The Saturday, October 25, 2014 Hartford Courant editorial (p A9) engages in a poorly researched attack on Rep Minnie Gonzalez, who is seeking a 10th term in the legislature. To their shame, they neglect to mention Minnie’s heroic role in the family court reform movement. In fact, Rep. Gonzalez embraced the need for family court reform, even at the beginning of the process when she was ridiculed as a radical. After unanimous vote for Minnie’s legislation, senators and representatives thanked Rep. Gonzalez for not giving up on court reform. Congratulations and hugs from her colleagues rewarded Minnie’s hard work and dedication to the legislation. Shame on the Courant for cherry picking the information they use in their editorials.
Patrick Glynn is walking 400 miles from Boston to Washington DC, taking every step for family law reform. He’s looking for walkers to join him on part of his journey, or simply provide a couch to spend a night, and is passing through CT this week.
to sign up and learn more.
Connecticut’s Commission for Child Support Guidelines has been meeting for over four years without seriously considering this issue or even proposing any revision to the Guidelines. They have ignored substantial evidence showing that Guidelines should be revised to reflect shared parenting. They have ignored shared parenting Guidelines adopted in Massachusetts in 2013.
Should the legislature intervene now that the process is clearly broken?
Comment on this issue by clicking “leave a response” below.
On Friday, June 27, 2014, Connecticut’s Department of Social Services (DSS) sponsored a one-day conference. This conference focused on the relationship between child support and effective parenting. It emphasized the importance of co-parenting and of father involvement with their children. The judicial branch, Support Enforcement Services (Charisse Hutton) and Family Support Magistrates Division (Norma Sanchez-Figueroa) emphasized the importance of parental involvement and the negative influence of excessive support orders.
- The keynote speaker was Vicki Turetski, Commissioner, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
- She emphasized that regular child support payments increase with parental involvement.
- She lauded the Fatherhood Initiative, a federal program that began in 2000.
Brief Summary of Conference Themes
The themes of the conference centered on the connection between parental involvement and financial support for children living with one parent. Even in cases with past domestic violence, a structured program and a commitment to change behavior can lead to successful co-parenting. There was general agreement that parental time and decision making responsibility are at least as important as child support dollars. The dollars can interfere with parental involvement when support orders are unrealistic or when arrearages build up due to illness, unemployment of incarceration. The conference proposed specific remedies such as in-kind child support payments and easy ways to reduce support orders after illness or unemployment. Child Support Guidelines in Connecticut are unrealistic at low income levels, but currently the Commission has failed to appreciate the damage this does.
Possible conclusions with respect to root causes of excessively high child support orders
The root cause of the problem addressed by the Conference is, in my opinion, the economic studies used to justify excessively high support orders. The studies are flawed in many ways, including: 1) The assumption that percentages should be based on an intact family; 2) the assumption that only one parent, the “custodial parent,” is capable of making financial decisions on behalf of children.
A 2013 economic study by Sarro and Rogers provides some new thinking and new data. See: Mark A. Sarro and R. Mark Rogers, “Economic Review of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines,” submitted to the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Task Force (June, 2013). Here are some key points from that study:
“Most states base their child support guidelines, to some extent, on specific economic studies. However, the most widely used studies do not measure actual direct spending on children and are based on national data. Most child costs are not directly observable, but rather are indirect costs shared by adults and children in a household, such as housing and food. Therefore, the available economic data are estimates with theoretical and practical limitations, and the resulting child cost estimates are informative and important to consider, but they are not determinative.” p 1
“There simply is not a definitive source of data to dictate whether the resulting Guidelines amounts are right or wrong with certainty and in every case. This is why presumptive awards are rebuttable, based on case specific facts that diverge from presumptive facts. The rest of this report summarizes the economic principles, approaches, and most current data available to help inform the Task Force’s review of the current Guidelines.” p. 13
Income Shares estimates, such as the Betson-Rothbarth amounts, also rely on data from intact (specifically, husband-wife) households to inform policy decisions for households which are not intact. These guideline models implicitly assume economic decisions are made the same way for separate households as for married households, when, in fact, the economic tradeoffs may be very different. One obvious difference is the additional overhead cost required by two separate households relative to the cost of a single household. By failing to account for this additional cost, economic models likely overestimate the standard of living of a non-intact household at a given income level. Maintaining a standard of living estimated based on intact household data likely requires more income than is actually available to a non-intact household.” pp 19-20. Sarro and Rogers show that shared parenting implies higher fixed costs associated with maintaining two households, and that intact families would adjust to such costs.
Sarro and Rogers (2013) produce detailed data – based on a large random sampling of support orders from several districts within Massachusetts – showing that a large percentage of couples agree to amounts far below Guidelines. These new data raise questions: why any state adopts Guidelines that many consider unreasonable? Why is only one parent presumed to be competent to make spending decisions on behalf of children?
The Commission has split on the issue of unreasonably high child support guidelines and its implications for parental involvement with their children. This split is particularly relevant in light of the Massachusetts shared parenting guidelines adopted in 2013. Massachusetts had data showing that a large percentage of couples agree to amounts far below Guidelines. This raises the issue of why any state adopts Guidelines that many consider unreasonable.
The Department of Social Services (DSS) paid for an economic study of the Guidelines. The Study recommended lowering Guideline percentages at the low income levels, raising the percentages at middle and high income levels. The Commission voted to accept the recommendation to raise the percentages but rejected the proposal to lower the percentages for low income obligors.
DSS has recognized that these policies can damage a child’s relationship with his or her parents. A 2014 letter from DSS Commissioner Rodrick L. Bremby makes the case for accepting the entire economic study. He says “A father’s emotional, social and educational support as well as financial support is imperative to the growth of a well-rounded child.” He states that the percentages required of low income obligors are unrealistic and “counterproductive to fostering the parent-child relationship as it may lead to uncollectable child support orders and drive noncustodial parents to underground economies and alienation from their children.”
After the vote to retain unrealistic percentages, David Mulligan, Director, Bureau of Child Support Enforcement, resigned as chair of the Commission. DSS stated its intentions to withdraw staff support from the Commission unless the partial adoption is reversed. Staff support is considered essential to completion of the Commission’s task because drafting of regulations is a highly specialized activity.
The SPC continues to advocate for shared parenting guidelines and for repeal of unrealistically high percentages of income.
Contact email@example.com for more information.
When: Monday March 31, preferably near 8am, but any time after that is OK.
Between 8am and 10am you sign up for a lottery number. After that you sign at the bottom of the list of speakers. Expect to compete with many people testifying.
Where: Legislative Office Building, Second floor. Driving directions:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/DrivingDirections.asp. If the Parking Garage is full (which is likely), there’s a pay garage in a commercial building on Oak Street opposite the entrance to the Appellate Clerk’s office.
What: Bill 6685 – shared parenting; RB 494 -GAL reform; Bill 5524, alimony reform
If you can’t attend, submit written testimony by email: JUD.Testimony@cga.ct.gov . You can even submit written testimony through Tuesday, April 1.
Please testify to any of the following points that agree with your thinking and experience:
• Most of the problems – alienation, excessive cost, and experts trying to substitute their opinions for the parents’ – could be solved if judges, family relations officers and others simply asked repeatedly: which parent is more likely to provide “frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact” between the child and the other parent?
o The courts need to clearly send the message that each parent must promote frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent.
o Of course there are exceptions in cases with proven violence, neglect or abuse.
• Guardian Ad Litems (GALs) need to be carefully supervised as specified in RB494. Here is a link to the full text: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/TOB/S/2014SB-00494-R00-SB.htm
o RB 494 will be hotly contested by professionals who are making lots of money on the existing family court system.
o The Shared Parenting Council supports RB 494 as a step in the direction of much needed reform.
• Modify RB 494 to require GALs to promoting active involvement by both parents.
• Alimony requires guidelines for judges to follow. This will ensure consistency across courts in Connecticut.
• Absent abuse, neglect and domestic violence, children have the constitutional right to have both parents equally involved in their lives.
• There’s no oversight or accountability of the court appointed professionals such as GALs, AMCs, Psychological Evaluators. This opens the door to a few who want to exploit the system. Only in very rare circumstances should a judge appoint a GAL or any other individual to a family absent proven abuse and neglect.
• Absent findings of abuse or neglect the judge should be required to tell counsel and parties that we have a presumption of shared equal parenting time. If the parents disagree about the amount of time, then the burden of proof is on the parent who is not agreeing to up to 50% time for the other parent.
• The judge will enforce the laws and then sanction parents who lie to the court or mislead the court in an attempt to seek more parenting time. Sanctions need to be monetary and/or in the form of community service.
• Parental alienation: a Judge needs to be alerted in an emergency hearing that a child about potential alienation. DCF will be called in. Hopefully this will be a detergent for any alienator in their early stages of abuse.
We had a tremendous turnout in January, and as a result the Judicial Branch is beginning the process of reform.
Don’t miss this opportunity to participate in these major changes in Connecticut law.
Over 50 people attended a hearing of Connecticut’s Custody Task Force at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford, Thursday, January 9, 2014.
Almost all spoke in favor of the presumption of shared parenting as a starting point. If shared parenting were presumed by the court, then parents would realize that they are wasting their time and money when they fight for control and time. Of course, shared parenting would be subject to review if there is substantial evidence of abuse or neglect,
The crowd enthusiastically supported many speakers who testified about excessive legal costs associated with custody issues. Several talked about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal costs.
Would you like a model plan for shared parenting? It gives details of shared parenting time and decision making responsibility. Just leave a comment below specifying your interest.
Child Support Guidelines should recognize shared parenting. Testify to improve the lives of children in Connecticut.September 4th, 2013
Hearings on 9/17 and 9/24. See below for details.
Suggested testimony: child support guidelines should recognize shared parenting
• Tell your own story, or the story of those you know, about a noncustodial (also known as “nonresidential” or not “primary residence”) parent who was made a second class parent, a visitor with his or her own children, or was unable to maintain a home for overnights.
o Try to weave the points below into your story.
• Everyone wants to adequately support their children.
o Do not recommend any reduction in total support for children. (The reason: CT’s support amounts are at or below those in surrounding states and about average for the nation.)
o Children need active involvement of both parents.
o Parental Responsibility Plans (PRP’s), currently required in CT, emphasize active involvement by parents. Child Support Guidelines need to catch up and encourage shared parenting.
• Shared parenting should be recognized by allocating child support between the two parents appropriately.
o Both parents need to maintain adequate residences for the children.
o Two nights per week is substantial involvement requiring maintenance of a home for the children.
• Massachusetts adopted new Child Support Guidelines effective 8/01/13
o Recommend that we adopt MA Guidelines for two shared parenting situations: 1. substantially equal time or 2. substantial (2 or more nights per week) but unequal time.
How and where do you submit written testimony?
By email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please copy NPO on your submission: email@example.com
When and where do you testify?
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Department of Social Services
New Haven District Office
50 Humphrey Street
New Haven, CT
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Department of Social Services
Norwich District Office
401 West Thames Street, Unit 102
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Department of Social Services
Waterbury District Office
249 Thomaston Avenue
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Department of Social Services
925 Housatonic Avenue
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Department of Social Services
25 Sigourney Street
How much time will you have to testify, and how do you sign up?
Expect 2-3 minutes for your testimony.
Arrive about 15 minutes early in case there is a sign up.