Search This Blog

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

IL and IA: Equal parenting bills

Greetings!

Please help support equal parenting laws.

 

The relationship you save, may be your own.

 

Two equal parenting bills

 

Illinois- Senate bill 2198 (Steve Watkins bill)by Wayne Fisher

 

Hello friends and family, recently a bill made it's way through our Illinois house called HB 1604

( The Steve Watkins bill).

This bill is now on it's way to our state Senate and it faces some opposition.

Please, please, please call ,e mail or write your Illinois State Senator and tell them

that you want this bill to pass our Senate and for Governor Quinn to sign it.

For far to long some custodial parents have used their kids as weapons.

For the sake of the kids who are truly the victims help this bill become law. Kids NEED BOTH parents.

Senate bill 2198( the Steve Watkins bill).

 ==

Iowa-

HF 345  passed out of subcommittee today.  However, our opposition, which includes

the Iowa Bar Association has mobilized and is trying to kill the bill in committee. 

Click here for an article from the Des Moines Register following today's subcommittee meeting.  

Sen. Fraise is the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Please contact him immediately

and ask him to support HF 345 and to bring the bill up in committee for a vote.

The bill must be passed out committee by Thursday of this week.  

Please immediately contact all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to support HF 345.

 For your convenience, all committee member email addresses are listed below:

eugene.fraise@legis.state.ia.us ; rob.hogg@legis.state.ia.us ;

nancy.boettger@legis.state.ia.us ; bill.dix@legis.state.ia.us ; robert.dvorsky@legis.state.ia.us ;

tom.hancock@legis.state.ia.us ; wally.horn@legis.state.ia.us ; pam.jochum@legis.state.ia.us ;

herman.quirmbach@legis.state.ia.us ; steve.sodders@legis.state.ia.us ; kent.sorenson@legis.state.ia.us ;

pat.ward@legis.state.ia.us; jack.whitver@legis.state.ia.us

It is critical that you contact these legislators immediately, even if you have already contacted them, so they can hear from people

who will benefit from HF 345.  You may also call the Senate Switchboard  at 515-281-3371

and request to speak with them.   The time has come to get a rebuttable presumption of

joint physical care passed!     

 

Sincerely,

Bryan Iehl

Founder & President

 

 

 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

CaptainTonyTaylor@gmail.com

www.CaptainTonyTaylor.com

 

312-480-1232

IA: Harsh Debate on EP Bill

Should kids live with both parents after divorce?
The Des Moines Register
Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:28 PM PDT
A father's rights group is pushing a bill in the Iowa Legislature, but it might be too controversial to get approval.

Nationwide Family Rights Protest

http://govabuse.org/

National Family Rights Protest Website. Go there
and click on your specific state and it will have information on who
should be contacted as far as your specific state and county. Any
questions feel free to contact me. I will have some flyers soon
hopefully.

PLC Oakland County

Brandon Uribe

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

US: Family Rights Protest

http://govabuse.org/

National Family Rights Protest Website. Go there
and click on your specific state and it will have information on who
should be contacted as far as your specific state and county. Any
questions feel free to contact me. I will have some flyers soon
hopefully.

PLC Oakland County

Brandon Uribe

The Devastation of an Abortion http://ping.fm/81oAP

ISBA Family Law Section Council, Has Unanimously Opposed This Bill

ISBA Family Law Section Council, Has Unanimously  Opposed This Bill

Posted by: "John" f4j.john@yahoo.com   f4j.john

Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:36 pm (PDT)

Illinois Fathers recently became aware of an article that was published from
the Family Law Section Council of the Illinois State Bar Association regarding
House Bill 1604 (otherwise known as the Steven Watkins Bill). The ISBA Family
Law Section Council, "has unanimously opposed this bill, and privately chuckled
at its simplistic and wrong minded attempt to shove a square peg into a round
hole." The premise behind HB1604 is to address a very serious pitfall that
exists in Family Law today. The very foundation of Family Law in the State of
Illinois, and other states as well, is the "best interests of the child." We
use this phrase with impunity during the tens of thousands of trials in family
law across the State every month, but yet we give a very prima facie glance at
the interests of the child. We concentrate very heavily on the payment of
maintenance and support, but when it comes to the emotional needs of the child,
we fail miserably. In Illinois, interference of visitation is often times
ignored entirely, both civilly and criminally, which causes great dismay to
both the child, and the other parent who is being prevented from seeing their
child. As a result, we see the following effects:

* 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II,
para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

* "40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial
father's visitation, and their motives were punitive in nature and not due to
safety considerations" (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton)
Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers
and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

* "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s
continued contact with his children…." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan
Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)

* Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling
problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends &
relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook
Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

* "The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more
frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of
fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family
Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)

* "Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage
father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am.
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)

* Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in
their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer &
Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)

* In a study: "Visitational Interference – A National Study" by Ms. J Annette
Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of
non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by
the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the
custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation
is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support
and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992
The article published by the Family Law Section Council further levies the
argument that visitation isn't quantifiable as child support is and thus the
bill makes for bad law. Again, this premise is false. Visitation orders in the
State must define the times associates with visitation. A record of the fact
should be kept and addressed in a quantifiable manner, unless there is an
emergent condition as to the reason the children aren't with the parent they
are supposed to be with during that parenting time. Many non-custodial parents
do this every day. Some companies even sell computer software to aid in the
tracking of days and hours missed. Time is very quantifiable.
The true issue of House Bill 1604 is that it is a change of the status quo. It
sends the very strong message that the state considers children's relationships
with both parents a priority and as equally important as the payment of child
support. HB 1604 informs the public it will act as vigorously to preserve and
enhance those relationships as it does to collect monetary support. It presents
a shift in perception to what law is currently practiced today. In the 2008
edition of Family Law: Child-Related Issues in Dissolution Actions produced by
the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education only one small section
is dedicated to addressing visitation interference; meanwhile, entire chapters
are dedicated to custody and support. So while it may seem like a square peg
into a round hole for some, for those who live the issue on a day in and day
out ordeal, it is a painful and ongoing struggle that has no solution in sight.
HB1604 works to provide solutions and provide encouragement to parents who wish
to use their children as pawns in the ongoing struggles of family law to place
the emotional needs of the children first and to help give our courts the tools
needed to focus on the "best interests of the child."

Written by Board Member Ian Mitchell with approval from the Board of Directors
and Area Coordinators for Illinois Fathers.

 

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

 

Sunday, March 27, 2011

MI CPS vs ACLU on Parental Rights

ACLU, Thank you for taking on Michigan's dangerous child welfare industry

Posted by: "Doug Dante" dougdante1@yahoo.com   dougdante1

Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:17 pm (PDT)

Michigan ACLU,

Thank you for taking on Michigan's dangerous human child welfare industry by
suing on behalf of a father and mother who lost their child for three days
because he mistakenly gave his son a bottle of hard lemonade. ("ACLU sues state
over dad's custody loss after hard lemonade mix-up", David Ashenfelter, Detroit
News, Mar 24, 2011, http://bit.ly/gfkGMt ).

I agree completely with Michigan ACLU legal director Michael Steinberg, who
said,
Michigan law currently allows the government to take a child without
having to prove that it
s necessary to prevent immediate danger ... The law is
unconstitutional, out of step with the rest of the country and must be fixed to
prevent harm to other families.


Michigan's laws as implemented can be harmful to both children and parents, and
discriminatory against fathers. In addition to the problems you are addressing,
there is evidence of multiple problems at the Friend of the Court (Michigan's
child custody and parenting time Title IV-D "agency"), including, but not
limited to:

* Many local FOC apparently refuse to give parents access to forms required by
law (MCL 552.505).
* Evidence of possible widespread fraud in the calculation of child support at
the Friend of the Court include its own 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula
Training which said that that they were stopping the practice of automatic
imputation, looks like it violated both state law and Michigan appellate
precedents (see scribd dot com slash DougDante)
* A child support specialist may have admitted a pattern of fraud when she was
reported to have testified in court in a manner that led a witness to write:
"She also went on to say a great deal more that proves that FOC is putting
their (sic) thumb on the scale." (Feb 21, 2008)
* Wayne County FOC and others appeared to ignore duties to enforce parenting
time complaints (MCL 552.511), based on the 2008 FOC Statistical Supplement
(the FOC is paid by taxpayers explicitly for access and visitation programs
under 42 USC
§ 669b)
* FOC workers who know parents can't pay sometimes request courts send them to
de facto debtor's prisons in what sometimes looks like an attempt to extort
money from their loved ones, potentially violating the plain language of
Michigan Constitution Section 25 (see scribd ibid)
* FOC workers and others may be misusing federal tax dollars intended to
collect child support for children to collect arrears for the FOC itself and
payments for persons associated with the court (scribd ibid)
* FOC workers may illicitly coordinate with LGALs, parenting time coordinators,
and other specialists by using "preferred lists" of professionals who are
knowingly biased, who charge several times market rates for services, etc to
hamper parent's attempts to maintain relationships with their children via
court orders (scribd ibid)
* FOC workers may intentionally or unintentionally confuse parents through
obscure and incorrect local procedures. Muskegon FOC workers have stuck
parents with a confusing and incorrect phone system, reported wzzm13.com
(1/13/2011)
* FOC workers sometimes appear to assist and abet the fraud of parents who
receive child support but hide their own income from the court, harming
children whose best interests are served by accurate calculations of support
(see scribd ibid)
* The 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual includes a "difference of
cubes" parenting time offset calculation, which increases support transfer
payments, but often provides one parent as much as 10x the other per each night
the child spends in their home. This does not appear to me to be calculated
based on the needs of the children as required by federal law. (see scribd
ibid)
* FOC workers have and continue to make access to child support information
difficult, and this may enabled embezzlement of child support funds,
particularly payments often made in cash, such as the ongoing criminal case in
Muskegon county.
* Some FOC workers appear to violate Michigan's Child Custody Act (MCL 722.23),
ignore the best interests of the child as defined by law, instead base the
living arrangements children exclusively on their own and governmental
financial interests. e.g. if one parent receives welfare benefits or owes the
state money, the other is never allowed to share custody, so the state can
collect its money from the child.
* FOC workers may also act in a sexist manner, and refuse to provide men,
fathers, and even boys access to services for child custody determination, child
support enforcement, parenting time enforcement, or assistance for victims of
domestic violence (MCL 400.1501). These may be a federal felonies under both
42 U.S.C.
§ 3789d(c)(1) and 18 USC § 241
* FOC workers may knowingly engage in behavior that harms children and
parents, because they are pressured to maximize Title IV-D funding at all costs
(see scribd ibid and Google "Carol Rhodes" to watch the video of the former FOC
child support enforcement specialist explain what happened in the FOC office
where she worked)

Thank you for your service to the people of Michigan, particularly our
vulnerable children and their loving parents.

Sincerely,

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/DougDante

 

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

 

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Youtube: Let Me See My Child

Videos on fatherlessness.

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Work 269 353-5041

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property


Let me see my child.

 

http://www.youtube.com/IWant2CMyChild

 

James Semerad

DADS and MOMS PAC

 

6632 Telegraph Road, Suite 110
Bloomfield Hills, MI  48301

( phone: 248-467-1204

www.dadsmomspac.org

info@dadsmomspac.org

 

 

 

 

Monday, March 21, 2011

MD: HB 1132 Shared Parenting is Essential

America’s Growth: Shared Parenting is Essential

 

Hello Friends, Family, & Neighbors,

 

I pray that you and yours are doing well.  Just like Wisconsin, it does not matter if you live in Maryland or not.  This bill has a positive impact upon the whole nation.  President Obama is focused on healthy shared parenting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eRJBkoq1DXs

 

HB 1132:

http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/billfile/hb1132.htm

 

However; This Monday or Tuesday morning, we need you to take out 10-15 minutes to make a few phone calls.  Please call the following lawmakers and say -

"Hello,

May I speak to the Delegate?  Delegate...Children are more vulnerable to bullying, underage sex/sex offenders, poverty, drug-use, making bad grades, lack of effective healthcare, gang participation/victimization, incarceration, and abductions when both parents are not active in a child's life.  The nation supports President Obama and Delegate Jill Carter's bill HB 1132 that will turn-around our country's disturbing trend by helping to ensure that our children are healthy and safe.  Please support HB 1132.

Thank you very much."

 

Delegate Benjamin F. Kramer, (301) 858-3485

Delegate C. T. Wilson, (301) 858-3325

Delegate Carolyn J. B. Howard, (301) 858-3919

Delegate Curtis S. (Curt) Anderson, (301) 858-3291

Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr., (301) 858-3047

Delegate Doyle L. Niemann, (301) 858-3326

Delegate Frank M. Conaway, Jr., (301) 858-3189

Delegate Geraldine Valentino-Smith, (301) 858-3101

Delegate Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher, (301) 858-3130

Delegate Jill P. Carter, (301) 858-3283

Delegate John W. E. Cluster, Jr., (301) 858-3526

Delegate Joseph F. Vallario, (301) 858-3488

Delegate Kathleen M. Dumais, (301) 858-3052

Delegate Keiffer J. Mitchell, Jr., (301) 858-3404

Delegate Kevin Kelly, (301) 858-3404

Delegate Kriselda Valderrama, (301) 858-3210

Delegate Luiz R. S. Simmons, (301) 858-3037

Delegate Luke H. Clippinger, (301) 858-3303

Delegate Mary L. Washington, (301) 858-3476

Delegate Michael A. McDermott, (301) 858-3431

Delegate Michael D. Smigiel, Sr., (301) 858-3555

Delegate Michael G. Summers, (301) 858-3340

Delegate Michael J. Hough, (301) 858-3472

Delegate Nathaniel T. Oaks, (301) 858-3283

Delegate Neil C. Parrott, (301) 858-3636

Delegate Sam Arora, (301) 858-3528

Delegate Susan C. Lee, (301) 858-3649

Delegate Susan K. McComas, (301) 858-3272

Delegate Tiffany T. Alston, (301) 858-3692

 

After you have called them, please follow-up by copying-and-pasting the above statement in an e-mail:

 

curt.anderson@house.state.md.us; don.dwyer@house.state.md.us; frank.conaway@house.state.md.us; geraldine.valentino@house.state.md.us; jeff.waldstreicher@house.state.md.us; jill.carter@house.state.md.us; john.cluster@house.state.md.us; joseph.vallario@house.state.md.us; kathleen.dumais@house.state.md.us; keiffer.mitchell@house.state.md.us; kevin.kelly@house.state.md.us; kris.valderrama@house.state.md.us; luiz.simmons@house.state.md.us; luke.clippinger@house.state.md.us; michael.hough@house.state.md.us; michael.smigiel@house.state.md.us; mike.mcdermott@house.state.md.us; neil.parrott@house.state.md.us; sam.arora@house.state.md.us; susan.lee@house.state.md.us; susan.mccomas@house.state.md.us; tiffany.alston@house.state.md.us

 

For regular folk like us, this may be our only “Hope”.  Please forward this e-mail to all of your friends, family members, and neighbors.

 

With Much Appreciation,

Eli

 

http://www.friendsofeli.com/live/video_popup.php/americasnationaltreasure.mpg?id=53&download=1&bipass=1&start_dl=1

Sunday, March 20, 2011

MI House Family, Children and Seniors Committee Meeting: Adoption Issues

Standing Committee Meeting

Families, Children, and Seniors, Rep. Kenneth Kurtz, Chair

Date: 03/22/2011

Time: 10:30 AM

Place: 327 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
HB 4258 (Lyons) Records; birth; heirloom birth certificates; create, allow
for fee collection, and earmark revenue.

Testimony only:

HB 4381 (Kurtz) Children; adoption; department designee to consent to
adoption; allow.

HB 4382 (Rendon) Children; guardians; Michigan children's institute
superintendent's consent authority; expand to include consent for
guardianships.

HB 4383 (Heise) Children; guardians; Michigan children's institute
superintendent's designee to consent to guardianship; allow.

Presentation by:
Boy Scouts of America

To view text of legislation go to
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.asp?page=Bills

Individuals who wish to bring written testimony need to supply a minimum of
thirty copies for distribution.

Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may
contact the Chair's office.

Committee Clerk: Patricia Tremblay
Phone: 517-373-5795
e-Mail: ptrembl@house.mi.gov

Schedule changes or cancellations available at www.legislature.mi.gov or 24
hours at (517) 373-8140.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe to electronic notices at
www.house.mi.gov/Committee_Subscribe.asp

Maryland Legislation - Joint Custody Bill

        The hearing for the Senate joint custody bill is Wednesday,
March 23, in front of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

        Address testimony to
       
        Chairman Brian Frosh,
        Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee
        Annapolis, MD 21410
       
        Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee
       
             I am in favor of S.B. 909, which would create a
presumption in Maryland for legal and approximately equal shared parenting
for children of separated, divorced, and never married parents (or words to
that effect).
       
             Then give reasons why, and sign and date, and provide
your address, phone and email contact information.

              Testimony on various bills starts at 1 p.m.  Written
testimony (about 20 copies) must be submitted by noon.
       
       
              ALSO, DEL. CARTER'S OFFICE HAS ASKED PROPONENTS TO
CONTACT MEMBERS OF HOUSE JUDICIARY, PARTICULARLY DELEGATES NEIL C. PARROTT
(R-WASHINGTON COUNTY), LUKE H.. CLIPPINGER AND KEIFFER K. MITCHELL JR., (TWO
DEMOCRATS FROM BALTIMORE CITY)  ASKING THEM TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF H.B. 1132,
THE HOUSE JOINT CUSTODY BILL WE SPOKE IN FAVOR OF A FEW WEEKS AGO.  THE VOTE
ON THIS BILL IS EXPECTED THIS WEEK.  OR YOU CAN EMAIL ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.  ANYTHING YOU DO WILL BE HELPFUL.  THANKS.
             Del. Carter's office said that the domestic violence is
gearing up this week with many emails to committee members asking them to
vote against this bill.  We must counter with many emails in favor.
       
       



 

Youtube: Let Me See My Child

Videos on fatherlessness.

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Work 269 353-5041

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property


Let me see my child.

 

http://www.youtube.com/IWant2CMyChild

 

James Semerad

DADS and MOMS PAC

 

6632 Telegraph Road, Suite 110
Bloomfield Hills, MI  48301

( phone: 248-467-1204

www.dadsmomspac.org

info@dadsmomspac.org

 

 

 

 

YouTube - IWant2CMyChild's Channel http://ping.fm/GGFXn

MN: JPC Bill Update - Help Needed

 

 Family Court Reform in Minnesota

JPC UPDATE/Legislative Action Alert

You Can Make a Difference! TAKE ACTION NOW!!

Thursday March 17, 2011



Joint Physical Custody/Equal Shared Parenting (JPC/ESP) Bill Update:

There's been a lot going on behind the scenes. More than you can imagine: proofing and editing the bill, trying to add everything that needs to get added for the "right" reform, then pulling back because the legislative process only knows one thing - incremental change not strategic overhaul, meeting with legislators, hearing opposition, responding to opposition, doing research to combat opposition, educating people on the facts, re-writing the bill to make accommodations for all the various people who have thoughts on what should be in the bill, balancing the deadlines, understanding committee process, researching all current law to make sure we don't duplicate or conflict with anything currently in statute, meetings, meetings, and more meetings. Progress is being made. But now we face committee deadlines.

MN HOUSE: The JPC/ESP bill is HF322. We still don't know when we will get a hearing in the House Civil Law Committee. If/when we pass out of that committee the bill goes to House Judiciary (Rep Steve Smith). The judiciary and the department of human services are given an opportunity on each bill to say what they think it will cost their departments to implement the bill. Anytime they want to kill a bill, they just make a high fiscal note. When there is no state money to implement the bill, it often dies. There is no apparent process to challenge a fiscal note. Rep Diane Anderson just got a nearly $1 million fiscal note from the court system on her bill HF0292/SF0498. Anytime a bill gets a large fiscal note, it's difficult to proceed. Sometimes there are ways to get past it, but it is appears to be a highly "political" process.

The JPC/ESP bill could STILL get a fiscal note. We don't know. But we know there are plenty of "system insiders" who want to kill our bill. Fiscal deadlines are March 25. The opposition can also drag their feet on a fiscal note so by the time you get it its too late. Any legislative loophole like that is possible. The committee has no time to hear our bill before April at this point. We now face the uncertainty of a fiscal note, and we have the uncertainty of when the JPC/ESP bill will be heard in committee.

SENATE: We have been waiting to "perfect" our bill in the House before introducing it in the Senate. The deadline for introducing bills is next Friday. We will have our Senate bill by then. We have had an author for quite some time. 

VOLUNTEER WORK NEEDED:

1) Contact all house of representatives - emails and phone numbers available www.house.leg.state.mn.us .. ask them to support HF322 - explain (briefly and without anger) how poorly the current family court system and how laws are not working, and especially the negative impact on children. Send them weekly emails providing quotes from key research supporting JPC/ESP.

2) Contact any and all MEDIA - we need the media to take interest in following and covering this issue - newspaper, radio talk show, radio news, and TV news. Send them research. Let them know it's a national issue, not just a Minnesota issue. Media can contact the bill author Rep Peggy Scott or CPR at JPCeffort@cpr-mn.org

3) Contact Governor Dayton via email and provide an emotional and logical appeal (without any anger) as to why he should support this NON-PARTISAN bill. Tell the Governor how you can't even fight for joint physical custody or shared parenting, even when you want to because of the current law, the inherent bias in the system, and the expense of attorneys which most people can't afford. If you voted for Governor Dayton, you might want to let him know. We have heard from our opposition that Governor Dayton will veto this bill. We don't know for sure. But he needs to hear why this bill is important to the average working class people. He is divorced and he apparently got as much contact with his 2 boys as he wanted. Sometimes when "it all works out" for fathers, they forget it's NOT working out for everyone, especially those who don't have the money to fight the battle. Tell him your obstacles, and how it affects your children, ask him to SIGN the bill "when" it makes it through the house and senate.

Call Gov Dayton at 651 201 3400 or 800 657 3717

Email mark.dayton@state.mn.us

Email yvonne.prettnersolon@state.mn.us

4) IMPORTANT NEW VOLUNTEER PROJECT: We need to put together the NUMBERS with the logic and data to back up the numbers, regarding how JPC/ESP will SAVE government (state and county) money. If you are an expert with numbers and know how the court and human social services work, and are not afraid to delve into reports, spreadsheets, and other data to get the information that is needed, PLEASE LET US KNOW HOW YOU CAN HELP, NOW! We need this information within the next 10 days. We need someone with interest, drive, initiative, who is self-directed, knows how to get the information or will figure it out, and has time. We have an initial list of all the cost savings ideas ... we will provide that if you are qualified, we just need someone to dig into the details. Email JPCeffort@cpr-mn.org and let us know how you might be qualified for this "urgent" project.

5) IMPORTANT DONATION NEEDED: We want to provide some educational information to legislators on this issue. We need about $500 to do this. Please consider making a donation today. Email JPCeffort@cpr-mn.org if you can help with the contribution. If you can't personally, please think of someone you can ask. DONATIONS CAN BE MAILED TO: CPr P.O. Box 130776 Roseville, MN 55113

FINALLY:

Use "forward to a friend" button below to spread the word and tell others.

We need everyone involved – fathers, mothers, grandparents, second spouses, adult children of divorce, and more!

The progress we make is in direct proportion to the number of people willing to volunteer and take the above actions - or other ideas you have!

 

Above all else --- PRAY for God's blessings on this much needed long awaited process of family law reform!

powered by

  

 forward

   

 unsubscribe

  

 update profile

   

This mailing system may only be used for sending permission based email.

If you did not give permission to receive emails from this sender, please notify us.

This email was sent to darricksf@achildsright.net by info@cpr-mn.org | Print / PDF version | Read our Privacy Policy.

Center for Parental Responsibility - P.O. Box 130776, 2868 Middle St, Little Canada, MN, 55117, 55113, United States

 

Monday, March 14, 2011

DADS and MOMS PAC Alert - Legislative Agenda 2011-2012

Having trouble viewing this e-mail? Click here to see the complete version.







DADS AND MOMS PAC 2011 Legislative Agenda!

March 14, 2011

Email:  info@dadsmomspac.org
web:    http://www.dadsmomspac.org/index.html
Bill research and legislative contacts: 
http://www.dadsmomspac.org/pacnews.html

Dads and Moms PAC
,
 
Please find attached the Dads and Moms PAC legislative agenda for 2011-2012.

For Release:                                                                                                  Contact: 

March 14, 2011                                                             DADS and Moms PAC

                                                                                           248-467-1204

 

Dads and Moms PAC

Announces Family Public Policy Priorities for 2011

 

Advocating for family preservation, shared parenting, child support reform and other key family issues during the current legislative session         

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI – Dads and Moms PAC, a responsible family and fatherhood education and advocacy organization, today released their legislative agenda for 2011.  The organization consulted with US and Michigan Legislators, US Department of Health and Human Services, Michigan Judges and Lawyers, Family Service Counselors, Heritage Foundation, National Center for Fathering, MOMS of Michigan, Children Need Both Parents, Fathers a Childs Rights, Fathers For Equal Rights, Family Rights Coalition, American Coalition of Fathers and Children, and the Children's Rights Council in preparing the public policy agenda. 

Dads and Moms PAC announced the focus of their public policy agenda with the follows issues: 

·         Sharing Parenting

·         Parenting Time Guidelines

·         Paternity

·         Parenting Plans

·         Family Education Program

·         Child Support

"We will continue to work this year on progressive legislation and reforms that will help families to stay together and provide the best interest of children with the best opportunities available," said James Semerad, Washington DC Representative of Dads of Michigan PAC.  For more information or interviews, please call 248-467-1204

####

Dads and Moms PAC is a responsible family preservation education and advocacy organization dedicated to keeping both biological parents actively engaged in the lives of their children despite divorce and custody, in most instances.  We believe men and women should be viewed equally under the law and our credo is: "fathers are responsible parents too…because the best parent is both parents."

 

From:  DADS and MOMS  PAC

 

Subj:   DADS AND MOMS PAC 2011 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

 

The following agenda has been developed to describe recommended changes to Michigan and US family law to help, preserve, and rebuild families for the benefit and well being of families and support welfare reform in the State of Michigan.  Five major focuses for 2011 are:  Presumption that Family is the building block for prosperity with Sharing Parenting and family involvement in most instances, Paternity, Parenting Plans, Child Support Compliance, and Family Education.

 

A summary of the issues is provided.  Task force teams have been established on many of these issues to present expert testimony and develop talking points.

 

I.                    Family Preservation

 

  1. Substantial Shared Parenting 

Issue:  Current statistics in the State of Michigan support the premise that there is an unwritten presumption that one parent will raise children (still 90% of the time), promoting single parenthood, and disadvantaging women and children.  This has been confirmed and supported by statistics and testimony from the Legislature, Judges, Lawyers, and Counselors the U.S. Department of Human Services, and family and social policy think tanks.

Solution:  Initiate and pass legislation to mandate substantial shared parenting with mandatory parenting plans, except in cases of unfitness.

 

  1. 12 Best Interest Factors

Issue:  The 12 Best Interest Factors for children do not consider shared parenting and do not consider current sociological changes of the extended family.

Solution:  Create legislation to modify the Best Interest Factors to include 'substantial equal parenting" as a preamble to the Best Interest Factors.  Create a task force to review, inspect and provide an assessment of the Best Interest Factors in the Child Custody Act of 1970, to include family, and financial care factors (who is best able to financially provide and support the children).

 

  1. Inter-State / Intra-State / Immigration

Issue:  Different Counties in Michigan and States have different application and guidelines of custody and child support using URESA.  Illegal immigrants and temporary residents are moving children born in the U.S., to U.S. citizens, out of the country.

Inter-State / Intra-State URESA, RURESA and UIFSA

Solution:  Modify guidelines in Michigan, emphasizing enforcement of residency shared parenting and shared economic responsibility.

 

  1. Change of Domicile and Interstate Transfer of Children

Issue:  Parents frequently move more than 100 miles or out of country from the non-custodial parent.  This is typically performed when a parent is planning a divorce, they move immediately before filing for divorce.  Military service members experience this when the one parent (Man or Women) first moves to another Country.  Illegal immigrants will move then file for divorce.

Solution:  Provide education to Judges and DHS workers on the Michigan 100 mile rule for change of domicile.  Implement fines and penalties, including mandatory change of custody when parents violate the rule without court approval.  Enforce jurisdiction in the State of residency.

 

 

II.                Paternity

 

  1. Unwed Parents

Issue:  Thirty eight percent (38%) of all children in Michigan are born by unwed parents.  Un-wed Fathers are frequently 'duped' into being the Father of children that are not their biological children.  Paternity tests prove that the alleged Father is not the biological Father one-third (1/3) of the time.  The Michigan parentage law forces the Father to sign the parentage form which waves their right to a paternity test and legal council.  Solution:  Modify the parentage act and specify mandatory DNA testing of unwed parents.

 

  1. Truth in Paternity

Issue:  Mothers may designate a Father without burden of proof or notification of the alleged Father.  A default judgment of paternity occurs even when a Father is not properly notified.  

Solution:  Require a statement by medical institutions to the alleged Father of the rights of parents to request a DNA paternity test.  Require confirmed notification to the alleged Father.  Modify the parentage form to clearly explain the law. Strike subsection (g) of the parentage act.

 

  1. Children born in unstable marriages

Issue:  Married parents in unstable relationships may have children that are not of the paternal parents.   Michigan law does not provide time to establish paternity, and judges refuse to allow paternity testing. Military personnel may return from service and find that they have new children, that are not their biological children, and divorce is eminent.  Michigan law requires the paternal Father to pay child support for the biological Fathers children.

Solution:  Allow the paternal parent to request a paternity test to establish the biological parent and increase the guideline for paternity testing to 5 years following divorce.  Create a task force to reform paternity guidelines. 

 

III.             Child Support

 

  1. Child Support Guidelines

Issue:  The child support guidelines are required to be reviewed every four years and Michigan has failed to comply.  The FOCB completed this work and recommended several revisions that were not enacted.  The Supreme Court delegated this responsibility to the Legislature in 2004.  The Michigan Legislature has failed to create a task force to review the guidelines.

Solution:  Mandate that the child support guidelines be reviewed every two years and the child support calculators be adjusted to match the cost of raising children, based on income, and the U.S. Department of Labor, and Agriculture.  Comply with the FOCB recommended and approved shared economic responsibility guidelines.

 

  1. Strict Liability

Issue:  The Strict Liability law provides for 4 years in prison and a $2,000 fine for failure to pay the court ordered child support amount on a single payment.  Many people have been laid off from work in Michigan, and their child support usually not adjusted.  These people obtain a criminal record and are then unable to obtain work

Solution:  Repeal the Strict Liability law.

 

  1. 128 Day Rule for Overnight Visits and the Cliff  Effect 

Issue:  Parents and courts are reluctant to award shared parenting due to the effects of the 128 day rule and it's affect on child support.

Solution:  The child support formula should be revised to remove all references to 128 days of overnights.   This was recommended by the FOCB in 2004 and the state rejected this common sense recommendation.

 

  1. Compliance, deviation of child support

Issue:    Child support guidelines are inconsistently applied in Michigan counties.

Solution:  Provide continuing education to Judges and Referees on the application of the child support guidelines and calculators.   Provide the calculators online.

 

  1. Tax deduction

Issue:  Dependent tax deductions favor one parent in joint custody situations

Solution:  Allow for the division of dependent income tax deductions.

 

  1. Arrearage interest charge

Issue:  Arrearages are assessed at 4% interest each year.  The interest charges in Michigan are $320,000,000 per year.  Most of this (90%) is the burden of people making less then $30,000 per year.   Frequently the children are emancipated, beyond 18 years old.  There is no authorized method to write off the bad debt, and the interest accumulates.

Solution:  Eliminate interest charges on arrearages after children are emancipated.  Provide a method (legislation) for Judges and FOC Referees to write off the bad debt.

 

  1. Child Support Payment Processing

Issue:  Child support payment and account history frequently requires people to take off from work to make payments and review account history.  Most major private vendors (banks and financial institutions) allow for Electronic Funds Transfer of payments, credit cards, debit cards, and online account review.  Many checks are sent to the incorrect address.

Solution:  Provide web based access and review of child support accounts, EFT transactions from checking and savings accounts, and credit/debit card processing as do every financial institution.  This method will save the state in excess of $120 million per year.

 

  1. Child support adjustment based on change of circumstances

Issue:  DHS offices and the Judiciary have made it more difficult for a change of circumstances in child support adjustments.  DHS offices typically will schedule a hearing in 3-5 months.  Most people laid off from work are not provided an adjustment in child support.

Solution:  Child support tables should be provided online and calculations of child support can be computed in less then 1 hour.  Customer service levels for reviewing child should be consistence with industry retail businesses.  The recalculation and calibration should be made within 12 business days by mail or immediately during a visit to the FOC office.  Establish reprimand to employees for non-compliance.

 

IV.       Visitation/Parenting time

 

  1. Non compliance with parenting time guidelines

Issue:  Custodial parents frequently refuse and interfere with visitation schedules.  The State is not funded to support parenting time compliance.

Solution:  When visitation complaints occur, prescribe mandatory parenting plans with financial penalties.  Several parenting plan formats have been prepared in other states and are available through the Department of Health and Human Services.  Establish penalties (bond), or change of custody criteria when visitation is obstructed.

 

  1. Parenting plans

Issue:  Judges frequently do not prescribe detailed parenting plans and frequently recommend the default Michigan parenting time guidelines even when parents provide a parenting plan, or reasonable and liberal visitation.  Parenting plans prepared by consensual parents are thrown out and the Michigan parenting time guidelines are mandated.

Solution:  Mandate a detailed parenting plan before a judgment of divorce.  When consensual parents provide a parenting plan, accept the parenting plan, with penalties for non-compliance.  Several key states have enacted legislation to mandate parenting plans.

 

  1. Lack of  visitation enforcement

Issue:  Parenting plans and visitation is not enforced.

Solution:  Establish misdemeanor charges and fines for non-compliance with visitation. 

 

  1. Access to medical records

Issue:  Michigan medical institutions do not consistently support the release of medical information to non-custodial parents.  This frustrates insurance reimbursement and medical payments.

Solution:  Prepare a Legislative Memorandum to medical institutions that they must comply with federal law.  Mandate that Michigan medical institutions provide medical information to non-custodial parents and unwed parents.

 

  1. Access to education records

Issue:  Michigan schools do not support the release of education and school information to non-custodial parents.

Solution:  Prepare a Legislative Memorandum to educational institutions that they must comply with federal law for the release of school records to both parents.  Mandate that Michigan schools provide report card and parent information to non-custodial parents as required by federal law.  Schools should be required to treat both parents equally and allow both parents equal access to attend all school functions.

 

  1. Drop off points for visitation

Issue:  Parents may have conflict during the interchange of children during visitation.

Solution:  Specify that Michigan schools and day care centers be designated as child pick-up and drop off points.

 

V.        Conflict in Divorce/ Parent Education Programs

 

  1. Conflict in Divorce/Parental Counseling

Issue:   Parents may be in conflict during divorce and are unable to negotiate a settlement in the Best Interest of the Child and the family.  The legal community will promote conflict, knowing that this mandates that a sole custody arrangement is in the Best Interest of the Child.  Personal Protection Orders (PPO's) are liberally ordered and create a parental advantage.

Solution:  (1) Provide legislation to authorize judges to mandate parental counseling classes at prescribed centers.  (2) Prescribe a standard, mandatory parenting plan as a prerequisite for divorce.

 

  1. Pre-marriage Counseling

Issue:  Parents anticipating marriage are not educated on successful marriages, the consequences of divorce, and the Best Interest of the Child.

Solution:  Support non-profit programs to educate parents (faith based and non-faithed based) on successful marriages and the consequences of divorce to children). 

 

  1. Un-wed Parent Counseling

Issue:  Unwed parents are not educated on successful marriages, effective parenting and communication skills.

Solution:  Support non-profit programs to educate parents (faith based and non-faithed based) on successful marriages. 

 

  1. Post Divorce Counseling

Issue:  Parents are frequently in conflict following divorce and are unable to negotiate visitation and financial issues in the Best interest of the Children and the family.

Solution:  (1) Provide legislation to authorize judges to mandate parental counseling classes at prescribed centers.  (2) Prescribe a standard, mandatory parenting plan.

 

 

VI.              State of Michigan FOC and DHS Offices

 

  1. FOC Customer Service

Issue:  FOC customer service is poor and inconsistent.  There are inadequate performance metrics for processing payments, answering telephones, and resolving problems.  There is frequent finger pointing between different agencies.   

Solution:  Prepare customer service metrics for FOC offices that are consistent with industry best practices for customer service.

 

  1. FOC biases

Issue:  FOC agents are inconsistent in applying the Best Interest Factors for the fitness of parents.  

Solution:  Develop a definition of fitness; the basis is the Best Interest Factors.  If a parent is compliant with a majority of the definitions of the Best Interest Factors, except in cases of clear and convincing evidence and conviction of Domestic Violence, then they are considered fit parents.  Have the SCAO or DHS prepare a standard report card (customer satisfaction survey) that is available at each FOC office.  The report card is distributed to the CAC, FOCB, and SCAO and is used to evaluate FOC employee's performance evaluation.  

 

  1. Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC)

Issue:  CAC's have not been formed in many of the Michigan counties.  FOC and court offices do not consistently support CAC activities because of funding.  Several Judges have interfered with this mandate to avoid oversight.

Solution:  Provide a directive to support the CAC formation as the customer service mechanism for FOC offices. 

 

  1. Court appointed psychologists

Issue:  Court appointed Psychologist are frequently not trained properly in their evaluation of parental fitness.

Solution:  SCAO or DHS prepare a standard report card (customer satisfaction survey) of court appointed psychologists and evaluators, available at each FOC office.  The report card is distributed to the CAC and is used to evaluate FOC employees.  

 

 

VII.           Judicial Compliance

 

  1. Judicial Performance Report Survey

Issue:  Judges are inconsistent in the application of child support and visitation guidelines prepared by the State and Federal Government.  Each State County maintains different parenting plans and applies the guidance differently.

Solution:  (1) Provide continuing education to family court Judges and Referees on child support and visitation guidelines.  (2)  Prepare more detailed statistics on judicial performance in custody and visitation issues and provide court and Judge performance reports to the SCAO.

 

 

VIII.    False Allegations

 

  1. Domestic Violence

Issue:  Domestic Violence is frequently used as a charge to alienate a child from one parent and family to obtain custody and obstruct legal proceedings.  Current court rules presume a person is guilty, than removes access and visitation.

Solution:  Require clear and convincing evidence as the measure for domestic violence and PPO's. Provide for a cool down period and education on Domestic Violence.  Adjust court rules such that a person is presumed innocent until convicted.

 

  1. Personal Protection Orders (PPO's)

Issue:  PPO's are issued liberally, without evidence, and as a tool to obtain custody

Solution:  Develop detailed guidelines for PPO's and require clear and convincing evidence before a PPO is awarded, or an individual is convicted.

 

  1. Child Abuse, False Allegations

Issue:    False allegations of child abuse are a custody tactic to alienate one parent and interfere with visitation and custody.

Solution:  Require clear and convincing evidence of child abuse before interfering with visitation and custody awards.  Provide for parent education of the laws on child abuse.

 

  1. Parental Alienation

Issue:   Parents alienate children from one parent by disparaging one parent.

Solution:  Recognize parental alienation as an allegation and include in the Best Interest Factors or Parenting Time Guidelines.

 

  1. Child Sexual Abuse, False Allegations

Issue:    False allegations of child sexual abuse are used as a tactic to alienate one parent and interfere with visitation and custody.

Solution:  Require clear and convincing evidence of child sexual abuse before interfering with visitation and custody issues. Provide for parent education of the laws on child abuse.

 

 

VIII.    National Issues

 

  1. Domestic Violence

Issue:  Domestic Violence as specified in the Violence Against Woman Act assumes that all domestic violence is committed by men and provides funding primarily women's' organizations.  Almost 50% of domestic violence is initiated by women.  All domestic violence shelters in Michigan offer marginal support and educational services for men.

Solution:  Change the spirit and name of the law to include men and update the laws to provide funding and services to men.   Increase education on domestic violence in schools.

 

  1. Child Support Incentives Under the Bradley Amendment

Issue:  Federal law under the Bradley Amendment provides financial incentives to states for the collection of child support.  The incentives encourage the Michigan FOC to inflate child support awards and refuse adjustments due to change of circumstances; i.e. military activation, medical disability, unemployment.

Solution:  Modify the law to add specificity to a change in circumstances to include a change in employment, military activation, medical disability, and require compliance to a child support adjustment.

 

  1. Paternity Establishment

Issue:  Nearly 38% of national paternity tests exclude the alleged Father, according to paternity testing centers.  States have failed to acknowledge paternity establishment based on DNA testing and Fathers are frequently duped into being the Father of a child that is not theirs.

Solution:  Establish laws to mandate paternity establishment based on DNA testing.  Provide more discretion to Judges to modify paternity and child support awards based on paternity establishment.