Author: Super User

August 14, 2019 by Ginger Gentile

Everyday I am contacted by parents who are suffering greatly because they cannot see their beloved children after divorce or separation. For some, it has been months. For others, decades. Finding the family courts to be of no help and few resources, they are desperate for their story to be heard. In an attempt to capture attention, they often start their stories with the same words:

“My Parental Alienation story is the worst you ever heard.”

As a documentary filmmaker (www.ErasingFamily.org) I have seen parental alienation stories end in suicide, murder, murder-suicides, and worse (don’t ask). Trust me, you don’t want to be in the competition for worse story. 

By making each story exceptional, we fail to effectively communicate that these stories share many factors: histories of family trauma being played out in custody battles, the failure of the family courts to intervene, lack of resources, and societal pressure to “lawyer up” and “protect what’s yours”. When we fail to communicate what the stories have in common, we are unable to effectively push for legislative reform-default shared parenting-and moving away from an adversarial family court system. Politicians, academics and family court professionals aren’t moved by an exceptional case, they are moved by data and patterns. 

If you are moved to tell your story, put it in context: how many other cases like yours are you aware of in your community? You can also mention the polling done by Professor Jennifer Harman out of Colorado State University which found that over 22 million parents in the United States report being alienated from one or more of their children. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181127171419.htm

Let’s stop playing the trauma olympics. Let’s focus on reform and positive efforts to reunite our families erased by the family courts. 

Does this research mean that, on balance, daycare for all young children is beneficial? No. It means that the story is complicated, that the benefits and risks of daycare depend on a variety of other factors, including the child’s temperament and home environment,  and that there is significant disagreement among experts who research in this area. For a nice balanced discussion of these matters, see this informative blog article by Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., a psychologist who specializes in the effects of daycare on children’s wellbeing.

Given the state of the research, parents should not tolerate a judge telling them that they should not have equal parenting time on the grounds that their plan would involve the use of daycare, which is harmful to their children. Being deprived of the full involvement of one of your loving parents is most certainly harmful to children.

August 9, 2019 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Few publications I’ve read deal adequately with the issue of paternity fraud, but this piece is an exception (VeryWell, 7/12/19).  It’s an accurate and informative article that men, particularly young men, should familiarize themselves with.

Paternity fraud occurs when a man is led to believe he’s the father of a child when in fact he’s not.  Fortunately, few women engage in the practice, but when one does, she can give rise to a host of ills for him, the child and the biological dad.

Misattributed paternity can be devastating for men who have spent years believing they are biologically tied to a child, only to later learn that they actually share no DNA. In addition to the emotional pain caused by paternity fraud—which affects the biological father, the non-biological father, and the child at the center of it—victims of misattributed paternity may have been paying child support for years.

Important as child support is, it’s usually the least of the problems men experience when they learn a child they’ve thought of as theirs turns out not to be.  The neurochemistry on fatherhood tells us that men who live with their pregnant partner, are present for the birth and care for the child experience significant changes in their hormonal makeup and brain structure.  Those are all aimed at forming attachments to the child.

So when a man then learns, at some point during the child’s life, that he’s not actually the father, he’s typically devastated, as the article says.  He’s staked much of his sense of self on fatherhood and finds that swept away with a few words.

Worse, when paternity fraud is discovered, the child becomes confused about who is and who isn’t its father.  The man who’s raised it or the biological father?  Often children find themselves trying to negotiate the rocky ground of, on one hand, increased distance from the man they’ve known as ‘Dad’ and, on the other, a brand new relationship with a stranger. 

Sometimes of course paternity fraud is only discovered in the worst possible way, for example in a doctor’s office.

Every person needs to know his/her medical history.  Indeed, some diseases and conditions like cystic fibrosis can’t be diagnosed without it.  Others, like cancer and heart disease can be diagnosed much more easily if the person’s family history is known.  Children with misidentified fathers can’t communicate accurate information on their medical history with their doctors.

And of course there’s the biological father who’s been denied an opportunity to bond with and help raise his child.  The United States Supreme Court has many times ruled that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the association with and caring for their children.  But paternity fraud means that, whatever the biological father’s constitutional rights, exercise of them is simply not up to him.

Then, as the article so cogently notes, there’s the matter of child support.

If a man, believing he’s the father, has been paying child support before learning the truth about the child’s paternity, he’ll have to go to court to try to get the payments stopped.  Of course some men consider the child theirs even without a biological connection.  In that case, they may be happy to continue their financial support.  But for the others, stopping payments isn’t always the slam-dunk it should be.  The “best interests of the child” standard may trump whatever right to keep their own money they may have.

And getting re-imbursement from the mother is all but impossible.  That’s because she’s committed no legal wrong.  In about five states, he may be able to sue to get some of his money back, but even that assumes she’s not judgment-proof, which many, many people are.  Plus, the Bradley Amendment at the federal level forbids any retroactive orders regarding child support, further complicating re-imbursement actions.

There’s a simple solution to all this of course – DNA testing of every child at birth.  Currently, children undergo a welter of tests when they’re born.  Why not one more?  Knowing for certain the identity of every child’s father would circumvent all those problems outlined above and save the state significant sums of money when it seeks fathers for re-imbursement of welfare benefits paid to mothers.

Another step would be to require mothers by law to identify the father of their child.  After all, almost invariably, women know with whom they’ve had sex, but men don’t necessarily know (a) that sex resulted in conception or (b) if conception occurred, who the father is.  We should require mothers to accurately identify all possible fathers of the children to whom they give birth.  Only then can the correct man take up his golden opportunity as a father.  And only then can we begin to achieve gender equality in matters related to parents and children.

As with the general failure to enact and enforce shared parenting laws, our failure to prevent paternity fraud strongly suggests a certain ignorance about the value of fathers to children.  Once we, as a society generally, understand that value, things like shared parenting will become the norm and paternity fraud will receive the opprobrium it so richly deserves.

For now, we’ll have to rely on fine articles like the one in VeryWell to educate men about the risks of paternity fraud and how to avoid them.

August 2, 2019 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

A criminal justice approach to domestic violence hasn’t ameliorated the problem and may be making it worse. We need to find other methods of addressing DV if we’re to reduce its incidence. That’s the gist of this much-needed article by Professor Leigh Goodmark (New York Times, 7/23/19).

She argues for a more sensible approach to intimate partner violence. Goodmark doesn’t mention the fact, but any such approach would significantly improve the system of divorce, child custody and parenting time. For decades now, claims of domestic/sexual violence – aka “the silver bullet” – have been understood by family lawyers to be a tactic in wresting custody from a disliked ex.

The points Goodmark makes are scarcely new. That the decline in DV rates is attributable not to the criminalization of the problem or mandatory arrest policies, but to the overall decrease in violent crime has been noted many times since at least 2006.

Replication studies have shown that arrests have modest effects on deterrence in some places, no effect in others, and can actually spur violence. One study found that the likelihood of reoffending was entirely attributable to other factors — like a criminal history — rather than arrest. The impact of prosecution is similarly inconclusive: A conviction may have some effect on recidivism, but its deterrence largely disappears without continuous monitoring, such as intensive probation.

In short, the roots of DV grow in the same soil as other types of violence.

Childhood experiences like abuse, neglect or witnessing violence suggest whether a person will bring violence into his or her home.

The childhood experience of abuse is a very strong predictor of becoming an abuser. Add to that alcohol or drug abuse, unemployment and other stressors and the likelihood of DV increases. That means treating DV simply as a criminal justice matter is demonstrably unlikely to make the type of change that we all want to see. Indeed, since domestic abuse is correlated with employment woes, arresting a perpetrator and thereby increasing his/her probability of losing a job, seems likely to increase the possibility of future violent incidents.

Now, it must be said that some domestic violence must be dealt with by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries. Extremely violent or injurious first-time offenses must have a criminal justice response as must repeat offenses.

But violence against an intimate partner is learned behavior and can therefore be unlearned. So efforts must be made to find the proper therapeutic interventions to reduce domestic violence rates. Because much of DV is reciprocal, my guess is that those interventions will likely take the form of couple’s therapy. Certainly the Duluth Model of DV intervention that holds that men perpetrate DV out of a need to impose control over their female partners not only doesn’t work to reduce the incidence of DV, but misdiagnoses the illness.

Plus, decades of research demonstrate that women and girls are at least as likely to engage in violence against a partner as are men and boys and that lesbian relationships on average are the most violent of all with heterosexual ones second and gay male relationships last.  Any approach to ameliorating DV must be based on facts, not ideology. That means recognizing both men’s and women’s abilities to be violent toward family members. It means offering services both to victims and perpetrators, regardless of sex. Today in the U.S., it’s about equally difficult for a female abuser and a male victim to access the services they need to change their intimate relationships. Sadly, Goodmark fails to mention that there are over 1500 women’s shelters but only 3 for men, and that services for female abusers are virtually non-existent.

Goodmark lays out some suggestions for a change in policy, some of which make sense, and others not so much.

[W]e could provide economic support to low-income men and women. We could intervene to prevent the childhood traumas that lead to violence in adulthood. We could address the attitudes and beliefs among adolescents that drive intimate partner violence. We could use community accountability and restorative justice programs to meet the needs of victims who will never willingly turn to state systems. We could focus our efforts and resources on stopping violence before it starts, rather than intervening ineffectually after the fact.

Goodmark could have added that, among our current system’s many defects, is the fact that most people are loathe to use it. Rates of reporting incidents of DV are woefully low, both in the United States and elsewhere and much of that can be laid at the door of exactly what she inveighs against, the criminal justice system.

Unless an incident is very serious or is part of a pattern, many victims see no reason to have their partner arrested and barred from the home for weeks requiring money be paid to a lawyer and the creation of a criminal record, all courtesy of the criminal justice system.

A kinder, gentler approach would likely work better and find greater acceptance among everyday people.

Thanks to Leigh Goodmark for speaking the truth about a problem that so far has evaded solution and that needs a fresh approach to begin to reduce violence in our homes.

July 31, 2019

The work of the Kentucky chapter of the National Parents Organization has been highlighted in a newspaper article: https://www.thegleaner.com/story/news/2019/07/26/henderson-dad-celebrates-anniversary-kentucky-shared-parenting-law/1841407001/

“Three years ago, Jordan Pyles was a very unhappy father. Now, he is celebrating the first anniversary of a new law that helped make him much happier.

“Kentucky received a D-minus, with only two states being lower,” said Matt Hale, who was the founder and then-head of the Kentucky affiliate of the NPO.

“Kentucky was behind the nation in family court law,” Hale said. “The law was archaic and put a lot of stress and pressure on families breaking apart. It put a lot of stress on parents and a lot of stress on children.”

Now, Kentucky has default shared parenting and Jordan’s daughter is one of the many kids winning by having equal time with both parents. 

Share this article on social media! 

Print it out and take it to meetings. Remember, change starts with YOU. 

July 25, 2019 By Ginger Gentile, National Parents Organization Deputy Executive Director

National Parents Organization affiliate leaders are hard at work creating a roadmap on how to create momentum to pass shared-parenting legislation and educate the judiciary about its benefits. This road map will include practical lessons on how to create a core group of members, fund raise, and build alliances with organizations. Too often activists rush into trying to get legislation passed without knowing how to build a foundation of support. 

The good news is that shared parenting custody arrangements for children after divorce is overwhelmingly popular, with polling showing numbers as high as 87% that cross gender, socioeconomic and party lines. But translating this support into change isn’t always easy with legislative bodies that move slowly and are captured by special interests. That is why our messaging must always be child-focused: shared parenting is not only an effective way to reduce adversarial divorce proceedings and prevent childhood trauma, it will also save tax-payers money. 

The roadmap initiative is being led by Matt Hale, leader behind the 2018 Kentucky default shared parenting law, and Christian Paasch, of Virginia, who runs one of the largest NPO affiliates. This roadmap will be matched with the NPO mentorship program that matches new affiliate leaders with more experienced ones. 

In 2019-2020 the focus of NPO will be on building bridges with women’s groups, domestic violence advocates, ACES (Adverse Childhood Experience Study movement to prevent childhood trauma), and the legal community. Friendly messaging and diversifying our base with fresh voices will expand our message of healing post-divorce. While “Parents” is part of our identity, our organization welcomes adult children of divorce, social workers, lawyers, retired judges, teachers and academics who realize that loving, fit parents being erased from their children’s lives after divorce and separation is the silent public health crisis of our time. 

If you are ready to be part of the solution, fill out this form so we can put you in contact with a local affiliate or start a new one. 

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/take-action/start-an-affiliate-in-your-state

July 24, 2019

Christine Giancarlo, Ph.D.
Senior Lecturer, Anthropology
Mount Royal University, Calgary

I’m an anthropologist who studies human, and non-human, primates. I’m also a mother, author (Parentectomy, 2018), and feminist whose primary concern is for a healthy, sustainable future for all. Children are our collective hope for that future. As parents and adults, our job is to make sure that children have the best possible support during their development. Yet when parents divorce, kids are often relegated to the sidelines as the adults bicker, litigate, even fight for who gets the biggest award… measured in court-directed custody time. Research across cultures confirms that children are most likely to succeed in life when they have two parents who love and co-parent them. Whether a couple remains intact or divorced, they remain married to their children for life. This three-part blog uncovers the origin and necessity of two-parent families throughout human evolution as best-practice in child rearing.

Part 1 traces our human story from its earliest stages when our ancestors became bipedal to present-day. Part 2 considers parenting strategies of our closest mammal relatives, especially other primates, for evidence of shared-parenting outcomes. Part 3 is a mash-up of evolutionary, cross-species, and social science research that firmly places co-parenting as in the best interests of children.

PART 1

Fossil skeletons and footprints preserved in African volcanic ash up to five million years old show us that our ancestors walked much as we do today. These hominins were likely preoccupied with two main concerns: Finding food and… avoiding BEING food! Contrary to popular belief about “man” the hunter and our great brawn/ brain power, these hominins had a small brain (less than 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), lacked speed, claws, and sharp canine teeth. They were, essentially, sitting ducks for predators. Hominins gathered whatever plants they could find and occasionally scavenged meat left from other animals’ kills. So how did they survive and even flourish? Only through cooperation.

Cooperation provides safety in numbers, mate choice, greater success obtaining food, finding water, and brainstorming. It was cooperation, not competition, that allowed humans to survive then… and now.

The harnessing of fire about a million and a half years ago coincided with a much larger, more complex brain and the invention of sharp, two-sided stone tools. Now free-standing shelters could be made and protected by a hearth, food was cooked and meat became more accessible and less contaminated. The result was improved health, decreased mortality and an increased birth rate. Body size of these later hominins also increased, though there remained a significant difference in sexual dimorphism, males larger than females. As in all species, different size indicates different jobs: Males had a defense role in the group while females were smaller, requiring fewer calories to survive and reproduce. Both sexes and all group members had to cooperate to sustain their children, and their society.

Just eleven thousand or so years ago, somebody had the bright idea to plant seeds and grow crops. Groups cooperated to tend, harvest, and reap the benefits of a preferred and accessible diet. Agriculture was born and the village arose. The gathering and hunting lifestyle gave way to a new means of subsistence that required farm labour and defense of occupied land. Men defended and women ran the farms, cooperating to ensure a bountiful harvest and a healthy future generation.

The industrial revolution in the eighteenth century brought maximized production via machinery and human population growth skyrocketed. The village became the city, then the state. Land and resources became increasingly scarce and cooperation declined while competition increased. War became a means to defend or gain land; men became the warriors and women became the producers of the next generation of warriors. Males were thus rendered disposable by the state and an unspoken deal was struck: Men would be used as pawns to fight and die for the state… but they would also be given control (by law and religion) of “their” women to ensure and maximize paternity.

Over five million years, a species evolved from hominin to humankind, cooperative by nature but competitive by circumstance. Children were raised by cooperative parents within a group which ensured group survival in perpetuity. Patriarchy has only emerged recently in evolutionary time as a consequence of competition for resources. Though males and females differed to varying degrees in physical size and job, all parents played a crucial role in the well-being of their children.

Christine Giancarlo is author of the book, Parentectomy, which tells the stories of 30 capable, loving parents who became alienated from their children’s lives. Parentectomy is based on Christine’s peer-reviewed study, Kids Come Last: The Effect of Family Law Involvement in Parental Alienation (Giancarlo & Rottmann, 2015). Dr. Giancarlo’s research sheds light on an urgent and widespread social crisis, currently enabled by our broken family law system. Christine brings three decades of experience with parental alienation through interaction with young adults and her own personal journey. You can visit her website at christinegiancarlo.com.

July 23, 2019 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The Abell Foundation’s report on the child support system in Maryland doesn’t simply criticize, it offers solutions as well (Abell Foundation, June, 2019). My first piece on the report appears here.

The report, written by former commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Vicky Turetsky, pulls no punches. It points out that support orders are routinely set too high for non-custodial parents to pay resulting in skyrocketing debt, most of which is uncollectable. All of that hits the poor disproportionately hard and results in the marginalization of non-custodial parents (most often dads) in their children’s lives.

So the report urges three fixes for the current system: (1) base orders on non-custodial parents’ actual incomes, (2) reduce uncollectable child support debt and (3) ensure that children, not the state, get the money intended for them.

Turetsky comes down hardest on imputed income:

A major culprit behind unaffordable orders is using attributed, or imputed, income as the basis for calculating support obligations in low-income cases. Imputed income is fictitious income.

Child support orders based on fictitious income are almost certain to go unpaid in large part. How could it be otherwise? A parent may have once had a good job, but if he/she is out of work, that income no longer rolls in, irrespective of what a judge may decide. In Maryland, a full one-fourth of all child support orders were based on imputed income. Plus,

Parents having orders based on imputed income actually earned 72 percent less than the amount listed on the child support worksheets.

Unsurprisingly, parents with imputed income paid far less of what they owed than did parents whose orders were based on actual earnings.

Fortunately, the OCSE amended its regulations in 2016 to discourage the use of imputed income. The new standard

requires support orders for low-income parents to be based on “earnings, income, and other evidence of ability to pay,” established through fact-finding about the parents’ specific circumstances.

As to uncollectable arrears, the Abell report urges states to first write off uncollectable debt. The Administration for Children and Families has, in the past, calculated that some 40% of current arrears will never be collected. In that case, states should admit the obvious and write of those debts as uncollectable. But doing so isn’t just an accounting function.

There is ample evidence that many low-earning parents facing substantial child support debt become discouraged and leave formal employment. This usually is because they cannot afford to live on the earnings that remain once child support has been deducted from their paychecks. High arrears can substantially reduce child support payments, earnings, and labor force participation by noncustodial parents.

Worse,

Indebted noncustodial fathers have significantly less contact with their children, are less engaged in their daily activities, and provide less frequent informal support.22 Indebtedness is associated with greater parental depression, alcohol overuse, poor health, worsened family relationships, less effective parenting, and deteriorating child behavior.

In short, high levels of child support debt are bad for everyone, the child, the non-custodial parent and the economy. That’s a powerful argument for reform.

Last, the Abell report argues for what many others have before: that children, not the state, receive child support money. As it is, when a custodial parent receives Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, any child support that comes later goes to repay the state until that debt is paid in full. Only then do child support payments go to the custodial parent.

It’s a system that’s well-known to discourage payment. Non-custodial parents are often hard enough pressed to pay at all, but when they realize that whatever they pay goes, not to the child, but to the state, many simply keep the money.

When Vickey Turetsky talks, people should listen. Turetsky knows the path to more sensible child support practices that would help kids and parents alike, plus cutting state bureaucracies. Can sensible child support reform be far away?