I was kind of sorry to see that no non-custodial mothers or any of their organizations (if one such animal existed) was involved in supporting this John Murtari. I happen to personally know that a good number of non-custodial mothers are located in upstate New York and have to deal fairly regularly with a court system that thinks it’s okay to treat a non-custodial mother as a second-class citizen.
Not getting involved in this issue or showing any support for this man has allowed fathers rights advocates to grab the issue for themselves and paint it as another example of bias against fathers in court; which, in fact, it is not.
The horror of a moveaway of her children is a constant shadow looming over the lives of millions of non-custodial mothers. They might never see their children again after a moveaway, at least not until they are adults. IF the children even remember their mother, they might find their way back.
Or not.
This is a regular threat in the daily life of a non-custodial mother.
Much of this activity has been facilitated by the court system in order to enable men to get out of paying high child support. Yet there also exists a strain of gender-neutralized feminism that has enabled our legal system to be used against mothers as well. These sad, sick and demented gender-neutralized creatures, in their never-ending attempts to create an androgynous world, will go to any lengths to totally reshape our society in their own gender-neutralized image. AND they don’t care how many lives they have to destroy in order to do it.
These two elements are the genesis of these ongoing custody wars we hear so much about.
People like John Murtari, unfortunately, are frequently the equivalent of ‘collateral damage’ in these ongoing custody and social engineering wars. As there was no bias against fathers exhibited in his case.
Nevertheless although no bias appears evident, it does seem that John Murtari was the victim of a court system that feels it doesn't have to follow the same law that everyone else has to follow, but instead they can do whatever they feel like doing, depending upon their own personal opinion, bias against a particular group, dislike of a certain person, social engineering agenda, whatever.
As basically the laws of New York State DO allow for moveaways, BUT they also allow for child support paid to the custodial parent to be lessened in order to account for the higher expenses involved in visitation by the non-custodial parent. Otherwise the left behind parent is obviously facing a double bind as either they can afford to visit OR pay child support, not both. AND with airfare as expensive as it is, renting a car and a hotel room (because of course the moveaway ALWAYS winds up being half way across the continent, never just to the next state) clearly not getting child support reduced to reflect the new visitation travel expenses involved means you might never see your kids again.
This is John Murtari’s dilemna and it’s a familiar ones to all non-custodial mothers since generally their income is less then custodial fathers, thus they are more likely to be subject to the sort of spiteful and vicious manipulation of a moveaway in an attempt to keep them from seeing their children. Richard Gardner, himself, the PAS expert admitted that 50% of his clients having children alienated from them were mothers. AND who was doing this, but the childrens' fathers. This was back in the 80s when few fathers had custody YET Gardner client caseload was 50% mothers and 50% fathers. So if we are to believe Gardner (and I'll admit it's quesionable if he can be believed on anything, as this statement of his could have been a bizarre attempt to drum up more business from women) anyway if true this could show that custodial fathers are even MORE likely to be alienating then custodial mothers.
Anyway, John Murtari's problem should have been a simple enough one to solve except, of course, when you are dealing with a class of court officials who decide to ignore the remedy we already have in place: simply by reducing Murtari's child support to reflect the higher costs of visiting his son after the moveaway to Colorado from New York.
So the Judge(s) responsible for this whole unnecessary uproar should probably be investigated and then suitably disciplined. As we have REAL problems going on in the world and should not have to be subject to this sort of manufactured crisis.
Just my opinion.
Yet at the same time, non-custodial mothers can use the spotlight that has been placed on the moveaway issue through John Murtari’s ordeal to work on getting the law changed that allow a custodial parent to do any ‘moveaway’ of our children. We should call these actions what they are: judicially sanctioned abductions. Since they are nothing but men using the legal systems they have created to benefit themselves and kidnap our children from us. All of this for financial incentive mainly to benefit men.
http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1155215113167970.xml&coll3D1
The Post Standard
Jailed activist refusing food
Thursday, August 10, 2006
By Jim O'Hara
Staff writer
A vocal opponent of the state's divorce and custody laws is refusing to eat or drink as a protest in the Onondaga County Justice Center Jail in Syracuse, where he is serving a six-month sentence for not paying child support.
John Murtari, 49, is serving the sentence in the Justice Center instead of the county penitentiary in Jamesville because of the health services available in the downtown facility, according to sheriff's Sgt. John D'Eredita.
"Apparently, he's taken the position he doesn't want to eat or take any fluids," D'Eredita said.
County Family Court Judge Bryan Hedges said Wednesday he sentenced Murtari about a week ago to six months in jail for the willful failure to pay child support.
According to Hedges, he gave Murtari the option of a probationary sentence, but Murtari chose a jail sentence instead.
Murtari is well-known around the courthouse, where he has long protested the system that granted his ex-wife custody of their son following years of legal battles. He also has protested the support orders and the fact his wife moved across the country with their son, now 13.
A former Lysander resident now living in Wayne County, Murtari organized Kids-Right, a national organization that advocates a child's right to both parents.
Hedges said Murtari has chronicled his battle on his Web site - www.akidsright.org - and the recently imposed jail sentence has attracted a lot of attention. The judge said he has received numerous e-mails about the case and his law clerk has been fielding phone calls "from around the country and around the world" about the case.
A small group of supporters gathered Wednesday outside the Onondaga County Courthouse to protest Murtari's jail sentence and to call for changes in the way noncustodial parents are treated by the courts.
"There are far too many criminals on the streets to be filling jail cells with folks who have fallen on hard times," said Kris Titus, of Fathers for Justice in Canada.
Murtari's lawyer Charles Keller said his client is not refusing to pay support, he's simply unable to pay the amount the court has ordered
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Professional/Careerist Women More Likely to Divorce
Sometimes, in spite of every attempt to stop it, anecdotal evidence and plain old fashioned common sense will align with statistics and arrive at a logical conclusion.
This appears to be one of those rare occasions.
Obviously any relationship with BOTH parties focusing on their careers is not going to be one that puts the relationship FIRST. As let’s face it a career (not just a job as the author points out) but a career is not just a time consuming enterprise, but it’s a life-defining one as well. As in: I am a doctor (not a mom or dad who happened to work in medicine; or I am a police officer (not a husband or wife in law enforcement).
Generally you are what your career is.
AND I think that’s the way it should be.
As frankly, I don’t want someone in medicine or law enforcement who is just putting in their 8 hours until they can get home to do what they are really interested in. I want that doctor taking care of me when I’m sick to be obsessed with his specialty since about the age of 10 or so, when he or she was probably dissecting their Barbie dolls or a dead frog or something to see what makes living beings tick. The same thing with anyone working in law or the enforcement end of it.
So by definition a professional and/or careerist (and btw, anyone who thinks a blue collar police officer, fireman or even a corrections officer is NOT a careerist has never been involved in a household with one of them as a member of it) inevitably has a bad case of divided loyalty. In the past this wasn’t as big a problem, as the spouse who didn’t take on a career made up for this ‘divided loyalty’ of the careerist/professional spouse by spending the bulk of their time focused on the home and children, so that neither suffered from the divided loyalty of the careerist.
Generally this was a mother for the most obvious reason as she is the one who had already been chosen by God, evolution or nature to bring forth life. Thus she naturally had the most initially invested in the children. This spilled over into the ancillary interest in the home environment and everything connected with it.
Over time this ‘specialization’ by women made life pleasant for everybody, including the male professional/careerist. Since at least then when they did happen to be home (in between rescuing people from terrorists, carelessly started house fires and discovering the cure for cancer) they could relax in a pleasant clean house with a good home-cooked meal and well-adjusted kids around them.
Today the house is frequently a mess, if they want to eat they have to prepare it themselves or order take-out and the kids are generally being dumped off with total strangers for about 80% of their waking hours (with all the resulting problems associated with that situation) as their wife is now as deeply involved in her career as he, the husband, is with his.
So what was the point of the marriage????
As if most men wanted to have to work 10 hour days and then come home to cook and clean for themselves while a stranger is raising their kids, they could pay that stranger out of their own paycheck and cut out the middle-man entirely, namely the professional/careerist wife and mother.
So this article sums up the situation quite eloquently and has resultant research studies attached to back it up.
It’s nothing for ordinary women to get angry about, actually it can be used by us to plan our lives accordingly, particularly if we wish to marry and/or have children. If it cuts down on the divorce rate and millions of mothers losing custody of their children (which happens very frequently today) then it will be a good thing for women to know these things.
The only ones legitimately angry about these findings are gender-neutralized feminists and others like them (such as mens’ rights nuts) as the studies are another roadblock on the path to their ultimate goal of a totally androgynous society.
AND I could care LESS about what any of these gender-neutralized idiots think.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/21/careers-marriage-dating_cx_mn_0821women_print.html
Forbes.com
Don't Marry Career Women
Michael Noer 08.22.06, 6:00 AM ET
Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.
Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.
Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations.
To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.
If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).
Why?
Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.
This appears to be one of those rare occasions.
Obviously any relationship with BOTH parties focusing on their careers is not going to be one that puts the relationship FIRST. As let’s face it a career (not just a job as the author points out) but a career is not just a time consuming enterprise, but it’s a life-defining one as well. As in: I am a doctor (not a mom or dad who happened to work in medicine; or I am a police officer (not a husband or wife in law enforcement).
Generally you are what your career is.
AND I think that’s the way it should be.
As frankly, I don’t want someone in medicine or law enforcement who is just putting in their 8 hours until they can get home to do what they are really interested in. I want that doctor taking care of me when I’m sick to be obsessed with his specialty since about the age of 10 or so, when he or she was probably dissecting their Barbie dolls or a dead frog or something to see what makes living beings tick. The same thing with anyone working in law or the enforcement end of it.
So by definition a professional and/or careerist (and btw, anyone who thinks a blue collar police officer, fireman or even a corrections officer is NOT a careerist has never been involved in a household with one of them as a member of it) inevitably has a bad case of divided loyalty. In the past this wasn’t as big a problem, as the spouse who didn’t take on a career made up for this ‘divided loyalty’ of the careerist/professional spouse by spending the bulk of their time focused on the home and children, so that neither suffered from the divided loyalty of the careerist.
Generally this was a mother for the most obvious reason as she is the one who had already been chosen by God, evolution or nature to bring forth life. Thus she naturally had the most initially invested in the children. This spilled over into the ancillary interest in the home environment and everything connected with it.
Over time this ‘specialization’ by women made life pleasant for everybody, including the male professional/careerist. Since at least then when they did happen to be home (in between rescuing people from terrorists, carelessly started house fires and discovering the cure for cancer) they could relax in a pleasant clean house with a good home-cooked meal and well-adjusted kids around them.
Today the house is frequently a mess, if they want to eat they have to prepare it themselves or order take-out and the kids are generally being dumped off with total strangers for about 80% of their waking hours (with all the resulting problems associated with that situation) as their wife is now as deeply involved in her career as he, the husband, is with his.
So what was the point of the marriage????
As if most men wanted to have to work 10 hour days and then come home to cook and clean for themselves while a stranger is raising their kids, they could pay that stranger out of their own paycheck and cut out the middle-man entirely, namely the professional/careerist wife and mother.
So this article sums up the situation quite eloquently and has resultant research studies attached to back it up.
It’s nothing for ordinary women to get angry about, actually it can be used by us to plan our lives accordingly, particularly if we wish to marry and/or have children. If it cuts down on the divorce rate and millions of mothers losing custody of their children (which happens very frequently today) then it will be a good thing for women to know these things.
The only ones legitimately angry about these findings are gender-neutralized feminists and others like them (such as mens’ rights nuts) as the studies are another roadblock on the path to their ultimate goal of a totally androgynous society.
AND I could care LESS about what any of these gender-neutralized idiots think.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/21/careers-marriage-dating_cx_mn_0821women_print.html
Forbes.com
Don't Marry Career Women
Michael Noer 08.22.06, 6:00 AM ET
Guys: A word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.
Why? Because if many social scientists are to be believed, you run a higher risk of having a rocky marriage. While everyone knows that marriage can be stressful, recent studies have found professional women are more likely to get divorced, more likely to cheat, less likely to have children, and, if they do have kids, they are more likely to be unhappy about it. A recent study in Social Forces, a research journal, found that women--even those with a "feminist" outlook--are happier when their husband is the primary breadwinner.
Not a happy conclusion, especially given that many men, particularly successful men, are attracted to women with similar goals and aspirations.
To be clear, we're not talking about a high-school dropout minding a cash register. For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.
If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research).
Why?
Well, despite the fact that the link between work, women and divorce rates is complex and controversial, much of the reasoning is based on a lot of economic theory and a bit of common sense. In classic economics, a marriage is, at least in part, an exercise in labor specialization. Traditionally men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home and women have tended to do "non-market" or household work, including raising children. All of the work must get done by somebody, and this pairing, regardless of who is in the home and who is outside the home, accomplishes that goal. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. And, indeed, empirical studies have concluded just that.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Many Profitteering Off Custody of Children
Well as we can see from the two articles below the people that profit off of the custody of children are many and diverse.
As it’s not just family court attorneys, GALS and Evaluators who are making money from this whole custody business, nor is it the custodial parent necessarily, although all stand to lose something depending upon how this is ultimately resolved. But now we see even our state and local government itself stands to lose the windfall it has been getting from matching federal funds received for all child support collected.
Additionally it also appears that this could be a class issue of sorts.
As middle and upper class non-custodial parents appear to have been shouldering some hidden tax, which helps the state bring in federal dollars for lower income families. As I’m sure that the 71 million or so matching TANF dollars mentioned that the states receives from the federal government is NOT wholly based on matching child support collected from ONLY lower income families.
In other words as a friend of mine used to say: the plot sickens.
Thus as I’ve been saying right along, we must really address the financial issues surrounding custody of children. As the financial issues ARE the MAIN EVENT. Solve the financial issues and ALL THE REST will take care of itself.
I guarantee you that MOST of these custody fights will end TOMORROW when there is no financial incentive to have custody. Parents will go right back to doing what they did before which was settle it amongst themselves.
Actually I never even HEARD of a custody fight before the last 15 years or so (except in the movies or on TV) and I lived through the 70s where the divorce rate was even HIGHER then today. AND practically every divorce involved kids… Yet with no guarantee for ordinary parents of being forced to pay guideline child support (if they became non-custodial) or face getting tossed in jail if you couldn’t afford to pay it, no one bothered fighting over custody...
Custody simply went by default to the more interested parent (and in spite of much propaganda to the contrary that was generally mother). As it appears when children are not worth any money to anyone, the only one interested in them is generally their mothers (again in spite of much propaganda to the contrary)...
Additionally, we need to address MORE then just the child support issue. We must address ALL the tax and other public benefits that have made custody of children something for people to fight over. From subsidized housing, free medical care, extra food allowances to the infamous ‘anchor babies’ who give the custodial parent citizenship privileges, ALL of this must be addressed and either modified or come to an end.
Everything that has made children a prize to be fought for: support, benefits and other monetary/benefit advantages linked to custody must be rescinded or at least modified. The custody of a child must not continue to be seen as the equivalent of winning the Irish sweepstakes; but must return to its roots. Where custody naturally reverted to the one who cared the most about the child, not the ones who stood to make the most income from it.
Unfortunately there will be no simply answer here. Since the problem is so complicated, so must be the solution.
GrandFolksHerald.com
VIEWPOINT:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291702.htm
Measure Complies with Federal Law
By Rob Port
MINOT - Recently, North Dakota Human Services Director Carol Olson wrote a column about the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative, a measure which got about 17,000 petition signatures and likely will be on the ballot in November.
Olson states that should the initiative become law, it would cause North Dakota to lose out on more than $70 million in federal money for human services programs in the state. To back up her claim, she quotes a letter from the federal regional director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Thomas Sullivan.
Unfortunately, neither Olson nor Sullivan are interpreting this situation correctly.
The standards for state child support guidelines are found in federal code Title 45, Volume 2, Section 302.56. All they require of state child support guidelines is that a) the state have a formula for determining the amount of child support, and b) that the formula take into account all of an obliged parent's income.
That's it. Federal law does not prohibit additional calculations (such as the actual cost of raising a child) from being used to determine the amount of child support to be paid, nor does the initiative prohibit the amount of income to be used in the calculations.
In short, the initiative is explicitly in compliance with federal standards.
So why is Olson saying that the initiative isn't in compliance? It helps if we follow the money.
The federal funding that the Child Support Enforcement division of the North Dakota Department of Human Services gets is based on the number of dollars that agency collects in child support. The more child support money the division collects, the more federal funding it receives.
The initiative likely would reduce the amount of child support collected in North Dakota by preventing support payments from exceeding the cost of raising the child. Currently, many parents pay hundreds of dollars a month more than they need to because current child support guidelines are based only on income, not the needs of the children.
The bureaucrats down at the child support offices like that because it means more federal dollars for them.
This is the key at the state level, rather than any concern about being out of compliance with federal regulations.
What we need to ask ourselves is this: What's more important: A family law system that's equitable to both parents and does not require child support payments in excess of what is needed? Or, keeping the amount of federal funds the child support agency receives high?
I pick the first one, especially in light of a recent announcement that North Dakota has a half-billion dollar budget surplus.
There is no reason to be sacrificing equality for the sake of some federal dollars right now.
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291687.htm
VIEWPOINT : State wants to protect revenue stream
By Don Mathis
SHERMAN, Texas - The forces that are lining up against North Dakota's Shared Parenting Initiative have two things in common: lack of logic and lust for lucre.
For example, Herald columnist Lloyd Omdahl writes, "Dr. Diane Lye said that the single most important determinant of a child's well-being after divorce is living in a household with adequate income" . Does this mean if Dad makes more money than Mom, he should have custody?
How about this one: "Father contact in low-conflict families can be beneficial, but in high-conflict families, it can be harmful." I guess if the ex-wife wants conflict, the ex-husband should just drop out of his kid's life.
In fact, Omdahl and Carol Olson, executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services and the author of "Family-law measures would lead to cutoff of federal funds" , both are singing the same tune. They are afraid this initiated measure would jeopardize millions in federal Temporary Aid for Needy Families funds for North Dakota.
The refrain of their song is Omdahl's: "Many custodial parents have had to turn to the government and its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for help."
Well, how many: Fifty percent? Seventy percent?
No, 8 percent. According to Olson, the state's child support enforcement program "serves about 60,000 children monthly, and the TANF program ... each month helps financially support about 5,000 qualifying low-income children who live with single parents or other relatives."
While 8 percent qualifies as "many" if you happen to be in that category, there is a much bigger welfare recipient that all of us should know about.
The federal government gives millions of taxpayer dollars to each state so they may keep track of child support. North Dakota's share is $71 million.
How far would those millions go if they went directly to those 5,000 qualifying low-income children?
The North Dakota Department of Human Services is trying to use children to justify its budget. We have child labor laws to prevent exploitation of our children. DHS should be prevented from using kids for cash as well.
As it’s not just family court attorneys, GALS and Evaluators who are making money from this whole custody business, nor is it the custodial parent necessarily, although all stand to lose something depending upon how this is ultimately resolved. But now we see even our state and local government itself stands to lose the windfall it has been getting from matching federal funds received for all child support collected.
Additionally it also appears that this could be a class issue of sorts.
As middle and upper class non-custodial parents appear to have been shouldering some hidden tax, which helps the state bring in federal dollars for lower income families. As I’m sure that the 71 million or so matching TANF dollars mentioned that the states receives from the federal government is NOT wholly based on matching child support collected from ONLY lower income families.
In other words as a friend of mine used to say: the plot sickens.
Thus as I’ve been saying right along, we must really address the financial issues surrounding custody of children. As the financial issues ARE the MAIN EVENT. Solve the financial issues and ALL THE REST will take care of itself.
I guarantee you that MOST of these custody fights will end TOMORROW when there is no financial incentive to have custody. Parents will go right back to doing what they did before which was settle it amongst themselves.
Actually I never even HEARD of a custody fight before the last 15 years or so (except in the movies or on TV) and I lived through the 70s where the divorce rate was even HIGHER then today. AND practically every divorce involved kids… Yet with no guarantee for ordinary parents of being forced to pay guideline child support (if they became non-custodial) or face getting tossed in jail if you couldn’t afford to pay it, no one bothered fighting over custody...
Custody simply went by default to the more interested parent (and in spite of much propaganda to the contrary that was generally mother). As it appears when children are not worth any money to anyone, the only one interested in them is generally their mothers (again in spite of much propaganda to the contrary)...
Additionally, we need to address MORE then just the child support issue. We must address ALL the tax and other public benefits that have made custody of children something for people to fight over. From subsidized housing, free medical care, extra food allowances to the infamous ‘anchor babies’ who give the custodial parent citizenship privileges, ALL of this must be addressed and either modified or come to an end.
Everything that has made children a prize to be fought for: support, benefits and other monetary/benefit advantages linked to custody must be rescinded or at least modified. The custody of a child must not continue to be seen as the equivalent of winning the Irish sweepstakes; but must return to its roots. Where custody naturally reverted to the one who cared the most about the child, not the ones who stood to make the most income from it.
Unfortunately there will be no simply answer here. Since the problem is so complicated, so must be the solution.
GrandFolksHerald.com
VIEWPOINT:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291702.htm
Measure Complies with Federal Law
By Rob Port
MINOT - Recently, North Dakota Human Services Director Carol Olson wrote a column about the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative, a measure which got about 17,000 petition signatures and likely will be on the ballot in November.
Olson states that should the initiative become law, it would cause North Dakota to lose out on more than $70 million in federal money for human services programs in the state. To back up her claim, she quotes a letter from the federal regional director of the Department of Health and Human Services, Thomas Sullivan.
Unfortunately, neither Olson nor Sullivan are interpreting this situation correctly.
The standards for state child support guidelines are found in federal code Title 45, Volume 2, Section 302.56. All they require of state child support guidelines is that a) the state have a formula for determining the amount of child support, and b) that the formula take into account all of an obliged parent's income.
That's it. Federal law does not prohibit additional calculations (such as the actual cost of raising a child) from being used to determine the amount of child support to be paid, nor does the initiative prohibit the amount of income to be used in the calculations.
In short, the initiative is explicitly in compliance with federal standards.
So why is Olson saying that the initiative isn't in compliance? It helps if we follow the money.
The federal funding that the Child Support Enforcement division of the North Dakota Department of Human Services gets is based on the number of dollars that agency collects in child support. The more child support money the division collects, the more federal funding it receives.
The initiative likely would reduce the amount of child support collected in North Dakota by preventing support payments from exceeding the cost of raising the child. Currently, many parents pay hundreds of dollars a month more than they need to because current child support guidelines are based only on income, not the needs of the children.
The bureaucrats down at the child support offices like that because it means more federal dollars for them.
This is the key at the state level, rather than any concern about being out of compliance with federal regulations.
What we need to ask ourselves is this: What's more important: A family law system that's equitable to both parents and does not require child support payments in excess of what is needed? Or, keeping the amount of federal funds the child support agency receives high?
I pick the first one, especially in light of a recent announcement that North Dakota has a half-billion dollar budget surplus.
There is no reason to be sacrificing equality for the sake of some federal dollars right now.
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291687.htm
VIEWPOINT : State wants to protect revenue stream
By Don Mathis
SHERMAN, Texas - The forces that are lining up against North Dakota's Shared Parenting Initiative have two things in common: lack of logic and lust for lucre.
For example, Herald columnist Lloyd Omdahl writes, "Dr. Diane Lye said that the single most important determinant of a child's well-being after divorce is living in a household with adequate income" . Does this mean if Dad makes more money than Mom, he should have custody?
How about this one: "Father contact in low-conflict families can be beneficial, but in high-conflict families, it can be harmful." I guess if the ex-wife wants conflict, the ex-husband should just drop out of his kid's life.
In fact, Omdahl and Carol Olson, executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services and the author of "Family-law measures would lead to cutoff of federal funds" , both are singing the same tune. They are afraid this initiated measure would jeopardize millions in federal Temporary Aid for Needy Families funds for North Dakota.
The refrain of their song is Omdahl's: "Many custodial parents have had to turn to the government and its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for help."
Well, how many: Fifty percent? Seventy percent?
No, 8 percent. According to Olson, the state's child support enforcement program "serves about 60,000 children monthly, and the TANF program ... each month helps financially support about 5,000 qualifying low-income children who live with single parents or other relatives."
While 8 percent qualifies as "many" if you happen to be in that category, there is a much bigger welfare recipient that all of us should know about.
The federal government gives millions of taxpayer dollars to each state so they may keep track of child support. North Dakota's share is $71 million.
How far would those millions go if they went directly to those 5,000 qualifying low-income children?
The North Dakota Department of Human Services is trying to use children to justify its budget. We have child labor laws to prevent exploitation of our children. DHS should be prevented from using kids for cash as well.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Need Exists for Fair Assessment of Women's Overall Contribution to a Family
I thought this was a very interesting article regarding how the courts always ignore the dollar value of everything women contributute to a relationship. It is so much easier (or so they claim) to just look at the monetary value of something tangible such as an engagement ring and assign a value to it; then to figure out a dollar amount when a man benefits from your unpaid labor. In this situation, for instance, where a man (Donald) persuaded a woman (Dale) to function as an unpaid maid and babysitter for his kids from another relationship and then breaks off the engagement when they hit school age probably, and he doesn’t need her free services anymore.
How convenient.
AND, of course, the courts rule that the ONLY thing of value in the relationship was the engagement ring, which the woman (Dale) was told to return. Well how does this jerk (Donald) return the value of her unpaid labor, probably aiding and abetting him to keep those kids from their mother, so I won’t say I’m too sympathetic to this woman’s foolishness…Reading between the lines of the article you can see Dale even helped Donald in a moveaway. Again, probably aiding and abetting him in moving the children away from their mother in an ongoing attempt to alienate them from their natural guardian and the proper custodial parent...
Well one can only say Dale got her just deserts in the end...
YET it’s interesting how the courts assign value to things, but as always it the things men generally do that get assigned value. The things women contribute are, as always, ignored.
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/ring.htm
UF LAW STUDENT EXAMINES LEGALITIES OF BROKEN ENGAGEMENTS
Feb. 12, 1998
Writer: Karen Meisenheimer
Source: Michael Moore, (352) 392-7139 or 379-1931
GAINESVILLE --- The engagement was back on! Janis was certain it would all work out this time. She had the rock to prove it -- an opulent, $21,000 commitment -- glistening on her finger.
Roger couldn't back out again.
Roger did back out, but this time Janis was holding on to the ring. She wasn't about to give up a girl's best friend twice.
She ended up in court.
Not the typical Valentine's Day love story but one a University of Florida law student examined while researching the legal perspective of broken engagements.
Second-year law student Michael Moore and UF law Professor Nancy Dowd concluded from the research that the laws should be reformed to reflect more balance in the value assigned to what each partner receives from the other.
"In most cases, the man will get the ring back," Moore said. "The problem with the existing law over broken engagements is that women are generally denied the right to claim monetary damages because expenses and sacrifices they make for the relationship are typically not valued."
In the Pennsylvania case of Roger and Janis, Roger prevailed on appeal, and Janis was ordered to return the diamond. Even though it was Roger who called off the wedding, the appellate court determined that an engagement ring is a conditional gift.
"Where the marriage does not ensue, the donee of an engagement ring is not entitled to keep the ring," the Pennsylvania court wrote in its ruling.
Lawsuits over broken engagements became popular in Revolutionary America, Moore said. But in the 1930s, several states began enacting "heart balm" statutes, which deny people the right to sue over a broken engagement. Moore said, citing social commentators' and legal experts' opinions, and that had a lot to do with status of women and the changing sexual mores in society.
Modern-day court actions over the recovery of a $40,000 or $60,000 engagement ring are a different story, he said. They deal more with economic value than broken hearts.
"The law is not very well-defined in this area because so few cases reach the appellate courts," Moore said. "Most people work these things out outside of the courtroom because the expense of the suit can well exceed the value of the ring."
Moore said cases that do end up in court usually come down to the issue of unjust enrichment, meaning it's not fair to let the ring recipient keep the rock if no marriage occurs.
"The engagement ring is recoverable, but little else is," he said.
Consider the case of Dale and Donald:
At one point during their eight years of living together, Donald bought Dale a diamond engagement ring. When Donald moved to attend graduate school, Dale joined him and handled the household duties, including cooking, laundry, ironing, cleaning and taking care of Donald's children from a previous relationship.
Donald ended his relationship with Dale and sued her for recovery of the ring.
In a countersuit filed by Dale, she submitted a monetary value for her years of domestic service to Donald. At $6 an hour, the total came to $25,000. Again, the court of appeals sided with the ring-giver, saying Dale's contributions had no market value.
Dowd said cases involving engagement rings are heavily gender-laden.
"Most people understand the ring as a gift," Dowd said. "No one says, I'm going to give you this ring, and if we don't go through with the wedding, I get it back.'
That's not the way it's portrayed in the diamond ads."
Moore said until there are more opportunities for people to recover other expenditures, nobody should be allowed to recover anything.
"While men buy engagement rings in contemplation of marriage, women typically make sacrifices in other ways," Moore wrote in his paper. "Unfortunately, courts have fallen into a pattern where men are permitted to recover engagement rings, or their worth, while women are not permitted to recover anything for performing household tasks or purchasing items in contemplations of marriage."
Exactly…and when women can recover their own as well as their families contributions towards the planning of a wedding (which women still predominantly pay for everything EXCEPT the engagement ring and maybe the honeymoon) such as the dress, ordering of flowers, caterers, renting a hall, bridemaids’ outlays etc., then we can think about giving the engagement ring back…as opposed to selling it to reimburse ourselves or our family for the wedding expenses.
But the bigger issue is that in general, women’s contributions to a relationship are consistently ignored by the courts. Even the stay-at-home mother is generally assessed to have contributed nothing of value to a relationship and thus, is given nothing after divorce unless she also has custody of her children. AND if she loses custody of her kids (which thanks to gender neutral custody and the greed of men) frequently happens today, she can even windup having to pay high child support or wind up in jail herself. While some stingy cheapskate takes custody of the kids just to get the house (as Judges generally give use of the house to the custodial parent) all household furnishings, the family car, and other marital assets.
This is a significant issue since so many marriages end in divorce today and frequently children are involved in them. So we need to accurately and fairly assess women’s contribution throughout the life of the marriage and adequately compensate her for those contributions.
How convenient.
AND, of course, the courts rule that the ONLY thing of value in the relationship was the engagement ring, which the woman (Dale) was told to return. Well how does this jerk (Donald) return the value of her unpaid labor, probably aiding and abetting him to keep those kids from their mother, so I won’t say I’m too sympathetic to this woman’s foolishness…Reading between the lines of the article you can see Dale even helped Donald in a moveaway. Again, probably aiding and abetting him in moving the children away from their mother in an ongoing attempt to alienate them from their natural guardian and the proper custodial parent...
Well one can only say Dale got her just deserts in the end...
YET it’s interesting how the courts assign value to things, but as always it the things men generally do that get assigned value. The things women contribute are, as always, ignored.
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/ring.htm
UF LAW STUDENT EXAMINES LEGALITIES OF BROKEN ENGAGEMENTS
Feb. 12, 1998
Writer: Karen Meisenheimer
Source: Michael Moore, (352) 392-7139 or 379-1931
GAINESVILLE --- The engagement was back on! Janis was certain it would all work out this time. She had the rock to prove it -- an opulent, $21,000 commitment -- glistening on her finger.
Roger couldn't back out again.
Roger did back out, but this time Janis was holding on to the ring. She wasn't about to give up a girl's best friend twice.
She ended up in court.
Not the typical Valentine's Day love story but one a University of Florida law student examined while researching the legal perspective of broken engagements.
Second-year law student Michael Moore and UF law Professor Nancy Dowd concluded from the research that the laws should be reformed to reflect more balance in the value assigned to what each partner receives from the other.
"In most cases, the man will get the ring back," Moore said. "The problem with the existing law over broken engagements is that women are generally denied the right to claim monetary damages because expenses and sacrifices they make for the relationship are typically not valued."
In the Pennsylvania case of Roger and Janis, Roger prevailed on appeal, and Janis was ordered to return the diamond. Even though it was Roger who called off the wedding, the appellate court determined that an engagement ring is a conditional gift.
"Where the marriage does not ensue, the donee of an engagement ring is not entitled to keep the ring," the Pennsylvania court wrote in its ruling.
Lawsuits over broken engagements became popular in Revolutionary America, Moore said. But in the 1930s, several states began enacting "heart balm" statutes, which deny people the right to sue over a broken engagement. Moore said, citing social commentators' and legal experts' opinions, and that had a lot to do with status of women and the changing sexual mores in society.
Modern-day court actions over the recovery of a $40,000 or $60,000 engagement ring are a different story, he said. They deal more with economic value than broken hearts.
"The law is not very well-defined in this area because so few cases reach the appellate courts," Moore said. "Most people work these things out outside of the courtroom because the expense of the suit can well exceed the value of the ring."
Moore said cases that do end up in court usually come down to the issue of unjust enrichment, meaning it's not fair to let the ring recipient keep the rock if no marriage occurs.
"The engagement ring is recoverable, but little else is," he said.
Consider the case of Dale and Donald:
At one point during their eight years of living together, Donald bought Dale a diamond engagement ring. When Donald moved to attend graduate school, Dale joined him and handled the household duties, including cooking, laundry, ironing, cleaning and taking care of Donald's children from a previous relationship.
Donald ended his relationship with Dale and sued her for recovery of the ring.
In a countersuit filed by Dale, she submitted a monetary value for her years of domestic service to Donald. At $6 an hour, the total came to $25,000. Again, the court of appeals sided with the ring-giver, saying Dale's contributions had no market value.
Dowd said cases involving engagement rings are heavily gender-laden.
"Most people understand the ring as a gift," Dowd said. "No one says, I'm going to give you this ring, and if we don't go through with the wedding, I get it back.'
That's not the way it's portrayed in the diamond ads."
Moore said until there are more opportunities for people to recover other expenditures, nobody should be allowed to recover anything.
"While men buy engagement rings in contemplation of marriage, women typically make sacrifices in other ways," Moore wrote in his paper. "Unfortunately, courts have fallen into a pattern where men are permitted to recover engagement rings, or their worth, while women are not permitted to recover anything for performing household tasks or purchasing items in contemplations of marriage."
Exactly…and when women can recover their own as well as their families contributions towards the planning of a wedding (which women still predominantly pay for everything EXCEPT the engagement ring and maybe the honeymoon) such as the dress, ordering of flowers, caterers, renting a hall, bridemaids’ outlays etc., then we can think about giving the engagement ring back…as opposed to selling it to reimburse ourselves or our family for the wedding expenses.
But the bigger issue is that in general, women’s contributions to a relationship are consistently ignored by the courts. Even the stay-at-home mother is generally assessed to have contributed nothing of value to a relationship and thus, is given nothing after divorce unless she also has custody of her children. AND if she loses custody of her kids (which thanks to gender neutral custody and the greed of men) frequently happens today, she can even windup having to pay high child support or wind up in jail herself. While some stingy cheapskate takes custody of the kids just to get the house (as Judges generally give use of the house to the custodial parent) all household furnishings, the family car, and other marital assets.
This is a significant issue since so many marriages end in divorce today and frequently children are involved in them. So we need to accurately and fairly assess women’s contribution throughout the life of the marriage and adequately compensate her for those contributions.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
More Instability in the Lives of Mothers and Children
This ruling, although in Canada, will eventually filter down to the US and, of course, have many disparate impacts on mothers and their children…
First of all, it will cause more men to fight for custody. Since no matter what financial agreement you reach with them, they can never be sure that it won’t be overturned retroactively years after the fact. Thus, there is no incentive for a man to ever settle custody now without a court fight, since he can never be sure of what forfeiting custody might cost him over the long haul.
Thus, mothers must prepare for every separation, divorce or action involving children to end in a court fight today and btw, court are not friendly to the parent without money and that’s usually mothers. Not just because of the money issue (and men generally still make more of it) but also because the entire legal system inevitably favors the parent who is the more aggressive (again men generally but some few women).
Anyhow, courts are generally male-friendly territory. They play to the male strengths. After all men invented and are more comfortable within them. As it favors the personality of the more aggressive amongst us, the one who doesn’t give a damn how much stress they put their kids under or how many times they have to return to court or pull any shady stunt to win, just as long as they win. That’s their goal: winning.
Additionally many gender neutralized feminists populate the legal system in the west today and giving fathers custody is seen by them as progressive and trendy, thus turning courts into dangerous places for women and children to be too involved with.
Second of all, these annual reviews can eventually have the unintended consequences of giving custodial mothers overall LESS money. As the standard of basing ALL child support on an annual review of the financial position of the non-custodial parent could eventually result in a lowering of child support for many of us. Since we’ll never know what changes have taken place in the non-custodial parent’s household over any given year.
Right now once a status quo amount is established for most of us (of course mothers receiving public benefits probably have to be reviewed every year, but that isn’t most of us) anyway that support amount generally would never change, either up or down, unless either parent returned to court. Most men won’t bother as why should they go back with a chance that they might have to increase the support; and, most women attempting to avoid another court fight, would leave it alone as well.
NOW you won’t have any choice as men to protect themselves will HAVE to return to court annually for this review.
AND mothers don’t be fooled and think that a child support fight cannot morph into a custody battle as they can and frequently do…
Thus, ultimately this mandated review could trigger anything in your lives, like an unstable and seething volcano over the hill from your house, which you can never tell if or when it has the potential to erupt destroying your home and/or family.
Additionally of course, we would be foolish if we believe that men are not going to lobby hard and eventually have this review going both ways. For the same way it can be raised by changes in circumstances, it can be lowered through the same. We will eventually even see additionally children used by second wives to lower child support for the first family. As right now in some states in the US this is allowed. Or if not lowered, never raised due to a second family, which can have the same impact.
So overall I see the net impact of this ruling as being a negative for mothers and children. As the possibility of additional monies will not prove to be worth the aggravation of endless court dramas and the ongoing attempts to get more custody or visitation, overnights, etc., to lower the basic child support award before the next annual review comes up.
Mothers can now be assured of more chaos in their lives and the lives of their children generated by a bunch of bureaucratic busybodies who can’t seem to keep their noses out of other people’s business.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2006/07/30/1710518-cp.html
C-News Law and Order
SCOC rules on child support payments
OTTAWA (CP) - Divorced or separated dads who don't boost their child support to keep pace with their income could face hefty retroactive orders to pay up under a new Supreme Court of Canada judgment.
But in a 7-0 ruling, the judges leave plenty of room for lower court decisions to vary based on the facts of each case.
The issue arose when four Alberta fathers challenged the retroactive awards imposed on them. The high court ordered two of them to pay up, while the other two were absolved.
The legal principles involved extend far beyond the four cases and could affect thousands of couples.
Federal law sets guidelines that tie child support to ability to pay and number of children.
But people often leave old jobs and take new ones as the years go by. Custody arrangements also change as children move back and forth between parents, so support payments often become outdated.
In practice, the onus has typically fallen on recipient spouses - usually the mothers - to go to court if they think they're owed more money. But they say they can't do so if their ex-partners haven't disclosed their new incomes.
First of all, it will cause more men to fight for custody. Since no matter what financial agreement you reach with them, they can never be sure that it won’t be overturned retroactively years after the fact. Thus, there is no incentive for a man to ever settle custody now without a court fight, since he can never be sure of what forfeiting custody might cost him over the long haul.
Thus, mothers must prepare for every separation, divorce or action involving children to end in a court fight today and btw, court are not friendly to the parent without money and that’s usually mothers. Not just because of the money issue (and men generally still make more of it) but also because the entire legal system inevitably favors the parent who is the more aggressive (again men generally but some few women).
Anyhow, courts are generally male-friendly territory. They play to the male strengths. After all men invented and are more comfortable within them. As it favors the personality of the more aggressive amongst us, the one who doesn’t give a damn how much stress they put their kids under or how many times they have to return to court or pull any shady stunt to win, just as long as they win. That’s their goal: winning.
Additionally many gender neutralized feminists populate the legal system in the west today and giving fathers custody is seen by them as progressive and trendy, thus turning courts into dangerous places for women and children to be too involved with.
Second of all, these annual reviews can eventually have the unintended consequences of giving custodial mothers overall LESS money. As the standard of basing ALL child support on an annual review of the financial position of the non-custodial parent could eventually result in a lowering of child support for many of us. Since we’ll never know what changes have taken place in the non-custodial parent’s household over any given year.
Right now once a status quo amount is established for most of us (of course mothers receiving public benefits probably have to be reviewed every year, but that isn’t most of us) anyway that support amount generally would never change, either up or down, unless either parent returned to court. Most men won’t bother as why should they go back with a chance that they might have to increase the support; and, most women attempting to avoid another court fight, would leave it alone as well.
NOW you won’t have any choice as men to protect themselves will HAVE to return to court annually for this review.
AND mothers don’t be fooled and think that a child support fight cannot morph into a custody battle as they can and frequently do…
Thus, ultimately this mandated review could trigger anything in your lives, like an unstable and seething volcano over the hill from your house, which you can never tell if or when it has the potential to erupt destroying your home and/or family.
Additionally of course, we would be foolish if we believe that men are not going to lobby hard and eventually have this review going both ways. For the same way it can be raised by changes in circumstances, it can be lowered through the same. We will eventually even see additionally children used by second wives to lower child support for the first family. As right now in some states in the US this is allowed. Or if not lowered, never raised due to a second family, which can have the same impact.
So overall I see the net impact of this ruling as being a negative for mothers and children. As the possibility of additional monies will not prove to be worth the aggravation of endless court dramas and the ongoing attempts to get more custody or visitation, overnights, etc., to lower the basic child support award before the next annual review comes up.
Mothers can now be assured of more chaos in their lives and the lives of their children generated by a bunch of bureaucratic busybodies who can’t seem to keep their noses out of other people’s business.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2006/07/30/1710518-cp.html
C-News Law and Order
SCOC rules on child support payments
OTTAWA (CP) - Divorced or separated dads who don't boost their child support to keep pace with their income could face hefty retroactive orders to pay up under a new Supreme Court of Canada judgment.
But in a 7-0 ruling, the judges leave plenty of room for lower court decisions to vary based on the facts of each case.
The issue arose when four Alberta fathers challenged the retroactive awards imposed on them. The high court ordered two of them to pay up, while the other two were absolved.
The legal principles involved extend far beyond the four cases and could affect thousands of couples.
Federal law sets guidelines that tie child support to ability to pay and number of children.
But people often leave old jobs and take new ones as the years go by. Custody arrangements also change as children move back and forth between parents, so support payments often become outdated.
In practice, the onus has typically fallen on recipient spouses - usually the mothers - to go to court if they think they're owed more money. But they say they can't do so if their ex-partners haven't disclosed their new incomes.
Courts Once Again Putting Rights of Recreational Sperm Donors Uber All
Here is another one of those adoption cases where a recreational sperm donor was given the right to overturn an adoption over the mother’s objection. Just like in Florida where the Judge backdated the paperwork so the recreational sperm donor could appear to have followed the law; so too the Arizona courts overlooked Arizona law to give this recreational sperm donor a chance to screw up another poor kid’s life.
Arizona, after all, has the oft cited ‘putative father’s registry’. This supposedly functions in order to protect a recreational sperm donors legal rights to any children he might inadvertently spawn by allowing him to register both before and up to TEN DAYS AFTER THE BIRTH in the event that he has unprotected casual sex with a woman. It also supposedly functions to protect children from having a recreational sperm donor show up to overturn an adoption by terminating the rights of never-married men who don’t register in that putative fathers registry at least TEN DAYS AFTER THE BIRTH. Of course, it only works if Judges follow the original intent of it. Which many decide not to do. Thus, once again we see the Judicial branch refusing to follow the intent of our laws and legislating their own personal opinions from the bench…
This so-called father never bothered availing himself of this putative fathers registry, even though evidence was presented at the trial that this child was the result of a SIX months relationship and one of his co-workers testified he was aware of the pregnancy but unsure if it was his child.
Well boo freakin hoo…
So he knew damn well he could have been a father and should have had his name registered in that putative father registry BEFORE the birth of that child just as Arizona law requires…Nor did he give his casual sex partner a PENNY for any medical expenses or bills related to her pregnancy. Never got her a vitamin or a hot-dog to eat or provided in anyway whatsoever for the healthy birth of that child. Yet a second after delivery he could hop out of bed, throw on his jeans and show up in the delivery room with the exact same legal rights to that child as the mother. Even though he did not contribute ONE DAMN SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THAT CHILD, other then a quik drop sperm deposit.
It’s outfreakinrageous.
The biggest outrage however is that once again, we see Judges legislating from the bench as they decide that they don’t like the law, which Arizona legislators have enacted (acting as the people’s proper representatives)…
Clearly it is time to enact some version of my ‘Three Strikes Law for Judges”…where we have review committees composed of both attorneys and lay people who review every overturned case for adherence to the law…if it becomes apparent that a particular Judge or group of Judges obviously ignored the law then the first offense is an automatic $10,000 fine EACH, PERSONALLY PAYABLE…second offense is an automatic $20,000 fine EACH, PERSONALLY PAYABLE…third offense is an automatic $30,000 fine EACH, PERSONALLY PAYABLE and then you’re automatically disbarred; so you can’t continue wrecking havoc on our nation by substituting your personal bias and opinions for the laws as they stand…
Not what you feel like they should stand for but the original intent of the laws…
Anyway read below for another sickening example of why mothers need to address these public policies as they now stand and ensure that whatever decisions we ultimately make for the good of our children are NOT overturned on the whims of a few Judges and a recreational sperm donor, all refusing to follow the law…
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4896745,00.html
Court decision impacts custody of a young boy, future of N.M. adoptions
By Joline Gutierrez KruegerTribune Reporter
August 5, 2006
A recent court decision in a custody battle between the biological father of a 2-year-old boy and the adoptive parents who have raised the child since he was 3 days old could have a "chilling and rippling" effect on future adoptions in New Mexico, legal experts warn.
The state Court of Appeals opinion, filed July 26, reverses the earlier decision by state District Judge John Pope in Valencia County to terminate the parental rights of Edgewood resident Mark Huddleston.
According to the opinion, it was not sufficiently proven that Huddleston had abandoned the child after the birth and that his consent was required before the mother proceeded with the adoption.
The appellate court also ruled that Huddleston's actions, or lack of them, before the baby's birth don't prove that he caused the parent-child relationship to disintegrate.
"We conclude the district court improperly focused on Mark's pre-birth conduct, and thus the court's finding that Mark presumptively abandoned the child is not supported by substantial evidence," the decision states.
The case will now be remanded back to the District Court, which must determine which family should have custody of the boy - and which man he will call "Daddy."
The ruling does not automatically award custody to Huddleston.
"I realize it's going to be an emotional roller coaster for everyone, especially my son," said Huddleston, a 40-year-old married man and the father of two grown children. "But that does not take away the fact that I'm the biological father and I'm fit."
The adoptive parents, identified in court documents as Bobby and Rosario Romero, said through attorney Hal Atencio they were shocked by the decision.
"They do not understand the reasoning of the Court of Appeals."
Atencio said his clients will ask the court to reconsider its decision. If that is denied, the clients will appeal to the state Supreme Court, he said.
"We're not done yet," he said.
Huddleston, who has not seen the boy in a year, said he plans to file for custody and visitation rights.
"I will never give up on my son," he said.
If the decision stands, it could make adoptions in New Mexico a riskier proposition because it calls into question when a biological father needs to take responsibility for the child if he is to have any parental rights.
Said Atencio, "It's a weak position for a man to say `I was there for the fun part, I was there for the sex, but I'm not going to be there for the responsible part. And yet I want equal rights as the mother and the right to veto an adoption even on the last day.'
"This decision by the court is going to be huge if this doesn't get reversed," he added. "It's going to be detrimental to adoptions in the state of New Mexico."
The Romeros argued that Huddleston did nothing to establish his paternal rights to the child until well after the boy had been placed with them.
The biological mother, identified in court records as Helen G., testified that she told Huddleston twice that she was pregnant and he had at least one opportunity to notice her visibly pregnant. A co-worker of the mother's also testified that Huddleston had known of the pregnancy but did not know if it was his.
Huddleston, court records state, also did not give the mother financial support during her pregnancy.
According to the appellate opinion, the child was the result of a six-month relationship that ended June 2003 between Helen G., an Albuquerque hotel employee, and Huddleston, an account executive for a company that delivered chemicals to the hotel.
In February 2004 - eight months after the affair ended - Helen G. gave birth to a baby boy, whom she placed for adoption with a private agency three days later.
But Huddleston said he did not know he had fathered a child until he received notice from an adoption agency two months after the birth.
The state District Court apparently did not believe Huddleston, ruling that he "knew or should have known that he fathered a child" and that his lack of action constituted abandonment of the child. The lower court then terminated Huddleston's parental rights and found it was in the best interest of the child to remain with the Romeros.
The appeals court's opinion also agrees there was "substantial evidence" that Huddleston knew or should have known about the pregnancy.
But it's what Huddleston did after the child was born and placed in the adoptive home that the appellate court recognizes more.
Court records indicate that after receiving the adoption notice Huddleston met with the adoption agency to seek information on how he could obtain custody of the boy.
When the agency told him he could not, he hired an attorney that day and signed up with the state putative father registry the day after that.
New Mexico statute says that fathers must sign up with the putative father registry within 10 days of the baby's birth.
In April 2004, Huddleston filed a paternity lawsuit to contest the adoption.
Huddleston also underwent a DNA test that proved he was the father.
"Once the DNA test came back, I should have had my son back," he said.
Huddleston said he began the process of appealing the lower court's decision in June 2005 and completed it this January, all without the help of an attorney.
"The custody case cost me a lot of money, so I decided to pay a company to do my research and I did my own appeal," he said.
Lisa Olewine, president of the Adoption and Foster Care Alliance of New Mexico, agreed that the appellate ruling poses some significant problems for future adoptions in the state.
"That makes every adoption very risky. It's going to have a chilling and rippling effect on adoptions," Olewine said. "If a father knows there's a baby out there, they really don't have to do anything during the pregnancy. They can just show up later and claim the child. There's no permanency in this child's life."
Santa Fe adoption attorney Ross Randall said the case points out the need for the state to strengthen its requirements for registering with the putative father registry, the so-called "sex equals notice" law.
"Other states have a law that says having unprotected sex with a woman puts you on notice that you may be a putative father. And if you don't continue a relationship with the woman, you have to register," said Randall, a member of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. "It puts the burden on the man to register if he has any desire to seek parental rights."
Meanwhile, the boy remains with the Romeros, the only parents he has ever known. It could be months or even years before the legal arguments are sorted out and a final decision is made as to whether he stays with the Romeros.
"My heart goes out to these parents who are now looking at the possibility of losing their child," Randall said. "It would be to the child's best interest if these parties would sit together and come to some agreement about visitation, involve the father in the life of the child, resolve this out of court. They all have an interest in the child's life."
The appeals court, too, recommended that mediation between the parties be attempted in order to prevent undue heartache.
"We recognize that our holding will have a powerful impact on the lives of the parties and, most dramatically, on the life of the child," the appellate court wrote. "And as our Supreme Court noted ... `in resolving the best interest of the child the district court should not be bound by the traditional bright line solution of awarding the child like a trophy to whichever party wins the litigation.' "
But the case is not likely to be resolved amicably.
"I'm telling you, it's been really nasty," Huddleston said.
He dismisses the argument that removing the boy from the only parents he knows could damage the son he says he loves.
"It's unfortunate, but we cannot as a society say we're sorry this happened but we need to leave him where he is, and we need to circumvent the natural parent's rights. I guess, where do you draw the line? If they can do it to me, they can do it to you."
Huddleston had been allowed supervised visitation with the boy during the custody case in state District Court. Those ended when his rights were terminated.
Besides heaps of legal bills and reams of court documents, all Huddleston has to show now of his fatherhood is a photo of the boy at 11 months that he keeps in a Bible.
"I look at it every day," he said.
"It's very difficult to deal with this," he said. "I talk to my pastor. I have a supportive family. I view termination of parental rights as a death penalty."
Arizona, after all, has the oft cited ‘putative father’s registry’. This supposedly functions in order to protect a recreational sperm donors legal rights to any children he might inadvertently spawn by allowing him to register both before and up to TEN DAYS AFTER THE BIRTH in the event that he has unprotected casual sex with a woman. It also supposedly functions to protect children from having a recreational sperm donor show up to overturn an adoption by terminating the rights of never-married men who don’t register in that putative fathers registry at least TEN DAYS AFTER THE BIRTH. Of course, it only works if Judges follow the original intent of it. Which many decide not to do. Thus, once again we see the Judicial branch refusing to follow the intent of our laws and legislating their own personal opinions from the bench…
This so-called father never bothered availing himself of this putative fathers registry, even though evidence was presented at the trial that this child was the result of a SIX months relationship and one of his co-workers testified he was aware of the pregnancy but unsure if it was his child.
Well boo freakin hoo…
So he knew damn well he could have been a father and should have had his name registered in that putative father registry BEFORE the birth of that child just as Arizona law requires…Nor did he give his casual sex partner a PENNY for any medical expenses or bills related to her pregnancy. Never got her a vitamin or a hot-dog to eat or provided in anyway whatsoever for the healthy birth of that child. Yet a second after delivery he could hop out of bed, throw on his jeans and show up in the delivery room with the exact same legal rights to that child as the mother. Even though he did not contribute ONE DAMN SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THAT CHILD, other then a quik drop sperm deposit.
It’s outfreakinrageous.
The biggest outrage however is that once again, we see Judges legislating from the bench as they decide that they don’t like the law, which Arizona legislators have enacted (acting as the people’s proper representatives)…
Clearly it is time to enact some version of my ‘Three Strikes Law for Judges”…where we have review committees composed of both attorneys and lay people who review every overturned case for adherence to the law…if it becomes apparent that a particular Judge or group of Judges obviously ignored the law then the first offense is an automatic $10,000 fine EACH, PERSONALLY PAYABLE…second offense is an automatic $20,000 fine EACH, PERSONALLY PAYABLE…third offense is an automatic $30,000 fine EACH, PERSONALLY PAYABLE and then you’re automatically disbarred; so you can’t continue wrecking havoc on our nation by substituting your personal bias and opinions for the laws as they stand…
Not what you feel like they should stand for but the original intent of the laws…
Anyway read below for another sickening example of why mothers need to address these public policies as they now stand and ensure that whatever decisions we ultimately make for the good of our children are NOT overturned on the whims of a few Judges and a recreational sperm donor, all refusing to follow the law…
http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4896745,00.html
Court decision impacts custody of a young boy, future of N.M. adoptions
By Joline Gutierrez KruegerTribune Reporter
August 5, 2006
A recent court decision in a custody battle between the biological father of a 2-year-old boy and the adoptive parents who have raised the child since he was 3 days old could have a "chilling and rippling" effect on future adoptions in New Mexico, legal experts warn.
The state Court of Appeals opinion, filed July 26, reverses the earlier decision by state District Judge John Pope in Valencia County to terminate the parental rights of Edgewood resident Mark Huddleston.
According to the opinion, it was not sufficiently proven that Huddleston had abandoned the child after the birth and that his consent was required before the mother proceeded with the adoption.
The appellate court also ruled that Huddleston's actions, or lack of them, before the baby's birth don't prove that he caused the parent-child relationship to disintegrate.
"We conclude the district court improperly focused on Mark's pre-birth conduct, and thus the court's finding that Mark presumptively abandoned the child is not supported by substantial evidence," the decision states.
The case will now be remanded back to the District Court, which must determine which family should have custody of the boy - and which man he will call "Daddy."
The ruling does not automatically award custody to Huddleston.
"I realize it's going to be an emotional roller coaster for everyone, especially my son," said Huddleston, a 40-year-old married man and the father of two grown children. "But that does not take away the fact that I'm the biological father and I'm fit."
The adoptive parents, identified in court documents as Bobby and Rosario Romero, said through attorney Hal Atencio they were shocked by the decision.
"They do not understand the reasoning of the Court of Appeals."
Atencio said his clients will ask the court to reconsider its decision. If that is denied, the clients will appeal to the state Supreme Court, he said.
"We're not done yet," he said.
Huddleston, who has not seen the boy in a year, said he plans to file for custody and visitation rights.
"I will never give up on my son," he said.
If the decision stands, it could make adoptions in New Mexico a riskier proposition because it calls into question when a biological father needs to take responsibility for the child if he is to have any parental rights.
Said Atencio, "It's a weak position for a man to say `I was there for the fun part, I was there for the sex, but I'm not going to be there for the responsible part. And yet I want equal rights as the mother and the right to veto an adoption even on the last day.'
"This decision by the court is going to be huge if this doesn't get reversed," he added. "It's going to be detrimental to adoptions in the state of New Mexico."
The Romeros argued that Huddleston did nothing to establish his paternal rights to the child until well after the boy had been placed with them.
The biological mother, identified in court records as Helen G., testified that she told Huddleston twice that she was pregnant and he had at least one opportunity to notice her visibly pregnant. A co-worker of the mother's also testified that Huddleston had known of the pregnancy but did not know if it was his.
Huddleston, court records state, also did not give the mother financial support during her pregnancy.
According to the appellate opinion, the child was the result of a six-month relationship that ended June 2003 between Helen G., an Albuquerque hotel employee, and Huddleston, an account executive for a company that delivered chemicals to the hotel.
In February 2004 - eight months after the affair ended - Helen G. gave birth to a baby boy, whom she placed for adoption with a private agency three days later.
But Huddleston said he did not know he had fathered a child until he received notice from an adoption agency two months after the birth.
The state District Court apparently did not believe Huddleston, ruling that he "knew or should have known that he fathered a child" and that his lack of action constituted abandonment of the child. The lower court then terminated Huddleston's parental rights and found it was in the best interest of the child to remain with the Romeros.
The appeals court's opinion also agrees there was "substantial evidence" that Huddleston knew or should have known about the pregnancy.
But it's what Huddleston did after the child was born and placed in the adoptive home that the appellate court recognizes more.
Court records indicate that after receiving the adoption notice Huddleston met with the adoption agency to seek information on how he could obtain custody of the boy.
When the agency told him he could not, he hired an attorney that day and signed up with the state putative father registry the day after that.
New Mexico statute says that fathers must sign up with the putative father registry within 10 days of the baby's birth.
In April 2004, Huddleston filed a paternity lawsuit to contest the adoption.
Huddleston also underwent a DNA test that proved he was the father.
"Once the DNA test came back, I should have had my son back," he said.
Huddleston said he began the process of appealing the lower court's decision in June 2005 and completed it this January, all without the help of an attorney.
"The custody case cost me a lot of money, so I decided to pay a company to do my research and I did my own appeal," he said.
Lisa Olewine, president of the Adoption and Foster Care Alliance of New Mexico, agreed that the appellate ruling poses some significant problems for future adoptions in the state.
"That makes every adoption very risky. It's going to have a chilling and rippling effect on adoptions," Olewine said. "If a father knows there's a baby out there, they really don't have to do anything during the pregnancy. They can just show up later and claim the child. There's no permanency in this child's life."
Santa Fe adoption attorney Ross Randall said the case points out the need for the state to strengthen its requirements for registering with the putative father registry, the so-called "sex equals notice" law.
"Other states have a law that says having unprotected sex with a woman puts you on notice that you may be a putative father. And if you don't continue a relationship with the woman, you have to register," said Randall, a member of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. "It puts the burden on the man to register if he has any desire to seek parental rights."
Meanwhile, the boy remains with the Romeros, the only parents he has ever known. It could be months or even years before the legal arguments are sorted out and a final decision is made as to whether he stays with the Romeros.
"My heart goes out to these parents who are now looking at the possibility of losing their child," Randall said. "It would be to the child's best interest if these parties would sit together and come to some agreement about visitation, involve the father in the life of the child, resolve this out of court. They all have an interest in the child's life."
The appeals court, too, recommended that mediation between the parties be attempted in order to prevent undue heartache.
"We recognize that our holding will have a powerful impact on the lives of the parties and, most dramatically, on the life of the child," the appellate court wrote. "And as our Supreme Court noted ... `in resolving the best interest of the child the district court should not be bound by the traditional bright line solution of awarding the child like a trophy to whichever party wins the litigation.' "
But the case is not likely to be resolved amicably.
"I'm telling you, it's been really nasty," Huddleston said.
He dismisses the argument that removing the boy from the only parents he knows could damage the son he says he loves.
"It's unfortunate, but we cannot as a society say we're sorry this happened but we need to leave him where he is, and we need to circumvent the natural parent's rights. I guess, where do you draw the line? If they can do it to me, they can do it to you."
Huddleston had been allowed supervised visitation with the boy during the custody case in state District Court. Those ended when his rights were terminated.
Besides heaps of legal bills and reams of court documents, all Huddleston has to show now of his fatherhood is a photo of the boy at 11 months that he keeps in a Bible.
"I look at it every day," he said.
"It's very difficult to deal with this," he said. "I talk to my pastor. I have a supportive family. I view termination of parental rights as a death penalty."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)