FATHER’S DAY 2003, JUNE 15, 2003

 The events to celebrate Father’s Day 2003 will begin the evening before, June 14, 2003, with a Father’s Day Celebration Dinner and Countdown to Midnight.  On Father’s Day, the annual Walk and Rally will begin at 11:00 a.m. at the corner of Pride and Center near the Civic Arena.  The Rally will begin on the steps of the City County Building at noon.

The Dinner will be held at the Center Avenue Banquet Hall located at 2036 Centre Avenue from 7:00 p.m. to midnight on June 14, 2003.  Donations for the dinner are $10 in advance and $12 at the door.  Dinner, entertainment and speeches will be included with a closing of a Countdown to Midnight to celebrate Father’s Day.  Tickets can be purchased in advance for $10 by mailing your check or money order in care of The Coalition for Fathering Families; 916 Fisher Street; Pittsburgh, PA 15210.  Please include a SASE.  Please call 412-488-7446 for more information.

The Father’s Day Walk and Rally will be the 9^th consecutive annual Father’s Day event.  The purpose of the events are to celebrate the importance of fathers to raising responsible children and to educate the public that the Family Court’s continue to practice 30 year old social stereotyping and prejudice against fathers.  Such prejudice does not contribute to the best interests of the children.

  There will be speeches and a gathering of support from the members of NCFC, Coalition for Fathering Families, and Cooperative Parenting for Divided Families. 

  Tentative speakers include Pittsburgh Mayoral candidate James Carmine, Larry Davis and Louis Johnson of the Coalition for Fathering Families, James Overton of National Congress for Fathers and Children, David Richardson and Kevin Sheahen of NCFC.

Donations toward the permit fee and toward a Fatherhood Legislation Advancement Fund can be sent to:

NCFC
37 Seneca Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15241

After the Rally, fathers and their families will be going to their own family celebrations, a picnic, the Pittsburgh Zoo where fathers get in free with a paying child and Laser Storm where fathers play laser tag for free with a paying child.

Call 412-854-4799 or 835-2957 with any questions or comments. 

Fax # 412-835-1362

Email: pghdads@aol.com

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.
Your donation will count toward your annual renewal.

What's up in Pittsburgh?

 I would like to introduce myself to all of our loyal NCFC Members and Friends. My name is Al Levine, your new editor. I am now helping Kevin Sheahen, to edit the local newsletter. I will need all of your help and patience in order to further our mission to help each of our children. I would also like to introduce this new column. This space will be devoted to any ideas or newsworthy items that can help us to increase our visibility. We have numerous issues that affect all of us, so I would like to use this column as a public forum to get the word out into our area. Any ideas or news that you would like in our newsletter would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me by phone (412) 882-9343. In our next issue I will report on SB 1260 and SB 1276.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

  The most recent legislative bill in the Pennsylvania legislature for presumptive joint custody was SB 1276, introduced by Senator James Gerlach.  The bill died during the 2001-2002 Legislature in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

  The opponents of joint custody are 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 joint custody happen.  You should contact each of the Senate Judiciary Committee members and request them to introduce joint custody.  The reasons you can give them are as follows:

• The present system of custody determination is not working.
• Non-custodial parents are treated as visitors being with their children only 15% of their lives.
• Custody disputes become an expensive financial and emotional battleground with the children always losing.
• Judges abuse their discretion by trying to measure ‘parenting skills’ when there is no measurable scale of parenting skills.
• 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.
• The Jewish Health Care Foundation recently sponsored a study of the best interests of children are served between sole or primary custody and joint custody with joint custody being the preferred co-parenting arrangement in terms of the best interests of the children. (Aired on KQV Radio on May 6, 2003)

Senator ______________
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 or representative 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.

MEMBER SUCCESS STORIES

Matthew and his child's mother upon divorce had agreed to a consent custody order.  Both parties cooperated for four years to the point that the co-parenting practice differed greatly from the written order.  Matthew recently met a very nice woman and asked her to marry him. 

It was at this point that the mother of Matthew’s children told Matthew that he would not see his children anymore.  Matthew came to a NCFC Thursday night meeting where he learned about the steps, procedures, and time it takes to get or change a custody order.  The first step was to reestablish the consented custody order.  Matthew wrote a letter to his children’s mother stating that he will be picking up the children as per the custody order.

To Matthew’s delight, his children’s mother called Matthew and informed him that he can resume seeing his children.

Matthew called NCFC to thank us for the idea.  He sounded like he had won the lottery.  This is the type of success that inspires our members to become more involved parents and to become active members helping others.  I cannot describe the joy and satisfaction received by seeing men like Matthew flying so high.  

  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 or 835-2957 to get more information.

MARK DUDDING, MST
1138 Brownsville Rd
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.

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
1-887-676-9581

COOPERATIVE PARENTING FOR DIVIDED FAMILIES 2003 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Cooperative Parenting for Divided Families, along with The Coalition for Fathering Families and NCFC will be hosting the following events for 2003.

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 has resolved their disputes and concerns about 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.

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 Rd.
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 three, six or twelve months of income and deductions. Call 412-854-4799 for more information.

Pennsylvania Support Guideline Constitutional Economic Study

 Pennsylvania’s support guidelines are based upon the William’s Income Share Model.  The two variables the income shares model uses are combined income of both parents and the number of children.  The formula then determines the amount of money an intact family will spend on the children.  That amount will then become a part of the child support order.

  There are two flaws that appear to be unconstitutional on the face of the guidelines.  The first is to assume that the children have a right to the same standard of living after a separation or a divorce.

  The second flaw is to assume that the parents have the same amount of monies available to spend on the children after a separation or a divorce.

 Mark Rogers is an independent economic consultant.  He has submitted a proposal to perform an economic study for separated and divorced children and what their parents spend on them.  This study will cost $5000.  NCFC has established a fund to buy this study.  $2050 has donated to date for this fund.

 What can this study do for me, the average divorced or separated father?  This study can be used by any father in the lowest level of support hearing as evidence of the unconstitutionality of the present guidelines similarly as the NAACP challenged the Segregation laws of this country.  Your hearing officer may be clueless to the meaning of this report as evidence, but your appellate counsel will know what to do with it.

  Can you see it, 3000 Pennsylvania fathers handing out this report at their support hearings with their pay stubs and then referencing the 14^th Amendment?  These events will send a shiver up the Family Courts of Pennsylvania.

  Please donate any amount to this fund and specify the Mark Rogers Economic Study Fund with your donation.  Any donation over $25 will guarantee a copy of the study once it is complete.

Send your donation to:
NCFC
37 Seneca Rd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15241

The Pain of Post-Divorce Parenting
By Michele Bloomquist
WebMD Medical News

Reviewed by Dr. Craig H. Kliger

Feb. 26, 2001 -- It's 9:30 on a Saturday morning, and it's painfully obvious that most of the 20 people sitting in the bright orange chairs of the cavernous jury room at the Multnomah County Courthouse in Portland, Ore., would rather be anywhere but here. The crossed arms and hostile body language of many of the seven men and 13 women says it all -- I'm only here because I have to be.

This morning, they are sitting in a three-hour parenting class that the state of Oregon requires every divorcing couple with children to attend before their divorce can become final. Three couples attend together; the rest are solo. Some of those here are leaving their marriages. Some have been left. Still others have mutually agreed to the split. The common thread: They all have children under age 18.

Leading the class are Judith Swinney, an attorney who specializes in parenting issues, and Mark Harwood, a divorced dad who works with juvenile offenders. Swinney begins: "Did you know that 50% of all first marriages end in divorce?" A few heads nod at the oft-heard statistic. "And that 60% to 75% of second marriages do as well? Or that over one million children are affected by divorce each year, and as many as half of them will suffer long-term emotional problems?" A few arms unfold; some people lean forward to listen. Then Harwood adds how more often than not, the juvenile offenders he sees are kids of divorce. These are some pretty grim statistics to hear on a Saturday morning. Then, offering a glimmer of hope, Harwood says, "But it doesn't have to be that way."

Doomed or Not?

Recent research has directed much attention to the effects of divorce on children. Some researchers, like California psychologist and author Judith S. Wallerstein, PhD, say children of divorce will be negatively affected for life, more likely to get in trouble, use alcohol or drugs, and to have troubled relationships as adults. Others, like divorce researcher and psychologist Judith Primavera, PhD, of Fairfield University in Connecticut, say divorce isn't a life sentence for kids.

What makes the difference? Surprisingly, it may be how the parents act after the divorce, Primavera tells WebMD, that determines whether a child succeeds or fails.

While there is no way to completely shield a child from the impact of divorce, there are things parents can do to help them get through it successfully. Swinney, Harwood, and others offer the following advice.

Heal Yourself

"If you don't heal, your kids can't either," says Swinney. Whether you talk about your pain, anger, and disappointment with a friend, family member, clergy, or counselor, working through your own grief in a positive way shows your children that they can, too.

Stop the Conflict

It's not divorce that hurts the children as much as the ongoing conflict, says Primavera. "The conflict needs to end with the divorce," she says. If there is a chance you and your spouse will argue when you talk, make sure it happens out of the kids' earshot. If fights often occur when making a visitation handover, arrange for just one parent to pick up the kids at a neutral place like at school or at daycare instead.

Build a Business Relationship

"You don't have to like your ex-spouse, but you do have to find a way to work with them when it comes to the children," says Swinney. She suggests trying to view the relationship on a business level rather than as a love or hate relationship, with the business being to raise secure, emotionally stable, and happy children.

Don't Badmouth

This is one of the most common slips parents and extended family make, says Swinney. But when you say, "Your dad is a loser," the message your kids may get is, "that makes you half loser, too." It's emotionally important for children to believe their parents are both good people, even if they aren't perfect. They'll see the flaws for themselves when they are mature enough to handle that information.

Don't Interrogate

Another common mistake parents make is trying to find out about the other parent through the child. When you ask, "How was the weekend at mom's/dad's?" make sure your motivation is to hear about the child's visit, not to find out about your ex's love life. "Children are very perceptive and they know the difference," says Swinney. The unintended message the child gets is, "I don't care about what is happening in your life as much as I care about what your mother/father is doing."

Avoid Confessions

Talking to your kids about some details of the divorce is necessary, but avoid leaning on them for emotional support - even if they don't seem to mind. "Kids just don't know what to do with that information," says Harwood. Instead, focus on being there to listen to their feelings, but find another adult to talk to about your own.

Ask, Don't Tell

"Your child is your best resource," says Jennifer Lewis, MD, co-author of the book Don't Divorce Your Children. Instead of telling children they are not responsible for divorce, ask them if they feel responsible, and then listen to what they say, she tells WebMD. The same goes for requesting their input on visitation schedules and other decisions. Just because you ask doesn't mean you have to agree to every request, but at least the children feel included, and you know what's important to them.

Avoid Prolonged Legal Battles

"Lawyers are paid by the hour," says Robert Billingham, PhD, an associate professor of human development and family studies at Indiana University and a divorce researcher. "It's not in their best interest to settle things quickly." Courts often offer free or low-cost mediation, a process in which one lawyer or paralegal works with both parents to settle the details of a divorce. This process allows the couple to peacefully agree on most decisions, such as custody, visitation, and support, rather than leaving these issues up to courts or lawyers. "A lawyer can always look over the agreement to make sure it is fair before you sign," says Harwood.

Keep Discussions Age-appropriate

What a 3-year-old needs to know about a divorce may be very concrete details, like who is going where, and when he or she will see each parent. A 9-year-old may focus more on why this is happening. Learning about child development and understanding what the child needs to know at each age will help you keep discussions on track, says Swinney.

Watch Their Behavior

Sometimes your kids will tell you that everything is fine when their behavior tells you it's not, says Harwood. Watch for problems at school, on the playground, and at home. Also beware the child that acts too perfect -- he or she may be thinking if they are "good enough," mom and dad will get back together. Harwood recommends you tell the child's teacher or caregiver that the child is going through a divorce so they don't label the child a "bad kid" when he or she is just acting out appropriately.

Keep Your Own Score

It's so easy to focus on all the things your ex is doing wrong that you overlook what's happening in your own relationship with your child, says Primavera. Remember that you can only control your own actions.

Don't Cut Off Contact

According to Swinney, in one-third of divorces the noncustodial parent either withdraws from his or her child's life or is pushed out by the other parent. In another third, contact with the noncustodial parent is infrequent. Almost never is either scenario better for the child. Children need both of their parents as well as their extended families in their lives, says Swinney. Unless there is physical abuse, mental illness, substance abuse, or severe power imbalances involved, both parents should have open and frequent access to the kids. "And even if there are these issues, in all but the most extreme cases, supervised visitation should still be considered," says Billingham.

Class Dismissed

By 12:30, almost everyone in the class is participating in the discussion and looking a little more hopeful than they did when they entered. The focus of the talk has gradually shifted from what the ex-spouse has done to them to what they can do to help their children. As the attendees file out of the room and back to their lives, Swinney and Harwood hope the class -- which is highly rated in post-session evaluations -- has made an impact.

"Divorce is stressful -- it's second on the list [of stressful events], right under death of a spouse or child," says Swinney. "The most important thing to remember is that you don't have to go through it alone. Reach out to the resources, books, and programs available. Divorce doesn't have to destroy your life -- or your child's."

Michele Bloomquist is a freelance writer based in Brush Prairie, Wash. She writes frequently about many health topics including parenting, pregnancy, and emotional health.

Current Volunteer Officers of NCFC/ Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

President; Kevin Sheahen                  412-854-4799
Vice President; David Meekins
Treasurer; Doug Jones
Secretary;Al Levine

Current Board Members
Doug Fleszar
Donald Pristas
Tony Taylor
Raymond Ratliff
Doug Jones, CFE, MA
Kevin Sheahen, P.E.
Al Levine
Tom Tully
David Meekins
Denise Simpson
Jim Overton
System Services 412-835-2957
www.5050plan.com

Volunteer Telephone Staff

Membership Benefits:

A 140 page national manual, a divorce First Aid Kit, a sample parenting plan, one-year newsletter subscription and sections of Pennsylvania’s custody statutes are included.  In addition, you become another voice for equality in family courts.  Membership is tax deductible.

THE BEST PARENT IS BOTH PARENTS!!
GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER
NATIONAL CONGRESS FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN
37 SENECA ROAD
PITTSBURGH, PA 15241
(Return Address Requested)

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 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.

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.

A thank you is also deserving for Clair Wingertsahn and his children.  Clair makes it a family affair when he and his children label, stamp and package the newsletters for mailing.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay071702.htm

The Child Support Agenda

July 17, 2002

by Roger F. Gay

Yep. This must be an election year. In a July 15 press release Chairman of the House Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced yet another bill to encourage divorce and out-of-wedlock births. The California chapter of NOW recently claimed that women get a bad deal in divorce. Elected "representatives" from California are quick to get on the list of those wishing to buy feminist votes and campaign contributions with other people's money.

One might call the new bill outrageous. The tax laws are to be changed in order to pretend that incomes of many middle and upper income single mothers are lower so that they will pay less in taxes than everyone else. In effect, it will give many single mothers a lowered tax table. Many fathers will get a higher one. Those who have watched child support reform over the decades know that this type of legislation during an election year is par for the course.

The bill is being promoted as "relief to over two million families owed child support." But studies show that fathers pay court ordered child support at a very high rate and contribute their time and money directly when not encountering heavy interference from mom. The primary cause of non-payment by fathers is that they cannot pay. The new child support laws however, react very poorly to actual circumstances. Fathers live with orders to pay even though they do not have the means.

Among the myriad of false and misleading factoids, which I have become too weary of to repeat, comes the new element of faulty logic in support of the legislation. "This would make the tax treatment of unpaid child support consistent with the treatment of other bad debts in the tax code." I wonder what married parents are going to get when their income is not as high as they would like it to be? Where is the consistency there?

But there is more to the story than little bits of blatant lunacy. There is a well-established long-term agenda.

Since 1975, Congress has remained steadily on the same course with respect to child support and welfare reform. For all the coverage the child support issue has received since, it is amazing that few people seem to understand any of it. One has to feel some awe that the most extreme leftist agenda that has ever taken hold in the United States has so consistently been treated as mainstream and even as conservative policy. Those of us who have observed more closely know that "personal responsibility" has become a political code phrase for complete capitulation to arbitrary government control.

Lest someone will think I am cooking up a conspiracy "theory" let me repeat some established facts. Irwin Garfinkel, head of the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty, had his fifteen minutes of fame during the 1990s. Professor Garfinkel had imported a suite of social/economic policies from socialist/communist countries and packaged them in academic sounding conservative policy rhetoric. His package became "The Wisconsin Model," which became the national model for welfare reform.

In his landmark book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Sanford Braver points to Garfinkel as one of the researchers whose ideas, although extremely influential in shaping new policy, were not supported by actual research. The percent-of-income child support guideline used in Wisconsin is a copy of Russian law from the Soviet era; a simple device for maintaining wealth distribution by central authoritarian command.

Even though credible research does not support the exaggerated claims about "deadbeat dads" in the United States, it is rumored that fathers in the Soviet Union were uncooperative. But that has to be said about a lot of things under communism. A great mass of people did whatever necessary to avoid interaction with the overbearing regime. Russia and the Soviet satellite states had a very large share of their economy in the black market.

Simple wealth redistribution under strict central authoritarian control has been the agenda, not a sidebar, not an unfortunate side effect of misguided policy reform. As millions of non-custodial parents can attest, the price is at least as much in loss of individual rights as in cash.

In the United States, moving child support from ordinary civil law to the IRS is something reformers have worked for since at least the late 1970s. Given that it is unconstitutional to treat child support like a tax [1], they have faced great difficulty doing it. The critical difference is that taxes are primarily a legislative function. That is, a legislative body decides what your tax rate is – period. If you do not like their decision your only recourse is purely political – throw the bums out of office if you can. Individual rulings in child support cases on the other hand are subject to Constitutional rules of substantive fairness – exactly the thing that reforms have struggled to eliminate.

For those of you who have tuned in late, let me repeat something that long-time observers know well. The initial attack in the "deadbeat dad" wars had an explicit goal of relieving courts of the burden of trying individual cases. Presumptively correct child support guidelines were created as partial fulfillment of that purpose. It was and is that blatant.

Let me add another fact. Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, among others have all seen major reforms linked to "deadbeat dad" politics. Fathers in those countries will repeat the same complaints as fathers in the US. You might wonder what countries like Sweden are doing on the list. They were not socialist enough for Clinton advisors who helped the Social Democratic Labor Party back into power in 1998. (But the government in Sweden is currently rethinking the new policies since they have received heavy criticism from too many places.)

We are in fact not really dealing with a local phenomenon. Welfare and child support reforms have been coordinated with international conventions such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law. There has been United Nations conferences on child support and family law with US participation. The American Bar Association hosts special interest groups in international law including private / family law. Some of the most influential policy reformers in the United States belong to groups like The International Society of Family Law.

No matter what I say, I am sure that there will be a few people who think this all looks too much like a conspiracy to be true. But let me finish with an important question – a question that occupied my thoughts for many years.

From the start, a great many people knew that the child support reforms were wrong. I don't mean this as an exaggerated way of describing a difference of opinion – I mean wrong; and they were wrong in many ways. The fundamental factoids that seemed to justify child support reforms have all been proven wrong. The great carrot for the voting public – that reforms would save money for taxpayers was wrong, and now that the experiment has been run it has been proven wrong. Injustice and violations of the Constitution have become so obvious that even the general public is catching on. The criticisms of the policies have expanded in all quarters.

Why does it continue?

Cited:

1.Holmberg v. Holmberg, Carlson v. Carlson, and Kalis-Fuller v. Fuller, Ct. Nos. C7-97-926, C8-97-1132, C9-98-33, C7-97-1512, Slip Op. (Minn. S. Ct. Jan. 28, 1999).

The bill was introduced by Mr. COX, for himself, Mr. FOLEY, Ms. HART, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. DREIER, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. OSE, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. HORN, Mr. ISSA, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. POMBO, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. GILLMOR, and Mr. DUNCAN.

Copyright © 2002

Roger F. Gay

Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found in the Men's Daily News archive.

10 Ways to be a Good Dad

  Being a good dad isn’t easy. In fact, there are times—when your boss questions your devotion to your job, your wife expects you to actually listen to her problems and your kid cries out “I want my mommy” every time you come near—that it can be downright brutal. How do you avoid these lows? You could study the great fathers of history and emulate their behavior. You could engage in months of soul-searching and self-improvement. Or you could save yourself a lot of time and energy by following these ten easy steps.

Don’t Underrate What You’re Already Doing.

Woody Allen is probably not the world’s best advertisement for healthy parenting, but his observation that 80% of life is just showing up has a kernel of wisdom to it. At some level, 80% of good parenting is about providing your kid with a warm bed, three squares and a sense that there is some order to the universe. Most dads manage to accomplish these tasks without even thinking about it.

Relax.

 
Just like dogs can smell fear, kids can sense desperation. And if they sense that you’re vulnerable, that’s when they’ll really hurt your feelings. So act natural. Don’t make any sudden moves or you’ll freak them out.

 
Play to Your Strengths.

 
Find a way to translate your talents and interests to your kid. If you like music, dance with your kid. If you like sports, play ball. It doesn’t matter what the activity is, so long as it can be shared and your passion for it is real.

 
Curry Favor.

If you are nice to her, maybe your wife will put in a good word for you.

Roughhouse.

Carve out a niche with your son or daughter that is distinct from your wife’s. At the risk of trading in crude stereotypes, many men are more comfortable with physical play than women, so be the fun tumble guy, teaching your child the joys of wrestling and gymnastics.

 
Skip Work.

Lots of people talk about “quality time,” but quantity is important too. Much of the joy (and pain) of parenting, especially when your kids are little, is in the tiny, everyday triumphs and defeats they experience. But it’s hard to appreciate this if you’re just parachuting into your kid’s life for a few frantic hours around dinnertime. So every month or so, take some time off from work and spend a whole day with your child. When do they nap? How much do they eat for lunch? What clothes do they like to wear? Get to know their daily rhythms and routines.

 
Act Like a Grown-Up.

Take a break from drinking with the fellows, memorizing baseball statistics and fretting about your career -- all of which take up precious brainpower that might be better spent thinking about your family. Abandoning self-absorption is a difficult concept for many men to master, of course. But it is essential if you ever hope to experience the Zen of parenting.

 
Forgive and Forget.

Having children is, in many respects, akin to being on the wrong end of an unrequited love affair. No matter how hard you try, they’re never going to love you as much as you love them. The sooner you accept this reality, the better. Parenthood does nothing if not put the notion of “unconditional love” to the test. Diaper changing, piano recitals, teenage rebellion—growing up provides your kid with one opportunity after another to demand heroic devotion from you while giving none in return. If its any consolation, you’re just experiencing the same thing that you put your parents through. And what goes around comes around—your son or daughter will get the same treatment when they have children of their own.

 
Let Them Win.

For some kids, this means watching Elmo videos over and over again. For others it means buying Pokemon paraphernalia. Instead of trying to limit your child’s access to forbidden fruit, give in every now and then. It might not make you a better dad, but at least it means that you will be making your child happy.

 
Look Out for Number One.

Many of life’s most important moral lessons can be gleaned from airline travel. Take, for example, the dictum that you should always put on your own oxygen mask before helping others. Have truer words ever been spoken? The relevance to good parenting is this: it is impossible to be of any benefit to your family if you haven’t taken care of your own emotional health first. So put on your oxygen mask—do what it takes to maintain your sanity. Just don’t forget to help others when you’re done.

 
—Greg Berman

Pro se Links

Here's a few Pro se links that may be of use to you if you really want to represent yourself legally.

The Pro Se Way

http://www.caught.net/prose/prose.htm

Advance Trial handbook

http://members.aol.com/richrwg/advtt/hbindex.htm

American Pro se Association

http://www.legalhelp.org/

Pro se Legal Services

http://firms.findlaw.com/pettyfogger/memos.htm

Pro se Resource Center

http://legalfreedom.com/prc/

Legal Advice Line

http://www.legaladviceline2.com/HomeFrame.htm

Appellate Rights and Pro Se Help

http://www.nolawyer.com/nappl.html

GENDER PROFILING

 PREVALENT IN DOMESTIC

 VIOLENCE

By Lisa Scott

February 13, 2001

Eastside Journal

www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/44468

 For years, we have been told that domestic violence is a serious problem: it must not be tolerated in any form and every victim must be believed. Yet, countless victims of domestic violence are ignored by the system, dismissed as liars, and even charged as abusers. These victims have been hit, kicked, punched, bitten, choked, knifed, shot, run over with cars, and even set on fire. They are men.

  Male victim. It's sounds like an oxymoron.  How can you be a male and a victim? Is it because they don't hurt when they are hit?  Is it because they don't bleed when they are cut? No. It's because they don’t count, literally.

  No victim can get real justice when only some victims are deemed legitimate. Every victim counts, and every abuser must be held accountable. Blaming only one gender for domestic violence in our society needlessly polarizes men and women, when we should be working together for better solutions.

  Call your elected officials, police and prosecutors. Demand they stop sending male victims to the back of the bus, stop gender profiling, and stop giving female abusers a free pass to custody of the children, the marital home, and an income for the next 18 years.

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.