To:
To: President George
W. Bush,
All Members of Congress,
The Supreme Court of the United States
RE: Non-Custodial Parental Rights
I am writing to you to demand change
on an epidemic that is destroying
families, fathers, and children right
here in Country. Simply put, the “Family
Court” system as it now exists has
stripped fathers of their rights to
be a part of their children's lives.
Instead, fathers have turned into
financial pumps, living in constant
fear of being dragged back into court
by their ex-wives and victimized yet
again.
I could give you countless examples
of fathers who have been victimized.
I’m not referring to the “deadbeat
dad” types who leave their ex-wives
and children living in the streets.
I am talking about hard working, tax
paying, child-loving fathers who live
for their children. The ones who had
their children stripped from them
for the simple reason of their ex-wife
deciding that she just no longer wanted
to be married. The ones who are allowed
to see their children for 4 days a
month. The ones who are allowed to
see their children for a few weeks
over the summer. The ones who are
required to pay astronomical amounts
of child support, often putting themselves
in a situation where they barely can
afford to live. These are the fathers
that are relying on the judges, lawyers,
and Legislators to help reform the
system. This system has created a
society of fatherless children and
childless fathers. This system has
created its own life through a judicial
system that exists on misery to feed
itself.
This system violates their Constitutional
Rights to Due process, Equal Protection
under the Laws, and Privacy.
I would like to call your attention
to the February 25th, 2002 ruling
by C. Dane Perkins, Superior Court
Judge of the Georgia Alapaha Judicial
Circuit. Judge Perkins declared the
Georgia Child Support Guidelines (which
were adopted guidelines from Wisconsin
which almost all states use) void
and unconstitutional in his ruling
based on the above Constitutional
Violations.
Due Process
The United States Constitution provides
that NO State may “deprive any person
of life, liberty or poverty without
due process of law”. In almost all
states, presumptive child support
awards rise as a share of obligor
(paying parent) income. NO child cost
studies show child costs rising as
a share of after-tax income. ALL child
cost studies show child costs declining
as a share of the after-tax income.
In most cases, especially in higher
income situations, the presumptive
child support results in a significantly
higher obligation than one bases on
actual child costs that decline as
a share of net income. In Parrett
v. Parrett (1988, the Court of Appeals
of Wisconsin), the court found that,
particularly in higher income situations,
the presumptive child support amount
would “result in a figure so far beyond
the child’s needs as to be irrational”.
This is the very sort of result the
Due Process clauses are designed to
prevent.
Equal Protection
The United States Constitution provides
that NO State may “deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws”. The court
found that “the egregiously different
burdens placed on persons similarly
situated but for the award of custody,
i.e., parents with the obligation
to support their child (ren) and the
same means for doing so as when they
were married” violates the guarantees
of equal protection.
Finding of Fact in the ruling further
address this issue.
Tax Benefits
The court points out that custodial
parents typically receive $200 to
$350 per month in extra after-tax
income just for having custody. These
child-related tax benefits include
Head of Household status, Child exemptions,
child credits, childcare credits,
and Earned Income credits. Wisconsin
either does not include these credits
in child support calculations or they
are grossly understated. The court
found that not sharing these child-related
tax benefits violates equal protection.
Financial Windfall
The presumptive child care award typically
results in the custodial parent receiving
huge financial windfall (profit) well
in excess of childcare costs. For
typical income situations, the custodial
parent ends up with a higher standard
of living than the non-custodial parent.
This is the case even when the non-custodial
parent earns significantly more than
the custodial parent. This represents
an extraordinary benefit for the custodial
parent and an extraordinary burden
for the obligator. This violates equal
protection. In addition, when combined
with the tax benefits discussed above,
the outcome is that the custodial
parent does not contribute to the
child costs at the same rate the non-custodial
parent and, often, not at all.
Hidden Alimony
The court found that, in essence,
the child support obligation amounted
to hidden alimony. These “hidden alimony”
amounts were so excessive that a non-custodial
parent is oftentimes unable to provide
for the child (ren) when in the non-custodial
parents’ care to the same extent as
in the custodial parent’s household.
Presumptive awards have been shown
to typically exceed total actual costs
according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. This violates equal protection
standards for both the child and the
non-custodial parent. In addition,
this bias towards hidden alimony exists
even when the custodial parent earns
substantially higher income than the
non-custodial parent.
Low Income below Poverty Line
The presumptive award for low-income
obligators (minimum wage workers)
pushes them below the poverty line.
An award that leaves the obligator
with less income than needed for basic
needs creates an extraordinary burden.
This violates equal protection.
Privacy
The source of the right to privacy
has been held to originate in varying
constitutional provisions. However,
it has been long recognized to apply
to “family” concerns whether the family
exists within the confines of marriage
or not. (Eisenstadt v. Baird (1973)).
The court found that “by requiring
the non-custodial parent to pay an
amount in excess of those required
to meet the child (rens’) basic needs...(the
child support amount) impermissibly
interfere(s) with parental decisions
regarding financial expenditures on
children. “The governments’ interest
in family expenditures on children
is limited to insuring that the child
(rens) basic needs are met. Not extravagances,
not luxuries, but needs. Once that
occurs, government intrusion must
cease (Moylan v. Moylan).
In addition, the court found that
the presumptive child support is so
excessive that it forces non-custodial
parents to frequently work extra jobs
for basic needs. This creates an extraordinary
burden for the obligor and, potentially,
an additional burden on taxpayers.
It is also distracting the non-custodial
parent from parenting fully without
justification. This violates equal
protection. This is contrary both
to public policy and common sense.
Any government mandate beyond basic
child costs interferes with the right
to privacy.
Equal Rights
The Guidelines do not take into account
the custodial parent’s income. The
presumptive child support awards do
not vary with family income--only
obligor income. The custodial parent
is not held to the same standard for
contributing to child costs. In most
cases, the custodial parent’s obligation
of support ends up being largely or
entirely paid by the non-custodial
parent. The custodial parent’s income
has no bearing on the amount of child
support the non-custodial parent is
ordered to pay. There is no formula
in place that can determine how the
custodial parent’s income affects
the presumptive award. This is not
economically rational and violates
equal protection.
Child costs of only the custodial
parent are covered by the Guidelines.
Costs incurred when the child (ren)
is in the non-custodial parents’ care
i.e. housing, food, clothing, entertainment
and other needs for the child (ren)
do not receive similar consideration.
Yet, parents are similarly situated
when child (ren) costs are incurred
by either parent. Each parent has
an equal duty to provide financially
for the child (ren) when in the care
of the other parent. These Guidelines
where based on welfare situations
in which the obligor parent was absent,
and the custodial parent did not work
and had no earned income, and did
not take into account the custodial
parent receiving large child- related
tax benefits, and did not take into
account the obligor paying substantial
income taxes. However, in actual practice,
typically the non-custodial parent
is not absent and incurs substantial
child costs that the Guidelines do
not require the custodial parent to
contribute. This violates equal protection
and does not meet the financial needs
of the child (ren) when they are in
the care of the non-custodial parent.
The Guidelines do not require that
the custodial parent share in the
costs of the non-custodial parent.
The Guideline criteria for deviation
do not give any guidance on how to
apply the deviations in a consistent
manner. This is unconstitutionally
vague and generally results in no
deviations in most cases, even when
the circumstances to deviate exist.
“We need to do more to make sure both
parents are fully
involved in the raising of their children,
particularly fathers”
- Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson
October 22nd, 1999-
Right here in our country, our homeland
where we feel justified in wanting
to raise our Child (ren) are we being
stripped of our Constitutional Rights.
We, as parents have a fundamental
right to assume equal periods of placement
of our children, unless there is credible
evidence that a parent is not fit,
that placement would be harmful to
the child (ren). This right is fundamental;
not that one parent must win as a
result of lengthy, intrusive and costly
legal battle, or compromised simply
to reach a stipulated agreement to
avoid a battle.
The Due Process and Equal protection
provision of the 14th amendment of
the United States Constitution suggest
the fundamental rights of both parents
must be treated equally. It also points
out “the constitution and the laws
of the United States..... Shall be
the supreme law of the land; and that
judges in every state shall be bound
thereby, any thing in the constitution
or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding”. The courts responsibility
to support these fundamental rights
are further established;
Every person Elected or appointed
justice of the supreme court, judge
of the court of appeals, judge of
the circuit court or municipal judge,
shall take, subscribe and file the
following oath: “I,.... Do solemnly
swear that I will support the constitution
of the United States and the constitution
of the state of.....”
In practice, partly due to historical
societal roles of parents and statistics
on court rulings, there is an unwritten
presumption that the mother gets custody
and primary placement of the children
and the father pays child support
to the mother. While this presumption
is not defined anywhere in the statutes,
and is contrary to equality and the
equal protection provision of the
14th amendment, it is very real. The
net result is that the legal process
treats a mother as innocent until
proven guilty, and a father guilty
until proven innocent. In light of
this presumption, in cases involving
two fit parents, the equal fundamental
rights of the mother is usually fully
supported, while the equal fundamental
right of the father is subject to
negotiation and compromise.
As in many cases, fathers who merely
want to fulfill their responsibilities
to the child (ren) by providing for
their care during equal periods of
placement are often forced to accept
20-40\% placement or endure a lengthy,
intrusive and costly legal battle.
This violates the civil rights of
those fathers who are encouraged,
coerced or threatened to agree to
stipulated agreements that deny them
equal periods of placement against
their will and denies the children
the opportunity to an equally important
relationship with their father.
We are relying on our Courts to stop
this egregious violation of Constitutional
Rights and start giving us our rights
back. We are relying on the courageous
lawmakers to address this epidemic
and stop the further deterioration
of fathers, families, and children.
Sincerely,
The
Undersigned |
