Transcript of ACFC President Stephen Baskerville's Debate with Cynthia Brown
April 12th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Recently Ohio’s Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency launched a highly-publicized new campaign which puts mug shots of the County’s “Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents” on pizza boxes. The idea was the brainchild of Agency Executive Director Cynthia Brown. To learn more about the story, click here.
Three representatives of the fathers' movement have debated Cynthia Brown over the past few weeks:
Brown debated family law attorney Maury Beaulier (top right) on Fox & Friends. To watch, click here.
Dr. Stephen Baskerville (right), president of the American Coalition or Fathers and Children, debated Brown on CNN. Video is not yet available, but the transcript of the debate is below.
I debated Brown on FOX News’ nationally-syndicated Morning Show with Mike and Juliet on Tuesday (below right)–to watch, click here.
Transcript of ACFC President Stephen Baskerville debating Cynthia Brown on CNN, 4/1/07
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: A wanted poster delivered with your pizza, of all things, is happening in a suburb of Cincinnati. Mugshots of parents accused of not paying child support appearing on pizza delivery boxes. A child enforcement worker came up with this idea and pitched it to pizza places in Ohio's Butler County.
While this may sound like a good idea, to many, it does have its critics. One of those critics being Steven Baskerville of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. There he is. And he joins us from Washington. And from Cincinnati, Ohio, this morning, the woman who came up with this idea, Cynthia Brown. Good morning to you both.
CYNTHIA BROWN, CHILD ENFORCEMENT WORKER: Good morning.
STEVEN BASKERVILLE, ADVOCATE FOR FATHERS: Good morning.
NGUYEN: Cynthia, let me start with you. Why did you come up with this idea and how did you come with it?
BROWN: Well, first of all we placed two wanted posters a year and they're large poster-size posters, and I came up with the idea in late 2005 to downsize the posters for law enforcement cruisers. One evening, my husband and my stepdaughters and I ordered a pizza, and they always have the coupons on top of the pizza box and they were the same size as the downsized posters, and I thought, hey, why don't we approach pizza parlors and see if they'll put these on top of pizza boxes. My husband said I needed a vacation. Instead of taking a vacation, I decided to run with the idea and so here we are.
NGUYEN: Well, did you get any pizza companies saying, wait, wait, wait, this is too controversial, not for us. We're not interested.
BROWN: Some of the larger chains. I think they felt it might be a negative. A lot of mom and pop chains did join in and we were pleased with that I think the larger chains thought it was negative, because it's a lack of education in child support and in what we do and how we go about doing our business.
NGUYEN: And how effective has it been?
BROWN: Excuse me?
NGUYEN: How effective has it been so far?
BROWN: We have -- we started the poster owns pizza boxes in August of last year and there were 10 individuals put on that poster, men and women, we put a new poster out, downsized it to the pizza boxes, the end of January and this happened to be just all men and we did get somebody -- I think it was the day after.
NGUYEN: Wow, that's pretty quick. Steven, now you have a problem with this. What is the harm in putting these pictures on pizza boxes?
BASKERVILLE: This is an outrageous use of government power. The entire child support system in this country has been hijacked by special interests in ways that dangerously increase government power. Child support was intended for parents who willfully abandon their children and leave them on public welfare. It's has been perverted into a system of forces parents to pay for stealing their own children.
NGUYEN: But if deadbeat parents won't pay, shouldn't something be done?
BASKERVILLE: Parents do pay for their children -- fathers do voluntarily pay for their own children.
NGUYEN: But there are those who don't.
BASKERVILLE: There are always those who don't and they can be taken care of. What this is a system of taking children away from their fathers and using the children as an excuse to plunder the fathers. There's a massive system of child exploitation that cynically uses children to loot their families, to loot their fathers to destroy their homes. We have a massive problem in this country of fatherless children.
NGUYEN: Let's not paint with a broad brush. And Cynthia, I want to get you rreaction of what he's saying, the criticism of this plan.
BROWN: Right, first of all, we don't have -- our agency has no rights to custody, visitation, we don't deal with those issues. We deal with child support issues alone. In other words when a court orders child support, we follow those orders, and I'd like to comment on the willingfully abandoning a child. That's exactly who is on the posters, those individuals who have run from their moral, ethical, and financial responsibility. These aren't individuals -- excuse me -- who have fallen on hard times. These are individual who have run and run for years. This isn't a matter of "I haven't paid for six months," if somebody works with us, we'll work with them. These individuals on the posters are those people who do not want a relationship with their children, do not want to pay their child support and I personally will go after each and every one of those
individuals and hold their collective feet to the fire.
NGUYEN: Steven, let me ask you this. Is there a fear in your mind that this will have a negative impact on children?
BASKERVILLE: It certainly does have a negative impact on children. It's the flagrant exploitation of children to increase the power of government officials. Throughout this country, millions of children, literally, are forcedly separated from their parents by family courts, by social service agencies and this child support chicanery is nothing but a subsidy on stealing children from their fathers, it's a subsidy on involuntary divorce. Ms. Brown may says that she's not part of this, but this is, of course, the bureaucrats plea, we didn't take away your children, the office down the hall took away your children. Then the
next office takes your bank account, the next office takes your savings, and then the next office along, they take you...
NGUYEN: Cindy, is he going to far with this or what do you think about it?
BROWN: Here's what I've got to say and that is, I was really hoping today to get somebody from fathers' rights who would sit down and actually listen and stop with the anger, because anger won't get children money, it won't help us...
BASKERVILLE: Excuse me. No parent is going...
BROWN: And I keep getting -- I keep getting these individuals coming to me from fathers' rights quoting me statistics from 1992, putting my family's home address on the Internet, putting us in danger, when all's I'm doing is doing my job and doing it well, and if that irritates the father' rights group, I don't know what to say.
BASKERVILLE: There is not a shred of evidence ever presented by a government agency or an academic study that there was a problem of fathers not supporting their children and paying child support. There is solid evidence of large numbers of children being forcedly separated from their fathers without the fathers having done nothing wrong. There is also -- there is also numerous scholars who have shown there is nonpayment problem of child support. This is entirely whipped up hysteria by government officials to whip up animus against innocent people.
NGUYEN: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. We appreciate both sides of this argument. It's definitely a debate and not everyone is in support of this plan. But we appreciate you both coming on the show today and talking about both sides. We thank you. Cynthia Brown and Stephen Baskerville, we appreciate it.
BROWN: Thank you, have a good day.
BASKERVILLE: Thank you.
"));
19 queries. 1.279 seconds.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
She's getting her money's worth from that white suit, that's for sure! That thing's been on TV more than you, Glenn!
I like how she compartmentalizes her responsibility as "we're only responsiblie for the child support, not the custody." She reminds me of Michael Palin's character in "Brazil" who casually tortures people during the day and then goes home to his kids.
I sometimes disagree with Baskerville in that I get the impression he attributes much of the machine to the conscious construction of power hungry politicians.
I think it's much more something that grows from the ignorant compartmentalization of folks like Ms Brown who tend to view the people that are actually affected as an abstraction without really exploring the road that ends with one's face on a pizza box.
Here's Brown's quote from the Butler county website http://www.butlercountycsea.org/
"Some, not every parent, see child support as an injustice. Others see it as an investment in a child's future. By meeting current needs, the child can gain the encouragement to look to the future with hope. Dreams are born and they can see tomorrow in a different light."
What a bunch of meaningless drivel! That group of sentences, if you break it down, doesn't actually even have any meaning. This is the sort of functionally semi-literate mindset that gets us where we are now.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:28 am
....another knockout debate victory for the Father's Rights advocates. Brown should have a white towel ready to toss for the next one of these...
April 12th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Oh yeah and wanted to add...
But damn it's great to see someone like Baskerville face up to these people without flinching or leading every sentence with some lame qualifier!
That's what we need more of.
April 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Very nice rebuttal by talking about each office in the hall.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I honestly don't feel that Dr. Baskerville's arguments were very effective in this particular situation. Rather than discussing salient issues relevant to the debate, such as how many of the fathers on the Pizza Box List have low-to-no-income but high-to-higher support debts, and that the Pizza Box List unfairly targets men, Dr. Baskerville attacked the larger institution, a vile creature that Ms. Brown cannot directly influence. I feel that Dr. Baskerville should have kept his argument focused.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Jeez... Baskerville comes across as a complete nut. He's preaching to the choir, and failing to convince anyone else who might be uninformed or on the fence on the issue. Baskerville gives fathers rights activists a bad name.
Glenn Sacks did a much better job in his debate pointing out the realities here.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:04 am
I think others have done that and Dr. Baskerville came at it with a reasoned response from another perspective. From my perspective, Dr. Baskerville did a fantastic job highlighting the outright agenda of rage & retribution Ms. Brown is running.
Note her statement,
And I keep getting — I keep getting these individuals coming to me from fathers’ rights quoting me statistics from 1992, putting my family’s home address on the Internet, putting us in danger, when all’s I’m doing is doing my job and doing it well, and if that irritates the father’ rights group, I don’t know what to say.
Dr. Baskerville had simply responded to the way this obvious ZEALOT claimed she was just doing her job - like the Nazis who only killed Jews while following orders right? Dr. Baskerville pointed out she is part of the problem and not separate like she claims. She revealed her own connection by her outrageous statement above. She is following an agenda and she has an obvious problem with men.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Glenn
I speak for everyone (well, except William Spence) in congratulating you for your tireless efforts to provide more momentum to this movement. Those of us, who have fought this battle for way too long, still greatly appreciate you battling the big forest fires while we are preoccupied stomping out our little flare-ups.
The dismal failure of the Ohio Child Support Enforcement agency has been thrust in the face of the entire nation by the woman in charge. Everyone saw a CSE spokesperson get on TV and essentially tell everyone: 'Even though we can garnish wages, deny licenses, plunder bank accounts, and issue warrants for arrest - we still can't do what the taxpayers are paying us to do.'
It would be nice to have someone walk CSE through their procedures to discover if they are qualified to be recognized as a Child Support Enforcement agency as defined by Federal law.
"Does CSE have a wage withholding order for any of these men on the pizza box?"
"Does CSE enforce wage withholding orders if employers fail to pay?"
"Does CSE impose a civil fine against employers for failing to withhold wages?"
"Does CSE impose a civil fine against employers for terminating or refusing to hire an employee due to a wage withholding order?"
"Does CSE charge less than 6% per annum interest on unpaid child support?"
"Does CSE disburse all collections to the custodial parent until the child support principal is paid off?"
"Does CSE disburse collections to the US taxpayers as TANF or Foster Care after the child support principal is paid off?"
"Does CSE disburse collections to the custodial parent as interest after the US taxpayers and the child support principal is paid off?"
If the answer is "NO" to any of the above questions, then CSE has no business being in business. They become a fictitious business depriving rights and privileges under the color of law.
"Does CSE charge more than 6% per annum interest on unpaid child support?"
"Does CSE disburse collections to the custodial parent as interest before the child support principal is paid off?"
"Does CSE double report all collections that are distributed as interest in the State's annual incentive calculations?"
If the answer is "YES" to all of these 3 questions, then CSE has perpetrated every form of fraud there is a law for (mail, taxpayer, credit, and, consumer). They become an organized crime wave victimizing parents across counties, across states, and across oceans.
Who is the deadbeat now?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I was talking to a co-worker yesterday who used to manage a small business, small enough not to offer benefits. He had a female employee who paid CS and was required to maintain health insurance on her kids. Since she worked for a place that did not offer it normally, the employer was forced to take out a policy just for her and make sure the premiums were paid, etc. When the court issued the order, the employee brought the documents to the manager, who could not believe what he was seeing. This was a personal matter, but the law was requiring him to take action so that his employee was able to comply. He went so far as to call the CSE office and was told by them that they do not make the rules, they just have to follow them, and unless he (the manager, not even part of this divorce) wanted to face stiff fines he had better comply. Yet another strong-arm, and illegal, tactic by a CSE office.
Here is another kicker, in TX there is a program to ensure all kids have insurance if their parents can't afford to pay for private and their employer does not offer it. This mom was part-time in a minimum wage job, so she as the one solely responsible for the insurance would qualify. I do not know if the father's income would have been considered, I do not know all the details of how this program works. But I would think the qualifications would have been met and the kids would have been covered. Granted, the mother would have gotten out of having to pay out of her own pocket, but the employer would not have been involved for one, and neither parent would have gone further into debt to insure their kids. It is my understanding the father in this situation also earned minimum wage, although for full-time employment.
Another thing to think about concerning insuring the kids. Why is it they always want the non-custodial parent to maintain the coverage? Seems to me this is automatic, no matter the circumstances. I think they should look at both parents, see which one has insurance to begin with, if both have it (or can get it) then look at which policy is better suited for the child, then that parent is responsible. Making the non-custodial pay no matter what is just another way to punish that parent. No matter which parent you are, those are your kids and making sure they have health insurance and easy access to medical care should be a high priority, not a weapon to use against your ex.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
...we do have to be afraid of a government that believes it is OK to humiliate citizens like this...
April 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
The one sided debate that I had with Ms. Cynthia Brown on Fox News was rather absurd. A more even handed debate was held on WCCO radio and can be found online at http://www.hjlawfirm.com/newsroom/podcasts/Pizza%20Box.mp3
April 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
The Fox and Friends debate was almost a carbon copy of Glenn's debate (only Glenn was far more effective with his arguments and ability to talk about Ms. Brown and the commentator). However, just like Glenn's debate the commentator sided with Ms. Brown to double-team Mr. Beaulier not letting him get a word in edgewise. I would have expected this from other media, but not from Fox (very disappointed in the and they will know about it... also no longer going to be a listener or viewer).
I don't know how Ms. Brown sleeps at night. All she does is to justify her ridiculous position by propagating the myth i.e. "oh if fathers fall on hard times we'll work with them, i've been through hard times myself". I'll wager she's never been through hard times while facing the prospect of paying child support or going to jail. Nor has she tried to fight an unjust system in getting a downward modification after loosing a job or significant income (which could take years, if ever, and the system is purposely designed that way). Ms. Brown is the lowest form of bottom feeder and doesn't deserve a public position on the tax payers dole.
April 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
CORRECTION OF TYPO
Should read "(only Glen was far more effective with his arguments and ability to talk above Mr. Brown and the commentator when they uninterrupted him)"
April 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I think this pizza box campaign is revolting. How much do you think they were compensated for issuing the posters with the box? No business owner would do this for free. We should all order pizzas, then reject them at the door when they come with this Scarlet letter attached to them. Just exactly how many lost sales do you think small mom and pop shops will tolerate before ending this?
April 21st, 2007 at 12:55 am
[...] For additional information on the issue visit the Website of National Father's Rights Commentator Glenn Sacks. [...]
April 25th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
[...] Stephen Baskerville : “There’s a massive system of child exploitation that cynically uses children to loot their families, to loot their fathers to destroy their homes.” [...]
July 31st, 2007 at 9:37 am
As a strong supporter of Dr. Baskerville, Glenn Sacks, Maury Beaulier and the tireless efforts of others to shed light on the assault of non-custodial Dads, we find the representations of Ms. Brown and her ilk repugnant. The wide brush with which Ms. Brown paints child-support arrearages doesn't take into account the growing evidence that non-custodial Dads actually ARE doing the most they can do under the current and repressive one-size-fits-all support mandates.
We know of many Dads that not only pay unreasonable support payments, but they must maintain additional living space for their children in their new 'batchelor pad'. Fair? The costs of parenting during their limited times with the child(ren) can often add an amount that totals half of their monthly support payments, making them obligators of far more than the supposed equitable cost sharing. Dads effectively pay a greater portion of the costs of maintaining a roof over their child(ren)'s heads because they fund child living spaces under TWO roofs.
Another issue that seems to fall through the cracks is the struggle Dads feel when their support payments appear to aid and abet a dysfunctional custodial atmosphere, where children fail to receive adequate nutrition, responsible supervision or academic guidance. Poor diets, sleep deprivation and bad grades recur while Dads continue to fund the dysfunction.
Lawmakers have created a massive system in which hundreds of thousands of participants make very significant incomes on the backs of Dads and the inequitable Family Court system. To suggest hope that lawmakers will change the system and thereby reduce the positions and the revenue from this massive bureacracy makes one ponder if adding it to a wish list under your pillow on Christmas Eve.
Lastly, those that place 'scarlet-letters' of shame on Dads that may have fallen on hard times is irresponsible, reckless and shameful.
http://www.divorcerecoverysuite.com