Today I was invited (encouraged might be a better term) to attend the monthly meeting of the New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men (NH-CSM). I have had very few opportunities in my life to observe first-hand the workings of government commissions. I must say, at the very least it was educational.
Beyond the pedagogical value, though, I have to say it is 3-1/2 hours of my life (and subsequent lost wages) that I would dearly like to have back. Admittedly, attendance was light owing to the fact that it was Friday before Labor Day Weekend. And the members (to the best of my knowledge) are all volunteers. But really: when you have invited the UNH economists (hired by the state to review the costs of raising a child) to come to the Commission meeting so the Commission can give input, one would expect the Chair at least to arrive on time. In fact, he did not show until nearly the end of their presentation, even though the Secretary held off starting the meeting for over 20 minutes.
After the economists made their pitch, got lots of input from Commissioners (mere commoners like my self were not permitted to provide our input... presumably the Commission will let us do that in public hearings after the economists have more or less finished their work), and left, the meeting settled down to the "agenda". (45 minutes elapsed, plus initial 20-minute start delay)
The first item was a discussion of the acceptance of the previous meeting's minutes, which rat-holed into a discussion on hiring an intern, which then got tabled because one of the Commissioners wanted to discuss it later as a separate issue so it would get recorded in the current meeting minutes. We got to hear at least three times from Commissioner David Lauren how he was not present at the previous meeting, and thus did not participate in the original discussion on hiring a college intern. This did not prevent him from raising the concern that it might not be possible, and that they should inquire of the AG what, if any, liability issues might exist for the Commission in hiring one. All this before tabling the discussion for later in the meeting. Acceptance of minutes motioned and seconded. (15 minutes)
Now that the meeting was officially underway, the topic turned to the issue of hiring a college intern to serve as a adjunct member of the Commission (I kid you not; I couldn't make this stuff up). Mr. Lauren reiterated liability, and discussion was tabled until a definitive answer could be gotten from the AG.
Some other stuff was probably also talked about, but I was kind of getting bored, and distracted as I was concerned that I had only put 1:42 minutes on the parking meter (all the change I had on me), and time was about up. (Figure another 15 minutes killed).
Now the reason I came in the first place: Jeff Oligny of NCFC-NH (National Congress of Fathers and Children - NH chapter) was given the floor to pitch his idea for a joint info billboard between NCFC and the CSM. Purpose of this billboard would be to provoke an emotional reaction from viewers, and hopefully spur them to find out more about the family law problems in the State. Comments from the Commissioners ensued. (Pitch 30 Minutes; comments 30 minutes before I left. No, I didn't get a ticket even though the meter ran out almost an hour earlier. Gotta love NH!)
And this was where the Commission really showed what a useless group of talking heads they are. Everyone said "what a great idea", and then they all basically made "improvement" suggestions that basically completely changed the intent of the message. Here are some:
"The image might be *too* provocative. It might provoke the wrong reaction in people"
"The CSM could not put their name on a message inciting change to the Family Court without first contacting the Court with their grievances. Otherwise, they would be incorrectly crossing government boundaries"
"Since they are a government body, the CSM would have to ascertain the legality and potential liability before they could agree to endorsing the billboard" (guess who raised that issue?)
"The child's message should be more positive and express results; e.g. 'Mom, thanks for letting me have a relationship with my Dad'" (I kid you not. from Commissioner Scott Meyer; and he's supposedly on *our* side! Give me a break!)
Don't get me wrong: I have nothing but the utmost respect for Mike Geanoulis and all he has done to further reform in this state, and Dave Bickford (who was also attending today) as well. I have never met Scott Garman, but he seems reasonable. But I was shocked and insulted at the ludicrous comments made by Mr. Meyer about the poster; he is clearly missed the point of the billboard, and leads me to believe he is clueless about what the real issues are facing fathers and children as well. And it appears Mr. Lauren has paralyzed the Commission into inaction by raising the spectre of liability at every suggestion, then refering resolution to the AG's offoce.
Finally, throughout the meeting, hints were made that the Commission would like input from the public. I did not however see anything on the agenda that would indicate that the several members of the public-at-large in attendance would be given the opportunity to speak. In all fairness, I departed to save my car from the meter maids before the meeting was over, so there may have been an opportunity at the end.
If this meeting at all exemplifies the glacial activity of the Commission, it is no wonder that they have accomplished virtually nothing in the nearly five years they have been around. Winter's almost here. I think in the coming months, it would be more productive of me to watch icecles melt than attend another of these public meetings.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
CS Reform Issues: Accountability
This is the second installment of my series on current child support issues.
One of the frustrations experienced by non-custodial parents paying child support is the lack of accountability required on the part of the obligee. It is reasonable for someone who is paying one-third (or more) of their household income to expect at the very least some accounting as to how that money is being used to benefit their children; i.e. the "level of service" they are getting for their money if you will, to put it into commercial parlance.
However, the Court puts no mandate on the obligee to account for expenditures. In fact, most Courts would deem it harassment if the obligor even inquired as to how the child support funds were used by the obligee. One reason oft cited for this is that it is too much work for the obligee to have to do this. Strange: the court doesn't seem to think it is too difficult for the obligee to keep track of uninsured medical expenses so they can soak the obligor for half, nor is it too complicated for the State to keep track of exactly how much the obligor has paid in support, who they are working for for garnishment purposes, or what their bank accounts are (so they can be seized for non-payment of support).
The NH child support calculation is contrived to appear that both parents' incomes are used to determine a "total amount available for support" of the children. However, the entire contents of this "virtual" pot of money is given to the custodial parent to administer. Why then is the custodian of this money (which is a considerable fraction of the parents' combined incomes) not required to account for its use? This is like handing over your entire savings to a stock broker, then not being told how much is in your portfolio. Madness!
My opinion is if the NH-DYCS can collect money from an obligor parent and give it to the obligee parent, then it would not be much of a stretch (or any stretch for that matter) for them to collect from BOTH parents (as stated in the NH Child Support guideline calculation), then distribute as needed to BOTH parents. Such distributions would be made based on direct child-cost expenses submitted by parents.
For example, if each parent maintains a home suitable for raising the children, each parent would submit VALIDATED proof of their housing cost (e.g. a mortgage payment stub and property tax bill). Some reasonable formula could then be applied to reimburse each parent proportionally to their respective contributions to the children's homes. Note that in this case, "amount of time" spent with the children is irrelevant, since a mortgage or rent payment must be made regardless of whether a child is in the home 10% or 90% of the time.
Alternatively, a simpler solution could just be to distribute the total based on "amount of time" each parent has custody of the children. This makes even more sense when one considers that NH has legally dropped the distinction between "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, and the concept of "visitation" by the non-custodial parent. Parents are now "co-parents", and thus presumably both are entitled legally to child support. An additional benefit is that if the principal custodian parent (i.e. more than 50% of custody time with children) has a significantly higher income, then the other parent could potentially get a support stipend to offset their costs when children are in their care.
Such a system would solve almost all issues surrounding accountability concerns, and insure that all child support moneys are available to both parents to raise children, and maintain an equitable quality of life in both of the children's homes.
One of the frustrations experienced by non-custodial parents paying child support is the lack of accountability required on the part of the obligee. It is reasonable for someone who is paying one-third (or more) of their household income to expect at the very least some accounting as to how that money is being used to benefit their children; i.e. the "level of service" they are getting for their money if you will, to put it into commercial parlance.
However, the Court puts no mandate on the obligee to account for expenditures. In fact, most Courts would deem it harassment if the obligor even inquired as to how the child support funds were used by the obligee. One reason oft cited for this is that it is too much work for the obligee to have to do this. Strange: the court doesn't seem to think it is too difficult for the obligee to keep track of uninsured medical expenses so they can soak the obligor for half, nor is it too complicated for the State to keep track of exactly how much the obligor has paid in support, who they are working for for garnishment purposes, or what their bank accounts are (so they can be seized for non-payment of support).
The NH child support calculation is contrived to appear that both parents' incomes are used to determine a "total amount available for support" of the children. However, the entire contents of this "virtual" pot of money is given to the custodial parent to administer. Why then is the custodian of this money (which is a considerable fraction of the parents' combined incomes) not required to account for its use? This is like handing over your entire savings to a stock broker, then not being told how much is in your portfolio. Madness!
My opinion is if the NH-DYCS can collect money from an obligor parent and give it to the obligee parent, then it would not be much of a stretch (or any stretch for that matter) for them to collect from BOTH parents (as stated in the NH Child Support guideline calculation), then distribute as needed to BOTH parents. Such distributions would be made based on direct child-cost expenses submitted by parents.
For example, if each parent maintains a home suitable for raising the children, each parent would submit VALIDATED proof of their housing cost (e.g. a mortgage payment stub and property tax bill). Some reasonable formula could then be applied to reimburse each parent proportionally to their respective contributions to the children's homes. Note that in this case, "amount of time" spent with the children is irrelevant, since a mortgage or rent payment must be made regardless of whether a child is in the home 10% or 90% of the time.
Alternatively, a simpler solution could just be to distribute the total based on "amount of time" each parent has custody of the children. This makes even more sense when one considers that NH has legally dropped the distinction between "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, and the concept of "visitation" by the non-custodial parent. Parents are now "co-parents", and thus presumably both are entitled legally to child support. An additional benefit is that if the principal custodian parent (i.e. more than 50% of custody time with children) has a significantly higher income, then the other parent could potentially get a support stipend to offset their costs when children are in their care.
Such a system would solve almost all issues surrounding accountability concerns, and insure that all child support moneys are available to both parents to raise children, and maintain an equitable quality of life in both of the children's homes.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Why Family Law Reforms Fail
My last post dealt with an overview of Child Support reform issues with a promise of going into details on the subject in future posts. However, before tackling that subject, I decided to jot down some of my perceptions as to why Family Law reform in general is so difficult, and why meaningful reforms are so hard to achieve.
Historically, there are three basic methods to achieve social reform:
1. Lobby representatives to introduce legislation, open up a public debate, and create new laws (legislative solution).
2. Appeal current laws in Court (Judicial Solution)
3. Agitate civil unrest (Grassroots solution)
When I first became peripherally involved in NH legislative reform efforts 3 or 4 years ago, there were several meaningful bills currently being debated and voted on at the State House. Eventually, a State sponsored committee report on child support was even issued, with the following results:
Acrimonious custody litigation happens primarily because of the "winner-take-all" effect of the current system; to wit: the winner gets to collect child support and provide the majority of meaningful and joyous influence on the children. The new legislation makes matters worse by removing the legal distinction between "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, thus rendering a legal perception that both parents are equally involved, when in fact effectively the system is still status quo.
Finally, in "selling" (i.e. lobbying) the idea of reform to the legislature, it is necessary to appeal first to the emotional side of legislators and the general public. Anti-reformers definitely have the upper hand here, in that they merely need to cite that reformers are "greedy", "selfish", and not interested in the best interests of children. Sadly, reformers' tend to defend against these attacks by citing facts and statistics. As any car salesperson will tell you, you don't sell a car on it's torque curve or gas mileage; you sell it on the emotional impact on the buyer. One picture of a child suffering from a parent's failure to pay financial support will undo all the facts and statistics in the world.
So when a legislative solution for an unpopular reform fails, the obvious solution is to resort to a judicial solution. This approach has been used very effectively for example by the homosexual marriage advocates. Recognizing that no amount of factual argument could hold up to the inevitable emotional public legislative debate, they turned to the Court to uphold their rights to marriage.
So why not use this approach in setting new, fairer Family Law precedents? Unfortunately, there is an entrenched economic incentive in the state Courts to maintain the present system. Under the terms of Federal Social Security Administration Title IV-D, the amount of funding received is directly related to the amount of money collected by the State Courts. This was explicitly spelled out in a letter by NH Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly in a letter in May 2006. A more detailed explanation of the workings of Title IV-D can be found here.
The only way I can see to overcome this judicial bias is to first remove the financial incentive to the NH Family Law Courts to maintain the current precedents, then challenge the precedents at the Supreme Court level. By the way, I have no idea how to do this. Email me your suggestions.
Which leaves only civil unrest as a method for change. I don't really advocate this approach; I only include it for completeness. I can only imagine that acts of civil disobedience, massed demonstrations, and (God forbid!) acts of terrorism can only further malign what is already in the public's view a negative cause.
Historically, there are three basic methods to achieve social reform:
1. Lobby representatives to introduce legislation, open up a public debate, and create new laws (legislative solution).
2. Appeal current laws in Court (Judicial Solution)
3. Agitate civil unrest (Grassroots solution)
When I first became peripherally involved in NH legislative reform efforts 3 or 4 years ago, there were several meaningful bills currently being debated and voted on at the State House. Eventually, a State sponsored committee report on child support was even issued, with the following results:
The report outlines the many problem areas, and to the legislature's credit, they did a complete rewrite of the child custody law, providing for a presumption of shared custody.However, the resulting new laws were dubious at best. They were so watered-down that they effectively did nothing to address the real concerns of reformers; notably the unfairness of current child-support orders, and removal of the incentive for highly divisive and litigated custody battles.
Acrimonious custody litigation happens primarily because of the "winner-take-all" effect of the current system; to wit: the winner gets to collect child support and provide the majority of meaningful and joyous influence on the children. The new legislation makes matters worse by removing the legal distinction between "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, thus rendering a legal perception that both parents are equally involved, when in fact effectively the system is still status quo.
Finally, in "selling" (i.e. lobbying) the idea of reform to the legislature, it is necessary to appeal first to the emotional side of legislators and the general public. Anti-reformers definitely have the upper hand here, in that they merely need to cite that reformers are "greedy", "selfish", and not interested in the best interests of children. Sadly, reformers' tend to defend against these attacks by citing facts and statistics. As any car salesperson will tell you, you don't sell a car on it's torque curve or gas mileage; you sell it on the emotional impact on the buyer. One picture of a child suffering from a parent's failure to pay financial support will undo all the facts and statistics in the world.
So when a legislative solution for an unpopular reform fails, the obvious solution is to resort to a judicial solution. This approach has been used very effectively for example by the homosexual marriage advocates. Recognizing that no amount of factual argument could hold up to the inevitable emotional public legislative debate, they turned to the Court to uphold their rights to marriage.
So why not use this approach in setting new, fairer Family Law precedents? Unfortunately, there is an entrenched economic incentive in the state Courts to maintain the present system. Under the terms of Federal Social Security Administration Title IV-D, the amount of funding received is directly related to the amount of money collected by the State Courts. This was explicitly spelled out in a letter by NH Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly in a letter in May 2006. A more detailed explanation of the workings of Title IV-D can be found here.
The only way I can see to overcome this judicial bias is to first remove the financial incentive to the NH Family Law Courts to maintain the current precedents, then challenge the precedents at the Supreme Court level. By the way, I have no idea how to do this. Email me your suggestions.
Which leaves only civil unrest as a method for change. I don't really advocate this approach; I only include it for completeness. I can only imagine that acts of civil disobedience, massed demonstrations, and (God forbid!) acts of terrorism can only further malign what is already in the public's view a negative cause.
CS Reform Issues: Child Support Calculation
In a previous post I stated that I agreed that child support amounts should be based on income, which is currently what is done in New Hampshire. However, the current method is inequitable, in that it effectively ONLY includes the obligor's income. Further, there is no limit on the amount (i.e. fixed percentage) across all income levels.
As an example: if two parents each make $100k gross annually, the obligor is required to pay the obligee approximately $23,400 annually for two children under the current guidelines. assuming no deductions and excluding medical insurance payments by either party. In theory, the obligee is also providing the same, for a total of almost $47,000 earmarked solely for child rearing purposes. This theoretical amount is absurd. There comes a level of income where the amount dedicated solely for the children's maintenance and well-being is a diminishing percentage of the parents' total as cited by Espenshade 's study, which is one of the basis for the NH guidelines.
The obligee's income is also effectively ignored in the support calculation. Using the above scenario, if the obligee's income was raised to $500,000 annually, the obligor would still be liable to pay approximately $22,000 annually to the obligee. Again, this is a direct result of a failure to cap and apportion increased income.
Another failure of the system is that it does not take into account shared parenting time. In addition to the Espenshade study, NH also borrows heavily from the Wisconsin Child Support guideline, which itself is based on a flawed interpretation of a study by University of Wisconson researcher Dr. Jacques van der Gaag in 1984. His cost guidelines were predicated on a number of assumptions, including that the children lived with a custodial parent 100% of the time. However, the NH-adopted guidelines make no allowance for the fact that a "non-custodial" parent must still provide a home for their children and incur additional child-related expenses while the children are in their care.
Finally, the issue of uninsured medical expenses and shared cost of certain "extraordinary expenses" is ill-defined and ill-apportioned. Again, using the previous 50/50 income example, the net result is one parent has 2/3 of the combined incomes and the other has only 1/3. Yet these "miscellaneous" expenses are ALWAYS apportioned 50/50 between parents. These expenses should be apportioned the same as child support.
As an example: if two parents each make $100k gross annually, the obligor is required to pay the obligee approximately $23,400 annually for two children under the current guidelines. assuming no deductions and excluding medical insurance payments by either party. In theory, the obligee is also providing the same, for a total of almost $47,000 earmarked solely for child rearing purposes. This theoretical amount is absurd. There comes a level of income where the amount dedicated solely for the children's maintenance and well-being is a diminishing percentage of the parents' total as cited by Espenshade 's study, which is one of the basis for the NH guidelines.
The obligee's income is also effectively ignored in the support calculation. Using the above scenario, if the obligee's income was raised to $500,000 annually, the obligor would still be liable to pay approximately $22,000 annually to the obligee. Again, this is a direct result of a failure to cap and apportion increased income.
Another failure of the system is that it does not take into account shared parenting time. In addition to the Espenshade study, NH also borrows heavily from the Wisconsin Child Support guideline, which itself is based on a flawed interpretation of a study by University of Wisconson researcher Dr. Jacques van der Gaag in 1984. His cost guidelines were predicated on a number of assumptions, including that the children lived with a custodial parent 100% of the time. However, the NH-adopted guidelines make no allowance for the fact that a "non-custodial" parent must still provide a home for their children and incur additional child-related expenses while the children are in their care.
Finally, the issue of uninsured medical expenses and shared cost of certain "extraordinary expenses" is ill-defined and ill-apportioned. Again, using the previous 50/50 income example, the net result is one parent has 2/3 of the combined incomes and the other has only 1/3. Yet these "miscellaneous" expenses are ALWAYS apportioned 50/50 between parents. These expenses should be apportioned the same as child support.
Thoughts on Child Support Reform
Anyone who has read any work on Child support in New Hampshire, or anyone who has been "victimized" by the system would agree that some change is definitely called for. However, discussion of child support reform is often treated like religious heresy by those who would benefit directly from maintaining the status quo. Merely mention opposition to child support, and one is labeled "selfish", "greedy", "child-hater", and of course the dreaded "dead-beat parent".
So before commencing any treatise on reform, it is necesssary to address these criticisms. Basically, there are two fundamental principals I believe must remain in the forefront:
1. No responsible parent would fail to support their child financially to the best of their ability. Thus, support contributions are a mandatory obligation of both parents.
2. Basing the level of support on parents' incomes is the most equitable method for determining what obligatory support should be.
The first serves to dispel any question that child support advocates argue reform simply to avoid paying support for their children. The second shows that meaningful reform can be achieved under the current system (which is already income-based), rather than through a radical restructuring of the entire system. One would hope that these principles would at least mitigate some of the concerns of reform opponents.
Finally, before tackling a solution to any problem, it is usually a good idea to state what the problem is that is trying to be fixed! Here is a list of what I feel are the major problems with our current system, gleaned from the thoughts and writings of others along with my own personal experience:
So before commencing any treatise on reform, it is necesssary to address these criticisms. Basically, there are two fundamental principals I believe must remain in the forefront:
1. No responsible parent would fail to support their child financially to the best of their ability. Thus, support contributions are a mandatory obligation of both parents.
2. Basing the level of support on parents' incomes is the most equitable method for determining what obligatory support should be.
The first serves to dispel any question that child support advocates argue reform simply to avoid paying support for their children. The second shows that meaningful reform can be achieved under the current system (which is already income-based), rather than through a radical restructuring of the entire system. One would hope that these principles would at least mitigate some of the concerns of reform opponents.
Finally, before tackling a solution to any problem, it is usually a good idea to state what the problem is that is trying to be fixed! Here is a list of what I feel are the major problems with our current system, gleaned from the thoughts and writings of others along with my own personal experience:
- Support calculation
- Lack of accountability of obligee parent
- Mandatory wage garnishment
- Administrative conflict of interest
- No legal support for obligor
Friday, August 1, 2008
Welcome
Hi, and welcome to my blog site. This blog is devoted to issues, articles, and debate concerning much needed family law reform in the State of New Hampshire. Hopefully, this forum can be used to share ideas and discuss reform measures. Also, strategies for turning our ideas into real Court policy and family law reforms can be developed through this medium.
I welcome you to provide feedback, comments, discussion, and possible improvements to this site
Thanks!
fractivist
I welcome you to provide feedback, comments, discussion, and possible improvements to this site
Thanks!
fractivist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)