Newsletters::2001 October
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Child Support Guidelines Challenge
After researching the Minnesota alimony/support guidelines, R-Kids of Minnesota and the Men's Defense Association have reached the conclusion that the guidelines are, like those in many other states, in violation of the US Constitution. Top Constitutional lawyer John Remington Graham and a nationally recognized economics expert have been consulted and will be engaged to mount the challenge. Technically, it's an air-tight case. Politically? That's another story.
Divorce judges set child support payments at unrealistic levels. If you think child support is too high and not reflective of the actual needs of the child keep reading!
Mark Olson and Jack Graham are lawyers investigating the feasibility of the challenge in consultation with economist R. Mark Rogers. Jack Graham made this comment after his review of the statutes and case law. “From these constitutional principles, it follows clearly enough that, upon dissolution of marriage as during marriage, there is an equal duty of both parents, father and mother alike, to provide for the basic needs of their children, on an ability-to-pay basis. Generally speaking, the basic needs of the child must be supplied by the father in proportion to his resources, and by the mother in proportion to her resources. ”
R-Kids of Minnesota thinks that excessive child support payments are detrimental to children. One parent may become impoverished and the other parent may become irresponsible. Often the noncustodial parent cannot afford to visit or provide for the children. For proper development, children need contact and influence from both parents. Children require equal living arrangements in the home of each parent so they will feel comfortable and secure.” R-Kids members have served on task forces that recommend child support guidelines. R-Kids members have worked to influence legislation that establishes child support guidelines. This guidelines challenge is another weapon in the arsenal to help children of divorced or unmarried parents.
Current law does not account for the income or tax advantages of the custodial parent. Children suffer because the non-custodial parent has a lower standard of living and does not have sufficient money to spend on the child during visitation.
Legal research has been conducted that shows where and when the legislation went awry. Our attorneys are looking for a case to use as a vehicle. It must be a case with no complications, so the focus will be on the child support guideline laws. They would like a brand new case, or one where the custodial parent has opened a case to ask for an increase in child support. Laws make it difficult for the non-custodial parent to re-open a case that has been decided.
Funding: We have sent two mailings to our members requesting help in paying for this lawsuit. The response has been so very encouraging, considering that most of us have spent our resources for the excessive child support payments that we are trying to eliminate. Our goal is to raise $50,000 over the next two years, which will enable an appeal of an adverse decision. So far, we have raised 15 percent of that amount, which has paid for legal research and economist’s report. The R-Kids CSGC fund has over $1000.00 to start the next phase, which is to get into court. We all need to get our friends to contribute. Make checks payable to R-Kids CSGC and mail to Box 24658, Edina, MN 55424.
Terry Nyblom and others have been looking for alternative child support guidelines. R. Mark Rogers has a web page that deals with this subject. The URL's follow:
http://www.economic-indicators.com/CSXgeneral.html
http://www.economic-indicators.com/CSXCostSharesHome.html
We encourage all of you to save this e-mail and to review these web pages and the links to explanation and comments on the Cost Shares Model. If we can implement it, children in Minnesota will benefit. If you don’t have e-mail, call R-Kids.
R. Mark Rogers has written a child support guidelines bill for Georgia. This is a task that may be funded by the state. Ask your legislator how to get funding for a Cost Shares recommendation. There is a method. They may not admit it, but such studies are funded and may be reimbursed by the federal government for most of the cost. Ask your legislator.
Cost shares and income shares "sound" similar at first
What are the differences?
The following information is provided to help Legislators understand the pending Child support legislation being Authored by Representative Smith HF1446 and a similar bill by Senator Burglin SF1364. Both of these Bills are Income Shares type guide lines. Our organization is promoting a cost shares guide line. We ask you to take the time to understand the difference and the potential implication of the pending legislation.
R-KIDS request Legislators to consider to fund a study to address one of the most important issue regarding families, 80% of that cost can be reimburse back from the federal government. MN child support guide lines are unconstitutional. HF1446 and SF1364 introduced last year will not correct this injustice. (Please note) R-KIDS did ask for an independent study last year during the DHS review of our guidelines. We were told there was No funding available for an independent study.
- Cost shares is based on sharing actual expenditures on children, treating child-related tax benefits as a cost offset to be shared, and takes into account what costs are incurred by each parent. For the last point, each parent is equally responsible for sharing the other parent's child expenses.
- There clearly are a number of large differences between cost shares and income shares. There are differences in two primary areas (which cover everything): 1) the underlying cost tables and 2) the method of allocating those costs between the parties.
- Income shares is "not" a cost based guideline. As noted in research and publications, the income shares guideline table is based on an indirect "estimation" of child costs.
- Cost shares tries to use actual spending data on children to reflect out-of-pocket expenses. Most child cost category data come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for single-parent households. Cost shares uses housing cost data instead from the U.S. Dept. of Interior. The one child cost is the difference between a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom house and then with utility costs factored in. Ratios are then applied for additional children and different income levels.
- The bottom line is that cost shares is the only guideline that meets equal protection standards--for the parents and the children. Income shares has built in biases and leads to typical child support awards that are about double what they should be if based on professional economic standards.
- Income shares is based on what's available for support between two parents.
Cost shares is what is actually spent on the children between two parents.
Court Of Appeals
Unpublished Opinions
In re the Matter of: Carlson vs. Holmes, C1-01-474
Affirmed Child Custody
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order denying the custodial parent’s motion to permanently move the child to Ohio. The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that the primary purpose of the move was to interfere with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights.
In a footnote, the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court’s determination that the move was not in the best interest of the child was unsupported by the record because there was not evidence of endangerment as required by Ague.
In Re the Marriage of: Severs vs. Severs and Carver County, intervenor, C9-01-609
Affirmed as modified Child Support
Father was incarcerated on federal criminal charges for failure to pay child support. Father filed a motion to terminate or suspend his child support obligation. The trial court granted the motion refusing to impute income to the obligor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s refusal stating that the father, “had no opportunity to get out of jail until his sentence was complete. Thus, unlike the situation involving an obligor who is found in civil contempt of court for nonpayment of child support, respondent’s incarceration was involuntary.”
The case also included an issue regarding when the modification was effective. The respondent’s motions were returned by the court clerk because of errors. The Court of Appeals held that “Nevertheless, these documents provide sufficient evidence that respondent’s motion was “served” on the responding party on June 30, 2000, because that is the date on which copies of these documents were sent to the county and to respondent’s ex-wife.”
In Re the Marriage of: Vafaei Makhsoos vs. Vafaei Makhsoos, C2-01-600
Affirmed Child Custody
Marriage was dissolved and mother was awarded primary physical custody of daughter, subject to reasonable parenting time by father. Father filed a series of motions seeking to modify custody. Mother moved to Chicago. Father filed motions to modify custody. Mother then relocated to Philadelphia. The trial court denied father’s motions to change custody and granted mother’s relocation to Philadelphia. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court decision to not hold an evidentiary hearing noting that the father failed to make a prima facie showing on any of the elements required to support a custody modification.
The Court of Appeals also denied the father’s claim that the trial court should not have granted the mothers motion to relocate the child to Philadelphia because the request was part of a responsive motion filed after the time required by Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 303.03(a)(2).
Equal Parenting Week Candlelight Vigil Held
During the week of September 20th- September 26th, the Children's Rights Council celebrated "Equal Parenting Week". The highlight of the week's events was an evening candlelight vigil held on September 25th. There were 25 states throughout the United States and six countries who joined R-Kids of Minnesota in lighting candles in order to raise awareness to the importance of shared parenting.
Our candle light vigil was held in Golden Valley, MN in front of the local NBC affiliate KARE11. We had contacted several media organizations around town and had two T.V stations do a segment on our vigil.
KARE11 did a taped interview about 15 minutes before the airing on the 10:00 pm news. Their anchor did a short introduction and then they went to about a 30 second interview with me. Later I suggested an in-depth news story on their "Extra" segment . The producer appeared interested. I e-mailed her with the information and expect a reply in the next few days.
Our local FOX affiliate, FOX29, did their story live on their 9:00pm news. They showed one of our members lighting the five candles and reading the script that the Children's Rights Council had put together
American Coalition of Fathers and Children R-Kids of Minnesota is now affiliated with The American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC). ACFC is a national group which also advocates the need for two parents in a child's life. The relationship of R-Kids and ACFC will provide R-Kids with access and resources from other similar groups around the country. One event shared between the two groups is the "You've Got to Be Kidding" videos which have been distributed to local cable outlets around the Twin Cities. Dianna Thompson, Director of ACFC, participated in the first of this series of films to discuss the state of the family courts across the country. Dianna Thompson also has been interviewed on two occasions, by Jason Lewis, KSTP-AM1500's afternoon talk show host. KSTP has one of the largest listening audiences of any local talk show in the upper Midwest. Both KSTP and ACFC receive some of their highest telephone volumes than any other topic.
ACFC is also partnered with a group called "Second Wives Club". This group, as the name implies, advocates for fairness of child-support obligations when there are two families involved. It would benefit R-Kids if one of the women in our group would establish an active chapter of "Second Wives Club".
Political Involvement
The 2002 election is still over a year away, but the political process begins early next year.
The November 5th, 2002 election really begins in March. At that time the political parties begin to define the agenda for the upcoming election. On March 5th, 2002, the entire State of Minnesota holds precinct caucuses. This is a chance for us to present the issues which R-Kids supports. I have provided a small excerpt from the League of Women Voters Website. Additional information can be obtained at: http://www.lwvmn.org/caucus.html or by calling your political party's campaign office.
Resolutions relating to state or national issues that might be affected by legislation come next. They must be in written form. They are read, seconded, debated and voted on by a voice vote. There is a time limit for discussion both pro and con - the chair sets the rules of debate unless overturned by majority vote. If passed, resolutions are forwarded to the convention at the next level.
The board of R-Kids will begin formulating information and resolutions for the upcoming caucuses. All input from the R-Kids membership is welcomed
Submitted by Dennis Schwecke
MNBWA lawsuit status
PURPOSE: The purpose of the lawsuit is to strike down the Battered Women's Act parts of Minnesota laws 611A. These laws provide taxpayer funding for housing and care on a basis of gender bias. The laws require that men be excluded from this taxpayer funded program.
SOLUTION: It is useless to provide similar "shelter and victimization" programs for men and women in an attempt to correct an inequity. Rather the legislature must fund a study to determine a program to resolve the problem of domestic abuse. The solution would treat domestic abuse as a social problem, rather than as a criminal act. An analogy is the treatment of alcoholics in our society.
PROBLEM: Current law funds various groups who advocate that only men are abusers and only women are victims. Abusing women (and those who unconsciously solicit abuse) are not given a chance to be accountable for their own actions. The lives of children, men and women would be better if the focus of the law changed from punishment to treatment, which would include both parties of a domestic abuse situation.
LAWSUIT: The lawsuit was brought in federal court because the state courts would not give relief. The lawsuit was brought by 18 plaintiffs who are resident taxpayers in Minnesota who object to their taxes being used to fund a program that contains gender bias. The lawsuit narrowly focuses on the issue that Minnesota law requires that Minnesota tax money be spent for one gender and that the other gender be excluded.
STATUS: Judge Davis dismissed the case for "standing" which indicated that taxpayer plaintiffs do not have a right to question how the tax money is spent. Prior case law was ignored. (It may be that this is a political situation that the lower court did not wish to decide, so left the issue open for appeal.) A higher court could then make the decision. Since arguments have already been made in the lower court, the appeals court can rule on the merits of the case once they have decided on standing. The lawsuit is being appealed in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 01-3210. Oral arguments may be heard as early as February 2002.
INFORMATION: Select the proper choices on http://www.thebestisp.com/~sbooth/. Arguments for appeal are being prepared and are not available yet.
FUNDING: R-Kids of Minnesota teamed with the local chapters of National Coalition of Free Men and the Men's Rights Association. All of these organizations are quite small, so funding has been quite limited. However, the attorneys have agreed to take the case based on reimbursement from the government if they should prevail, under 42 United States Code, Section 1988(b).
IMPLEMENTATION: We are very fortunate in having two attorneys who are extremely skilled in constitutional law and who are interested. Without these two people to provide guidance, the activity could not proceed. What we are saying is that you need to find an attorney who is skilled and interested, or else get tons and tons of money.
MORE: Contact the http://www.r-kids.org periodically for updates.
Women Supporting RKIDS
Hello Members,
My name is Barbara Wake. I am on the R-Kids Board of Directors. I got involved in R-Kids out of shear amazement of how a woman can totally ruin a mans life. Completely take his livelihood away from him and expect him to support her and their children without being involved in the rearing of THEIR children. Totally amazing.
As a single Mom (not of my choice) I have seen how detrimental an absent father can be to a child. My children are now grown and I can still see the repercussion of their father choosing not to be apart of their lives. Really sad.
Coming from Texas I think as far as the Judiciary system goes I have seen it all. Seems to me the Legislators listen to the Women of Minnesota so, as far as I can tell the problem and the solution here lies with the women. I can't understand why 2 adults can't keep their problems between themselves and leave the children out of it. After all, did They Ask to be Here? I think it’s time for parents to grow up and realize their kids come first. That means they NEED BOTH Mom and Dad. Keep the bickering out of their realm. It’s hard enough for them to adjust to the change. People don't realize the impact they have one their kids after a relationship breaks up. I know it's hard on the parents too, but they must learn to make the kids well being Top Priority.
I'm sure there's a lot of 2nd wives and girlfriends that get the brunt of what their men are dealing with and are very supportive and they need that. We all need to band together and keep telling the legislators just HOW Unfair they are to the dad's that want to be there. (Unlike some....) Give them some credit, they deserve it. But all they get is punishment for being a dad......how sad.
Food for thought: Ladies, as the legislation session grows near we all need to band together, make our voices heard and Lobby these legislators. They have been misled by women's organizations and our own Department of Human Services for years.
One last thing, don't forget to send in your membership renewals. We also need additional members to achieve our goals.
Barbara Wake
DHS Changes Guard
Laura Caldwell and Christa Anders have left DHS. This occurred on July 1st 2001. Wayland Campbell has replaced Laura. Not one as of yet for Christa Anders. There may be changes in the works. Those of you who don't know the significance of this event may contact R-Kids. Details will be provided, in hushed tones, in private. We suspect your letters and calls to the legislators may have had some effect. Keep it up. Whenever you have something specific, let them know (with kindness and dignity - or indignity). At the time you write or call, it may not seem like you have done anything. However, they do mention your calls and letters in their committee hearings during the legislative sessions.
Legislative Committee meetings
- Still no word from Senator Foley's Office on family law hearings. He has promised, and we expect him to deliver. Have patience.
- However, Terry Nyblom reports that Senator Kiscaden says she will hold hearings on Tuesday, January 8 at 1:00 PM and Thursday, January 10 at 7:00 PM. Location has not been announced. We will definitely try to find out more and let everyone know where and when you may testify.
- The Uniform Parentage Act task force subcommittee on Adoption met 9/27. Stars at the meeting were Attorney Mark Fiddler who was on the Fathers Adoption Registry task force, R-Kids representative Gladen who had more suggestions for changes and Judge Bob Carolan who formulated these suggestions into general principles. R-Kids plans to attend as much as the guards will let us attend. We have asked that the total list of task force members be made available at the guard desk. It appears that at least some of these meetings are closed to the public. We will try to get this situation changed. Walter Kuckes got a similar situation changed for the guidelines task force. Please attend these Uniform Parentage Act task force meetings if you can. We will keep you informed. If the guards will not let you attend, please let us know and we will contact our legislators!
The Minnesota Legislature established a task force to determine if parts or all of the Uniform Parentage Act should be made into Minnesota law. The Uniform Parentage Act was written at the Federal level for adoption by the states. A report is due in January 2002. R-Kids has a member on that task force, so you will be getting reports. The task force has some 50 members. They are divided into three committees to review paternity, adoption and gestational birth agreements.
In some areas, the current Minnesota Laws are better than the Uniform Parentage Act. In the paternity area, it seems the requirement of the Act is to assign someone to be a father to make child support payments. In the adoption area, the requirement of the Act is to make adoption easier by restricting parental rights, especially when one parent hides the child from the other. In the gestational birth area, Minnesota has no law, but there is experience with contracts between parties, experience with sperm banks and experience of medical doctors that will be useful in establishing workable laws. Some members of the task force are experienced people who would like to establish guides to help people with the parentage problems. Others come with less sincerity. We will try to make common sense prevail.
You've Got To Be Kidding
Really folks, that's the name of our television program. You've Got To Be Kidding is a one hour program that highlights many of the issues surrounding Family Law and Divorce. We take a close up, hard line look at the court system, analyze current and upcoming changes in this area and address them on air. We touch topics and personal stories that the regular TV stations won't dare air.
The producers, Marcia Huyck, Kevin Hoppe and Host Bob Carrillo all have had experience within the divorce/family law system. We are always looking for new stories regarding these topics.
Currently we have 5 shows airing in the Twin Cities and surrounding areas. Cable stations include: CTV Roseville, Lake Minnetonka Cable, Minneapolis Telecommunications, North Metro Media Center, Northwest Community TV, Quad Cities Community TV, Suburban Community tv and Valley Community Access TV. All are one hour in length. If you haven't seen the show in your area, contact your local community access station and request that it be shown.
Copies of the first four one-hour programs are available by sending $20, plus $3 for mailing, to Knute Gladen at R-Kids of Minnesota. The video tape contains the 1st four programs on an extended play format. We are currently looking for funding that would allow us to reach a broader audience statewide. If you have any questions, suggestions or story ideas please call R-Kids at 651-770-6164.
Archdiocese Conference for the Separated and Divorced
On Saturday, September 15th, 2001 Terry Nyblom and Dennis Schwecke participated in the 25th Annual Conference for the Separated and Divorced. The seminar was sponsored by Office for Separated and Divorced of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
The seminar included several presentations and discussions. R-Kids was one of about 20 organizations who set up a table of information. Several dozen people stopped by to talk to us about the R-Kids organization. The seminar was an outstanding opportunity to let people know that we are in the community working to do what's right for the children of unmarried parents.
If you know of any seminars or events which R-Kids should attend, please let the Board of Directors know.
R-KIDS Annual Meeting
Section 3.07 of the Bylaws of R-Kids of Minnesota requires an annual meeting. Section 3.02 of the Bylaws states: “Each Director shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the directors next following his or her election and until his or her successor shall have been elected and shall qualify, or until his or her death, resignation, or removal as hereinafter provided. Section 4.02 of the Bylaws requires annual election of Officers.
R-Kids of Minnesota held an annual meeting on September 6, 2001. Directors are: Robert Carrillo, Knute Gladen, Terry Nyblom, Dennis Schwecke and Barbara Wake. Officers are: President - Knute Gladen, Vice President - Terry Nyblom, Secretary - Robert Carrillo, Treasurer - Knute Gladen and Director of Communications - Robert Carrillo.
At the annual meeting it was reported that R-Kids of Minnesota has successfully contested the use of the R-Kids name by another group. We have received a letter from the Secretary of State that the other group is directed to change its name. However, they have not done so, and we have been talking with Attorney Michael Radmer who incorporated R-Kids. It appears that we need a Writ of Mandamus to request that the Secretary of State remove the name of the other R-Kids organization from the state records.
Grandparents Preserving Families
Five percent of American families are grandparent/grandchild families. Ten percent of all grandparents are raising grandchildren. Four million children live in a household headed by a grandparent. This information comes from the Ohio State University Extension. Even when children do not live in the same home, it is often the grandparent who is able to throw a lifeline to the grandchild or to the parent.
As a grandparent, you have legal rights. The Senior Law Project provides free legal assistance to low-income elderly living in Washington, Dakota, Ramsey, Carver and Scott Counties. Residents of Washington Dakota and Ramsey counties may reach the project at (651) 224-7301, Monday through Friday from 9:00 am to noon. Carver and Scott county residents may call (952) 440-1040 for assistance.
For years, Grandparents Preserving Families has operated a call line for grandparents who are seeking help. The number to call is (763) 533-6447 and Donna Zieska will help or may be able to refer the caller to someone who can help. Alternatively, call R-Kids at (651) 770-6164 or e-mail at r-kids@freenet.msp.mn.us.
Deadbeat website
See if you are on this feminist list. Find your state and look for yourself. http://www.geocities.com/cynlkwdlock/
United Way Time Is Here! Designate R-KIDS!
At your company's United Way presentation, ask for the GIFT DESIGNATION FORM.
On this form, designate R-Kids of MN Charitable Fund as your designated recipient. To do this, check box "Specific Agency", and fill in a dollar amount (preferably all of your contribution). On the line above "Name of Organization" write R-Kids of MN Char Fund. On the line above "Agency Number" write NA (not applicable, no agency number is required). Above "City", write Box 24658, Edina. Above "State", write MN 55424.
R-Kids of Minnesota Charitable Fund receives contributions through the Greater Twin Cities United Way ONLY as a DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. This includes counties of Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. Even if you are not in one of these counties, ask if your United Way organization has a "Designated Recipient" program. If they do, put our name down as your designated recipient. They will mail us the forms to qualify for receiving your contribution. Funds received by our Charitable Fund are used for special projects to help children of divorce and to help their parents. Help R-Kids help you! Contributions received in this manner add up to hundreds for R-Kids and Grandparents Preserving Families.
Ask your friends to DESIGNATE R-Kids. Thank you!
Man Could be Jailed for having kids
For every good reason, no one wants to think about people like Robert Torres and David Oakley making children. Torres, a 20-year-old Texan, was sentenced in 1999 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. This year, at a parole-violation hearing, he admitted impregnating two other teens. ("I make mistakes," he said.) Wisconsinite Oakley, 34, has a 15-year rap sheet that includes theft and witness intimidation. In the meantime, he has sired nine children (one of whom he abused) by four women.
But there is a difference between being offended by someone's procreating and making it an offense. In April, Texas District Judge J. Manuel Banales ordered Torres not to have sex with anyone, minor or adult, until he married--or "you will go to prison for life." He expressed a fear that Torres would be a deadbeat dad. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was marginally more lenient with Oakley last week, merely sustaining a lower-court ruling that would jail him for eight years if he fathered another child without proving he could support his entire brood.
Laws against deadbeat parents have toughened, but scofflaws still owe $11 billion a year, and anger at chronic offenders is growing. Oakley owes $25,000, despite civil citations and garnishments. The Wisconsin court's four-person majority (all male) focused on his behavior. Wrote Justice William Bablitch: "It is overwhelmingly obvious that any child he fathers will be doomed to a future of neglect, abuse or worse."
It was the court's three women who dissented, focusing on larger, reproductive issues. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley regretted that "for the first time in our state's history," the court had "allowed the birth of a child to carry criminal sanctions." In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court declared procreation a basic human right in 1942. It reaffirmed it in 1978 by overturning a Wisconsin law forbidding child-support- delinquent citizens to marry if they could not show that their children could be kept off welfare. Similarly, activists like the A.C.L.U.'s Catherine Weiss say Oakley's sentence "runs dangerously close to having a financial test for parenthood." Such fears are not utterly unfounded. Between 1907 and 1964, tens of thousands of people deemed "genetically inferior"--including many poor people, minorities and petty criminals--were sterilized by law in some 30 states. Justice Bradley wrote that her court "places the woman in an untenable position: Have an abortion or be responsible for Oakley going to prison."
Prosecutor Jim FitzGerald finds such speculation "inflammatory" and not relevant to the court's goals regarding Oakley. He says the order by Banales is too narrowly drafted to be of much use to other prosecutors and is, in any case, a weapon against intentional dereliction, not a "financial litmus test" for parenthood. "What it really means," he says, is "if you have a kid, you have to pay support to your best ability and not just blow it off."
Perhaps. But even if accepted at face value, the Wisconsin and Texas rulings raise vexing issues about enforcement and privacy. Wisconsin is anticipating possible paternity tests on Oakley's girlfriends' future children. Torres is being polygraphed regularly on his love life. That's a chat most public servants would probably rather avoid.
Welfare review to focus on marriage
The Washington Times September 4, 2001
Top welfare, work, marriage and teen pregnancy-prevention officials are gathering in Washington this week to review the impact of the 5-year-old welfare reform law. The Sept. 5-6 conference is the first major welfare event convened by the Bush administration. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson and HHS Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade F. Horn are scheduled to give major addresses.
It may also be the first to review state efforts to promote marriage and two-parent families among low-income populations, said one welfare observer. "This is extremely important and reflects the new focus of the Bush administration," said Maggie Gallagher, a syndicated columnist and co-author of "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially."
It shouldn't be difficult to talk about pro-marriage policies since the 1996 welfare reform act "made strengthening marriage and two-parent families one of the goals of the law," Mrs. Gallagher said. "And yet there has been very little effort to look at how public policy and welfare either strengthens or undermines marriage in low-income communities." One problem may be that it's "not clear to everyone that supporting marriage is a legitimate goal of public policy," added Mrs. Gallagher. Promoting marriage "will take leadership" and this week's conference marks a beginning for that, she said.
Conference participants will include state lawmakers, local public officials, business executives, welfare researchers and leaders of faith-based programs. The sessions will focus on employment, family formation, responsible fatherhood, sexual abstinence, teen-pregnancy-prevention, child support and family health. Welfare reform's fifth anniversary was Aug. 22, and the law must be considered for reauthorization by Congress by the fall of 2002.
The law's major change repealed a handful of old welfare programs that allowed unlimited spending. It created a large block-grant welfare program in their place. Today, states receive a fixed amount of money to stabilize poor families and help them become self-sufficient. The federal law established work requirements, participation rates and a five-year maximum time limit to federal cash benefits. In exchange, states were allowed great latitude to redesign their welfare programs to fit the needs of their low-income populations.
Last month, in its annual report to Congress about the reform, HHS reported that since August 1996, the welfare caseload fell from 12.2 million recipients to 5.8 million. This is the largest decline in the history of the program and the lowest percentage of the population on welfare since 1965, HHS said. While the caseload decline is remarkable, "more important is the fact that these families are better off," said Mr. Thompson, who is nationally known for the "end of welfare" innovations he led while governor of Wisconsin.
Still, states have focused on the "get to work" part of welfare reform, "while only a few states have taken up" the challenge of discouraging out-of-wedlock child-bearing and encouraging marriage, Rep. Wally Herger, California Republican, said at a hearing he chaired in May on welfare and marriage. These issues are touchy ones, he said. "Americans rightly are concerned about government involvement when it comes to sensitive issues like child-bearing and family formation.
"But just as we agree on removing marriage penalties in the tax code, we should also think about removing marriage penalties in public benefit programs," Mr. Herger said. Democrats and liberal groups, who have always had a love-hate relationship with welfare reform, have already signaled their objections to strategies that favor married couples over single parents.
Email updates
We are continually trying to expand our email database. Some members emails addresses have changed and we have lost a very quick and economical communication avenue, so please send us your email addresses if you are not receiving correspondence from us. RKIDSOFMN@aol.com and r-kids@freenet.msp.mn.us or call 651-770-6164
Contact
R-Kids of Minnesota Grandparents Preserving Families P.O. Box 24658 Edina, MN 55424-0658
Remember Kids in Divorce Settlements Grandparents Preserving Families Affiliation: American Coalition for Fathers & Children
Next R-Kids Group Meeting:
Thursday, December 20, 2001, 7:00 PM Ridgedale-Hennepin Area Library 12601 Ridgedale Drive, Minnetonka
(No meeting is scheduled for November).
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!
