Author: Super User

September 26, 2019 by Robert Franklin, JD,  Member, National Board of Directors

It’s one of those “Advice from a Lawyer” columns, this time in the Northwest Herald, an Illinois publication.  The issue?  “I want to know where my child support goes.” (Northwest Herald, 8/23/19)

It’s an important issue for many, many non-custodial parents paying to an ex.  We often see fathers or mothers complaining that “I pay every month, but when I see my child, she’s dressed in rags and hasn’t eaten recently.”  Or words to that effect.

Put simply, the fact that non-custodial parents don’t know “where my child support goes” is one of the major reasons why obligors don’t want to pay.  They have the sense that what they pay is spousal support, not child support.

So what’s the response to the query?  This: you may want to know where your child support goes, but you can’t.  The state makes no provision for answering your legitimate question.  It assumes your ex is using the money for the child, but if they’re not, well, you have no recourse.  We’ll shout to the heavens about how important supporting a child is, but what’s actually important to states is that money be transferred from one ex to another.  Once that happens, we couldn’t care less what the recipient does with it.

As I’ve said before, we could solve this problem fairly easily.  After all, we already do it with food stamps, so why not child support?  Food stamps can be used only for certain items.  You can’t buy beer with them but you can buy hot dogs and broccoli.  So why not issue to the custodial parent a debit card the account for which is funded by the non-custodial parent?  That debit card could only be used for certain child-related items like food, school supplies, clothing and the like.  Either parent would then be entitled to access the payment record for that debit card to see what’s been purchased.

That should satisfy Non Custodial (NC) parents while maintaining the primary parent’s ability to provide for the needs of the child.  Into the bargain, it would give the NC parent a ready-made record of all payments made, so there’d be no doubt about what had been paid and when.  And if the recipient changed her/his address, neither the state’s collection authority nor the NC parent would have to be informed, since payments would be made to the same bank or credit union that issued the card.

But we’re not interested in the needs of parents charged with paying child support, so sensible arrangements like the one above are never even considered, much less tried.

The lawyer writing the response to the issue of what’s done with child support makes this excuse for the status quo:

If there is no provision for accounting or proof of where money was spent in the statute, there is no obligation to disclose where the money is spent. The silence on this provision supports the public policy of trying to reduce disputes between parties.

Ah, so telling the NC parent to essentially stop complaining about the fact that they’re paying, but the child obviously isn’t receiving the money is all about “reducing disputes.”  I’d say it’s aggravating them, but of course there’s always an easier and far more constructive way to support the child and reduce disputes – equal parenting.

Equal parenting would vastly improve children’s well-being of course which should be not only the primary consideration in deciding policy on family separation, but the only one.  But if children’s welfare isn’t enough, equal parenting confers other benefits as well.  It does in fact reduce parental conflict post-divorce, regardless of what it’s about.  And it reduces the need for child support to be paid to a relatively few instances in which one parent truly can’t meet her/his part of the child support obligation.  Yes, that would reduce employment in state agencies that collect child support, but surely improved outcomes for children and reduced parental conflict would offset the trauma of state employees having to find another job.  Right?

September 23, 2019 by Jason Griffith

The horns and trumpets are playing louder than ever before in continued celebration of the new shared parenting law in Kentucky, the nation’s first true shared parenting law.

National Parents Organization has released their Shared Parenting Report Card grades for each state, and Kentucky is the first state to ever receive an A. What makes the A even more remarkable is that we received a D- grade in the last report card back in 2014. Continuing with this great news is that we have new statistical data showing family court filings are down 11% and domestic violence claims are down 445 cases since the law’s inception.

The new law is gaining popularity by the day with Kentucky taking the lead in shared parenting, helping to provide for happy and healthy families here in the bluegrass state. I’ve had the greatest opportunity to keep the family structure alive with the help of the new shared parenting law. Parents can now be looked at as a loving parent, instead of being looked at as a second class citizen, which is what some parents are relegated to by the family court system when shared parenting is not granted to a fit and able caregiver. National Parents Organization recently conducted a poll in Kentucky with one of the questions, “Do you agree or disagree with the law that it is in the child’s best interest to have as much time as possible with both fit parents in instances of divorce?”  And the response was an astounding 83% agreeing.

Read the rest here.

September 25, 2019 by Robert Franklin, JD

Two bills passed the New York Legislature this session making it easier for adopted kids to contact and get to know their birth parents.  This article lauds both as a step out of the “stone age.” (New York Daily News, 8/9/19). 

In the flurry of progressive bills passed at the end of the legislative session, a historic confluence in family law slipped by unnoticed. Two bills passed that reflect a sea change in how we understand adoption. They would put New York at the forefront of recognizing that adoption should be about expanding, not obliterating, family ties.

One would allow adoptees to access their “long form” birth certificates and therefore know who their biological parents are.  That of course would allow them greater access to the two people who brought them into the world.  Many, many adoptees bemoan their inability to know their biological parents and experience the absence as an acute loss.

The second adoption bill that passed is more controversial, though it stems from the exact same idea as the first: we should allow adoptees to embrace their origins as well as their new families. An increasing percentage of adoptions are of children in foster care. In contrast to private adoptions, which are voluntary, these adoptions result from the government severing the legal relationship between parent and child. Traditionally, terminating parental rights — called “the death penalty” of family law — has meant an abrupt end to the parent-child relationship, even when, as is often the case, the children lived much of their lives with their parents, visited with them while in foster care, and remain strongly bonded to them.

So the second bill would allow kids adopted out of foster care to maintain relationships with the parents whose rights were terminated.

Those bills look to be pretty benign to me.  But is the New York legislature really so keen on keeping kids in contact with their biological parents?  I doubt it.  From here it looks more like they’re continuing to stoke the adoption industry with ever more fresh cases, while paying lip service to kids’ ties to biological parents.

I say this because, the two bills, like everything else, must be seen in context.  And that context is the first ever putative father registry established in this country.  In fact, way back in the 70s, New York pioneered the separation of children from their fathers via its first-ever putative father registry.  Since then, about 32 states have followed suit.

PFRs of course require single fathers to register with the state, presumably every time they have sex with a woman.  Failure to do so means the father waives his right to notice of the adoption of his child in the event sex resulted in conception and the mother opts to place the child for adoption.  How’s that for separating kids from their parents?

PFRs are pernicious in a number of ways.  First, their entire purpose is to facilitate adoption by removing Dad from the process.  Anyone who thinks fathers’ rights can’t be terminated by something as obscure as his failure to file a form with the state needs to think again.

Second, PFRs place the onus of providing information about pregnancy and the intention to have the child adopted in the wrong hands, i.e. the person without the information.  Mom knows with whom she’s had sex, whether she’s pregnant or not and, if so, whether she intends to have the child adopted.  Men have no sure way of knowing any of that.  So, if we care about fathers’ parental rights and about children’s rights to a relationship with their dads, we must require mothers to inform fathers of their children before they’re placed for adoption.  But we don’t.  That’s the entire point of PFRs like New York’s.

Finally, intentionally removing fathers from the adoption loop means kids get placed for adoption who don’t need to be adopted because they have a fit, loving father who can care for them.  Meanwhile, there are about 400,000 kids in the U.S. with no parents (due to death or termination of rights) who need adopting.  And of course there are countless millions of those kids worldwide. 

Add to the above the fact that only about 75,000 “stranger” adoptions are completed in this country every year and we see that using the scarce resource of good adoptive parents on kids who don’t need adopting (a) doesn’t make sense and more importantly (b) denies adoption to another kid somewhere who desperately needs it.

The New York legislature can pass any law it wants, but until it rescinds its putative father registry, few will be deceived into believing that it cares more about kids’ relationships with their biological parents than about the flow of revenue to adoption agencies and their lawyers.

____

Recently, New York got an “F” on the National Parents Organization for Shared Parenting. Read more here.

September 23, 2019 by Linda Reutzel, Member, National Board of Directors

Kentucky’s monumental passage of the Shared-Parenting bill last year has been deemed the most “popular” vote in the state.  According to an August 30, 2019 opinion piece in Kentucky’s Courier-Journal,  the Administrative Office of the Courts has issued a report that shows a  reduction in domestic court cases by 11%  and a reduction of 445 cases of domestic violence since the full law took effect. Missouri, the Show-Me state, has clearly been shown.

Two key and influential Missouri state lawmakers, Senator Wayne Wallingford and Representative Kathy Swan are continuing to rise to the challenge in making effective change on this issue here at home.  They will kick-off a viewing of the powerful and gripping documentary “Erasing Family,” in Cape Girardeau in October 2019.   The documentary explores trauma experienced by children when a loving, fit parent is erased from their lives due to separation and divorce.  This launch of the documentary in Missouri is fittingly in their corner of the state. Additional screenings will continue as the documentary goes on the road. 

More and more Missouri elected officials are turning their attention to the critical and frequently intertwined issues of social justice and criminal justice and this provides every opportunity for the legislation that these lawmakers will file again in the 2020 session to be a top priority in the Missouri Assembly.  The policy change simply starts with a premise that there are two fit parents, provides a judge with discretion to determine otherwise, and additionally, provides a built-in mechanism for a rebuttable presumption

Some progress has been made.  In 2016 Missouri passed a law that requires written findings of facts and conclusions be submitted in all contested cases.  The law also created an access motion form that can be filed by a parent without the cost of an attorney, which helps the parent who cannot afford a court case.  Another important provision in the law is that no court can adopt local rules or a default parenting plan.  Along with these changes, a new guideline book is required to be printed with the policy of all parties maximizing shared parenting opportunities.

Given this positive movement on the issues, National Parents Organization has an overall Grade for the state of a C+.  However, Missouri families deserve to have an A+.  The Wallingford-Swan legislation would create a uniform law that looks at both parents as equals. This change reduces conflict and mitigates the real-world situations where what lawyer you have, or how much money you have in the bank, or even what judge you get, are factors that can tip the scales and rip a child and a fit parent apart. 

Clearly it is difficult to change a section of family law.  Conflict and strife pay attorneys their fees and lawyers sure pay attention to legislation.  However, stagnation on this issue is hurting families.  The bias in the law is overdue for a correction.

Strong relationships with family and extended family give children a sense of innate security and connectedness that is of the utmost importance to their well-being.  Regardless of the hysterical rhetoric masking the dollars attorneys bank, it is simply not good enough for the status quo to remain. Changing the law will require an act of courage from the Missouri Assembly.  Courage is something that the two bill sponsors, Rep. Wayne Wallingford and Rep. Kathy Swan, do not lack.