The American Coalition for Fathers and Children The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is dedicated to creating a family law system which promotes equal rights for all parties affected by divorce. Contact the ACFC at 1-800-978-3237 or visit them on the web at www.acfc.org.

Parenting Plan Calendar Software Shared Ground (R) is an easy-to-use software program designed for divorced parents to track their parenting plan schedules over many years. Do-it-yourself or let us build your approved parenting plan into a multi-year calendar so that you can print, share, or modify the calendar later. Parents, attorneys, arbitrators and mediators can generate equitable parenting plans, which is especially useful for parents seeking fair division of their children's time. FREE ASSISTANCE TO OUR CLIENTS- $49.95 one-time charge, FREE TRIAL & MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. Click here for more information.

Spanish Conservative Party Platform Calls for Lower Taxes for Women

"Mr. Rajoy (pictured), the candidate of the Spanish Partido Popular...said that 'our' goal was to achieve 'equality' between men and women; ergo, women should pay lower taxes than men until 'equality' is achieved."

Spain is proposing higher income taxes for men simply for being men. This has been a goal of the Spanish Socialist Party for a while, and now the conservative Partido Popular has put a lower tax rate for women in its party platform.

The story is below--thanks to Tony, a reader, for sending it.

Against gender based taxation: Abolishing equality before the law is wrong and dangerous
Gilles Saint‑Paul
9 February 2008

The conservative Spanish Partido Popular has proposed gender-based taxation in line with recent research and several Vox columns by Alberto Alesina and Andrea Ichino. Here one of Europe’s most eminent labour economists makes the counter argument.

A few centuries back, Europe was under a feudal system. A self-appointed caste of aristocrats was supported - thanks to the labour of the laymen. The system was based on the latter having fewer civil rights than the former; they had to pay high (mostly in kind) taxes, so that the nobility did not have to work for a living. Predictably, at some point such a system was deemed unfair. The people of the Enlightenment abolished the privileges of the nobility and wrote constitutions stating that all citizens were equal before the law.

In recent papers and Vox columns, Alberto Alesina, Andrea Ichino, and co-authors propose to overturn these constitutions and to restore some fiscal privileges based on a birth characteristic: sex. That is, they propose that women pay less taxes than men, everything else equal.

This proposal has long been associated with a fringe of radical feminism, so it surprises me to see it coming out of mainstream economics and the academic establishment. In fact, it is becoming so mainstream that Spain’s allegedly conservative Partido Popular has a tax break for female workers in its platform for the next election. Given that the ruling Socialist Party is unlikely to oppose such a “progressive” measure, the Spaniards will have gender-biased taxation whether they like it or not. This will probably remind them of the good old days of Franco.

So why is it that mainstream politicians and academics alike are now endorsing the fringe radical feminist political agenda? Let us start with the economics.

The economic argument

A central argument is based on the so-called “Ramsey taxation principle”, which states that a good whose demand (or supply) is more elastic – i.e. responsive to prices – than another one should be taxed at a lower rate. The reason is that the more responsive the equilibrium quantity of the good is to prices, the more the tax distorts the allocation of resources. Alesina et al. then elaborate on this by applying it to people and argue that (as is shown by econometric studies) women’s labour supply is more elastic to wages than that of men. So if we were to increase taxes for men and reduce taxes for women, the increase in female labour supply would be larger than the fall in male labour supply and GDP would go up. Now, this is not a totally convincing argument because increasing GDP is not a goal in itself. The Soviet concentration camps increased GDP but that does not mean we should have them.  But instead of looking at GDP you can prove that some utilitarian social welfare measure (i.e. some abstract quantity which supposedly adds welfare across individuals with different identities and preferences) goes up if we allow for “gender-based” taxation. That is, according to this criterion we increase the welfare of women by more than we reduce the welfare of men.

Now, it turns out that if I am maximising any welfare criterion, I can always do better by discriminating than by not discriminating. This is because non-discrimination is a special case of discrimination, where all groups are treated equally. If different groups have different economic behaviour, then to maximise my welfare function I need to discriminate as much as possible, and I will treat each group differently. So we should have different taxes depending on sex, age, race, marital status, city of residence, state of health, and so on.

At the “optimum”, some of these taxes would sound “right” to those with a “progressive” mind—like the one favouring women proposed by Alesina et al. Others would sound horribly wrong to these same people; in fact the very gender-tax proposal could be implemented as a reduction in transfers to women at the bottom of the distribution of income, since their greater labour supply elasticity implies these transfers are more distortionary than for men.

In other words, we do not learn much by cherry-picking the policy experiment that we analyse in a model to fit a pre-determined political agenda. And if “society” (up to now) wrote down constitutions saying citizens are equal before the law, while our utilitarian social welfare functions say that some should be more equal than others, it is unlikely that these welfare functions represent the social preferences implicit in those constitutions.

Winners and losers

While some dubious measure of aggregate welfare would go up, gender-biased taxation would clearly create losers...

To read more and to discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Jonathan Turley on the Borukhova Murder Case: 'Hell Hath no Fury'

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley has some interesting things to say about the appalling Borukhova murder case in his recent blog post Wife Pays Hitman to Drill Dentist Husband. In that case, a mother apparently had her husband murdered after she was unable to drive him out of his daughter's life by making allegations of sexual abuse in their custody battle. The father was murdered in a playground in front of their 5-year-old daughter.

Turley writes:

"Dr. Mazoltuv Borukhova in Queens has been arrested for paying a hitman $20,000 to kill her orthodontist husband, Dr. Daniel Malakov. What is most striking about the attempted hit is how sloppy it was with a trail of money and evidence leading back to the wife.

"It appears that Hell hath no fury like a doctor scorned. Dr. Mazoltuv Borukhova wanted Malakov killed on a playground in front of their 5-year-old daughter amid a custody battle. She allegedly used a relative, Mikhail Mallayev.

"The whole effort no doubt has the Russian mob recoiling in embarrassment. The wife left a phone record of 90 phone conversations in the weeks before the shooting and three more shortly afterward.

"Then there was the bank deposits totaling $19,800 in 10 different bank accounts.

"Then there was the botched hit itself. The assassin used a makeshift silencer, which was left at the scene with Mallayev’s prints on it."

The Associated Press article on it is Prosecutors: Wife Paid Suspected Gunman. Any ideas on what her defense will be?

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.
 

Fathers & Families: Advocacy for the Child-Father Bond Fathers & Families is a non-profit organization advocating for the right of every child to have two parents. Called by some a "fathers' rights organization," Fathers & Families is made up of men and women who believe that fathers are an essential part of a child's life and that divorce or separation should not change this. www.FathersandFamilies.org

FALSELY ACCUSED IN TEXAS? Domestic Violence. Child Sexual Assault. Child Protective Services Defense. Contact the Law Office of Stuckle & Ferguson www.PaulStuckle.com / falseaccusations@stuckle-ferguson.com

Feminist Columnist: 'Abortion isn't men's business'

Abortion isn't men's business
January 24, 2008
Connie Schultz, Newhouse News Service

Every spring, a local boys' high school makes me their class project.

A stream of anti-abortion e-mail suddenly fills my in box, courtesy of male adolescents. How do these boys figure that a woman's womb is any of their business? How do men, for that matter?

Not long after I started writing this column in the fall of 2002, I lost a friend over abortion.

We had discussed countless issues, professional and personal, over the years. We often did not agree, but that just fed a spirited banter.

Then I wrote a few columns that made clear my support for women's reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion.

First, he sent me an e-mail expressing his "disappointment."

Then he sent another insisting that whenever I wrote about abortion, I sounded "angry," a trait he never had associated with me. I assured him that he was mistaking conviction for rage, and maybe we should agree to disagree.

That's when he started forwarding circulated e-mails that included "testimonials" from women who said they deeply regretted their abortions and had emotional scars that would never heal.

When I assured him that studies consistently show that most women who choose abortion do not suffer long-term psychological distress, he accused me of supporting murder. Before long, he was barely speaking to me.

I was sad to lose a friend, sadder still that he felt so compelled -- and entitled -- to lobby against women's reproductive rights.

Recently, two photos ran with an Associated Press story about Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion 35 years ago. In the first photo, pro-choice women rallied on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the second, men picketed an abortion clinic.

The gender divide suggested by the photos is overstated. Many women oppose abortion rights, and plenty of men support them, but the photos did reflect a historical fact: Women's reproductive rights always have been legislated and adjudicated primarily by men, not one of whom will ever have to face the physical consequences of any pregnancy.

The older I get, the more wrong that feels.

Abortion remains a complex issue in this country. Studies still show that the majority of Americans believe that the decision to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her family and her doctor. Most, though, also struggle with the morality of that choice, and there is no end in sight for that internal conflict.

Advancements in prenatal medicine, for example, offer earlier alerts to myriad fetal abnormalities. These test results present excruciating choices for prospective parents, including those who insist they are pro-life. Four years ago, the New York Times reported that these same couples often decide to terminate pregnancies when the fetuses are not normal. They just don't like to call it abortion.

As the issues grow more complex, so do my own feelings -- not about women's rights but about those women who don't agree with me. In a recent column, for example, I criticized those who claim to be pro-life but did not care one bit for the plight of immigrants' children.

I still loathe that kind of hypocrisy, but some readers who oppose abortion rights, most of them women, asked me not to lump them with the extremists.

They, too, deplored the treatment of an immigrant mother who was separated for 11 days from her nursing infant. Many also agreed that men have too many opinions about an issue that affects only those with a womb. After such conversations, I regret not making that distinction. I also wonder how the abortion issue would evolve if women owned the debate.

Surely, there is common ground to be found in reducing the need for abortion while protecting that right.

And it's not the kind of work we can leave to the boys.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: 'Push Presents'

To listen to the commentary, click here.

To learn more, see my blog posts Some Thoughts on the 'Push Presents' Now Expected From Expectant Fathers (Part I) and (Part II).

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentaries are broadcast daily on KLAA AM 830, a 50,000 watt talk station in Los Angeles and Orange County. KLAA AM 830 is owned by Arte Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

From 2003-2005, His Side with Glenn Sacks ran in a syndicated talk show format in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Seattle, and other cities. To listen to show archives, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks Radio Commentary: Implanting False 'Memories' in Impressionable Kids

My recent His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentary for KLAA AM 830 in Los Angeles deals with the problem of false allegations in divorce, and how some parents who seek to drive the other parent out sometimes plant false "memories" in the minds of impressionable young children.

In the new book Venus: The Dark Side, authors Roy Sheppard and Mary Cleary write:

"Some women ‘remind’ their children of that time when their father abused them, even though he did not. This ‘reminder’ is repeated so often that eventually the children believe it must have happened, even though they have absolutely no recollection of it.

"[Dr Richard A. Warshak] recounts an experiment with a group of pre-school children who were asked to recall a time when someone called Sam Stone visited the classroom. The next day the children were shown a dirty teddy bear that was not in the room when he visited. The children were asked:

"'Remember that time Sam Stone visited your classroom and spilled chocolate on that white teddy bear? Did he do it on purpose or was it an accident?' By the end of the experiment 72 per cent of the youngest children falsely accused Sam Stone of wrongdoing!"

To listen to the commentary, click here.

His Side with Glenn Sacks radio commentaries are broadcast daily on KLAA AM 830, a 50,000 watt talk station in Los Angeles and Orange County. KLAA AM 830 is owned by Arte Moreno, owner of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

From 2003-2005, His Side with Glenn Sacks ran in a syndicated talk show format in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Seattle, and other cities. To listen to show archives, click here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Daddy's Bedtime Story #3: Roberto Clemente's Heroism

Background: I've started a blog-based collection of bedtime stories for children, both stories I've told my kids and stories that other parents (and grandparents) tell their kids. If you've got a good bedtime story, please send it to me for consideration in this collection.

The core of these stories will be those I tell my 9-year-old daughter. She's pretty demanding--some weeks I pretty much have to come up with a bedtime story every night, which isn't easy.

My daughter is very interested in racism (which she's studied in school), baseball, and daddy's childhood, so many of the stories reflect those. She's only 9, but she enjoys learning about adult issues. Sometimes if I tell her a story she thinks isn't sufficiently adult, she'll say, "C'mon dad, that's just a baby story."

The stories I tell are usually just things that I remembered, sometimes recent but often from 20 or 30 years ago. Some of them are stories my father told me when I was a kid.

I write these down as I told them, and they are NOT up to my usual standards of journalistic accuracy--given the limits of human memory, many (if not most) probably have at least one factual error in them, sometimes far more.

They are also simplistic. I'm not going back and fixing them to make them more accurate or nuanced--they are here as I told them. If you have a bedtime story you'd like to add to my collection, please send it to me at glenn@glennsacks.com. With your submission, please let me know how you want to be identified, if at all.

Roberto Clemente was a great outfielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates during the 1960s. There weren't as many Latin players in baseball back then, and Clemente was a big hero in Latin America. All over Latin America kids looked up to him and wrote him fan letters.

Most countries in Latin America are very poor, and this troubled Clemente, so he would try to do what he could to help. He set up charities in Puerto Rico, where he was from, and other Latin American countries.

One of the poorest countries in Latin America was Nicaragua. It was run by a man named Somoza who kept his people down through force and terror, while he and his buddies looted the country. His National Guard kept control over the poor people, most of whom hated Somoza. Years later there was a revolution and the poor people threw Somoza out.

Anyway, in 1972, as if the people of Nicaragua didn't have enough problems, there was a terrible earthquake in Managua, the capital city. People were without food, without water, without medical supplies, and they were desperate.

Clemente decided he had to do something about this, so he organized supplies and paid for them to be flown in an airplane down to Managua. While they were loading the supplies, Clemente saw on TV that National Guardsmen were stealing the international aid that was coming there. Other countries were sending aid to help the people in Nicaragua and the Guardsmen were stealing it for themselves and selling it, so the poor people couldn't get medical supplies or food.

Clemente was outraged by this. He said, "I will go down there myself. Those soldiers won't steal if Roberto Clemente is there. I will tell them to stop and they will stop."

So Clemente got on the plane, too. But the plane was overloaded with supplies and weighed too much. They shouldn't have had so much, but Clemente wanted to bring as much as possible to the people suffering in Nicaragua. The plane crashed, and Clemente was killed.

People throughout Latin America and the United States wept when they heard this, because everybody loved him so much. Baseball soon put him in the Hall of Fame, and even today there's a "Roberto Clemente Award" for the baseball player who does the most for charity and the poor.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

More on Moderating My Blog

There have been very few complaints about "censoring," and the complaints that I've received are usually from people who are under the misguided notion that I am somehow obligated to give them free reign to post whatever they want on my property. I moderate very lightly, and when I do it's usually (though not always) about something that is not a criticism of me anyway. For example, use of the word "b*tch," or derogatory comments about a woman's looks, or the strange obsession over "Splitsville."

On the rare occasions when I do moderate out something that is critical of me, it's usually because the person is going on and on about an issue which has already been addressed, or is just carping over petty stuff out of a personal grudge.

Sometimes there's a criticism of me that I delete so I can make it into a full post, as I did with Glenn Has 'Sold Out to the Feminists and Chivalrists', 'The quality of this site has gone downhill', and numerous others.

I would also remind people that until recently I received many, many comments and letters saying that I needed to moderate the blog more, and that I had been remiss in my responsibilities. Several accused me of being a "lazy" moderator.

I would suggest that readers decide what they want to be mad at me about--I either moderate too little or I moderate too much--and stick with it. It's simpler that way.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Glenn Has 'Sold Out to the Feminists and Chivalrists'

I wrote Bill back and explained that I've set my blog software to moderate comments which contain the word "bitch" as well as "f***", "sh**", c*** and a few others, and told him, "Feel free to repost without the word 'bitch.'"

I didn't think much of it at the time but apparently my action was of greater political significance than I realized. Bill wrote me the following letter, and agreed to have it on the blog:

Bill's Letter

Glenn, you're probably being deliberately obtuse by classifying "bitch" in the same category as "s***" "f***" and other ACTUAL obscenities.    Shame on you.  

"Bitch" is an obscenity to you (through your control of the censorship software) because you buy into "political correctness", Glenn.  

Some women ARE "bitches" (and even some men!).  

And when one can no longer refer to women (or men) who behave as "bitches" in a straightforward, efficient description of them, based on their actions and behavior, then you have lost touch with reality.

Mind you, I don't believe that someone ought to be respected simply because they were born with one set of genitals or the other.  

That's the sort of nonsense that feminists and chivalrists would have one believe.

And I also do not believe that properly describing one individual as a "bitch" demeans an entire gender. 

Again, that's the sort of nonsense that feminists and chivalrists might try to sell you.

Some women ARE "bitches" (and if you doubt me on this point, walk into a roomful of feminists and openly state that men deserve equal civil, social, criminal, and reproductive rights to women's - you would undoubtedly be presented with simultaneous examples of "bitches").

What is censorship?   In this context, it's your blog software being set to recognize "bitch" as an obscenity.

In fact, "bitch" is a word with multiple meanings, including one which any dictionary will tell you means "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.".   

And yes, you are engaging in "censorship," most likely to avoid hurting the feminists' and chivalrists' feelings in this case.  

So the next time that you assure your loyal readers that you do not "censor" their posts very often, at least be honest enough that through the control of your "censorship" software settings, you are likely censoring quite a bit more often than you would care to be proud of.

Me, I thank the powers that be that men like Marc Rudov and Tom Leykis are willing and able to call a spade..... or in this case a bitch for who and what she is.

They have NOT sold out to the feminists and chivalrists, as I believe that you have, Glenn.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Don Mattingly's Wife Probably Could've Had Whatever She Wanted if She Didn't Get Drunk and Scream at the Police

Former New York Yankee first baseman Don Mattingly is lucky his estranged wife blew it with her over-the-top behavior, just as actress Tawny Kitaen did in 2002 when she attacked her baseball spouse, former California Angels pitcher Chuck Finley.

(Tawny had substance abuse problems and was prone to violence and, according to her nanny, had endangered her kids. Her punishment was a horrific injustice--they (gasp) treated her like they treat a fit, loving father, as she lost custody to Finley and got every other weekend visitation. Of course, it was really all Finley's fault--Tawny reminded me of this herself a few years ago after I criticized her on my radio show).

Mattingly is lucky--he could've ended up like former baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, who in 2002 was arrested for his girlfriend attacking him--no, that's not a misprint--who was arrested for his girlfriend attacking him, and was humiliated in the national media over it.

Mattingly's estranged wife arrested after refusing to leave his home
Associated Press
February 5, 2008

EVANSVILLE, Ind. -- The estranged wife of Los Angeles Dodgers coach Don Mattingly was arrested and charged with public intoxication and disorderly conduct after police say she refused to leave his property in Indiana.

Police arrested 45-year-old Kim Mattingly after they were called to the home of the former Yankee first baseman to investigate reports of a person refusing to leave on Saturday, a probable cause affidavit said. The affidavit, signed by a Vanderburgh County Sheriff's Deputy Chad Howard, said she smelled of alcohol and screamed at officers.

The couple filed for divorce in November on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The divorce has not been finalized, and no further action has been taken.

Kim Mattingly was released from the Vanderburgh County Jail after posting $50 bond shortly after her arrest and made her first court appearance Monday on the charges. She is scheduled to appear next on March 3.

Her lawyer, Angela Freel, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Kim Mattingly told investigators that Don Mattingly had taken her phone and she wanted it back, the affidavit said. Police spoke to Mattingly, who said he did not have the phone.

Police had told her not to go to the house earlier in the day, Howard said in the affidavit.

On Monday, Don Mattingly filed for a protective order against his wife, which the court granted. In the petition, Mattingly cited three examples of his wife appearing at his home, including an incident on Jan. 22 during which she tried to kick down his door.

Read the full story here.

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part I)

My recent column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, has, predictably, been the source of controversy within the shared parenting/fatherhood movement.

After our column came out, Harry Crouch, a longtime men's activist, circulated a letter questioning one of the facts we mentioned in the article.

The Hillary Clinton article largely dealt with Clinton's proposals to help low-income noncustodial fathers. These fathers are often buried by unrealistic child support obligations and charged to repay the cost of the welfare benefits their children's mothers received. We wrote:

"Clinton’s proposals are a good start, but much more needs to be done to address the problems low-income fathers face. Economist Harry Holzer, a co-author of the Urban League report, recommends forgiving the arrearages that low-income fathers owe to the government. While this proposal may not be politically popular, it makes very good policy...

"California’s Compromise of Arrears Program provides an example of the type of pragmatic approach these men need. According to a California Judicial Council report, 80% of California child support debtors earn poverty level wages, and over a quarter of the arrears total is interest. Under COAP, these obligors can settle their paper debts to the state for realistic amounts.

"Sacramento legislative advocate Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children, which worked on the legislation, explains:

"'Rather than engaging in the ‘we’ll crack down on deadbeats’ chest-thumping so often employed by politicians, COAP is a common sense, everybody wins solution. Instead of hounding and jailing low income dads, the COAP program allows these dads to provide their children real support, both emotional and financial.'"

In response, Harry wrote:

"No disrespect guys, but have you taken time to fully understand how pitiful the California Compromise of Arrears Program (COAP) is? By that I mean very few -- almost an indiscernible number of -- NCP’s have been able to avail themselves of the program relative to the number of NCP’s in arrears, particularly those incarcerated. While DCSS has information about the COAP program on their website, DCSS otherwise does almost no outreach and education. Much like they and the legislature did with AB252 and paternity fraud reform – the law was there, but few knew about it because no funds were appropriated for outreach and education.

"I have been involved in several COAP cases. Not only is the program cumbersome and replete with often insurmountable conditions, NCP’s typically have to come up with cash to get a deal done. Unless something has changed dramatically in the past few months, clearly this program is not for the poor. On paper, perhaps the program appears capable of helping many, but in practice successful COAP applications are nearly as scarce as Osama Bin Laden. Suggesting otherwise is a disservice to those of us who know better and those that need help with onerous and inflexible child support arrearage laws."

COAP was originally a result of a Rod Wright bill that Michael Robinson and the California Alliance for Families and Children worked on in 1999. After compromises, the bill finally passed the California legislature in 2002, but former California Governor Gray Davis vetoed it. (Davis was often the opponent of fathers on child support issues--for another example, see my co-authored column Preserving Paternity Fraud, Orange County Register, 10/3/02).

Robinson got the bill through in 2003. It was to set to sunset on January 1, 2007, but Robinson got it extended until January 1, 2009. Robinson also worked with an attorney contact of mine to help make bureaucratic adjustments to streamline the process to serve a larger number of people. This year Robinson will be working on getting the COAP program extended past 1/1/09. Robinson deserves great credit for his work on COAP.

I have worked with attorneys who have helped dads under the COAP program and have had a very positive experiences, considerably different than what Harry describes. McCormick recently looked into this issue further. He writes:

"I spent over an hour on the phone with the program manager for the State of California discussing the specifics of the program and its impact.  With the facts in hand, you make up your mind about whether this program is of any benefit to low income fathers.

"The program has been in operation in its current form for about two years.  The following discussion is based on data from the last fiscal year which ended June 30, 2007.  Here are the germane statistics:

"In fiscal year '06, 5,030 individuals applied to have their situations reviewed.  Of those, 2,242 did not qualify to participate in the program.  87% did not meet the eligibility criteria, the largest component of which was that they did not have at least $5,000 in debt owed to the government (Note: the program does not apply to money owed to the custodial parent).  The remaining 13% were denied because they did not complete the application process.

"1,863 individuals qualified for the program, and have agreed to pay $7,028,570 in back support, of which $5,050,018 has been collected.  

"Here's the kicker.  The State of California agreed to waive $39,009,111 in arrearages for these 1,863 individuals.  The math indicates that the state forgave on average over $20,000 per person accepted into the program.  Had the program not been available, the state would be pursuing these individuals for over $46,000,000.

"By any measure that's a substantial amount and it allows almost 1,900 people to get out of the system and get a fresh start, rather than continue to carry $46 million in debt and be constantly at risk of all the sanctions available to the Department of Child Support Enforcement."

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part II)

Background: My recent column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, has, predictably, been the source of controversy within the shared parenting/fatherhood movement. We dealt with one aspect of this in Blowback over Our Hillary Clinton/Child Support Reform Article (Part I).

The Hillary Clinton article largely dealt with Clinton's proposals to help low-income noncustodial fathers. These fathers are often buried by unrealistic child support obligations charged to repay the cost of the welfare benefits their children's mothers received. We wrote:

"Clinton’s proposals are a good start, but much more needs to be done to address the problems low-income fathers face."

Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, often meets with legislators, judges, child support officials and others who help shape family law policies, and he has an interesting perspective on what it takes to move our issues forward. McCormick writes:

"Over the past several days we have been criticized for an article Glenn & I wrote in which Hillary Clinton recognized a program in California designed to reduce the child support arrearages of low income fathers.  

"We have been variously accused of somehow endorsing Clinton as a presidential candidate, failing to recognize it was her husband Bill that signed some of the most onerous child support laws the nation has seen, or of selling out fathers. There was also a widely circulated email that questioned Clinton's mental health and suggested that an indiscernible number of people have been helped by the program as compared to the overall number of people with arrearages (Note: for our response to this, see Part I).  Normally I do not comment on such emails, but this one deserves a couple of follow up thoughts.  

"For those who think our article was about any of the issues in the previous paragraph, I suggest a reread.  Our article gave a nod to a politician who recognizes the harsh nature of the current child support system on one specific population--low income obligors owing more than $5,000 to the government to reimburse the cost of welfare benefits for the mother and children.

"Lest anyone reading this think we are enamored of the current system, understand that ACFC has crafted and promoted 10 very specific public policy recommendations regarding the child support system which include providing incentives to encourage adoption of Shared Parenting statutes. We must recognize that if we are going to accomplish anything and reform family law, we are going to have to do more than simply throw stones at an entrenched bureaucracy and hope it changes. 

"Regarding the current crop of presidential candidates and how 'father-friendly' they are, none of them will get gold stars from me at this point. We have to engage the political process and in part that means engaging in constructive dialogue with people who don't agree with or accept our positions.  Whether your 'cup of tea' is protesting, letter writing, calling, walking the legislative halls, filing suits, pressuring the media, researching issues, organizing, blogging, pamphleteering or any of the other activities, just do something other than criticize those who are also doing.  

"And thanks to all of you who are doing something, whatever that may be.....

"Mike McCormick, Exec. Dir.
ACFC"  

To discuss this issue on my blog, click here.

NOW's Marcia Pappas: I Made a Fool of Myself and I Stand By It

"Ted Kennedy has been a huge advocate of women's and feminist issues for decades, but like a carping wife with a memory that ne