FATHER’S DAY
JUNE 16, 2002
The
Greater Pittsburgh Chapter hosted the seventh annual Father’s Day Rally and
march from Freedom Corner to the City County Courthouse steps. The march began at 11:30 a.m. on Sunday
morning at the Freedom Corner of Pride Street and Centre Street near Duquesne
University and finished on the steps of the City County Building. A City of Pittsburgh fire engine from the
No. 4 Fire House on Forbes Avenue led the march for the participants to follow
down Centre Street and Grant Street.
Speeches
began at 11:30 a.m. Kevin Sheahen, of NCFC, Larry Davis, of
Coalition for Fathering Families, Dr. James Carmine, former candidate for mayor
of Pittsburgh, Jim Overton, NCFC Board Member and vice president of United Way,
and Mark Brentley, Pittsburgh school board member were the speakers.
After the events, the Participants
and their families went to the Pittsburgh Zoo where fathers were admitted free
and were given free phone cards. Some
fathers went to Laser Storm on McKnight Road where fathers were allowed to play
for free. Some fathers and their
families had their own private parties.
Call
412-854-4799 with any questions or
comments.
Donations
toward the permit fee and toward a Fatherhood
Legislation Defense Fund can be sent to:
NCFC
37 Seneca Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
National NCFC Board of Directors
Election for the Year 2002 Proxy
The
National Congress for Fathers and Children is the longest running fathers
rights organization in the United States.
NCFC has been in existence since 1981.
The board of directors and national officers are all elected and
volunteers. Their term is for two
years. To become a national board of
directors member, you must be willing to give of your time as needed by the
board and by the membership.
The
position is not a paid position. All of
your travel, telephone and other expenses are tax deductible on your personal income tax filings.
Generally,
the position of board member requires you to attend two annual board meetings
and special telephone conference calls.
You
also must be a paid up member in good standing for at least one year.
If
you or someone you know is interested in becoming a member of NCFC’s national
board of directors, please submit your name in writing along with at least
three (3) current NCFC member’s signatures by June 20, 2002 to:
NCFC
c/o Kevin Sheahen, Secretary
37 Seneca Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
Fax # 412-835-1362
Email: pghdads@aol.com
All
NCFC paid-up members can vote by proxy or in person for the board members of
NCFC or attend the annual convention in Pittsburgh. The following board members are seeking reelection:
Lawrence P. Hellmann
Kevin Sheahen, P.E.
Michael Geanoulis, Sr.
Robert Hirschfeld, JD
Mike Bennington
Dana Christian, Esq.
James Cook
Fred DeRossett
Cindy Falkner
Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
Philip Holman, Esq.
George Kelly
Henry James Koehler, IV, Esq.
George McCasland
Joann Scheafnocker
Mike McKay, DMD
Leigh Travis, Ph.D.
Tom Tully
Steven F. Wingfield, JD
MEMBER SUCCESS STORIES
Darrin and his children’s mother separated
and divorced about 5 years ago. They
have three children and they consented to 50/50 shared custody and to both live
in the same school district. Both earn
about the same amount at their respective jobs.
Perfect arrangement, one would think. Unfortunately, Darrin pays his children’s
mother about $700 per month. Little
Darrin, the couple’s oldest child, was 14 at the time of separation. Little Darrin wanted to live with his dad
90% of the overnight stays and his parents agreed.
However, Darrin’s support would not change
until their custody order was modified and Darrin would then have to file to
modify support.
The mother resisted changing the custody
order upon advice of her counsel and Darrin was forced to file to modify the
custody. Two years and $3000 in
psychological evaluation expenses later for Darrin and $10,000 in attorney fees
for his kids’ mother, Allegheny Family Court awarded Darrin primary custody of
Darrin, Jr.
Darrin eventually got his support order
modified and lowered a fraction.
However, because the two parents were to share in the extracurricular
expenses of their children and Darrin had paid for and documented all of the
expenses, the Court set a separate hearing for this issue. Darrin was awarded most of the documented
extracurricular expenses and is scheduled to receive a wage attached support
check from his children’s mother.
In a postscript, Darrin’s kids’ mother was
sued by her attorney for non-payment of her legal bills. The attorney won a financial judgment
against the mother.
NCFC can help with most
family court situations. NCFC does
require membership to insure proper dissemination of legal information to
members since we are not attorneys.
Networking with trained and experienced staff, and with other supportive
members, can give you the necessary knowledge and power needed in most cases.
Call (412) 854-4799 to get more
information.
LEGISLATIVE
UPDATE
The most recent legislative
bill in the Pennsylvania legislature for joint
custody was SB 1276, introduced
by Senator James Gerlach. The bill is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a public
hearing on May 6, 2002, concerning SB
1260, a custody bill that would adopt the recommendations from the Joint
State Government Committee from November of 1999. The witnesses were split on SB 1260 either for or against. All of the witnesses, except the authors of
the recommendations had suggestions or amendments for SB 1260.
The pro-father organizations generally
agreed with the bill as long as the definition of shared custody was changed to
joint custody and that parenting plans would be mandatory for all custody
actions. . The opponents were lawyers and women’s shelter groups.
The problem fathers in Pennsylvania have
today is a lack of unified support in the eyes of progressive legislators such
as Senator Gerlach. Pittsburgh Chapter
of NCFC in the fourth quarter of 2000 newsletter enclosed a sample letter to
send to the Pennsylvania legislators and in the previous newsletter a petition
in favor of presumptive joint custody was included. If you would like a copy of the sample letter or of the petition,
please send us a SASE and your request to:
NCFC
37
Seneca Road
Pittsburgh,
PA 15241
Or
you can send us a donation for copying and mailing cost along with your
request. More importantly, your
personal input directly to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and to
your local representatives and
senators can make presumptive joint custody happen. You should contact each of the Senate Judiciary Committee members
and request them to introduce presumptive joint custody. The reasons you can give them are as
follows:
ü The present system of custody determination is not
working.
ü Non-custodial parents are treated as visitors being
with their children only 15% of their lives.
ü Custody disputes become an expensive financial and
emotional battleground with the children always losing.
ü Judges abuse their discretion by trying to measure
‘parenting skills’ when there is no measurable scale of parenting skills.
ü Court psychologists are ordered by the judges at the
expense of the parents to determine ‘parental fitness’ when there is not any
objective methods for such an order within the psychology profession.
Here is a
list of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and their address:
Stewart Greeleaf, Chairman
Charles Lemmond, Jr., Vice Chairman
Jay Costa, Minority Chairman
Robert Jubelirer, ex-officio member
Lisa Boscola
Jane Earll
James Gerlach
Edward Helfrick
Allen Kukovich
Michael O’Pake
Jane Orie
Jeffrey Piccola
Allyson Schwartz
Mary Jo White
Senate Judiciary Committee
P.O. Box 202020
Harrisburg, PA 17020
Become active and ‘press the flesh’ with your
government representatives. If you can schedule an appointment with your
senator to review the importance of this bill and to voice your concern, please
call our chapter office to schedule a board member or other NCFC member to attend with you. You can also submit written testimony. Send
ten (10) copies of your statement to:
Senator Stewart Greenleaf
Senate Judiciary Committee
P.O. Box 202020
Harrisburg, PA 17020
Please remember to include a copy of your
letter to your local state representative and send us one for our files.
MISSION STATEMENT
The
mission of the National Congress for
Fathers and Children, Inc. is to serve as a national organization, to
assist state and local efforts compatible with the goal of assisting fathers to
remain actively involved in the lives of their children regardless of marital
status. We provide a forum to
coordinate local efforts to impact national initiatives and to bring national
attention to local concerns of our affiliated organizations and members.
MARK DUDDING, MST
1138 Brownsville Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15210
(412) 882-8002
Fax # (412) 885-4725
Serving businesses and individuals in
taxation issues, audits, business evaluations, and personal estates. Call for a free quotation of services. Mention that you are a member of NCFC and
Mark Dudding will donate $20 to our organization.
|
|
NCFC Monthly Educational Meeting the 2nd
Saturday of Every Month.
Location:
Bethel Park Municipality
Building in Bethel Park
Time: 10:00 a.m. to noon
Topics: Support issues, custody situations, equitable
distribution, PFA’s, false allegations, parenting classes. Featured speakers sometimes are in
attendance.
Cost: Attendance and parking are free to the public.
|
|
> ____________________________________________________
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 AND DISBURSEMENT
UNIT
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
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
COOPERATIVE PARENTING FOR DIVIDED
FAMILIES 2002 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Cooperative Parenting for Divided
Families, along with The Coalition for Fathering Families
and NCFC will be hosting the
following events for 2002.
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 pro se questions, anger management, parenting classes, CYF
problem discussions, and PFA problems.
CDPF
has met with many couples outside of the Court. Each of these couples have resolved their disputes and concerns
about either custody, support, equitable distribution or even the actual decree
in divorce. To date, CPDF success rate
for couples resolving issues outside of court in a consent agreement is 100%.
CPDF
also hopes to host a meet the judge’s night among many other activities. However, 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 or call Don Pristas at
412-461-3210 for more information.
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.
FATHER AND CHILD REUNION
National
Board of Directors Member and world-renowned author, Warren Farrell, PhD, has recently written the best book on the
issue of fathers in today’s media.
The
book is entitled, Father and Child
Reunion. Warren and NCFC
recommend that psychologists, media personnel, educators, legislators and
judges need to read the book. Our
chapter has a limited number of signed copies of this landmark book for you to
sponsor to your legislator, judge, newspaper reporter, etc. To have NCFC send a signed copy of Father and Child Reunion, please
send us $25 to:
NCFC
37
Seneca Road
Pittsburgh,
PA 15241
If
you want to sponsor more than one book, each additional book is $20. Postage to the person is included. Hurry; there are only a limited number of
signed copies available.
For more information, please call Kevin
Sheahen at 412-854-4799.
PRO SE
SEMINAR SCHEDULE
On
most weekend days, from 9:00 a.m. to noon, NCFC hosts a pro se seminar at the
local chapter headquarters at 37 Seneca Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15241, adjacent to
the South Hills Village Mall.
An
example of the type of questions that members share with each other is how do
you prepare for a child support hearing.
This would include income tax exemptions, her earning capacity, and
using either three, six or twelve months of income and deductions. Call 412-854-4799 for more information.
FATHER SONG ON CD FOR SALE
Robert
Statham wrote and produced a song about the importance of Fathers to children
entitled; ‘Why Weren’t You There?’
The
CD is on sale for $7.00 and postage is included. NCFC will get a 10% donation for all of the CD’s sold and when
NCFC is mentioned.
Send
your order to:
Robert
Statham
18
Burley Road
Rochester,
NY 14612
Robert
can be contacted at robertstatham@hotmail.com
or by phone at 716-621-6826.
By
Roger Gay
:
Roger.F.Gay@telia.se
:
: For The Children’s Advocate
:
Newsletter of the New Jersey Council for Children’s Rights
:
Appeared in the January, 1995 issue.
:
: 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 parents’ 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 an
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.
A Special Thanks
The
following people deserve special thanks for their efforts in answering the
telephone to people seeking information:
Dee Burgess, Dan Maloney, Marilyn
Porta, Joanna Scheafnocker, Denise Simpson and Tom Tully.
