Presumption of Fairness
I talked with Representative Rob Eastlund yesterday. Eastlund represents District 17A, the Cambridge/Isanti area in the far north Metro.
According to Eastlund - sponsor of HF1191, which if enacted would create a presumption of joint physical custody in divorce cases in Minnesota, barring some pressing, defined reason to give one parent full custody - the House Civil Law Comittee yesterday came up with a compromise bill that essentially amalgamated the three bills that were heard yesterday.
It's sort of a bizarre conflation - Eastlund said as much himself. Like most things in politics, it's bad news and good news.
The committee outcome means two things:
This is the sort of place where family court reforms have foundered in the past - when the money comes into the picture.
Child Support is a cash cow for the state. The various counties recoup welfare costs for single-parent families via the child support system; if there is a presumption of joint physical custody, with the concomitant lower child support collections, there will be that much less money to be recouped. Child support is a de facto tax on low-income divorced parents (usually fathers).
And enforcing Child Support orders is a big make-work program for an awful lot of bureaucrats. It's an activity that adds to the manpower - read "empires" - of a lot of county attorney's offices.
It impacts income, personnel and power - the three things that every bureaucrat craves more than food, sex and life itself.
If this issue matters to you, you need to get on the phone or write letters to the committee members. This is where the going will no doubt get difficult.
We're trying to book Rep. Eastlund on the Northern Alliance in the near future.
Posted by Mitch at
March 17, 2005 08:02 AM
| TrackBack
Thinking out loud here. If there is a presumption of Joint Custody, wouldn't that somewhat restrict the ability of one parent to file for welfare. They wouldn't necessarily b eable to claim the child soley, without including the income of both parents on the needs test form.
So in effect, there would be less money needing to be recouped. Correct?!
Flash
Posted by: Flash at March 17, 2005 01:02 PMThat seems correct.
Which is, I suspect, one of the the reasons the likes of Ellen Anderson and Alice Hausman will fight against it.
Posted by: mitch at March 17, 2005 04:13 PMI'm all for programs to help those in need. I am not all that embarrassed to say I went through a period in my life were I needed the public dole to provide for my infant children while trying to get back on my feet. If it weren't for the 'system' I am not sure I would have been able to persist in getting back on my feet. But I see the perpetuity of some families that seem to think that welfare is a way of life, and that is a big reason why I am very supportive of this measure.
I sent off an E-Mail in support to the two authors and copied Hausman on it as well.
Flash
Posted by: Flash at March 17, 2005 04:28 PMThis is good news, only about 10 years too late for my situation; but an idea whose time has come.
Posted by: marcus aurelius at March 17, 2005 05:09 PMI'm afraid I can't agree with you on this issue, Mitch. As a stepfather, I have some experience.
Joint physical custody certainly sounds just and workable. But I believe a child simply must have one "home" not two, and I believe there is some research on this that supports my view.
I do believe many other aspects and assumptions of these laws are suspect. I particularly disagree with the automatic garnishment of wages as practiced by Hennepin County and others. You are convicted of being a "deadbeat" without a trial, without an appeal, a clear violation of at least the spirit of due process IMO. This strips the dignity from those who would otherwise pay on time, making them look no different than a real deadbeat in society's eye. That leads to bitterness and a lack of respect for the law, which is seldom good.
Posted by: R-Five at March 17, 2005 10:49 PMI'm afraid I cannot agree with you, R-Five. As a father that is in the system, I know personally what it has done to me and my child just because my sons mother refuses to cooperate. I was not deemed unfit but yet the child spends less time with me just because his mother refuses.
R-Five on the otherhand sounds like was a third-party that was on the receiving end of child support. (Do not make the claim that all of the money that was received went to the child as this is simply not true).
R-five it sounds like you are riding the fence on the topic. I suggest you do some more research and back up your claims about one home is better than two. Be careful in analyzing your research as a good portion of it is truly flawed. Also please note the dates of the research. The world is not the same as it was 20 years ago or even a day ago.
It appears you are indirectly stating that one parent has more rights than the other in being a parent and the child cannot live with both parents. We all have a constitutional right to parent. The Family Law system especially in Minnesota is denying this right as fathers are not deemed an equal (parent).
Posted by: montecarlo at March 21, 2005 02:02 PMAs usual you have it dead on. The one thing to point out is that when the state wastes money on child support enforcement most of the money comes from the feds. But more and more is coming from local coffers as the beast grows out of control. The whole racket is one of the bigger social engineering scams of our age. And like many do good leftist ideas, it is causing untold damage and the press is reluctant to tell the real truth. Google Stephen Baskerville or Phyllis Schlafly for some great reading on the subject.
Posted by: Lee Surma at March 21, 2005 09:50 PMcsHi. This is my links. mexican ass
Posted by: mara at May 5, 2006 05:36 AMhttp://anal.more-chicks.com/
free anal s3x movies
http://anal.more-chicks.com/free-anal-s3x-movies.html
whipped ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/whipped-ass.html
anal penetration
http://anal.more-chicks.com/anal-penetration.html
fine ass
http://anal.more-chicks.com/fine-ass.html
Gilbertson?hypocrisies:hoisted minerals thriving:Nicklaus bleacher exclusiveness
Posted by: at June 26, 2006 11:19 PMtransient Hitlerite decrypts Benedict investigatory CENTREX,interrelationship amusedly?
Posted by: at June 27, 2006 11:03 AM