Hearings
Three bills are having public hearings today at the Capitol, each of them aimed at reforming Minnesota's family court system.
Two of them are good bills that need to be passed.
One of them is a biased mess.
Read on.
Two of the bills - HF779 and HF1191 - are attempts to reform the "winner take all" nature of Minnesota divorce law.
Currently, contested divorces in Minnesota work like this:
- The courts presume the best interest of the children is served by giving primary custody to the primary caregiver, which is almost always the mother. This, in over 90% of contested divorces, means that there will be a "custodial parent" - almost always the mother - and a "noncustodial parent", almost always the father. Overturning this presumption is extremely difficult - in some jurisdictions, nearly impossible, due to the bias inherent in the system, including much anti-male bias on the part of the county social service bureaucracies that handle most of the child custody evaluations.
- There is usually a presumption of "joint legal custody", meaning both parents have nominal say over decisions like medical treatment, schools, religion and such. In practice, though, it means that the custodial parent essentially calls all the shots, and the noncustodial parent has got to like it or lump it.
- Except, of course, as regards Child Support. The noncustodial parent is charged with paying a fixed amount (subject to alteration, usually upward, at the request of the custodial parent with very little recourse) until the children are 18.
Alternate arrangements - joint custody, for example - require parents to negotiate a non-judicial settlement to the divorce. This is hardly a bad idea - I'm here to testify it's vastly preferable to letting a judge decide.
These bills, however, would do several very important things. Foremost, both would create a presumption on the part of the courts that joint physical custody was in the best interest of the minor children of the divorcing couple; it would be up to one parent or the other to prove that such a presumption would not be in the kids' best interest; the bills also spell out what "best interest" (a legal term of art with specific meaning in family court) shall mean in the future, a meaning that is focused more on the well-being of the children than the current, winner-take-all version. The benefits of such a presumption - and of wider use of Joint Physical Custody - are many, at least for the kids.
The idea has its detractors, of course. On the left, the National Organization of Women attacks the idea. The attacks are specious, of course, most of them strawmen claiming the presumption would keep women involved with abusive men - but proveable abuse is clearly not in childrens' best interest, and would change the court's presumption! (NOW, of course, doesn't want to inconvenience women by forcing them to prove claims of abuse). Most of NOW's attacks come down to not wanting to inconvenience women after divorce with having to bother with maintaining their childrens' relationship with their fathers, or (!) with dealing with the lower child support payments that come with joint custody.
Conservatives, unfortunately, aren't much better on this issue than the most rabid feminists. Part of it is that way too many conservatives believe that raising kids is the pure province of mothers, which is shortsighted and developmentally unsound. A bigger impetus, of course, is the conservative push to make divorce harder to get - which is, in a sense, a good idea, although not nearly the panacaea that the Christian Right thinks it is. And conservatives should note that states that presume for joint custody - or make joint custody easier to obtain - have lower divorce rates than "winner take all" states. That is the goal, right?
Joint custody's big "drawback" is that it requires parents to cooperate with each other, in the best interest of their children. That is, of course, inconvenient for a couple that has spent years developing deep-seated hatreds for and fear of each other. The current system, the presumption of sole custody, allows those hatreds and fears to be institutionalized in the parents' relationship in perpetuity - and forces the kids to abide by them for the rest of their childhoods. The presumption of joint custody requires parents, absent any legal reason to presume otherwise, to act like adults, to get over their differences, to grow up and get on with the important business, raising their kids.
Having been able to negotiate a joint custody settlement with my ex-wife was probably one of the best things that could have happened with my own kids. The fact that the State of Minnesota doesn't actively promote this option is purely barbaric.
The other bill, HF 1321, on the other hand, is an abomination. Authored by Steve Smith of Mound, the bill primarily exists to place a de facto tax on non-custodial parents (a 10% "service fee" on child support payments), includes much anti-male bias, will render the Joint Custody bills moot, and make negotiated settlements more difficult to arrange - which will increase litigation, which benefits attorneys (which Smith, naturally, is). It is supported by the "womenandtheirchildren" wing of the DFL - but it's a stupid bill that would reinforce already stupid policy. It needs to be knocked down and lit on fire, but defeat in committee would suffice.
More to come.
Posted by Mitch at
March 16, 2005 08:02 AM
| TrackBack
I think it's time the Joint Custody and Child Support system is completely rebuilt! My husband and I are both divorced and now re-married so I am aware of the pros and cons of both sides. Because my husband's ex-wife (my 'step-wife') was training to be a mediator, she managed to control the divorce proceedings and he got royally taken the first time around. Then he went back for joint custody but she wouldn't agree to it unless he agreed to PAY NO LESS!!! This is a woman who went thru 5 jobs in as many years, quitting a civil service job at the U because she found the office temp worker next to her was earning more money per hour. Didn't bother to think about the FREE CLASSES, health insurance and other perks of being a C.S., but boy, did she complain when we started trying to make decisions on health care for their daughter, whom I have covered on my work policy since I married her dad. She still has no health coverage for her daughter, and I still do, but we need to bend to her will or all Hell breaks loose. My ex-husband, on the other hand, is a much better ex than he was as a husband; I get less from him than we pay the step-wife, but then I had a lousy lawyer and didn't know any better. Now I do, but taking the issue to court is more trouble and cost than it's worth, not to mention the emotional toll on our son. We are counting down the months until we no longer have to pay for the step-wife's poor financial decisions and constant job changes. (child is ALMOST 16!!!!!) If the calculations took her income into consideration, we'd actually be better off, but she'd probably find a way to make less money until she absolutely needed to, namely after the support payments stop.
Posted by: Lori at March 16, 2005 12:50 PMNOW's stance is not surprising. They tend to abide by the "woman-good, man-bad" philosophy and will not listen to common sense, that there are bad women out there, too, using Child Support as a money-making endeavor. A friend of mine recently divorced, his wife remarried a WEALTHY (Indian casino money) man, yet he is stuck paying $800.00 a month for his child, whom the woman moved an hour away from dad to boot. Since she doesn't need to and CHOOSES not to work, and her husband's sizeable income is not taken into account, my friend must pay the high price. I guess the left's view is that women aren't able to make it on their own, and still need a man to support them, no matter what. Kinda backwards and caveman-like for such "progressive" thinkers, eh?
This was the best part:
""The current system, the presumption of sole custody, allows those hatreds and fears to be institutionalized in the parents' relationship in perpetuity - and forces the kids to abide by them for the rest of their childhoods. The presumption of joint custody requires parents, absent any legal reason to presume otherwise, to act like adults, to get over their differences, to grow up and get on with the important business, raising their kids.""
We both have been through this, Mitch. Unfortunately, My Joint custody arrangement blew up in my ex-wifes face for her failure to be reasonable and follow through on the agreement. This, of course, resulted in myself be awarded full physical and legal custody and her having supervised visitation only. She has yet to see the children since the order took effect, with the exception of a behind my back minipulation a few years ago.
I am still floored the she is over $25,000 in arearage of Child support, and repeted calls to California and the Ramsey Couontry attorney is recieved by nothing more then a shrug. Sorry ladies, but if the same situation existed in reverse, I would most likely be in jail.
No matter, the kids are better off with me and the arrearage won't go away just because they turn 18.
For those that care, read me 9-11 story.
http://centrisity.blogspot.com/2004/09/my-911-story-september-11-2001-has.html
The day the towers fell, was the same day I was in court, and I was awarded full custody.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention!
Flash
Posted by: Flash at March 16, 2005 01:12 PMI have first-hand knowledge of the "woman-good, man-bad" mentality. I have two children (9 and 11) from a previous relationship for which I pay child support, and my 15 month old lives with my wife and me. My wife and I are in, for lack of a better term, dire-straights, due in no small part to the amount I pay each month for child support ($650 for two children, which may not sound like alot but bear in mind I don't make alot of money).
The mother of my older two children in married now, and both of them work (the kids do NOT go to day care, but after school are watched by the grandparents). They own their own home now (I'm still stuck in apartment rental hell) and in the past year alone have had enough money to purchase a brand new pool table, computer, and a ton of new furniture and clothes. My wife and I, however, got our last two pieces of furniture (used) from the twin cities free market, get almost all of our clothes at savers, and have to keep borrowing money in order to make ends meet.
Granted, some of this is our own doing, as we chose to have my wife quit her job in order to stay home with our new arrival. We're really not big on day "care."
I could request that the child support amounts be reviewed, but I am terribly frightened of doing so for the following reasons, in order of their influence on me:
1) The first, and only, time I was at the court for the setting of child support was AWFUL. I made the horrible mistake, upon hearing that the amount was to be set at (at the time) $550 per month, of trying to explain to the fine folks there how much I paid for rent, car insurance, and food each month. Well, they literally interrupted me to tell me they didn't want to hear it. Um, okay, but they just listened to the mother talk about her expenses. The attitude towards me there is the number one reason I'm afraid to go back. I feel like my very appearence there is somehow confirmation that I'm a bad person and a bad father. I'm not. I spend lots of time with my older kids, and I have them every other weekend friday to sunday night.
2) I can find absolutely no imformation regarding the formulas used to calculate the amounts. I would be crushed if I got up the nerve to face those people again, only to leave there with a bigger bill than I arrived with. As far as I know, they do NOT take into account how much money the mother makes ( I KNOW they didn't used to, but that was 8 years ago and perhaps - hopefully - it has changed), and if she is married I seriously doubt that they will factor the income of the husband into it. Nevermind that their combined income plus my child support is likely close to twice my net income after child support.
Please don't misunderstand my feelings and peg me as a bad father who does not care about his kids. I love my kids dearly, but seeing their mother spend $200 on a pair of knee-high, stilleto heeled hooker boots and thousands on a pool table and leather furnishings while we're calling friends to borrow some food/gas/bill money is putting alot af strain on me, and I'm honestly afraid that in time it will make my wife start to really resent my older kids because of our ongoing financial troubles.
How the heck can a person find out what their child support SHOULD be, or what it would likely be set to upon review by the courts?
Then there's the tax thing. I'm not an expert, but hopefully somebody here in the know can help with this. Is it my imagination, or do I essentially pay all the income taxes on the child support I pay? If I take support out before taxes, I get hit at tax return time because it's still in my gross income and now I haven't paid enough taxes. If I have it taken out after taxes, well then I just paid taxes on money I can't spend. NOTE: Perhaps I'm just biased because I'm so broke. I'm more than willing to hear arguments on why it is correct for ME to pay the taxes on the money SHE gets. Seriously. If I can be conviced it makes sense, it may actually help me feel a LITTLE better about the situation, though I'll still be broke...
So, the important question I have (aside from any raised above) is what can I do to help these common-sense bills get passed and the "service-fee" bill soundly defeated?
Posted by: Jeff at March 16, 2005 01:45 PMJeff - Write and call the committee members!
And find any friends you know with an interest in the issue and get them to do the same.
Posted by: mitch at March 16, 2005 01:48 PMMitch, consider it done.
I've never contacted a local official though, so if you could point me in the right direction, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Tried to descern who I'd contact from the links to the bills themselves, but it's difficult to tell.
Please advise.
Thanks for your dedication Mitch.
Posted by: Jeff at March 16, 2005 02:13 PMI'ts the civic law committee:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?comm=4
I'm calling them too.
Posted by: mitch at March 16, 2005 02:18 PMUh Oh. Chick in the house.
One of the reasons many of us support "no proof" abuse charges is because the stanard for physical abuse is usually eyewitness. As much as we would like to get it done nice and easy with the spouse kicking the crap out of us in public, they tend not to do it when people are around. The "no proof" means that instead you can use photgraphic evidence after the fact. Yes, some women may possibly abuse it. But abuse is also a two way street. The incidences of husband battery are beginging to increase as well, and it is believed there would be more such reports if the stigma of being abused by your wife wasn't so emasculating. Also, remember that emotional abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse. Just ask my ex-boyfriends (j/k).
I am a proponent of joint custody as the standard. I'm the product of a mother with full custody, and thanks to that I totally don't get men. Okay, I'm kidding, but it did take me a very long time to develop any sort of trust with my father. But overburdening either parent with need to prove unfitness is not the way to solve problems. I think manditory mediation is the way to solve it, and the courts should have a person who can provide an unbiased mediator free of cost, much as they provide a lawyer for those who cannot afford attorneys.
Posted by: rew at March 16, 2005 04:09 PM"One of the reasons many of us support "no proof" abuse charges is because the stanard for physical abuse is usually eyewitness."
If only.
Some background; I work in the field. I have plenty of experience in this area. And if the police are called, unless the man staggers out the door with a knife in his back, he will be the one going to jail. Eyewitness? Not even. And of course, that arrest will be held against the man in any upcoming divorce proceedings.
"Yes, some women may possibly abuse it.
There have been studies that show as many as 1/4 of all domestic abuse charges are brought during divorces. Where there's smoke...
" But abuse is also a two way street. The incidences of husband battery are beginging to increase as well, and it is believed there would be more such reports if the stigma of being abused by your wife wasn't so emasculating."
In fact, there have been studies - as in, a page-long list of studies - that show women are, if anything, MORE likely to initiate physical abuse than men are, and are twice as likely to use weapons.
"But overburdening either parent with need to prove unfitness is not the way to solve problems."
But what we have today is a presumption of unfitness, based on what amounts to a counting up and comparing of hours each parent spends with the kids. Hardly fair to the kids to say nothing of the adults that, say, spent the marriage working overtime to pay the bills, is it?
"I think manditory mediation is the way to solve it,"
Mediation ONLY works with people who have the boundless good sense to be adults when it comes to divorce; people who can set aside emotion long enough to think of the greater good of their children. How common do you think those people are? The good thing about presumed joint custody, studies seem to show, is that it forces both parties to pull back from their emotions and act like adults - to only try to prove unfitness if they KNOW they can make it stick in court against an iron-clad legal standard.
" and the courts should have a person who can provide an unbiased mediator free of cost, much as they provide a lawyer for those who cannot afford attorneys.
That's only in criminal cases. Or in cases where a woman brings - ta daaaa! - an abuse charge!
Posted by: Elias at March 17, 2005 09:43 AM"There have been studies that show as many as 1/4 of all domestic abuse charges are brought during divorces. Where there's smoke..."
I'm suprised it's so few. Who are the 3/4 th of the women filing charges who stay with the guy?
Posted by: rew at March 17, 2005 11:07 AMIf the weight is given in decimal parts of a carat, the figure should be accurate to the last decimal place. One type of treatment fracture filling conceals cracks in diamonds by filling them with a foreign substance. If diamond weight is stated as fractional parts of a carat, the retailer should disclose two things that the weight is not exact telecommunications name, and the reasonable range of weight for each fraction or the weight tolerance being used. aydinhomes com http://aydinhomes.com/link_exchange_14802.php?PHPSESSID=694ccf96f4a1e599b43b16ce547ecb6e
Posted by: aydinhomes com at April 7, 2006 01:01 PMhelplessness,boys frequenter!shootings compendium commemorating bickering
Posted by: at June 26, 2006 07:51 PMVenusians:overrode breathtaking Lucien verify arsine greased
Posted by: at June 27, 2006 11:48 AMVolkswagen:mastered overseas depositors?brandishes candidates apotheosis
Posted by: at July 1, 2006 12:15 AMWe recommend you to visit excellent genealogy site. qY0ptan0x
Posted by: genealogy at July 16, 2006 04:20 AMWe recommend you to visit excellent ginger lynn site. qY0ptan0x
Posted by: ginger lynn at July 16, 2006 05:49 AM