Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.

Excerpts:

More than three years ago, a Maine district court judge ruled that Geoffrey Fisher no longer had to pay child support for a child that wasn't his.

But that didn't stop the state from revoking Fisher's driver's license and coming after him for thousands of dollars it says he owes in back payments.

Last year, Maine sent Fisher, 35, a letter seeking $11,450 in child support, even though officials know that DNA tests proved he isn't the father of the child in question.

Fisher had a brief relationship with a woman eight years ago and when she got pregnant and told him he was the father, he believed her. He began paying child support but eventually fell behind.

In the summer of 2001, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services took him to court because of delinquent payments. The court ordered him to pay up, and the state had his license suspended under the "deadbeat dad" law.

That fall the girl, then 3, was placed in foster care. When Fisher pushed for custody, the state ordered a paternity test, which proved he wasn't the father.

At that point, one branch of the human services department told him he could no longer see the girl because he wasn't the father, while another said he owed $10,000 and couldn't have a driver's license because he was the father.

As the nation experiences an unprecedented increase in unwed motherhood, more men are finding themselves named as "fathers," for purposes of child support, simply because of their ability to pay, say several recent studies.

It's called "paternity fraud," and one state that examined the problem found as many as 30 percent of those paying child support were, indeed, not the biological fathers of the children being supported.

The most recent comprehensive study took place in New Hampshire under the auspices of the Commission on the Status of Men.

The commission found that even men who later were able to prove they were paying support for the children of other men were sometimes still forced by courts and state agencies to continue.

Like New Hampshire, California has also established a commission to explore the problem, based on reports that 14 percent are being misnamed as fathers. A report is expected later this year.

Florida is about to pass a new law that would end child support if a man proves he's not the father. Like most states, Florida currently requires that child support – once legally established – continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the real biological father is. Eleven states have changed similar laws since 1994.

A new state law took effect in Colorado this year that permits men, for the first time, to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring – at least during the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child-support action. However, once a final order is entered, the new law says, the man is barred from presenting evidence of non-paternity.

3 divorce measures hit close to home - Colorado

3 divorce measures hit close to home

This article does not give much insight as to why these measures were suggested. As noted in the article the bills would "include eliminating a 90-day waiting period and a mandatory parenting class" as well as "seal psychological and medical records related to establishing custody."

In terms of the waiting period and mandatory parenting class - both measures would appear to be distinct negatives for the children of these parties. One can only assume that Rep. Lauri Clapp did not appreciate being forced to wait three months and attend a class to help her appreciate how her decisions will affect her children.

Though Rep Clapp claims her goal is fairness - the question must be for whom? Not to the children who will be forever changed by this decision and certainly not to the spouse being left through the on demand McDivorce that will result by eliminating the waiting period.

The waiting period does not require the spouses continue to cohabitate - only that they approach this decision with the reverence it deserves. In the case of a divorce without children - I suppose I wouldn't have too much of an issue with the removal of the waiting period except that it just again demonstrates how temporary our society now perceives marriage.

This quote came from the article, "I always hate it when lawmakers use their own personal experiences to try to change the law," said attorney Harvey Steinberg. "It's aways important to subtract emotion when determining important legal issues. Can you think of anything more emotional than a divorce?"

While "subtracting emotion" may be preferential for purposes of proposing legislation in many cases - it certainly seems much legislation has been born from emotion. Laws that protect children, minorities and public safety issues were likely conceived through a deeply emotional experience. Moreover, I am convinced that much of the population cannot even begin to perceive how difficult a divorce (particularly with children) can be until they find themselves in front of a judge on such issues. The realization of how convoluted, disorganized, and often extremely unfair divorce courts can be has surely brought many people to the cause. In turn, these people have often been integral in proposing legislation to combat such problems. Case in point, the renewal of VAWA (Dec 17th, 2005) came with the following language: NONEXCLUSIVITY - Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title.

All in all, I fail to see the positives of these initiatives (outside of sealing records) and they do appear to be largely detrimental to the children of divorce. And none of these bills address the real problems inherent in divorce and custody law, the propensity of the system to turn one parent against another, the damage divorce does to children, the inequity in many child support orders, the level to which government virtually subsidizes divorce, etc.... Unlike other states that are trying to turn to more collaborative solutions, Rep Clapp has suggested legislation that would "punish a party who engages in "unjustifiable conduct," including trying to find out information in a way that causes "unwarranted annoyance" or embarrassment to another party." Sounds like another reason to go to court to me and just as punitive and discretionary as Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO).

Excerpts:

Rep. Lauri Clapp, R-Englewood, said Wednesday she learned of problems in the court system while going through her divorce, but she stressed that the bills are not a response to her situation.

"But when you talk to people who have been through the system, you find out there are abuses," Clapp said. "We want to see that people are treated fairly. That's what this is about."

Her bills - which include eliminating a 90-day waiting period and a mandatory parenting class - have lawmakers and divorce lawyers talking.

Divorce attorney Denise Mills, after reviewing the bills, said their passage would be "stepping backward."

But Clapp said a lot of men and women who divorce "suffer because of the system," and her legislation addresses that.

"I think this is pretty straightforward public policy that makes a lot of sense," she said.

The third Clapp bill contains two separate provisions. One would end a mandatory four-hour, $40 program for parents with children under the age of 18 that informs them about the impact of divorce on kids.

"I have a lot of clients who initially object to that," DiManna said, "but I don't think I've had one come back and say, 'That was a waste of time.' "

Tis the Season for Divorce

Well, divorce is all over the news lately. And for good reason - as pointed out by MIsForMalevolent January is the peak month for divorce.

I do some work with a local agency that is available to parents who would like to try and have a more amicable divorce. It is not a true "collaborative divorce" program as has been described by the media lately. The parties are not represented by their own respective lawyers - though there is always an available attorney to answer points of law. The crux of the program is learning based - understanding how divorce affects children and then the parents go into an unbinding mediation session where they try to come to a resolution on custody. While we will help them to dissolve all of their marital property if they can do so quickly and without much rancor - primarily we deal with issues involving the children.

The success rate of this program is very high but there is a pretty rigid screening process so only those who truly desire to cooperate but are impeded by hurt feelings, etc are accepted. It is almost entirely volunteer - including the advising attorneys and the court approved mediators.

The "traffic" of the agency pretty much dies in December. People become involved in the holidays and often wait to break the news to their spouse after they "get through the holidays." Often their reasoning for this is to not ruin the children's holiday.

But in January we get slammed. It seems the calls start on New Years Day and things don't get back to normal levels until mid February or so. Every year it is this way and we have to turn away even qualified couples due to lack of resources.

So this is a depressingly busy time for me. And for a lot of other people as well.

Soldiers' divorce rates up

Excerpts:

Among enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army, there were 7,152 divorces in 2004, an increase of 28 percent over the previous year and 53 percent since 2000. Among Army officers, the rate of divorce jumped 78 percent between 2003 - the year the U.S. invaded Iraq - and 2004.

A total of 3,325 Army officers were divorced in 2004, more than three times the number that divorced in 2000. The increases are especially meaningful considering the overall number of enlisted military personnel has barely changed over the last five years.

Research has shown that around 20 percent of military marriages end in divorce within two years of one partner's going to war.

Divorce has lasting effects on happiness levels

Excerpts:

A study published in the December 2005 issue of Psychological Science shows that divorce leaves a lasting effect on one's satisfaction levels. A person's happiness level drops as she or he approaches divorce and gradually rebounds over time. But the level of satisfaction does not return to baseline (the level of satisfaction felt prior to the divorce).

Putting the children first

Excerpts:

For years the national divorce rate has fluctuated between 45 and 50 percent, on the source. Wyoming's divorce rate is 44 percent higher than the national average, according to a national vital statistics report.

Many of these separations involve children. In 2003 alone, nearly 2,500 Wyoming children were directly affected by their parents’ divorces.

The Wyoming Children's Access Network provides parent-education seminars for divorcing, separated and never-married parents. The one-time, 4-hour seminar is offered monthly in Cheyenne, Cody, Gillette, Jackson, Lander, Laramie, Rawlins, Rock Springs, Sheridan and Torrington.

The seminar provides information on the impact of parental conflict on children and teaches parents skills to help with the difficult transition. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other adults close to the children are welcome to attend as well.

A nominal fee is charged; based on need, the fee may be waived upon request. Pre-registration is required 24 hours in advance. Info: toll-free (866) 726-3700.

Colorado's Restriction of Protections Against Paternity Fraud

Excerpts:

On New Year's Day the children and fathers of Colorado got a present courtesy of the state legislature. Effective January 1, a man's right to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring was restricted to the duration of the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child support action.

Once a final order is entered in that proceeding, a new state law says, the putative father is barred from presenting newly discovered evidence of non-paternity -- ever.

State Senate Bill 181, enacted in Colorado's 2005 legislative session, requires that any evidence from genetic testing of parent and child be introduced before the entry of final orders. The new law applies to divorce, child support establishment and enforcement and parentage.

"Women file over two-thirds of all divorces in America," said Richar' Farr, founder of the Internet radio station KRightsRadio.com. "And with the increasing number of cases constesting paternity across the nation, this action is simply another example how our elected officials are out of touch with the real needs of the people they are elected to serve. This law benefits no one but the state's treasury," Farr added.

This time, mothers score court victory - Colorado

This time, mothers score court victory

By Al Knight

The Colorado Supreme Court has chosen sides in the gender wars.

In two decisions last week, the court handed the prize to divorced or divorcing mothers who had lost at the trial court level and in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

In those two cases, the lower courts had found - wonder of wonders - that it was in the best interests of the affected children to maintain close contact with their fathers. The trial judges in those cases ruled that the mothers of the children could not in one instance continue to reside in Arizona and in the other couldn't relocate with her child to that state.

Before dealing with the court's reasoning, a little history is in order. In 1963, and again in 1980, the Colorado Supreme Court found that it was against state policy to remove a child from the state's jurisdiction without a showing that the move was in the child's best interest.

That standard was tossed with a Supreme Court decision in 1996 in which the court discovered a presumption that it is in a child's best interest to remain with the custodial parent should that parent relocate to another state.

The state legislature, for obvious reasons, didn't much like that decision and so the law was changed in 2001 to provide that a court, presented with a request of a parent to move out of state, must take into account a long list of relevant factors, including the impact the move would have on the non-custodial parent's relationship with the child.

The new law clearly had two purposes: to rebuke the court for its decision creating a presumption in favor of the custodial parent (almost always the mother); and to level the playing field to benefit the father.

So it came to pass that a trial judge had to interpret the new law. In doing so, he appointed a special advocate to look into all of the relevant relationships affecting the child. The special advocate (a woman) found that that the child would be adversely affected by the separation from its father. Before reaching a decision, the judge also asked the parties to comment on an article in a respected family journal that discussed the adverse affects on children when the parents lived in widely separated locations.

Ultimately, the judge noted that the mother, who had not yet found employment in another state, was willing to stay in Colorado and so he ruled that she could not relocate to Arizona.

The Court of Appeals, in affirming this decision, specifically noted that the special advocate had found that the significant reduction in visitation by the father would have caused "irreparable harm" to the bond between the father and the child. (emphasis mine)

The three-judge panel found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge had abused his discretion by "prematurely" concluding there is a value to giving both parents ample access to their child. (Again the emphasis is mine - but truly, how sick is this? It needed to be in bold)

Justice Nancy Rice, who wrote the related opinions, said that the trial court should have given more consideration to the advantages the child would receive by staying with the "primary caregiver."

She went on to address whether the mother has a constitutional right to travel. She found that there is such a right, but it must be balanced against the right of the biological father to help raise his child. Then, after a wholly unimpressive balancing act, Rice and the court concluded the father's rights had to give way.

In reaching this conclusion, the court ignored the law and policy in some other states, including Texas, where the courts have said that the right of the mother to travel is not restricted in these situations. What is limited, and properly so, is the right of the mother to take the child, against the wishes of the father, to another state.

Colorado has obviously strayed from the notion that a mother wishing to move to another state has to demonstrate the move is in the best interests of the child.

Under the cases announced last week, the new standard is the best interests of the mother.

Still, as Father's Day approaches, it might be useful to note that 40 percent of America's children now live in homes without their real fathers. It should also be plain that last week's decisions will only make matters worse.

Colorado's top court makes it easier for parents to leave state

This is the entire article so you can all feel as I sick as I do.... How on earth can a parent's constitutional right to move be equivalent to their child's constitutional right to two INVOLVED parents - not to mention the other parent's constitutional right to PARENT THEIR CHILD.

"Huge" rulings on divorce
Colorado's top court makes it easier for parents to leave state

By Mike McPhee Denver Post Staff Writer

In two related rulings this week, the Colorado Supreme Court significantly changed family law by making it easier for divorcing or already-divorced parents to move to another state.

Helen Shreves, a family-law attorney and mediator for 25 years, called the rulings "groundbreaking." One case deals with parents in the process of divorcing, the other with parents already divorced. Shreves said they could affect 15 percent to 20 percent of all Colorado divorce cases.

"This is a very significant change in the law," she said. "Until now, you literally couldn't leave the state while your divorce was in process. Or your spouse could get a restraining order and bring you back. Now you can leave.

"The second case protects the parent's constitutional right to travel after the divorce, saying it is just as important as the child's best interests."

Suzanne Griffiths, a family-law attorney for 25 years, called the ruling "huge."
"It not only will cause the filing of a large number of requests to relocate by parents who were told they couldn't leave, but it will also have an enormous effect on couples contemplating divorce," she said.

"This will cause many couples to think twice about getting a divorce, if they know one of them can take the child to another state for good reason such as a job or family."

In the first case, Jennifer Spahmer and Todd Gullete had a child in September 2001. The relationship ended, and during the divorce process Spahmer wanted to move to Arizona with the child to be near her family and to take a new job.

But a trial court denied her request, stating it was in the child's best interests for both parents to live in Colorado. Spahmer appealed.

The Supreme Court overturned the lower court, stating that parenting time must be arranged in the best interest of the child. But "nothing (in the statutes) authorizes a trial court to allocate parenting time by ordering a parent to live in a specific locale."

Hence, "the (trial) court must accept the location in which each party intends to live (then) allocate parental responsibilities accordingly in the best interest of the child."

In the second case, Michelle and Christopher Ciesluk divorced amicably in 2002 after seven years of marriage and one child. Five months later, the mother found a job in Arizona near her family. So she asked the court for permission to move with the child to Arizona and offered a modified plan allowing the father to have the child four times a year.

The trial court rejected her proposal on the grounds it would adversely affect the father's relationship with the child. It ordered the parents to remain in close proximity.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court hadn't protected the mother's constitutional right to travel - "the right to migrate, resettle, find a new job and start a new life."

Hence, the parents right to travel (according the Colorado Supreme Court) is more important the child's relationship with their parent. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on in reference to custody - you have to see how sick this is.

Custody rule changes upheld- Colorado

Rocky Mountain News: State

Excerpts:

Colorado law used to favor him moving with mom, unless dad could prove it was better for the boy to stay. Legislators changed the law in 2001, and the Colorado Supreme Court said Monday the new rules put both parents on equal footing when arguing what's best for the child.

The ruling, in In re Marriage of Ciesluk, said courts must decide such custody cases based on a set of criteria set by the legislature, including the impact of the move on the child and the "history and quality" of each parent's relationship with him.

It reversed lower court decisions that sided with Christopher Ciesluk, who argued against his ex-wife Michelle Ciesluk's plan to move to Arizona for a job and take their son with her.

The Supreme Court said the earlier rulings unfairly favored the father, essentially tipping the scales against a parent who wants to move and retain custody. The mother argued such bias violates her constitutional right to travel.

The court sent the case back to trial and instructed the lower court to consider both parents - and the child's best interests - equally.

"Though the best interests of the child are of primary importance in making this determination," Justice Nancy E. Rice wrote for the court, "they do not automatically overcome the constitutional interests of the parents."

Rich Harris, a Denver family law attorney, said the ruling makes it harder to fight parents' requests to move with a child.

"For those of us who really care about kids and how much divorce already affects kids," he said, "this is going to be a step backwards."

DenverPost.com - Al Knight Custody laws revisited

DenverPost.com - Al Knight

I'm trying to post this using the BlogThis! button - so we'll see how it goes...


Voters last year in many areas of Massachusetts voted overwhelmingly in favor of a terse little ballot measure that endorsed "shared physical and legal custody" for divorcing parents.

Not surprisingly, there are now those in Colorado who would like to see a similar measure put on the state ballot next year.

The subjects of child custody, visitation and parenting time are not new to this state. There were two recent unsuccessful attempts to pass a law creating the "presumption" that divorcing parents in Colorado, absent proof of unfitness, should be granted shared parenting time.

These efforts failed largely because of claims that the new, shared-parenting arrangements would increase court costs. The sponsors insisted the changes would cut costs, but given tight state budgets under consideration at the time, the fear of higher court costs was enough to kill the bills.

The drive for legislation to level the playing field in family courts is by no means limited to Massachusetts and Colorado. A number of states have dealt with the issue. Often, the same familiar facts have been cited. Nationally, women in the vast majority of divorces get custody of the children. In a typical case, the non-custodial parent will see the children a couple of weekends a month, an arrangement that makes the father little more than a footnote in the lives of his children.

Dr. Steven W. Newell of Littleton, who was active in the earlier legislative battles, would like to try changing the parental landscape through the initiative process. He and others took a proposal to the Legislative Council last month which features a non-binding ballot measure patterned on the Massachusetts model.

Slightly modified, the Colorado measure reads:

"Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation requiring that in all separation and divorce proceedings involving minor children, the courts shall uphold the fundamental rights of both parents to shared physical and legal custody (shared parenting) of their children and the children's right to maximize their time with each parent, so far as is practical, unless one parent is found unfit or the parents agree otherwise, subject to the requirements of existing child support and abuse prevention laws?"

The Colorado Legislative Council apparently assumed that the sponsors of the measure were really interested in something that would have legal force and effect and so the staffers drew up a six-page measure that would actually rewrite the divorce laws in Colorado.

Newell rejects this approach, reasoning that such a measure would be so complicated that even he could not support it. He also suggests such a campaign would galvanize the large number of people who make their living off the current, lopsided system. What he proposes instead is an advisory measure that would give the voters of Colorado their first real opportunity to be heard on an important issue that has already affected many of them personally. The hope would be that, given a favorable vote, legislation could follow.

Newell has pointed out that for every divorcing couple with young children, there are a couple of sets of grandparents whose access to their grandchildren has been affected. Because there are about 40,000 divorces in the state each year, he says, and 25,000 of them involve children, there are a couple hundred thousand voters who have had very recent experience with the family court system.

Whatever the quality of this experience, the affected parents are bound to have an interest in a ballot measure on the value of shared parenting.

Opponents of the Massachusetts measure last year sounded very familiar themes, including the claim that "shared parenting" is nothing more than a smokescreen for divorcing fathers who want to avoid paying child support. Still, the measure was favored by 85 percent, indicating that many voters think that the family court system could easily be improved to the benefit of children.

Who knows? Maybe something like that could happen in Colorado. In this state, unlike Massachusetts and some others, the ballot hasn't heretofore been used for advisory measures. But if there is a way to adapt the Colorado procedures to the task, it's hard to think of a topic more deserving of public attention.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.

Captives of Colorado

Link to the Rocky Mountain News for a ridiculously biased article on moveaway cases. Captives of Colorado? Give me a break.

Both of the mothers interviewed said they would not leave the state without their child - yet they are aghast the courts will not let the children be moved from Colorado to Arizona - effectively severing the close ties they have to their father. Can you say hypocrite?

Impeachment Resolution in Colorado

A Colorado Representative has filed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Judge Richard Coughlin. Judge Coughlin issued a joint custody ruling declaring that there could be nothing in the child's upbringing that could be considered homophobic. Rep. Greg Brophy "says Coughlin’s ruling amounts to “judicial activism” that must be punished." gazette.com

Denver, CO

This is an article about the state of the court system in Colorado (Hint: It's not good) DenverPost.com