November elections – help make change
ACF APPROVES CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATIONS IN FOUR STATES
Parents without Rights
Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis? By Stephen Baskerville
Lionel Richie's estranged wife wants money
As usual, the hotly debated child support bill did not pass. The DHS’ “income shares” model, which supposedly takes the custodial parent’s income into account, was opposed by R-KIDS. R-KIDS had its own bill, called cost shares. There were really no family law bills that enacted except the following:
Ashley H. Grant, Associated Press
July 1, 2004
The price of marriage goes up $5 today, when a new law slaps a surcharge on Minnesota marriage licenses to fund a program that will encourage unmarried urban parents to tie the knot.
The increase from $80 to $85 will support the new program targeting unmarried couples whose babies are born in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Besides promoting marriage, it will encourage responsible fatherhood. With the help of local hospitals, program workers will approach unwed parents soon after their child is born.
"That's the magic moment when they are wanting to do right by the baby and each other," said William Doherty, a University of Minnesota professor who will direct the program.
"The first thing is they would be paired up with a mentor couple who had been in their shoes who had a stable, successful family," said Doherty, who leads the Department of Family Social Science's marriage and family therapy program.
Then, he said, a program coordinator would meet with the couple to find out if they need counseling, health care or other services. He expects about 100 couples to participate.
About one-third of children born each year in the United States have unmarried parents, Doherty said. Statewide in 2001, about 26 percent were born to single mothers, with 28 percent in Hennepin County and 34 percent in Ramsey County.
The program will spend about $1.5 million over five years, with $1 million coming from federal funds.
published
Kilpatrick vs. Kilpatrick, Ct.App. A03-557 January 20, 2004
In a IV-D case where there has not been an assignment of support, and the public authority has not made a motion to intervene as required by Minn. Stat. Sec. 518.551, subd. 9 (b) (2002), and Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01, the public authority does not have standing to bring a motion to modify child support, and a child-support magistrate does not have jurisdiction to hear the motion.
Gada, vs. Dedefo, Ct.App A03-1441 August 3, 2004
In a proceeding for relief under the Minnesota Domestic Abuse Act, when temporary custody is contested, Minn. Stat. Sec. 518B.01, subd. 6(a)(4) (2002), requires the district court to make findings as to the best interests of the child.
style='font-size:12.0pt; letter- spacing:-.15pt'>
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0312/opa030270-1209.htm
Court: Minn. App. unpublished
Decision: Affirmed
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Child Support
On appeal, Appellant-husband challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to terminate or reduce his child support obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The parties have three children, two of whom are mentally handicapped and for whom Appellant still has a child support obligation, even though they are over the age of majority. When the parties divorced, they stipulated to Appellant’s child support obligation, which would be reduced if either of the two handicapped children were to become “self supporting or … a ward of the state.” In 1998, the court reduced the obligation because one of those children obtained employment, but did not become self- supporting. That order also provided language regarding the continuation of support until the two children become self-supporting or wards of the state. In his latest attempt to reduce his obligation, Appellant argued that one of the children had become self-supporting (based on his net monthly income of $650-725) and that Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 2, the statute requiring support for handicapped children, is unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion, finding that the children were not self-supporting, that Appellant had not established a substantial change in circumstances, and that the statute is constitutional.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. With regard to the motion to modify support, the district court’s analysis of the children’s expenses supported the finding that neither child was self-supporting. While Appellant claimed that one child’s expenses were less than his income ($650-725), he failed to include a $1,592.18 purchase of a bed and mattress, which the Court of Appeals stated was a reasonable expense that should be considered. Appellant’s estimate of the child’s reasonable expenses also did not account for Respondent-wife’s assistance provided to the children. The district court had previously found that the children’s expenses were $1,805.14 and nothing indicated that the expenses had gone done. Additionally, Appellant failed to show a substantial change in circumstances that made the current order unfair where both his income and expenses had decreased, so he did not have less money available to assist with the children’s support. $13,000 Appellant claimed he owed his employer was a personal debt and, therefore, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5, did not affect his income for child support purposes. Appellant also argued that the definition of “child” in Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 2, which includes “an individual who, by reason of physical or mental condition, is incapable of self-support,” is unconstitutional. Appellant asserted he was denied equal protection because the statute creates “a statutory classification that requires divorced parents to pay child support for adult disabled children when married parents and single parents who were never married do not have a similar obligation.” The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, noting first that precedent has held that “married parents and parents whose marriages have been dissolved are not similarly situated in their obligations to support their children.” More importantly, Appellant stipulated to an agreement that he would provide support for the children until they became self-supporting or wards of the state, and a stipulation may waive a constitutional right.
Court: Minn. App. published
Decision: Affirmed; motion granted in part
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Child Support, Parenting Time, Civil Procedure
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to modify his child support obligation and determination of the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 8. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted in part Appellant’s motion to strike certain pages from Respondent-mother’s brief.
When the parties divorced, they stipulated that Respondent would receive sole physical custody of their two children and agreed to a parenting-time schedule, pursuant to which Appellant had the children about 38% of the time. They also agreed that Appellant’s child support obligation would be $338, about $100 less than that provided by the guidelines. With regard to the amount of the obligation, the stipulated dissolution order made no findings to support a deviation from the guidelines and did not apply or mention the Hortis/Valento formula. Subsequently, the district court amended the parenting time schedule four times without modifying Appellant’s support obligation. Appellant now cares for the children 67% of the time, but Appellant never moved for a change of custody. Several of the modification orders referenced the parties’ agreement not to apply the Hortis/Valento formula. Appellant appeals from the last order, which denied his motion to modify support based on the parties’ agreement not to apply that formula and the lack of any substantial change in the custodial agreement and denied his equal- protection claims.
The Court of Appeals first found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to modify Appellant’s child support obligation. The Court rejected Appellant’s unsupported assertion that the parties never waived the application of the Hortis/Valento formula and his inference that there was a de facto application of that formula in the original dissolution order and judgment. No legal authority precluded the parties from waiving the application of the Hortis/Valento formula and subsequent orders and the child support magistrate referenced the parties’ decision not to apply the formula when determining Appellant’s support obligation. Additionally, the amount of time a parent spends with the children is not relevant to the issue of whether to apply the formula. “Although parenting time is relevant to determining the amount of support to be paid, it is not relevant in deciding whether to apply [the] Hortis/Valento formula.” A voluntary agreement to increase Appellant’s parenting time, “by itself and without any allegation of increased expenses, does not affect his child support obligation.” The Court also rejected Appellant’s claim that Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 8, which provides a rebuttable presumption that the sole physical custodian of a child is not an obligor for purposes of calculating child support, violates equal protection. There is no fundamental right to have a child-support obligation based solely on the amount of time the parent spends with the child. A genuine and substantial distinction between obligors and sole physical custodians exists based on the custodian’s right and duty “of providing daily care and control of and residence for the child.” The non-custodian does not have these same duties. The classification is relevant to the purpose of the law, which combines the “‘internal’ support contributions by the custodial parent and the ‘external’ support payments by the noncustodial parent” to produce adequate support for the child. And finally, the government has a legitimate goal in promoting the welfare of its citizens (the children). Therefore, the Court found the statute constitutional under the rational-basis test. The Court noted that the recently-enacted Chapter 257C addresses de facto custodians. The Court also noted that Appellant’s appeal of this issue was timely because he did not suffer harm until he exercised more parenting time than Respondent.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0312/opa030539-1230.htm
In re: Mower County Human Services v. Enright, A03-539
Date Filed: 2003-12-30
Court: Minn. App. unpublished
Decision: Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Child Support
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged his incarceration for contempt. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
After the initial hearing on contempt, the district court found Appellant in contempt and set three conditions by which he could purge his contempt. After the second hearing, the court found Appellant did not make a good-faith effort to comply with the purge conditions and found him in contempt. The order for confinement contained a fixed sentence, did not include any purge conditions, and stated that it was punishment for Appellant’s past failure to comply with his support obligation.
The Court of Appeals first affirmed the finding of contempt. Because Appellant did not comply with the purge conditions requiring him to report all job search efforts to Mower County Human Services (he made no reports of any efforts) and to obtain employment, the record supported the finding of contempt. However, the Court reversed and remanded because the order for confinement was defective. The order should have contained purge conditions, as well as a finding that confinement would aid compliance, rather than serve as punishment for past failure to perform. The Court’s decision contains a list of the Supreme Court’s requirements for invocation of the district court’s contempt powers.
Court: Minn. App. published
Decision: Vacated
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Child Support, Jurisdiction
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the order of a child support magistrate (CSM) modifying a Massachusetts’ child support order. The Court of Appeals vacated the order.
The parties dissolved their marriage in Massachusetts. Pursuant to the divorce decree, Respondent-mother received physical custody of the parties’ child, and Respondent was ordered to pay child support. Respondent now resides in Minnesota, and Appellant lives in Nebraska. In 2001, Respondent first brought a motion for enforcement and modification of the Massachusetts child support order. The Minnesota court obtained personal jurisdiction over Appellant when he brought a responsive motion. Eventually, the CSM concluded the court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 484.702, subds. 1 and 3, “which provide for the establishment of an expedited child-support hearing process for * * * modification of child-support orders in IV-D cases” (where a party has applied for child-support services or receives public assistance from the state).
The Court of Appeals vacated the order because Minnesota courts did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Massachusetts order. Both Minnesota and Massachusetts have adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Minn. Stat. §§ 518C.101-.902. Pursuant to UIFSA, another court can enforce a support order if it has been registered for enforcement. Respondent properly registered the foreign order under UIFSA, which requires the registering party to file a sworn statement of arrearages or to provide a certified statement from the custodian of the records. It was irrelevant that the record did not show arrearages had actually existed at that time. Furthermore, Appellant did not contest the registration in a timely matter, so it was confirmed by operation of law. Therefore, Minnesota courts could enforce the order.
With regard to modification, Massachusetts no longer had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order because it was no longer the residence of the obligor. However, the other conditions of UIFSA were not met so as to give Minnesota jurisdiction to modify the order. First, the petitioner (Respondent) seeking modification was not a nonresident of the state. Second, both parents did not file (in the Massachusetts courts) written consents for Minnesota courts to modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. And third, both parents did not live in Minnesota. Had Respondent met any of these conditions, she would have met the requirements of the three circumstances under which a foreign court can assume jurisdiction. See Minn. Stat. § 518C.611(a). Also, nothing in UIFSA suggests that the creation of a IV-D file confers jurisdiction (as found by the CSM). The holding in this case is consistent with the intent of UIFSA, which was to “prevent[] a litigant from choosing to seek modification in a local tribunal to the marked disadvantage of the other party.”
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0403/opa031045-0309.htm
Court: Minn. App. unpublished
Decision: Affirmed
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Child Support, Civil Procedure
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s determination of his net monthly income and child support obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
When the parties divorced, Respondent-mother received physical custody of the their child. Appellant’s income for purposes of child support fluctuated significantly due to his incarceration and treatment. In February 2003, Appellant signed a contract to paint 60 home units in the following year. He was paid $13,166.14 for painting eight units in March and April.
In June, Respondent moved to modify child support. A child support magistrate (CSM) found Appellant had a net monthly income of $2,496.66 and set child support at $613 per month. The CSM’s income calculation was based on Appellant’s income for March and April, less his expenses, and computed to reach an annual and monthly income. Because Appellant might have additional expenses, but did not provide reliable evidence of any, the CSM also relied on a report of the Minnesota WorkForce Center indicating that area painters earned an annual income of about $41,492, which was consistent with the CSM’s calculation of Appellant’s income.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. First, the CSM was not required to make written findings on all factors in Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5(c), and the CSM considered all of the information provided as to Appellant’s income.
Second, the CSM relied on Appellant’s testimony regarding his one-year painting contract and did not rely solely on his earnings for two months. (The contract’s value was substantially higher than the CSM’s income calculation.)
Third, the document from the WorkForce Center may have been hearsay, but Minn. R. G. Pract. 364.10, subd. 1, allows reliable hearsay evidence, particularly in the absence of employment history and records. Appellant submitted one handwritten page on which he claimed $11,199 in expenses, but he did not indicate whether the expenses were weekly, monthly, or annual, and the expenses were not all clearly related to his painting jobs. Thus, the record supported the finding that it “is questionable whether all receipts represent business expenses.” The Court refused to consider a chart purportedly organizing the “pile of unorganized, unannotated receipts for various items” submitted to the CSM because the chart was not before the CSM.
Judge Randall dissented and opposed the calculation of income based on “the two best months [A]ppellant ever had in his life” and the document from the WorkForce Center.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0403/opa031163-0323.htm
Court: Minn. App. unpublished
Decision: Affirmed
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Custody
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s award of custody of his child to Respondent, the child’s half-sister, pursuant to the “interested third party” custody statute, Minn. Stat. Ch. 257C. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The child initially lived with his mother, but moved in with his half-sister in May 2001 (with the mother’s consent). When the mother died, both Appellant and Respondent petitioned different courts for custody. At a hearing in Wisconsin, the district court dismissed Appellant’s petition. Appellant then said he would take the child to lunch, but instead took the child to California. Respondent regained actual custody after the Minnesota court awarded her temporary custody. After a hearing, the district court awarded custody to Respondent and found that Respondent “‘has shown by clear and convincing evidence that placement of the child with [her] takes priority over preserving the day to day parent-child relationship because of the presence of emotional danger to the child’ and that ‘in the alternative [she] has shown by clear and convincing evidence that other extraordinary circumstances exist.’ (Emphasis added.)”
The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody order and rejected Appellant’s arguments that the district court applied the wrong standard, failed to identify evidence showing that placement with Respondent took priority over the father-child relationship, was hostile to the religious position of Appellant, and did not differentiate between the problems he allegedly caused and the problems related to the mother and her death.
The Court stated that: (1) the record contained clear and convincing evidence that “it would endanger a special-needs child [who has post-traumatic stress disorder and] who is at risk for suicide to be put in the custody of the parent who is thought to have created some of those needs [by the manner in which he took the child to California], and who is thought to lack the ability to adequately care for those needs”; (2) the child’s psychotherapist implicitly distinguished the impact of the mother’s death from the impact of the trip to California; (3) the record showed that Respondent was better able to tend to the child’s special needs, regardless of their cause; (4) the child was in a stable environment as identified in Minn. Stat. § 257C.04, subd. 1(a)(6), (7), even if he was only performing moderately well at school; (5) the district court had discretion to determine the weight and credibility of evidence presented by the psychotherapist, guardian ad litem, psychological evaluations, and the custody evaluation; and (6) Appellant refused to acknowledge his contribution to causing the child’s problems and lacked the “ability or inclination to address the child’s resulting special needs.”
Court: Minn. App. published
Decision: Reversed and remanded
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Child Support, Custody
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s order extending indefinitely Appellant’s support obligation for the parties’ adult child, who is mentally and physically disabled. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
The parties never married, but had one child together. Appellant acknowledged he was the child’s father and has paid child support over the years. Appellant subsequently had two more children. In a 1994 order, the district court found that the child would be incapable of self-support because of his mental and physical disabilities. In January 2003, when the child was 18 years old, Respondent-mother brought a motion to extend Appellant’s support obligation. A magistrate granted the motion and indefinitely continued Appellant’s obligation based on a finding that the child was “incapable of self-support due to a physical or mental condition,” and therefore remained a “child” under Minn. Stat. § 518.54, subd. 2. The order noted Appellant’s subsequent children and that “[n]either party has served or filed motions to modify, either to increase or to decrease child support.”
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding error in the district court’s failure to consider Appellant’s subsequent children when determining Appellant’s support obligation. Minn. Stat. § 518.551, subd. 5f, states that (1) “[t]he fact that an obligor had additional children after the entry of a child support order is not grounds for a modification to decrease the amount of support owed”; however, (2) the court must consider the needs of subsequent children if a party moves to increase support. The Court held that a durational modification, such as an indefinite continuation for support of a handicapped child over the age of majority, constitutes an increase in support that requires consideration of subsequent children. Similarly, Respondent had standing to bring her motion for modification because the child remained a child under Minn. Stat. §518.5 subd. 2, and she had ongoing legal custody over him. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the standard child support guidelines -- the statute does not distinguish between children under the age of 18 and other persons defined as “children” under the statute. The Court also rejected Appellant’s equal protection argument because the child support statute “for unmarried couples is rationally related to the welfare of the child,” and, therefore, it is irrelevant that married persons’ support obligations for disabled adult children may be different. Because the district court did not consider Appellant’s subsequent children in determining the indefinite extension of Apellant’s support obligation, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Editor’s note – This case piqued my interest. Here is an email I sent to the attorney for the dad. He told me they are petitioning for further review before the Supreme Court:
Mr. Prebich:
I am an attorney in Anoka, and I read the recent Jarvela case with great interest. I don't know if your client was going to appeal, but I'd like to offer a couple of considerations. I thought you made some good arguments, though I haven't reviewed your brief to see how you developed your arguments on these points.
The standing issue is a good one. The court seemed to gloss over the fact that the mom had "custody." By virtue of what? An order granting custody does NOT necessarily continue into adulthood. It would seem that some sort of guardianship would have needed to be in place in order for her to receive the support. Minn.Stat. Sec. 518.54, relating to definitions (including the definitioin of a minor), states that it applies to 518.54 to 518.66. But custody is awarded @ MN 518.17, which refers to minor children (see subd 3 thereof; see also 645.451 subd 2&3, minor means person under 18, adult is person over 18.)
Also, the issue regarding the court extending the time when the prior order said it extinguished, was glossed over by the court as well. The court referred to the court's power to modify, but omitted the fact that there needs to be a change in circumstances in order to modify. If the kid was disabled in 1996, there's been no change in circumstances. I think the argument would be a lot stronger if there ever was a stipulated order, entered while the child was disabled, with the boilerplate emancipation language, than if it was a contested order.
I'd like to hear back regarding your plans to appeal. The first issue may only be technical, and the court's suggestion to seek SS is probably a good idea.
BTW, I am the newsletter for RKIDS, a noncustodial parent's group. If you or your client seek further assistance or would otherwise like to discuss this further, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Tim Theisen
763-421-0965
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctapun/0404/opa030828-0420.htm
Court: Minn. App. unpublished
Decision: Affirmed
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Custody
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s order granting Respondent-mother’s motion to change the surname of the parties’ child. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Respondent sought to change the child’s name to the surname shared by Respondent and the child’s stepfather. While Minn. Stat. § 259.11(a) provides that the court “shall” grant an application to change a child’s name unless to do so would not be in the child’s best interests, case law requires courts to exercise caution when one parent objects to the name change. In such circumstances, a court should grant a request “only where the evidence is clear and compelling that the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such a change.” The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Respondent’s request and found that the court considered the appropriate factors, including that: (1) the name change would provide consistency and less confusion for the child; (2) the child, who was five years old, would suffer little or no societal disruption from the change; (3) Appellant had moved to Florida and had little or no contact with the child for several years; and (4) the name change would not unduly hinder any future attempt by Appellant to establish a closer parent/child relationship.
Court: Minn. App. unpublished
Decision: Affirmed
Reviewed by: MSBA
Categories: Custody
On appeal, Appellant-father challenged the district court’s granting, over his objection, of the application to change the surname of his daughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
At the time of the motion, the child was 14 years old and desired that her name be changed to that of Respondent-mother. Indeed, she had voluntarily used that name for the past 5 years. The district court granted the request for the name change brought by Respondent on the child’s behalf.
The Court of Appeals rejected Appellant’s argument that the district court improperly relied solely on the child’s preference for the name change. The district court considered (and made findings on) the best-interest factors, including the length of time the child had the current name, the potential for harassment or embarrassment, the child’s preference, the effect a change would have on the parents’ relationships with the child, and the degree of respect of the competing names had within the community.
The name change would not adversely affect the child’s best interests, because: (a) the child preferred the requested name and had been using it for the past 5 years; (b) the child was of sufficient age to have a preference, to which the court should give substantial deference; (c) the daughter would likely change her name in the future if denied to do so at the present time; and (d) it would be better to have the name changed before the child got a driver’s license and established an employment history.
Additionally, none of the other factors weighed in favor of denying the request. Appellant’s relationship with the child was “nonexistent,” and he had made few recent attempts to develop a relationship. A name change would not prevent Appellant from attempting to re-establish a relationship. Thus, despite Appellant’s objection, the district court properly determined that “the substantial welfare of the child necessitates such change.”
Dear Friends:
An opportunity is available for you to
impact the upcoming November election. GOP or Democrat party member,
If you take
some of your time and help your local state candidate, they will more likely remember
you when you make a request to them. Below is a draft letter (you can, cut/paste/modify
and email or fax to your candidate).
It work for me! SPREAD THE WORD
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>
Dear (NAME)
(LEGISLATIVE
CANDIDATE OR CURRENT REPRESENTATIVE)
This correspondent is in reference to
your election efforts, I am interested in supporting and assisting you with your
(Candidacies or reelection) needs.
Prior to committing my assistance and
allowing placement of your sign in my yard I would like to know your political position
in regard to pending legislation that I am very supportive of.
The legislation
I am referencing has to do with family law, The problems I'm addressing with
Minnesota's family laws has to do with the fact our "system" does not promote
parental involvement with both fit parents with their children when separation occurs.
My goal is to have our legislative body pass legislation that would instruct our
Judiciary to change their practice when issuing child custody orders.
Currently Minnesota courts are granting Mom's sole custody of children 94% of the time.
(U.of M. research report 2003)
No one is going to convince me that 94% of the
time Dad didn't love, care or have the ability to provide something beneficial to his
children.
I have more statistical data on the issue but, the bottom line is
government should treat fit parents equally and stop discouraging parental involvement
with their children.
Below is legislation introduced last year, If you where
to commit to co-author this legislation when elected and help promote this much needed
change, I would commit my time to help with your (election/reelection) efforts,
my efforts would included sign locations, knowledge of you to my neighbors. I have been
in (CITY) for (?) years and I know a lot of residents and they know I'm
politically active.
Please let me know whether you agree with my issue or if
you don't agree. If you need any clarification? please let me know.
Sincerely,
(NAME, ADDRESS, PHONE AND EMAIL)
H.F No. 2893, as introduced: 83rd
Legislative Session (2003-2004) Posted on Mar 10, 2004
A bill for an act
relating to family law; providing a presumption in
favor of joint physical
custody; amending Minnesota
Statutes 2002, section 518.17, subdivision 2.
BE
IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
style='font-
size:12.0pt;color:black'>Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 518.17,
subdivision 2, is amended to read:
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Subd. 2. [FACTORS WHEN JOINT CUSTODY IS
SOUGHT.] In
addition to the factors listed in subdivision 1, where either
joint
legal or joint physical custody is contemplated or sought,
the court shall consider
the following relevant factors:
(a) the ability of parents to cooperate in the
rearing of
their children;
(b) methods for resolving disputes regarding any
major
decision concerning the life of the child, and the parents'
willingness
to use those methods;
(c) whether it would be detrimental to the child if one
parent were to have sole authority over the child's upbringing;
and
(d) whether
domestic abuse, as defined in section 518B.01,
has occurred between the parents.
The court shall use a rebuttable presumption that upon
request of either or both
parties, joint legal and physical
custody is in the best interests of
the child. However, the
court shall use a rebuttable presumption that joint legal
or
physical custody is not in the best interests of the child if
domestic
abuse, as defined in section 518B.01, has occurred
between the parents.
If the
court awards joint legal or physical custody over
the objection of a party, the
court shall make detailed findings
on each of the factors in this subdivision and
explain how the
factors led to its determination that joint custody would be in
the best interests of the child.
One issue is still not addressed in
this piece of legislation and I would like it included in the end. That is:
We
need to change the practice of our courts of having to make findings only when they didn't order joint custody instead of the current practice as to why they
did order joint custody.
(If their is a bad parent the court
can and should make that finding)
Submitted by Terry Nyblom
style='font-
size:18.0pt'>ACF APPROVES CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATIONS IN FOUR STATES
Thursday,
April 29, 2004
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) today
announced
$3.7 million in funding to support demonstrations in Illinois, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, and Minnesota to promote improvements in child support enforcement
efforts.
"This brings to seven the number of projects we are funding to
develop and test new strategies in communities across the nation to support
healthy
marriage and parental relationships with the goals of improving the well-
being of children, promoting paternity establishment, and increasing financial and
emotional support to children," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G.
Thompson said.
The states will receive federal funding in the following
amounts:
Illinois will receive $819,009; Louisiana will receive $924,000;
Massachusetts will
receive $973,180; and Minnesota will receive $989,999. ACF will
conduct a comprehensive evaluation to assess how the projects were implemented and
their effects on families and children and the operation of the Child Support Program.
Some of the projects will last five years, others three. All will be supplemented by
private funding. These grants represent additional funding to the states and will not
affect the amount of federal funds available to administer child support programs.
"These projects continue our efforts to enhance the overall goals and
effectiveness of the child support enforcement program by testing and evaluating
creative
approaches to integrating the promotion of healthy marriage into existing
child
support services," said Wade Horn, Ph.D., the assistant secretary for
children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The grants are awarded under the authority of Section 1115 of the Social Security Act
and require that each project be designed to improve the financial
well-being of
children or otherwise improve the operation of the child support enforcement program.
Section 1115 of the Social Security Act authorizes states to conduct experimental,
pilot or demonstration projects that are likely to assist in promoting the objectives
of the Social Security Act.
The goals of the demonstration projects include
improving the establishment of paternity and increasing financial support for children
as well as improving
fathers' relationships with both their children and the
mothers of their children. The
projects also will include efforts to improve couple
relationships and reduce the potential for domestic violence. The projects are required
to screen participants for domestic violence and refer appropriate individuals for
services.
I am a Political Scientist. For years, I have been searching for a tool so that we can be more than a few voices, shouting into the wind. The greatest challenge we all face, and the reason for the scarcity of our successes, is the fact that we are fragmented and divided. Each state has many Father's, Children’s and/or Parents’ rights groups -- hundreds of ostensibly identical groups. There are even more discussion groups on Yahoo and the other free sites.
They get to get started when someone steps into family court and is surprised at the one-sided system. The sense of outrage is high at the onset, but fades as one either
a) accepts the system
b) runs out of money
c) gets a 'satisficing' decision
Then the group disappears. (This sounds like the dynamics of small business startups.)
The tactics of our enemies are many. While the issues of the Second Amendment and Father's rights are different, there are strong parallels between the tactics of those that would take away the Second Amendment and those that have taken away our rights to be Fathers. Among other things, it is the same enemy: the Democratic Party. There are also parallels between our fight and the fight for civil rights that began (and continues) more than 150 years ago. Again, it is the same enemy: the Democratic Party.
We lack the equivalent of NOW. We are currently so divided that if our enemies has set out to divide and conquer us, they could not have done a better job. Sadly, we are often our worst enemies and are plagued by factionalism, infighting and, ultimately, apathy.
The problem is the set of laws that have been put into place (by whom?), as well as what I call the divorce culture and the divorce industry. As long as we are divided, as long as we do not speak with one voice, we will remain ineffective at the legal reform that is needed.
As we enter the heat of a Presidential election campaign, we need to remember that the Electoral College was designed to minimize the influence of third parties in Presidential Elections. As a “winner take all” system, it does its job and virtually assures us of a two-party system.
Of the two major parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, which party has potential sympathy for our issues as Fathers and non-custodial parents? The Democratic Party brought no-fault divorce reforms to us. The Leadership of the Democratic Party continues to talk about “deadbeat Dads”. The Democratic Party supports, and is supported by, NOW. The Democratic Party supports women having the right to make unilateral decisions about abortion. The Democratic Party is the adversary of Children, Fathers, and all non-custodial parents.
This leaves the Republican Party as a potential ally. While some may object to their responsible Fatherhood initiative, it is the only party that could potentially become the Champion of the issues for Children, Fathers, and Non-custodial parents.
Serendipity has presented us with a free, and very powerful tool. We have an amazing opportunity to be heard if we use the tools provided to us – free – at the www.GeorgeWBush.com website.
They have created a system to hold parties for the President. The system sends invitations for you, and receives RSVPs for you. It allows you to provide a “theme” for your party. These themes are read by the officials of the Republican Party. These party officials often ask if they can attend.
Let us build a pyramid of support for our issues. If each of us uses the www.GeorgeWBush.com website to schedule a party each week from now until the November election, AND ask that each person we “invite” also schedule a party each week, we will be noticed!
mailto:agwiii@Smith-Walker.com
style='position:relative;z-index:1;left:-2px; top:13px;width:628px;height:18px'>
style='font-
size: 12.0pt'>
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Parents Without Rights
Helpline: 954-630-3655
We are Grandparents, Fathers, and Mothers. Please visit http://www.ParentsWithoutRights.org style='color:blue'>
Parents Without Rights sponsors the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. Please visit: style='color:blue'> http://FloridaJail4Judges.org
Parents Without Rights sponsors Michael the Black Man and Boss Radio 104. Please visit www.BossRadio104.net style='color:blue'>
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Parents Without Rights is the Florida liaison for the Million Dads March. Please visit style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>www.MillionDadsMarch.org
Consider the suggested wording as a start for your weekly parties.
Party for Bush and ending the divorce industry.
1. It is time to take the profit out of divorce, and remove it from the adversarial legal system.
2. It is time to eliminate unilateral divorce laws.
3. It is time to mandate equal parenting time, and eliminate the concept of custody. Children need both parents. They want both parents. Research supports this need and this desire. Unfortunately, when the evidence is ignored, the results can be catastrophic.
4. There is a fundamental liberty right guaranteed to both parents by the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has held the existence of "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child". Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982)
5. The fundamental wrongs of the currents States’ systems are detailed and corrected by the Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act (UPREPA). The remedies provided by law on or before enactment of this legislation, for the enforcement of actions based upon issues of custody of children after dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or in the case of unmarried birth of children, have been subjected to grave abuses, caused extreme annoyance, embarrassment, humiliation, and devastating psychological, emotional, mental and pecuniary damage to many persons wholly innocent and free of any wrongdoing who were merely the victims of circumstances, and have been exercised by unscrupulous persons for their unjust enrichment, vengeance or other venal purpose contrary to the interests of the child, and have furnished vehicles for the commission or attempted commission of crimes against children and parents and in many cases have resulted in the perpetuation of frauds.
6. The Republican Party is the Champion of children, of families, of Fathers, Mothers, and Non-custodial parents. Comprehensive family law reform and dismantling of the Divorce Industry will take place during the Second Bush Administration.
7. Comprehensive family law reform and dismantling of the Divorce Industry will take place during the Second Bush Administration.
8. Come and join us in supporting President Bush's Steady Leadership.
9. Learn more about the issues surrounding this year's election, and find out how you can help to ensure a victory for our President in November.
style='font-size:18.0pt'>Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis? style='font- size:18.0pt'>By Stephen Baskerville
Abstract: Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to
fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy,
suicide, and psychological disorders—all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness
than with any other single factor. Tragically, however, government policies intended
to deal with the “fatherhood crisis” have been ineffective at best because the root
cause is not child abandonment by fathers but policies that give mothers an incentive
to initiate marital separation and divorce.
style='color:blue'>
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=13&articleID=35
(If this doesn’t automatically link, try copying/pasting into your browser)
Lionel Richie's estranged wife wants money
| Star Tribune | |
| March 6, 2004 | |
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The estranged wife of singer Lionel Richie wants $300,000 a month in child and spousal support, saying she had "no limit on what I could spend" during their nearly seven years of marriage.
The couple had "an extraordinary extravagant lifestyle," Diane Alexander Richie said in an income declaration filed along with her support request in Superior Court.
Richie's attorney didn't immediately return a call for comment.
The singer "has never had a problem earning money. I know that he earns in excess of $300,000 per month because we have always comfortably spent at least that in any given month," Diane Richie said in the papers.
She cited the upkeep for their $40 million, 30-room Beverly Hills mansion, which the estranged couple still shares. That includes a $75,000 monthly mortgage and wages for a full-time staff of nine and additional people to "maintain our plants, detail our cars, care for our pool, groom our dog, maintain our aquarium and a painter for regular touch ups on the house," Diane. Richie said.
Diane Richie estimated that she spent $20,000 a year on plastic surgery and $50,000 a month on personal expenses, including $15,000 a month for clothing, shoes and accessories; $5,000 on jewelry; $3,000 on dermatology; $1,000 for laser hair removal and $600 on massages.
"We could comfortably afford to spend unlimited sums of money on everything and anything we chose. I had no limit on what I could spend," she wrote in the Feb. 26 filing.
The couple spent at least $1,000 a month for birthday presents when their 5-year-old daughter, Sofia, attended her friends' parties. They also donated $2,000 to $3,000 a month to charity and to their children's schools, Diane Richie stated.
The Colorado boarding school for their 9-year-old son, Miles, cost $125,000 a year. Their daughter's tuition was $15,000 a year.
Diane Richie, a former waitress, dancer and clothing designer, says she met the singer in 1984 while he was married to his first wife, Brenda, and they married in 1996. She filed for separation in October and divorce in January, citing irreconcilable differences.
* R-KIDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating law makers, family law professionals and the public with regard to family law and social services and their effects on children, families, and the consequences to the taxpayer.
* Our main concern is for our community of children of divorced, separated, or unwed families. We believe that children need, want and deserve the love, support and involvement of both parents regardless of marital status.
* Founded in 1985, our membership is comprised of both moms and dads, custodial and non-custodial parents, grandparents, stepparents, and professionals such as social workers, doctors, attorneys, and family law practitioners.
* It is the objective of R-KIDS to develop equitable family law legislation in an effort to improve the lives of all Minnesota children.
"ALL CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS AND ALL GRANDPARENTS IN THEIR LIVES"
* Unless those affected by the current family law system voice an opinion and demand positive change, we and our children will continue to suffer. This change will not occur without your help! Legislators and family law professionals need to hear from; parents, grandparents, and constituents. Until they do, things will not change.
R-KIDS CONCERNS AND ISSUES
(1) The needs of children to have frequent and meaningful contact with both parents.
(2) The lack of effective consequences for denied visitation or parental interference.
(3) Consideration of the financial and emotional responsibility of both parents to provide for their children equally.
(4) Dissemination of information to the public about current family law issues and the long term consequences for our children, families and the tax payer.
(5) The harmful impact of out-of-state or long distance relocation on the parent- child relationship.
(6) Fair and equitable sharing of child support responsibilities which takes into consideration the financial needs of children in second families, as well.
(7) The negative impact of the adversarial court system and social services upon divorcing families with children.
(8) Removal of the myth perpetuated in our judicial and family law professional systems that only mothers are nurturing and fathers are financial providers.
(9) Accountability for the use of child support.
(10) The impact of the no-fault divorce system on families with children and the need for effective education for parents considering marriage, separation, or divorce.
RKIDS website is http://www.rkids.org
Do you want to express your viewpoint or share your story in the newsletter? E-mail to ttheisen@bitstream.net, or mail to Tim Theisen, R-KIDS Newsletter Editor, 229 Jackson Street, Suite 105, , Anoka MN 55303. We reserve the right to edit. We will use your name unless asked not to do so. Obviously, viewpoints expressed by readers do not necessarily reflect the position of R-KIDS.
Give to RKIDS Charitable Fund
R-KIDS Charitable fund is a tax exempt, 501(c )(3) foundation. The proceeds WILL NOT BE USED FOR LOBBYING. The fund currently needs money for various charitable activities of benefit to children of divorce. Send your tax deductible donation of $25, $50, or $100 today! Make checks payable to R-KIDS Charitable Fund. Mail to R-KIDS PO Box 24658, Mpls, MN 55424.
This newsletter is distributed via US mail and e-mail. If you are getting it via regular mail, but you have an e-mail address, let us know your e-mail address. Send a note to Editor Tim Theisen, ttheisen@bitstream.net . Not only will you get the newsletter a couple weeks sooner, but you’ll also get certain bulletins between newsletters, and you’ll save us postage costs as well! Also, the e-mail version of the newsletter sometimes has extra articles that didn’t make the editor’s final cut for the print version.
The R-KIDS newsletter does not purport to give legal advice. The information contained herein is general in nature; individual circumstances will always vary.
Feel free to disseminate this newsletter. We want to spread our message!