Ledyard, Connecticut 06339
June 28, 2001

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

RE: Child Support

Dear Ms. Giles and others,

Thank you very much for allowing my comments to be delivered to Congress on this important topic.

I am a single father residing in Connecticut (formerly R.I.) with a 20-year old son living with his married mom in Massachusetts. The laws of Massachusetts governed our divorce and subsequent modifications, typically for child support. This process of modification has been ongoing since generally 1983, about a year after our son was born.

I refuse to disparage anyone, and would prefer instead to offer Congress some constructive ideas to address this former "issue" which has evolved into a national "phenomenon." The fact is that past laws and legal wrangling only addressed a "band-aid" approach versus looking squarely at the problem. I submit that this important issue be standardized throughout the country, versus each state having differing views and laws on this topic.

First, I must ask that society at large NOT view fathers as some unnatural element of a child’s family or future, as well as a "paycheck." We individually and collectively have feelings towards our own and other’s children. We individually and collectively prefer to be an influence in our children’s lives. We individually and collectively want the best for all children, including our own. It is wrong to assign the negative elements of some arrogant, disruptive, or even "deadbeat’ dads to the whole, which appears to be society’s answer to fathers. I am not quite sure of the percentages of "good" versus "bad" dads, but I don’t act nor care to be a negative influence in my own son’s life.

Second, it appears from this writer that most custodial parents (usually mothers) see money as a motivating force against custody and visitation for the non-custodial parent (typically fathers). You will hear a lot about joint custody, and the influence of the father.

I might be different in this respect, but I do not condone joint custody as that is meant by others, and I base this on first-hand experience. Joint custody as probably meant by others is an almost equitable schedule of parental visitation and physical control over the life and mind of a child of that marriage. I submit that this is nearly impossible to accomplish, for a variety of reasons: 1) the child gets lost in the discipline of two or more households; 2) it is sometimes impossible for parents to regulate schedules to accommodate the "transfer" of the child; 3) in some cases, the child suffers from abuse (physical, and mental) which caused the original marital breakup; 4) it introduces a new "feature", or person, into the parent-child relationship, which may be good or bad, depending (for example, one parent may now become indifferent to the child when the "dating game" commences)—where is the child when that happens?

Nonetheless, I firmly believe that children deserve the presence and influence of the non-custodial parent, rather than a complete obliteration of parental rights, which appears to be slowly evolving in this country. I do feel saddened by those fathers who do not want any relationship with their children, but I believe that their attitude stems from having to awkwardly deal with their ex-spouse, which may resurrect some animosity.

Another issue is finances. There appears to be a wide berth of custodial guidelines among the various states, especially as they deal with child support. For example, Massachusetts assigns a certain percentage of "gross" income depending upon the age and number of children to the marriage or adjoining marriage. Most other states that I am aware of assign a percentage of "net" income. That is why, in the 80’s especially, many fathers from Massachusetts went to alternate states for a change of venue in order to reduce child support requirements. Rep. Barney Frank can attest to this, as he introduced a bill—I believe in 1986--that disallowed such an adventure—regardless if the custodial spouse had counsel present in her divorce.

Massachusetts support requirements are simply too expensive and it could be for a variety of reasons (too expensive to live near Boston versus the balance of the state or elsewhere; "good" fathers paying for the sins of the "bad" fathers, to put it very simply, so that the state does not have to bear the burden of increased child welfare; legal costs, etc.). The father in the latter instance went to Florida courts simply because he could not afford expensive support. I submit he left because of the finances of the situation, and would have stayed involved in his children’s lives had there been more equitable treatment.

Does Congress realistically want fathers to be part of their children’s lives? Or must fathers travel elsewhere (or take on many jobs) for financial reasons, and thus remove themselves away from their sons and daughters?

In many instances, and because of expensive support requirements, non-custodial parents (i.e., fathers) see their living arrangements dwindle economically and substantially. Yet there is no incentive to gain additional employment, because this additional income gets further eaten up by the support requirements—regardless if their child’s cost of living hasn’t changed one iota.

The result? Because of various support requirements (child support @ 25% on average; federal, state, and local taxes @ approx. 30%; rent or mortgage @ 25%; utility bills @ 10%, of a weekly paycheck), the father generally has to live on just 5% of his net income. The mother’s income, however, increases because of the support, in most cases by 25%, admittedly less as a percentage of income if there is more income in her household. There is quite a disparity between households… especially if the custodial parent re-marries and lives in a mansion because of her new combined income. This is not taken into account.

The added income would only replace what was taken; PLUS, because of the added employment schedule, the visitation schedule is thereby reduced concomitantly (the father never gets to see his child, often because of two or three jobs). The custodial parent begins the cycle of support modification yet again, because of the expected added income. Again, no incentive for added income.

There ought to be equitable financial treatment in court orders, as well (i.e., and I hate to use these words, but "what’s good for the goose is good for the gander"). Too often I’ve seen judicial modification orders where the father has to "…report any and all changes in income…," yet the mother is not required to report her changes in income--even though she is quite capable of work (and sometimes is working via crafts, home businesses, etc.); the children have grown and are no longer present during "mother’s hours". Discovery material and judgments ought to treat non-married parents equally, especially as to work reporting requirements.

Another financial issue relates to unemployment. In some instances, a non-custodial parent under court-ordered child support loses his position, becomes unemployed, and begins receiving unemployment compensation. Yet the court-ordered child support remains. The reply is to return to court to reduce the payments. Yet to do so: a) costs money for lawyers; and b) by the time any hearing comes, generally 6 months later, the non-custodial parent has started new work. The support order during the unemployment phase eats up over 50% of the unemployment compensation, AND, the other bills remain the same during this period (WHICH INCLUDES FEDERAL TAXES). This forces the parent to perhaps work "under the table" (which is illegal) just to maintain bills, or go to work at menial jobs, and thus have to report this new income (and new court modification) while he is out looking for a better job (and cannot find time for an interview because he is working at this menial job…). The custodial parent thus does not share in the problems of the non-custodial parent, even if it was not of his own doing.

Another issue involves a custodial parent using another state to gain what she couldn’t in the governing state. For example, using a doctor-child privilege in an adjoining state to unwarrantedly disparage the non-custodial parent, and bringing that evidence into the governing state. The governing state thus orders new visitation, regardless if it is warranted, but only under the supervision of the doctor in the adjoining state. The doctor then suggests that they cannot enforce another state’s order—the non-custodial parent thus has to go to the adjoining state’s court for a similar court order, and for a few more $$ thousand. Where is the justice in using adjoining states?

An important issue is arrearage---when does it begin?? I submit that you have 501 House Members, with 501 different answers. Does it begin at the moment of filing a complaint for modification? At the moment of hire for the non-custodial parent? At the moment when the custodial parent finds out about any new job of the non-custodial parent? At the moment of the court order filing for increased support with the clerk of courts?

An example of this in action was when the non-custodial parent (the father generally) was hired for a new job, and alerted the mother, by phone and by correspondence with their child — not once, but on three separate occasions, close apart. The mother delayed filing for a modification of increased child support 5 months later. During the 5 months interim, she also telephoned the father (proven by phone records) at his new place of employ (so she cannot state that she was not aware of where he worked). Seven months later they were in court, and the court retroactively assigned an increase in child support to the date of hire — the father is thus in immediate arrears to the tune of thousands of dollars, and is automatically told by his friends and employer that he is a "deadbeat dad"—even though he did everything by the book!! He also had to forego subsequent tax payments in order to pay child support or face incarceration, and is now in arrears with the IRS!!

So when does arrearage begin?

Why incarcerate a legitimate "deadbroke dad"? That only makes him lose his job to begin with, and thus spiral ever downward. How can he earn a living from prison? Again, a band-aid approach…

In summary, I want to request that child support be somewhat standardized nationally (percentage of "net" versus "gross" income, for example), AND, that fathers NOT be considered as merely a paycheck, which is the personal bias of many, many judges — we want to be a direct influence in our children’s lives.

And so do grandparents……

Respectfully,

Robert E. Brien