whom that might matter), had 45% visitation. In a subsequent case, the non-custodial parent had 39% of the time visitation, (Rumney v. Rumney, no. C9-99-1838 (Court of Appeals, June 6th, 2000) but the Court of Appeals held that is not a "significant amount" of visitation. The Roger’s case is on its way up to the Supreme Court, where this will get fleshed out by next year. Of course, if Representative Smith’s initiatives go through (see article above), this might all be rendered rather moot.


Man Sentenced For Threatening Social-Service Workers

A 58 year old man was sentenced to 14 years in prison for harassing and threatening Clay County social-service workers and their families. Clay County District Judge Michael Kirk also sentenced Richard Richardson to 10 years’ probation on nine counts of felony harassment and three counts of gross misdemeanor harassment.

Richardson was convicted in June of sending menacing letters between 1997 and 1999 to the family of Dennis Lien, director of the social services worker and her family. That woman quit her job and moved her family out of fear and stress related to the crimes. Kirk ruled that six other terroristic threat charges already were included in the 12 harassment charges, so Richardson was not sentenced for them. -- Associated Press


Domestic Violence Issues In The U.S. Senate.

MHN posts this message without comment. This analysis of an immediate Senate action is from a policy analyst in Washington, DC. Those interested in domestic violence issues might read further. Readers should know that VAWA grants state specifically that the grants are meant to serve only female victims of domestic violence, not males. One grant application reads specifically: "Ineligible Activities" are "projects that focus on children or men."

To learn more about DV as a policy issue, or to learn more about the gender-specific nature of federal domestic violence grants, send an e-mail message to:

dv@menshealthnetwork.org

Or visit the MHN library at:

http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/Library_MHN.htm#dv

To discover who lives with mother or father in your state, visit our library at:

http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/Library_MHN.htm#censusdata

and choose:

1990 Census by Family Type Including Single Parent Family Percentages

Some tell you that research on fathers is a new thing? Not so! Check out the MHN library and read: Research on Fatherhood: Old Discoveries Seem New Again http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/library/mhndocs/Fatherhd.html

Reminder – National Men’s Health Week is June 12-18, 2000.

To learn more about National Men’s Health week, visit the new NMHW website at: http://www.menshealthweek.org


Support prostate cancer research. http://www.menshealthnetwork.org/prostate.html http://www.prostatestamp.org


(The forwarded message follows:)

Reminder: To call your Senator, a Senator on the Committee, or to find out who your Senator is, call the Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

Today one of our associates attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on several nominees, including Bonnie Campbell. Since 1995 she has been director of the Department of Justice office that administers and implements the Violence Against Women Act. As such she has disbursed several hundred million dollars worth of grants under VAWA. Most grants have gone to states and localities for local law enforcement, prosecution, judicial education. The statute specifies that the purpose of these grants is to fight violence against women. She also administers the 1998 Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campuses.

After holding several political staff positions, she went to law school and graduated in December 1984. She worked for a small firm from 1985 to 1989, when she became of counsel to a larger firm. From there, she ran for Attorney General of Iowa and won in 1990. She ran for Governor of Iowa in 1994, but lost. Thereafter, President Clinton appointed her to the Violence Against Women Office position. Soon she will need another job, and so she has been nominated to serve on the Eighth Circuit.

Some hurriedly compiled questions were sent to Senate majority staff last night (see attached). They included Hatch (Amy Haywood); Thurmond (Garry Malphrus, Alan Gura); Grassley (John McMickle); Specter (Frank Brown); Kyl (Steven Higgins); DeWine (Pete Levitas); Ashcroft (Adam Ciongoli, Jessica Hughes); Abraham (Lee Otin); Sessions (Ed Haden); Bob Smith (Brian Darling).

Both Iowa Senators (Grassley and Harken) spoke on behalf of Campbell. Their remarks were warm, but not effusive (maybe that’s just Iowa reticence). Senator Hatch conducted the questioning at today’s hearing. It consisted of several general questions posed to a panel of five nominees. All of them, including Campbell, gave expected answers ("I would be bound by precedent" … "Judges are supposed to apply the law" … "Congress, not the courts, makes policy" …). Senator Hatch remarked that he was the main sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act and seemed to say that he felt the Morrison decision was wrong.

The record will be left open until close of business, Friday, May 26, for additional written questions from Senators. You may want to send questions to your own contacts. We will attempt to develop more and better questions, too.

Attachment:

Questions that will be posed to Bonnie Campbell: Do you think that either Congress or a court should make decisions based on claims that are false, misleading, or incomplete?

Do you agree that: [NOTE: The following claims were cited by the Department of Justice in its briefs in the U.S. v. Morrison case, concerning the constitutionality of the civil remedies provision of the Violence Against Women Act.] "Violent attacks by men now top the list of dangers to an American woman’s health."

FACT: According to the Centers for Disease Control, accidents and disease are by far the leading causes of injury or death to all Americans. This is especially so for women, who are much less likely than men to be victims of violent crime. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"Every 15 seconds, or every 12 seconds, a woman is battered in the United States."

"Four million American women are battered each year." FACT: There are no statistics, from the FBI or otherwise, that support these claims. They appear to be based on the assumption that every single domestic incident including slamming a door or throwing a magazine across the room is a violent attack. Source: Prof. Richard Gelles, Factoids.

"Approximately 95 percent of all domestic violence victims are women."

FACT: Women and men are about equally likely (50/50) to be victims of domestic violence. Men, being bigger and stronger, may inflict more damage on women, but women are actually slightly more likely than men to instigate domestic violence against a partner. Source: Prof. Richard Gelles, Factoids.

"One in seven women now in college have been raped." FACT: According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, reported rapes among over 5 million students at state colleges and universities totaled 408 in 1992 and 385 in 1993 not the 357,000 figure one would expect "During the past ten years the rape rate has risen ten times faster than the national crime rate." FACT: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the rape rate has actually dropped. It fell from 1.0 per thousand women in 1973, to 0.8 per thousand in 1983, to 0.7 per thousand in 1992.

As a former state Attorney General:

  • Do you believe that state courts and justice systems are, or are not, willing and able to provide fair hearings and treatment for women who are victims of violence?
  • Do you believe that the state gender bias task force studies and reports cited by the Department of Justice as support for the Violence Against Women Act are valid? Do you believe that federal gender bias task force studies are valid?
  • Not surprisingly, most gender bias studies find that gender bias exists, whether in the state or federal systems. Do you believe federal courts are less gender-biased than state courts? Do you think that state courts will improve if cases are taken away from them and heard in federal courts instead? If you were a federal judge, would you consider it appropriate for domestic violence cases to be heard in your court?

As director of the Violence Against Women Office:

  • Knowing that men and women are about equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, do you agree with the policy and practice of the Health and Human Services Department to direct grants exclusively to organizations that benefit women and not men?
  • Do you think men who are victims of domestic violence should be entitled to the same kinds of assistance and benefits as women victims? In the case of mutual battery, where the man and the woman both start fights, should both partners be treated the same?

High Court Denies Grandparents Rights

Splintered Decision

The Supreme Court has curbed states' power to help grandparents visit their grandchildren against parents' wishes.

The decision on a case from Washington state splintered the court, yielding six opinions.

No opinion attracted a majority of five.

In the court's main opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that as long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children, there will ``normally be no reason for the state to intervene.

Letter To The Editor

BY JON WOOD

The challenge that is logical in the face of the Troxel decision by the Supreme Court will be fathers declaring the end of fault custody in a no-fault divorce founded on irreconcilable differences. The "Substantive Due Process" consideration lacking in the Washington law that forces the parent (dads too?) to be directed to raise their child as the goverment orders directly affects the claim the government has in Mn family court in defending their claim that joint custody is not in a child's best interest. It MIGHT NOT BE a child's best interest, however, the government's claim to know better is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Fathers entering divorce court have had their 14th Amendment right removed, when they must disprove their fitness as a parent in order to be granted more than weekend visitation. All scientific data counters the states "best interests of a child" standard, when the father in 100% of contested cases must DISPROVE his fitness. Just because there are irreconcilable differences does not give a judge the right so diminish the fundamental parental right to raise their child, or to be directed to visit their child like a prisoner in the Stillwater Correctional facility for Women who murdered one of her children. The defacto position the government rests it's best interests of children standard, precludes a father or mother from shared physical custody (an extreme diminishment of their inaliable right) by having to prove their unfitness absent ANY procedural due process. Joint physical custody is the only constitutional construct. There is ONE way to prove fitness, and that requires the respondent to disprove the petitioners unsolicited opinion of irreconcilable differences that were solely the Respondent's claim. If the Petitioner (mother) objects to shared custody, the father is precluded from petitioning based on petitioners statement or by her very act of seeking divorce. The only way a father can beat the "best interest of children's" test for shared custody is to deny the existance of the Petitioners Petition for Divorce! I really believe the Supreme Court made that clear, and I really believe they had fathers clearly in mind when they wrote it.

The way the legislature and judicial branch are going to get out of this mess, will be to acknowledge that no-fault divorce and Chapter 518 are a clear and unequivacle violation of Contract Law. Petitioners who demand sole custody cannot petition the government for financial support from the respondent. It's clearly unconstitutional. The government child support worker has NO standing nor can enter into a contract as a third to a divorce or marriage contract. The courts are going to be flooded by litigation. This is the most likely course to take in suing the government..... and suing them with a vengeance.

It is NOT surprizing, that it took a cat-fight between a mom and a grandmother to reach the Supreme Court, when MILLIONS of fathers have been screwed by the Government who have and are similarily interested.

The greatest testimony that fathers are lower on the scale of respect than child rapists.

Helpful Links

From: Knute Gladen

Here are some websites that may provide information for you. Follow the indexes and references. The links to other sites are also useful.

US candidates

State Statutes

Case law

Resources

Minnesota

seems hard to trace, but a lot of government info is available

Minnesota laws and bills


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!

Retrieved from "http://www.r-kids.org/index.php/Newsletters::2000_August"
Personal tools