Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

  The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L.  100-485) provided for several
  changes in child support services nationwide, among them:

  -effective 11/90, ALL STATES were required to have in place legislation
  providing for Immediate Income Withholding on ALL new or modified orders.

  -effective 10/89, ALL STATES were required to use "guidelines" to
  determine a standard amount of support.  -effective 1/90, ALL STATES were
  required to make wage and unem- ployment information available by computer
  to the Federal Government to assist other states in tracking NCP's.

  -effective 10/93, ALL STATES must have in place a system to periodcally
  review support orders against the guidelines.  -effective 10/95, ALL
  STATES must computerize child support enforcement.

  Any states that don't go along with these requirements are subject to:

  -loss of Federal reimbursement for child support establishment/enforcement
  costs.  (The Feds typically reimburse about 66% - 68% of state costs.)
  -possible cutbacks in the Federal share of AFDC payments (the welfare plan
  covering families with children).

  FREE members local to the Bay Area met on the evening of Wednesday,
  January 9th.

  The following items were discussed:

  [NOTE: the "group" referred to below means the group of FREE members local
  to the Bay Area who have chosen to meet in person on a regular basis.]

  o There was a concern that the group should have some sort of clear
  statement of purpose, such that if someone were to ask a member what Bay
  Area FREE was about, there could be a cogent response.  This led to a
  discussion about what, if any, our purpose in meeting was, and also what
  our purpose was not.  Concern was expressed that the group not present
  itself in a manner such as to gain a reputation of being "just another
  group of angry men who don't want to pay support." It was agreed that
  there was a place for angry activist groups, and that we could certainly
  work with such groups, but that we should probably take care to not become
  known as such a group.  This led to a discussion about the merits of
  trying to bring about change by working the system as opposed to trying to
  bring about change via the angry activism dicussed earlier.

  It was agreed that those present felt that the purpose of the group was to
  work towards and effect change such as to bring about a system that was
  truly equitable and fair, and that this should be done by working the
  problems from several angles at once (i.e.  educating the judges and
  lawyers, while directly addressing legislators, while raising public
  awareness, etc.).  It was suggested that members could become
  spokespersons targeting certain groups, for example the local PTA's, in an
  effort to gain recognition of the group as a concerned member of the
  greater community while at the same time educating the public.

  o California bill sb101 was discussed further, and Steve
  (staylor@leland.stanford.edu) agreed to call Sacramento to find out the
  exact status of the bill, about any public hearings scheduled, and to
  determine what, if any, procedure exists for requesting a hearing in a
  particular location.

  Once we know the exact status of sb101, we will send out a call to all
  California FREE members to contact their local representatives to find out
  exactly where they stand on sb101.  From there we can formulate a plan
  that seems appropriate (i.e.  letter writing campaigns, telephone calls,
  testifying at hearings, etc.).

  o Tom (tball@eoc.com) is going to look into the various ways to make
  contact with and interface with various other groups and organizations.

  o Another member will be reporting back about recent and pending Federal
  legislations which affect child-support and visitation.

  o A discussion was had about the practice of representing oneself, as
  compared to retaining a lawyer.  Two of the members had represented
  themselves in what were uncontested, and essentially total-agreement
  divorces.  Everyone seemed to be in agreement, however, that in cases
  where there is not full agreement as to custody, visitation and support
  issues, one should retain an attorney.

  The recent Stanford study was discussed, particularly the data which
  dispells a common myth: that fathers almost always have lawyers, while
  mothers often go into court without the aid of a lawyer.  The Stanford
  study found, in fact, that in only 10% of the cases (N=1000~) did the
  father have a lawyer where the mother didn't.

  <end of report>

Forwarded by our North Carolina coordinator, dfb@med.unc.edu:

           FATHERS UNITED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
              PO Box 3308  Silver Spring, MD  20901
                          301-927-7638

                     Before hearings of the

               Governor's Task Force on Family Law

                         October 2, 1991

     Fathers United for Equal Rights Foundation Inc., is an
     organization of concerned men and women seeking fairness and
     equality for both parents in the legislation and the courts
     which deal with the problems surrounding divorce, custody,
     visitation and support.

     We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns with the
governor's task force about the problems surrounding the legal
system as it relates to divorce, custody, access and support.
While we do have strong convictions and suggestions in most of the
areas which each of the task force's subcommittees are studying,
we recognize today's time constraints, and will make every effort
to be brief in our summarization.

     However, brevity should not be misconstrued as indicating a
limited interest in any of the topics.  The reason our organization
continues to exist is because "the system" as a whole continues to
prove itself year after year, case after case, to be in varying
degrees inequitable, unfair, biased, unreasonable and inconsistent.

     The blame does not lie with any one court, or a few small
quirks in the law, but is due in part to the fact that so much of
both the legislation and the existing case law has been developed
piece-meal, or, as in the case of the support guidelines, under
illogical last-minute federal pressure without any identifiable
rational basis.  There has been very little substantive review of
the full body of domestic law for over a decade, and what changes
have been made have been mostly of the cut-and-paste variety,
without any regard for how one addition or modification might
affect the other pieces of the puzzle.

     An example of this is found in your child support sub-
committee's interim report, which has come to the tentative
conclusion that the "support guidelines are inadequate."  We want
to caution the task force that "inadequate" in this context does
not mean too few dollars; it means that the guidelines, the
underlying formula used to create them, and the guidance provided
for their application are, to be kind, lacking.

     The subcommittee's still-incomplete study found that the
guidelines were adopted at the legislative 11th hour, under
pressure through a political compromise, and revised rather
arbitrarily from another state's plan.  There appears to be no
legislative history which tells us the economic basis for the
formula, or what has, or has not, been considered, such as tax
consequences on either party.

     The vagueness of the various definitions, the voids at the low
and high ends of the scale, and the unknown effects of second-
family income of either spouse on the child's standard of living
are serious issues which we understand your subcommittee has begun
to address.  My point, however, is that the existing system was
created, at best, in a haphazard manner, and its application by the
bench has been similarly haphazard and inconsistent.

     It probably comes as no surprise that the fathers united group
believes there still exists in the system a maternal bias which
continues to further skew a significant majority of the decisions
in recent years.  To give credit where it is due, there has been
over the past five years a small but identifiable trend of
improvement from the fathers' perspective, but I submit we are
still nowhere near parity.

     let me proceed by first stating the most basic of our organ-
ization's convictions: a child has a right to both parents.  This
obviously speaks to the problems surrounding the child's access to
the non-custodial parent  -- and we want to encourage use of the
term "access", which places neither parent nor child in the limited
role of "visitor".

     A divorce of the parents can never change the reality of the
child's parentage, and neither parent should have the ability, or
the court's assistance, to break that bond.  Indeed, the system
must be modified so that the court can encourage that relationship
during the second most stressful time of a young child's life,
following that of a death in the family.  Divorce is, in fact, the
death of the family, and we should be strengthening the child's
parental ties, not severing them.

     We raise the issue because access between the child and the
non-custodial parent is perhaps the most disregarded and unbalanced
matter in the field.  The divorce ultimately is finalized, the
division of property is accomplished, and both custody and support
are established.   But somehow, the issue of access -- the preferred
term for visitation -- remains soft, loosely defined, virtually
unenforceable, and continues to fall between the cracks.  Yet this
issue, in our opinion, is perhaps the most important in the long
term.

     Let me speak for a moment about how important support is.
We advocate that reasonable support should always be paid on time.
However, when support is late, it is recoverable, but when access
is denied, it is forever irretrievable.  The child has suffered the
loss of one parent for that period of time, and waiting for the
next 'scheduled' period of time next month, or next year, can never
replace that loss of childhood time spent with a loving, caring
parent.  It is these silent victims - the children - on whose
behalf we speak.

     This is the other, and perhaps more important kind of support
a parent can give a child.  This is also the other kind of support
which the courts do not enforce with a vigor and attention
approaching that applied to collecting dollars.  The so-called
"enforcement" process focuses only on money, which does not alone
raise a child.

     The relationship between monetary support and parental support
through non-custodial access is important.  The law makes no
connection between the two, nor should it.  Reasonable support
payments must never be withheld, and the penalties for non-payment
are well-known.  Unfortunately, the reverse should be, but is not,
true: when access is withheld, there are virtually no penalties
ever imposed in maryland.  Our state makes it most painful for a
parent to miss a support payment, but appears not to care about a
child missing a parent's love, affection and caring for months or
years on end.

     There are several states, Virginia among them, which have
taken a progressive step in setting a stiff fine for denial of
access, and making such denial a grounds for a change in custody.
we urge the task force to remember when it hears a considerable
commotion today for "stronger enforcement" that this concept can
only be supported by reasonable persons when it applies equally to
both the clauses within that same court order which establish both
support and access.  When access is more precisely defined, and the
consequences for violating that trust are clearly set forth and
consistently enforced, there will be considerably less reason for
repeated re-hearings on contempt.  A stern warning from the court,
with no real repercussions, is all the present system offers in
return for the years of time my children spent without their
father.

     Since time is short, let us touch briefly on several other
issues, with the same caveat provided earlier... our brevity is a
function of lack of time at this hearing, not lack of intense
interest by our organization in virtually every facet of the issues
being considered by this task force and its subcommittees.

     o    We support the concept of a family court, which would
create a better focus on the complex and highly emotional issues
surrounding divorce and custody and take them out of the over-
burdened existing system which allow cases to very easily be
delayed, postponed or continued, benefitting no one.  Custody and
access cases require immediate resolution, yet they are precisely
the ones delayed, sometimes for years, while the docket deals with
other matters and the children's irreplaceable relationship with
the non-custodial parent withers away.

     o    We support making "irreconcilable differences" the
principle ground for "no-fault" divorce.  This would be an enormous
step toward making the system much less adversarial in nature, and
ends the enormous expenditure of time and resources determining
"fault" to become un-married.

     It has been determined that the great majority of divorce
cases filed under the present fault system -- adultery, desertion,
constructive desertion, etc., are delayed so long by the court's
backlog that they are commonly modified to the one-year or two-year
separation grounds, negating several years of expensive and
extensive combat.  There is no rational basis for allowing even one
minute of valuable court resources, be they of the family court or
the present anachronistic system, to be spent determining grounds
when the result -- namely, a divorce -- will be exactly the same.

     Further, we suggest that in cases where all relevant issues
are resolved by agreement, 30 days is sufficient time to obtain a
final divorce; in uncontested cases, six months is sufficient. this
clearly fosters mediation rather than litigation.  There is no
purpose served in forcing parties in agreement to wait 12 months or
longer, inviting continued litigation.

     Where any issues remain contested, litigation remains
available, as always, but with considerably less incentive for the
parties to drag out the lengthy and expensive process beyond the
shorter time necessary for the divorce.

     o    We support the elimination of the requirement that the
parties be physically separated to obtain a divorce.  There is no
reason for the state to interfere with the lives of the parties who
have successfully resolved all of the relevant issues themselves.
this has had the negative effects of financially weakening both
parties by forcing the creation of a second household, detracting
from the financial and emotional support available for the
children, and destabilizing the children and their parental
relationships at their most vulnerable point.

     o    We support some form of mandated initial mediation prior
to court in cases where such issues as custody or access remain
contested, once again to diminish the adversarial nature of the
present system's apparent preference for prolonged litigation.

     o    In the case of involuntary separations such as might
occur in military re-assignments or long-term hospitalization, we
support a potential waiver of the time period requirements, so that
the "away" party has an opportunity to respond to the issues at
hand before they become locked in during his/her absence.

     Thank you once again for the opportunity to make our views
known.  We only ask you to recognize that Fathers United for Equal
Rights does not seek to revamp the system to become a pro-father
court.  We only wish for a system that does what was intended years
ago by the "neutralizing" of gender-specific language to bring
about laws that were unbiased in their implementation, application
and interpretation.  For whatever reasons, that theory has never
been realized.

     The responsibility, and the opportunity, is yours.

                          *  *  *  *  *

F.U.E.R. would be happy to address these issues in greater detail
before any of the task force's subcommittees and working groups, or
to assist in developing acceptable recommendations for legislative
language.

I realize that many, if not most of you, have probably already seen the
posting by Cindy Jenkins (cj@milton.u.washintgon.edu).  So I apologize
in advance for forwarding excerpts from it if you have already read this
on the net.

At any rate, I've added some comments at the end of the file.

<include file>

From: cj@milton.u.washington.edu (Cindy Jenkins)

.............We recently got married (5 months ago) and had
plans to have a baby within the next year or two, after saving some $$
up for my time off.  Our problem? Child support payments.  His
ex girlfriend sued us for child support (he was paying $150 a month
when we got married), and got free legal help, etc. from the WA state
DSHS folks, so now we have to pay $398 a month for support as well
as $127 a month in back support.  Most of this was based on my income
(as a systems programmer I make twice what my husband does)....

[...]

We have one other question for anyone who could answer it, if my
husband lost his job (he's in retail so it's highly likely), would
I still have to pay his child support?  And if so is there any way to get
the payments reduced temporarily? My income will miss the monthly
bills by about $400 if they include the CP payment.  By the way, I
live in Washington state.

--Cindy

<end file>

Folks, this just makes my blood boil.  This is one of the first things
I'd personally like to file suit against as soon as I am able!  It is
inconceivable to me that a 2nd spouse's income should be attributed to
the NCP as income for purposes of calculating child-support!

For those of you in Washington:  do you know if WA is a community
property state?  It seems to me that if it isn't there is a better basis
for fighting this rule.

For those not in Washington:  do you know if your state is currently
imputing 2nd spouses' income for child-support?

Not only does this sort of rule create a huge disincentive to marriage,
but it would seem to create an incentive to *divorce*!  Is anyone aware
of couples who have divorced and continued to live together to end-run
this situation?  Have they been successful?

Annie

>From Eric (our Florida Coordinator):

There's a frenetic little guy named Matthew Lesko who appears on C-SPAN
from time to time.  Apparently, he spends most of his waking hours (which
must be more than usual) collecting information about state and Federal
agencies.  Fortunately for us, he also puts this information into large
compendia, which, although much of the information is apocryphal or at
least wildly inaccurate, are invaluable for tracking down state agencies
and the like.  Check for his books in the reference section of your local
library.

Eric Pepke (pepke@scri1.scri.fsu.edu)

[Note: Eric is our Florida Coordinator.  His email address is
pepke@scri1.scri.fsu.edu]

----------
Greetings, fellow FREEfolk!

I think that it would be extremely useful to have a single-page summary of the
family law of all 50 states and the District of Columbia (maybe even
territories).  I envision something like a postscript file which will produce
a single landscape sheet.  States will go down on the left hand column,
categories will go across.  In the matrix will be checks, numbers, and a FEW
references to footnotes at the bottom.  At the top will be some sort of
self-congratulatory message on behalf of all of us and the public domain
statement.  It might even be useful as an extension into what we laughingly
call the real world; if this takes off I would even be willing to spend the
effort getting it professionally printed for handing out to campus activists,
state representatives, and other lowlifes.

Obviously, such a summary is a simplification of the laws of each state, and
a lot of important detailed information will be lost.  That's OK.  I don't
know how many of you are familiar with the Macintosh Programming One-Liners
that I collected, but that's pretty much my philosophy here--to give people
at least a start at obtaining the information they need in a very easily used
form.

A very first cut of the questions to be answered is located below.  It
contains purely informative questions mixed with blood boilers, in no
particular order.  It is no doubt flawed, especially as I haven't had the
chance of getting on the phone with any state agencies.  However, this will
have to be an iterative process, and my philosophy is bork it out and then
refine it.  I am looking for any and all suggestions on improvement, including
additions, deletions, and reorganizations.  I am not seeking answers to the
questions at this time; however, looking for answers can give some clues about
whether the questions make sense in the first place.  I want to get the
questions refined to the point that we will only need about one footnote for
every four states.

As we get further along in the process I'll determine a syntax for responses
and write the requisite C code to get the job done.

Please send comments directly to me at pepke@scri1.scri.fsu.edu unless you
think that they are topics for discussion, in which case you can send to the
list.

--------

1) Joint physical custody is permitted in this state.
   true/false
2) Joint legal custody is permitted in this state.
   true/false
3) Split custody is permitted in this state.
   true/false
   (I don't really understand what split custody is.  Perhaps someone can
    enlighten me.)
4) The default form of custody is
   a) Primary
   b) Joint legal
   c) Joint physical
   d) Split
   e) There is no default form
   (By "default," I mean a default written into law, not a de facto default.)
   [Sorry to mix my terminology.  Obviously "default" is used in the common,
    not the legal sense.  Suggestions for a better term gratefully accepted.]
5) There exists a statewide agency to assist CP's with obtaining support.
   true/false
6) There exists a statewide agency to assist NCP's with visitation.
   true/false
7) By the guidelines, what percentage of gross income forms an NCP's support
   obligations for one child?
8) The income of the spouse of an NCP is factored in for determining support
   payments.
   true/false
9) Conditions under which support can be raised: (check all that apply)
   a) Change in job situation of NCP
   b) Change in marital status of NCP
   c) Change in state of residence of NCP
   d) Demonstrated financial hardship of CP
   e) Change in job situation of CP
   f) Change in marital status of CP
   g) Change in state of residence of CP
10) Conditions under which support can temporarily be lowered: (check all that
    apply)  ("Temporary" refers to situations where the duration of the order
    is specified at the time of the order.)
    a) Change in job situation of NCP
    b) Change in marital status of NCP
    c) Change in state of residence of NCP
    d) Demonstrated financial hardship of NCP
    e) Change in job situation of CP
    f) Change in marital status of CP
    g) Change in state of residence of CP
11) Conditions under which support can permanently be lowered: (check all that
    apply)  ("Permanent" refers to situations not covered by "temporary.")
    a) Change in job situation of NCP
    b) Change in marital status of NCP
    c) Change in state of residence of NCP
    d) Demonstrated financial hardship of NCP
    e) Change in job situation of CP
    f) Change in marital status of CP
    g) Change in state of residence of CP
12) How do banks generally deal with support obligations when calculating
    mortgage payments?  (check one)
    a) Support obligations are generally factored in
    b) Support obligations are generally not factored in
    c) There is too much variation to make a general statement
13) Child support payments can be raised (check all that apply)
    a) At the request of the CP
    b) Upon a review by the state without consultation of the CP
14) Guardians ad litem require
    a) Special training (how many days/weeks/months?)
    b) A degree
    c) State licensing and certification
15) It is against the law for a judge to show gender bias in determining
    custody.  (If a state has an ERA, this should only be considered true or
    false if there has been a judicial decision that the ERA does/does not
    apply to custody decisions.)
    true/false
16) Temporary custody decisions can be used to prejudice final custody
    decisions.
    true/false
17) Wages of the NCP are garnished for child support are garnished (check
    all that apply)
    a) Automatically
    b) Upon request of the CP
    c) Upon the first late payment
    d) Upon the second late payment
18) Permitted forms of child support payment (check one)
    a) Personal check
    b) Cash, bank check, and money orders only
19) Child support payments are made
    a) Directly to CP
    b) To a state agency
20) The CP must honor court-ordered visitation in order to recieve court-
    ordered support.
    true/false

An initial meeting of Bay Area members of FREE was held on Wednesday,
12/18.  While it was a small turnout, it was not an unproductive one. We
will have another meeting in January, and hopefully with the holidays
past, we will see a few more faces!

This message is being sent to the entire FREE distribution, rather than
just the Bay Area, as many of the ideas which came out of the meeting can
be applied across the board.
It has been suggested that we compile the following references:

o  Attorney Referrals

        We have already been doing this, so let's keep it up.  A
        list of regional contacts to date will soon be distributed -
        if your area has a contact please forward any attorney
        referral to him/her as well as to me. If your area does
        not have a contact, would you consider being that person?

o  Information on Family Court System Individuals

        As with compiling attorney recommendations, let's provide
        whatever input we can (again to the regional contact, and
        cc:'ing me) regarding individual family court players.
        This can and should include mediators, evaluators and judges.

o  An Online Bibliography

        Please pass along any suggestions for recommended reading.

o  A Reference Library

        For local groups (and don't forget folks, you too can get
        local members together!)

Finally, regarding a matter which will be covered in more detail in a
separate mailing to the Bay Area members, it was agreed that we would
begin to distribute information to our California members regarding
SB101, a bill which is to take effect on July 1st, 1992, and which will
have wide-spread and deep-reaching ramifications for non-custodial
fathers.  Once this information is distributed we will consider what
we can do about SB101, including, possibly, a letter writing campaign,
and sending a delegation to testify before the committee which is
examining child-support issues in California.

                            HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!

Annie

The following was sent to me by a fellow FREE member:

<include file>

Annie,

I was on another bbs today, and found the attached note.  While it is not
complete, it does raise some interesting questions about gender bias and
the like.  I thought you might be interested.

Since it was on a public bbs, I would assume you could lift text from
it without problem.

--------------------------FORWARDED ITEM FOLLOWS-------------------------
[stuff deleted - this is from a letter to a Mr. Paul Williams, with the
IRS in Atlanta, complaining about a United Way Bulletin Board in the area]

November 29, 1991

[...]

      We have enclosed for your review a photograph of one of the
billboards involved in a recent city-wide campaign to support UWMA's
fund raising efforts.  The billboard bears the legend: "MORE FATHERS RUN
AWAY FROM HOME THAN CHILDREN DO."  Richard Ausley in the Communication
Department of UWMA, stated approximately thirty (30) of such billboards
were ordered.  Until last week, UWMA was also running television
commercials which presented an enlargement of male sperm swimming
around, with a voice overlay which stated: "Unfortunately, this sperm is
the only contribution that some men will ever make to their child."

      Also enclosed are articles regarding a billboard in Michigan
sponsored by Oakland Family Services, an organization primarily funded
by United Way Agencies. (Note that the United Way's helping hand logo
appears on the lower right hand corner of the billboard).  The billboard
in Detroit was removed in response to the public outcry which resulted
from such blatant gender bias.  However, we have been advised that one
UWMA official, after receiving numerous complaints from men in Atlanta,
merely responded to a telephone call from Sonny Burmeister, President of
Georgia Council for Children's Rights, with the statement: "[w]e
probably should have said 'MORE PARENTS RUN AWAY FROM HOME THAN CHILDREN
DO', but I've got a lot of fish to fry and I've got a lot of money to
raise and if I have to offend some fathers in the process, so be it."

      Mr. Holman spoke to Mr. Ausley on November 27, 1991 and asked if
UWMA would print a retraction.  However, he was advised, "No, I don't
think there is any chance of that."  In response to whether he found the
billboard offensive, Mr. Ausley stated: "We don't think we've done
anything to apologize for."  When asked about the statistical basis for
the billboards, Mr. Ausley disclosed that it was based on information
from "the State of Georgia, Office of Child Recovery and Support.  That
Office reportedly compared the number of open case files against fathers
for delinquent child support to the number of children that are reported
as runaways each year.  Mr. Ausley was unwilling to acknowledge the
horrendous misrepresentation which resulted from their failure to
distinguish between fathers with delinquent child support obligations
and fathers who have abandoned their families.  Mr. Holman pointed out
to him that many parents with delinquent child support are actively
involved with their children and their delinquency may only result from
unemployment or serious financial problems."
Subject:  Addendum

If you are going to be following up the story about the United Way in
any way, please note that the information which was forwarded to us came
from a public BBS, I believe it was called "D'Bridge".  The excerpt you
saw was from a letter written to Mr. Paul Williams of the IRS in
Atlanta, and it was written and posted by someone with the National
Congress for Men (which has recently changed it's name to the National
Congress for Men & Children).

Please be sure to attribute it properly, as I'm a tad leary that
otherwise FREE could just possibly end up looking at a libel suit.

Here is the header that the letter was attached to:

--------------------------FORWARDED ITEM FOLLOWS-------------------------
>From    : NAT'L. CONG. FOR MEN & CH              Number    : 59 of 72
To      : ALL                                    Date      : 12/22/91 9:53a
Subject : UNITED WAY Sexist Fundrai              Reference : NONE
Read    : [N/A]                                  Private   : NO
Conf    : 006 - DADS  SUPPORT ON CHILD RE

NOTE:  This was sent to me by a Bay Area member:

The review of the Maryland FUER meeting was extremely useful. I'm sure
I'm not the only divorced father who noticed parallels between the
case studies discussed and my own situation.

Perhaps this is something that could be done for all the meetings.
(i.e. taking notes of the lawyers discussion/interpretation of certain
case studies and then posting them to the bboard). I would be happy to
server as notekeeper for any Bay Area meetings I attend.

>From Mike, v080lmaq@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu, one of our 2 NY Coordinators:

  According to the local United Way director, Arlene Kaukus, each chapter
has the autonomy to determine its on mission.  HOWEVER, certain criteria
must be followed and a campaign such as the one in Atlanta would be a
violation of those guidelines.  It was suggested by her that this was
"someone" using the United Way name, which I disputed.  She then sug-
gested contacting the national office and provided me with an address
and phone number, saying that this was a matter that they should look
into.  I am composing a letter requesting their information regarding
the Atlanta campaign, as well as a statement regarding their mission
and guidelines that local chapters are supposed to follow.

United Way of America
701 North Fairfax
Alexandria, Virginia  22314-2045
Phone: (703) 836-7100

[NOTE: As with Mike's letter, correspondence to the United Way should be
on a personal level - Annie]

Here is the letter which Mike sent to the Atlanta U.W. office:

   It has come to my attention that a fund-raising campaign has been un-
derway in the Atlanta area, conducted by your organization, and which has
utilized a negative gender stereotype.  It is my understanding that
Richard Ausley, Communications Dept., ordered 30 billboards with the message
"More fathers run away from home than children."  Furthermore, that a
television commercial was being aired as late as the end of November 1991,
with a voice-over stating, "Unfortunately, this sperm is the only contrib-
ution that some men will ever make to their children."

   As a human being, a parent and a male, I am highly outraged that an
organization that represents itself as working to better social conditions
would stoop to using such a tactic in order to raise funds.  Such
misrepresentation, with its implicitly sexist message, belies the supposedly
constructive social mission of the United Way.  In addition to registering
my indignation, I am requesting clarification of your office's position.

   I will be doing my utmost to spread the word about your outrageous
campaign, as well as Mr. Ausley's belief that it is okay to present a
simplistic and distorted message to the public in order to raise funds.
It is my ferverent hope that this campaign "message" is the result of an
administrative oversight which is correctable through a retraction, as
well as an end to the use of further sexist fund-raising strategies.
I hopefully await your reply.
                                        Sincerely,

>From our Washington Coordinator, Bob (bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us):

Washington is a community property state. The justification (legal) for
inclusion of a spouse's income is the same as a spouse joining an exis-
ting debt. Also, the state uses the same guidelines for determining an
individual's incomes as the Social and Health Service uses to determine
income for Public Assistance purposes -eg: it is the income of the home
which gives the actual income generation ability. As such, there is no
difference between two individuals cohabitating and a married couple.

There are {easily found} cases where people have taken on roommates to
reduce their expenditures for living expenses, only to have the room-
mate's income added to theirs when their income potential was calculated.
As such, in Washington, it would be fair to say that the state is not
interested in the NCP income, per se, but the income _potential_ they
are capable of. This is further supported by the state laws on imputa-
tion of income for support awards.

Those who seek divorce in order to give relief to a spouse find that it
is necessary to maintain _TWO_ distinct households in order to actually
get relief for the spouse.

[Annie wrote to Bob:
> Not only does this sort of rule create a huge disincentive to marriage,
> but it would seem to create an incentive to *divorce*!  Is anyone aware
> of couples who have divorced and continued to live together to end-run
> this situation?  Have they been successful?]

Yes, I have seen it in a number of cases, as well as contemplation of a
divorce for my wife and I to relieve her from the burden. We found after
speaking with a number of attorneys, reading the RCWs (Revised Codes of
Washington), and interviewing people who have tried it, that it results
in the destruction of the relationship. By and large, the support laws
as imposed by the state amount to indenturement, and a kind of prison
which denies the NCP the most basic of constitutional guarantees; The
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It has been suggested by a member that those FREE members who work for
large corporations look into whether those corporations contribute to
PACs, and start asking questions about what candidates those PACs are
supporting, particularly in terms of where they stand on men's issues.

On a related note, members might want to look into what groups their
places of business are routinely contributing to.  For example, many
employers may be contributing to the United Way.  This is not to say
that we should be causing a ruckus at the workplace, but that doesn't
mean we can't enlighten the officers who make these donating decisions,
many of whom may themselves be men, and divorced.

What do you all think of these ideas?

Shared by an MD FREE member:

   I attended my first MD FUER meeting on Thursday, Dec. 19th, and I
would like to share some of the things that went on there.  The meetings
are held in Silver Spring, MD, twice a month.  The next meeting is on
Jan. 9, 1992 at 7:30 PM at the Church of the Ascension.

   I was a bit apprehensive at the start of the meeting, probably like
the other new members.  There were about 7 other new members there, and
about 15 "regulars".  I was surprised that there were two women there.
As it turns out, one didn't talk much so I didn't know her affiliation,
and the other was there because her son is going through a particularly
nasty (is there any other kind, really?) divorce.  There was a
discussion about business during the first 1/2 hour of the meeting and
then a lawyer came in to entertain questions. The feeling I got is that
the lawyer invests a few hours of his time (there are six rotating
lawyers affiliated with this group), every three months of so, and in
return may meet some future clients.  Several of the regulars were
already using his services.  The lawyer also seemed to enjoy meeting
with the group.

   Anyhow, after you pay your required yearly membership dues of $25 for
the first year ($10 each additional year), the lawyer is ready to work!
For those of you (like me) who think things are bad personally, which
they probably are, it was time to "talk/listen to the lawyer" and hear
some other folk's problems. And there were many. Everybody gets 2
questions to ask in a round robin fashion.  Remember, the following
holds true only in MD, and maybe not even here. This was advice, copied
down by me, so something may be lost in the translation.  In practice,
the lawyer winds up answering a lot more that two questions per person,
and he takes a lot of time and care in his responses. We stopped after
about 3+ hours without even taking a break!  Not only that, the lawyer
brought drinks and munchies for all.  I think this was a first in
America! (;-).

   FUER #1: This gentleman was divorced some years ago and was making
an $80 biweekly child support payment.  Due to new MD laws, his revised
monthly requirement was about to go to > $300 month.  Was there anything
he could do?  Lawyer:  No, guidelines must be followed.  Client 1: "But
I live in a trailer and am now married with 2 kids.  I can't afford to
let these kids starve so that the first one can eat."  Lawyer: When it
comes up in court you will have to bring that up, but it must be proved.
Support payment is based upon the ability to earn versus the actual
earnings.  If one is fully capable of gaining and holding employment,
one must do so (including NCP or CP) and the payments are based
accordingly.

   FUER #2: This gentleman's wife left, but she was filing for
constructive desertion.  What should he do?  Lawyer:  He should file
also, and file first, because it is better to be a plaintiff rather than a
defendant.  It was also the lawyer's experience (9+ in these matters)
that it doesn't matter what the grounds for divorce were, property and
etc will be settled by law, not favoring anyone.  But, as far as the
kids go, it is better to be a plaintiff.

   FUER #3: This gentleman is divorced and the NCP.  He wants to know
about his child's education and medical care, information about which
the Mrs. is evidently withholding. Lawyer: You have a right to know this
information except for psychological counseling, and you can contact the
school directly.  You can tell the school administration that you will
help them lose their federal funding if they don't cooperate with you.
You can also find out about the CP's health benefit plan for the kids,
and you have a right to know so.

   FUER #4: This was a particularly interesting one.  This gentleman is
separated for 2 years from wife #1 who has custody of their child, and
then he has a baby with his girlfriend.  She wants to marry but he
doesn't (can't?) and so she takes the child out of the country (they
were both foreign born, she is a resident alien), for the holidays.  He
expects her to leave the child in her home country and come back to the
US to seek child support.  (She still wants to marry him).  Anyhow, is
she entitled to child support?  Lawyer:  No, if the child is not in the
US, there is no claim to child support in MD.

   FUER #5: This gentleman brought up a CA case that was happening now.  A
father signed a birth certificate saying that he was the child's father.
In this instance, he is acknowledging paternity, and you have a
relationship with the child that can't be taken away.  CA still hasn't
ruled on that one, and the MD case is in appeals court.  The father is
bringing up a paternity suit, saying he was not the father.  That may be
decided later, but right now the father must pay child support.

   FUER #6: This gentleman was married for many years now with grown
children.  He bought a house with the Mrs. in 1980 and she soon
afterwards got into real estate.  In 1986 or so, they "refinanced" their
house.  She decided recently that she wants a divorce.  They go to
settle things and they split this and that, and the house issue is
brought up.  It turns out that instead of refinancing, she actually sold
the house to her father (and herself) and left the poor FUER member out
of the deal.  What can he do?  Lawyer:  Since she was in real estate and
knew the business enough to fake out her husband into signing something
that was misrepresented, it was fraud, and the contract won't stick.
They may not have a full 50-50 split of the house, but he won't be
completely out of it either. Get a good lawyer.

Well, that was the most interesting questions that were brought up
during the meeting.  One fellow had already spent $40,000 towards his
divorce, and had to fire his lawyer and represent himself.  It was too
expensive.  He has had some luck, but he doesn't recommend it.  He said
to cut you losses quick and change lawyers if you aren't completely
satisfied.  If you have any questions, feel free to write.

Hello,

As a FREE member and one of two area coordinators in Canada, I thought others
maybe interested in what FREE is all about. Since a note has been started here
and does on include the online brochure, this should provide information and
details on how to join.

John

< posted here with permission from Anne Mitchell >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              -- About the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange --

        The Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange (FREE) is a non-profit
   organization dedicated to the premise that parenting is a 50/50 
   proposition.  As such, both fathers and mothers should share equally in
   the parenting and support of their children.

        While there are many highly visible interest groups advocating the
   very real plight of single mothers, few groups speak out for the
   problems encountered by single fathers.  As a result, society has come
   to not only overlook the problems of single fathers, but to view single
   fathers as the root of all evils visited upon the single mother.  To be
   sure, FREE recognizes that there are indeed some fathers who don't pay
   support, or who skip town.  However there are a great many fathers who
   want to parent their children, who are willing and prepared to pay their
   fair share of child-support, and who wish only to be treated with
   respect, fairness, and dignity by the State, the Family Law System, and
   by society.  It is these fathers for whom FREE stands up and advocates.

        FREE is an international membership group with members throughout
   the United States, Canada, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
   Members stay in constant communication via an international computer
   network known as the Internet.

        Local groups respond to the needs of their area members by
   providing meetings, attorney referrals, and advice and support, as
   needed.

        In addition, FREE members have used their collective power of
   the pen to work to educate others as to the concerns of single
   fathers, and the very real inequities in our current family law
   and social service systems.  Examples include letters written to the
   United Way regarding an anti-father advertising campaign, and members
   getting involved and offering their services to the President's
   Commission on Urban Families.

        FREE's director, Anne Mitchell, founded the organization in 1991.
   Ms. Mitchell, a 1992 graduate of Stanford Law School, and herself a
   single parent, has been involved in fathers' rights advocacy since 1987.

        FREE may be reached by electronic mail at: free@vix.com

   If you would like to be on the FREE list, please forward the following:

   Your name
   Your address
   Your preferred email address
   Is it ok to share your email address only with other FREE members?
   Your telephone number
   Your interest in this area (i.e. are you a divorced father?  The wife of
   divorced father?  The adult child of a divorce in which you saw the
   inequities of the system?)

   If for some reason you prefer not to include one of the above pieces of
   information, that is ok too, but please mention that you are
   omitting it intentionally.

   Please be sure to make your subject line something like "Add Me To the
   List".

   Also, if you haven't already done so, please feel free to ftp the
   fathers' rights oriented paper from gw.home.vix.com.  The directory
   is /pub, and the file is "dads".