|
|
|
|
Open
Letter to Child Support Review Committee
of Massachusetts Judicial System |
|
September
23, 2005 |
|
Dear Child
Support Review Officials,
I have
never been politically active, in
spite of being a CEO of five different
Massachusetts companies since 1989,
but it has become completely clear
to me that this situation is totally
out of control and needs major reform,
not just minor adjustments. As a result
I have made a commitment to help reform
the family law system and lend my
leadership and management expertise
to this cause because I believe it
is hurting an entire generation of
children. As an expert
in organizational development and
a consultant to many CEOs on structuring
companies, I feel well qualified to
comment on the many problems in this
system. Although I am not experienced
in government I have run companies
with hundreds of people and understand
the issues that create problems as
any organization grows larger.
Firstly,
the foundation on which the guidelines were
built is totally flawed. There is
not record or disclosure of this process
and the underlying assumptions. The
original group was all lawyers and
others with a vested interest in the
outcome (I have been told), not financial
experts. The very idea that
the child's standard of living can
be maintained after divorce is a flawed
premise. What more do we need
to know other than that Massachusetts
has the highest child support in
the nation! It is almost double
the average from the statistics I
have seen. Since the cost of
living is NOT an excuse for this,
as this is built into the percentage of
salary methodology already, I can
only assume that the people who put together
the initial guidelines had very little
financial and economic expertise. By
my analysis child support is about
double what it should be in this state.
If you look at U.S. government data
for the cost of raising a child it
is easy to prove the amounts are way
too high and essentially place all
the financial burden on the father.
I too felt for the "single mom"
before I became aware of the true
numbers. Now I feel only for
the dad. Even the lawyers in
the family court system state openly
that "alimony" is built
into these guidelines, and alimony
is suppose to be based on "need".
It is not appropriate in this
day and age, when the wife can earn
a living, and the children are in
school, except in the special circumstance
where the woman has no ability to
earn a living. Currently the entire
financial burden of a divorce is placed
on the father, so much so that it
is destroying fathers and their ability
to be there for their children. Child
support is not just money, as you
might define it here, it is time,
love, learning and many, many other
things. We must have a divorce system
that allows these more important things
to be imparted to our children, not
just money.
No examination
of the Child Support Guidelines would
be complete without looking at the
epidemic of restraining orders
issued. With these being an all too
common element of a divorce the guidelines
MUST take this common factor into
account. Any family court lawyer
will tell you that restraining orders
are "given out like candy".
It is amazing they all know of this
abuse, use the same phrase and
yet it only gets worse with time.
I see this as a major ethical problem
in the system. Lawyers are sworn to
improve the system, yet for decades
they have ignored this abuse of the
system. Personally I believe
this to be completely unconstitutional
and a major problem in its own right
that is damaging families greatly
and increasing divorce rates. Restraining
orders have clearly become standard
operating procedure for lawyers and
bitter wives to win their divorce
before a trial even happens, so they
must be accounted for in any financial
support system.
The HUGE
incentive to get a restraining orders for
financial and custody reasons have
spun this system out of control. Literally
a little white lie gets the wife (almost
never the husband) instantly a $500,000
house and full custody of your children
and the father does not even get to
speak. He is immediately
destroyed financially and emotionally
and placed under a cloud of doubt
as a criminal. In Virginia,
a state with a similar population
to Massachusetts (actually 7.3 million
in VA versus 6.4 in Mass.), there
are only about 1,500 restraining orders
issued per year, versus about 45,000
in Massachusetts! Do you think
men in Massachusetts are 30 times
more violent than in Virginia?
Not likely! I have heard estimates
from lawyers that range between 50% and
90% for the percentage of BOGUS restraining
orders that are issued as "offensive
weapons" in divorce, instead
of as defensive weapons for women
that actually need some protection.
I would estimate that as many as 70%
of restraining orders are unwarranted
and many attorneys obviously agree.
By the way "spectral evidence",
any evidence not provable because
it is entirely in the mind of the
person, was outlawed shortly after
the Salem witch trials. So we are
back to this kind of situation here,
mass panic caused by propaganda and
a political environment created by
special interests. It is very possible
in fact that the 209(a)
legislation is not even legal and/or
constitutional under much supreme
court case law now available, but
this is another issue. Your issue
is taking into account the effect
of this very common phenomenon on
child support.
Radical
feminists groups, known for their
exaggeration of the figures pretend
every man is a batterer or deadbeat
dad at every opportunity. I
heard a NOW representative on the
radio recently claim that "37%
of hospital emergency room visits
where the result of domestic violence".
The real figure is 0.3%, so they exaggerated
the number by more than a FACTOR
of 100. This propaganda is unbelievable
and very successful too, but it is
not justice and we expect far more
from our judicial system. This
propaganda is essentially getting
every father treated as a criminal
with the excuse of the worst case
being used for every case. This is
un-American and against all the foundations
and maxims of law that our great country
is based on. We have said we would
rather have 9 guilty people go free
before locking up one innocent person,
yet it seems to me that we are knowingly
taking away the fundamental constitutional
rights of 95 fathers for every five
that deserve this treatment.
This means
that thousands of fathers (hardly
ever mothers) are being thrown out
of their homes without notice and
without good reason for the comfort
and convenience of the mothers. Clearly
the domestic violence laws are now
doing more harm than good with this
level of abuse. So odds are good that
the a restraining order is unwarranted
and issued under the claim of "fear",
not any actual abuse. Then judges
refuse to vacate them due to personal
fear of media or other reasons, like
you can not prove a negative etc.
What does
this do to the financial situation
of the family? Well often the judge
will order the father to pay all the
expenses of the home in ADDITION to
child support. Since a typical bank
mortgage allowance for (principal,
interest, taxes and insurance but
NOT utilities) amounts to about 50%
of the family's take-home pay, this
means that the father's financial
responsibilities now look like this when
earning an average income of $50,000
and taking home 70% of that after
taxes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Situation of an Average
Father Removed From Home By Restraining
Order |
|
|
|
|
|
Year |
Month |
% of Take-Home |
Gross Salary |
$
50,000 |
$
4,167 |
143% |
Take-home pay |
$
35,000 |
$
2,917 |
100% |
Home related costs
(50% PITI + utilities) |
$
17,500 |
$
1,458 |
50% |
Child Support
(at 26%of gross for 2 children) |
$
13,000 |
$
1,083 |
37% |
Remaining income
for Father to live on |
$
4,500 |
$
375 |
13% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is pretty clear that
no one can survive on $375 per month
after they have been thrown out of
their home, and this is just the average
person with $50K income, meaning HALF
of the people (if $50K is about a
median) are in worse condition financially!
In addition the mother now has virtually
all her expenses paid and has no reason
to work, settle the case or reconcile
with dad. She is actually motivated
NOT to work or move the divorce forward
to hurt the father as additional leverage
in the divorce so he can't afford
attorneys fees and other basic necessities.
So what do you expect someone
in this situation to do to survive?
And I do mean SURVIVE literally.
The system has effectively manufactured
a criminal. If they don't find money
somewhere under the table they can
not even eat. Mostly innocent,
good dads who are now placed in an
impossible situation through no fault
of their own. The father is the real
victim here. So now the father
needs to work under the table, starve,
live with relatives or friends in
conditions not appropriate for their
children to visit, live in their car
or even leave. Dad's
other options are to commit suicide,
leave the state, leave the country
etc. We have a significant percentage
of all these too. Anyone that thinks
that this is in "the best
interests of the children" does
not belong on the bench, or even in
this judicial system in my opinion.
In fact, as I testified in Worcester,
and is documented in studies footnoted
in Warren Farrell's GREAT book "Father
and Child Reunion", fathers
commit suicide 9.9 times more often
then mothers after divorce. This
book should be required
reading for all family court judges.
Is this system really kinder
and gentler, or it is just being kind
to custodial parents (95% mothers)
and placing ALL the hardship on the
fathers? It seems obvious to me from
the simple math that the later is
true. How could anyone believe otherwise?
Many of the current orders issued
by the court are impossible for the
fathers to follow. Issuing impossible
orders is also unlawful for judges,
but I have seen it and been a personal
victim of this too. The tendency
of the courts to disbelieve fathers
is so strong that it seems fathers
proving the cases with real evidence
are often ignored for the oral claims
of mothers. This causes
a spiral down for the father and is
obviously harmful to the children.
Do we want to show our children that
the way to act is to live off the
hard work of a husband, ejected from
the home, and not work. It would seem
this system encourages this situation
and makes it very common indeed.
So what tangible and obvious
changes in the guidelines does this
suggest? Well if a father is paying
for the home, and the mother has resources
(income OR savings) for groceries
and other incidentals then these housing
payments should be credited against
child support. Otherwise it is clearly
double dipping and encouraging the
divorce to go on forever. Unfortunately
lawyers benefit financially from these
long divorce battles which encourages
the level of animosity to rise further, but
obviously it is not good social policy
and is harmful to the children to
allow this to happen. More than
likely in most cases this will totally
wipe out the child support payments
and be DOUBLE that amount anyway.
Officials involved have
admitted this review process is too
short, has no budget and that there
are major issues to be reviewed. I
encourage you to extend the review
if necessary but make the obvious
adjustments now. Even though federal
law requires this review, it does
not limit the frequency or place any
limit on changes. There should also
be participation n the this process
by the mothers and fathers under it.
It seems this is superficial at best.
No company would design its service
today without active participation
of its customers.
My suggestions for change
offered here and at my Worcester testimony:
-
Remove the disregard
entirely to encourage women to
work (certainly always after the
children are in school or if their
income is much greater than child
care costs)
-
Phase down the percentage
of child support over a couple
of years to half the current level,
giving women time to increase
their earnings
-
Eliminate child support
altogether when the father is
already paying for the home and
the wife has other sources to
pay for groceries (as encourages
her to begin more work). This
encourages negotiation instead
of dragging on of the divorce
process.
-
Take into account the
fact the most restraining orders
are not due to actual physical
abuse of any kind and that these
men should not be treated like
criminals until PROVEN guilty.
Credit these payments against
child support - they are actually
both child and wife support only
larger.
-
Extend the process
to look at the guidelines to do
it right, not fast
-
Carefully examine the
detailed studies used in New Hampshire
and DC that are breaking ground
and encouraging a fairer and more
progressive system that will help
children, families and also women
become more independent and a
better examples for their children.
Good social policy must
treat all fairly, not be sexually
biased, and certainly not encourage
family instability and divorce. The
current overly generous guidelines
are causing many undesirable and unforeseen
effects. Today we are ripping apart
the fabric of families by making it
so attractive to throw dad out like
an old sneaker. I have literally seen
a judge create a divorce over a minor
lover's spat where one person was
simply locked out for the night. Who
is to say this would not have been
resolved amicably without the "assistance"
of the state in this personal matter? Now
that family is doomed to divorce. It
is the ultimate arrogance to assume
that judges can make these decisions
in 10 minute informal hearings.
This is no reason to destroy a marriage
and home for the children. Marriage
today is like playing Russian roulette
with 3 bullets in the six chambers.
We must correct this situation
before a generation of children and
families are destroyed. The extra
child support paid today is not only
strong financial motivation for wives
to divorce, but also destroying the
fathers ability to be there for their
children. We MUST reform this system
now!
Sincerely,
Robert - A concerned
father whose children have been kidnapped
by the state
(508) 381-1450
Fax: (801) 672-9640
| | | |