From R-KIDS of MN and GPF

Response To Mark Yost Article

April 8, 2005

Mark Yost is indeed to be complimented for trying to say something in public about the unfairness of the child support system. Mainstream journalists generally are too concerned about appearing to be poiltically correct to do that. But it is a mistake to think that Neuville is deserving of any thanks. He is simply (to borrow a line from Mick Jagger) "practiced in the art of deception." He is presenting his bill as a better alternative to Berglin's, and in some ways it is, but the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

Don't forget that Neuville has refused to incorporate a joint physical custody presumption into his bill. Even the pariah Smith has at least quasi-agreed to do that (He has it in one of his bills--hf1321--but not in his other bill--hf1322.) Neuville's omission of presumptive joint physical custody was not by accident: He told people at the recent legislative hearing on his bill that he is opposed to making joint physical custody part of Minnesota law. Other things to remember about Neuville's bill: (1) It abolishes Hortis-Valento (the only truly fair child support law we currently have) for nearly all joint custodians; and (2) It will actually increase, rather than decrease, the child support obligations of those noncustodials who are least able to pay-- i.e, lower- and low-middle-income obligors. The only people who stand to gain from Neuville's bill are parents who are both in the upper and upper-middle economic classes, custodial parents who choose not to work, and of course, the DHS. It is rather hypocritical, to say the least, for Neuville to criticize Berglin's bill on the grounds that a large amount of money is going to low-income mothers, when his own bill would actually increase the size of that stream.

Concerning the Neuville-Berglin debate, I would tend to agree with James Bovard's remark that "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

--Tom

Announcement from R-KIDS

Mark Yost from the Pioneer Press wrote an excellent article regarding the proposed changes of Minnesota's child support laws in the Senate. In my view he has nailed the story as to the politics that are taking place.

Thank you Mark Yost for this report. And thank you Sen. Neuville, Rep. Eastlund, Rep. Mahoney, for not only understanding the problem but also being willing to do what is right by trying to fix it.

You can find the article at the following link

www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/columnists/11310426.htm

Tim Kinley, President R-KIDS of Minnesota

Is child support debate about fairness, or public subsidies?

Posted on Tue, Apr. 05, 2005

MARK YOST

In much of politics, where you come down on the issue depends on who your constituency is. That's clearly the case in the debate over SF630. Proposed by Sen. Tom Neuville, SF630's key provisions would have more fairly divided the financial responsibility for children between divorcing mothers and fathers. Child support would be based on the income of both parents, not just the payee (usually the father). Enter Sen. Linda Berglin, the powerful chair of the Finance Committee's Health and Human Services Budget Division. She introduced SF1900, which basically gutted SF630. Because of the power structure in the Senate, it was clear to Sen. Neuville early on that he would lose in a tug-of-war over competing bills.

"This is the same legislator that has stood in the way of this bill the past few times it has made it to the Senate," said Rep. Tim Mahoney, who has proposed legislation in the House to make joint physical custody the law of the land in Minnesota. "To expect her to change her habits now would be surprising."

No doubt. What was surprising - or perhaps instructive - was what came out in the debate last Thursday. Sen. Berglin's aim clearly isn't fairness, but using the child-support guidelines to make up for what she sees as shortcomings in the state's social service programs for low-income single mothers.

"The purpose of the family law system is not to subsidize the public welfare system," Sen. Neuville said. "It's to be fair to both parents." Minnesota collected $590 million in child support last year, according to the Department of Human Services' 2004 report. About $30 million of that went to low-income mothers, according to Sen. Neuville. So Sen. Berglin is gutting a bill that would correct a decades-old, system-wide injustice in the name of 5 percent of the program's recipients. Talk about your special interest.

There's no doubt that there are low-income divorced mothers who are in dire financial straits and that in some ways the state's social services system comes up short. But to try to right those wrongs through the child-support guidelines is simply wrong - and perpetuates the long-held stereotype that noncustodial fathers are nothing but a piggy bank. In last week's give and take, Sen. Neuville made a number of other concessions to Sen. Berglin and her DHS advisers, including removing a provision that would have imputed income to mothers on public assistance. The one thing he held onto was an ongoing debate over whether USDA guidelines for housing costs should be based on marginal costs vs. per capita costs, a not insignificant point.

"That's the one thing I won't budge on," said Sen. Neuville.

He and Sen. Berglin are expected to lock themselves in a room later this week with foam bats and see what they can work out. But it's clear that if it makes it to the Senate floor, SF630 will be a shadow of its former self and do little to reform the system - the bill's original intent. More promising is HF1321, scheduled to be heard today by the House Jobs and Economic Security Committee. Sponsored by Rep. Steve Smith, with input from Rep. Mahoney and Rep. Rob Eastlund, its most important provision is for a presumption of joint physical custody. That's important because under the current system all benefits flow from the designation of "custody." That has often resulted in all-out thermonuclear war between mothers and fathers, with the most harm often done to the children. Under HF1321, joint physical custody would be the default remedy if two parents can't agree on a parenting plan or try to use "custody" as a wedge to extract more money.

"It would have a more profound effect on reducing child support than my bill," Sen. Neuville said of the House legislation. More important, if it passes, it would go to conference committee, along with SF630, and, we can hope, be melded into law.

"My goal all along has been to craft legislation that is fair to both parties and recognizes that it's important that both parents be fully involved in the lives of the children," Sen. Neuville said Would that other legislators had such laudable goals.

Yost is associate editor of the Pioneer Press editorial page. Write him at myost@pioneerpress.com or at the Pioneer Press, 345 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101.