...calls Child Support Prosecutor’s actions ‘REPREHENSIBLE’ - MiamiHerald.com
When his ex-wife falsely accused him of shirking on $3,632.25 in child support, Miami businessman Tony Schehtman discovered that the government had stripped him of his passport.
That sparked a lengthy legal dispute that ended in unusual fashion: a Miami-Dade judge chastised prosecutors for going along with the claim, then ordered them to pay Schehtman’s legal bills.
The judge’s unusually scathing order sanctions prosecutors and Schehtman’s ex-wife, ordering them to each pay $7,645 in legal fees. Circuit Judge Pedro Echarte, in his Jan. 8 order, called their actions “reprehensible” and “irresponsible.”
The judge said that even though Schehtman had proven he was not in arrears, the prosecutors failed to correct the wife’s claim, instead quibbling in court for months and hindering Schehtman’s ability to travel for work.
“This court finds that the State Attorney’s Office engaged in pointless litigation,” Echarte wrote.
Prosecutors have decided against asking a higher court to review the judge’s decision.
“We are not appealing the judge’s order despite a belief in the merits of our position,” said spokesman Ed Griffith.
The legal clash stems from a bitter divorce between Schehtman and former wife, Lina Maya-Schehtman. Together, they have a 6-year-old son.
Schehtman describes himself as the CEO of International Technologies Marketing, a tech sales firm focused on Latin America.
The State Attorney’s Office, through Florida’s Department of Revenue, is tasked with enforcing the payment of child support.
In December 2010, Maya-Schehtman went to the State Attorney’s Office and filed a routine sworn-affidavit alleging her ex-husband was late on child support.
Schehtman, the judge later found, filed documents with the court and prosecutors showing the affidavit was wrong. Prosecutors nevertheless “certified” the delinquent child support, reporting it through a computer system to the Florida Department of Revenue.
In Tallahassee, any “non-custodial” parent who owes more than $2,500 in back support is then automatically reported to a federal child support office, which then notifies the U.S. State Department — which then freezes the person’s passport.
Schehtman — who says he travels often to Latin American for business — did not know the document had been frozen until he went to renew his passport. He was out of work for several months, his lawyer say.
“This is one of the most egregious cases I have ever witnessed in 19 years of practicing family law,” said Schehtman’s lawyer, Jonathan Jonasz.
A slew of court hearings followed. Prosecutor Stephen Glazer told the judge that as they soon as they learned the wife was wrong, they tried to amend the affidavit. Echarte didn’t buy it.
The State Attorney Office’s said the case has sparked change in internal policy. Now, the office does not report back child support payments to Tallahassee based only on a sworn affidavit — instead, prosecutors wait for a court order.
“We acknowledge that no system is infallible,” spokesman Griffith said. “The State Attorney and her leadership team are constantly seeking ways to improve the process. This case has afforded such an opportunity.”
Schehtman has since hired San Francisco lawyer John G. Heller to explore a civil lawsuit.
“The State Attorney deprived a law-abiding citizen of a fundamental liberty: his freedom of movement,” Heller said. “We will do what it takes to make sure this never happens again.”
 |
#DadsHouse
Miami judge calls child support prosecutor’s actions ‘reprehensible’ - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
“Relationship Estrangement and Interference is a form of Domestic Violence using Psychological abuse.”
Delete~ Joan Kloth-Zanard of PAS Intervention.
www.pas-intervention.com
PAS Intervention stands for Parental Alienation Support and Intervention. It is an International Non-profit organization to End Child Abuse and Parental Alienation
I can justify a parent having 20% and the other 80%. When a parent abandons her kids for a year and a half, then returns only because of the large sum of child support she would be forced to pay. The same parent who never put time into her kids for 10 years, only decided to be/pretend to be a parent when she filed for divorce. The same parent who has a masters degree, yet doesn't lift a finger to help her kids succeed in school, but blames the father because the kids are struggling (but were not struggling prior to the divorce, and one was tested for AGP). The same parent who won't let her kids see a counselor to deal with devastating effects of divorce. The same parent who refuses to allow the kids to remain in their sports programs, soccer, baseball, Tae-kwon-do, and is doing everything she can to stop the Cub Scout participation. Shall I go on? I've not even begun to discuss the reading of the judges decision to the elementary aged kids, the disparaging (to put it lightly)of the father to the kids and to other people. And there is more. Not all parents should have equal time, and if a parent abandons their kid and moves to the other side of the state, they should get even less time than 20%. Now, you want to argue with me on that?
DeleteFLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
ReplyDeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.