Newsletters::2002 May
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Governor Signs Limited Driver’S License Bill
On April 18, the Governor signed S. F. No. 3114/HF 3393, (Senate Authors: Neuville; Johnson, Doug; Knutson; Sams and Kiscaden House Authors: Boudreau, Smith, Dawkins, Swapinski and Holberg), which allows for a limited 90 days driver’s license, to go to work, attend chemical dependency counseling, attend school, or for a homemaker to attend to the children’s education, medical, or nutritional needs. Unfortunately, there appears to be no exception to drive for parenting time. (It makes one wonder how many people who have had their driver’s license suspended, were successful in getting a court order that the custodial parent do the driving for parenting time).
This bill is the first of many small steps necessary in bringing fairness to the system in Minnesota. Rep. Lynda Boudreau worked for 2 years on these provisions and she has shown the perseverance to see this legislation through.
This legislation also emphasizes the need to look at ability to pay that is currently ignored when negotiating payment arrangements on the county level.
The most important part of this legislation is to allow obligors to maintain visitation and family support through driving privileges that would otherwise compromise them legally.
It was very encouraging to have DHS support this initiative instead of fight us every step of the way as they have done in the past.
Rep. Boudreau and those that voted for this measure deserve many thanks.
Case Law Review
Court Of Appeals – Published
Compensatory parenting time statute does not apply to suspension of parenting time
Re the Marriage of Robert Roland Matson vs. Theresa Lynn Matson, C4-01-1067
{date filed} January 29, 2002
{court} Minn. App. published
{decision} Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part, and dismissed in part
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Parental Rights, Jurisdiction, Custody, Parenting Time, Civil Procedure
{summary} The remedy of compensatory parenting time provided by Minn.
Stat. § 518.175, subd. 6(b) (2000) applies to denial of or interference
with parenting time by the custodial parent, not to the suspension of
parenting time by the district court. The time limitations under Minn.
Stat. § 518.18(a), (b) (2000) on filing a custody-modification motion
do not apply if both parties file such motions, because the reciprocal
motions satisfy the exception created when a motion is "agreed to in
writing by the parties."
The district court temporarily suspended mother’s parenting time as a sanction for her failure to contact the parenting-time expediter. It did not schedule or hold an evidentiary hearing. Mother argued that the district court abused its discretion by suspending her parenting time and that, as a remedy, she should receive compensatory parenting time.
A district court may not restrict parenting time unless it first schedules an evidentiary hearing for the "earliest possible time," and then makes the necessary findings under Minn. Stat. § 518.175, subd. 5 (2000). Although the district court does have authority to provide remedies for interference with court-ordered parenting time, the suspension of parenting time is not specifically listed as one of the statutory remedies.
"Absent extreme circumstances, we caution the district court against using suspension of parenting time as a sanction for non-compliance with a parenting-time order. But we need not address whether the district court erred here because mother’s parenting time was later reinstated and the ... order has become moot. Further, even if the district court had erred, compensatory parenting time is available as a remedy only where the custodial party interferes with court ordered parenting time. ... Therefore, we dismiss this issue as moot."
The district court also modified custody by granting father sole legal custody, based on the guardian ad litem’s report, the parties' inability to cooperate in the children’s rearing, mother's unwillingness to use the expediter to resolve disputes, and a finding that it was in the children’s best interests to modify legal custody. Mother argued that the court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and by not making findings of endangerment.
Generally, motions for custody modifications are not allowed less than two years after the most recent motion. But the court may hear such a motion if (1) the parties agree in writing to a modification motion or (2) the court finds that the child is endangered or that there is persistent and willful interference with parenting time. Minn. Stat. § 518.18(b) (2000).
There were no findings under the second exception. Thus jurisdiction to hear the motion depended on the parties’ agreement in writing. Although the parties did not explicitly so agree, they each made reciprocal motions to modify custody. The Court of Appeals held that the parties’ cross-motions satisfied the required agreement in writing, giving the district court jurisdiction to modify custody.
However, the Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether grounds existed to modify legal custody. A party seeking to modify custody must assert facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case; then an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine the truth of the allegations and to provide a basis for the necessary findings. Father made the requisite showing, but the district court did not hold the required evidentiary hearing. The Court noted that "while we reverse in part on specific procedural issues, we offer no opinion on the ultimate disposition of the remanded issues."
Father sanctioned for appearing on TV news regarding parenting time interference
In re the Marriage of: Geske vs. Marcolina C9-01-1162
{date filed} April 2, 2002
{court} Minn. App. Published
{decision} Affirmed as modified
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Child Custody; Attorney Fees
{summary} When father appeared on a television program about the parties'
ongoing custody dispute and allowed photos of the children to be televised,
the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction prohibiting any further
dissemination of the children's photos but held that the children's names
were in the public domain and therefore could be disseminated. The Court
also upheld need-based attorney fees to mother, but denied conduct-based
fees because father distributed the photos outside of the litigation.
Respondent-mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody and appellant father awarded visitation. Due to abusive, intimidating and controlling behavior, Appellant-father’s visitation rights were suspended. The district court later determined that it was in the younger girl’s best interests to be reunified with father but it was not in the older girl’s best interests to be reunified.
KSTP-TV aired a "Focus 5 Report" news story discussing family law and visitation; Appellant-father was one of the featured fathers. The story include the first names of the children, their photos, and the full name of the Appellant-father. KSTP-TV never contacted Respondent-mother to request permission to use the children’s first names or photographs.
Respondent-mother sought and obtained an order restraining father from publishing the names or images of the children. The injunction was based upon a finding that publishing the children’s names was not in their best interest.
On appeal, Appellant first claimed that the district court erred in granting the injunction because the Respondent failed to show that an injunction would prevent any real and substantial harm. The district court found two types of potential harm: (1) the emotional damage to the children resulting from any future publication by Respondent, and (2) the detrimental effect such publication would have on the reunification process. The Court of Appeals found the district court had made sufficient findings of harm. On the question of certainty that the harm would occur, the district court found that publication "could certainly cause" the children harm. The Court of Appeals held that finding satisfied the general rule, which requires that the harm be reasonably probable.
The Court also held that the injunction, as modified, was not an unlawful prior restraint on Appellant's free speech. First, the injunction was narrow -- it applied only to Appellant, only to his publication in the media (not personal publication), and only to pictures of the children. The Court distinguished the Schmidt case (involving a newspaper’s publication of information on juveniles). In this appeal, the injunction prohibited only as much speech as necessary to serve a compelling interest: the reunification of father and child. The Court stated that although Minnesota has not yet addressed the issue, several other states have noted that the best interests of children can be a compelling state interest justifying a prior restraint of a parent’s right of free speech.
Appellant next argued that because the information was already in the public domain, he could not be prohibited from disseminating it. The Court of Appeals held that because the names were already in the court files, the injunction needed to be modified to allow use of the names. However, because the record contained no information on whether the photos were part of the court file, that part of the injunction was valid.
Finally, Appellant argued that the district court’s award of need-based attorney fees under Minn. Stat. § 518.14 (2000) was improper because the award was based on stale financial information. The Court of Appeals upheld the award, holding the district court had considered recent financial information and "[m]oreover, the district court judge was familiar with the history of the case and the parties’ financial circumstances, and it was proper for the court to take those facts into account." The Court of Appeals rejected the attorney fee award so far as it was based upon the Appellant’s conduct because the distribution of the photos occurred outside of the "litigation."
Bill To Extend Time For Retroactive Support Withdrawn
Senator Dave Johnson abruptly withdrew SF 2820, which had been set for hearing, apparently after numerous R-KIDS members wrote letters, objecting to it. It would have permitted up to six years of back child support to be ordered, upon starting a paternity case. It just goes to show that we are an effective voice at the legislature. It’s unknown how many, if any, other people responded, but something happened to make common sense prevail. The people who would be victimized most by this bill, are an undertermined group of men who will have children out of wedlock in the future. They may never know that many of us stopped in our tracks for 15 minutes yesterday, and let our voices be heard. It's so important that you just take a little time, to let the legislature know you're watching them, to prevent bad ideas from becoming terrible laws.
It would seem relevant to point out that Wisconsin legislature, just two and a half years ago, signed into law a bill that NO retroactive support is allowed, a downward deviation from previous law which was similar to current Minnesota law.
The bullet point in question is toward the bottom of the article below, but the entire article is somewhat relevant.
--- By George! Governor Thompson signs child custody and placement reform into law
In signing the state budget bill on October 27, 1999, Governor Tommy Thompson, signed into law significant statutory changes to Wisconsin's child custody and placement laws. These provisions, (Assembly Bill 133, see below for more information on the legislation) spearheaded by Senator Gary George and approved by both Senate and Assembly leaders on the bi-partisan budget conference committee, put Wisconsin into a leadership role in dealing with the national problem of many fathers being disenfranchised from their children by outdated laws and the gender bias which exists in our legal system.
In all actions initiated after May 1, 2000 all courts in Wisconsin will be required to presume joint legal custody is in the best interest of the child and to set as a goal "a placement schedule that allows the child to have regularly occurring, meaningful periods of physical placement with each parent and that maximizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent."
Additional statutory changes also included in the signed budget bill are:
- similar treatment of children in paternity and divorce cases (except for temporary orders),
- requiring parents to submit parenting plans,
- reducing to 1% per month the interest on child support arrears,
- limiting the liability for past child support to the time of filing of a legal action instead of the date of birth of the child,
- penalties for interfering with court ordered placement and a provision for establishing a study committee to review the role of guardian ad litems.
Gov. Ventura/Dhs Response To Cost Shares
Ed note – Other than driver’s license work permits, not much has happened on the family law front in this year’s session, and it is most likely that not much will. The big news is that the DHS’ "Income Shares" did not go through, nor did the RKIDS-sponsored "Cost Shares" bill. All of the differences, and all the legislative wrangling, is water under the dam at this time, and probably not worth reporting, except to note that these issues are likely to return next year. But here is an interesting letter from the DHS, which basically outlines the philosophical and ideological differences between sharing parents’ income (DHS approach) vs. sharing the cost of raising a child (RKIDS approach).
Subj: Child Support Reform / 02-CSE-XX48 Date: 2/14/02 2:51:57 PM Central Standard Time From: Dhs.Ecss@state.mn.us Mary Crouse LCR2329083@aol.com
Dear Ms. Crouse:
Governor Ventura asked me to respond to your e-mail about the guidelines proposal. The concerns you have and the issues you raise are important and we take them seriously. In your e-mail you mentioned the cost shares proposal before the Legislature to reform the way child support is calculated.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "cost shares" model for the determination of child support. The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) has reviewed all the materials describing this model that were distributed to the Family Law Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the proposed statutory language, as well as additional material on the model available on the website of its principal proponent, Mr. R. Mark Rogers. In light of this review, DHS believes that:
- Most of the strengths of the cost shares model are already incorporated in Shared Responsibility.
- The economic foundation of the cost shares model is not as valid or reliable as the economic foundation of Shared Responsibility.
- The cost shares model is more likely to promote litigation than is Shared Responsibility.
- The cost shares model includes some features explicitly rejected by the majority of the Child Support Guidelines Review Advisory Task Force.
I have detailed each of these issues below.
Strengths of the cost shares model are already incorporated in Shared Responsibility: Both the cost shares model and Shared Responsibility model include the following provisions and premises:
- Use of USDA estimates of parental expenditures on children as the general economic basis for child support orders. We consider the USDA estimates of parental expenditures on children to be the best available economic foundation for child support orders. As a result, we have incorporated these estimates into the Schedule of Basic Support in the Shared Responsibility guidelines. Similarly, both the proposed statutory language for the cost shares model and the Shared Responsibility guidelines affirm the merits of the USDA's approach to estimating the proportion of parental income expended on children. The cost shares model adapts the USDA's estimates in ways that we believe compromise their validity and reliability (see below), but its general economic premises have much in common with Shared Responsibility.
- Apportionment of the responsibility to provide financial support to the children based on each parent's share of income available for child support. Both Shared Responsibility and the cost shares model hold parents responsible for supporting their children in proportion to their respective incomes.
- Use of the parents' actual expenditures for childcare and medical insurance in apportioning responsibility for these expenses. Both Shared Responsibility and the cost shares model separate child care and medical insurance expenses from the other categories of expenditure (food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc.) and use the actual cost of these expenses to the parents in calculating support. Cost shares does not necessarily maintain the system of assignment in current law, nor is it clear from either the proposed statutory language or from the accompanying brief whether the USDA's estimates were adjusted to exclude medical expenses in developing the proposed Schedule of Basic Child Costs. But the general principle of using actual costs for child care and medical care and using estimates of parental spending for all other expenses is the same in both cost shares and Shared Responsibility.
- Attempting to ensure that the obligor can meet his or her own basic needs after the payment of child support. Shared Responsibility and the proposed cost shares model address the obligor's self-support needs somewhat differently, but both include explicit provisions intended to preserve a basic needs income for the obligor after the payment of support.
Problems with the economic foundations of the cost shares model: The cost shares documents and testimony provided to the legislature assert that the model is based on the "actual cost" of children, and they portray both current guidelines and Shared Responsibility as greatly exceeding these costs. But the cost shares model bases its estimates of these costs on spending by single parents living in rental housing. The "actual costs" incurred by two parents cannot be estimated by treating the two parents as a fictional single parent living in an apartment. What cost shares apportions is not "actual costs" but "assumed minimum costs".
Although the cost shares model, like Shared Responsibility, is based on USDA estimates of the percentage of parental income expended on children, it adapts the USDA's estimates in ways which compromise the economic integrity of the model. These adaptations include the following:
- Basing child support on spending by single parents rather than two-parent households. This is problematic because single parents have considerably lower and less varied incomes than two-parent families. Consequently, under cost shares, child support orders would be based on what poor single parents spend on their children rather than on what families with greater variation in income spend on their children. Moreover, the single-parent sample cannot be adjusted for the lower cost of living in Minnesota compared to the rest of the nation, because it is considerably smaller than the two-parent household sample and consequently will yield unreliable date.
- Substituting marginal rent costs for the USDA's estimates of parental expenditures on housing. The proposed statutory language indicate that, instead of using the USDA's estimates of what parents at different income levels spend on housing for their children, the cost shares model estimates housing costs using data from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Regional Quarters Rental Survey for the Mid-North Region. Mr. Roger's brief dated January 26, 2002, is non-specific as to how the estimates were derived, so DHS staff consulted Mr. Roger's other publications for more details. It appears that the housing cost for one child incorporated in the cost shares model is the difference in rent between one- and two-bedroom apartments, with some add-ons for utilities, maintenance, and furnishings. Housing costs for second and third children are based on the additional cost incurred to rent apartments with larger numbers of bedrooms. This approach has the effect of setting a basic-needs-only standard for the most significant component of the cost of raising children rather than relying on estimates of what other parents of comparable income actually spend on housing for their children.
- Basing each parent's share of financial responsibility for the children on each parent's share of the children's time as well as each parent's share of their combined income. Unlike Shared Responsibility, the cost shares model assumes that, if children spend a specific percentage of
their time with a parent, that parent incurs that percentage of the child's expenses and these expenses are treated as an offset against the support obligation. There is simply no economic research to support this assumption. Moreover, cost shares assumes no duplication or increase in children's expenses when they are being cared for in two homes (e.g., additional clothing in both homes, additional entertainment expenses, additional transportation costs, etc.). Instead, it simply assumes that for every dollar spent by the obligor, there is a corresponding reduction in expenditure by the obligee.
An additional problem with the adapted economic estimates underlying the cost shares model is that the adaptations were individually, rather than institutionally, generated. The underlying methodology is not easy to replicate, and there is no guarantee that these individuals will continue to be available for revising and updating the estimates in compliance with the federally mandated quadrennial review of the guidelines. In contrast, Shared Responsibility is based on estimates generated by a federal agency required by statute to produce annual estimates of parental expenditures on children. It will be much easier to institutionalize compliance with the quadrennial review statute under Shared Responsibility than under cost shares.
Increased likelihood of litigation under cost shares: The cost shares proposal includes some features which are very likely to increase conflict and litigation between parents. These include the following:
- Tying child support specifically to the amount of parenting time each parent has. Under cost shares, the more parenting time an obligor has the lower the obligor's child support order. This provides a clear and explicit economic incentive for parents to litigate over parenting time arrangements and to substitute arguments about parenting time for arguments about money. Shared Responsibility avoids this problem by building a "separate household discount" directly into the schedule of basic support and not tying it to parenting time arrangements. (Ed. Note – I doubt there would be any more litigation than there currently is, and possibly even less litigation, if there were simply three levels – under 20% [no adjustment], 21-33% parenting time [20% reduction] and over 33% [use Valento] – there would probably be less litigation, due to the smaller effect of going from sole physical to joint physical for people in that 30-40% parenting time range)
- Defining a statutory change in the guidelines as a "substantial change of circumstances warranting a modification". The cost shares proposal would allow a difference of 15% under the new guidelines to constitute grounds for modification, thus inviting a flood of modification motions.
- Including vague criteria for deviation. The cost shares proposal includes a number of deviation factors which are not present in the current guidelines and which do not provide clear direction for the court, such as "ages of the children", "payment of a mortgage", and "in-kind contribution by either parent." These also are likely to provoke litigation.
Inclusion of provisions previously rejected by the majority of the Guidelines Review Advisory Task Force: The cost shares proposal includes a number of features considered and rejected by the Guidelines Review Advisory Task Force in favor of alternative provisions incorporated in Shared Responsibility. These include:
- Linking child support to parenting time. The Task Force opposed this provision for all the reasons described above, opting instead for the "separate household discount" approach incorporated in Shared Responsibility.
- Deducting a "self-support reserve" from each parent's income before calculating support. The cost shares proposal strongly resembles the Delaware-Melson formula for determining each parent's income available for child support, by subtracting a "self-support reserve" from each parent's income before calculating support. We brought a similar proposal to the Guidelines Review Advisory Task Force in the summer of 1999, and the Task Force rejected the approach as too complicated and too reminiscent of the income shares model that was unsuccessful at the Legislature in the mid-1990s. Shared Responsibility accomplishes the intent of this provision through the application of a presumptive minimum self-support test and a self-support adjustment check at the conclusion of the support calculation.
- Imputing a child support award for other legally dependent children residing with a parent and subtracting the resulting amount from the parent's income. The cost shares proposal accounts for the needs of other biological or adopted children living with a parent by subtracting an imputed order for support from the parent's income before determining support for the children of the order. The majority of the Task Force preferred the Shared Responsibility approach; it subtracts a basic needs allowance for other dependents rather than subtracting an imputed order. The Shared Responsibility approach represents a compromise between two very different positions represented by the stakeholders on the Task Force. One argued for treating all of a parent's children the same (the position represented in the "cost shares" proposal) and the other argued for making no provision for a parent's other children, since the parent should be expected to meet his or her first obligations first.
- Basing child support on net income rather than on gross income. Cost shares is based on after-tax income. There was considerable discussion of this issue among the Task Force members, but the majority concurred with the use of gross income. In their view, and in the view of DHS, gross income is more consistent with the economic research basis of both models (the USDA's estimates are based on gross income and account for differences in taxes, retirement, savings, etc.) and is thus more accurate. It is also less likely to promote litigation.
- Prorating only out-of-pocket medical expenses exceeding $250 per child per year between the parents. Cost shares only apportions expenses between the parents exceeding this threshold. The Task Force recommended that the present statutory provision--apportioning all uninsured and unreimbursed expenses between the parents in proportion to their respective incomes--be retained, and Shared Responsibility follows this recommendation.
The cost shares proposal includes one provision currently under consideration by the DHS guidelines project team, the subtraction of the "custodial tax benefit attributable to the children" from the estimates of parental expenditures on children prior to allocating those expenditures between the parents. DHS staff has scheduled a meeting with the Minnesota Taxpayers Association to discuss the merits of this provision and how it might be incorporated into Shared Responsibility.
I hope this information is helpful to you. I have forwarded your e-mail to the Child Support Enforcement Division's Guidelines Review Project team. Your perspective and feedback are valuable.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Taylor Jones Assistant Commissioner Economic & Community Support Strategies
DHS Receives Federal Grants to study Child Support
The Child Support Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) received grants in 2001 from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to conduct research on two important child support policy issues. The issues to be studied are the effects of the recently enacted passthrough policy, and the development of policies that relate to low-income obligors, including incarcerated and unemployed/underemployed obligors. Legal Services Advocacy Project (LSAP) was invited to join the advisory committee of stakeholders for each of these projects to assist DHS in identifying issues and/or concerns that should be addressed as the projects move forward.
The first study, an evaluation of Minnesota’s recently enacted child support passthrough policy, began in the first part of 2001 and is expected to be completed by August 2002. The primary objectives of the study are 1) to assess the outcomes for families that receive child support payments while receiving public assistance benefits through MFIP; 2) to provide documentation on the development and implementation of the passthrough which will benefit other states as they encounter similar policy issues; and 3) to obtain state-level cost estimates that will be useful to other states and the federal government. When completed the report will provide valuable information on MFIP families receiving child support here in Minnesota. In particular, the study should provide information on the demographics of cases eligible for passthrough, including the impact of passthrough on long-term vs. short-term MFIP recipients. The study will also seek to determine the direct financial impact of the passthrough policy on families, including the amount, frequency and regularity of payments received by MFIP recipients. Finally, the study will also attempt to estimate the cost of implementing an MFIP disregard for passed through child support in light of the caseload data gathered for this report.
The second grant that DHS received has allowed the department to conduct a research and demonstration project to test a number of intervention strategies working with low-income noncustodial parents. The project is being implemented in Hennepin County, which has the largest share of Minnesota’s child support caseload (27% of the cases as of 9/30/00) and is expected to be concluded in early 2003. There are four main components to the project that Hennepin County and child support staff will undertake; 1) work extensively with incarcerated obligors to investigate potential strategies to avoid accumulation of additional arrears while the individual is incarcerated; 2) formulate potential policies and procedures to enhance communication between the child support agency and the Department of Corrections; 3) provide intensive case management to under/ unemployed obligors entering the child support system to facilitate greater compliance with court-ordered employment and training services; and 4) investigate debt compromise strategies (in cases with public assistance debt permanently assigned to the state) that are designed to relieve burdensome arrears and facilitate ongoing payment of current child support.
In Minnesota, the total amount of child Support debt is approximately $ 1 billion, with more than half of this amount owed to the state in the form of assigned public assistance arrears. A recent report from the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General reported that the median amount of debt for low-income obligors in 1996 was $3,000. Available research is inconclusive, however, with respect to whether arrears are an actual barrier to paying child support. This DHS research project is designed to begin developing a clearer picture about the incentive effects of debt compromise and whether this activity actually increases the resources available to families.
This article is from the newsletter of the MN Legal Services Coalition
RKIDS Current Issues – COLA’s and improper arrears collection
Dear Members & Associates:
R-KIDS is working on many different issues relating to MN. family laws and Policy's. One of those items is the blanket application of "COLA" Cost of Living Adjustments. We are looking for individuals that have (1) NON-AFDC case, (2) had COLA applied last year (3) going to receive COLA increase this year and are paying directly to the Custodial parent.
Also the Chicago branch of the Federal office of child support enforcement has requested information from any individual who has experienced improper child support arrearages applied to them. Also anyone who has been charged to pay back (AFDC) welfare dollars that were fraudulently applied for by the custodial parent.
We have four members that have had this happen to them and were unable to have it stopped even after proof was provided to the County, MN. DHS and the Courts.
You would need to write a one or two page letter including some type of evidence of what occurred along with all the people/entities who were involved and knew of your complaint.
I certainly cannot guarantee any resolution of the injustice, but this is a new approach for R-KIDS and it is an opportunity to educate the Fed's on how Minnesota. policy's treat parents.
For additional information email me or call the R-KIDS @ (651) 770-6164 Terry Nyblom TNyblom@aol.com
Help For Men’S Shelter
E-Mail from R-Kids member 1/14/2002
Thanks so much for sending so much information. And thank you too for asking about the results of my search for homeless shelters for men. We chose Project Home, a program of the St Paul Area Council of Churches. At the time I delivered our personal care kits (25) they were giving shelter to many families including 3 men and their children.
They were very pleased to receive these kits (shampoo, bath soap, tooth brush, tooth paste, combs, deodorant, socks and a pair of winter gloves) designated for men. They get a lot of donations for women and children but very little specifically for men.
When I went to the men’s group at my church and asked them for monetary help to purchase items we did not have through donations, without hesitation they designated $300.00 of their funds for this purpose. We will continue to support this kind of project with the help of the men’s generosity and as we receive gifts from our congregation. If you are aware of a specific shelter let me know. This was a start for me in a new direction and will continue search for other shelters...Susan Rudisill
R-Kids Founder
R-Kids founder, Martin Lopez, sent us a copy of his letter of congratulations to retiring Judge Dempsey of New Ulm. Judge Dempsey was a legislator who was very influential in getting R-Kids formed some 18 years ago. The idea was to stop complaining and put your efforts into someplace where it will do some good. Change the laws. Founder Lopez has health problems, drives a wheelchair, communicates via e-mail and notepad. He now lives in St. Paul, near the Capitol. He would like to hear from you at Leaddogml@cs.com. Martin spent some time with us at the R-Kids’ booth at the Family Law Seminar this spring. He is as enthusiastic about R-Kids as ever. Here is his letter to Judge Dempsey.
Dearest Terry
Your Honor! That is the way you’ve been addressed for several years now, but I still say Mr. Dempsey. I don’t speak very well anymore, so I thought I’d leave this few words as I can do now, in writing. I hope you don’t mind my communication, as it is today.
Mr. Dempsey, I’ve known you since 1984, a very long and sometimes very difficult partnership, to say the least. We weren’t at odds, but many people were with us. I guess I could say 1000 huh? But we both know why, and that reason we were best of friends.
You remember that night in the church in Mpls. The night you spoke to about 15 of us non-custodial parents. It was quite a meeting. Us not knowing what to do about the divorce laws, you trying to say, and you have to band together and I’ll fight for you. Little did we know, yes you would, if we banded, and fight hard for our children and us too.
I never thought R-KIDS, would soon be the main group we would form, not to mention, I would head the group for over 8 years, always with you at our side, fighting as you said you would.
All the fan fair, the news media, the rallies, talk shows, interviews, we, our group and you were always the one to point fingers at, but together we not only learned, but we also discovered we were right, some of the laws had to be changed, and we managed to do that too. But not without your help, thru the entire process.
It wasn’t easy, in fact it was hard, but you always kept us in line, and we, R-KIDS, you a State Representative from New Ulm, and many non-custodial parents, and loads of children, did, and still do have a voice in our local government.
Many of us, including yourself, have left the front lines of government, but the group still moves on, even today, which makes us all proud, but you were the main reason for R-KIDS, and Mr. Dempsey, I’m here tonight at your retirement party, to represent R-KIDS and all it stands for, to say thank you Terry Dempsey, for your leadership, your concern, your knowledge, and most of all your true understanding that R-KIDS needed to be formed, and it was, mainly because of you.
I know your retirement will be one of complete retirement, you and Mrs. Dempsey will enjoy this time together, and all of us at R-KIDS wish you and her best, your friendship has meant the world to us, we wish you well Mr. Dempsey. May God Bless you and Mrs. Dempsey, THANKS.
Martin Lopez
Co-Founder R-KIDS
Past President
Family Law Seminar
R-Kids had booth #12 at the 23rd Annual Family Law Institute seminar held March 25 and 26 in the Touchstone Energy Place at RiverCentre in St. Paul. Visitors were very interested in the latest issue of the R-Kids newsletter. We informed them of the Georgia Court decision that declared child support laws unconstitutional and directed them to the text of that decision on the R-Kids web site. We also directed them to our report that explains why Minnesota’s child support laws are also unconstitutional, our legislation that corrects those laws, and our report that justifies the legislation. We met many old friends and had good conversations with new friends.
Outreach - Group Meetings
During the past year, R-KIDS has teamed with Attorney Jack Graham and Economist R. Mark Rogers to bring strong action against child support guidelines. We have legislation and litigation under way. Much interest has been generated, and we are attracting new members. However to help defray the cost, we need as many members as we can possibly get. For that reason, everyone is encouraged to get people interested and involved. We have found that the best way to get members is one-on-one communication.
Non-Metro R-Kids Groups
R-Kids Southwest Chapter, Windom, will meet soon, to explain Cost Shares child support. Senator Vickerman was one of the four senators who sponsored SF3351, our Cost Shares bill. We have been unable to get interest in holding a meeting in Rochester, although we have several new members in that area. Our attendance at Senator Kiscaden’s DHS seminar on child support (January 8 & 10) brought some attention to our group. We held a meeting in Waseca (March 13), but there was no interest. The people who wanted the meeting picked Wednesday evening (which is a bad night for parents with visitation) then did not attend themselves. There has been some interest from people in Duluth, but no positive action. We met with a group of people from Rice and Sartell, just north of St. Cloud (March 22). It was an excellent meeting, but we may have overwhelmed them. They have subsequently met to discuss their organization.
Metro R-Kids Group
Meetings have been held on the third or fourth Thursday of each month in a western suburb on the freeway. There is no specific reason for holding meetings on this date or in this area. We are asking people if a different time or place would be better. Grandparents Preserving Families used to have some very good meetings on Monday evening. Attendance was about 30, compared to R-Kids average of 15. Two meetings were held this past winter, in White Bear Lake, with good attendance, but interest disappeared.
It has been a dreadful struggle to keep monthly meetings going. It is difficult to establish a program. Attendance is poor. There is a high turn-over rate - people will come to two or three meetings, then quit. Those who have e-mail get information, but others have only intermittent mailings. Sixty to 120 cards are sent each month to inform people to of the meetings. That amounts to some $400.00 per year in postage and cost. Perhaps we should save that money to pay the attorney, the economist, a lobbyist. Economist R. Mark Rogers has prepared an excellent bill on Cost Shares child support. To my knowledge, no one but me understands it. Our meetings could be used to train people about the bill so they can train their legislators. There seems to be little interest, no questions, no help.
The next 18 months will be critical in getting child support laws changed. Unless we can stick together and make a change, R-Kids organization will deteriorate, perhaps disintegrate. The effort of the past 18 months has left the leaders burned out. Some have quit. At least two others have indicated a desire to step down. It would be nice if we can keep going and make a change. Members need to come to our meetings to help find some angle, some chink in the other side’s armor, some method of getting the task accomplished. Perhaps monthly meetings are not the answer. Perhaps we should hold intermittent seminars. What do you want? Please let us know with a call to (651) 770-6164 or e-mail to r-kids@rkids.org. Thank you.
Children’s Defense Fund is going on road with child-welfare agenda.
Mpls Star Tribune article, March 28, 2002, page B3, by H.J.. Comments by an R-Kids member - from the article: Children’s Defense Fund has prepared a report "Kids Count". They are using it to solicit funding for their organization. Call them at (651) 227-6121 and ask them how you can get a copy of the report. The report states that 12 percent of Minnesota’s children lives in poverty. However, no-where does the article point out that any child having $250.00 per month to live on is NOT in poverty. US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh01.html. No where does the article state that CHILDREN CAN NOT GET OUT OF POVERTY BY RECEIVING WELFARE. (now known by the euphemism public assistance or PA). This is because public assistance payments are not counted as INCOME, and children can get out of poverty only by having INCOME, according to the way poverty is WRONGLY defined. The article complains that "low-income families" grew by 11 percent in the last decade. Then the article defines "low income" as a family of four, having an income of less than $33,000 per year. The article does not state that the poverty threshold for a family of four (two children) is $17, 960 per year. In other words, "low income" means 183 percent of poverty level, by their distorted definition. Actually, the median wage in United States is $30,000 per year for each wage earner. Median means half earn less than $30,000 per year, half earn more. One wonders about THE BIAS of Children’s Defense Fund in selecting only the top 45 percent of the wage earners as having income that puts them above "low income". According to the newspaper article: At the meetings, (Diane) Benjamin said, Children’s Defense Fund-Minnesota will distribute copies of the Kids Count book, discuss its legislative agenda on behalf of children and ask people about their concerns. Here’s a list of community meetings on the well-being of Minnesota’s children, sponsored by the Children’s Defense Fund-Minnesota. For times and places, call (651) 227-6121 or go to http://www.CDF-MN.org. The Kids Count report is also available at that web site. April 1, Moorhead, April 2, Detroit Lakes, Park Rapids, April 4, Bemidji, April 5, Benson, April 9, Hibbing, Virginia, April 10, Mankato, Two Harbors, April 12, St. Paul, April 16, Buffalo, Willmar, April 17, Owatonna, April 18, Gaylord, April 19, Elk River , April 25, Brooklyn Park, April 26, Le Center, April 29, St. James, May 1, St. Paul, May 6, St. Cloud. TBA Marshall. Please attend as many of these meetings as you can. Ask why children receiving welfare payments that are above the $250/month poverty level are still considered to be in poverty. Expose this fraud. Children’s Defense Fund has been favorable toward the DHS child support bill, which would raise child support by 20 percent to 40 percent for most obligors. They have not commented on our Cost Shares legislation. Ask them to comment on the Cost Shares legislation HF3582/SF3351. Ask them to comment on Georgia’s child support being declared unconstitutional and the similarity to Minnesota’s laws, and the likelihood that Minnesota will have a similar lawsuit. Ask them why they don’t support equal parenting time, which is best for children.
Oral Argument on Gender Bias Lawsuit Appeal, No. 01-3210
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Time: 9:00 AM, May 13, 2002. Place: Federal Building, 316 N. Robert Street, St. Paul, MN The Clerk's office is Room 500. It appears the courtroom may be on the 5th floor.
Three appeals court judges will hear oral argument and decide the case: Judge Roger Woolman, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Judge Myron Bright, Fargo, North Dakota Judge John Gibson, Kansas City, Missouri
Each side will have 20 minutes to present their case. The other side will need to split their 20 minutes between the Attorney General and the Intervenor.
The suit was commenced on July 17, 2000. Oral arguments were heard by Judge Michael Davis on May 11, 2001. The decision was made by plaintiffs to appeal the decision of Judge Davis that the group lacked standing to bring this lawsuit. However, Judge Davis did allow arguments on the merits of the case to be argued at the hearing a year ago. For that reason, if the appellants prevail, the appeals court can decide on the merits without remanding back to lower court for another hearing.
Knute Gladen R-Kids of Minnesota
A Class Action LawSuit against the state for Gender Biases??
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:25 AM
Has anyone thought of bringing a class action law suit against the state of Minnesota for gender bias? I have a daughter that I am trying to get custody of and there is physical abuse at her other home documented by the police, daycare, hospital and social workers that led to a felony conviction of her step-father. Although nothing could be found to be wrong with me by either the other side or the gaurdian ad litem; Judge Lacey (Dakota County) ruled against me. Judge Poch(Dakota County) earlier in the case refused to allow the other side to undergo psychological testing although it was obviously needed and I had offered to pay for it.
I think that all one would have to do is to research the number of times that custody was contested and what the overwhelming percentile of times females are rewarded it only because they are female. Clearly such actions are nonconstitutional and not in the child's best interests!
If you know of any ongoing suit or have ideas of how we could bring one, please contact me.
Andrew Topliff MD erdoc@msn.com Yes, I've thought of it, but it's not the type of case I do in my practice. I've often thought of reviewing court cases, to see how many times women get custody vs. men. That would be a huge undertaking to do that; I’ll put it on my list of things to do when I win the Powerball. Perhaps if someone wanted to go through thousands of divorce cases (in one, or some, or all 87 counties), to determine which ones had contested custody, and keep statistics, they could take it to an attorney to try to get some sort of judicial relief. Exactly what sort of relief, I'm not sure. Quotas, with an injunction from a federal court that custody cases must be resolved with 50% of sole-custody cases going to each gender, would be nice, but unrealistic. If I was a federal judge, I’d bend over backward to try to do it.
Paternity cases are confidential, but I know that the Supreme Court had issued an order allowing such files to be reviewed for statistical purposes before; maybe if the data was good enough on the divorce cases, a court would allow us to review all cases.
But at the least, it would be very interesting to keep score of what judges appear more gender-biased than others. We could then target those judges with the data at re-election time, and could also have volunteers give out data regarding the judges outside their courtrooms, so people know about their right to remove a judge for bias. We could also report the worst judges (or maybe any judge who gives women custody >50% of the time, which is probably all of them) to the Task Force on Gender Bias. The women's rights (aka domestic abuse) people pretty much do the same thing, although in a slightly less conspicuos fashion - they keep monitors inside the courtrooms. One would have to think that judges may be afraid of them.
The scorned men need to be more organized!!! Everybody who has been through the ringer should do something to help the RKIDS cause. Sincerely,
Tim Theisen www.theisenlaw.com
Next year’s session already revving up
To R-Kids Members and Associates
We received this communication from the CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
One wonders why the ENFORCERS are setting the rules. Historically, it has been found that rules must be set by others than the ENFORCERS.
Nevertheless, we need to respond. You may respond by yourself, but don't use the R-Kids name. If you wish to respond under the R-Kids banner, then please send your comments to me, and I will try to sort them out (unless someone else volunteers to do it). A report will be prepared and submitted.
This is an important chance to provide input. If we do not say anything, then the government will say that you had a chance, had no opinion, had no comment, must have agreed with the provisions put forth by the ENFORCERS at the DHS.
Items that should be included in our report are:
Cost Shares Legislation for child support
Cost of Living increases that exceed the consumer price index
Visitation, how children are hurt by not having equal visitation
Accountability for how child support payments are spent
Penalty for false testimony in court that deprives children of visitation
Imputed income for disabled parents
License removal and prevention of ability to hold a job or to get to a job
Anything else you can think of.
Please e-mail your thoughts to me.
Following is a reference to a document prepared by the legislative House Research Department. It is entitled Minnesota's Child Support Laws, An Overview. It has simple comments with references to specific statutes.
It is suggested that you print this article and use it for reference. It may be useful in making comments to the Minnesota Department of Human Services, for their new legislation.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/chldsupp.pdf
Thank you.
Knute Gladen, R-Kids of Minnesota
Original Message ----- From: Fiddler, Mark
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 4:54 PM Subject: Legislative Planning Invitation
memo invites your participation in planning for the 2003 Legislative Session. This is a collaborative legislative planning process designed to include the participation of our partners and stakeholders in the Minnesota child support system.
Please note that if you wish to suggest a proposal for legislation, that the deadline for submission of proposals is April 30, 2002.
Please contact me if you have any questions about this process.
Mark D. Fiddler Legislative Manager Child Support Division MN Department of Human Services 444 Lafayette Road No. St. Paul, Minn. 55155-3846 Voice: 651-296-8355 Fax: 651-297-1298 mark.fiddler@state.mn.us
Republican Party SD 52 Resolutions
At the republican convention for senate district 52 last Saturday we passed four resolutions concerning marriage and Family law issues. They are as follows:
- Be it resolved that children need loving, effective parenting by both mothers and fathers, we support laws that presume equal value of parenting by both genders.
- Be it resolved that children need loving, effective parenting by both mothers and fathers, we oppose laws, regulations, and government practices which systematically exclude fathers from their children's lives without a due process showing of predicate harm with substantive evidence.
- Be it resolved that children need loving, effective parenting by both mothers and fathers, we oppose laws absent a presumption of equality.
- Be it resolved that the negative and alienating impact custody battles have on parents and children, we support a statutory presumption that joint legal and joint physical custody in accordance with the 14th amendment is in the best interest of children.
Senator Michelle Bachman and Rep Mark Holsten seemed genuinely interested and there was widespread support for these resolutions. Let's keep the issues on the docket through the elections and be ready to approach legislators for support.
Thanks,
Mick michael.a.fry@kodak.com
Pending changes in Federal Welfare Law
Dear Member's and friend's:
R-KIDS of Minnesota is joining in a national lobbing effort to promote the parental involvement with children. "PLEASE" take the time to help in this effort. If we are successful this could correct many injustices with only limited cost's! "forward this Email to friend's"
The Bush administration has decided that the solution to child poverty is marriage. Unfortunately, while policy makers promote marriage for the poor, federal child support policy continues to tear apart middle-income families. Non-custodial parents now have a brief opportunity to impact welfare law that will promote parental involvement and give credit where credit is due.
The federal government rewards states that collect the most child support with millions in "incentive payments." States have turned child support enforcement into a profit center by inflating child support awards from middle-income parents, there by maximizing these federal incentive payments. According to the House Committee on Ways and Means 2000 Green Book, in 1998 the federal government lost 1.4 billion dollars from child support enforcement activities, while the states earned 340 million dollars.
As a condition for receiving federal incentive payments, welfare law requires each state to calculate child support in both welfare and non-welfare cases using a numerical guideline. Current state child support guidelines were actually designed only for welfare cases, and do not take into account the costs of raising children at higher income levels. As a result they yield inappropriately high awards in non-welfare cases, far exceeding the costs of raising children in the custodial household.
The federal government bribes states to collect child support, and then allows states unlimited leeway to set their own child support levels. Is it any surprise that your state's guideline probably transfers 25% to 57.5% of your income to your ex-wife as "child support"?
As parents, we must explain to lawmakers that excessive child support awards harm children and fathers because they discourage shared parenting. A divorcing parent is counseled by her attorney to minimize the father's parenting time in order to maximize her share of his future income. One parent is then left with insufficient access to the children, and insufficient remaining income to maintain an adequate second home for them. State lawmakers routinely kill shared parenting legislation because child support collections would be reduced.
Legislators must also be made to realize that in violation of welfare law, state child support guidelines are not being effectively reviewed to ensure that they result in economically appropriate awards. State and Office of Child Support Enforcement-directly profit from high child support awards. Current welfare law fails to ban these glaring conflicts of interest, ensuring that state guidelines are never effectively reviewed and revised.
Excessive child support awards encourage divorce, subsidize single headed households, and marginalize fathers from the lives of their children. These effects are directly counter to the Bush administration's goal of marriage promotion.
To protect children, and federal taxpayers from these continuing abuses, every person reading this should call, write or fax their Congressman and request the following changes in welfare law (Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter IV, Part D, Section 667(a)):
Sec. 667. - State guidelines for child support awards (a) Establishment of guidelines; method
Each State, as a condition for having its State plan approved under this part, must establish guidelines for child support award amounts within the State. The guidelines must be established by law, and shall be reviewed at least once every 4 years by a neutral economic consultant with no political or financial interest in child support guidelines, enforcement, or collection to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts. An appropriate child support award amount is defined as one which allocates the basic, reasonable, marginal expenses of children in the custodial household equitably between the custodial and noncustodial parents.
This is the current Federal law language Sec. 667. - State guidelines for child support awards (a) Establishment of guidelines; method
Each State, as a condition for having its State plan approved under this part, must establish guidelines for child support award amounts within the State. The guidelines may be established by law or by judicial or administrative action, and shall be reviewed at least once every 4 years to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts.
Personal note, We do not feel the needless intrusion of government into the lives of law abiding citizens is warranted, but nevertheless We can't stop it either.
If you want more info on federal law click here. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/667.html" TITLE 42 , CHAPTER 7 , SUBCHAPTER IV , Part D , Sec. 667. Additional insight can also be found at these web addresses.
Men's News Daily April 18, 2002 "Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Policy" by Richard M. Green, MD http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/green041802.htm Another excellent commentary by Dr. Green: "Limit Federal Child Support Enforcement to Welfare Cases" http://www.rightturns.com/forum/green/rgcurrent.htm Terry Nyblom R-KIDS of Minnesota
TNyblom@aol.com
Shoreview mom accused of killing son described as bright, but life was in turmoil
Associated PressPublished Mar 1, 2002
The Shoreview obstetrician charged with killing her 13-year-old son in California was bright and accomplished, acquaintances and old classmates say. But there were signs that Dr. Donna Anderson's life was unraveling lately, from her resignation at Regions Hospital -- where colleagues said she appeared emotionally troubled -- to her expulsion from a self-help group in Edina after telling people the "the Mafia" ran the health community in Minneapolis. Just last week, Ramsey County sheriff's deputies went to Anderson's home after an anonymous tip that she was not taking her medication and might be suicidal. And signs of instability became even more apparent Wednesday during a court appearance in which Anderson, 48, spoke about strange plots she believes are funding her defense.
Police say Anderson stabbed her son Stephen to death on Sunday at a relative's home in Burlingame, Calif., near San Francisco. Stephen had gone to California two weeks ago to visit relatives, including his father, Frank Burns. Burns was injured when he tried to stop Anderson, police said.
"The woman who committed this scene was not the woman we knew," said Anderson's sister-in-law, Deborah Anderson.
She went to medical school at George Washington University and attended three residency programs, including the University of Iowa in Iowa City, where she was dismissed because of problems with decision-making and developing treatment plans for patients, said Dr. Charles deProsse, a retired professor of obstetrics and gynecology there.
Anderson married Burns in 1988, and a divorce and custody battle began in 1993. In court files, Anderson accuses Burns of heavy drinking and physical violence against her and Stephen.
While admitting he was an alcoholic, Burns denied being violent. He said in the divorce court file that Anderson's "entire personality structure and personal security are dependent upon her identity as a mother. She can see nothing about Stephen that conflicts with her desires for
herself. She will say or do anything to maintain this control." (Ed note – sounds like a lot of women, my ex included)
Burns said Anderson was a workaholic and blamed the "Black Mafia" and the "Mormon Mafia" when she lost jobs.
Anderson moved to Shoreview in 1999. She recently had enrolled in a series of self-awareness sessions through Landmark Education Corp., a self-improvement program based in San Francisco. After several sessions, manager Michael Cipolla told her she could no longer participate after an employee reported hearing her tell others that the medical community in Minneapolis was run by the Mafia. The employee, Josh Watters, said the comment raised a "red flag" that Landmark was not the place for Anderson to get help.
A hectic schedule, which included getting Stephen off at dawn for the private Blake School in Hopkins, was always apparent. "It seemed like she wanted to give him a lot," Javenkoski said.
Georgia Support Guidelines Declared Unconstitutional
Superior Court of Atkinson County, State of Georgia, has declared Georgia's child support guidelines to be unconstitutional. The court's document, filed 27 February is Civil Action No. 2000 C 127. The case is now being appealed.
A copy of the document may be downloaded from http://www.GAChildSupport.org.
Georgia's child support law is almost identical to Minnesota's law. R. Mark Rogers and Attorney Jack Graham have prepared a report entitled "Why Minnesota's Child Support Guidelines are Unconstitutional". This report is available via the links from R-Kids web site http://www.r-kids.org.
To those following the GA child support guideline constitutional challenge:
Due to several requests, I have relented and put up an option on my web site to order photocopies of the judge's court order declaring Georgia's child support guidelines unconstitutional (21 pages). The economic exhibits also can be ordered (73 pages). There is a modest fee for these hard copies which are sent via USPS. Downloaded electronic versions are still free. To order or download, go to www.GuidelineEconomics.com.
R. Mark Rogers Economic Consulting 770-412-1059
Judge Denies Giuliani's Request for Joint Custody
The New York Times March 7, 2002
by DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Rudolph W. Giuliani has been lauded worldwide for his stalwart leadership after the Sept. 11 attacks, but the judge handling the former mayor's divorce case suggested yesterday that he had been less laudable in his private life and that his years in office had hurt his relationship with his children.
In a ruling yesterday, the judge, Judith J. Gische of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, denied a request by the former mayor for joint custody of his son. Justice Gische also imposed a visitation schedule that continued limits on contact between Mr. Giuliani's children and his companion, Judith Nathan, that were imposed last May.
Justice Gische refused to change the restrictions that forbid the children - Andrew, 15, and Caroline, 12 - to spend overnight visits with Mr. Giuliani if Ms. Nathan is also spending the night. She asserted that Mr. Giuliani's relationship with the children needed to be rebuilt without competition from Ms. Nathan.
"During the eight years that plaintiff was in public office and more profoundly in his last four months in office, plaintiff's pressing public obligations often limited the time he had to spend with the children," the judge wrote. "The children need to establish a new routine of time spent with their father without worrying about competing for his attention."
Justice Gische did lift some restrictions on contact with Ms. Nathan. Except for overnights, Ms. Nathan is now permitted to be in the presence of the children. Until now, the judge had imposed a complete ban.
The judge's decision prompted Mr. Giuliani's aides to disclose for the first time that he has his own apartment in Manhattan. He left Gracie Mansion last spring and had been staying with a friend, Howard Koeppel, and Mr. Koeppel's partner, Mark Hsiao. The aides would not say where the apartment was, citing security issues.
Regarding Ms. Nathan, who is referred to as J.N. in the court papers, Justice Gische wrote: "Although the children have met J.N. at least once, they can hardly be said to have a comfortable, familiar relationship with her. This needs to develop over time."
She added, "The record before this court reveals that the children are not, at this time, psychologically ready to have overnight visits with their father that include J.N. staying overnight as well. It is unclear exactly when they will be ready."
Mr. Giuliani's lawyer, Raoul L. Felder, denounced the ruling and disputed the absent-father characterization. "The judge's decision is just plain inaccurate," Mr. Felder said. "He has been to every one of these children's events except one since Sept. 11. Very few fathers in New York could match that record."
Helene Brezinsky, a lawyer for Mr. Giuliani's estranged wife, Donna Hanover, said, "We are pleased that the court accepted Donna's view that overnights with Rudy's girlfriend are not appropriate and as always Donna's only concern is for the best interests of her children."
Through a spokesman, Ms. Nathan said, "I love the mayor very much and I look forward to all of these issues being resolved."
Justice Gische yesterday also set June 5, 6 and 7 as the dates for the divorce trial. But most of her ruling focused on custodial issues, and the judge said that she had sought to clear up conflicting claims regarding the children's wishes by interviewing them Feb. 4. She also noted that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Hanover had failed to reach any agreement on permanent custody and that "child related disputes have only intensified" since the proceedings began.
"At this point the court no longer has any reason to be optimistic," the judge wrote. "The court, therefore, will proceed with the appointment of a mental heath professional as a forensic evaluator on the issues of permanent custody and visitation."
The judge granted Mr. Giuliani visits from his children every other weekend.
The judge also ruled that the children should have separate midweek dinners with their father. Vacations and holidays are to be shared, with the children kept together.
Mr. Felder said he would ask the judge to rehear arguments on the visitation schedule. He said Justice Gische had ignored an effort by Mr. Giuliani to lay out his schedule a year in advance to allow for a more customized visitation plan.
"He wants to spend more time with the kids than the judge wants him to spend," Mr. Felder said.
But the judge rejected that request. "A more traditional visitation schedule reflects the historical division of responsibility for the children in this family," she wrote.
Court Of Appeals
Unpublished Opinions
State of Minnesota Re: Patrice L. Ford vs. Esmail Mostaghimi, C3-01-1044
Filed January 15, 2002
Reversed and remanded
Appellant challenged the trial court’s order that he pay support for the child of his former wife, alleging that he was not the child’s father and that no paternity action was ever commenced. Because Appellant should have been heard on his dispute of paternity before being compelled to pay support, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, with instructions to award Appellant his attorney fees.
Appellant and Respondent were married in 1984, and respondent gave birth to a child in 1986, the same year she filed for divorce. In the divorce papers she stated that Appellant was not the child's father. The parties also stipulated to that fact, and the final divorce decree stated that "there have been no issue of the parties nor is petitioner pregnant with a child or children fathered by [Appellant]."
In 1995, Respondent brought a paternity action in California against another man, the child’s alleged biological father, but that action was dismissed.
In September 2000, Lincoln County served Appellant with a complaint for child support. At oral argument before the Court of Appeals, the county did not dispute the factual assertion that Appellant was not the biological father; rather, its claim against Appellant was based entirely on the legal presumption of parentage and the failure to establish paternity of the alleged father in California. Throughout the proceedings, Respondent consistently asserted that Appellant was not the child’s father and that man in the California parentage case was her child’s real father.
The Court of Appeals, upon a de novo review of the Minnesota Parentage Act, held that the three-year statute of limitations under Minn. Stat. § 257.57, subd. 1(b) (2000) does not bar a presumed father from denying paternity as a defense to a child support action. The Court also remanded to the district court, with instructions to award Appellant his attorney fees, pursuant to either Minn. Stat. § 518.14 or § 549.211.
Steven B. Atwater vs. Star M. Anderson, C4-01-744
Filed January 22, 2002
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Child Support
Attorney Fees
The Court of Appeals held that: (a) Appellant's underemployment was not due to a bona fide career change, because she failed to diligently conduct a job search; (b) child support payments were not deductible from Appellant's gross income, because the payments were for the children that were the subject of the current proceeding; (c) Appellant failed to present evidence that the district court miscalculated her net income; (d) the district court erred in allocating child-care expenses based on gross income and without the required documentation; and (e) conduct-based attorney fees were appropriately awarded against Appellant when she dramatically reduced her income one day before a hearing.
- Imputation of income. Appellant resigned from her job as a nurse anesthetist, because of carpal tunnel syndrome, and at the time of the hearing worked part time as a retail clerk. The Court of Appeals, assuming that Appellant did have the claimed physical limitations, nonetheless rejected her claim of a bona fide career change and affirmed the district court in imputing income to Appellant under Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5b(d) (2000). The Court noted that "even if mother's physical condition required her to stop working as a nurse anesthetist, that fact alone does not demonstrate that she made a bona fide career change. Quitting a job is only part of a career change ... a person must also pursue training or obtain a job in a new field." Appellant argued that she took the retail job because she was unable to find other employment. However, the record supported the district court's finding that Appellant had not diligently conducted a job search; she applied for only 10 positions in nine months, and five of those applications were made shortly before the hearing.
- Deduction of child support payments. The dissolution judgment ordered Appellant to maintain life insurance that named the parties' two minor children as beneficiaries. The Court of Appeals rejected Appellant's argument that the insurance premiums were deductible from her gross income under Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b)(viii) (2000), which states that "A Child Support or Maintenance Order that is Currently Being Paid" is deductible from gross income, for child support purposes. The Court held that the statute applies to support obligations for children from a previous marriage or relationship, not for children that are the subject of the current proceeding. Therefore Appellant's life-insurance premiums were not deductible.
- Calculating net income. Appellant argued that the district court miscalculated her imputed net income by failing to subtract the deductions permitted under Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (2000). Although the district court did not explain its calculation or specify the deductions that it allowed from gross income, the Court of Appeals held that Appellant did not meet her burden of showing error, because she failed to present any evidence showing that the district court should have deducted a greater amount.
- Allocation of child care expenses. Appellant argued that child-care expenses should not be necessary for children aged 14 and 16. But the Court of Appeals upheld the district court's determination that it was reasonable for Respondent-father, who frequently worked overnight shifts, to hire overnight supervision for the two teenagers. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because Respondent-father failed to provide documentation of the expenses as required by Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b), and because the district court erred in allocating child-care expenses based on gross income.
- Attorney fees. The Court affirmed the award of $1000 in attorney fees to Respondent under Minn. Stat. § 518.14, subd. 1 (2000). Appellant quit her job as a nurse anesthetist the day before the child-support hearing, thereby dramatically reducing her income, which would be a significant issue in that hearing. The district court could reasonably infer from the timing of Appellant's resignation that she intended to influence the outcome of the hearing. Appellant's conduct created the underemployment issue, which made it necessary for Respondent to incur the expenses of addressing the issue.
In re the Marriage of: Dannhoff vs. Dannhoff, CX-01-795
{date filed} February 19, 2002
{court} Minn. App. unpublished
{decision} Affirmed
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Child Support; Civil Prodcedure, Ethics
{summary} The Court of Appeals held that although language in
a dissolution judgment was ambiguous, overwhelming evidence
supported one interpretation, and sanctions were justified against
a party who brought an action for child support arrearages based
on a different interpretation.
The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 1983. The dissolution judgment awarded mother physical custody of the parties’ two children and incorporated the following stipulated provision regarding child support:
That as and for child support, the [father] shall pay to the [mother] the sum of $300.00 per month until such time as the older child of the parties is emancipated according to the terms of this stipulation. Such support shall be payable as to each child until the child reaches the age of 18 or until such child’s graduation from high school, whichever occurs later; in any event, support may terminate earlier as to a child if the child marries, joins the Armed Services, dies, or is otherwise self-supporting. After the occurrence of one of these acts or events of emancipation as to the first child, support payable shall be $250.00 per month.
In 1985 the father brought a motion to reduce support and the court ordered a reduction in support to $200 per month. In 1987, mother obtained child-support-collection assistance from the county. During both the court proceeding and the collection process, mother made references to the fact that the total amount of child support due was $300, or $200 reduced, per month for both children.
In 1997, the parties stipulated that physical custody of the remaining minor child would be transferred to father. In March 2000, a child support magistrate issued an order requiring mother to pay $325 per month for child support.
In April 2000, mother obtained a judgment against father under Minn. Stat. § 548.091, subd. 1a (1998), which provides that unpaid child support arrearages become a judgment by operation of law. The judgment amount totaled $49,118 ($35,400 for child support arrearages and $13,718 in interest). To obtain the judgment, mother submitted an affidavit claiming that father was obligated to pay $300 per month for each of the two children for a total of $600 per month from the time of dissolution through February 1985 and $200 per month for each of the two children, or a total of $400 per month, from March 1985 until the oldest child’s emancipation.
Father filed a motion to vacate the April 2000 judgment, and the district court granted the motion. By separate order, under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11, the district court required mother’s attorney to pay father’s attorney $3,000 for attorney fees and required mother to pay a penalty of $500 to the court.
Mother appealed from the order vacating the April 2000 judgment and the order requiring mother’s attorney to pay attorney fees and requiring mother to pay a penalty. The Court of Appeals dismissed the part of the appeal relating to attorney fees payable by mother’s attorney.
The Court of Appeals agreed that the stipulated language from the dissolution judgment regarding child support was susceptible to two interpretations and therefore the judgment and amended judgment were ambiguous. Although the disputed language could possibly mean what mother now claimed it meant, there was overwhelming evidence that before mother obtained the judgment for arrearages in April 2000, neither party interpreted the language as mother now contends it should be interpreted. The record as a whole and extrinsic evidence supported the district court’s findings that father’s total monthly child support obligation was $300 under the dissolution judgment and $200 under the 1985 amended judgment. Therefore, the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the district court’s sanctions under Rule 11, finding:
Mother argues that this action for arrearages had a reasonable basis in law and fact. Sanctions cannot be imposed against a represented party based on an action being unsupported by law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 11.03(b). Thus, the question with respect to sanctions against mother is whether there is evidence to support her allegations and other factual contentions. Whether this action had a factual basis depends on an assessment of mother’s credibility regarding the meaning of the stipulation. Although the language of the stipulation could possibly be construed to have the meaning that mother advocates, the district court found mother’s current claim that father’s monthly support obligation was $600 or $400 completely implausible in light of her consistent representations in the past that father’s total monthly support obligation was $300 or $200. The district court is in the best position to assess credibility. Barr v. Barr, 416 N.W.2d 189, 194 (Minn. App. 1987).
County of Hennepin vs. Goeman, C7-01-1189
{date filed} February 19, 2002
{court} Minn. App. unpublished
{decision} Reversed
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Child Support, Jurisdiction, Attorney Fees
{summary} When a district court ordered the county to serve
child support papers on an obligor, but the county delayed
service for one month, the district court lacked authority
to order the county to pay the support obligation for that month.
On January 10, 2001, respondent, pro se, moved for prospective support. The district court ordered appellant (the county) to serve the father with respondent's papers, which appellant did on February 9. After a hearing, a child support magistrate set prospective monthly support obligation at $300. The magistrate also directed that appellant pay respondent $300 for the support she did not receive between January 10, 2001 and February 8, 2001. Appellant sought review of the latter part of the magistrate’s order but did not provide the district court with a transcript of the hearing before the magistrate. The district court denied the request to alter the magistrate’s order and the county appeals.
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, noting that the order was not for child support:
Under chapter 518, "child support" is an award "for ... any child of the marriage or of the parties to the proceeding" or "a contribution by parents ordered under section 256.87." Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 4 (2000). Appellant was neither married to respondent nor is appellant a "parent" of the child. Therefore, even if the question of whether appellant could be ordered to pay respondent could be addressed within the narrow confines of the expedited child support process, the payment ordered by the district court cannot be child support.
The Court also rejected any possibility that the $300 was a type of attorney’s fee award.
Finally, the Court rejected the award as a valid exercise of the district court’s equitable powers, stating:
Here, based solely on its allegedly late service on Coupe, and with limited (if any) opportunity to explain its conduct, appellant was ordered to pay respondent, with no findings indicating the authority for the award. The findings do not support the exercise of equitable powers by a child support magistrate or district court judge. See, e.g., Bliss v. Bliss, 493 N.W.2d 583, 590 n.6 (Minn. App. 1992) (stating "[t]he trial court bears the ultimate responsibility to assure that findings and conclusions meet the standards necessary to enable meaningful review"), review denied (Minn. Feb. 12, 1993).
The Court concluded with the following statement:
While we reverse the district court's order requiring appellant to pay one month's child support, we state that neither the district court nor the child support magistrate can be faulted for attempting to secure prompt and full payment of child support. We note that we are not ruling that there could never be such egregious conduct by a governmental unit that attorney fees or other monetary sanctions might be in order in favor of a litigant. This record, however, lacks facts showing egregious wrongdoing by appellant.
In re the Matter of: Kim Elizabeth Dally n/k/a Kim Elizabeth McDaniel vs. Wayne Gordon Dally, C0-01-1065
{date filed} March 2002
{court} Minn. App. unpublished
{decision} Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Child Support, OFP
{summary} In this child-support-modification proceeding,
appellant-father alleged that the district court
(a) misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518.57, subd. 3 (2000),
when it determined that two children for whom he had a
support obligation had not been integrated into his home
with the consent of respondent-mother; and
(b) misapplied Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2(d) (2000),
by concluding that a redetermination of his support
obligation was effective before the county served its
motion seeking the redetermination.
The divorce decree awarded the parties joint legal custody of their five children. Father had physical custody of the two older children, and mother had physical custody of the three younger children. The decree further provided "that upon [daughter's] graduation from high school the child support shall be redetermined and set at 35% of the [father’s] net monthly income."
One of the younger sons, 16-year-old Jeremiah, subsequently moved in with father. Mother testified that Jeremiah left her home without her permission. Another younger son, Jason, then 13, also moved in with father after an incident in which Jason allegedly jumped on mother and threatened her, after which mother sought an order for protection against the boy. In her supporting affidavit, mother stated that Jason’s resided with father.
About one year after the daughter graduated high school, the county moved to re-calculate father’s child-support and set it at 35 percent of his net monthly income, pursuant to the divorce decree. In response, father contended that (1) the revised child support should be calculated only from the date of the filing of the motion, and (2) he did not owe support for Jason and Jeremiah because they had been integrated into his family with mother's consent. Under Minn. Stat. § 517.57, subd. 3 (2000), an obligor may satisfy a child support obligation by providing a home, care, and support for the child while the child is living with the obligor, if the child was integrated into the obligor's family with the consent of the obligee.
The district court determined that the support obligation dated from the graduation date and that the two sons had not been integrated with mother's consent, as required by statute.
The Court of Appeals held that the order revising support was not a "modification" under Minn. Stat. § 518.64, subd. 2 (d) (2000), thus affirming that the increased support was calculable from the date of daughter's graduation.
As to whether the two sons had been integrated, the Court of Appeals held that Jeremiah had not been integrated, but Jason had been integrated.
"Because this is a factual question, the district court’s findings must be sustained unless clearly erroneous. ... The magistrate found, among other things, that neither Jeremiah nor [father] informed [mother] of Jeremiah’s plan to move, that [mother] made attempts, both through her church and her attorney, to get Jeremiah to return, and that [mother] continues to incur expenses for a home for Jeremiah and a van to transport him and another child. The magistrate’s finding that [mother] did not consent to Jeremiah’s integration into [father's] family is supported by the evidence and will be affirmed.
However, as to Jason,
We take judicial notice of the order for protection that [mother] obtained against Jason. ...[W]hen [mother] sought an order excluding Jason from her home and, in the process of obtaining the order, stated to the court that the boy was residing with his father, as a matter of law [she] consented to Jason’s integration into [father's] family as of the date she filed her application for the order. Therefore we remand the case to the district court with instructions to enter an order stating that [father's] support obligation for Jason is satisfied beginning ... the date [mother] signed the application for the OFP.
Annette LaVoie Jensen vs. Steven Michael Jensen, C1-01-1611
{date filed} March 19, 2002
{court} Minn. App. unpublished
{decision} Affirmed
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Child Support
{summary} Five years after the parties divorced, the court first
addressed the subject of federal dependency exemptions for the parties'
children and determined that father-obligor was entitled to claim the
exemptions because he was the only parent who had income. Because
appellant-mother failed to show an abuse of discretion, the Court
of Appeals affirmed.
The parties divorced in 1995. From 1995 through 1999, father claimed the children as dependents on his tax return. In 1999, mother remarried and claimed the children as dependents on her joint tax return with her husband. Father then moved for a court order entitling him to the dependency exemptions, asserting that the parties orally agreed that he would claim the exemptions and citing his undisputed practice to claim them from 1995 through 1998. The district court held that father was entitled to the exemptions.
On appeal, mother argued that that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider whether the children’s needs would be better met by adding income in her household, which would be an expected outcome of allowing her the exemptions on her joint return. But the record did not contain any evidence that mother's husband's income was being used to meet the needs of the children; in fact, the record did not show the amount of the husband’s income. Mother next argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the child support contributions of her husband. But again, there was no evidence on the record of her husband’s income or his contributions of child support. Moreover, she conceded to the trial court that father "actually provides over half of the child support during the year" for the children.
Because mother’s contentions failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
In re: Sharon Kay Warfield a/k/a Sharon Kay Banks vs. Joe Larry Warfield, C0-01-1891
{date filed} March 19, 2002
{court} Minn. App. unpublished
{decision} Reversed
{reviewed by} MSBA
{categories} Child Support
{summary} The Court of Appeals held that it was an error of law for
the district court to base appellant's child-support obligation on his
gross income rather than his net income.
The child support magistrate based the use of gross income, rather than net income, on the parties’ stipulated judgment. That judgment contained a finding of fact that upon a certain date, child support payments would increase to 30 percent of appellant’s "gross income." However, a conclusion of law in the judgment stated that the payments would increase to 30 percent of appellant’s "income."
The Court held that the use of gross income is directly contrary to Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(b) (2000), providing that the obligor’s net income is the basis for calculating guideline child support. Furthermore, "it is the conclusion of law, not the finding of fact, that is binding." Accordingly, the binding portion of the stipulated judgment, which was in accord with the statute, was dispositive. Thus the Court reversed.
Divorce Court Proceeds in a Lawyer-Free Zone
By JODI WILGOREN February 9, 2002
ST. CHARLES, Ill., Feb. 6 — There are no objections, no suits and, most importantly, no lawyers.
At the after-hours, do-it-yourself divorce court here each Wednesday, there are just ex-wives, ex-husbands and a no-nonsense judge shuffling handwritten motions in triplicate, sorting through the messy details.
"There's always that residual bitterness between formerly married people, and sometimes that surfaces," Judge Steven Sullivan of Kane County Family Court said after dealing with 15 ex-couples in two hours. "The parties who appear here try to act professionally, but sometimes they're confused. We tend to allow more leeway."
The special Wednesday evening sessions of family court, which began in November, are reserved for people representing themselves in divorces and related custody matters, apparently the first such program in the nation. The laws are the same, as is the judge's authority, but the atmosphere is far more casual, with judges slowly walking litigants through the basic rules of evidence.
The weekly docket call here in this suburb 40 miles west of Chicago is filled largely with uncomplicated post-divorce paperwork, and simple, uncontested cases of couples without children and little to fight over. A laid-off man asks to cut his alimony. A woman seeks some of her ex- husband's pension. Children have left home, so the support budget needs to be adjusted.
Kane County's lawyer-free zone is part of a nationwide "pro se" movement — a Latin term roughly meaning "for one's self" — that has flourished in the last decade, with books, Web sites and self-help court clinics proliferating, particularly in the realm of family law. As divorce has become less complicated and more common, many people have shunned the expense and hassle of hiring counsel, instead taking cues from televised trials and downloading legal forms and low-budget advice.
But the influx of pro se litigants has proven awkward in courtrooms across the country, with on-the-clock professionals and uneducated novices sharing the same bench.
Mindful of that friction, F. Keith Brown, the presiding judge of the family court here, decided to offer the special pro se sessions, and took the extra step of scheduling them at 4:30 p.m., so litigants, often sparring over spare dollars, would miss little time at work.
"A lot of it is the sense of rugged individualism," said Jona Goldschmidt, a professor of criminal justice at Loyola University in Chicago who wrote a guide on pro se litigation for judges and court clerks. "Much of the practice of law in these garden-variety types of cases is a matter of filling out forms. People see attorneys do that and think, `Well, I can do that, too.' "
But William Hornsby of the American Bar Association said do-it-yourself divorce has its risks. "Even though pro se litigants in family law are sometimes highly satisfied with the results," he said, "if we scrutinize it, we find they didn't understand the dimensions of taxes, didn't understand the dimensions of pension interest, didn't understand child support, and may have done better if they had invested in a lawyer."
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right of individuals to represent themselves in a 1975 case, Faretta v. California. The pro se movement took off in the mid-1990's, led by Maricopa County, Ariz., which opened a self-service center seven years ago providing 400 forms for novices, along with a 24- hour hotline to provide assistance.
Similar clinics that help non-lawyers wade through law books and write motions have sprouted in Maine, Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Florida, Connecticut and California. A national survey by the American Judicature Society, a Chicago-based legal group, found that in some jurisdictions, more than half the divorce cases, and as many as 90 percent, involved at least one pro se party.
What is different about Kane County is that these pro se litigants have a courtroom of their own. Each Wednesday as the sun sets, people in jeans carry accordion files into the courthouse. They lean casually against Judge Sullivan's bench, listening as though to a schoolteacher, in an atmosphere more from "People's Court" than "The Practice."
"All you've got to do is sign it, date it," the judge told Joyce McClinsey, who was filing a motion to get access to half her ex-husband's pension. Illinois, like much of the country, is a marital property state, where all assets accumulated during marriage are considered to be owned by the couple, and must be split equitably.
"You may want to make a few copies first," Judge Sullivan suggested, pointing out the photocopy machine in the hallway, "then bring it back up to me."
When the McClinseys divorced 15 months ago after 22 years of marriage, Allen had a lawyer, and Joyce had divorce.com. Dealing with the pension in the pro se session meant Ms. McClinsey, 44, only had to leave her job as a dispatcher for a heating company 15 minutes early; the couple guesses they saved $1,000 in $200- an-hour legal fees.
"The scariest part is not knowing if you're doing it right," she said after borrowing $1 to make copies. "I don't want to have any judge yelling at me."
This evening, the judge reserved his yelling for Susan and Kurt Reetz, who spent seven years and an estimated $50,000 getting divorced, and have been regulars at the Wednesday sessions lately to renegotiate their child-support arrangement.
"If the two of you persist in acting like 6-year-olds then I'm going to treat you like 6-year-olds," Judge Sullivan said as the couple cited each other for various custody misdeeds. "Sometimes you send 6-year-olds to their room. I have a nice room for each of you: it's called a cell."
Mr. Reetz stalked off, Ms. Reetz cried in a conference room.
Amy and Richard Moser approached the bench to discuss a 20 percent cut in alimony and child support based on Mr. Moser's impending unemployment.
"Sometimes working with an attorney, there's misunderstanding in communication — it's more accurate this way," said Mr. Moser, a graphic designer. Besides, he said, his claims of financial difficulty might be undercut by having a lawyer at his side, billing all the way.
"The divorce, with the attorneys, took three-and-a-half years," Mr. Moser said. "If this process took that long, I could be homeless."
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!
