...NOT giving dollars to a 3rd party government agency so that they may receive at least matching dollars from the federal government and I will argue that to my grave. Our children need, want, desire and deserve nothing less than the equally active participation of both of their fit and willing parents sharing their love, support, security, knowledge and so much more with their children than any amount of dollars could ever provide.
Enslaving fathers to a lifetime of servitude to the state so that they may garner these federal dollars through the Social Security Act’s Title IV-d program will go down in our history books as the greatest travesty against the family unit since Adolf Hitler himself ordered the murder of over one million Jewish children and another 4.5 million adults based merely on their ethnicity. The United States government has ruined more families, abused more children and cost more lives than Adolf Hitler could have ever even imagined possible. All of this based upon the governments plan to switch the failed and bankrupt welfare program to the blame of fathers and fatherhood.
More to come on this subject matter but in the mean time here is my article as compiled for Fathers4Justice…
The Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 that Child Support is in fact not about one parent giving another parent money through a third party State agency.
The State of Minnesota arrested 64 year old Larry Nelson of Rochester, Minnesota 3 years ago on felony charges of failing to, “care and support” for his 2 children who are now adults. The State of Minnesota claimed that Mr. Nelson had not paid some $83,470.00 of what they considered to be 11 years of so-called “child support.” However, in a 4-3 decision it was ruled that the state had not proven their case and that Mr. Nelson had in fact “cared and supported” his children. Many of those following the case agree, the state had not proven it’s case and the word “support” does not necessarily correlate with a financial obligation. Olmstead County prosecuting attorney Mark Ostrem concurred, “The term “care and support” are too ambiguous and could create issues for other prosecuting attorneys in Minnesota.”
We at Fathers4Justice have stated for years, The act of supporting one’s children is not just about money! There are many more important factors to be considered when it comes to the term child support, factors which most states, in their lust for federal funding, completely ignore at each and every opportunity.
We believe that any and all parties who are truly concerned with the, “Best Interest of Our Children” will agree, child support encompasses a much broader scope than just financial aid. Child support, more importantly consists of giving our children what they really need and want and that is our love, guidance, time, attention, protection, emotional and educational support and so much more. Yes, our children may need financial aid as well, especially so if a parent is absent or refuses to participate in the true meaning of supporting their children. However, we believe it is time for this country to review the meaning of child support and in doing so make certain that our children’s true needs are met.
Those needs have been studied by the greatest minds in the greatest universities in the greatest nations in the world and the answer is always the same,
“In order for our children to grow up to become healthy, productive citizens within our society, it is best that they have the nurturing and guidance of both of their fit and willing parents.”
The State of Minnesota is very concerned and rightfully so! Changes to state laws to better define what in many cases is nothing more than extortion are already in the works. Justice David Lillehaug wrote in his dissent that, “The ruling handcuffs the states ability to prosecute others in Minnesota” Justice Lillehaug further stated, “Swift legislation is necessary to correct this matter, If not, Minnesota could become the only state without viable criminal sanctions for failure to pay child support.”
Fathers4Justice believes that just the opposite is true. Yes changes must be made, but not to legislation to prosecute parents for the financial gain of the state. Changes must be made to address the true best interest of our children. The toll on our society is too great, incarcerating millions of parents is not the answer to this issue.
Obviously Mr. Nelson has already proven this before a jury of his peers in the Supreme Court of Minnesota. This ruling proves that Mr. Nelson has provided the care and nurturing that his children have needed, without sending a penny one to the state for 11 years. Why then is the state so determined to change the law to incarcerate more persons? We know it is for federal funding but if we are truly considering the more important issue of the best interest of our children, we must change the laws to reflect just that. Let’s change the law to allow parents to do what comes natural, let’s change the law to allow parents to parent. More importantly, when changing this law let’s change it so the judges in family courts are forced to say the same, “The court is handcuffed, we must rule that children be allowed to share equally in the lives of both of their fit and willing parents”.
Minnesota has an opportunity now to lead the nation in a much needed change. We believe of course that Minnesota needs to look at the entire issue, “How is it that we have arrived at this point in time and what can we do to properly resolve this matter?” Not just, “How can we make the laws more strict so that we can incarcerate more persons.” Again, Mr. Nelson has proven that he was able to care and support his children without giving money to the state, with that now being a fact, incarcerating him and others is proven to be wrong!
It’s time for a change! If matters of family law must be decided in a family court environment, then equal shared parenting for both fit and willing parents is the true resolve to this and many others matters involving our children. However, as stated in previous articles, removing the judiciary’s ability to legislate from the bench is of paramount importance in this legislation. Legislation does absolutely no good if the judges within our family courts are allowed the opportunity to ignore the law and rule in any manner they wish. These rulings, as you are aware, then afford the courts the ability to garner the federal funding through the Social Security Act’s Title IV-D program. That is in fact what this entire case was about, not the best interest of Mr. Nelson’s children but about the State of Minnesota receiving what is at least matching funds to the tune of $83,470.00 from the SSA Title IV-D program
A bill in Florida would require judges to consider equal custody of children in divorce cases.
"The best model so far is husband and wife working together to raise children," said attorney Catherine Real.
But for 38 years Real has made a living off couples who could no longer stand being couples.
"I am involved in custody fights every day," Real said.
Real believes there will be less fighting if custody concerns are removed, which is why she supports legislation heading to Gov. Rick Scott's desk to require judges to begin with the premise that a child should spend equal time with each parent after a divorce -- shared custody.
"Children need role models, not just female role models, male role models," Real said.
It now goes to Scott, who vetoed a similar law two years ago. This current measure doesn't allow couples to retroactively modify existing custody agreements.
National parenting organizations say this change benefits children according to research.
"Whether it's trouble with the law, delinquency, dropping out of school, those problems are not getting better, they're getting worse," said Dr. Ned Holstein of the National Parents Organization. "There's now a mountain of evidence showing that children do better after the parents separate or divorce if they have both parents involved."
But critics say in some cases the law will force couples back to court, asking a judge to amend their equal-parenting plan for several possible reasons like work schedules or challenges getting the kids to school.
Judges will still have discretion and could adjust the premise after weighing more than a dozen factors.
The law would apply equally in cases where the parents are not married.
"Reckless Disregard"
A True And Compelling Story About One Father's Fight
towardchange.wordpress.com
A True And Compelling Story About One Father's Fight
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?