Did Anne Heche Get a Break on Her Child Support Because She's a Woman?
June 9th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge just lowered actress Anne Heche's child support obligation by 75% because Heche says she has fallen on financial hard times. Recently she was allowed to "skip" paying child support for July.
The judge may well have acted correctly in this case, but it begs the question, "If Heche can get a huge reduction so easily, why is it so hard for fathers in similar circumstances to get reductions?"
According to a recent California Department of Child Support Services report, one of the leading factors creating "deadbeat dads" in California is that fathers who owe child support are rarely able to get downward modifications on their child support when they suffer drops in income.
According to an Urban Institute study, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce the support obligation.
A more typical example of what often happens when wealthy people who owe child support fall on hard times was recently described by Beverly Hills family law attorney Adam Sacks:
Courts almost never allow men to get downward modifications on their child support. I represented a guy who earned $33,000 a month and paid $12,000 in child support. His company went bust and his income crashed down to zero.
We went in and asked for a downward modification--not an elimination of child support, but a downward modification. The judge said 'no,' and told him 'tough luck--you're capable of earning $30,000 a month, so go do it. I don't care if you live under a highway underpass in the meantime, just pay your support as ordered.'
There are other factors in the Heche case--she's famous, so the judge would know that what he was doing was being scrutinized, and Heche had quality legal counsel, which many obligor fathers are unable to obtain.
The AP story on Heche's child support is Anne Heche Ordered to Pay Up in Divorce and Child Support Settlement (6/7/08).
During Heche's custody battle the media missed a crucial point, as usual. In my blog post A Crucial Point Missed in the Anne Heche/Coleman Laffoon Custody Battle, I explained:
Heche & Coleman Laffoon...are battling over custody of their five-year-old son Homer...there is a very important distinction between the two's behavior here, even though the media isn't saying much about it...
Laffoon is asking for joint custody, Heche is asking for sole custody. In other words, Laffoon wants (or at least is willing) to co-parent his kid with Heche. By contrast, Heche wants full control and little or no role for Laffoon. There is a massive moral distinction to be made between the two positions, and the media misleads when it ignores this in favor of clichés about "angry custody battles" and "bitter divorces."
I've also previously discussed Anne Heche's divorce in A Fathers' Rights Perspective on Anne Heche's Divorce/Custody Settlement.
On the subject of women paying alimony, see From WomenPayingSupport.com--'Be a Man...Don't Ask for Spousal Support.
To learn more about problems with the child support system, see my recent co-authored column New LA County Campaign Against ‘Deadbeat Dad’ List Unfairly Targets Low-Income Fathers (Los Angeles Daily News, 3/26/08).
"));
19 queries. 0.357 seconds.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
In addition, it's rather interesting that Heche claims to have fallen on hard times and couldn't pay her support for a month but now she's capable of handling full custody?
The courts are truly insane: Men who are capable of financially supporting their children are punished and children are given to parents who are shown to be financially irresponsible and rewarded. Just be sure your car alarm works when you park in neighborhoods near the courthouse...
June 9th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
... last week, Dr. Phil repeated an episode about a couple warring over their two daughters. One of the complaints by the former husband was that he and his new wife (pregnant, BTW) had to work extra hard so his first wife didn't have to. Apparently, the father had the kids half the time but still had to pay support. Dr. Phil suggested he go to court to seek a reduction in support. To which the new wife immediately responded, "We tried."
June 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I appreciate the effort to open dialogue on this but to answer your question-title to this post:
If Anne Heche were an unknown man named Andy Heche there is no way in any of the 10 circles of hell he would get such a break on his child support.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Isn't it the Family Court's practice in deliberating over divorce settlements to use the standard that the ex-wife (and by implication the children) are "entitled to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?"
Of course, gawd forbid that a recently divorced man has a career crisis, a downsizing, a long lay-off. Or maybe after being robbed of contact with his kids, he loses some of his competitive drive and ambition to earn more.
Especially in an industry as capricious as Hollywood, where an actor/actress can be this year's hottest commodity only to become next year's old news, the "lifestyle" can easily become a boom-and-bust cycle.
Chris Rock the genius comic has a great riff on this. A husband and wife go before the divorce court judge and SHE says:
"Your honor, I have grown accustomed to my nice big house, my Mercedes, my designer dresses, my Prada shoes, my tanning salon, my tennis lessons, private school for my kids...."
When he gets his chance to address the judge, HE says:
"Your honor, I don't have any problem with her wanting to maintain her lifestyle. But I have grown accustomed to
"boinking" this woman three times a week, so we can probably work this out."
(Obviously Rock did not say "boink." I cleaned it up in respect for Glenn's vocabulary ettiquette...)
June 9th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
roy:
Chris Rock the genius comic has a great riff on this. A husband and wife go before the divorce court judge and SHE says...
Reminds me of a male comic ( I forgot which one) that said:
"When we divorced she got the house, the cars, the boat, the children. All I got was the right to remain silent."
June 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
The Patriarchy thinks it's job is to protect "poor females." Not financially poor but just poor because they are females and supposedly don't get breaks in life like all us men. As judicial Watch the court watch dog states, we need to be able to sue Judges for malpractice when they take the law into their own hands.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The female sentencing discount in general is a mens issue as well as a womans issue. It is a mens issue because it treats men unfairly and more harshly. It is a womans issue because it treats women like little children incapable of adult responsibility. It is sexist logic all around. Masculists and feminists should have no trouble finding common ground with issues like this. Sadly, many feminists would rather expolit victim power over true equality.
MXY
June 9th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
As a Father being raped by the system and paying 66% of his income ($200.00 a week) for one child and told over and over again to get 2 0r 3 more jobs, that I should be able to make a minimum of $52,000.00 a year because I own my own business, who has filed bankruptcy, etc. etc. etc.............I find this article discusting and downright bias and showing special treatment towards women.
Heche can do what the judges have told me and go get 2 or 3 more jobs, sell all her assets, move into a trailer and eat off brand mac & cheese, etc. etc.
But NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! she's a woman and by God show mercy and compassion for this poor struggling woman and lower her child support!!!!!!!!!!! How pathetic!!!!
The Judge can easily make up for her reduction by financially raping the next few men that come before him. This is gender special treatment at its best and put mainstream to rub into all of us screwed fathers faces!!!!!!!!!
Yes I'm mad as hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
The reason most fathers can't get their payments lowered when they encounter financial or health problems is that they don't have the money to pay the lawyer to file the necessary motion, gather the evidence and attend the hearing. The solution to the problem is for states to pass laws allowing simple, summary hearings before a master, an arbitrator, mediator, etc, that don't require an attorney. If a non-custodial parent falls on hard times, he or she could just call the court, master, etc, schedule a hearing and go in with whatever documents are required, e.g. layoff notice, letter from employer, letter from physician, check stubs, etc. It's a change in the law we should lobby for. Plenty of things get adjudicated without resort to formal hearings.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Framed
Judging by your name/title I’m guessing you were setup some how. This happens all of the time. I once filed a contempt and motion to modify at the same time, the judge held her in contempt (7 days in the Harris county jail suspended) however, we did not take action on the modification. Well a few months later the court was going to drop the modification case and sent out a letter stating that the last day would be such and such. She got the letter and I did not. Guess what happened next. Her tax free incentive check (incentive to divorce/child support) suddenly doubled and my time with the kids was cut in half. WTF
That was the point where I had to become a man and not just call myself one. This other person was no longer my wife. This type of person will not hang around women with character (most women do have it). This person will around socialize with snakes, taking their advice. Who else would want to be around them? Between her actions and your desire to stay in your child’s life (with positive attitude) you can win.
So my friend perhaps (like I was told) you may need to man up, show the world who is the fit parent, not complain, not bad mouth all women and make people love to be around you. I may have been wrong in interpreting your title in which case ignore the above.
BTW: Storms pass so take care of yourself, your kid is going to need you.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Robert Franklin- I believe the 1-in-20 number Glenn quotes from the Urban Institute in his remarks at the top of this thread refers to non-custodial parents who had a legitimate basis for a reduction in child support, and who properly applied for a modification. Of that group, 95% did not receive the requested modification. I don' t have the UI's paper in front of me, so I'd be thankful if someone could provide better info or a citation to this paper. Wouldn't it be funny if most of the 5% of the NCPs granted a reduction from the UI study were women? My understanding is that, even with a severe and legitimate reduction in income (such as a construction worker losing both his legs in an automobile accident- and hence his ability to earn), a father's support obligation is unlikly to be reduced for at least six months, thus guaranteeing another "deadbeat dad" is created.
Even if you have the money to pay a lawyer to file the motion, and a legitimate reason for a reduction, you're unlikely to get a reduction in support obligation if you're a father.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
PolishKnight
"The courts are truly insane: Men who are capable of financially supporting their children are punished and children are given to parents who are shown to be financially irresponsible and rewarded. Just be sure your car alarm works when you park in neighborhoods near the courthouse..."
He who feeds the beast gets paid. Hence the incentive check going mostly to women. It works great. Men get taken to the cleaners and either complain quietly to each other or shoot someone. Women get taken to the cleaners then get together and march in the streets and call the local TV station. Now if you were part of the Family Destruction Industry which would you side with?
There are only two things we can do.
1) Get rid of the industry, won't happen. Not while 50% of the electorate may see a benefits in it.
2) Make the others feel our pain by learning to work the system (yes it can be done). In which case a large part of the electorate will help us destroy in FDI.
All the best
June 10th, 2008 at 12:03 am
All a man has to do to get his child support reduced is change his name to Anne Heche.
;)
June 10th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Kevin C Says,
So my friend perhaps (like I was told) you may need to man up, show the world who is the fit parent, not complain, not bad mouth all women and make people love to be around you. I may have been wrong in interpreting your title in which case ignore the above. BTW: Storms pass so take care of yourself, your kid is going to need you.
Thanks Kevin C. I am more frustrated with the system and how they are biased towards men and usually give women special breaks. I am a not bad mouthing woman. I have “manned up” and have shown the courts and this community who the better parent is and it has not done me any good. My ex is by all means not supporting my relationship with me and my daughter, but the true reason that I am in the circumstance is because of the family court system. My ex did not do this to my daughter and me, it was the judges and attorneys and the system in general. It’s the system doing this more than women in my opinion.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:31 am
FRAMED,
Take comfort in knowing you are not alone. Even though you may feel like you are being raped by the system, it is really strong armed robbery!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
The judge's comments to Adam Sacks sounds all to familiar. Although still suffering from a beating by the town marshal the deputy prosecutor believed i was able to go out and pick up aluminum cans alongside the highways and the magistrate agreed with her. This in spite of the medical evidence prssented to the court. Did I mention that the county prosecutor and I have much animosity for each other, and that the prosecutor's wife is head of the Child Support Division, and that the magistrate is the exwife of the chief deputy prosecutor and the magistrate is good friends with the Deputy Prosecutor; and that the prosecutor's son wrote special legislation in both 2005 and 2006 called "Snyder's Law" to remove me from elected office; and that the aforesaid magistrate at the urging of her friend the deputy prosecutor took my professional license from me so I am unable to earn my living in a way in whcih I am acustomed. Unparalled power to the prosecutor's office to establish debtor's prison for the first time in the United States. By the way I have outstanding receivables I should hire Congress to get the prosecutor to collect the civil debts owed to me and save me the grief of pursuit of those unable to pay me. My benevolent big uncle looking out for my interests, how empowered I would be!
June 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
After reading the comments here, it strikes me that there is a very simple solution to these problems: Simply do not get married. Do not have children. Problem solved.
Of course, that means: Wear condoms. I narrowly escaped an accident in that department recently. Wont happen again.
I mean, look, the deck is stacked against anyone that wants to be a father. The concept is a quaint notion now and just simply does not exist. Any man that gets married, has children, and gets be a father without major grief (beyond the normal worries that parents have) has done so against the odds. And things are only getting worse.
If you really want to try, look outside the US, Canada, and most of Europe for your woman. This may seem a tall order for those that do not travel internationally for work or do not have the money to travel, but really you can look for these women at home. There is a large first generation immigrant population in the US. Even this, however, does not come without it's challenges, in terms of language, culture, and related issues. For that matter, feminist groups (usually run by middle aged or older disaffected white women who realize that men are increasingly turning to women of color and are angry about that on top of everything else they are angry about) are targeting immigrant populations to teach them victimhood. In fact, Senator Biden wants to teach women in their native countries about the victimhood game by internationalizing VAWA. So, even this strategy is not without peril.
I am envious of the few fathers that I know who seem to have been lucky - I'd say Glenn is probably one of them. Still, I will not take the risk, because these cases seem to be the exception, not the rule.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Framed: Sorry to hear about that man, the system truly does suck doesnt it?
There are a couple things you can do, but i dont know your situation so i wouldn't know if they apply.
However the hypocrisy of this is when i tried to get a reduction in support they told me "too bad, were looking out for the child's interest", well, what about Homer, Anne Heche's son? IS reducing child support by 75% looking out for his "best interest".
And nah, doesn't matter if i have to sleep in my car, i'd better have that 75% of my income check ready or they'll throw me in jail, where i'll accumulate vast amounts of child support debt while in prison, finally get out after a few years in there, and then get thrown in all over again due to the debt that i accumulated in prison.
Vicious cycle eh?
June 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Framed
What a mess. I am very sorry to hear about your situation. The old school judges were not judges at all in my opinion. They seemed to take a certain job in doing men wrong (because it was easy). As men stand up and decide not to take it some of this is changing.
Here in Harris county Texas the judge in charge is a very professional guy Frank Rynd. This judge Rynd only wants to hear the facts. However, if he was busy and you got the old school associate judge (he’s no longer there) run or pretend you were ill and needed to go to the hospital. On second thought, if you went to the hospital he would give the women a default judgment of almost total custody and all of your money.
By design or not family court was formed to prosecute men. When you see judges like Rynd and others take the bench, things are changing. Not sure what I would do in your situation, but you will.
All the best
June 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Re: Did Anne Heche get preferential treatment in child support reduction. Short answer: YES !!! Long answer: Not worth the time !! But what is worth the print is the name of this liberal Holleywood starstruck butt-kissing family law court judge....Hay Glenn, how bout it next time ?? Remember this folks: The judges are the last line of defense in a courtroom 2nd only to a jury of your peers. These walking shreads of human debris in robes are not gods...give em all the publicity they deserve....and no cover whatsoever !!
June 10th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
No, if a man actually had the money to hire the lawyer, the courts would probably tell him that if he had enough money to hire a lawyer and contest it, that he should've instead spent the lawyer money on his kids...
I wonder, did Bobby Brown have this same judge? I doubt it...or maybe he did...it's just he was a man...just like all the other athletes out there...they're told, well, you should've saved all that money you did make before instead of throwing it away...why doesn't anyone say this to this woman?
June 10th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
roy,
I'm not sure if the "maintaining of lifestyle" has much to do with child support - I think it's more tied in with alimony, i.e. for the mother. For example if the kid had been attending private school..well, maybe it does!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am
whatmess:
I wonder, did Bobby Brown have this same judge? I doubt it...or maybe he did...it's just he was a man...just like all the other athletes out there...they're told, well, you should've saved all that money you did make before instead of throwing it away...why doesn't anyone say this to this woman?
While celebrity status may factor into it being male is still worse that getting the Queen of Spades in a game of Hearts. A few years ago P. Diddy's baby mama tried (and I'm pretty sure she failed) to get his child support payment raised to over $20,000 a month. Read that again, $20,000. There are a lot of people out there that don't make that in a year (I make about 21k a year myself) and she "needed" that much every month? Unless that child in question has a serious medical illness there is no way anyone can justify that much in monthly child support. Thats when it becomes baby mama support.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Yes, actually, interesting...my husband, our son and I will now live on about 2K a month too...but for some reason, his daughter needs 900USD a month to survive...nice...even though our son has autism...even though my husband is in sales and spends many hours driving, with the outrageous price of gas...It's all just sickening...
June 21st, 2008 at 7:28 am
Mark Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
It is everywhere UK AU CA better staying single.
Never trust a woman on contraception. - NEVER.
For you young guys, you really want to listen to Tom Leykis on i-tunes this will really bring you up to speed on many (not all) women, I have told all my buddies here in Australia about him.I
June 21st, 2008 at 7:31 am
I will be also handing out flyers at Monash and Melbourne UNI over the next few
weeks.Backed into a corner men have no choice but to get active.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:27 am
It's a fact that downward modifications are denied routinely for non-custodial parents when such a request is made based on proveable loss of income.
I made such a request myself and was told by the family law commissioner "Your income is what I say your income is and there is NOTHING you can do about it". She was right, there was nothing I could do about it. So I filed a C.C.P 170.6 disqualifying the Commissioner and the Presiding Judge ruled the modification to Zero based on the Mothers failure to cooperate in providing income informaiton.
Read my lips guys, I YOU ARE DENIED A MODIFICATION, don't accept NO for an answer, fight fight fight. until you get the modification. If you don't, you will end up in my postion, owing $100,000.00 in arrears based on a bogus support order that the courts should have modified in the first place. Once you owe arrears you can't pay, you are toast.
Good luck to you all.