Newsletters::2000 October
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Members Meetings Schedule
Twin Cities: Ridgedale-Hennepin Area Library, 12601 Ridgedale Drive, Minnetonka. Meetings are scheduled at 7:00 PM for: Thursday, 10/19, 11/16 and 12/21.
Windom: First United Methodist Church, 964 Sixth Street. Meetings are scheduled at 7:00 PM for Thursday, 11/09.
President’S Message 9/21/2000
Greeting to all R-KIDS members, old and new!
My name is Steve Blake and I have been privileged to serve on the board of R-KIDS for the last two years. At this September’s Annual Board meeting I was honored to be elected as the president of R-KIDS of Minnesota. Our former president Ken Shamberger, after years of service has resigned to get married and to take a well-deserved rest from the struggle. He remains committed to the cause and deserves our gratitude for his capable leadership. Good Luck and Thanks Ken!!! I want to welcome Eva and Terry to the board of Directors and thank Knute, Chuck, Frank and Bob for their continued participation. They all work hard for R-KIDS and deserve everyone’s support. I want to give a special welcome to all the new members from Grandparents Preserving Families. This fine group of concerned and dedicated grandparents has decided to join R-KIDS and we will surely benefit from the years of wisdom and experience they bring to our organization. As we begin a new century R-KIDS is poised to play a significant role in the effort to firmly establish our FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL AND MORAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT OR GRANDPARENT free from the deliberate, discriminatory, capricious and destructive interference of government and related tax payer funded agencies. Over the past several years R-KIDS has grown and developed from what was primarily a lobbying group into an organization with more diversified approaches to the problems currently existing in the family court system. This system will not change unless concerned and dedicated people are willing to spend time and/or money in a concentrated effort to make things right. We need to clearly establish our constitutional and moral right to be a parent or grandparent free from government intrusion into such basic and private matters as where the children will live and how much money you must spend on them. This struggle will not be easy or cheap. Over the years vast bureaucracies have grown up with the sole purpose of deciding how your children should be raised. Many professional people make their living profiting from the adversarial system that currently exists. Lawyers who offer up children as prizes to be won, Guardians ad litem and therapists who think that they know what’s best for your children after interviewing them for several hours while dismissing your years of parenting as irrelevant, Women’s advocates who seem to think that all men are created equally dangerous and the legislators and judges who cower before them will all oppose our efforts. Across the state, decisions are being made that result in the destruction of loving relationships between children and their parents and grandparents. R-KIDS is attempting to address these problems in several ways: Lobbying is an R-KIDS specialty. We have been at the legislature for years and our people are well known and respected. We have been involved with passage of significant legislation concerning parents rights, most recently, Rep. Andy Dawkins’ Parenting Plan Act. We can always use people who are willing to attend hearings and testify on behalf of parents’ and grandparents' rights. We also need people to sit on special task forces set up by the legislature and to attend the meetings. Other opportunities are available. Make your voice heard at the Capitol! Litigation in Federal and State Courts is another avenue for change that R-KIDS is actively pursuing. The R-KIDS Legal Action Committee is composed of volunteers who, with the aid of licensed attorneys have filed suit in Federal Court to have the Minnesota Battered Women’s Act declared unconstitutional. This is to stop the flow of taxpayer money that supports rhetoric and literature depicting fathers as dangerous to their children and encourages a prejudice against fathers in family court. Other court actions will follow until we have forced the State to acknowledge our children’s rights and ours’. The LAC needs volunteers to do research and other tasks related to this effort. Make your voice heard in the courts! Activism is the newest approach R-KIDS is attempting. We need to make the public aware of the problems being caused by this system. We are trying to do this by holding peaceful, nonviolent rallies and protest marches. A recent rally was held at the Ramsey County Govt. Cent. In St. Paul to demonstrate to the workers in the system that something is wrong with ‘business as usual" and we are demanding change. We can always use people to come out and support our cause in a true American fashion. Make your voice heard in the streets! I am appealing to the membership to come forward and offer their time and talents to our efforts to make the State leave us alone and let us be parents to our children and grandparents to our grandchildren. We have a need for people to volunteer in the following areas:
- Lobbying Activities: Visit legislators, make phone calls, write letters under the direction and guidance of experienced R-KIDS lobbyists.
- Court Watchers: We would like to provide any member who is facing a court hearing with people to attend the hearing and just watch from the gallery to lend moral support and to make the attorneys and judges aware that we are watching what they do.
- Protest participants: We need a list of people who are willing to attend rallies and other peaceful and respectful protest events. It is really important to have as many people on this list as possible. There is strength in numbers.
- R-KIDS Committees: We need people who are willing to serve on the funding committee to help raise funds for R-KIDS activities and to serve on the public relations committee getting our message out to the public ,government and media. The Legal Action committee needs people who are interested in doing legal research.
We also have plans for the future that include an educational video on Parental Alienation Syndrome, what is and the damage it causes, a visitation advocacy program to assist those who have trouble seeing their kids and a domestic abuse defense advocate to help those falsely accused of domestic abuse. It is vital that we have the participation of the membership in these endeavors. It is going to take the combined efforts of all of us, working together, to have a chance at making a change in a system that has been broken for years. If you are interested in helping with any of these programs please feel free to contact me at the R-KIDS office at 651/770/6164, my Email is <steveblake53@yahoo.com >Together we can make a difference for our kids. Steve Blake. President, R-KIDS of Minnesota
Rally Set For Oct 24 In Hennepin County
On Tuesday October 24, 2000 R-KIDS in cooperation with ACFC (American Coalition of Fathers and Children) will be holding a rally at the Hennepin County Govt. Center at
300 6 Street S beginning at 2:00 PM. The theme of this rally will be to demand access to our children. If you don’t see your kids often enough or if you have trouble seeing them you should attend this rally. I cannot stress strongly enough how important it is to attend R-KIDS rallies. The fact that this rally is where the judges and other employees of the "social service" agencies work means that they will see and hear us. YOU have an opportunity to let these people know just how important YOUR children are to you, but only if you attend. We need EVERYONE!!!
Child Support Guidelines Task Force
Submitted by Knute Gladen
"Guidelines" seems to be a euphemism, developed at the federal level, to hide the words "child support payments". States set their laws to coincide with the wishes of the Federal Government in order to collect a bounty for child support payments. This bounty can be as much as ten percent of all of the child support paid in the state. Last year, Minnesota’s collection bounty was seven percent, which amounted to $31,000,000.00. Every four years, the Federal Government reviews the state laws. The Minnesota Department of Human Services, Child Support Collection Division, has established a Task Force to recommend changes to the child support laws. I have been able to attend some of the meetings as an observer. Representative Steve Smith spoke at our group meeting on September 21. He is chair of the House Civil Law committee that deals with divorce law. He had nothing good to say about the members of the Department of Human Services Guidelines Task Force. He plans to change the divorce law this session, with or without input from the Department of Human Services. A final report by the Guidelines Task Force will not be made until after December. It looks like they will recommend raising child support payments by at least fifty per cent. For basic child support, they will ask for 19 percent for one child, 30 percent for two children and an additional 5 percent for each additional child. To this is added day care and another six percent for medical insurance. These are percentages of the obligor’s GROSS income, not the NET income. Current guidelines are based on net income. Task Force meetings are held between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:30 PM. Meetings are scheduled for October 18, November 15 and December 15. Unfortunately, the location of the meetings is kept secret until about one week before the meeting. Then letters are sent to the Task Force Members telling them where the meeting will be held. Spectators are supposed to contact one of the Members to find out where the meetings are to be held. The meetings are held in a locked room. Spectators are required to get a pass at the guard desk in the building. At first, they would not allow spectators, but one of our members complained loudly, to many people. Now they will let spectators into the room, but the door is still locked. The claim is that there is a shared responsibility for support by both the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent. However, the Task Force insists on increasing payments made by the non-custodial parent and not giving credit for any time that the child lives with the non-custodial parent. They treat the children of a second wife as an insignificant and unworthy ragamuffin who can live on one third of what the other child gets in support payments. Retired divorce judge Mary Louise Klas starts to quiver and shake whenever it looks like the group may leave a few crumbs for a child of the second family. The attitude of the Task Force is not conducive to fairness. Chairwoman Jo Beld had this written reply to questions by an observer: " I have one comment that might help clarify an issue you raised in your response. You observed that, in many cases, adding the custodial parent's income into the child support calculation does not reduce the child support obligation of the non-custodial parent, and concluded that this means the responsibility for the children's needs is not really being shared. I don't think the agency workgroup would agree with you on this point. Your assumption seems to be that child support is what a non-custodial parent "owes" a custodial parent, and that the amount is based on what the custodial parent "needs" to pay for the child's basic expenses. But that is not the philosophy of an income-shares model like the one we are proposing." She goes on to say, "Under an income-shares philosophy, economic resources are "owed" by both parents to the child, and the amount they will spend together on their child is based on what other parents with similar incomes spend on their children (which is how we are defining "children's needs"). The purpose of including the custodial parent's income is not to reduce the non-custodial parent's obligation, but to show more accurately the total amount of resources available to provide for the child, and to fairly apportion the responsibility for meeting the child's needs." She states further, "The current guidelines do not show clearly what the custodial parent contributes to meeting the needs of the child (although there is a statutory assumption that the custodial parent is contributing what he or she would spend if he or she were paying child support), nor are they clearly related to the actual costs of raising a child. The proposed Shared Responsibility model accomplishes both things; it shows what custodial parents spend, and it is based on research about what parents spend on their children. It is not intended to "equalize the households;" it is only intended to calculate each parent's "fair share" of the children's expenses." She concludes, "I hope this clarification is helpful to you, and I appreciate the chance to share our thinking. Sincerely, Jo Beld, Guidelines Review Project Consultant". We do not think that child support payments need to be raised. Rather, let the child live with each parent about half of the time, like they do in Texas. If the state needs to get a large support payment in order to collect the Federal bounty, let both parents pay support to the state for the time that the child lives with the other parent.
United Way Time Is Here!
HELP R-KIDS PAINLESSLY BY DESIGNATING YOUR UNITED WAY CONTRIBUTION TO R-KIDS OF MINNESOTA CHARITABLE FUND
R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund has been receiving contributions through the United Way as a DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. We thank you for your contribution! Funds received by our Charitable Fund are used, specifically, to help children of divorce. The children thank you. When you make your United Way contribution, ask for the DESIGNATION FORM. On this form, designate R-Kids of MN Charitable Fund as your designated recipient. To do this, check the box next to Specific Agency, and fill in the dollar amount (preferably all of your contribution). We are a 501( c ) (3) organization. On the lines below "If you want to designate…" put your entire contribution on ______C. Specific Care. On the lines for Name of agency write R-Kids of MN Char Fund, Box 24658 . Leave the line above Agency Number blank. Above City, write Edina. Above State write MN 55424. ASK YOUR FRIENDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO R-KIDS BY THIS PAINLESS METHOD. If your United Way is not designated Minneapolis area, or St. Paul area, call R-Kids at (651) 770-6164. Provide the name and address of your United Way organization. Alternatively mail a copy of your United Way Brochure to R-Kids Secretary, PO Box 24658, Edina, MN 55424. The R-Kids Secretary will mail a copy of our 501( c ) (3) validation letter (from the IRS) to your specific United Way chapter. Your United Way chapter will then mail your tax deductible contribution to R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund, where it will be used to help children of divorce.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO HELP CHILDREN OF DIVORCE!
Legal Action Committee Needs You!
To All R-KIDS Members and Supporters: The R-KIDS Legal Action Committee has an urgent need for donations to cover the costs of copying documents required in the discovery phase of our Federal suit to have the Minnesota "Battered Women's Act" declared unconstitutional. One of our exhibits ( viewable at <www.rkids.org ) is a bibliography of 117 case studies concerning family violence. We now may have to reproduce all of these studies in their entirety. This represents thousands of pages of documents, far beyond the capacity of the tired ,old, donated copy machine at the R-KIDS office.
Please send donations to:
R-KIDS of MN Box 24658 Edina MN 55424-0658
Make Check or Money Order Payable to: R-Kids of MN Charitable Fund/LAC
Credit card donations accepted on our web site: www.rkids.org on the Legal Action Committee page, look for "Pay Pal". We also need volunteers to help with locating and copying documents. If you are willing to help call:
R-KIDS (651) 770-6164 or Tom Loyd (952) 703-0239
Thank You, Steve Blake, R-KIDS of MN
USDA Child Support
The USDA came up with some numbers on what families spend on children, depending on their incomes. The numbers are as follows:
Income Spent on Children Percentage $23000 $5752 25% $49000 $7975 16% $92700 $11550 12%
By looking at the above numbers a person would think that there is a gradual drop off of what is spent on children. The truth is that there is a drastic drop off of what is spent on children. If you look at the actual increases they look more like this:
Income Spent on Children Percentage $23000 $5752 25%
Increase Increase $26000 $2223 8% $43700 $3575 8%
If a person looks at the increase and increase spent on children, a person would understand that the basic needs of the children are met by a family making $23,000. If child support continues at the standard rate above $500 per month, two thirds of the excess money is going for spousal support. The cap currently set above $5,000 per month is already more than 2 ½ times too high. The USDA has provided raw data, and people that look at the data need to be able to interpret what the data actually means.
Written by;
Charles Aldrich 12932 Nicollet Ave. Burnsville, MN 55337 952-846-4112 biked49@usfamily.net
New Exchange Center In Worthington
PR from MN Supreme Court
Contributed by Lisa Dickinson, Brainerd
Supreme Court Justices Celebrate Opening of Worthington Children’s Center (June 27, 2000) – Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen A. Blatz and Justice James H. Gilbert marked the opening of Worthington’s new child visitation and safe exchange center at a ribbon cutting ceremony today. The event is part of the Chief Justice’s three-day "Court Innovations Tour" through Southwest Minnesota.
About 75 people attended the ceremony and reception at the Worthington, MN, Children’s Center. "The Children’s Center is a great example of an innovative program that keeps our children safe and their best interests in mind," said Chief Justice Blatz. "I commend the Southwest Crisis Center for working to help make the justice system and the Worthington area a better place."
The Children’s Center provides supervised visitation and an exchange program that allows children to be transferred between custodial and non-custodial parents without contact between parents. In addition to court-ordered visitation, the program accepts referrals from Family Services, Law Enforcement, Guardians Ad Litem and other family-related agencies.
"The minutes during which parents meet to exchange their children for visitation can be some of the most difficult and stressful moments for children," said Pat Sanders, Children’s Center child advocate and visitation supervisor. "The Children’s Center removes that stress and provides a neutral exchange point."
The Children’s Center is funded through the Southwest Crisis Center in Worthington. To arrange visitation, clients must contact the Children’s Center at least one week prior to the planned visitation day. Clients will be required to undergo an intake interview with a child advocate to help acquaint clients and their children with the Center and its rules.
Child transfers cost $5 and supervised visitations cost $10 per hour for the non-custodial parent. Victims are not charged a fee. Other individuals may be eligible for a reduced fee based on their income levels.
Today’s ceremonies kicked off a three-day "Court Innovations Tour" through Southwest Minnesota’s Fifth Judicial District for Chief Justice Blatz and Justice Gilbert. During the trip, Chief Justice Blatz and Justice Gilbert learned about innovations that improve the justice system and local communities.
"For the last 150 years, the court system has been working to become more efficient. Now it’s time to focus on being more effective," said Chief Justice Blatz. "These tours give us a chance to learn from the experiences of jurors, litigants, victims and concerned citizens throughout the state."
CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2000 - THE ORWELLIAN NOOSE TIGHTENS!!
According to Representative Ron Paul's aide, Norman Singleton, the House is scheduled this week to vote on the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 sponsored by Republican Rep. Nancy L. Johnson. http://www.house.gov/nancyjohnson/
This act will tighten the Orwellian noose created by the Republican Congress under their "Welfare Reform Act" of 1996.
That Act amended 42USC 666, so as to create a network of linked databases designed to allow authorities to monitor each individual's every action; all accomplished through use of social security numbers. For example, the 1996 act forced all employers in every state to report to the National Directory of New Hires the names, wages, addresses, and social security numbers of each newly hired employee. It forced each licensing agency in every state to collect the social security numbers of all applicants for all licenses, permits and certificates. It required banking and financial institutions to provide, and transmit to the state all customer account information, linked with each customer's social security number. The Act required that passports must be denied to anyone charged with owing back child support payments. It required employers to act as the state's enforcement arm by forcing them to garnish the wages of obligees. It also required the IRS to deduct unpaid child support amounts from tax refunds.
This newest act will now expand that dragnet by granting to private entities access to the same centralized databases of information originally reserved to state and federal agencies. The purpose of the Child Support Distribution Act is to create a "bounty hunter" mentality with regard to child support enforcement. It will provide for the establishment of private enforcement goons whose business will be to track down delinquent parents and force them to pay up. The intent, at least initially, is to authorize private collection agencies to use information generated by the states in locating individuals owing past-due child support.
When the 1996 Welfare Reform Act was first being considered, all assurances were given that "only authorized government agencies" would have access to the massive amounts of personal data they would be collecting. Of course, no one in their right mind believed that.
The next step in the Orwellian scheme -- after this present bill is approved -- will be to expand the enforcement mechanisms still further. Soon thereafter, these same "locating and tracking" databases to be used to locate any and all "suspects" or "created criminals" who try to alluded authorities or escape their due punishment.
Think about the scope of this dragnet. All license information (including marriage, driver, business, occupational, recreational licenses) will be linked to all banking and financial account information, which is linked to tax records, which is linked to all employment information (including address and wages or salary), which is linked to all registration information (such as automobiles), which is linked to passport information. And now, under this bill, all of the above information will be available to private entities which will act in partnership with government as their paid enforcement arm.
What more could Hitler have dreamt of?
You can look up the bill here if you've got the stomach: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Search for 4469 or 4678 (both of which appear to be virtually identical with only minor differences). Have a great day
Richard James, McDonald
ICQ 259224 Fire Talk 30630
http://www.state-citizen.org BBS 818-888-9882 (818) 703-5037 voice
Citizens Hour host by Crusade Radio 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Thursday www.angelfire.com/journal/crusaderadio
A READER RESPONDS:
Hi,... this is not Orwellian, it is all too real. My experience as a paying father has been traumatic. Sad to say but for those whose cases originate out of California like mine the trauma to families numbers in the many thousands perhaps millions. I was living in an area of 20% unemployment, fell behind on support when I lost my 16 year career. Finally I had to flee the area after being thrown in jail for lack of support and went to my sister's home out of state in Minnesota. There with family aid I was able to get back on my feet.
One morning several years back I picked up a St Paul paper and a front page article told of the California child support payment computer system getting 30% of files mixed up. In my case I was assigned added arrears meant for another and even though paying bi-monthly the full amounts, was sent notice of impending license revocation.
For several years now I have been petitioning the agency to correct my account which has no arrears of $6,000 rather a $3,000 surplus and I have canceled checks and wage statements to prove it. Finally in April I sent a huge Excel spreadsheet in and the following week received a notice from San Diego county that the Kern county DA had filed a lien against me in San Diego for the same supposed arrears and I have not lived there since '95. This is not to mention the numerous negative reports sent to credit agencies.
Several years ago a friend of mine from Orange County did have bounty hunters drag him into jail on an outstanding many years old warrant to which he was unaware. All over child support and supposed arrears not yet proven. Being frail with diabetes he almost died in jail due to lack of proper treatment.
I moved back to California one year ago. It is now illegal to move to another state owing more than $5,000. I never did owe that much but you see, it doesn't matter what the facts are. I guess that means I could have been thrown in jail for moving back? And I could not have left.
Last week I finally did get the DA to knock off $3,300 but I still intend to go to court to clear off another $2,700 and to have them clear my bogus liens and credit abuse. All of this was done without due process, guilty before proven innocent. This happens to many thousands, not just a few.
I am a good, caring, loving, and supportive father. It was the hardest thing I ever did to leave the state to support my kids. Had I still been married and the same job loss had occurred, it would have been handled as a couple going thru a temporary "for richer or poorer" experience rather than an assumed criminal action. These cures do more harm than good, negatively impact the nurturing of children stripped of the positive presence and influence of fathers and will infringe upon the rights of all.. This means you!
There is no equal protection of law these days as guaranteed by the constitution. Otherwise men would be granted custody of their children more than 5% of the time. Hyper emphasis on women's rights has led to a naked money and power grab (under the guise of protecting women and children) at the expense of fatherhood and wanton destabilization of family structures. This ends up generating more "need" for legal "services" and government "help" or to provide human fodder for the prison industrial complex. Who pays for jailing a prison population of over one million non-violent offenders? It is kinda like a Windows/Intel monopoly, it feeds off of itself. Just because we think we are so affluent, does that mean we can afford to be stupid?
Sincerely, Duane K. Dunn
Nationwide Child Support Update
From: Bill Wood [1] Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 6:50 PM Subject: Child Support Update.
Reproduced and distributed for educational purposes pursuant to 17 USC 107.
Mooney v. Mooney, No. 99 CA 16 (Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth District, July 25, 2000): The husband appealed the order of the court that he name his four children as dependents on his health insurance, claiming the trial court could not make such an order without a finding that such coverage could be had at "reasonable cost." The appellate court agreed.
Black v. Dancy, No. E021923 (California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, August 8, 2000): In this case, the mother brought an action for delinquent child support 28 years after the initial child support order was made and 10 years after the child reached the age of majority. The trial court granted child support arrearages plus interest, and the appellate court affirmed. The father claimed that throughout the period, the mother interfered with the father's visitation rights, and secreted the child from father. The court agreed with In re Marriage of Fogarty & Rasbeary, 78 Cal. App. 4th 1353, 1356, 1363 (2000), which held that laches could be a defense to child support arrearages. But, the court concluded, the defense of laches was not established in this case.
Lynn v. Lynn, No. 2990432 (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, June 30, 2000): In this case, the father appealed an award of college support, claiming that he could not afford to pay for the child's college expenses. The appellate court agreed that the father could not afford to pay the expenses as ordered by the court. "We recognize that the use of the term 'undue hardship' does not mean without any personal sacrifice. Most parents who send their children to college sacrifice to do so. However, we conclude that in light of the father's challenging financial circumstances and the trial court's express finding that the father was not voluntarily underemployed, the trial court's award of postminority support does impose an undue hardship on him."
Teichmann v. Teichmann, No. 2990254 (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, June 30, 2000): IN this case, the father was ordered to pay child support through the clerk's office. The court gave the father credit only for the payments that had been made to the office of the court's accounts clerk; it did not give him credit for payments he had made directly to the mother. The father filed a motion entitled "Motion to Amend Nunc Pro Tunc," alleging that the court had inadvertently failed to give him credit for the $6,850 he claimed he had paid the mother directly. The court held a hearing and denied the father's motion. The father appealed, and the appellate court reversed. "It is undisputed that the mother had received $6,850 of child support payments from the father. The mother never disputed the receipts. She admits that the father has been paying her child support. The father had substantial proof of the amount he had paid the mother directly. Although the court had ordered the father to pay his child support obligation through the office of the court's accounts clerk, we find that the court's refusal to allow the father a credit for the payments he made directly to the mother was an abuse of discretion."
AND ONE MUST WONDER WHAT WOULD MOTIVATE THESE SICK PERVERTS TO ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION LIKE THIS?? HOW MUCH ARE THEIR PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT FUNDS MAKING FROM THESE **BLATANT** FRAUDS??
Green v. Olson, No. C0-00-214 (Minnesota Court of Appeals, July 11, 2000) (unreported): The trial court modified the father's child support obligation because he became incarcerated, and the appellate court affirmed. Relying on Franzen v. Borders, 521 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. App. 1994), and Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d), the court held that incarceration is an involuntary act and hence imputation of income is inappropriate.
Dababnah v. West Virginia Board of Medicine, No. 27751 (West Virginia Supreme Court, July 12, 2000): Mousa I. Dababnah sought a reversal of the West Virginia Board of Medicine's decision to deny his application seeking renewal of his medical license. The Circuit Court of Kanawha County affirmed the Board's actions based on its interpretation of the statutory provisions of West Virginia Code § 48A-5A-5(c) (1999), as authorizing licensing authorities, independent of any circuit court involvement, to deny any license request where the applicant has child support arrearages in an amount equivalent to six months of child support. The Supreme Court reversed, determining that the statutory scheme of article 48A, chapter 5A, requires the involvement of a circuit court in a license denial which arises from the nonpayment of child support.
State ex rel West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources v. Gibson, No. 26903 (West Virginia Supreme Court, July 11, 2000): A family law master or circuit court may not attribute income to a parent who is unemployed or under-employed because the parent has chosen to devote time to care for children (including those who are above pre-school age or those to whom the parties do not owe a joint legal responsibility for support, i.e., children of a subsequent relationship) under circumstances in which a reasonable, similarly-situated parent would have devoted time to care for the children had the family remained intact or, in cases involving a non-marital birth, had a household been formed. When a family law master or a circuit court, in the exercise of discretion, chooses to attribute income to a parent who is providing care to children, there must be a full explanation on the record why it is in the best interests of the children that the parent be employed rather than providing care to the children.
In re Marriage of Drysch, No. 2-99-1031 (Illinois Court of Appeals, Second District, June 23, 2000): The district court did not err when it considered the mother's new husband's income when figuring the mother's "financial resources available" for child support. Relying on Greiman v. Friedman, 90 Ill. App. 3d 941, 949 (1980), the court stated, "We believe that it is more equitable that the trial court be presented with the complete financial circumstances of each party so that it may be able to reach a fairer and more just determination. See Greiman, 90 Ill. App. 3d at 949. To hold otherwise would defeat the plain language of section 513 by permitting Vicky to shield some of her financial resources from the trial court's consideration. . . . We agree with these courts that a trial court may equitably consider the income of a parent's current spouse in determining an appropriate award of child support. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, we do not believe that the trial court erred in considering Vicky's current husband's income when making its award."
Hay v. Hay, No. 39A04-9910-CV-459 (Indiana Court of Appeals, June 26, 2000): When parents agree to child support in amount above the guidelines, and such agreement is incorporated into an order of the court, it is not sufficient grounds for modification that the extant child support order and an order calculated under the guidelines differ by 20%. Rather, there must be a substantial change in circumstances other than the 20% difference. A parent, however, is entitled to the benefit of a child's college scholarship when the parent is obligated to pay college expenses, and a partial abatement of child support while the child is in college and the parent is paying college expenses.
Langston v. Locklear, No. 117 September Term, 1999 (Maryland Court of Appeals, June 28, 2000): In a decision bound to have an impact on other states, Maryland's highest court held that a man who finds out many years after the divorce that he is not the biological father of the child of the marriage can be relieved of his child support obligation. "We hold, given the legislative history behind Chapter 248, that the Legislature intended for blood or genetic tests to be made available, upon a motion, to any putative father seeking to challenge a paternity declaration previously entered against him in which such blood or genetic test evidence was not introduced. Moreover, an examination of the best interests of the child has no place in that determination."
Sears v. Larson, 259 Neb. 760 (Nebraska Supreme Court, June 26, 2000): In the appropriate circumstances, a student loan can constitute a deductible business expense. "We conclude that paragraph C(5) of the guidelines allows a trial court in an appropriate case to deviate from the guidelines to allow a deduction from income based on a parent's student loan payment. However, in this case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the guidelines without consideration of the amount of Larson's monthly student loan payments. . . . The record in this case does not provide specific details regarding Larson's student loans." [STUDENT LOANS MAY BE ABLE TO BE USED TO OFFSET INCOME!!]
State v. D.B., No. 99-2228 (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, June 21, 2000): Recognizing the inalienability of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the court reversed an award of $50 per month in child support, because the record contained no findings or evidence that the obligor had income other than his SSI. {SSI MAY NOT BE USED FOR CHILD SUPPORT!!]
Sheriff Ken Jenne of Broward County, Florida announced a partnership with Broward CrimeStoppers that, he said, should result in the arrest of parents who fall behind in their child-support payments. Broward CrimeStoppers is offering $200 for information leading to the arrest of deadbeat parents who have outstanding warrants for failure to pay child support. [AND JUST WHERE ARE THEY GETTING THIS MONEY FROM TO TURN COMMON CITIZENS INTO BROWN SHIRT INFORMANTS??]
Kelly v. Kelly, No. 99-1359 (Arkansas Supreme Court, June 8, 2000): The father appealed a child support order requiring that he pay twenty-five percent of any conditional bonus he received, in addition to his monthly base-support obligation. The father argued that the court's order is contrary to the provisions of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order 10, because it does not set and establish a sum certain dollar amount. The supreme court agreed and reversed.
Payne v. Payne, No. 1241 September Term, 1999 (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, June 5, 2000): The trial court erred when it deviated from the child support guidelines due to the child's visitation with the father for six weeks in the summer. "As we see it, the court also overlooked certain economic imperatives. Clearly, some periods of time in the life of a child are more costly for a parent than others. The reality is that all of a child's financial needs and expenses are not incurred in precise weekly increments, even though child support may be paid on that basis. Therefore, a custodial parent who anticipates receipt of a certain total sum of child support over the course of a year may budget for unusual or costly expenditures that inevitably occur during the year. For example, in a particular period, a parent may incur substantial expenses for such items as uninsured medical prescriptions, school clothes, Christmas presents, the child's birthday party, or various extracurricular activities. A responsible custodial parent who is fortunate not to live from check to check undoubtedly attempts to prepare for such times by setting funds aside during weeks when the child's expenses are less than the incoming support. Similarly, appellant may have earmarked a portion of the money she expected to receive during the summer to meet the child's various needs during the year. Therefore, it was erroneous for the court to conclude that appellant, the custodial parent, did not need continuing financial support merely because the child was visiting with the non-custodial parent. That the parties' daughter resided for six weeks during the summer with appellee did not diminish appellant's need for the total statutory amount of child support to which she was entitled." [BLATANT ADMISSION BY MARYLAND APPEALS COURT JUDGES THAT CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS MAY FULL WELL EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR THE CHILD TO INCLUDE SOME "RAINY DAY" RESERVE. THIS IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF, AND COMPLICIT WITH A **FRAUD** AND SEEK TO CONTINUE THIS FRAUD IN THE OPEN NOW]
Kuron v. Hamilton, No. A-6158-96T2 (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, June 9, 2000): In this case, the father moved for a modification and/or suspension of support because he had been disbarred and incarcerated. Relying on Topham-Rapanotti, the trial court disallowed the modification, holding that it was the father's "voluntary act" that resulted in his loss of income. On appeal, the father argued 1) that his loss of professional license with the concomitant loss of income were sufficiently changed circumstances to allow modification of the economic terms of the judgment of divorce; and 2) that because his incarceration left him with no source of income adequate to meet his support obligations, he was entitled to a suspension of his payment obligations without the accrual of arrears while he is incarcerated. The mother argued 1) that because defendant's disbarment and imprisonment resulted from voluntary acts, they were inadequate bases for modifying or suspending his financial obligations under the judgment of divorce; and 2) that the trial court erred in its determination that defendant lacked the then current ability to discharge those obligations. The Appellate Division specifically disagreed with Halliwell v. Halliwell, 326 N.J. Super. 442 (App. Div. 1999), which approved of Topham-Rapanotti, and held, "A per se test is inconsistent with this State's established standards for evaluating petitions for modification." The court consequently reversed the trial court and remanded for further factual findings. [POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS FOR MODIFICATION OF SUPPORT]
R.G. v. G.G., No. 2981140 (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, May 19, 2000): In this case, the ex-husband asked for an accounting of how the child support monies were being spent. The trial court refused, and the appellate court affirmed. "We do not find that White v. White, 334 So. 2d 908 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976) supports the father's assertion that the mother should be required to account for her expenditures of the child support money, particularly in light of the fact that the father was not seeking a reduction in his child support obligation, but a requirement that any excess child support payments be placed in a trust fund to be used for the children's needs." [HERE, THE **CHILD'S** INTERESTS ARE SIMPLY A FRAUDULENT SCHEME... THE FATHER WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THE CHILD'S INTERESTS AND NOT HIS OWN AND THE PERVERTED BLACK ROBED DEVILS PENALIZED HIM]
Davis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, No. 99-1422 (Arkansas Court of Appeals, May 18, 2000): The trial court ordered Davis to pay child support to her ex-husband. Davis's only source of income was her Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Davis argued on appeal that federal law pre-empted any state law that might impose a child-support obligation on her SSI benefits. The appellate court agreed and reversed, holding that to impose a child support obligation against SSI benefits would do major and substantial damage to the federal policy of providing benefits to the disabled that are not subject to garnishment.
Goplen v. Morse, No. C4-99-1679 (Minnesota Court of Appeals, May 23, 2000): A public authority responsible for child support enforcement may not recover child support overpayments by instituting income withholding against an obligee parent. [CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TRYING TO GET THEIR OVERPAYMENT MONEY FROM THE PAYING PARENT FOR THIER MISTAKE?? WHAT'S WRONG WITH MAKING THE PARTY THAT RECEIVED THE WINDFALL PAY IT BACK??]
Mace v. Mace, 9 Neb. App. 270 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, May 16, 2000): The trial court erred, under Prochaska, when it did not consider whether a deviation from the presumptive guideline award was warranted in light of the obligor's subsequent remarriage and new child.
Williams v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 411 (Ohio Supreme Court, May 17, 2000): The issue certified for review was, "Should a disabled parent's child support obligation be directly set off by Social Security payments received on behalf of a minor child, or should the joint child support obligation of both parties be reduced by the amount of the Social Security payments?" Ohio joined those jurisdictions that permit a disabled parent's child support obligation to be directly set off by Social Security payments received on behalf of the minor child. The court held that Social Security payments made on the child's behalf are not mere gratuities from the federal government, nor do they constitute earnings by the child under R.C. 3113.215(B)(3)(f). Instead, the payments arise simply because the obligor has paid into the Social Security system and was found to be disabled.
Berryhill v. Rhodes, No. W1997-00167-SC-R11-CV (Tennessee Supreme Court, May 30, 2000): A private agreement setting child support outside the guidelines is void as against public policy. The court must be the final arbiter of the appropriate amount of child support. "Tennessee's statutory provisions for the establishment of paternity and support and the Child Support Guidelines evince a policy that fathers will support their children. Private agreements used to circumvent the obligations set forth in the statutes and guidelines contravene that policy." [PRIVATE AGREEMENTS ARE NO LONGER VALID IN A COURT?? WHEN DID THE GOVERNMENT CHANGE FROM ONE THAT POWERED FLOWED TO THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE GOVERNED **RATHER** THAN POWER FLOWING FROM THE GOVERNMENT BLACK ROBED DEVILS TO THE GOVERNED??]
"I'd close down the federal Parent Locator Service; that was well intentioned to track down employees evading child support obligations, but has become a national databank using Social Security number's to monitor Americans' movements — posing a danger to civil liberty far greater than letting some dads be deadbeats." Thus spake William Safire, speechwriter to Richard Nixon, the new guardian of our civil liberties. To date, I am unaware of the FPLS monitoring anyone's movements except deadbeat parents.
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue's Child Support Enforcement Division has weak financial controls and poor management, including an unauthorized transfer of more than $350,000 to another fund, a state audit charged.
Michigan Secretary of State Candice Miller has decided she will not comply with the federal mandate that the state collect Social Security numbers from the state's drivers. The mandate was part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, making it easier to revoke driver's licenses of deadbeat parents. Ms. Miller has decided that the mandate is a gross invasion of privacy.
Divorce Study Stirs Up Its Own Split Of Opinions
Peter Jensen, Baltimore Sun/Mpls Star Tribune
Thursday, September 28, 2000
For anyone who thinks that children suffer only mildly when their parents divorce, psychologist Judith S. Wallerstein has some very bad news.
Not only is the emotional damage long-lasting, but, says Wallerstein, its full effects might not be realized until the child becomes an adult and has setbacks in marriage and child-rearing.
These conclusions are detailed in Wallerstein's book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25-year Landmark Study," being published this month. Wallerstein followed 93 children of failed marriages over 25 years and concluded that, as adults, they had far more trouble establishing intimate relationships, were less likely to go to college and were more likely to get into trouble with drugs and alcohol.
Where divorce was once believed to have the strongest impact on children at the time of the breakup, the author now says it has implications that last long into adulthood.
"My purpose is not to make people feel guilty, but to make them realistic," says Wallerstein, 78, whose book was co-authored by Julia M. Lewis, a San Francisco State psychology professor, and New York Times science correspondent Sandra Blakeslee. "There's a commonly held belief that you might as well divorce because the kids are going to be unhappy anyway. That's wrong."
Not everyone agrees with Wallerstein's conclusions.
"Most of the serious researchers roll their eyes at her work," said Margorie Engel, president of the Stepfamily Association of America. "Most of her work is qualitative -- anecdotal stories -- which have a marvelous place. But you cannot make generalized statements for an entire nation based on very troubled families. Only 5 percent of families seek therapy and these are the people she saw."
Howard Markman, a psychologist and marriage researcher at the University of Denver, added that while Wallerstein's work broke new ground two decades ago, she ignores more contemporary studies which suggest that parental conflict, not divorce, is the greater enemy of children. "Children of conflict are at higher risk than children of low-conflict divorce," says Markman. "The message shouldn't be to stay in your marriage at all costs. It should be to have a happy marriage."
The book is a follow-up to a pioneering study Wallerstein launched in the early 1970s of 93 predominantly white children whose parents had divorced, who lived in Marin County, Calif., and whose fathers were doctors, lawyers and executives. These children were compared with 44 children from similar families whose parents remained married.
The new findings are sure to induce some hand-wringing. Not only do nearly half of U.S. marriages end in divorce, but an estimated one-quarter of adults between ages 18 and 44 are products of divorced parents.
Wallerstein's subjects repeatedly refer to themselves as "children of divorce" even as they pass their 40th birthdays. For them, divorce causes a "permanent stamp, a personal identity made up of childhood fears you can't shake despite all the successes and achievements you've made as an adult."
"Karen," the pseudonym given one of the book's subjects, is typical. When her mother and father divorced, she became a surrogate caretaker, first to her younger siblings and then to her parents. Later in life, she found it difficult to develop long-term relationships. She fears conflict. She can't argue without panicking.
"What I want for [my daughter] is not to be worried about her mom the way that I worried my whole life about mine," Karen, a married mother of a 2-year-old, tells Wallerstein. "I don't want her to take care of me. I want to take care of her. I want to give her all the love and security I never had." Whether Wallerstein's bleak portrait of divorce's toll is accurate has been debated by social scientists. Hers was the first long-term study of divorce's effect and an eye-opener when her findings were first published in 1980 and turned into national bestsellers.
Other researchers generally laud her for her early work but also complain that her results are often oversold. The sample was too small, they say.
Many question how typical a group from affluent and eccentric Marin County can be. And it's noted that the chosen families were responding to an ad for free counseling in exchange for participating in the study.
For the 25-year-anniversary survey, Wallerstein assembled a group she offers as "comparable" to her subjects whose parents didn't divorce to show that children of divorce are likelier to divorce, have fewer children, receive less financial support for college from their parents and use drugs or alcohol.
Wallerstein said many children of divorce eventually found personal happiness but not without a lot of pain and many mistakes.
Among the findings:
Children of divorce were far likelier to marry before age 25 -- 50 percent, compared with 11 percent for the comparison group. Nearly 60 percent of the young marriages among children of divorced parents failed, compared with 25 percent among their peers whose parents stayed married.
About 25 percent of children of divorce used drugs and alcohol before they were 14, compared with 9 percent in the comparison group.
Wallerstein "has always viewed divorce through a pretty gloomy glass," said E. Mavis Hetherington, a professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. "It's almost as though they have a terminal disease."
Hetherington said other research indicates that about 25 percent of children of divorce have long-term problems with relationships. That means the other three-fourths are doing well or surviving as well as anybody can be expected to in a nation with a 50 percent divorce rate.
She did agree, however, that government funding should be spent on couples having trouble with marriage rather than focusing on healing post-divorce wounds.
Wallerstein agrees that her subjects don't represent a national sample, and says that was never the intention. She counters with this: If children from a middle-class suburb of San Francisco fail to overcome the hardships of divorce, what does that say about the prospects for the rest of the population?
She is unapologetic for continuing her stance that divorce -- not conflict -- is the issue. Often, she says, divorce is not the result of conflict at all but a matter of boredom or convenience. Her subjects say they were unaware that their parents were even at odds prior to the divorce.
Wallerstein did find a few rays of hope in her study. There are subjects who, at the 25-year point, are coming to terms with what divorce has done to them and have resolved to change.
This is where Engel and others studying divorce issues wish the focus would remain. "Everyone is assuming, for example, that because children of divorce are looking more carefully at potential partners that this is a bad thing. I think this is a great thing."
-- This report contains material from the New York Times. Additional reporting by staff writer Gail Rosenblum.
Book Review - Echoes Of The Breakup
In her latest book, a psychologist takes another look at the long-term effects of divorce on children. By Barbara Kantrowitz NEWSWEEK September 4 issue - Can children of divorce live happily ever after? That's the provocative question psychologist Judith Wallerstein began exploring nearly three decades ago with more than 100 kids whose parents had recently split up. Her ominous results were the subject of her 1989 best seller, "Second Chances: Men, Women and Children a Decade After Divorce." WALLERSTEIN CONCLUDED THEN that the effects of divorce were lifelong and traumatic for children. While their parents might feel liberated by getting out of an unhappy marriage, the kids were bereft. In interviews, many expressed a profound pessimism about their future. At the time, most of Wallerstein's interviewees were in their teens or early 20s-still young enough to reinvent themselves. To see what's happened since then, she tracked down close to 80 percent of the "kids" (now 28 to 43 years old) for her new book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study" (347 pages. Hyperion. $24.95). There's some good news in this update. A surprising number of the subjects of her original study eventually found some fulfillment in their own work and family lives. Nonetheless, she writes, "whether the final outcome is good or bad, the whole trajectory of an individual's life is profoundly altered by the divorce experience." And the pain, she says, is not diminished by the fact that divorce is much more common than it used to be: "Each child in a classroom half full of children of divorce cries out, 'Why me?' " The pain of divorce, the author notes, is not diminished by the fact that divorce is much more common than it used to be.
In her new book Wallerstein tells the stories of five of these divorce survivors (all with pseudonyms and details of their personal histories disguised). Some of the stories are quite moving and recognizable to anyone who's suffered through the failure of a marriage. Karen, for example, becomes a family "caretaker" and too often sacrifices her own emotional needs in order to keep the remnants of her family from falling apart. In her 20s, she manages to escape from a destructive relationship and finally goes to college and marries a nice guy. But even after the birth of their daughter, she experiences life from the skewed perspective of a child of divorce. One day, when her husband leaves the house for work after the two have had a relatively minor fight, she thinks they are about to break up. Her reactions to normal conflict are extreme and sometimes debilitating. Other researchers have criticized Wallerstein's earlier work for a lack of scientific rigor. Her conclusions come from interviews, not standardized psychological testing, and she didn't use a control group. Her original sample was also considered unrepresentative, since all the families were generally middle class and living in Marin County, north of San Francisco-hardly a microcosm of America. They also all come from families who experienced divorce during a particularly tumultuous time in American history, the late 1960s and early 1970s. Other studies involving more diverse groups of children have shown that while divorce is always a trauma for kids, it isn't as devastating as Wallerstein suggests. In her new work, Wallerstein attempts to address some of these objections by comparing children of divorce with kids who grew up in intact families with similar problems. It's an admirable effort, but less than convincing because the biographical details of the families never really match up.
Other researchers have solved this problem by running long-term studies and looking for trends among large numbers of families-far more subjects than the relatively small population in Wallerstein's study. Yes, there can be happy endings. But the sad memories never completely fade away.
In the end, Wallerstein's real contribution is not hard science but insight. More traditional researchers may question her methods, but it's hard to fault her perceptions. Any child of divorce-no matter how far removed from the awful breakup-can identify with Wallerstein's walking wounded. In a post-divorce family, even ostensibly happy times are occasions for anxiety. What will happen over summer vacation? Who will show up at the school play? Will there be money for college? Later on Wallerstein writes, "Anxiety leads many into making bad choices in relationships, giving up hastily when problems arise." They struggle because they lack what Wallerstein calls an "internal template" of a successful relationship. Those who do make it emerge "stronger for their struggles," she says. So the answer to her original question is yes, there can be happy endings. But the sad memories never completely fade away.
© 2000 Newsweek, Inc.
To citizens everywhere. So you think you won't be affected 'cause you don't owe child support...Think again.
VOTE YOUR CHOICE: As a non-profit organization, we can not tell you who to vote for. However, we have observed that the Republican House is more in tune with R-Kids and Grandparents wishes than is the Democratic Senate.
Note: The code above your name is your expiration date.
For example, X0101 means your membership expires on year 2001, January 1.
Caveat: The R-KIDS newsletter does not purport to give legal advice. The information contained herein is general in nature; individual circumstances will always vary.
Do You have e-mail? 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. Also send your e-mail address to the R-Kids Secretary at kgladen@uswest.net. Just say Hi.
Grandparents Preserving Families Merges With R-Kids Of Minnesota
Grandparents Preserving Families has become a chapter of
R-Kids. We jointly support legislation that is beneficial to children. We think this merger will help both groups to be more effective. Read our brochure. All children need both parents and all grandparents in their lives.
R-Kids of Minnesota P.O. Box 24658 Edina, MN 55424-0658
Remember Kids in Divorce Settlements
Web: http://www.r-kids.org Grandparents Preserving Families
Election day: November 7, 2000
Bring a friend to Vote.
P R E S S R E L E A S E
On July 17, 2000, the R-KIDS Legal Action Committee commenced suit in the United States District Court of Minnesota (Scott Booth et. al. v. Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, Commissioner of Corrections, et. al. No. 00CV1672MJD/JGL) to strike down the Minnesota Battered Women's Act.
Over one hundred scholarly investigations and empirical studies published in reputable journals convincingly show that women initiate and carry out assaults against their partners as often as men.
The purpose of this suit is to cut off the main source of public money which fuels sexist bias against men in our family court system. The plaintiffs also hope to reveal the basic facts about domestic violence, and in this way to promote real solutions to this social problem.
The complaint and supporting documents are available through the R-KIDS Legal Action Committee link found on the R-KIDS Web page. To access the text of the suit, go to http://www.r-kids.org.
Click on the underlined red letters Legal Action Committee.
Click on the underlined capital letters
VIEW OUR COMPLAINT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS HERE.
Click on the underlined capital letters COMPLAINT. Also click on the underlined EXHIBITS and case law items as desired.
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
- The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.
- The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
- Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.
- Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
- The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
- Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well.
- The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
- Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
- Accountability for the use of child support.
- 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!
