|
North Dakota Shared Parenting - Bureaucrats Intentionally Harming Our Children For Federal Incentive Money Our government is
officially "out of control" when we pay tax dollars to have them drive
fathers out of the lives of their children. This is in fact the situation
today. Federal incentives for the collection of child support now influence
judges, bureaucrats and politicians to increase already onerous child
support funds, based on income, not the cost of raising children. This is
only possible when they force a father from having equal access to their
children, which has been scientifically proven harmful to children by about
20 different measures. Billion of funds are now basically being paid by the
federal government to [psychologically harm our children for life. Here are
just a few stories on the North Dakota initiative to stop this madness. from
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/opinion/15291702.htm VIEWPOINT: Measure complies with federal lawBy Rob Port
MINOT -
Recently, North Dakota Human Services Director Carol Olson wrote
a column about the North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative, a measure which
got about 17,000 petition signatures and likely will be on the ballot in
November.
Olson states that should the initiative become law, it would cause North
Dakota to lose out on more than $70 million in federal money for human
services programs in the state. To back up her claim, she quotes a letter
from the federal regional director of the Department of Health and Human
Services, Thomas Sullivan.
Unfortunately, neither Olson nor Sullivan are interpreting this situation
correctly. The standards for state child support guidelines are found in
federal code Title 45, Volume 2, Section 302.56. All they require of state
child support guidelines is that a) the state have a formula for determining
the amount of child support, and b) that the formula take into account all
of an obliged parent's income.
That's it. Federal law does not prohibit additional calculations (such as
the actual cost of raising a child) from being used to determine the amount
of child support to be paid, nor does the initiative prohibit the amount of
income to be used in the calculations.
In short, the initiative is explicitly in compliance with federal standards.
So why is Olson saying that the initiative isn't in compliance? It helps if
we follow the money.
The federal funding that the Child Support Enforcement division of the North
Dakota Department of Human Services gets is based on the number of dollars
that agency collects in child support. The more child support money the
division collects, the more federal funding it receives.
The initiative likely would reduce the amount of child support collected in
North Dakota by preventing support payments from exceeding the cost of
raising the child. Currently, many parents pay hundreds of dollars a month
more than they need to because current child support guidelines are based
only on income, not the needs of the children.
The bureaucrats down at the child support offices like that because it means
more federal dollars for them.
This is the key at the state level, rather than any concern about being out
of compliance with federal regulations.
What we need to ask ourselves is this: What's more important: A family law
system that's equitable to both parents and does not require child support
payments in excess of what is needed? Or, keeping the amount of federal
funds the child support agency receives high?
I pick the first one, especially in light of a recent announcement that
North Dakota has a half-billion dollar budget surplus.
There is no reason to be sacrificing equality for the sake of some federal
dollars right now.
Port runs www.sayanythingblog.com,
North Dakota's most popular political Web log.
VIEWPOINT: State wants to protect revenue streamBy Don Mathis
SHERMAN, Texas
- The forces that are lining up against North Dakota's Shared
Parenting Initiative have two things in common: lack of logic and lust for
lucre.
For example, Herald columnist Lloyd Omdahl writes, "Dr. Diane Lye said that
the single most important determinant of a child's well-being after divorce
is living in a household with adequate income" . Does this mean if Dad makes
more money than Mom, he should have custody?
How about this one: "Father contact in low-conflict families can be
beneficial, but in high-conflict families, it can be harmful." I guess if
the ex-wife wants conflict, the ex-husband should just drop out of his kid's
life.
In fact, Omdahl and Carol Olson, executive director of the North Dakota
Department of Human Services and the author of "Family-law measures would
lead to cutoff of federal funds" , both are singing the same tune. They are
afraid this initiated measure would jeopardize millions in federal Temporary
Aid for Needy Families funds for North Dakota.
The refrain of their song is Omdahl's: "Many custodial parents have had to
turn to the government and its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program for help." Well, how many: Fifty percent? Seventy percent?
No, 8 percent. According to Olson, the state's child support enforcement
program "serves about 60,000 children monthly, and the TANF program ... each
month helps financially support about 5,000 qualifying low-income children
who live with single parents or other relatives."
While 8 percent qualifies as "many" if you happen to be in that category,
there is a much bigger welfare recipient that all of us should know about.
The federal government gives millions of taxpayer dollars to each state so
they may keep track of child support. North Dakota's share is $71 million.
How far would those millions go if they went directly to those 5,000
qualifying low-income children?
The North Dakota Department of Human Services is trying to use children to
justify its budget. We have child labor laws to prevent exploitation of our
children. DHS should be prevented from using kids for cash as well.
Don Mathis is editor of The Fourteen Percenter,
a newsletter for noncustodial parents.
VIEWPOINT: How courts discourage shared parenting in N.D.By John Maguire
WASHINGTON
- On Aug. 14, Herald columnist and former North Dakota Lt. Gov.
Lloyd Omdahl treated the citizens of North Dakota to another round of his
negative opinion of the shared parenting initiative.
Very simply, the initiative is good for North Dakota. While it's true that
most custody agreements are reached between the parents without the need for
a court trial, to infer that these arrangements are considered satisfactory
by both parties is far from accurate.
Much of the conflict in custody cases is generated by the court's
adversarial approach to family matters. By design, this system encourages
conflict and discourages cooperation.
Family courts are in desperate need of overhaul. Custody settlements take
place under the shadow of existing law and court practices. That
noncustodial parents typically see their children only every other weekend
and for a few hours one night a week reflects less the visiting parent and
their children's desires and more the reality that current law and court
practice promote such outcomes.
Neither fathers nor mothers typically create offspring for the purpose of
later abandoning them.
The initiative addresses this issue by establishing a framework in which
neither party has an incentive to go to court. Far from removing courts from
the process, the initiative directs the court to put the appropriate burden
of proof for removing a parent from their child's life on the parent who is
objecting to the child keeping a substantial relationship with both parents.
Courts should not be in the business of picking winning and losing parents.
They should maintain and uphold each parent's interest in their relationship
to their children to the maximum extent possible.
When the state oversteps its authority and creates an environment in which
fit parents are summarily removed from the lives of their children, isn't it
entirely appropriate for citizens to seek a remedy? Isn't it more likely the
17,000 people who signed the petition and the thousands more who will vote
for it are acting out of concern and love for their kids and society?
Has the state become so arrogant as to think it knows
better how to raise children than those children's own parents?
When the state prepares its fiscal impact statement on the initiative, North
Dakotans should be wary of any assessment that ignores the social and
economic benefits of shared parenting. Crime, truancy, drug abuse, teen
pregnancy, incarceration - all strongly are correlated with father absence
and single-parent child rearing.
Measures which serve to enhance both parents' participation in kids' lives
benefit everyone.
Read the initiative and Omdahl's column again. Then ask yourself: Which one
"reeks with anger"?
Maguire is director of communications for the American Coalition for Fathers
and Children.
VIEWPOINT: Stand up to federal bullying, North DakotaBy Stephen Baskerville
WASHINGTON
- Carol Olson, executive director of the North Dakota
Department of Human Services, evidently feels that the intervention of
Health and Human Services regional administrator Thomas Sullivan into
North Dakota's internal politics constitutes an argument against the
shared parenting ballot initiative.
What it truly reveals is an alarming abuse of power and bullying of
North Dakotans by the federal government.
Under 18 USC 1913, it is a crime for federal civil servants to lobby
legislatures. Lobbying politicizes the civil service and turns it from
the people's servant into a taxpayer-funded advocacy group that can
suppress citizens' opinions or activities it considers threatening. I
would be very surprised if North Dakota does not impose similar
restrictions on state officials such as Olson.
So North Dakotans should be very disturbed that federal and state
bureaucrats are or seem to be taking sides in a citizens' ballot
initiative that threatens their power. Sullivan's undisguised campaign
to defeat the initiative with a letter to a state senator probably is
illegal and certainly is improper. But further, using federal taxpayers'
money as leverage to pressure citizens from exercising their democratic
prerogatives vindicates warnings that federal financial muscle is being
used to centralize power in dangerously authoritarian ways.
This becomes especially troubling when misinformation and fear tactics
are used to intimidate citizens from exercising their democratic rights
and protect bureaucratic power. Olson's own opinion piece opposing the
referendum provides a very misleading and one-sided evaluation.
The likely impact of prospective legislation normally is evaluated by an
agency's legal counsel - without taking sides - and is subject to final
interpretation through implementation and court review. Instead,
Sullivan issues what amounts to an ultimatum to North Dakota: Passing
the initiative "will result in immediate suspension of all federal
payments for the state's child support enforcement program. Temporary
Aid for Needy Families funding also would be jeopardized."
This is not an advisory opinion. It is a threat. Under 45 CFR 305.61, no
penalty can be imposed for noncompliance without a notice. At a minimum,
the state would have a year for corrective action before losing any
federal funds. Thereafter, the penalties are 1 to 2 percent for the
first finding, 2 to 3 percent for the second and 3 to 5 percent for
subsequent findings.
States actually have been out of compliance with child support
regulations for years. Like other states, North Dakota does not base its
guidelines on the cost of raising children within that state, as
required by federal law. Yet no state consequently has lost any funding,
let alone "all" of it and "immediately."
At no point has anyone demonstrated that Sullivan has the statutory
authority to immediately cut off all funds. Threatening to do so with
authority he does not have is intimidation. Actually doing so is
breaking the law.
Rather than allowing themselves to be intimidated, North Dakotans should
be outraged at these pressure tactics by bureaucrats and politicians who
are supposed to be the peoples' servants. State referenda exist
precisely to use participatory democracy to overcome inaction by
politicians, inertia by bureaucrats and power centralized in Washington.
The eyes of the nation will be on North Dakota this fall. Standing up to
federal bullying will leave all Americans in North Dakota's debt.
Baskerville is president of the American Coalition for Fathers and
Children.
|