Center for Parental
Responsibility (CPR)
WEEKLY UPDATE (A Few Highlights):
Website: cpr-mn.org
Email contact: info@cpr-mn.org Voicemail:
651/490-9277
“If it is to be, it’s up to me!” - Your input and participation
is needed for reform
IMPORTANT NEWS!
IMPORTANT HEARING AT THE CAPITOL!
We URGE you to attend to show that people are watching
the bill.
Your Attendance is NEEDED at the hearing
PLEASE forward this
email to anyone you know who is interested in family law reform
1) Upcoming General Meeting –
FREE and open to the public,
2) CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINE LEGISLATION CHANGES OCCURING NOW AND YOU MUST PROVIDE INPUT TO ALL LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE; the following is provided in this update to assist you:
a. Document
with concerns regarding the child
support bill HF778/SF758 (page
b. Document
with questions regarding specific
concerns about the child support bill HF778/SF758 (page
c. Legislative Public Hearing
THIS Thursday night
d. 12 amendments introduced by Senator Tom
Neuville on
e. Your
next steps and involvement needed to
prevent bad child support law from getting worse! (page 9)
THIS
long UPDATE INCLUDES A LOT OF DETAILED INFORMATION ON LEGISLATION.
RECOMMENDATION:
print the email and sit comfortably.
***********************************
He has not dealt
with us according to our sins. Nor rewarded us according to
our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great
is His loving kindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from
the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.
Just as a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on
those who fear Him.
Psalm 103: 10-13
1) Upcoming General Meeting FREE and open to the public
Mark your calendar now – be
sure to attend. The last CPR meeting in February 2004 had about 40 people in
attendance. The meetings are always extremely informative. Stay tuned for
details about guest speakers. The meetings are highly educational, and often
provide you a unique opportunity ask the experts questions and network with
people in same/similar situations.
2) Child Support Guideline legislation changes
occurring now
What you read in the papers
is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the legislation. It is usually a
one-sided version rather than an objective analysis.
Last year child support
legislation was passed in the House (HF778). The companion bill is making its
way through the Senate (SF758) now. The new guideline formula being used in
this bill is called “income shares.” While this child support guideline is
being “marketed” as “taking both parents income into consideration,” the
outcome will mean higher child support payments for most people making more
than $18,000 a year and having 2 or more children – often, it will mean nearly
a $200 a month increase. Therefore, CPR does not support this guideline for
private cases or any case that should not be in the IV-D welfare system. Whether
an intended or unintended consequence, this bill will increase the punitive
nature of child support and push more fathers out of the lives of their
children. This bill will result in more child support obligations that exceed
the parents earnings, making more non-custodial
parents subject to jail.
It seems as though time is
running out and it seems as though this very disappointing legislation is on it’s way to become the law in
2) a. Document with concerns regarding specific concerns about HF778/SF758
The following information is
provided for your information and is considered only a draft and only a partial
outline of the potential problems with these bills, which are almost
identical. These comments were developed with HF778 being the reference point.
Most of SF758 is exactly the same, but there are enough differences between the
two bills that the page numbers are not consistent. If anyone wants to
volunteer to study SF758 to make all the comparisons, your volunteer efforts
will be greatly appreciated. Please email info@cpr-mn.org
and let
us know if you are able to assist in the effort to compare this current
legislation to current statute, and compare HF778 to SF758. A complete
analysis requires a significant amount of time. Not all of these concerns listed
below should not be taken at face value, they are only
one person’s observations and perceptions, which should be verified on your
own. If you let us know about any additional concerns you have, we will
consolidate everyone’s concerns to arrive at a very comprehensive list.
Specific Concerns Regarding
Child Support Guideline Legislation
WHY HF 778/SF 758 is potentially BAD ….
Implications of the bill:
Ø
Socialistic state
control of one parent, violating their constitutional rights to benefit another
parent
Ø
Everyone believes
children need to be taken care of, but stripping one parent of all rights is
not the way to do it and violates the principles our country was founded on
Ø
We better suggest
all males move out of MN – or get “fixed” at an early age – we need to ask
legislators, what about YOUR sons?
Ø
Arrears are going
to sky rocket – support is high and doesn’t allow dad enough to live on
Ø
Unless you make
less than $18,000 your obligation will probably increase
Ø
The litigation
will sky rocket because of all the inequities and violations of fathers rights
Ø
Non custodial
parents will be treated like criminals as never before
Ø
Individual “circumstances”
will probably never allowed to be a consideration
Ø
Removes virtually
all grounds to contest an action by the county
Ø
Creates a
Minnesota Taliban – non-custodial parents robbed of all rights to the same
degree women lost all rights in Afganistan.
Ø
Imposition of
state control in private family matters regardless of bone fide state interest
Ø
The state better
start triple bunking jails because more fathers will be required to make
payments in excess of their income, by the time all the “add-ons” are factored
in on top of the child support.
Ø
It will force
more dads underground – not for employment, but for complete disappearance –
the bill will create deadbeat dads who have no choice but to abandon their
families because of the indentured servitude which makes basic survivability
impossible
|
Page in HF778 |
Language as stated in the Bill |
A Lay Person’s Overview; The reasons this bill is unacceptable |
|
|
Assignment of rights to the
state |
appears to be completely
missing and assumed to occur in every case |
|
|
With no direct language
otherwise, it appears all child support orders will become IV-D public cases
and all private domestic relations will become public matters |
unwarranted government
intrusion |
|
p 88 |
Court may order discovery
of (second) spouses income |
Second Spouse will now have
to find an attorney Completely violates the
change Minnesotans fought so hard against several years ago. |
|
p 87 |
the court can determine
that even is the business expense is an allowable deduction by the IRS, it
may not be an allowable deduction for the purposes of child support |
ü
Parents will be
paying child support on money they haven’t earned ü
Magistrates who
are not trained to be financial experts will be acting at-will in that
capacity. |
|
p 87 |
In-kind payments are
considered income |
ü
If a parent
chooses to live with a family member to save expenses, or set that money
aside for the children’s future education, that is considered income. ü
If parent does
not have enough money to afford a place to live, if they live with someone
else for free, that is income – so they get charged child support based on
money they do not make. |
|
p 115 |
Child support and
modification is to be based on “the best interest of children” |
Not one of the “best
interest criteria” has anything to do with money? |
|
p 127 |
Service fees for the full
cost of services will be imposed on the non custodial parent |
NCP is forced to pay for a
program they are forced to be in |
|
p 127 |
Service fees imposed on the
non custodial parent will go into the general fund |
this is a violation of
federal law that says any money collected must go back into the IV-D program |
|
p 130 |
Every case is a IV-D case |
violation of right of
parental control violation of right to make
a private agreement |
|
p 138 |
every order must address
wage-withholding |
even the federal law says
it isn’t necessary unless there is an arrears the county artificially
creates an arrears because it takes at least 2 months to make the application
active |
|
p 155 |
a court may require anyone
to seek employment |
ü
unconstitutional ü
based on what
criteria ü
assuming
everyone has equal job seeking skills ü
the court can’t do this in an intact family, how can
they do this in a fractured family? ü
Will we next
have a bill creating work camps for noncustodial
dads? |
|
p 155 p 156 |
a court may order community
service in lieu of child support |
ü
how will this be in the best interest of children? ü
How will the
parent be able to look for work if they are spending all their time doing
community service? ü
what if the mom
makes $80,000 a year |
|
p 156 |
inability to find work will
be considered willful failure to pay child support |
ü
in a bad
economy this is nothing short of communism ü
putting people
in jail with a civil burden, by-passing criminal burden |
|
p 157 |
everyone is presuming to be
able to work fulltime |
ü
what about jobs
where people are told to leave work early when there is no work: ü
waiter ü
construction ü
what about
teachers in the summer ü
etc |
|
p 166 |
county agency will take
away your car (without a court order) if behind |
due process..what
is left and how will that help get child support to the child? |
|
p 171 |
payment agreements after
emancipation |
ü
does not take
ability to pay into consideration |
|
p 172 |
Obligee (custodial parent) only has to provide a “letter”
to the obligor (non custodial parent) that says attorney fees will be added
to the debt |
ü
no proof required – not criteria established – no
responsibility required for the custodial parent? ü
requires another
reason to go to court ü
will be
impossible for pro se parents to fight ü
burden should
not be on one parent because of a “letter” – what happened to “cause” and a
“court order” ü
HOW CAN THE
STATE BECOME A COLLECTION AGENCY FOR ATTORNEY’S IN PRIVATE FAMILY MATTERS? ü
HOW will the
computer system differentiate between attorney fees and child support – will
the state be trying to get federal funding based on the extra pass-through
money creating by the additional attorney fees? |
|
p 173 |
The court may waive all parental
rights – at its discretion |
ü
NO standard
establishing for stripping parent of parental rights ü
Too vague,
unlawful delegation – opens the door for the judges to write the law ü
Who makes the
call? ü
Even without
the CHIPS standard of abuse, harm, or neglect? |
|
p 184 |
A second child support
guideline and financial support calculation for those on welfare |
ü
Will ü
What is the
philosophy and legislative intent and why? |
|
p 215 |
Move aways
based on 13 best interest criteria |
this criteria establishes no adequate grounds to
determine the appropriate community for the child(ren),
it’s the basis of custody. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHERS |
Private agreements are less
of an option |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) b. Document with questions regarding specific questions about HF778/SF758
If legislators are going to
challenge legislation, they prefer to do this by asking knowledgeable
questions. Since most legislators are not knowledgeable on child support issues
and most do not care to know the specifics, the following questions are provided
to help aid the discovery process. This is a partial list and there
are many other relevant questions that could be asked. Please email info@cpr-mn.org if this bill raises other
questions for you? If you let us know your questions, we will
consolidate everyone’s questions to arrive at a very comprehensive list. Keep
in mind that these questions were written in a way that can be asked directly
to the author of the bill, Senator Tom Neuville:
1) You mentioned on AM 1500 today March
2, 2004, that you were meeting with a group of child support experts today, can
you please
provide me a list of who the “child support experts” are that you were meeting
with today, and who you respect, so that I can be assured the “experts”
you rely on are working to preserve the rights of Minnesota citizens on all
sides of the issue to ensure a fair and balanced approach to the
solution?
2) Under your “income shares” bill
(SF758), if a non-custodial parent (dad) makes $30,000 a year and a custodial
parent (mom) makes $70,000, and they have 2 children, it appears in your income
shares guideline the child support amount will INCREASE, because the child
support amount is based on an average of both their incomes – thus, in this
case, the child support amount will INCREASE for the NCP dad, not decrease, because MOMS expenses are now being
“considered.” In effect, dad will be penalized if mom makes a good income. The
“marketing” of this bill seems to mislead people into thinking that taking the
mother’s income into consideration will decrease the support obligation, when
in fact, this is NOT the case, and it appears that MOST child support orders
will INCREASE if the non-custodial parent (i.e. usually dad) makes more than
$18,000 a year and if they have two or more children. Income shares seems to be
based on the premise and underlying assumption that the non-custodial parent
(i.e. usually dad) makes more money than the custodial parent (i.e. usually
mom), which isn’t always the case. I can provide you a laundry list of people,
where mom makes more money than dad. In
fact, many women are divorcing men for that very reason –they don’t make enough
money to satisfy the women’s financial objectives and dreams. The result of
income shares seems to be an equal protection problem because it appears in the
income shares formula that conversely, if NCP dad makes $70,000 a year and the
custodial parent mom makes $30,000, the dads child support doesn’t decrease
because his costs go up? Please help me understand the facts if my observation
is not accurate. So, if the outcome of “taking moms income into consideration” will
actually increase the child support due from the non-custodial parent, how can
SF758 be “reform”?
3) On the AM 1500 radio show today you
said “we need to understand that
departure from the guidelines is important” --- in your bill SF758, it
states that EVEN IN THE CASE OF AGREEMENTS, “the court may refuse to accept or
may alter an agreement that does not conform with the requirements of this chapter.”
(see SF758 page 79, Subd 3:
Agreement).Additionally, in SF758, (page 114,
Article 3 Sec 18 Subd 3 Written findings required in
every case), it says “the court must review stipulations presented to it
for conformity to the guidelines.” Your
bill seems to be DISALLOWING the very
type of departure you believe is needed – how can SF758 result in your intended outcome of departure?
4) From my experience, the courts ---
especially the expedited magistrate system --- will interpret the language in
your bill in a way that will ensure the judicial officer will ALWAYS require
the guidelines and not allow anything less … even if a custodial mom says “I
don’t need $1800 a month, $1000 will suffice.” If departures are an important
concept to you, under SF758, what legal authority would a non-custodial parent
have to appeal their case without getting thrown out at the appeals court as
the
5) Please help me understand, for
the purpose of your bill SF758, how do you define the difference between public
child support cases and private domestic relations cases? To
understand your legislative intent, I am wondering the following:
a. When do you think government
intervention is needed or expected or required in a private case? What do you
think is a justifiable reason for government intervention in private family
matters? When do you believe the government can justify a compelling state
interest and intervene in a private domestic relations case?
b. As you answer that question, do you
assume any particular federal authority? Even more specifically, is it your
intention that, for example, Kirby Pucket,
consistently paying $4,000 - $10,000 a month with no arrears will be required
to be in the IV-D system, or is it your intention that there are examples of
cases that can remain private under SF758? Are you trying to suggest with SF758
that the government has a compelling state interest in ALL domestic relations
cases when a child is involved?
6) Since the state IV-D system must
comply with federal law, as under the Social Security Act, and the Social
Security Act defines a “dependent child” as one financially “dependent” on the
government to meet basic needs, where in SF758 is there a clear definition of a
“dependent” child (i.e. dependent on the government to
self-sustain) vs a “legally dependent” child which
means those children under 18 (see SF758, page 89,
Article 3, Subd 9)?
7) While I am encouraged that you have
included a presumption of joint physical custody in your amendment, where is there reputable research and/or objective data
that indicates this presumption should be limited to a 30% presumption for one
parent, especially in cases where both parents are fit, loving,
involved, and responsible and want equal involvement?
8) Currently, there are due process
violations occurring with EVERY IV-D application. In
9) In HF778 (I can’t find it in SF758),
it appears (HF 778, page 172, Article 3, Sec 73, Subd 4) that private attorney fees will be added to
the child support judgment, which I believe will mean that in non-public
assistance IV-D cases, the private attorney fees will be added to the arrears
and the wage-withholding process. Does this mean a private attorney will be
getting their fees collected for free through the IV-D welfare agency?
And, if a dad goes into arrears over attorney fees, how will the IV-D system
differentiate the arrears for attorney fees vs child
support – and how do we know that the policies are in place so dads are not
arrested and charged with felony non-support for attorney fee arrears?
10) At the hearing on
2) c. Child Support Guideline Legislation:
Important HEARING THIS
We urge
you to attend this hearing. It is
a rare
opportunity that public hearings are held in the evenings. Most of the
public hearings are held during the day when it is impossible for most people
to attend, due to work schedules. By attending this hearing, you will be able
to observe
first hand what the legislative process is all about. Let’s pack the hearing room! We NEED to pack the room to show legislators that this issue is important to a lot of
people and that they will be held accountable for their votes tomorrow night. If you don’t show up, legislators assume you don’t care and they can do whatever
they want to you. See your legislators in action – at
their best or at their worst. You can ask them later about what you observed
first hand. The most surprising thing for most people is that most all of the
committee members have made up their mind before this hearing, and this hearing
just serves as a “formality” to give the public a chance to testify and say
what they want – not that anything legislators hear during that hearing will
change their minds. To make a difference, all the work to lobby for or against
a bill must occur before the hearing.
If you want to testify, call
the office of the chair, Sen. Don Betzold (651/296-2556).
The person making the schedule for who
is testifying is his committee administrator, Kathleen at 651/296-4167. You
must be able to tell Kathleen specifically what amendment you want to speak to.
You must sound like you know what you are talking about or they become
extremely rude and challenge you. Be forewarned that the committee members do
not want to hear details of your personal stories,
they want to know exactly why the bill amendments will
be good or not good for the citizens of
Read the bills ahead of time
as much as possible, see http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/legis.asp
They will only accept testimony on the 12 amendments, NOT the bill itself.
Hearing Specifics:
Senate Judiciary Committee, Chair: Sen. Don Betzold
7 p.m. Room 112 Capitol (1st floor) –
Committee Members: Betzold, Skoglund, Limmer, Cohen. Hann, Hottinger, Marty, Neuville, Ortman,
Rest.
Agenda: S.F. 1841-Dille: Relating to marriage; changing administrative
responsibilities, S.F. 1846-Dille: Parent Education Program in contested
custody, H.F. 778/S.F. 758-Neuville: Child support
modifications.
2) d. Understanding Senator Neuville’s
amendments
At the last Senate Judiciary
Committee hearing on
The following is a summary of
the 12 amendments:
A25. The
DHS asked for these. It will increase a cap on health insurance
A26.
Neuville drafted. In order to modify your child support payment, there has to
be a change of $75 a month instead of the current $50 a month.
A27.
Neuville drafted. It will delete over-the-counter medications from medical
expenses to be reimbursed by the other parent – because OTC meds are too hard
to prove who actually used them in the household.
A28.
Neuville drafted. It will change the bill from having NO LIMITS on the expense
of child care, to allowing the court to limit the child care expense to the
prevailing amount in that community – in order to keep expenses reasonable.
A30.
Neuville drafted. To provide a provision to abate arrears
retroactively, under certain conditions. Because people have legitimate
reasons for not getting modification addressed in a timely manner.
A31.
Neuville drafted. To provide that any subsequent order will be the prevailing
order even the county changes – to make sure there aren’t different orders in
different counties for the same child.
A32.
Neuville drafted. To require the DHS to get economic data
from 2 independent economists when they are working on their guideline
recommendations.
ü
This begs the
question: Sen Neuville’s bill SF758 is not based on
this same criteria?
A33. Sen. Betzold drafted. This is Betzolds
bill from last year, which was then SF266. Regarding moveaways.
A35. child care.
A36.
Legal aid drafted. It does three things. Neuville only in favor of the Child
care issue addressed in this amendment.
A37.
Neuville drafted. It changes the guideline table from a percent (%) to a fixed
dollar ($) amount – just to make it easier to see how much the child support
will be.
A38.
Neuville drafted – he is working with the state and
2) e. Your next steps
At the last Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on
Ø
Your email should
follow a format that somehow summarizes your story – briefly describe or
outline the unfairness you experienced, and let him know something like “I do not see how your bill will help prevent
this same thing from happening to someone else or help my situation in anyway.
True reform would mean changing the laws in a way that increases fairness and
makes things more equitable and will allow me an opportunity to share equally
in both the responsibility and the rights to bring up my child(ren). Since it is difficult for me to understand, please help
me understand how you think your bill will help a situation like I have
described.”
Ø
It is recommended
that you have someone else review your email to Senator Neuville before you
sent it to make sure it is clear, concise, and focuses on your children’s needs
more than your needs, but also clearly articulates that your child has an equal
right to equal care and benefits while under your care as the other parent.
Senator Tom Neuville wanted emails or
letters regarding your specific input. Your input as an effected party in this legislation is crucial. The
special interests groups are constantly talking with legislators trying to make
the life of the custodial parent better at the expense of the non-custodial
parent. Citizens must create their own special interest group through a
critical mass of feedback to the legislative body.
Be clear in the subject line of the email, “RE:
HF778/SF758 Citizen AGAINST this bill”
Ø
At this time,
since the bill, HF778 passed in the house last year, there is not much that can
be done – except share with Speaker Sviggum why you
are disappointed. His from can be found at: http://ww3.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/mailto.asp?district=28B
Ø
At this time, the
bill SF758 is the one that could be stopped or amended – stopped is the
preference for most people interested in equally protecting the rights of
non-custodial parents. Your remarks should be sent to Senator Tom Neuville
(email: sen.thomas.neuville@senate.mn)
and the entire Senate body. By emailing everyone, other legislators will start
to ask Senator Neuville some of the same questions you have.
As Always:
FOR THE ACTIVIST: if you want to do something to help the
cause; if you want to know “how do I get involved?” The problems in family law are bigger than
any one of us can handle, but if we work together we can make a difference. Email
CPR (
CAN YOU HELP US OUT? Specific Organizational Needs for CPR:
Ø
We need help
with our website – if you have that kind of expertise, please let us
know. The expertise must be in html – a little Coldfusion
is helpful. FTP is also required. A team of three people would work really
well, so no one person has to do it alone.
Ø
We need help with administrative
tasks. These tasks need to be done in Little
Ø
We need help making
return phone calls to do the “intake” with new people calling in for
help. The phone is ringing so much – so many people in need, we can’t keep up,
please consider helping. Currently, with limited volunteers, it is difficult to
get back to every person in a timely manner without more volunteers. We need
people to return phone calls (to mostly desperate dads), and ask them
questions, fill out an intake form so that we can get enough of their story to
know who to refer them to and how to best help in a timely an efficient manner.
Ø
We need accounting
skills. To help us with some 501(C)(3) things,
as well as researching some state budget information.
Ø
We need help with various research projects that can be done by contacting various
agencies over the telephone.
Ø
We need office
space donated. We need at least a good size 12x12 room,
Ø
Any case law or success stories or reports or books on father-custody
or joint physical custody – please pass along the information to info@cpr-mn.org. Our next meeting in February
will focus on CUSTODY.
Ø
Names of Attorneys you have had success with so that
we can meet with them and add them to our attorney
referral list.
LET US KNOW HOW WE CAN HELP YOU.
WE ARE A 100% VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION. We are only
as good as you help us be. WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO HELP YOU and your SPECIFIC
SITUATION, BUT WE MUST WORK AS A TEAM TO HELP EACH OTHER. There are more needs
than volunteers.
SPECIAL NOTE:
PLEASE FORWARD
THIS EMAIL ALONG TO ANY NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT (or ANYONE else who is concerned for the non-custodial parent
and the impact of legislation on the fractured family, such as: second wife,
grandparents, girlfriends, employers, etc).
WE are EAGER to add the names
to our email list of all citizens who are AFFECTED
OR INTERESTED IN HELPING TO REFORM FAMILY LAW AND ANY NON-CUSTODIAL
PARENT NEEDING ASSISTANCE IN THEIR FAMILY LAW CASE.
WE WELCOME YOUR PARTICIPATION
AND WE NEED ALL INTERESTED NAMES so AS A
CONCERNED CITIZEN we can ORGANIZE
AND MOBILIZE
(like Martin Luther King Jr did!) to prove
to legislators that these family law issues matter to their constituents, and TO ACHIEVE THE GRASS ROOTS
PUSH needed to DRIVE the MUCH NEEDED Family Law REFORM.
Please forward names to CPR of other citizens interested in these issues. We
want to add them to our list to keep people informed and show legislators there
is a LONG list of effected and interested people in
ADDITIONAL NOTE to unsubscribe: You are receiving this email from CPR-MN because you
have indicated interest in the group, or have attended a like-function where
someone met you and thought you would be interested. If you would like to
discontinue receiving these emails, please reply with "unsubscribe"
in the email subject and your name will be removed from our list immediately.
CPR-MN holds their membership information as very private information and will
only use information for internal and informational purposes.