Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., 75, who died Wednesday, Mach 14, 2012, could well be called “the mother of parenting education” for children of divorced, never-married and separated parents.

Jayne, who lived in Los Angeles, died after a long battle with cancer.

Her “Breakthrough Parenting” book and course materials helped change the shape of parenting education, and is used in various court systems and by professionals around the country.

My favorite quote from Jayne is, “negativity is the destroyer of the good life.”  Haven’t you seen that happen over and over again?

Jayne was an adviser to the Children’s Rights Council and presenter at many CRC conferences, and other panels.  She was an expert on parental alienation of children.

Goodbye, dear Jayne.

–  David L. Levy, J.D., President Emeritus, CRC

There’s been a lot going on behind the scenes. More than you can imagine: proofing and editing the bill, trying to add everything that needs to get added for the “right” reform, then pulling back because the legislative process only knows one thing – incremental change not strategic overhaul, meeting with legislators, hearing opposition, responding to opposition, doing research to combat opposition, educating people on the facts, re-writing the bill to make accommodations for all the various people who have thoughts on what should be in the bill, balancing the deadlines, understanding committee process, researching all current law to make sure we don’t duplicate or conflict with anything currently in statute, meetings, meetings, and more meetings. Progress is being made. But now we face committee deadlines.

We still don’t know when we will get a hearing in the House Civil Law Committee on HF322.  If/when we pass out of that committee the bill goes to House Judiciary (Rep Steve Smith). The judiciary and the department of human services are given an opportunity on each bill to say what they think it will cost their departments to implement the bill. Anytime they want to kill a bill, they just make a high fiscal note. When there is no state money to implement the bill, it often dies. There is no apparent process to challenge a fiscal note.  Anytime a bill gets a large fiscal note, it’s difficult to proceed. Sometimes there are ways to get past it, but it is appears to be a highly “political” process.

The JPC/ESP bill could STILL get a fiscal note. We don’t know. But we know there are plenty of “system insiders” who want to kill our bill.  Fiscal deadlines are March 25. The opposition can also drag their feet on a fiscal note so by the time you get it its too late. Any legislative loophole like that is possible. The committee has no time to hear our bill before April at this point. We now face the uncertainty of a fiscal note, and we have the uncertainty of when the JPC/ESP bill will be heard in committee.
If you would like to help on this bill contact all house of representatives – emails and phone numbers are available at www. house.leg. state.mn. us .  Ask them to support HF322 – explain (briefly and without anger) how poorly the current family court system and how laws are not working, and especially the negative impact on children. Send them weekly emails providing quotes from key research
supporting JPC/ESP.

The Supreme Court ruled last week in Turner v. Rogers that indigent child support obligors do not have the right to a state-appointed attorney, even though the state seeks to incarcerate them for their failure to pay. The court instead held that, when a parent owing child support claims to be unable to pay due to indigence, due process only requires that the judge question the parent about his financial status.
This is woefully deficient–the judge is not the parent’s lawyer and has no obligation to vigorously represent him. Turner attempted to explain his poverty and plight to the judge, but was jailed anyway. He’s like tens of thousands of fathers and mothers across the country.

Even a study by the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement found that most parents behind on their child support earn poverty level wages and that judges routinely order child support without regard to the parent’s ability to pay. This amounts to debtor’s prisons, as the weight of the Court’s ruling falls only on the poor.

The solution to this is simple and fair. Accused murderers are entitled to state-appointed legal counsel—so should accused parents whose only “crime” is poverty.

Based on this premise, from now on, anyone dragged into court for owing child support & then a judge starts questioning them, ask the judge if he is representing you.  If no, then the judge can no longer ask questions. Every time the judge asks a question, your answer must be:  “I cannot answer the question judge, because I don’t have counsel to represent and inform me if my answer would help or harm me, so I will assert my First Amendment (Right to Protest) and Fifth Amendment (Right to remain silent) Rights”.  Every question asked should be met with that response. If the judge is going to throw you in jail, he’ll have a hard time doing it without you giving up ANY information.

Miranda v. Arizona says you have the Right to Remain Silent (or not Answer any questions at any time and in any proceeding, be it a criminal proceeding, or civil, or adjudicatory, or investigatory or administrative proceeding).

In fact, judges are not supposed to ask litigant’s questions and act in an investigatory manner. This is beyond the scope of their authority. They are acting in a ministerial and/or prosecutorial manner and can be sued for acting outside the scope of their authority.

There will be a presentation on Domestic Violence: Working to Create a Safe and Healthier Community Takes All Of Us!  As we look around we notice that our services and programs are not engaging or retaining men. For us to create a safe, healthier future for our children, families and communities, it takes all of us. This session will look at our programs and services from a fresh perspective.  We will work together to align our goals to engage, include and partner with men in our community to prevent domestic violence. We will use the research based practice of the Strengthening Families Framework and Protective Factor model to assess our programs and share practical knowledge. This is presented by Joanne Mooney of the Children’s Trust Fund.

I would encourage all parents to attend and share your experiences.  This is a great opportunity to let the professionals hear about your experiences trying to get assistance from our social service organizations.  This is also an opportunity to work with the professionals to help all become more aware and effective.

The Rochester Fatherhood Leadership Circle is a group of local professionals committed to strengthening our community by strengthening fathers and their families.  Local supporting organizations are Catholic Charities, Crossroads College, Family Service Rochester, Mayo Clinic, McKnight Foundation, Minnesota Fathers & Families Network, Olmsted County Child and Family Services, Olmsted Medical Center, Olmsted County Public Health Services, PAIIR, Rochester Public Schools, University of Minnesota Extension, and Voices For Children.

It’s true there has been progress in the family law system overcoming its gender bias, though rarely is the playing field even. In order to be truly fair to both parties, courts need to be completely gender blind, which is simply not the case.

In family law, more than any other area of the law, judges have a huge amount of discretion allowing ample opportunity for biases that we all as human beings have.  Since those presumptions are frequently held against fathers, men must spend more time, money, and effort just to try to get to a level playing field in a family law courtroom.

One purpose of the law is to protect us from those leanings of individual judges, but once you give a judge such a wide range of discretion and decision-making then it invites that sort
of bias. Historically, it has not worked in the favor of guys.

For example, many states’ child custody laws specifically say the child is entitled to maintaining a relationship with both parents, but those same laws do not outline the quantity of time each parent has to establish and foster that relationship.  At odds with it is the required presumption that a child should spend a majority of his or her time in the established custodial environment. This may be with both parents, but is usually with the primary caregiver–often either in reality or as perceived by an older, traditional judge–Mom.

With the growing number of stay-at-home dads and two-working-parent households, one would think that the presumption that a child should spend equal time with each parent is a given–but not so.  I’ve seen several cases where you have a highly successfully, financial well-off wife married to an unemployed or underemployed husband who cares for the children.  For the most part, judges and
opposing counsel see the situation and say, “Why doesn’t this guy go outand get a job?”

Now flip the roles. The husband is a high-paid executive and the wife is unemployed or underemployed. There is no presumption here that she should be working. In fact, many believe the woman is performing a perfectly legitimate role as a stay-at-home mom.  So a dad has to struggle to prove he is not guilty of being a deadbeat, but the same is not true when the situation is reversed.  Even when the father is employed,his job schedule works to his detriment. I’ve had countless cases where the man worked more than the wife, and now it is held against him because he was never deemed to be the primary caregiver, though his job financially benefited the family.

Yet it is not an option for him to decrease his work hours or income because he will face penalties and sanctions on the support side. The wife would argue that he is shirking his responsibilities and simply decreasing his income so he doesn’t have to pay as much child support and alimony. But how else can he maximize his time with his children?

After 20 years of experience spent with Cordell & Cordell representing men in domestic relations matters, I can’t help but notice the challenges consistently facing one side of the table–the guy’s
side.

Presently, many states are recognizing the importance of leveling the playing field in family courts. Some have had success (Tennessee recently passed a law that now requires judges to consider how to maximize both parents’ involvement in their child’s life when making custody decisions), while others consistently have bills stall in the legislature.  Yet every year we have more and more people at least talking about the concept of Dad having more parenting time.

Sure, the playing field might be leveling, but it is not level, and the players on the field are not equally equipped to play the game.

Joseph Cordell is the Principal Partner of Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide domestic litigation firm focused on men’s family law matters. Cordell & Cordell also provides a website dedicated to informing men on the divorce process and the challenges they face. Visit http://www.dadsdivorce.com for more information.

Here is a list of some of the free activities that will be enjoyed by all.

• Lunch
• Moon bounce
• Giant slide
• Rock climbing wall
• Cotton candy
• Petting zoo
• T-shirts for all fathers
• Music
• Multicultural dance performers
• “Father of the Year” awards
• Door prizes
• Obstacle course
• Displays of social services
• Face painting
• Bird house building
• Craft projects
• Legal consultations
• Chess tournament
• And more!
• Everything is free!

WASHINGTON, June 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “… This is to our President.  President Obama remarks often … It’s …  been two Father’s Day years in a row where he admonished fathers, especially African American fathers,  to step up to the plate. Well, I’m an ex-baseball player; almost went pro years ago… so my analogy is: When the fathers step up to the plate, we get a fast ball right between the eyes. …I’m not a teenage Dad, I’m not a Dad who doesn’t work, I don’t have a criminal past or an anger management problem, yet my little boy is growing up without his father.”

The above quote comes from the trailer for filmmaker Janks Morton’s powerful new film, Guilty Until Proven Innocent (GUPI).

In his unique documentary style, the thought provoking questions posed by Morton will shock and move viewers when they see how fathers really feel about their children and the courts.

Says American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.ACFC.org) Executive Director, Michael McCormick, “In his June 20, 2011 People Magazine interview President Obama states: ‘…I have learned something over the years about what children need most from their parents.  They need our time, measured not only in the number of hours we spend with them each day, but what we do with those hours.’”

“Yet millions of America’s fathers, and tens of millions of children, are right where the family court orders them to be, out of each other’s lives.  Dads are then unfairly blamed for being ‘absent.’ ‘Standard Visitation’ means over 1/3 of America’s children spend an average of four days a month with their Dad.   The fortunate kids also receive some holidays and a couple of weeks in the summer.  The system is cruel to children and their fathers.  Separating children and fathers is unnecessary and correctable,” adds McCormick.

Taxpayers foot an enormous bill for this failed system.  Society is exploring solutions for high rates of broken and never-formed families, high rates of incarceration, and the financial and human costs of family breakdown.  GUPI shines as a beacon of hope for those parents and children caught up in the nightmare world of family court and child support agencies.  It also serves as a guidepost for policymakers.

For tens of millions children, and their fathers, a national dialogue on the most pressing issue our society faces today can’t come soon enough.

Rudolph Giuliani stated that “family courts absolutely need reform.

President Obama has admirably emphasized the importance of fathers in children’s lives. However, he has chosen to focus only on the part of fatherlessness which is caused by irresponsible fathers, and not the large part of it that is caused by the family court system.

Gary Johnson, a former two-term governor of New Mexico, said:  “Anything I could do on the federal level I would do, as president, to address [this] real inequality. I recognize it, having been
Governor of New Mexico. It’s a huge issue…the courts rule…usually [if not] always against the fathers…[in these rulings, fathers rights'] are obliterated, they’re nonexistent. I recognize that…I’m open to ideas [on fixing it].”

Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman certainly stopped short of specifically calling for family court reform, in contrast to what Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Gary Johnson stated. However, we commend both of them for publicly recognizing the importance of two parent involvement in children lives after divorce or separation, and expressing interest in how to reform the system to promote it.

Tim Pawlenty stated that “One of the most significant determining factors of how children are going to do in school and more broadly in life is the degree of involvement and engagement of their parents in their lives. We want to encourage that to the fullest extent possible. And so the laws…as they relate to the relative balance between custodial and non-custodial [should reflect] that we want both parents engaged and productive…in their children’s lives.”

We’ll continue to monitor candidates and their positions on the urgent need for family court reform and report them to you

.

Now, we’re taking another stab at it. Let’s see what happens.