San Ramon, California 94583
July 8, 2001
Allison Giles
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Attn: Hearing Clerk
Dear Ms. Giles:
RE: family law, fatherhood and child support
My comments are the result of experience within the family law system, knowledge of other men’s experiences, and a recent reading of the California Judicial Council’s Child Support Guideline Review for 2000.
I’d like to briefly discuss several issues. They include:
Child support guidelines are too high – the California averages are 23% of aftertax income for 1 child (36/45% for 2 and 3 respectively)! My daughter’s mother moved to Vancouver, B.C., against my wishes. However, because British Columbia’s support levels are so much more reasonable, I pay slightly over half what I would pay if my child support was set by the California guideline.
Related to this are the increasing use of default judgments and the cavalier, assembly line attitude that prevails among some enforcement agencies. Errors get made, and they aren’t so easy to correct. I hear stories frequently of men who have incorrectly been identified as fathers and ordered to pay retroactive child support. I’ve even heard of a case where a man was in jail when a default judgment was entered incorrectly (he wasn’t the father). Because his pay is now being garnished he doesn’t have enough money left to hire an attorney to remedy the situation!
It is outrageous to allow custodial parents (CP) to move away from the area where they lived at the time of divorce/separation. This severs the bonds between fathers and children and courts need to recognize that the bonds are fragile after a physical separation takes place. Any more separation than is necessary is damaging to the relationship.
Courts need to stop piously proclaiming "it takes two parents to raise a child" when it’s time to award child support and look the other way later when disputes around visitation crop up. The reality is that once one parent is awarded custody of the child, and the non-custodial parent (NCP) moves out, the NCP’s relationship changes drastically for the worse. I have one child who lives apart from me and one who lives with me so I speak from experience. It’s disingenuous to maintain otherwise and order men to pay a majority of a child’s support and upkeep, but fail to vigorously enforce their visitation rights. Has anyone ever heard of a woman being prosecuted for obstructing visitation or alienating the children from their father? I certainly can’t remember such a case.
The subject of false allegations of physical or sexual abuse is similar. This area is known to be the atomic bomb of divorce and custody battles. The person who alleges it knows that even if the charge is shown to be false, so much damage usually occurs that a man’s relationship with his children is permanently harmed. And, like visitation disputes, I can’t remember ever hearing about a woman being prosecuted for this either. Evidently another case of possession, or, similarly, custody, being nine tenths of the law.
The concept of best interests of the child borders on best interests of the mother much of the time. The status quo power possessed by the CP is mighty strong and, as one lawyer here in the Bay Area puts it on his radio show, "a woman has to be a crack addict and a hooker to lose custody in CA." If this perception is close to accurate, what does this say about mens’ prospects in court and hopes for justice when disputes crop up? If this message is imparted to men, and appears to be true, who could blame a guy for being despondent about prospects about having a relationship with his kids? Why is it that the child’s interests are given paramount importance when there are three parties involved? Why shouldn’t the state be concerned about all three? The real problem is that in elevating the child, the custodial parent’s (usually the mother’s) status usually gets elevated inadvertently too. These statutes should be rewritten to include assurances of equity to all parties involved when courts are choosing between options as long as the best interests of the child are not significantly affected.
Recently it seems that two policies from 10 to 15 years ago are being revisited: mandatory minimum criminal sentencing guidelines and zero tolerance policies in schools for drugs and violence. It seems that dealing with complicated issues in a mechanical way results in unfair and perverse outcomes. I would like to suggest that the federalization of family law issues and the vilification of fathers belong in the same category. It became (or maybe still is) fashionable to denounce and advocate harsher penalties for "deadbeat dads." However, the truth is a bit more complicated. Research has shown that fathers with joint custody pay child support at close to 100%. It has also shown that large numbers of custodial mothers admit to actively impeding the father’s access to their children. Many of the cases where children no longer see their father are the result of a campaign of alienation where the father just gives up rather than continue to fight. It shouldn’t be surprising that in some cases like this, men stop paying child support too. Other "deadbeat" dads are either unemployed, incarcerated, or broke. Research is beginning to reveal these facts – the California Judicial Council’s report mentions them. It’s time to stop vilifying fathers and repeal the punitive federal laws that forced states to practically criminalize fatherhood via inflexible and unrealistic child support guidelines. At the same time, it would be beneficial for society to debate the best way to encourage men to stay involved with their children. In my opinion, a necessary first step should be to make the system truly fair to all parties involved.
Sincerely,
Jim Hemenway