FATHER AND CHILD REUNION
By: Warren Farrell, PhD.
Warren Farrell’s recent book,
Father and Child Reunion, is a must read for fathers, psychologists, judges,
lawyers, legislators, sociology professors, news media personnel and
counselors. Warren gives examples and
statistics from exhaustive research to support his positions expressed in his
book.
One chapter in the book is
called “Playing the Abuse Card”. The
chapter discusses how false physical and sexual abuse charges are used by some
mothers in parent time court battles (custody battles for us lay people.) Warren discusses the facts of actual court
substantiated sexual abuse allegations.
Warren cites that there were 1,000,000 investigations of child abuse in
one year. Of those investigations, only
six in one thousand cases involved substantiated allegations of sexual child
abuse. Of those substantiated cases,
only one in four involved the biological father. In other words, only 0.15% of child abuse allegations are
substantiated sexual abuse by the natural father. However, as we have seen in Pennsylvania’s custody courts, the
allegations made by mothers of sexual abuse against the father is over 200
times the substantiated sexual abuse cases.
Are Pennsylvania fathers that
mean or are Pennsylvania’s mothers abusing the system and the children by
playing the abuse card?
The children become harmed,
scarred or abused anytime an abuse allegation is made. How are they harmed? Warren gives examples of twelve guarantees
of child abuse anytime there is a charge or accusation of abuse.
1. The
child’s image of his or her parents is transformed – from
parent-as-trusted-loved-one-and-protector to
parent-as-possibly-untrustworthy-criminal-and-abuser;
2. There
is a loss of innocence;
3. A
filter of mistrust and suspicion is created through which that child will view
all men (women) – often for years;
4. The
child undergoes repeated interrogations by police, psychologists, and welfare
agencies in which a child is saying he or she was not abused is seen as being
in the “denial phase” or “unaware that touching like that is abuse”. The child feels caught between parents and
authorities, unable to please both;
5. The
child is given a never to be forgotten image of his or her mother and father as
each other’s enemy;
6. The
child is played off one parent against the other;
7. The
child feels personally responsible for driving the family apart, and lives with
the image of someone who not only cannot be loved, but also destroys love;
8. The
child’s dad and/or mom spends approximately $75,000 for lawyers, psychological
testing, and expert witnesses; this can lead to anything from money conflicts
to poverty; and often dad is fired from his job.
9. The
child feels powerless to prevent his or her stability from being undermined;
10. The child’s
dad or mom, who used to provide touching, now deprives the child of touching,
responding to the child more with fear than with love;
11. The child
feels that neighbors and schoolmates think of his or her mom or dad as a
criminal, often at a time in the child’s life when peer group pressure rules;
and
12. The child is
given a sense that he or she can get the parent into legal trouble anytime the
parent does something the child does not like, which undermines the ability of
the parent to discipline, thus depriving the child of a real parent.
PA SUPPORT COLLECTION ADDRESS> ____________________________________________________
As of August 1, 1999, all
child support is being collected and disbursed by the Pennsylvania Support
Collection and Disbursement Unit. (PA SCDU).
PA SCDU
P.O. Box 69110
Harrisburg, PA 17106-9110
1-877-676-9581
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
COOPERATIVE PARENTING FOR DIVIDED FAMILIES
Cooperative Parenting for Divided Families, along with The
Coalition for Fathering Families and NCFC will be hosting the
following events for 2001.
Every Thursday night from 7-9:00 p.m. at the United
Way Building, there will be meetings open to the public. Topics to be discussed include custody
problems, anger management, parenting classes, CYF problem discussions, and PFA
problems.
CPDF has met with many couples outside of a Court
environment. Each of these couples has resolved their disputes and concerns
about either custody, support, equitable distribution or even the actual decree
in divorce. These couples were then able to make efficient use of their
attorneys in finally resolving all issues without expensive litigation.
CPDF needs your support in person or through
donations of any kind.
Please call Denise Simpson at 412-731-6270 or email
her at coparenting@yahoo.com for more
information.
UNITED WAY DONATION NUMBER FOR NCFC
This year,
when your company encourages its employees to donate to the United Way, please
remember NCFC when it is your turn to donate.
Our number is 9614. Remember this when you donate.
PA SUPPORT COLLECTION ADDRESS> ____________________________________________________
As of August 1, 1999, all
child support is being collected and disbursed by the Pennsylvania Support
Collection and Disbursement Unit. (PA SCDU). The new mailing address is:
PA SCDU
P.O. Box 69110
Harrisburg, PA 17106-9110
1-877-676-9581
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Renew Your Membership
NCFC membership is good for one
year. Single membership is $85
and family membership is $95.
Renewal of membership to NCFC is $50 for single members and $70
for family membership. Your membership
dues are tax deductible because NCFC is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) educational
organization. We need your
contributions, membership, and renewals for our help to our members.
Most of our
expenses are paid for with your membership and renewal of membership
money. Donations are more than welcome
and will be put to good use.
Please
take time now and renew your membership.
If you already have renewed your membership, NCFC thanks you.
NEW LINE UP OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY FAMILY
DIVISION JUDGES OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
The following list of judges have been appointed to
or already are were assigned to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Family Division:
Kathleen Mulligan, Administrative Judge
Kim Diane Eaton
Kevin Sasinoski
Frank Lucchino
Eugene Scanlon
Senior Judge Lawrence Kaplan
Child Support Guideline Omission
By Roger Gay
Introduction:
A competent decision in a child support case
involves the complex consideration of a wide variety of factors. In order to
make such a decision, attorneys and judges must apply their skills to extract
essential and sufficient information from litigants and understand the proper
application of the information they collect. That will be true regardless of
the technology used to calculate an award. Modern attempts to change the
decision process using crude statistical models have reduced complexity for the
sake of an odd sort of consistency. Although child support guidelines
themselves show an impressive self-consistency, there is no longer any concrete
relationship between an award and the wide variety of factors that are
important in making a reasonable decision.
: The Project for the Improvement of Child Support
Litigation Technology has demonstrated that the logic of traditional child
support decision-making can, to a large extent, be transformed into a concrete
science. The application of such a science in the training of judges and
attorneys can result in a more desirable sort of consistency. Each award should
be just and appropriate, given consideration of the individual circumstances in
each case. Just and appropriate results require an understanding of the
detailed logic used in reaching a competent child support award decision. With
that understanding, it should be possible to produce a similar award in
different courts on different days in consideration of a similar set of facts.
: In this article, I would like to summarize the
work of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology
(PICSLT) toward developing better child support guidelines, and provide an
overview of the current PICSLT model. Detailed theoretical development in the
PICSLT work has led to a solid definition for the boundary between child
support and alimony. This development provides new scientific proof that many
child support awards contain a hidden margin of alimony, and are thus too high
in a common, legal sense.
:
: History of the Project:
: Project for the Improvement of Child Support
Litigation Technology began in 1989. It was at this time, that the United
States was on the brink of a major change in the way child support award
decisions are made. A federal law, known as the Family Support Act of 1988,
required each state to base every award decision on formulae known as “child
support guidelines”. As a result of this legislation, award amounts have
increased dramatically from those awarded according to the legal principles
that had been established in the states.
: The most fundamental problem resulting from the
federal legislation is that rigid mathematical formulae have replaced the
rational principles upon which child support decisions had been made. In
traditional child support statutes, a definition of child support was given
along with a set of principles for guiding complicated decisions. A traditional
definition would state that child support is an amount paid by a non-custodial
parent for his / her share of the actual and necessary needs of children.
Additional guiding principles could include a reasonable consideration for
sheltering children from the standard of living loss that accompanies divorce,
and that both parents have an equal duty to support their children. Statutes
could also explicitly include such considerations as the need for each parent
to support themselves, time the non-custodial parent spends with their
children, and travel expenses involved with visitation.
: New child support statutes do not provide an
alternative definition for child support. They are based on arbitrary analysis
of national data on family spending and do not correspond to any set of
rational principles for making an award decision. Therefore, it has been
necessary to rely on traditional principles for research on developing better
child support guidelines. It was discovered early in the project that there are
two concepts that are fundamentally important to traditional thinking. The
first is the “equal duty principle” (both parents have an equal duty to support
their children). The second is “ability to pay”. One deals with the issue of
fairness, the other with practicality. Both are needed as the basis of a good
judgment.
: It is simplest to describe the equal duty
principle by first saying what it does not mean. It does not mean that both
parents should pay the same amount toward support of their children. The award
decision takes into consideration other important factors, including each
parent’s ability to pay. When all is considered, “ability to pay” is not
equivalent to income, as it appears to be in the Income-Shares (example: New
Jersey guidelines) and Percent-of-Income (example: Wisconsin guidelines)
formulae. (These are the most commonly used types.) There was an established
prohibition against taking from a parent for support of children, so much that
a parent is no longer capable of self-support.
: Many of the portions of the current PICSLT model
can be found in previous work. Anyone wishing to delve deeply into the detailed
mathematics of child support, should begin by reading “How to Calculate Child
Support”, by Maurice Franks (Case & Comment, January-February, 1981).
Franks provided the most complete Income-Shares model ever published, which
included detailed mathematics for accounting for children’s time with each
parent, how to deal with “extraordinary” expenses (expenses that are not
included in the standard table), and joint custody. Oddly enough, more recent
authors of Income-Shares models currently in use, claim an inability to perform
these simple operations.
: In the limited way of the Income-Shares approach,
Franks dealt very logically with the equal duty principle. The first step toward
improvement upon Franks’ model was to replace income with a more sophisticated
view of ability to pay. Some newer models deduct a standard amount required for
support of one adult from each parents’ net income before performing the child
support calculation. The remaining income represents “ability to pay”.
: There are reasons to believe this approach is too
simple. If a parent uses part of his remaining income to purchase tools
necessary for work, for example, that amount is additionally needed for self-support.
Ability to pay a “standard” amount of child support is also changed by
“extraordinary” expenses. When a parent must pay an extraordinary amount of
medical expenses, for example, their ability to pay for standard expenses can
be significantly reduced. The PICSLT model uses a few simple mathematical
operations that can be used to account for a wide range of circumstances that
effect actual “ability to pay”.
: Several new equations were developed for the
first version PICSLT model that were later replaced by a completely new basic
formula for child support. Of the technology that remains in the most recent
version, there is only one more major area to discuss -- the numeric table.
This important component had also received attention in previous work by
others. A most intriguing view was expressed in a report for the Washington
State Association of Superior Court Judges (1982). The author of the report,
William Hewitt, noted that data and methods used to estimate the amounts
families spend on children were woefully inadequate. Yet, most numeric tables
used in guidelines today are a direct product of such estimates.
: The better approach is to build a standard table
giving separate costs related to different spending categories; housing,
transportation, food, etc. The amounts listed in each category should be
determined from court case experience in which many individual cases have been
decided in full view of all relevant facts. Another advantage identified in the
PICSLT work, is that the categorical approach provides a way of comparing
individual case circumstances with the amounts listed in the standard table. If
for example, a divorce settlement provides a custodial parent with a house that
is paid for, understanding the details of the number listed under “housing” can
greatly assist a judge in adjusting the award. A detailed look at modern cost
analysis is given by Robert Braid (see The Children’s Advocate, November 1994,
Vol. 7, No. 3).
: PICSLT has not studied a large number of real
cases to develop a table. In order to estimate appropriate values, another
approach described by Hewitt has been used. It begins with estimates of
spending on children from national data, separated into spending categories.
PICSLT selected estimates of spending on children by single parents developed
by the USDA. The USDA work is exceptionally clear in explaining precisely how
the numbers in each category are derived. It is better to start with a clear
understanding of what one has, so that it can clearly be compared with what we
would like to have. The numbers are then reduced in proportion to the marginal
cost of children, with each category receiving an independent appraisal. We
then have a table with values that can each be understood in the context of a
rational child support decision process and compared with evidence provided
case by case.
: The first version PICSLT model can be seen
largely as arising from the integration of selected portions of other models.
Reasonable modifications were made to complete the integration. Special
adjustments were needed to assure that a low income mother is able to maintain
a household, for example, even after a support payment is reduced for
visitation time. An additional formula was created to adjust child support
payments to show what could be done to reduce welfare dependency. Although
joint and sole custody cases could be handled with the same model, special
additions were needed when either parent remarried or had other children to
support.
:
: The Heart of the New Model:
: It was immediately apparent that it would be
nicer to rebuild the model such that it was less of a “house that jack built”.
But there were two compelling reasons to think that integration of the best of
the existing best was not good enough. First, there is the issue of sheltering
children from the standard of living loss that accompanies divorce. This means
increasing the award by some amount that is considered “reasonable” in light of
the payer’s ability to pay. It remained an arbitrary decision, and its
arbitrary nature is the root of the current political problem with child
support. How much is enough? How much is too much? These questions were
unanswered.
: What is thought of as the second reason, is the
political reason. The popular political philosophy is that more child support
is always better. Awards granted in state courts have risen dramatically as a
result of new child support formulae. Lobby groups, operating on behalf of
single mothers, have been pushing for further increases. The Federal Government
has been considering the creation of a national child support guideline. Many
politicians have supported the notion that a national guideline should result
in awards even higher than those of the states. Should the courts decide, on a
constitutional basis, that there are limits to the amount of child support that
can be awarded? What factual or scientific information is needed to make such a
decision?
: Over the years, many people have viewed the new
increased child support amounts as containing a hidden margin of alimony. This
would seem apparent, but how does one find the boundary between the two? In the
PICSLT research, the boundary was defined as being the point at which any
additional payment would be primarily for the benefit of the custodial parent
rather than the children. This definition follows from case law: “the money is
for the support and welfare of the children, not for the enrichment of the
custodial parent” (Oregon Court of Appeals, 1987).
: The two important questions became: Does such a
boundary exist?, and if so, How do you find it? The boundary between child
support and alimony is a solid one, if we rely on custodial parent spending
patterns to find it. Take the basic child support amount to be the
non-custodial parent’s share of what the custodial parent would spend on her
own. Payment of child support increases the standard of living (i.e. income) of
the household. This in turn, increases the amount we would expect to be spent
on their children. The increase in spending justifies increasing the amount of
child support awarded. We can use this argument over and over, to continue to
justify a greater and greater increase from the basic child support amount, and
thus continue to increase the standard of living in the custodial household.
But there is a limit.
: To illustrate the concept, let us say that a
custodial mother has a take home pay of $18,000, a non-custodial father has a
take home pay of $25,000, and the mother spends 20 percent of her income on a
child. In other words, she spends $3,600 if she receives no child support from
the father. If $100 dollars a year is paid in child support, we can easily see
that it is 100 percent child support. $100 is just a small portion of the
$3,600 the mother is spending. In fact, applying the “equal duty principle”, it
is just as obvious that a payment of a much larger portion of that $3,600 (in
proportion to the father’s relative ability to pay) is still 100 percent child
support. This fact is easily seen, because it is just his share of what the
mother actually spends on their child. (Visitation and joint custody are
outside this example.)
: But the payment of child support provides more
income for the custodial parent, which we expect to increase spending on the
child by 20 percent of the payment in this example. If we use $2,000 in child
support for our example, we should expect an increase in spending on the child
of $400. If the father pays an additional amount, equal to his share of this
$400, the additional amount is also 100 percent child support. It is still
nothing more than a part of his share of what is actually spent on the child.
As you can see however, the add-on is far less than the original $2,000. Each
iteration results in an add-on amount that is less than the last until the
limit is reached. Any additional dollar in excess of the limit in this example
provides only 20 cents in child support instead of a dollar. The remaining 80
cents is alimony.
: In a more complete and detailed examination of
this example, the result from a current-type Income-Shares model was compared
to the limit. The Income-Shares model produced a result of $5,237.40, which was
$2,309.48 above the limit. Just for the sake of simplicity, the example did not
consider visitation time. Since most Income-Shares formulae do not account for
typical visitation periods, and the PICSLT model does, the amount of alimony
found in a real case at these income levels would probably be higher.
:
: Alimony in the Balance:
: Custodial parents with low income have an
additional need to maintain a household for children and for self-support. This
is an example of when an award of alimony may be appropriate. It is a
reasonable interpretation of government intent to believe that the government
does not wish to support mothers or children when the father is capable of
doing so. Given a mathematical definition of the boundary between child support
and alimony, it was possible for the PICSLT work to go one step further.
: Given a target standard of living for children,
it is possible to calculate the right balance between child support and alimony
to provide an additional increase in the standard of living of the custodial
household. The new PICSLT model includes the equations for calculating both, in
the proper proportion to each other. The most general difference that would
result from application of the PICSLT model can be stated as follows. The
hidden margin of alimony in current child support awards has been identified,
and proportionate amounts of child support and alimony can be awarded
separately when appropriate. When alimony is not appropriate in a particular
case, it need not be awarded as a hidden part of the child support award.
:
: REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS:
: Gay, Roger F., The Alimony Hidden in Child
Support, New Scientific Proof that Many Child Support Awards are Too High, The
Children’s Advocate (NJCCR, Box 316, Pluckemin, NJ 07978-0316), January, 1995,
Vol. 7 No. 5.
: -- Time Limiting Cash Assistance in President
Clinton’s Welfare Reform Proposal, submitted for the record to the Subcommittee
on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives,
August 16, 1994
: -- Transitional Assistance, Work, The Role of
States in Welfare Reform, and Financing Issues, submitted for the record to the
Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of
Representatives, August 9, 1994
: -- Welfare Reform and Parental Responsibility,
submitted for the record to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, July 26-29, 1994
: -- New Equations for Calculating Child Support
and Spousal Maintenance With Discussion on Child Support Guidelines, Final
Report of the Project for Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology,
1994.
: -- Settling the Debate Once and For All, An Essay
on the Nature of ‘Child Cost Estimates’ and their Application in Child Support
Award Calculations, A table-top paper available to attendees at the conference
book store, at the Eighth National Conference of the Children’s Rights Council,
held at the Holiday Inn, Bethesda, Maryland, April 13-17, 1994
: Children’s Rights Council (Washington, DC), Model
Child Support Guideline, Donald J. Bieniewicz, et al. (As Consultant) Published
in a book on alternative child support guidelines by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Child Support Enforcement.
: Gay, Roger F., Child Support Reforms in
Perspective: Written statement for Oversight Hearing on Child Support
Enforcement, submitted for the record to the Subcommittee on Human Resources,
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, June 10, 1993
: -- An Alternative Child Support Guideline for
State’s to Consider, Preliminary Report, Presented at the Seventh Annual
Conference of the Children's Rights Council, Holiday Inn, Bethesda, MD, April
28 - May 2, 1993.
: -- Rational Basis is the Key Focus in Emerging
'Third Generation' Child Support Technology, in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Conference of the Children's Rights Council, Holiday Inn, Bethesda, MD, April
28 - May 2, 1993.
: -- Comment on Canadian Child Support Guideline
Report, Submitted to the Canadian Federal / Provincial / Territorial Family Law
Committee by the Associaton of Concerned Academics, University of Alberta,
Canada; M.E.R.G.E., Suite 501, 10011 - 116 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 1V4,
October 7, 1992
: -- Written statement on the subject of the
Changes in the Poverty Rate and Distribution of Income, submitted for the
record to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means,
U.S. House of Representatives, September 10, 1992.
: -- Written statement on the subject of the Downey
/ Hyde child support enforcement and assurance proposal, submitted for the
record to the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means,
U.S. House of Representatives, July 17, 1992.
: Chavez, Don, Commissioner (editor Phil Holman),
Minority (Dissenting) Report of the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support,
presented to Congress in June, 1992. As Major contributor.
: Clarke,
Caroline V., Washington Watch: Deadbeats Beware, Working Woman, May, 1992, p
24. {Provided background information at request of author.}
: Gay, Roger F., Brief History of Prevailing Child
Support Doctrine, in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the National
Council for Children's Rights, Arlington, VA, March 19-22, 1992. {Presented in
relation to conference presentations.}
: Gay, Roger F., Robert Bancroft, Brent Whiting,
and Ronald K. Henry, Project for the Enhancement of Child Support Litigation
Technology, A Concept Paper Submitted to: the State Justice Institute,
Alexandria, VA, December 4, 1991
: Gay, Roger F., Recalculating Espenshade's 'Cost'
of Raising Children. Intelligent Systems Research Corporation Report; Special
Report No. ISR-100191.01, Child Support Series Report No. 3, October 1, 1991.
: -- Testimony in P.O.P.S v. Gardner, expert
testimony consisting of several analysis papers on the technical elements of
the Washington State child support guidelines related to the legal issues
brought before the court. Produced numerous reports between March and August of
1991 for presentation to the court and as advisory information to attorneys
preparing legal briefs.
: -- Child Support Guidelines: Resolving the
Dilemma, A Summary Report on Design of Federally Mandated Child Support
Schedules, Intelligent Systems Research Corporation Report; Special Report No.
ISR-091490.01, Child Support Series Report No. 2, September 30, 1990.
: -- Pilot Study on the Development and Evaluation
of State Guidelines for Calculation of Child Support Payments, Intelligent
Systems Research Corporation Report; Special Report No. ISR-032590.01, Child
Support Series Report No. 1, April 16, 1990.
Right to Know Your Child’s Educational Records
In the situation where the custodial parent or the
school of your children is denying you access to the school records, threaten
the School Board with termination of any Federal Funding it may be receiving,
directly or indirectly. The full current text of what used to be called FERPA
(Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act) is reproduced below. The purpose
of FERPA was to punish school districts for exactly the behavior described at
the beginning of this article. It doesn’t even require a massive lawsuit. All
it takes is one phone call to the appropriate FERPA administrative office in
Washington, DC.
When you threaten the school board, suggest that
they consult with the attorney for the district on the ramifications of that
principal’s continuing violation of 20 U.S. Code Section 1232(g) reproduced
below.
Title 20, United States Code
Sec. 1232g. Family educational and privacy rights
(a) Conditions
for availability of funds to educational agencies or institutions; inspection
and review of education records; specific information to be made available;
procedure for access to education records; reasonableness of time for such
access; hearings; written explanations by parents; definitions
(1)(A) No funds shall be made available under
any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a
policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who
are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution,
as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of
their children. If any material or document in the education record of a
student includes information on more than one student, the parents of one of
such students shall have the right to inspect and review only such part of such
material or document as relates to such student or to be informed of the
specific information contained in such part of such material. Each educational
agency or institution shall establish appropriate procedures for the granting
of a request by parents for access to the education records of their children
within a reasonable period of time, but in no case more than forty-five days
after the request has been made.
(B) No funds under any applicable program shall be
made available to any State educational agency (whether or not that agency is
an educational agency or institution under this section) that has a policy of
denying, or effectively prevents, the parents of students the right to inspect
and review the education records maintained by the State educational agency on
their children who are or have been in attendance at any school of an
educational agency or institution that is subject to the provisions of this
section.
(C) The first sentence of subparagraph (A) shall
not operate to make available to students in institutions of postsecondary
education the following materials:
(i) financial records of the parents of the
student or any information contained therein;
(ii) confidential letters and statements of
recommendation, which were placed in the education records prior to January 1,
1975, if such letters or statements are not used for purposes other than those
for which they were specifically intended;
(iii) if the student has signed a waiver of the
student’s right of access under this subsection in accordance with subparagraph
(D),
confidential recommendations -
(I) respecting admission to any educational
agency or institution,
(II) respecting an application for employment,
and
(III) respecting the receipt of an honor or
honorary recognition.
(E) A student or a person applying for
admission may waive his right of access to confidential statements described in
clause
(iii) of subparagraph (C), except that such waiver
shall apply to recommendations only if (i) the student is, upon request,
notified of the names of all persons making confidential recommendations and
(ii) such recommendations are used solely for the purpose for which they were
specifically intended. Such waivers may not be required as a condition for
admission to, receipt of financial aid from, or receipt of any other services
or benefits from such agency or institution.
(2) No funds shall be made available under any
applicable program to any educational agency or institution unless the parents
of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at
such institution are provided an opportunity for a hearing by such agency or
institution, in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, to challenge the
content of such student’s education records, in order to insure that the
records are not inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the
privacy rights of students, and to provide an opportunity for the correction or
deletion of any such inaccurate, misleading or otherwise inappropriate data
contained therein and to insert into such records a written explanation of the
parents respecting the content of such records.
(3) For the purposes of this section the term
“educational agency or institution” means any public or private agency or
institution which is the recipient of funds under any applicable program.
(4)(A) For the purposes of this section, the term
“education records” means, except as may be provided otherwise in subparagraph
(B), those records, files, documents, and other materials which -
(i) contain information directly related to a
student; and
(ii) are maintained by an educational agency or
institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.
(B) The term “education records” does not
include -
(i) records of instructional, supervisory, and
administrative personnel and educational personnel ancillary thereto which are
in the sole possession of the maker thereof and which are not accessible or
revealed to any other person except a substitute;
(ii) records maintained by a law enforcement
unit of the educational agency or institution that were created by that law
enforcement unit for the purpose of law enforcement;
(iii) in the case of persons who are employed by
an educational agency or institution but who are not in attendance at such
agency or institution, records made and maintained in the normal course of
business which relate exclusively to such person in that person’s capacity as
an employee and are not available for use for any other purpose; or
(iv) records on a student who is eighteen years
of age or older, or is attending an institution of postsecondary education,
which are made or maintained by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or
other recognized professional or paraprofessional acting in his professional or
paraprofessional capacity, or assisting in that capacity, and which are made,
maintained, or used only in connection with the provision of treatment to the
student, and are not available to anyone other than persons providing such
treatment, except that such records can be personally reviewed by a physician
or other appropriate professional of the student’s choice.
(5)(A) For the purposes of
this section the term “directory information” relating to a student includes
the following: the student’s name, address, telephone listing, date and place
of birth, major field of study, participation in officially recognized
activities and sports, weight and height of members of athletic teams, dates of
attendance, degrees and awards received, and the most recent previous
educational agency or institution attended by the student.
(B) Any educational agency or
institution making public directory information shall give public notice of the
categories of information which it has designated as such information with
respect to each student attending the institution or agency and shall allow a
reasonable period of time after such notice has been given for a parent to
inform the institution or agency that any or all of the information designated
should not be released without the parent’s prior consent.
(6) For the purposes of this
section, the term “student” includes any person with respect to whom an
educational agency or institution maintains education records or personally
identifiable information, but does not include a person who has not been in
attendance at such agency or institution.
(b) Release of education records; parental
consent requirement; exceptions; compliance with judicial orders and subpoenas;
audit and evaluation of federally-supported education programs; recordkeeping
(1) No funds shall be made
available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution
which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of education records
(or personally identifiable information contained therein other than directory
information, as defined in paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of this section) of
students without the written consent of their parents to any individual,
agency, or organization, other than to the following -
(A) other school officials,
including teachers within the educational institution or local educational
agency, who have been determined by such agency or institution to have
legitimate educational interests, including the educational interests of the
child for whom consent would otherwise be required;
(B) officials of other schools or
school systems in which the student seeks or intends to enroll, upon condition
that the student’s parents be notified of the transfer, receive a copy of the
record if desired, and have an opportunity for a hearing to challenge the
content of the record;
(C) authorized representatives of (i) the
Comptroller General of the United States, (ii) the Secretary, or (iii) State
educational authorities, under the conditions set forth in paragraph (3) of
this subsection;
(D) in connection with a student’s application
for, or receipt of, financial aid;
(E) State and local officials or authorities to
whom such information is specifically allowed to be reported or disclosed
pursuant to State statute adopted -
(i) before November 19, 1974, if the allowed
reporting or disclosure concerns the juvenile justice system and such system’s
ability to effectively serve the student whose records are released, or
(ii) after November 19, 1974, if -
(I) the allowed reporting or disclosure concerns
the juvenile justice system and such system’s ability to effectively serve,
prior to adjudication, the student whose records are released; and
(II) the officials and authorities to whom such
information is disclosed certify in writing to the educational agency or
institution that the information will not be disclosed to any other party
except as provided under State law without the prior written consent of the
parent of the student. (FOOT NOTE 1)
(F) organizations conducting studies for, or on
behalf of, educational agencies or institutions for the purpose of developing,
validating, or administering predictive tests, administering student aid
programs, and improving instruction, if such studies are conducted in such a
manner as will not permit the personal identification of students and their
parents by persons other than representatives of such organizations and such
information will be destroyed when no longer needed for the purpose for which
it is conducted;
(G) accrediting organizations in order to carry
out their accrediting functions;
(H) parents of a dependent student of such
parents, as defined in section 152 of title 26;
(I) subject to regulations of the Secretary, in
connection with an emergency, appropriate persons if the knowledge of such
information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or
other persons; and (J)(i) the entity or persons designated in a Federal grand
jury subpoena, in which case the court shall order, for good cause shown, the
educational agency or institution (and any officer, director, employee, agent,
or attorney for such agency or institution) on which the subpoena is served, to
not disclose to any person the existence or contents of the subpoena or any
information furnished to the grand jury in response to the subpoena; and
(ii) the entity or persons designated in any other
subpoena issued for a law enforcement purpose, in which case the court or other
issuing agency may order, for good cause shown, the educational agency or
institution (and any officer, director, employee, agent, or attorney for such
agency or institution) on which the subpoena is served, to not disclose to any
person the existence or contents of the subpoena or any information furnished
in response to the subpoena. Nothing in clause (E) of this paragraph shall
prevent a State from further limiting the number or type of State or local
officials who will continue to have access thereunder.
(2) No funds shall be made available under any
applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy
or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable
information in education records other than directory information, or as is
permitted under paragraph (1) of this subsection, unless -
(A) there is written consent from the student’s
parents specifying records to be released, the reasons for such release, and to
whom, and with a copy of the records to be released to the student’s parents
and the student if desired by the parents, or
(B) except as provided in paragraph (1)(J), such
information is furnished in compliance with judicial order, or pursuant to any
lawfully issued subpoena, upon condition that parents and the students are
notified of all such orders or subpoenas in advance of the compliance therewith
by the educational institution or agency.
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall
preclude authorized representatives of (A) the Comptroller General of the United
States, (B) the Secretary, or © State educational authorities from having
access to student or other records which may be necessary in connection with
the audit and evaluation of Federally-supported education programs, or in
connection with the enforcement of the Federal legal requirements which relate
to such programs: Provided, That except when collection of personally
identifiable information is specifically authorized by Federal law, any data
collected by such officials shall be protected in a manner which will not
permit the personal identification of students and their parents by other than
those officials, and such personally identifiable data shall be destroyed when
no longer needed for such audit, evaluation, and enforcement of Federal legal requirements.
(4)
(A) Each educational agency or institution shall
maintain a record, kept with the education records of each student, which will
indicate all individuals (other than those specified in paragraph (1)(A) of
this subsection), agencies, or organizations which have requested or obtained
access to a student’s education records maintained by such educational agency
or institution, and which will indicate specifically the legitimate interest
that each such person, agency, or organization has in obtaining this
information. Such record of access shall be available only to parents, to the
school official and his assistants who are responsible for the custody of such
records, and to persons or organizations authorized in, and under the
conditions of, clauses (A) and (C) of paragraph (1) as a means of auditing the
operation of the system.
(B) With respect to this subsection, personal
information shall only be transferred to a third party on the condition that
such party will not permit any other party to have access to such information
without the written consent of the parents of the student. If a third party
outside the educational agency or institution permits access to information in
violation of paragraph (2)(A), or fails to destroy information in violation of
paragraph (1)(F), the educational agency or institution shall be prohibited
from permitting access to information from education records to that third
party for a period of not less than five years.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit State and local educational officials from having access to student or
other records which may be necessary in connection with the audit and
evaluation of any federally or State supported education program or in
connection with the enforcement of the Federal legal requirements which relate
to any such program, subject to the conditions specified in the proviso in
paragraph (3).
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prohibit an institution of postsecondary education from disclosing, to an
alleged victim of any crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16
of title 18), the results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such
institution against the alleged perpetrator of such crime with respect to such
crime.
(c) Surveys
or data-gathering activities; regulations Not later than 240 days after October
20, 1994, the Secretary shall adopt appropriate regulations or procedures, or
identify existing regulations or procedures, which protect the rights of
privacy of students and their families in connection with any surveys or
data-gathering activities conducted, assisted, or authorized by the Secretary
or an administrative head of an education agency. Regulations established under
this subsection shall include provisions controlling the use, dissemination,
and protection of such data. No survey or data-gathering activities shall be
conducted by the Secretary, or an administrative head of an education agency
under an applicable program, unless such activities are authorized by law.
(d) Students’
rather than parents’ permission or consent For the purposes of this section,
whenever a student has attained eighteen years of age, or is attending an
institution of postsecondary education, the permission or consent required of
and the rights accorded to the parents of the student shall thereafter only be
required of and accorded to the student.
(e) Informing
parents or students of rights under this section No funds shall be made
available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution
unless such agency or institution effectively informs the parents of students,
or the students, if they are eighteen years of age or older, or are attending
an institution of postsecondary education, of the rights accorded them by this
section.
(f) Enforcement;
termination of assistance
The Secretary shall take
appropriate actions to enforce this section and to deal with violations of this
section, in accordance with this chapter, except that action to terminate
assistance may be taken only if the Secretary finds there has been a failure to
comply with this section, and he has determined that compliance cannot be
secured by voluntary means.
(g) Office
and review board; creation; functions The Secretary shall establish or
designate an office and review board within the Department for the purpose of
investigating, processing, reviewing, and adjudicating violations of this
section and complaints which may be filed concerning alleged violations of this
section. Except for the conduct of hearings, none of the functions of the
Secretary under this section shall be carried out in any of the regional
offices of such Department.
(h) Disciplinary
records; disclosure
Nothing in this section
shall prohibit an educational agency or institution
from -
(1) including
appropriate information in the education record of any student concerning
disciplinary action taken against such student for conduct that posed a
significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students,
or other members of the school community; or
(2) disclosing
such information to teachers and school officials, including teachers and
school officials in other schools, who have legitimate educational interests in
the behavior of the student.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[1] So in original. The period probably should be a
semicolon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCFC-NETWORK: official Newsletter of NATIONAL CONGRESS
FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN. Public posts or cc-list fwds NOT accepted here; go to
ncfc-network-FORUM@egroups.com
QUESTIONING COURT ORDERED CUSTODY
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
Pennsylvania’s Family Courts will generally order
psychological evaluations of the parents when a custody matter is to be decided
by the courts. Unfortunately for these
families, the mental health experts that the court will rely their decisions on
are not prepared to properly address the requested evaluations.
The first problem is what does the court want from
the psychological professional? Is the
court looking for the ‘best parent’ or is the court looking for parental
fitness of each parent? If one of the
parents has documented history of drug abuse, violence, severe mental disorders,
child abuse or other related social disorders, then the need for a $3000
evaluation seems to be a moot point.
Most parents in a divorce or with out of wedlock
children do not fall under these categories.
Therefore, the mental health institutions are forced by the court to
measure ‘parental fitness’. The problem
is that such measurement scales do not exist as Dr. Stephen Schachner stated in
his presentation to Allegheny County Bar Association Family Division Conference
in January of 1999.
Traditionally, court appointed psychologists,
including Dr. Schachner, have used unreliable and invalid tests on parents in
the course of performing psychological evaluations. Tests such as the Draw a Person or even the Ink Blot tests have
no validity in measuring parenting skills.
Dr. Ira Daniel Turkett, the chief psychologist at Venice Hospital in
Venice, Florida, stated that;
“Custody battles are
heart-rending. Children’s futures are
at stake. Scientific evidence to guide
custody decisions is nowhere near the necessary level for experts who need
support in making such decisions. Until
the scientific literature on custody determination matures, the report of the
mental health “expert” should be viewed with a critical eye.”
The second problem is that of the ultimate
decision. The Greater Pittsburgh
Psychological Association published a report in 1994 about how to conduct a
court ordered psychological evaluation.
One of the strongest warnings this report gives to its members is to
avoid the ‘ultimate decision’. What is
the ultimate decision in reference to custody evaluations? The ultimate decision is the legal decision
of recommending a particular custody arrangement.
Unfortunately, the judges want the psychologists to
make the ultimate decision so that they don’t have to. In addition, the psychologists love to play
judge and recommend a particular custody arrangement in the course of their
evaluations.
In conclusion, the courts
should not misuse the psychological evaluations as they presently are
doing. The court ordered psychologists
should follow their own recommendations and current scientific literature when
determining the parental fitness of each parent. The results may show that the parenting skills of both parents
are base rate and therefore equal parents.
Once this happens, the courts may begin ordering more shared custody and
slowly eliminating the failing mother only custody tradition of Pennsylvania.
Why shared
parenting is best
> Thanks to Dr Richard Weiss and Arthur Ignatiadis
for sending us the following.
> > > Source: http://www.fathermag.com/002/shared-parenting/>
> Presentation to the Joint Meeting of the Bench and Bar > Birmingham, Alabama, January 13,
2000.>
> Using Child Development and Divorce Research to > Make Appropriate Custody and
Access Decisions.>
The report is
by > Joan B. Kelly, > Executive Director of the
Northern > California
Mediation Center. > > (These independent notes were made by
Arthur > Ignatiadis and Dr. Richard C. Weiss)
> >
> Attachments of Infants and Toddlers to > Parents>
> * At 24 months of age, children achieve object > constancy, which means that they
can retain the > image of a
parent well enough to tolerate some >
separation from that parent.>
> * By 6 to 7 months of age, children form > important, early attachments to
the father as well > as the
mother.>
> * At 18 months of age, the child’s preference for > the primary caretaker disappears;
the presence > of either
parent is satisfactory to the child; either > parent is seen as capable of raising the child. >
Visits of only one or two hours duration with a > parent are inadequate.>
> Maintaining the Parental Relationship>
> * Legal conflict, apparent to judges in court, > must not be confused as
equivalent to genuine > conflict
outside of court. Legal conflict is not > sufficient cause for sacrificing continuity of > children’s contact with fathers.>
> * Courts have over-emphasized providing > geographic stability of residence
for the child at > the
expense of the more important emotional > stability of regular time with each parent.>
> * After divorce, children need to have a > maximum of resources available
through time > with both
parents, rather than removing one > parent
from their daily lives, which lessens >
resources available to children.>
> The Process of Divorce>
> * Two-thirds of all divorces are psychologically > initiated by women (i.e. they
want and instigate > the
divorce).>
> * Only 9 to 12 percent of separated or divorced > parents remain angry in the long
term with the > other parent.>
> * The act of separating itself precipitates and > builds conflict between couples.
Some become > chronic
litigators.>
> Fathers as Parents>
> * Visitation makes fathers peripheral in their > children’s lives. This
realization results in fathers > dropping
out.>
> * Boys living with their mother perceive more > hostility directed at them by
their mother, > because the
mother is unconsciously reminded of >
the boy’s father.>
> * Actively involved fathers participate in their > child’s homework, sports, school,
and > extra-curricular
activities. This is only achievable >
by sharing physical custody.>
> * Children really like and prefer a shared > physical custody arrangement.
What children > want is
regular involvement of both parents in >
daily activities; they do not mind the > inconvenience of changing residences to achieve > this. Children are not satisfied
with standard > visitation
schedules. Separations of 10 days or >
more are much too long.>
> * In California, child support is adjusted to > account for time spent with each
parent.>
> * Lack of specificity in parenting schedules > allows mothers to deny parenting
time to fathers, > resulting
in conflict and fathers dropping out.>
> >From the Child’s Standpoint, a Fixed > Parenting Plan Is Essential>
> * Children need a balance of work and play with > each parent for their
development. Just spending > work
time with mothers and playtime with >
fathers is detrimental to the child’s relationship > with either parent.>
> * As children grow older, from infants and > toddlers to school age, parenting
schedules must > evolve to
recognize this change in circumstances.>
> * Children of 8 or 9 years of age can adapt to > alternating physical custody
between parents.>
> * Between the ages of 6 to 9 is a critical period > for children’s moral development
and > preparation for
academic achievement.>
> Guidelines for Parenting Schedules>
> * Involvement of both parents after divorce > means each can actively monitor
and support the > child, while
providing relief to the other parent. >
The unique and overlapping contributions of > each parent become more important. Parents > monitor curfews, limits to
dating, drinking, > partying,
sexual activity, drugs, etc. Sole custody > arrangements should be discouraged: one parent > is usually not sufficient alone
to monitor these > behaviors.>
> * As children get older, there is an increase of > autonomy and less relevance for a
primary > caretaker: the
children are taking on more > responsibility
for themselves (washing, getting > dressed,
eating, etc.).>
> * Research clearly shows that father involvement > at school benefits children.>
> * Extended weekends-picking up the child at > school on Friday, and dropping
off at school on > Monday-is
common in California. This > arrangement
not only provides more > uninterrupted
parenting time, but also effectively >
reduces conflict by avoiding contact between > parents! Furthermore, there is a full day to be > enjoyed on Sunday, without the
dampening > effect of
returning the child that day. To > implement
an extended weekend schedule, > parents
only need to keep basic needs, such as >
pajamas and underwear in each home.>
> * Children do not feel that regular contact with > each parent is disruptive. They
do not want long > periods
between seeing each parent.>
> * Mid-week visitation periods restricted to only > a few hours are inadequate when
the child is > attached to
both parents. It should instead be for >
overnight.>
> Preference for Joint Physical Custody>
> * Conflict between parents is of less concern to > children if they can regularly be
with each parent. > As long as a child has a healthy
relationship with > each
parent, high conflict between parents is not > sufficient cause to automatically rule out joint > physical custody.>
> * Children need and want more time with their > father than is traditionally
allowed. They want > frequent
and continuing contact with both > parents.>
> * Even when joint physical custody is imposed > upon mothers over their own
objections, they > eventually
get to like it because of the freedom it > affords them to do other things, and parental > conflict subsides over time.>
> * Some mothers will object to anything; it makes > sense to overrule them.>
> * Children themselves prefer a joint physical > custody arrangement. Going back
and forth > between
residences is generally not disruptive to > children and does not increase instability.>
This Quarter’s Events
Pittsburgh Chapter Meetings
Our chapter educational
meetings are open to the public.
There is no fee to attend and you do not have to be a member to
attend.
When are our meetings?
It is easy to remember. Our
meetings are always the second Saturday of every month from 10
a.m. till noon.
Location: Bethel Park
Municipal Bldg.
5100 West Library Road
Parking: Free
Directions: Take Route
51 South to Route 88. Turn right to BRIGHTWOOD. Turn right on Brightwood to
Library Avenue. The Municipal Building is just across the trolley tracks at
the Lytle stop.
January 13, 2001;
Equitable Distribution
February 10, 2001;
Modify Custody
March 10, 2001; Modify
Support
April 14, 2001; Father
Friendly Legislators
May 12, 2001; Summer
Custody Scheduling
June 9, 2001;
Preparation for Father’s Day
Butler Division
Meetings
2nd Wednesday of the
month at 7:00 p.m. at Eppingers Restaurant on Route 19, Perry Highway,
Portersville.
Call Michele Shera at 814-437-1572 or
email her at:
WASN.C.F.C.BAM@CSONLINE.NET
Thursday evenings
support meetings are held at the United Way Building at One Smithfield
Street from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Call 731-5551 for more information.
Pro Se Help
Help in understanding Pro Se motions is available on
most weekend mornings from 9:00 a.m. to noon. Topics such as custody, visitation,
support, equitable distribution, divorce, discovery and appeals can be
reviewed. We have to restrict this
service to members but you can join when you come in. Call the office (854-4799) for an
appointment.
|
|
> Scheduling
Joint Physical Custody>
> * For school age children, parenting plans have > varied considerably. Generally,
if both parents > are
geographically close to one another, and > neither is abusive or otherwise unfit, a shared > parenting arrangement is
preferred and shown to > promote
the best outcome for the child. The >
better plans provide nearly equal custody; the > best are those with alternate weekends and > either a split week or alternate
weeks. The > former minimizes
parental separation to between > 2
to 5 days, and the latter to 7 days. An > alternate-week visitation plan is best suited for > older children. Toddlers need
more frequent > contact with
each parent to minimize separation >
anxiety.>
> Prevalence of Joint Physical Custody>
> * As far back as 1990, joint physical custody > (defined as a minimum of 35 to 50
percent of > time with each
parent) was the case for 18 to 30 > percent
of custody arrangements in California.>
> Consideration for the Child’s Preferences>
> * Articulate children as young as 10 or 11 years > of age are quite capable of
expressing their own > desires,
which should be heavily considered.
