Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220
July 11, 2001
Allison Giles, Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building.
Washington, DC. 20515
Subject: Public Hearing on Child Support and Related Issues
Dear Committee on Ways and Means:
Thank you for allowing me to express my strong and urgent support in favor of changes to legislation that eliminates gender bias and corruption in Family Law matters relating to Child Support Guidelines and rightfully making Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody the rule and the law.
I am a father of two daughters who are 9 and 4 years old. I have been blessed to obtain 50/50 joint custody from the time the oldest was 5 years and the youngest was 7 months old. I could tell you much about the difficulties and hardship I was confronted within the family court system in the related divorce, custody and support process but I’d rather thank God for allowing my parent rights to look after the girls and the good success that both their mother and I see in them. It was an initial challenge to co-parent but it became easier in time for me because I believed we both got a chance to know that each of us tremendously loved our children. Therefore, I must take this opportunity to speak in support of other fathers who are denied their rights and access to parenting their very own children. I am going to assume that most people are not aware of the dangers facing children who live apart from their fathers. It is my hopes and prayers that there is more than sufficient evidence available to you to now know the truth and that you will do the right thing in making Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody the law and practice as well as the stopping the unconstitutional extortion of monies from responsible law abiding citizens through gender biased child support guidelines and systems.
The Case for Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody
We have heard much over the years of so-called deadbeat dads and we now
understand the myths surrounding this stereotype have been shattered. Now we
must raise awareness of the tragic problem in the area of emotional child
support- namely, the phenomenon termed "DEADBOLTED DADS" which was
coined by Gail Sheehy in a 1998 New York Times article and refers to dads who
are locked out of their children’s lives with no way of getting back in after
divorce or family breakup. Deadbolting can also happen to non-custodial moms.
Sociology Professor David Popenoe wrote in " Life Without Father" if present trends continue, the percentage of American children living apart from their biological father would reach 50 percent in the next century.
I believe we are well ahead of that disastrous pace when considering the April 18, 2001 published article "Unwed Mothers Set A Record for Births" by The Washington Times. The article states "a record 1.3 million babies were born out of wedlock in 1999 marking the first time that a full one-third of all U.S. births were to unwed mothers, the federal government said." If there are custody disputes the facts are that 80 percent or more of the time, the mother is routinely given sole custody in violation of the inalienable human rights of the child to also enjoy the love and nurturing relationship with their father.
Couple this with the fact that 50 percent of the 2.6 million children born in wedlock or about another 1.3 million, through divorce, will find themselves in the same victimized role of the children born out of wedlock and subjected to the same 80 percent sole custody mother violation of the child’s basic human rights to know the love and nurturing of their father. Two thirds of these 1999 born babies may find their lives void of the love and security of their father if we do not act now.
Also, when we consider that this does not include children born before this 1999 report and are nevertheless, victims in the same proportions, the numbers are staggering and in at least the 15 to 20 million children range.
This is a problem that Americans care about "according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans feel the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home. This number is up from 69.9 percent in 1992." (MSNBC website: Labor Day: where are the fathers", 1999).
When there is an absence of 50/50 joint custody, extended families are cut off, too. Loving grandmothers, grandfathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and cousins all suffer when a child is unnecessarily kept away. A whole heritage is lost to these children.
We must acknowledge the truth that fathers love our children just as much as mothers do. We have forgotten this simple truth because we are bombarded with negative images and stereotypes of fatherhood such as runaway dads, absentee dads and deadbeat dads when the reality is that dads are deadbolted, and in most cases broken-hearted over the loss of their beloved children. Furthermore, the children are missing their dads, too because they love their dads as much as they love their moms.
Why is if so important to immediately reunite children in the homes of their fathers which the presumption of 50/50 joint custody will facilitate? Consider this:
Children of fatherless homes account for:
Many children who are victims of crimes are raised in a fatherless home and the perpetrators who commit these crimes are themselves raised majority of the time in a fatherless home.
These horrible statistics are even twice as worse for African Americans who in the same year 1999 have twice as many children born out of wedlock at almost 70 percent. There is a direct correlation between: the number of African American children born out of wedlock, the number of African American sole custody mothers, the number of fatherless African American fatherless homes, the disproportionately high number of African Americans in jail and the criminal justice system, the disproportionately high number of African Americans in poverty.
In regards to child abuse, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1 million documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. 50/50 Joint Custody can significantly reduce stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents to monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them.
In regards to poverty, The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live in single parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two parent families will experience poverty. (Melinda Sacks, Fatherhood in the 90’s: Kids of absent fathers more at risk, San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95). Also, the feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle. (David Levy, ED., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993).
In regards to kidnapping, family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200 – 300. The parental abductions were attributed to the parents’ disenchantment with the legal system. (David Levy, ED., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993), citing a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice (May 1990).
How did we wind up in this current destructive position? The current family law court system has done an injustice to all of our constitutional rights as mothers, fathers, children, legislators and citizens. Many attorneys, not all, engage in unethical practices that result in significant and usually unnecessary litigation to extort money from both mother and fathers. But the fees for the fathers are usually incurred at an even higher level than the fees incurred by the mother, as much as 6 times more or higher. The public is not aware of the excessive litigation that occurs and how difficult it is for fathers to keep going back to court again and again to get some form of custody. Dads become emotionally and financially drained. They are forced to spend thousands of dollars just to be able to see their children. This is tragic.
Many of these unethical attorneys do not represent the interest of their client the father by withholding information pertaining to options and rights that they have full knowledge of in order to generate more billable hours at the expense of the children and their fathers.
These attorneys are sometime aided by Domestic Relation Officers who are biased against fathers and routinely issue support orders without the establishment of custody orders that must be appealed if the father is knowledgeable and financially able.
Sometimes we have judges who will not stand for such injustices and biases, may they be blessed forever, and will issue the right and honorable court order of 50/50 joint custody. But most of the time this may not happen due to their heavy caseloads and undue pressure from attorneys who may have various associations and relationships with the judges.
We have the chance today to turn this cycle of disaster into a cycle of opportunity for love, growth, safety, and stability for our children and all the citizens they affect in our nation. We can take a giant step forward in the best interest of our children’s health and welfare by:
In summary, the issue of Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody is not about women versus men or moms versus dads. The issue is about the physical, emotional, spiritual and financial health and well being of our children. Children need both parents. We need fair and equal treatment in the courts for all men and women, and recognition of the human rights of children to know, love and share the lives of both parents. Unnecessary and unjust intervention by the courts into the private realm of family life and parenting must stop. We must pass Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody legislation.
Gender Biases in Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines
I am a very concerned citizen and feel my comments are very important to
modifying Pennsylvania's Support Rules of Court in particular and the erroneous
national support guideline model in general. With all due respect and a pursuit
of what is good, right and justifiably fair, I humbly submit my comments on the
"anonymous" Committee that implemented the Pennsylvania Support Rules
as an example of the national child support guideline model flaws and biases as
follows:
Rule 1910.16-1 Amount of Support. Support Guidelines
Commentary on Rule 1910.16-1
(a) The support of a spouse or child is a priority obligation, however, the
expectancy of a party to adjust her or his expenditures to meet this obligation
can force a good hardworking honest citizen into financial ruin.
It is grossly unfair when the party who was abandoned and did not initiate the breakup of a family finds herself or himself, suddenly in a support hearing, before any custody ruling or action has been determined, and gets hit with a devastating support judgment, effective immediately, with no chance to adjust other expenditures, simply because you earn more money than the other spouse. It is a cruel and unusual punishment.
In the case where a spouse has abandoned the other spouse and files for support where there has been no "evidence of abuse" (more than the filing of a Protection From Abuse- PFA which requires only an accusation and no facts) but merely because this spouse has decided to selfishly pursue their own desires at the expense of the abandoned spouse and even using the children as a way to finance this break-away, does not represent a stable person with the best interest of the children, and therefore, should not be awarded any support until a custody hearing and ruling has been completed.
In fact, everyone should have to prove" just cause" of why the children should not remain under the custody of the spouse who has been abandoned in a presumed stable environment.
Therefore, the burden of adjusting of expenditures should justifiably be shifted more heavily to the party who has made the decision to abandon the family unit, not on who earns more money.
In fact, the one earning more money will tend to have the expenditures that are more fixed in nature and more difficult to adjust, i.e. mortgage, auto loans, education and consumer loans, etc.
The priority of support should be for maintaining the children in their stable living environment. When a person decides to leave a marriage because they "feel like" they need to pursue other interest, they should not be entitled to remove income from the marital household that is available for the children and remaining spouse, regardless of whether the remaining spouse is the man or woman, higher income earner or lower income earner.
Further, when such a person decides to leave a marriage because they "feel like it" they are entitled to do so with their share of the marital property because no one can make them stay, but this person should not be entitled to spousal support especially when they have a means to provide for their own living and has chosen their own independence. They deserve to be left independent with the fruits of their own labor.
There is no good basis for making such a spousal support award and this practice should cease.
Rule 1910.16-2 Support Guidelines (Grids) Calculation of Net Income
Commentary on Rule 1910.16-2
(d) Reduced or Fluctuating Income
(4) Income Potential. The concept of appropriate employment in consideration of
a party's earning capacity requires more definition. We should be able to
construct a schedule of earning capacity according to the age, education,
training, and market value of a parent's skill set.
This should be the starting point of earning capacity assessment in determining support. This will help provide a fair and firm guidance to parents to know their responsibility and assessed contribution to support based upon the skills and talent that they possess regardless of whether or not they choose to obtain it.
For example, if a person has a bachelor degree in Computer Science and training in a curriculum such as Computer Analyst, and has had these skills for 10 years that would translate into a Senior Analyst with an average market value of $50,000 but the party has chosen not to capitalize on the investment of the education and training and has decided to instead take employment as a data entry clerk with a salary of $25,000, This party should be assessed with the earning capacity of $50,000.
This will establish an environment where both parties will know to diligently pursue their maximum earning capacity, thereby maximizing the resources available for supporting the best interest of the children.
The courts have consistently and rightfully stated that it must be both parties equal responsibility to obtain their earning capacity in the support of their children.
The information on employment and earnings for the composition of such a schedule to be used as a guide should be available from existing wage and salary surveys.
I believe this will go a long way in confirming our seriousness in the best contribution of one's skills and abilities to the benefit of our children, family, and ultimately as a Pennsylvanian example of our great United States of America.
We have an opportunity to encourage all parties to strive to gain the intrinsic reward of fulfilling one's potential. People should have a better sense of what's expected of them as a responsible wage earner parent.
Commentary on Rule 1910.16-2 Support Guidelines
(e) Net Income Affecting Application of Child Support Guidelines
(2) High Income Child Support Cases.
After divorce and established earnings, if one spouse through hard work and risk taking is blessed with significant earnings, why should one be required to make any increased child or spouse support payments to a spouse who takes no risk and in all probability has another co-habitant who also gains the benefit of support meant for the children?
To the parent(s) who are committed to the personal nurturing and rightful upbringing of their children, the intervening non-parent, the co-habitant who has no responsibility of child support should not have any access to the provisions meant for the children.
This is true in all income cases and not just limited to high-income cases. This is a real big problem that I believe is at the core of much violence and death that we see and hear about in cases of troubled families.
Although I do not agree with the actions, I can understand why a person can be so enraged to commit violence and murder when they see someone else living in a house, eating food, driving cars, living a better life because of the blood and sweat of a supporting spouse's labor.
It is wrong, unnatural, and down right wicked for a co-habitant to be excused from the support equation. The co-habitant had a choice of whether or not to enter the relationship, and should have to pay the cost like everyone else. We must address this issue.
I would suggest that we consider a standard and guideline of support for a co-habitant, being subjected to the same test of earning capacity as everyone else.
Just as it is stated that in the comments of the recommendations in multiple families, and extending beyond just the children of a second family, but to the second adult, the co-habitant;, is only entitled to the standard of living established by the parent and the co-habitant, and not the standard of living that may have existed earlier in the first family "because of the support payment monies made by the first family parent of the children".
The co-habitant is responsible for choosing to enter such a relationship and must also be held accountable for support and not allowed as a parasite to consume resources contributed for the children. There must be no double standard.
Rule 1910.16-4 Support Guidelines. (Deviation) Calculation of Support Obligation. Formula
Commentary on Rule 1910.16-4
b) Shared Custody- When both parents are equally raising their child(ren),
it is more than just spending time. It is an erroneous and biased disposition
not to be sensitive and see both parties in the role of obligor and obligee,
regardless of who earns the higher income.
Otherwise, the party with the higher net income is unjustifiably translated into the non-custodial parent penalties, and therefore, never perceived in an obligee role and also justifiably appropriate to be provided favorable consideration as any other custodial parent(s) who is spending their appropriate share of support on the children within their household that they are maintaining even though they do not receive one penny from anyone.
It would be coldly biased, incomplete and unjust to ignore these facts and not give obligee consideration and benefit to both parents.
(f) Further, evidence of the need to be implicitly as well as explicitly fair in the treatment of both custodial parents, as both obligor and obligee, in equally shared custody, is the biased language and treatment that follows as a result of language in this section of Rule 1910.16-4 (f): "utilize the guidelines which result in the greatest benefit to the obligee.
We must be careful to always be fair and balanced to both parents who are equally and successfully raising their children.
Rule 1910.16-5 Support Guidelines. (Operation) Deviation
Commentary on Rule 1910.16-5
(c) No deviation from the support obligation shall be made for the amount of
time that each parent spends with the child or children is blind, cruel, and out
of touch in today's environment, thirty years after the equal rights amendment,
where both parents have equal access to opportunity in the workplace and choices
of career.
Except in cases where one spouse abandons the other spouse and child or children, "no deviation" in this ruling makes too great of a financial incentive for a support recipient, usually the woman, to use the children as pawns for purely money, and that is the plain and simple truth.
We need to be more compassionate to the love, effort, and resources both parents are in fact expending to make our children stable, healthy, assets to our society.
I believe there is a direct correlation between the greed created by these support incentives and the extremely high rate of divorce and family breakdown.
I appeal to your sense of wisdom, justice and compassion, to not let our children be used as pawns to gain financial advantage. No matter how it is disguised, we must end this practice of wrongfully giving preferential treatment to one sex gender over another.
I know this is a sensitive issue but we as fair minded Americans must as always have the courage to do the right thing.
Especially in the case of equally shared custody, which should be the presumption upon parents separating, it is right in the common sensed use of the offset method for split or divided custody, which involves determining what each parent owes when the other parent is the primary custodian and then subtracting the difference.
It is also right in the common sensed use of dividing this difference in half.
The only factor that should enable consideration to deviate from dividing this difference in half is where the parent of lesser income is below the poverty line income and the parent with more income will not be pulled down to poverty line income.
Otherwise, the merit of the Committee argument is loss because where the Committee presumable in honesty and sincerity erred is in the example where one party's net income is $4,300 and the other party's net income is $2,900, resulting in a net support payment of $181, the Committee ignored the fact that a total of $2,900 + $181 = $3,181 net available income is well above poverty and more than sufficient for any responsible and prudent person to maintain a good and healthy household, above a poverty level of living.
To not recognize this, with all due respect, but in truth, it is biased, greedy, and Un-American as it denies a citizen the right to life, liberty, and happiness through wrongfully seizing the income earned through capitalizing on one's labor and making their own best choices of use for the children.
Also, it must be explicitly and implicitly recognized that in shared custody, both parents are the custodial parent half the time and that each have fixed expenses relating to the children.
Therefore, without being grossly biased against the higher wage earner, who is usually the man, we must not fall prey to the flawed theory that "these costs (of either parent), merely duplicate the costs already being incurred by the custodial parent, as both parents are the custodial parent and neither is entitled to preferential treatment at the expense of the other parent.
In summary:
I have given you my best thinking and heartfelt compassion on these issues.
I believe that such crucial issues affecting so many citizens should be well
publicized and distributed, possibly moved to referendum for public opinion and
vote.
My heart and hope are in pursuit of removing financial incentive from either of the parent altogether. However, the current guidelines greatly missed the mark on several issues as I have tried to communicate.
We need a system built on compassion, commitment, and fairness to allow both parents to raise our children in an environment of love and experience our Constitutional Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
I appeal to your sense of goodness, righteousness, and fairness as a fellow human being and valued American citizen, to do the right thing, and help us to restore the mental, physical, financial, and intellectual well being of our children, through just and fair guidelines, void of gender biases.
Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide in legislation to eliminate all biased financial incentives from either parent and focus on the best interest and well being of the children and the love and care they are should have from both parents.
Sincerely,
James R. Overton