E-Newsletter/Week in Review (1/6/09): Court Ruling Discredits Major Opponent of Fathers' Movement; Federal Court Issues MA. CS Ruling
January 5th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesFederal Court Rules Draconian New Child Support Guidelines Must Be Contested in State Courts, Not Federal
Federal judge Douglas Woodlock today refused to decide the merits of a constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’ draconian new child support guidelines, claiming that the guidelines are a state matter.
Dr. Ned Holstein, MD, executive director of Fathers and Families, which filed the suit to block the new guidelines from coming into effect, said the group is considering re-filing the lawsuit in state court within days.
According to the Associated Press, “In its complaint, the group said the new guidelines call for support payments to be calculated based primarily on income, not the expenses incurred by the parents to raise the child.”
The new guidelines will cause almost all child support orders to increase substantially -- when all factors are considered, middle-class recipients will enjoy a standard of living almost double that of payers who earn about the same amount. In some cases, child support orders will triple, even in cases in which the payer is poor and the child is economically comfortable because the custodial parent earns over $100,000. And in high income cases, the child support order for one child could be nearly $50,000.
The Massachusetts Lawyers’ Weekly adds:
“Fathers & Families argues that Massachusetts Chief Administrative Judge Robert Mulligan and the Trial Court violated the federal equal protection clause by implementing discriminatory rules, the federal due process clause by passing a law by ‘judicial fiat,’ and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by passing a law without the participation of the other two branches of state government.”
Dr. Holstein served on the commonwealth’s Task Force that recommended the new guidelines, but authored a minority report dissenting from the main recommendations. Dr. Holstein said:
“The new guidelines will harm children. Kids want to live with both parents after divorce, and we want them to be well cared for in both homes. We call it the “two condo solution.” But these new guidelines will create a ‘castle versus a hovel’ situation for kids. These increases are radical and unexplained and come at the worst possible moment--just as a bad recession is causing people to lose their jobs or suffer declining incomes.”
Fathers & Families needs a big war chest if it is to pursue its legal offensive in state court--please support this effort with your tax-deductible gift to Fathers & Families by clicking here. For those of you outside of Massachusetts, remember that a victory here could establish precedents that will help you in your state.
There was a large courtroom turnout in support of Fathers & Families' suit, close to 50 people --thanks to all of you who managed to get away from work on a post-holiday Monday morning to support this case.
Read the Associated Press coverage of the case here.
Read and comment on the Massachusetts Lawyers’ Weekly coverage of the case here.
You can read Fathers & Families' legal Complaint by clicking here, and Fathers & Families' Memorandum of Law by clicking here.
Dr. Holstein's minority report dissenting from the main recommendations can be seen here.
To learn more or to comment on this issue, click here.
Court Ruling Discredits Major Opponent of Fathers' Movement
Feminist groups, including the National Organization for Women, contend that Parental Alienation is a myth and a ruse used by abusive fathers to win control of their children in custody cases. To pick one example of many, Helen Grieco, until recently the Executive Director of California NOW, calls Parental Alienation Syndrome a "scam."
Feminist attorney Barry Goldstein, Esq. of New York has been one of the leading advocates for this position, and was the primary attorney in the highly-publicized Genia Shockome case in New York. Shockome, lost custody of her two children, now ages 13 and 11, to her ex-husband, Tim Shockome after a contentious custody battle in which Genia accused Tim of abuse. The Shockome case was widely reported, including this sympathetic article in Newsweek magazine, and Shockome was a popular feminist cause celebre a few years ago.
Goldstein (pictured in a suit & tie alongside Shockome) has worked with or been a member of many if not most of the organizations seeking to discredit Parental Alienation and the fatherhood movement. He has practiced law in New York for almost three decades, has authored a book on custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence, and is scheduled to speak at the annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference next week.
Last week Barry Goldstein, Esq. had his head handed to him.
The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a staggering five-year suspension of Goldstein for his conduct in the Shockome case. The Court called numerous statements Goldstein made concerning the Shockome case "dishonest, false, or misleading." The Court also criticized Goldstein for misuse of funds in another case he handled.
Regarding the Shockome case, the Court criticized what it called the "pervasive nature of [Goldstein's] deceptive conduct"--conduct which it said included "false accusations" about the case and "noncompliance with multiple court orders." The Court wrote:
On behalf of his client [Genia Shockome], he prepared and filed with this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. These materials contained sworn statements which were dishonest, false, or misleading.
To learn more, see Georgetown Law Center Ethics Counsel Michael S. Frisch's write-up here. To read the Court's decision itself, click here.
Goldstein's fall is a tremendous embarrassment to many of our opponents in the battle to achieve shared parenting, reform family law, and protect children's right to a relationship with both parents after divorce. These include: the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women; Justice for Children; The Battered Mothers Custody Conference; Stop Family Violence; The Leadership Council; and others.
To learn more and to discuss this issue, click here.
Some of the other issues I'm covering this week include:
Lesbian Couple Is Correct in Custody Dispute Against Father
And Now, Single Fatherhood by Choice
Gina Elise's 2009 'Pin Ups for Vets' Calendar Now Available
'When I was a child my father would spin me around till I fell asleep...I knew for sure I was loved'
'Dad would tuck me back into bed before heading out to work. It was our special time together'
To comment on what I've written or to join the lively discussion on my website, simply click on the "comments" link below each blog post on my website.
Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
"));
19 queries. 0.379 seconds.
January 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
US Court said: "claiming that the guidelines are a state matter."
To show the absurdity of this, consider, Michigan's Champion v Secretary of State, in which Michigan's Court of Appeals elevated enforcement of child support obligations and similar actions to a compelling state interest. Fair enough.
However, the court also held, in effect, that meeting the Federal requirements to get federal Title IV-D funds was also a compelling state interest. In this case, it seems to me that the court held that whatever was necessary to qualify for those funds was a de-facto state interest also. In this case, it meant enforcement of certain provisions regarding driver's licenses.
What's important here is that, in Michigan at least, the state courts have said "Whatever the feds say we must do is law in Michigan - there is no need for our legislature to act."
In other words, even if the state legislature were to pass a law explicitly rejecting some provision that was required by Title IV-D, such as driver's license provisions, the Michigan Court of Appeals could find that law unconstitutional on the grounds that meeting those requirements is a fundamental state interest!
So, how can federal courts conclude that states like Michigan rationally acting independently when their own state courts rule that they are not? Or would a federal judge rule that Michigan's guidelines are under federal control but Massachusetts's guidelines are not?
Here is relevant Appellate Digest language along with a link:
Champion v Secretary of State
Released: October 16, 2008
MCL 257.307(1)(a)
Domestic Relations - Child Support - Enforcement - Federal Funds - Qualification - Enforcement ProgramWelfare - Federal Funding - Requirements - Child Support Enforcement
To qualify for various federal welfare funds, a state must certify that it will operate a child support enforcement program which conforms to the child support enforcement act, being certain provisions of the Social Security Act, and that it will do so pursuant to an approved detailed plan. The state must collect overdue support payments, establish comprehensive systems to establish paternity, locate absent parents, and help families obtain support orders.
Domestic Relations - Child Support - Enforcement - Government Interest
The government has a compelling interest in the establishment of paternity, the tracking and locating of parents legally obligated to pay child support, the enforcement of support obligations, and the collection of support payments, and doing so in timely fashion, along with otherwise having in place a data-collection mechanism and network to assist in locating individuals, establishing paternity, and enforcing support obligations with respect to future births and parental responsibilities. The requirement of the federal child support enforcement act that driver’s license applicants furnish their social security numbers, as incorporated into state law, promotes these interests.
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?mode=view&digestId=69405