From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Newsletter  (Oh, it Was: Nothing, really)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:13:56 GMT

I will offer 40 drakmahs to anyone who can read this in one sitting.

  Central Ohio Fathers and Children for Equality September Newsletter

			Unabridged Version

========================================================================

Contents

It's Time for `Equity' in Child Custody Cases

	- ain't it the truth.  A very well-written, concise op-ed.

The Interrelationship among Child Support, Custody and Visitation

	- end the deadbeat non-custodial parent problem.  Let them see
	  their children.  Empower them.  Make them equal parents to
	  the children.  End of problem.

The Family Support Act of 1988

	- so far it has gone like government clockwork.  There are
	  still some things to go according to the timetables.  Want to
	  know what's supposed to be implemented in 1995?  Read the
	  article.

Humane Approach to Child Support

	- the same sentiment of the second article, different author,
	  different day.

Love can turn Jekylls into Hydes

	- or rather, "the end of Love."  It's really interesting to
	  watch them flop around on the floor and cry out in
	  excruciating pain as they transform.  Ever take a chainsaw to
	  your house?  Why or why not?

The Alimony Shoe's on the Other Foot

	- size 7, C width, to be exact.  Does it come in navy blue?  Do
	  you have one with a 2" heel?  Equality in action.

Advising Fathers Against Seeking Custody

	- well, maybe if the lawyers had a change of heart and tried to
	  do battle for men, men would get custody a little more
	  often.  But they don't.  Of course, many judges insist that
	  the ovarian nurturer, the biologically predisposed are still
	  default single parents.

It Isn't Slavery: "Fairness" in Custody Rulings

	- the biologically predisposed sentence of slavery to single
	  parenthood - it isn't.

What is a `Real Dad'?

	- See Camille Paglia.
 
Ohio Senate Bill 10  (Local issue)

	- Paternity.  This 135+ page law is now in effect.  Sperm
	  donors must admit they are sperm donors and be taxed.

Deputies Still Tracking 13 Child Support Evaders  (Local event)

	- more deadbeats under fire.  Out of 20, 19 men, 1 woman.

Impact of the Absent Father

	- according to this researcher, Murphy Brown's child doesn't
	  need a father, her child just needs a rich, successful,
	  highly intelligent mother - and a nanny or two.  Yep, men are
	  passe.

Ruling Says Doctors Can Relay Child's Statements  (Local event)

	- state court throws away US Supreme Court's ruling.  They are
	  better judges, after all.  They know more.  They've only had
	  one fistfight while in session in the last year.  Yes,
	  hearsay evidence is admissable and I bet you can't guess
	  why?

	  In the best interests of the children....  Hey, you're
          getting good at this.

Cleveland Near Top of Child Poverty List  (Local event)

	- Every country has one city that everyone jokes about.  In the
	  US, it is Cleveland:  in the Unified Team's, uh, what used to
	  be mother Russia, it's Cleveland.  Actually, it's a great
	  place to live, if you want your children to be poor.

Child Check  (Local event)

	- local child developmental testing.

A Call to FACE  (Local event)

	- an example of our bureaucratic government in action.  Did I say
          "action?"

State School Board Approves Anti-Paddling Resolution  (Local event)

	- apparently Johnny can't read because he is so intimated by
	  all those club-carrying, bully teachers.  Fortunately,
	  teachers will be furnished with kevlar bullet-proof vests in
	  the future.  The movement is underway to make corporal
	  punishment illegal - they are starting with trying to ban it
	  in schools.  Maybe it's overdue.

Legislator Offers Welfare Reform Bill  (Local issue)

	- Welfare just ain't the bread-line that it used to be.  An
	  attack on that other societal deadbeat, bon-bon, baby
	  factories.  What did Neil Young say?

		"People pick up on what I'm putting down now....
		 Down at every laundromat in town now....
		 When they're washing you can heard this sound now....
		 Deeeeeee-voooooorrr-ceeeeee"

		"Welfare Mothers, make better lovers...."

	  What a misogynist.

Unruly Kids Get Help of Advocates  (Local event)

	- an attempt of providing some real help for teenagers in
	  trouble by privatizing the teenage support system.

Remarried?

	- if you're not, you're in the minority.

Update on a Shooting in the Courthouse

	- an example.

Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?

	- a discussion.

Mediation Works Better Than Contested Divorce

	- then let's do it.

Ohio Senate Bill 352  (Local issue)

	- visitation enforcement and standard minimums throughout the
	  state - 34% minimum.  It's in committee, where it will be
	  underfire from NOW, ACES and Rep. Jane Campbell.  Hope it
	  makes it.

Clinton's Family Values

	- both of them.

Child Support Enforcers Target First Professional

	- Oh, the horrors..... It's a WOMAN.

Lawyerspeak <-> Orwellian Doublespeak

	- Eric Blair didn't go through the US legal system to get a
	  divorce - fortunately for him.   If he would have, Big
	  Brother might have worn a powdered wig.

Broken Homes

	- 20-year-old quote.

Why Cities Burn

	- because they can?

Why Cities Burn: Another Opinion

	- nope, wrong answer.

Child Support Guidelines Advisory Commission  (Local issue)

	- Rothbarth.  Beer and cigarettes.  Cocaine?  Well, if it makes
	  CP happy, I guess that's important!  Right! and monkeys fly
	  out of my butt.

ATTORNEY REFERRAL LIST

The FACE Newsletter Staff

The FACE Officers

========================================================================

The articles in the Newsletter are culled from a variety of sources,
cover many topics and reflect differing opinions.  Every article is the
expressed opinion of only the author of that article.  These articles
do not necessarily represent the collective opinion of FACE nor of the
FACE directors. Even articles written as editorials by members of this
group are not the opinion of the group itself or of leadership. The
Newsletter attempts to present both sides on issues, so that readers
can form their own opinions and make informed decisions.  This group is
for equality in the justice system. We are NOT against women.  Women
who become non-custodial parents face the same kinds of problems
non-custodial fathers face. We don't think that child support
guidelines are fair. But we do advocate that parents pay their child
support. We are NOT advocates of child abuse. However, we want the
courts and social systems to recognize that many contentious ex-spouses
make bogus allegations of abuse during custody battles. We are not in
favor of the exclusive use of the adversarial court system for
resolving custody disputes. We think that mediation of these disputes
is a more effective and less expensive solution and wish the courts
would utilize this resource more often. We are not advocates for
fathers in spite of mothers. We are advocates for fathers and children,
because fathers are disproportionately torn away from their children in
divorces. We don't think that is right or fair. We believe that many
fathers, when given the opportunity to be good parents, can do the job
quite effectively and that both parents and the children benefit. We
believe in equal legal rights and equal physical access to children of
divorce for both parents. Hence the name - Fathers And Children for
Equality.

========================================================================

It's Time for `Equity' in Child Custody Cases

By Armin A. Brott, a writer in Berkeley, CA

Sure, we've all heard about the rich guys, driving their fancy cars,
living in their fancy mansions while their ex-wives and kids eat dog
food.

There's no question some men don't pay child support, just as there are
some poor women who drive brand new Cadillacs to pick up their welfare
checks. There's also no question that men who don't pay what they owe -
if they are financially able - are behaving immorally and should be
treated accordingly.

But let's take a look at the facts. From 1980 to 1990, the proportion
of children under 18 living with only one parent doubled - from 12
percent to 25 percent. Among blacks, the numbers rose from 29 percent
to 52 percent. Eighty-seven percent of single parents are women, a
third of whom have incomes below the poverty level and collect
government assistance (AFDC).

Robert Rector, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation in Washington,
D.C., says that the government offers a single mother assistance of
over $13,000 [net] per year. The only conditions are that she can't
work and [can't] live with the children's father. Rector calls this
kind of assistance "the incentive program from hell" and credits it
with destroying America's poor families.

The simple truth is that over 66 percent of the women who don't get the
child support payments they have coming, say their former husbands
simply don't have the money. As a matter of fact, over 20 percent of
the men who owe child support are living below the poverty line
themselves.

Another interesting fact is the correlation between the amount of time
a divorced father is allowed to spend with his children and his
propensity to pay support.

Over 90 percent of men with joint custody pay everything they owe. Over
79 percent of men with visitation privileges pay in full and on time.
Adjusted for the 66 percent who are experiencing financial
difficulties, compliance is well over 90 percent in both categories. It
is only when men are denied both visitation and custody - as almost 40
percent of all divorced fathers are - that the payment rate drops to 46
percent.

What are the solutions? First, the AFDC system has to be changed so it
doesn't force men out of the house and encourage single motherhood.
Second, joint physical custody must become the standard adopted by
family law judges, and finally, a man's legal rights to visit his
children must be enforced.  Several major studies have shown that
between 20 and 50 percent of custodial women actively sabotage their
former husbands' attempts to legally visit their children.

These are not women who are retaliating for not getting child support
payments; these are women who - as both parties often are in a divorce
- are trying to hurt their former spouses.

To put this into perspective, the National Council for Children's
Rights estimates that 6.6 million children have their visitation with
their non-custodial parents denied or interfered with by the custodial
parents. Meanwhile, the same judges who so readily enforce a man's
financial obligations, are very reluctant to jail a woman for denying
her former husband his legal visitation rights.

The result of these changes? Billions of dollars in child support
enforcement and AFDC payments will be saved and a weakened family
structure will be strengthened.

Source: San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 1992

========================================================================

The Interrelationship among Child Support, Custody and Visitation

By Aubrey Ford, Jr.

Visitation, like support, is a right of the child and parent. Not only
is visitation important to the emotional development of the child, but
protecting and enforcing visitation rights encourages the non-custodial
parent to meet a support obligation.

The father's right to visitation was established by the U.S.  Supreme
Court in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972). The ruling said that a
man who "sired and raised" his children and participated in their
"companionship, care, custody and management" has a constitutionally
protected private liberty interest in his children.

Some courts have denied the alleged father's request for visitation,
because he showed insufficient interest in his child by infrequent
visitation and the lack of meaningful relationship.  They have also
denied visitation when a parent's life-style or mental or physical
health is deemed to be contrary to the best interests of the child.

Traditionally, contempt of court is the remedy most commonly used to
enforce violations of visitation orders, both for visitation
interference and the failure of the non-custodial parent to return a
child at the end of a visitation period. Financial penalties are also
used to encourage visitation compliance, but they should be imposed
only when they will not present a financial hardship to the child.

Sometimes, out of frustration with available remedies, courts have
resorted to modifying or terminating the support obligation in an
attempt to coerce the custodial parent to comply with a visitation
order. The primary reason for rejecting this remedy is the adverse
effect it has on the continuing needs of the child.

When the court makes payment of support conditional upon
noninterference with visitation rights, it imposes a financial penalty
on the child because of the wrongs of the parent.  Further, if use of
this remedy reduces or excuses accrued arrearages, it is in direct
conflict with the Bradley Amendment of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act, which bans retroactive modification of arrearages.

There is a growing trend to use mediation to resolve visitation and
custody disputes. Several demonstration grants have been funded under
the 1988 Family Support Act to explore the effectiveness of mediation
and other techniques for alleviating litigation and support payment
problems connected to child access and visitation disputes.

Another possible means of eliminating visitation disputes and
encouraging the regular payment of support is court-sanctioned
voluntary joint custody. This remedy may enhance payment of support
because it allows each parent to observe and monitor the use of
payments. It encourages parents, also, to adopt a more cooperative
approach to raising and supporting their children.

Studies that have examined joint custody have concluded that the
financial status of women and children is enhanced following divorce,
and that joint custody helps alleviate the financial distress of
traditional sole custody. In one study, sole custody mothers reported
receiving 63 percent of what they were owed, while mothers with joint
custody received 81-95 percent [according to the 1990 Census, 90.2
percent]. Although the joint arrangements in the Pearson and Theonnes
study showed the most favorable payment patterns, the key predicator of
regular support payment is employment stability. The parents in the
study, furthermore, were more affluent, highly motivated and friendly -
generally atypical of divorcing couples.

Source: Child Support Report, August 1992

========================================================================

The Family Support Act of 1988

The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) provided for several
changes in child support services nationwide, among them:

     *  effective 11/90, ALL STATES were required to have in place
	legislation providing for Immediate Income Withholding on ALL
	new or modified orders.

     *  effective 10/89, ALL STATES were required to use "guidelines"
	to determine a standard amount of support.

     *  effective 1/90, ALL STATES were required to make wage and
	unemployment information available by computer to the Federal
	Government to assist other states in tracking NCPs.

     *  effective 10/93, ALL STATES must have in place a system to
	periodically review support orders against the guidelines.

     *  effective 10/95, ALL STATES must computerize child support
	enforcement.

Any states that don't go along with these requirements are 
subject to: 

     o  loss of Federal reimbursement for child support
	establishment/enforcement costs. (The Feds typically reimburse
	about 66% - 68% of state costs.)

     o  possible cutbacks in the Federal share of AFDC payments (the
	welfare plan covering families with children).

========================================================================

Transquips #1: The Beginning

Most language is spoken language, and most words, after they 
are uttered, vanish forever into the air. But such is not the case 
with language spoken during courtroom trials, for there exists 
an army of court reporters whose job it is to take down and 
preserve every statement made during the proceedings.

Court is now in session, and included in this issue of the Newsletter -
interspersed among the various articles - are transquips, all recorded
by America's keepers of the word:

Q: What is your brother-in-law's name?
A: Borofkin

Q: What is his first name?
A: I can't remember.

Q: He's been your brother-in-law for 45 years, and you can't remember
his first name?
A: No. I tell you I'm too excited. (Rising from the witness chair and
pointing to Mr. Borofkin) Nathan, for God's sake, tell them your first
name!

========================================================================

A More Humane Approach to Child Support

By David L. Levy, president of the Children Rights Council

Contrary to your editorial "Who Pays for Children?" [op-ed, July 27],
which said only about a quarter of mothers with a child support order
get full payment, the Census Bureau says half of the mothers with a
child support order get full payment, and another 25 percent of mothers
with a child support order get partial payment.

This means that 75 percent of mothers with a support order get full or
part payment. And these figures are the result of self-reporting by
mothers, who, if they receive welfare, have a definite self-interest in
under-reporting "outside income" such as child support.

The Urban Institute has shown that when fathers are polled, they report
paying from 10 percent to 40 percent more than mothers report
receiving.

And in 1991 the Census Bureau, reacting to complaints of inadequate
data, showed for the first time the correlation among joint custody
(shared parenting), visitation and support.

The Census Bureau found that fathers with joint custody paid 90.2
percent of their support, and fathers with neither joint custody nor
visitation paid only 44.5 percent of their support.  About 55 percent
of fathers had a visitation order, about 7 percent had joint custody,
and about 38 percent had neither joint custody nor visitation.

The facts, then, are more complex than the prevailing myths would have
us believe. The United States has been tightening the noose around
support payments for 10 years, with liens, interception of tax returns,
wage withholding and jail. Yet we act as though nothing has been done.

If none of the tough, multibillion-dollar procedures has worked,
perhaps it is time we tried something else - something more humane,
cheaper and natural - such as treating parents of divorce like parents,
not like absentee cash registers, with nothing to contribute to their
children's lives but the transfer of money from one household to
another.

As stated in the influential Family and Conciliation Courts Review,
January 1992, "In California, we have experienced a spate of
legislative initiatives, all well meaning, to increase child support
levels, collections, penalties, and sanctions. These are worthwhile
goals ... yet they may obtain the opposite of what is intended."

What many advocates recommend now are cheaper, family-friendly
alternatives, such as stronger efforts at family formation and family
preservation, but if families break up, parenting classes for
separating parents, mediation, conciliation, jobs, braking mechanisms
for divorce and stronger remedies for access/visitation interference.

Source: Washington Post, August 22, 1992

========================================================================

Love can turn Jekylls into Hydes

By Karen S. Peterson

Breaking up hurts some `in such a fundamental way, they get crazy'

Have the celebrity couples who are startling us with messy breakups
left their collective sanity in a bottom drawer?

     @  The private Woody Allen makes public statements about romancing
	Mia Farrow's adopted daughter; their "family" is
	self-destructing before our eyes.

     @  Sarah Ferguson romps topless with an American millionaire and
	her kids in tow - much to the embarrassment of her royal
	in-laws.

     @  Good Morning America's Joan Lunden, who has come to personify
	motherhood and apple pie, publicly complains about the alimony
	she must pay Michael Krauss and says he should be told to "get
	a job." Krauss, who sued Wednesday for custody of their three
	kids, complains Lunden went off to bed at 8 PM, leaving him
	alone to get fat on snacks.

Is it normal to go this wacko when relationships crack?

Divorce lawyers say those stories don't compare to what they have heard
in their offices from more common folk. And social scientists who track
divorce understand the off-the-wall behavior in vengeful splits.

Jay Lebow says his peers in psychotherapy call it the "not me
experience" - behaving as if one were someone else. "The person has a
sense that this is not me, a sense that his own behavior does not fit
with his self image," says Lebow, a Chicago marital and family
therapist.

"It starts when you separate and usually lasts about two years," says
Abigail Trafford in her 1984 book Crazy Time, a divorce classic. "It's
a time when your emotions take on a life of their own and you swing
back and forth between wild depression, extreme timidity and rash
actions. You are not yourself. Who are you? At times, you don't want to
know."

We're not talking about people who are literally crazy, Lebow notes.
"Within normal situations, there is a wide range of normal behaviors,
with many of them being spectacular."

Indeed. Divorce lawyers say they trade these stories like tattered
baseball cards.

Louise B. Raggio of Dallas tells why she keeps a chainsaw in her
office. A multimillion dollar settlement was hanging up on a $159
chainsaw both splitting spouses wanted. "I went out and bought another
one for him to settle it. Then after it was all over she gave me her's,
saying she never really wanted it in the first place; she just didn't
want him to have it."

And she shows the trophy to other unreasonable clients.

"People sometimes get so focused on their cases they lose all sense of
perspective," says her son, Kenneth Raggio, chairman of the family law
section of the American Bar Association.  "And then the sky - or the
gutter - is the limit."

Says New York divorce lawyer Stanford Lotwin, "People act differently
during this period than at any other time in their lives. (Many seek)
revenge. It is a way to deal with the hurt. And in cases where there
has been a third party (another man or woman), there is just incredible
anger."

The "stuff you see in soap operas is tame compared to what people
really do to each other," says Lynne Z. Gold-Bikin of Norristown PA.
Chainsaws seem to be the weapon of choice.  She recalls a beleaguered
man disgusted with the concept of joint property. "He took a chainsaw
and started to cut the car in half, and then he switched to the house."

Surely she jests.

"No! You could not make this stuff up."

She also recalls a huge battle over access to a safe-deposit box.
"When the wife got a court order to open it, there was a pile of manure
waiting."

A much-used weapon, that. Ken Raggio remembers "a husband who bought
his mistress a car. The couple then gets divorced.  And the wife finds
that car and dumps manure in it."

New York attorney Norman Sheresky says people sometimes "go completely
berserk." Our favorite story is about a client who put up with his
wife's excessive demands during divorce proceedings. But he finally
freaked out over a bill for a corned beef sandwich. "His wife woke up
in the middle of the night with a hankering for a sandwich. She called
a limo service. By the time the driver got back, that sandwich cost
$134."

Chicago attorney David Mattenson says, "You name it, and I've seen it.
I know of a $100,000 wardrobe taken into the back yard, soaked with
gasoline and burned."

He remembers one irate client who "destroyed her husband's 200-odd pipe
collection, throwing them in the fireplace." And one of his favorites:
a very timid guy during his divorce process bought a Cadillac Eldorado,
"hired a blonde with a 42-inch bust, and sat in front of his wife's
house and honked the horn for a half-hour."

The stunt backfired. "A settlement that would have taken 60 days, she
managed to string out for 2 1/2 years."

Gold-Bikin also knows of a woman who held a yard sale to peddle her
about-to-be ex's most precious stuff. "She sold his golf clubs out from
under him. What people do is unbelievable.  They are very creative."

And they are vengeful. "Anything you can consider, somebody has
probably done," Mattenson says. "People who want the furniture will
take the carpeting, the wallpaper coverings, the light switch plates
right off the wall."

Pittsburgh attorney Thomas Mulroy says some experts call the bizarre
behavior "`encapsulated psychosis.' People who are fine in every other
stressful situations are hit in such a fundamental way they get crazy.
And that craziness manifests itself in becoming just radically
different from the people they generally are."

The divorcing often experience "a great sense of betrayal," says
Trafford. "No matter who initiates the divorce, people feel betrayed"
by each other or by life. "And that betrayal precipitates great anger
and a sense of vulnerability."

Not all of the anger is manifested in rage, in "acting out," says
marital and family therapist Connie Ahrons, Santa Monica, Calif. It may
be just acting differently. "People will do anything to break out of
the old patterns. They want to say, `I am different now. Life will be
different.'"

For a period of time, Ahrons says, they will act uncharacteristically.
"You get the typical stories. A (divorced) woman will become
promiscuous. A man will fall in love with the first young woman who
crosses his path. Somebody with no money will take a trip to Europe or
get a new wardrobe. There is a sense of having to do something."

Mattenson says the healthiest of his clients treat the divorce process
"like an operation. They want to get it done with and get out of the
operating room."

Source: USA Today, Friday, August 21, 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #2

Q: Did you stay all night with this man in New York?
A: I refuse to answer that question.

Q: Did you stay all night with this man in Chicago?
A: I refuse to answer that question.

Q: Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?
A: No.

========================================================================

The Alimony Shoe's on the Other Foot

By Ellen Goodman

A few years ago, a friend of mine published a book bearing the standard
spousal acknowledgment. She wrote, "To my husband, without whom this
book would never have been written."

Twelve months later, the book was headed for paperback, the marriage
was headed for divorce court and the author wanted to change the
inscription. She wanted to write, "To my husband, without whom this
book would have been written 10 years earlier."

Since then, I have been aware of how thoroughly people rewrite the
scripts of their marriage after the book has slammed shut.  The wife
who earns her PHT - Putting Hubby Through school - may get gratitude at
graduation. But when the bloom is off the marriage, he has a better
memory of her hampering his studies than paying his bills.

A husband who stands by his wife while she climbs the corporate ladder
is dutifully dubbed "supportive." But when she jumps out of the
marriage, she remembers him as a ball and chain rather than the helium
of her ascent.

All sorts of story lines change when the happily ever after is abruptly
ended. Did her dinner parties help his promotion, or did her fallen
souffle nearly ruin his career? Was he the savvy manager of her career
or merely a hanger-on? Ask their lawyers.

This re-evaluation of marriage has been a running joke of rich and
famous men and their ex-wives. In the postscript to divorce, the
pampered wife becomes the money-grubbing ex-wife.

But what is different now is that it's happening to rich and famous
women as well. Man bites dog. Or, rather, husband sues for alimony and
half the estate.

This variation on the theme dropped into the tabloid consciousness
early this summer when Good Morning America's Joan Lunden was ordered
to pay her ex-husband of 14 years $18,000 a month in alimony. Lunden,
who is said to earn some $2 million a year, called it a "deplorable and
shameful statement on how working women are treated today.  Why the
courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife to go get
a job is beyond my comprehension."

Her complaints and other howls of protest appeared everywhere from
People magazine to the latest Redbook to your friendly neighborhood
dinner party. Whether it's actress Jane Seymour or Seema (the ex-Mrs.
Ivan) Boesky, the women have money and the men want it.

The economic worth of a husband or wife is very hypocritical,
unexamined and always a dangerous topic in a marriage. If you want to
know what people really want to give each other, look at the terms in a
prenuptial agreement. There is a notable lack of generosity. The
message of these contracts is, "I will keep you in style in which I
want to live but only while I feel good about you."

If such premarital agreements are still relatively new, it's because
they can't get the person they love under those conditions. So they
promise, "everything I have is yours," but they really mean what's in
the agreement.

It seems to me that most married couples already belong to two
competing economic systems. We work as individuals. There's one name on
a paycheck. On the other hand, we think of marriage as a partnership.

When marriage succeeds, it's by muting the relationship between money
and power. Indeed, if marriage is to work, it must operate more like a
mutual fund.

But from the front lines of divorce, we are learning a dirty little
secret. Many husbands and wives were keeping books on each other all
along.

Source: Columbus Dispatch, August 1992

========================================================================

Advising Fathers Against Seeking Custody

Editorial by Don Beaver

The rumored statistic that fathers who fight for custody are awarded
custody more than mothers has been bothering me a bit, for the
following reason:

Fathers are discouraged from seeking custody, by their lawyers, by
social attitudes, by fears of hurting the children, and by statistics
showing mothers are awarded support in the vast majority of cases.

If true, this means that the cases in which fathers seek custody are
precisely those where they have a compelling reason to believe they
will succeed despite these factors. Thus the "success rate" of fathers
is very misleading.

I came across some support for this in Weitzman and Dixon, Child
Custody Awards (1979), and in Foote, Levy, Sander, Cases and Materials
on Family Law, 3d ed. (1985), 865ff:

"... 98% of these domestic relations specialists [attorneys interviewed
in LA in 1975] said that they perceived most judges as acting as though
there were still a presumption in favor of the mother in making
decisions about the custody of preschool children."

"81% of the Los Angeles judges we interviewed said they thought that
there was still a presumption in favor of the mother for preschool
children, although most of them qualified their responses by noting
that the presumption was an attitudinal predisposition rather than `the
law.'"

"46% [of lawyers who tried to dissuade clients] did so when they
thought the client's legal chances were poor."

"It seems likely that more husbands have not contested custody because
their lawyers share traditional values about father custody. ... Thus,
one Minneapolis attorney informs his male clients that he is willing to
contest custody - if he is provided with a $5000 retainer."

========================================================================

Transquips #3

Q: Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition
notice which I sent to your attorney?
A: No. This is how I dress when I go to work.

========================================================================

It Isn't Slavery: "Fairness" in Custody Rulings

Editorial by Peter Chrzanowski

As I was reading the Aug. 20, 1992 Chicago Tribune, I came across an
editorial which appears to argue that "fairness in custody" means "a
systematic preference for mothers in custody rulings." Below are
excerpts:

	Speaking out on the Uniqueness of Motherhood

		-  An article by Joan Beck, Chicago Tribune

	"Parenting is not gender-neutral. Mothering is not the same as
	fathering. Children change women in profound ways unlike their
	impact on men. And ignoring these obvious facts unnecessarily
	undermines women's work-force roles, distorts equality issues
	in marriage, and leads to unfairness in custody decisions in
	divorce.

	"So says University of Chicago law professor Mary Becker in an
	article in the current California Review of Law and Women's
	Studies. Becker intends to breach the `conspiracy of silence'
	about women's unique closeness to their children and argues for
	a systematic preference for mothers in custody rulings.

	"By breaking the `taboo' against realistically exploring the
	intensity and impact of mother-child relationships, Becker
	makes points that are important far beyond the courtroom.

	"`I argue that mothering and fathering continue to be different
	activities,' Becker says. `Mothers tend to be more intensely
	involved in their children's lives and tend to have greater
	empathy for their children.'

	"`The pleasures and pains of mothering begin with pregnancy,
	childbirth and nursing, none of which are experienced by men
	and all of which are emotionally intense, emotionally costly,
	often painful and joyful activities,' Becker points out.

			*	*	*

	"It is essential to make economic and career equality possible
	for men and women, to equalize the rewards and burdens of
	parenting more fairly. But it won't be possible without taking
	into account the unique contributions mothers make to
	children."

In the above editorial, it seems that Becker does not argue for
"equality before the law" but for "fairness," which she then defines as
"preference for women."

Joan Beck has, in other articles, identified herself as a "feminist." I
was surprised to see a feminist arguing for what is essentially
biological determinism in support of traditional social roles. To me,
this sounds remarkably like the arguments Phyllis Schafly, et. al.,
made against the proposed equal rights amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

Of course, it may be that this is not feminism (whatever that means
today) but merely political opportunism. If fathers are less than equal
parents, would it follow that they are more than equal breadwinners -
and therefore should receive preference over married women in the
workplace (first hired, last fired)?

The fact that pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing are part of female
mammalian biology hardly proves that fathers are less important to
children, especially non-infant children, than mothers. It's true that
men and women tend to have different styles of parenting, that men
often relate to their children in different ways than women. It doesn't
follow, however, that the traditional women's style of parenting is
"better," or that women have more empathy. Rather, mother and father
form a complementary set for the child, and therefore neither should be
a mere "visitor" in the child's life after divorce.

	"[University of Chicago law professor] Becker ...  argues for a
	systematic preference for mothers in custody rulings."

	"Becker's concern is primarily for fairness in child custody
	decisions." - Joan Beck

========================================================================

What is a `Real Dad'(tm)?

Editorial by Jon Wood

A `Real Dad'(tm) is someone like me, who more than pays for his children's
needs, but also pays for their mother's vacations with fiance #4.

`Real Dads' like me VISIT their children, kind of like women who have
visitation with their children, except they're in PRISON for murdering
one of their children. The only difference between the murderer and me
is that her living children are DELIVERED to her.

A `Real Dad' makes outrageous child support payments to support the
children's mortgage payment. That way when my children turn 18, the ex-
will return to the children THEIR investment in THEIR home. Sure she
will.

A `Real Dad' pays huge amounts to his children's mother so the money
can be spent wisely. Her parental responsibility is assumed, but his is
questioned. `Real Dads' have their child support payments (32% after
state and federal taxes, FICA) garnished from their paychecks. `Real
Dads' are presumed criminals.

`Real Dads' pay as much as $120,000 in child support (my estimated
child support payments until my kids are 18, this figure does not
include inflation, higher income and future mandates from Government).

`Real Dads' are only visitors and baby-sitters. `Real Dads' are awarded
reasonable visitation at divorce. Reasonable visitation states that the
`Real Dad' is allowed to pick up his children at the "children's house"
(NOT) every other weekend. `Real Dads' are also allowed one "visit" per
week. [Some even get to make one phone call.]

A `Real Dad' can drive 125 miles to pick up his children only to be
told, "You can't see 'em, and if you come over to my sister's house,
I'll call the cops."

A `Real Dad' talks to police officers and finds out that "there is
nothing we can do, Mr. Wood. Talk to an attorney." `Real Dads' don't
have money for attorneys.

`Real Dads' buy their children roller blades and used bicycles while
their children tell them that their `stepdad' bought them a new bike.
`Real Dads' hear their children tell them about new swimming pools they
might get.

A `Real Dad' buys them clothes because he doesn't want to take his
children to church wearing worn out T-shirts and hand-me-down tennis
shoes.

`Real Dads' become upset with court systems that charge $90 filing fees
to question visitation denial but charge mothers demanding child
support increases ZERO. `Real Dads' question the government's
idealistic copout that mandates they must DESTROY `Real Dads' because
it is in the "best interest of children."

`Real Dads' question the sincerity and motives of Hillary Clinton's
involvement in the Children's Defense Fund.

`Real Dads' felt sick when they heard Bill Clinton's convention
speech.

`Real Dads' become so fed up with the system that some of them have
become angry enough to walk into the Ft. Worth Family Court and blow as
many people away as possible. `Real Dads' are not surprised to hear
about it on the radio. `Real Dads' expect this to happen and for the
incidence of such events to increase.

I've known `Real Dads' to turn to drink. I've known `Real Dads' who've
killed themselves.

`Real Dads' wonder how other `Real Dads' can hold up.

`Unreal Dads' think it couldn't happen to them.

`Real Dads' miss out on a lot of their children's lives. `Real Dads'
pay for baseball gloves but rarely see them in practice.

`Real Dads' pay taxes to support a woman's right to choose, but felt a
slap in the face when the Supreme Court said that a woman does not have
to notify her husband that she is aborting the child. `Real Dads' pay
taxes for schools, AFDC and deadbeat moms. `Real Dads' pay taxes to
support single mothers to go to college and better themselves.

`Real Dads' have been to war to preserve freedom, for their children.
`Real Dads' dream and hope their children will not have to fight to
preserve their freedom, and their `syster's choices.'

`Real Dads' care about their children's future.

I've known children to miss their `Real Dads.'

`Real Dads' do the best they can.

========================================================================

Ohio Senate Bill 10

This bill went into effect July 16, 1992. As we previously reported, it
changes a number of provisions. It establishes a procedure for the
voluntary acknowledgment of paternity which bypasses the time-consuming
and costly court process. All forms for acknowledgment of paternity
list each parent's rights and responsibilities.

Previously, when a father talked to an attorney, he was probably told
that, as a man, he had no rights. Thanks to Senate Bill 3, fathers and
mothers are equal before the court in determining custody - shared
parenting is a viable option for parents who are not married.

As a result of the passage of Senate Bill 10, a pamphlet was created
that stipulates parental rights and responsibilities entitled "The
Father-Child Relationship." You can get a free copy of this pamphlet by
calling (800) 686-1556.

========================================================================

Transquips #4

Q: Have you ever been arrested?
A: Yes.

Q: What for?
A: Aggravating a female.

========================================================================

Deputies Still Tracking 13 Child Support Evaders

By Mary Stephens

Franklin county deputy sheriffs are beating the bushes for the
remaining dozen or so parents accused in a mass indictment last week of
not paying child support.

As of yesterday, deputies had arrested 20 of 33 people charged with
felony non-support. Nine have been arraigned in Common Pleas Court.

Arrests began last Wednesday after Prosecutor Michael Miller announced
the indictments.

Tracking down the 32 men and one woman hasn't been easy, especially
after their names were publicized, sheriff's department officials say.

It's easier to catch a murderer sometimes that the guy (delinquent) on
child support.

"They'll do anything to get out of it," Austin said adding that
deputies often must drive unmarked cars and wear plain clothes to avoid
having the targets flee.

"It gets as complicated as a drug bust," he said.

Thursday, the three deputies normally assigned to child support cases
got help from the department's tactical unit, which spent the day
tracking indicates instead of doing its normal monthly training.

Records of the county Child Support Enforcement Agency say the 20
arrested so far owe more than $290,000 in back support.

Each one convicted of felony non-support could be sentenced to 18
months in prison and fined $2,500.

Each has been or will be arraigned in Common Pleas Court, at which time
he or she will enter a plea. Those who make bail will be released
pending trial.

Danny Lee Knight, extradited from Texas, fears he could be in jail or
prison for a very long time.

Franklin County says he owes his ex-wife $10,625, the total debt
incurred since his $25-per-week support order was established with his
divorce 10 years ago.

Knight says he paid his wife regularly until January 1983, when he was
sent to prison in Idaho on an arson conviction. He said he started
paying again when he was released in early 1990 but stopped when he
lost his job in January.

"I started mowing grass in order to survive," said Knight, who did four
stretches in prison before the Idaho term.

"I'm a five-time loser, I admit that," Knight said yesterday from
Franklin County Jail. "I went to Texas to start over and get my life
straight, and I was proceeding to do just that. Then I found out
there's a warrant for me in Franklin County."

Knight said he didn't fight his extradition, which he thought was for a
1982 contempt-of-court conviction. He said he learned of the felony
non-support charge only after he arrived in Columbus.

Now I'm up against a felony. He fears that a conviction on the
non-support charge would put him in violation of his Idaho parole and
send him back to prison there for eight years.

Knight's ex-wife could not be reached for comment.

Source: Columbus Dispatch, August 1992

[Editorial Comment: This shows how much publicity can be generated for
33 deadbeat parents. On the other hand, millions of parents have their
visitation interfered with by custodial parents. Where are those news
reports?]

========================================================================

Impact of the Absent Father

By Marilyn Elias

Murphy Brown's baby is likely to be as well-behaved and academically
successful in elementary school as traditionally reared kids, suggests
a study out Sunday.

"A very strong case could be made that in many respects the Brown kid
is perfectly well off," says sociologist Frank L. Mott of Ohio State
University, Columbus.

Mott followed 1,714 children for three years to see how living without
a biological dad affected behavior and academic skills.

At the start, 73% of the youngsters, ages 2 to 5, had dad at home;
three years later, 60% were still intact families. He presented
findings to the American Sociological Association meeting in
Pittsburgh.

Highlights of the study:

     o  When moms' education and income were taken into account, there
	was no difference in math and reading skills between kids
	living with and without a father.

     o  Low income and poor education predicted trouble adjustment far
	more than parents' marital status.

Critics of one-parent families are fingering the wrong culprits, Mott
argues.

"We need to get mothers better educated and boost income, because it's
this, rather than having a father at home, that affects kids the most."

But the findings were challenged by divorce researcher Judith
Wallerstein of Corte Madeira, Calif.

Because Mott didn't do open-ended interviews with the children, and
didn't contact fathers, he easily could have missed emotional trauma
inflicted by divorce, she says.

Mothers' behavioral reports are often biased.

And it's not meaningful to separate the influences of income and
marital status - because divorced women as a whole are so much poorer
than wives, she says.

"In real life, being poor and divorced is usually one and the same."

Source: USA Today, August 24, 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #5

Q: When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were
able, for the time being, excluding all the restraints on her not to
go, also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to
the station?
A: MR. BROOKS. Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.

========================================================================

Ruling Says Doctors Can Relay Child's Statements

A trial court may admit as evidence information relayed by a child
through a physician regarding the perpetrator and circumstances of a
sex crime against that child, the Ohio Supreme Court has decided.

The high court ruled 5-2 yesterday in a 5-year-old case involving
Frederick M. Dever Jr. of Mariemont, Hamilton County, who was convicted
on sexual assault of his 4 1/2-year-old daughter.

Dever was convicted of rape and gross sexual imposition after Dr. Ann
Saluke of Children's Hospital in Hamilton County testified as to what
the girl told her about the crime, including the identification of
Dever.

The conviction upheld on appeal to the Hamilton County Court of Appeals
but was sent back by the US Supreme Court in view of that court's 1990
ruling in an Idaho case.

The court of appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial
because of questions about the motivation of the girl's statements.

Justice Alice Robie Resnick, writing for the majority, said the case
presented an exception to the normal rule on admission of hearsay.

Resnick said children understand they must tell the truth to the doctor
treating them. She said the statements made by the child were pertinent
to both diagnosis and treatment and that admitting them does not
violate the defendant's right of confrontation.

The majority's decision not only allows the child to speak through the
mouths of others in a situation where the child cannot be questioned,
but also gives the child's words the extra authority of being spoken by
a doctor.

Source: Columbus Dispatch, August 1992

========================================================================

Cleveland Near Top of Child Poverty List

About 43 percent of Cleveland's children are living in poverty, ranking
the city among the worst nationwide, the Children's Defense Fund
announced Tuesday in Washington. The average for cities with
populations of more than 100,000 was 26.2 percent.

"Child poverty is high, rising and pervasive in cities of every type
and every corner of the nation," James Weill, CDF general counsel said.
"All American children are at risk."

In Cleveland, the study found racial and ethnic minority children
suffered the most, the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported Wednesday.

Nearly 54 percent of Cleveland's black children were poor, far above
the 42 percent average in the nation's 200 largest cities.  The study
also showed nearly 50 percent of Hispanic children in Cleveland [were
poor], again more than the 35 percent national large city average.

White children also suffered from poverty in Cleveland at rates higher
than in other large metropolitan areas. The study showed 28 percent of
white children in the lakefront city were poor, far above the 15
percent average for large cities.

And the total number of poor children grew more quickly in Ohio than in
nearly any other state. In the 1980s - while the national economy
improved - the number of poor Ohio children grew 33 percent, about
three times the national average, the study showed.

The study defined "poor" according to Census Bureau guidelines, which
vary family size and is adjusted for inflation.  In 1989, the year
reflected in the 1990 census, a family of four was considered poor if
its income was below $12,675.

Weill said the recession, which started in the middle of 1990, has
probably increased the number of children dealing with poverty.

Source: UPI-Radio, August 12, 1992

========================================================================

Child Check 

The Early Childhood Resource Network (ECRN), a coalition of over 40
agencies/organizations/individuals (including parents) in Franklin
County, which provides services to young children who have
developmental delays or are at risk for such, is continuing to provide
FREE developmental screenings of young children under six years of age,
staffed by community professionals who work with young children on a
routine basis.

Child Check is being offered each month, with times alternating between
mornings and late afternoon/evenings.

Appointments for Child Check should be made by calling the Early
Childhood Resource Network between 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through
Friday at 292-7714.

Child Checks are held monthly, year round.

========================================================================

A Call to FACE

A caller to the FACE phone number related the following story:

The caller was a non-custodial father who was paying court-ordered
support to his daughter through payroll deduction and the Child Support
Enforcement Agency (CSEA). His former wife recently filed for an
increase. Before the case could be scheduled, she died. Children's
Services gave him the child after a short period. They told him it was
up to him to take care of the details.

He went to the court to stop his child support payments, secure
authorization to enroll his child in school, and secure authorization
to add his child to his health insurance.

After being passed from receptionist to receptionist and from desk to
desk, the only positive advice he received was "get an attorney."

It is hard to believe that our legal system is such a mess that a
parent has to have an attorney to help secure rights which should be
understood.

The only good thing that happened as a result of his visit to the court
house was that the child support checks, which are still being deducted
from his payroll and are still being sent to the deceased mother's
address, are, at least, being returned to CSEA by the post office.

Since receiving the original call, Franklin County CSEA is working to
stop the payroll deduction, but it is not known when the money will be
returned to the father.

This Newsletter goes to county and state officials. It is hoped that
one or more of them will say, "This is not right, there has to be a
better way." Tell us how we can help people with problems like these
when they call for our help.

========================================================================

Transquips #6

Q: Are you married?
A: No, I'm divorced.

Q: What did your husband do before you divorced him?
A: A lot of things that I didn't know about.

========================================================================

State School Board Approves Anti-Paddling Resolution

COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) - The State Board of Education has approved a
resolution opposing the use of corporal punishment in Ohio's public
schools.

The resolution, approved Monday, is the "board's first commitment to
state its position that it is against corporal punishment," said
Assistant Superintendent Robert Moore.

Previously, the board's position was that the use of paddling was an
issue to be decided by local school boards. Moore said the board is now
saying "it is time to do away with it."

Board member Anthony Ross of Mayfield Village offered the resolution,
which defines corporal punishment as "punishment inflicted to the body
of a child as a penalty for disapproved behavior."

The resolution says it should not be used in public school except to
"quell a disturbance threatening physical injury to others, to obtain
possession of weapons or other dangerous objects ... for the purpose of
self-defense, or for the protection of persons and property."

The board plans to send copies of the resolution to all Ohio schools,
Gov. George Voinovich and the Ohio General Assembly along "with a
request that appropriate legislation be enacted which is consistent
with this resolution."

A bill pending in the state Senate would require schools to at least
review their disciplinary policies to determine if they wanted to
retain corporal punishment.

Most large school districts in Ohio already have banned paddling.

The Ohio Parent Teachers Association has been working for 15 years to
end physical punishment in schools, said Nancy Schlemmer, the group's
president.

"When a school official reacts to anger or frustration with violence or
with force, youngsters learn that brutality is an acceptable way to
solve problems," Schlemmer said. "This is an unacceptable lesson for
school personnel to instill in children - especially in our society
where children today witness too much violence."

Nadine Block, director of the Ohio Center for More Effective School
Discipline, said the center has been lobbying the Legislature for a ban
against paddling in Ohio schools.

Block said statewide bans against corporal punishment have been enacted
in 22 states, including California and New York.

Source: UPI-Radio, August 11, 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #7

Q: Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the
influence?
A: Because he was argumentary, and he couldn't pronunciate his words.

========================================================================

Legislator Offers Welfare Reform Bill

COLUMBUS, Ohio (UPI) - Rep. Michael Fox, R-Hamilton, has introduced a
welfare reform bill that would deny increases in Aid to Families with
Dependent Children payments to families that have additional children.

Fox said Thursday his bill also would: 

     >  Deny General Assistance to adults without a high school diploma
	or its equivalent.

     >  Make it a felony for pregnant women to cause birth defects in
	their children by smoking, drinking or using drugs.

     >  Let Aid to Families with Dependent Children recipients earn
	more money without jeopardizing their medical benefits and
	daycare.

"We're not going to subsidize your ignorance ... your promiscuity ...
your drug abuse," Fox said. "We're not going to subsidize your
unwillingness to work."

Fox said his ideas would save hundreds of millions of dollars a year in
the state's $4 billion Medicaid program and give welfare recipients new
opportunities to find work without losing health care and daycare
benefits.

He said the overall health of welfare recipients and their children
would also improve under new requirements to supervise health care
deliver to Medicaid recipients and a mandate that the estate turn over
Medicaid administration to private insurance companies.

"No one's going to get hurt in this - nobody," Fox said. 

Fox's bill also would pay $1,000 bonuses to women who go five years
without bearing children and would require recipients to "receive
pregnancy avoidance information" every two months.

"If I had my way, I would require Norplant (an implanted contraceptive
for women) as a condition" for Aid to Families with Dependent Children,
Fox said.

"There is nothing unreasonable about asking those in poverty to show
the same responsibility as others," he said.

Source: UPI-Radio, August 14, 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #8

Q: How did you happen to go to Dr. Cheney?
A: Well, a gal down by the road had had several of her children by 
Dr. Cheney and said he was really good.

========================================================================

Unruly Kids May Get Help of Advocates

By Mary Stephens

Franklin County Children's Services hopes a private social work company
can do a better job helping troubled teens than the crowded court
system can.

The agency's board is expected today to approve hiring Youth Advocate
Programs, a private non-profit company, to counsel unruly and
delinquent youths.

If the board approves a contract, the company will set up the Franklin
County Advocate Program as a pilot project for youths charged with
truancy, running away, unruliness and some criminal offenses. The
contract would run through July 31.

Under the proposed contract, the agency would pay the private company a
flat fee of $1,236 for every youth referred. The agency plans to set
aside $323,800 for the pilot program, spokeswoman Kay Marshall said.

Instead of becoming wards of Children's Services, youths assigned to
the program would come under the care of advocates - counselors who
meet with youths and their families, try to sort out the causes for the
child's misbehavior and come up with solutions.

County officials are excited about the advocate program because they
believe it offers much more personal contact with youths than does a
standard Children's Services commitment.

"I think this is the wave of the future - privatization of these kind
of services," said Juvenile Court Judge Ronald L. Solove.  He said the
court needs more ways to deal with troubled youths who don't belong in
an institution.

"We have had such limited options on what to do with unruly kids,"
Solove said. "This is really a step forward."

Youth Advocate Programs was founded in 1975 by Thomas L.  Jeffers, a
North High School graduate who became a protege of Jerome G. Miller.

Miller made headlines in 1969 when, as head of the Massachusetts
Department of Youth Services, he padlocked all the state's reform
schools and sent the occupants back to their communities for treatment
by private schools and youth service agencies.

Like Miller, Jeffers became convinced that delinquent youths are more
likely to be set straight by confidence-building and counseling than by
youth prisons.

"There's a lot better ways of dealing with people than by putting them
in institutions," Jeffers said yesterday.

"What we do is predicated on the idea that people have strengths as
well as weaknesses," he said. "We try to maximize the strengths of
these kids instead of hammering away at the weaknesses."

Jeffers' company looks to hire advocates who know their clients'
neighborhoods and have "real life experiences" that help them
understand troubled teens. In the 30 or so programs operated by the
company, college graduates typically make up about one-fourth of the
staff.

Another fourth has had some college but did not graduate, and half have
no college.

Would-be advocates "obviously need a lot of energy," Jeffers said, and
should be willing to look on their charges as friends.

Typically, an advocate might try to build a client's self-esteem by
having him train for a job or do something helpful such as volunteering
at a daycare center for retirement center.

Advocates might work with clients in groups to work on homework or
job-finding skills.

"We're not looking for saviors," Jeffers said, "Most of us have groups
of friend and family where we resolve our problems and make our
decisions. We're trying to duplicate that. It's the way people resolved
problems before there was such a thing as social work."

Source: Columbus Dispatch, August 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #9

THE COURT: Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all 
present information and prejudice from your minds, if you 
have any.

========================================================================

Remarried?

Do you think there are a lot of remarriages these days? If so, you are
right! Here are some statistics:

     o  84 percent of divorced men and 75 percent of divorced women
	remarry within four years.

     o  70 million Americans, in one way or another, are involved in
	step-families.

     o  By 1990, more people were part of a second marriage than a
	first.

Source: Women's News, August 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #10

Q: What happened then?
A: He told me, he says, "I have to kill you because you can identify 
me."

Q: Did he kill you?
A: No.

========================================================================

Update on a Shooting in the Courthouse

(CLEVELAND) - A man accused of killing two people inside a Cleveland
courthouse in January is to go on trial October 26th in Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court. Abdul Awkal is charged with killing his estranged
wife and her brother in a child custody dispute. Judge Stuart Friedman
ruled yesterday that Awkal has recovered enough from his initial
depression to stand trial.

Source: UPI-Radio, September 4, 1992

========================================================================

Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?

Editorial by Bob Kirkpatrick, member of FREE, Guardian Ad Litem

I watched with interest as the ABC News Program 20/20 attempted to look
into the recent flare of courtroom shootings in family law courts.

The comments by those interviewed in the program were, on the whole, an
indication of a severe problem with the system of law regarding
divorce, support, and custody. The news people, and their final
interviewee saw it as a problem of security in the courthouses.

I was left disturbed by the program. Certainly it's disturbing when you
hear about the killing of people, but what really struck me hard was
the attempt to dismiss the shooters as people who "didn't like someone
telling them what to do." What I watched was another case of media
spin. That's the broadcaster/writer/ interviewer trying to impart a
different meaning to a set of events than the reality of the
circumstances reveals.

An attorney being interviewed commented that the divorce system took so
long that the stress levels of the people involved in divorce made the
parties unstable. Of interest was that it was men shooting judges,
attorneys, and court participants rather than men and women doing it.
Now, it could be pointed to that men are more violent in their nature
than women, and as such, it isn't surprising that it was men who
perpetrated the crimes.

If you watched the interview though, and saw what the perpetrators had
to say, and read comments from the letters that were sent to a
broadcaster involved in one of the shootings, you'd have seen that in
each and every case, people were outraged by the unfair treatment that
was handed out by the courts - unfair treatment which favored women
over men, and, to such a degree, that few had any deep sympathy for the
court officers who were killed or wounded.

The WHY of the shootings wasn't a matter of security, but instead a
matter of slow emotional torture of one of the parties to a divorce -
the person being run roughshod over by a prejudiced system which has no
compassion and no compunctions from taking absolutely everything from a
person.

The same attorney who spoke of the "long emotional torture" also seemed
surprised that lawyers were the object of the shootings. Why this could
be a credible posture eludes me a bit.  Almost everyone knows the story
which epitomizes the common view of attorneys:

A priest, a doctor and a lawyer were fishing. A sudden storm overturned
the small boat they were in, and the priest and doctor were immediately
consumed by sharks. As the Coast Guard pulled the shaken attorney from
the waves, he stammered "Why them and not me?" To which the captain of
the cutter replied, "Professional Courtesy."

Now, I don't mean to indict all attorneys. There are some good ones out
there. But, they're getting harder and harder to find. On the whole,
the usual posture we see in divorce cases is an attorney simply running
with what they expect from the courts:  regardless of the circumstances
of the divorce, the man is going to lose his home, property, retirement
and a great deal of his income.

Is this a sexist statement and an unfair portrayal of "usual lawyers?"
No, I don't think so. Divorce is almost always a victimization of both
parties, and each case should be taken on its own merits - instead of
applying some unrealistic set of criteria, through tables and
mind-sets, of how things should be.  However, the way in which divorce
law is applied today, the great majority of cases end with the man
being treated as though he was entirely responsible.

I have seen men who, were I a woman, I couldn't stay married to. Hell,
I don't even like them as fellow men. But the converse is true too. I
know women who are disasters as wives, and also wouldn't be among those
counted as my friends.

But specifics of my personal experiences aside, what should we consider
divorce to be? To me, divorce occurs when husband and wife simply can't
continue as partners in their lives. When that occurs between partners
in a business, court arbitration often divides the assets equally and
does the same with the liabilities - both current and future. Why is it
that divorce should be treated differently?

I suspect that the answer to this is also the answer to why divorce is
the charged issue it is today, and why it is that we're seeing a rise
in physical and emotional violence. Half of the marriages today end in
divorce. Shouldn't we be looking for a less lopsided and more pragmatic
approach to resolving divorces?

I think so.

========================================================================

Transquips #11

Q: Do you know how far pregnant you are right now?
A: I will be three months November 8th.

Q: Apparently then, the date of conception was August 8th?
A: Yes.

Q: What were you and your husband doing at that time?

========================================================================

Mediation Works Better Than Contested Divorce

By Judith Thomas, Granville, Ohio

S.E. Zeno's (recent letter to the editor), describing her experience of
the divorce process, is all too typical. Many couples go through two or
more years of financial and emotional expense and endless delays before
their divorce is final. The fault does not lie in the court system per
se, nor in any of its personnel. The judges in the Franklin County
Domestic Relations Court are exceptionally competent and committed.
The problem, rather, lies in the limitations of the litigation process
for family issues and in the expectations our culture teaches us about
the divorce process.

Divorce is a source of both emotional and financial hardship.  When
children are involved, the problems are even more complex. As Zeno
points out, the divorcing couple are in a poor position to make the
important decisions required in order to divorce. Yet these two are
still the best people to make them. No judge understands their personal
situation as well as they do; certainly not judge, however empathetic,
knows or cares about their children as much as they do.

Fortunately, there is a better option for most divorcing couples-
professional mediation to help them make the difficult but necessary
financial and parenting decisions. A dissolution, based on a mediated
agreement, is faster, less expensive and much less emotionally draining
than a bitterly contested divorce. Where children are concerned, it is
the best guarantee of continued contact with both parents in an
atmosphere of cooperation.

Source: Columbus Dispatch, August 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #12

Q: Mrs. Smith, you do believe that you are emotionally unstable?
A: I used to be.

Q: How many times have you committed suicide?
A: Four times.

========================================================================

Ohio Senate Bill 352

Senate Bill 352 is "the visitation bill" - the one for which we have
been waiting and working. Senate leadership has assigned this bill to
Senator Schafrath's State and Local Government committee. Hearings will
begin in the fall. Do you have an opinion? If you do, a letter to
Senator Schafrath would be appropriate now, before hearings begin.
Also, if you wish, we will accept letters of support or constructive
criticism and may publish some letters in future editions of the
Newsletter. This is an excellent way for officials to let interested
voters know where they stand. And visa-versa.

Source: CFR Newsletter, August 1992

========================================================================

Transquips #13

Q: What is your name?
A: Ernestine McDowell.

Q: What is your marital status?
A: Fair.

========================================================================

Clinton's Family Values

Some excerpts from a Clinton speech on Family Values, May 21, 1992.

			*	*	*

The President's speech extolled the virtues of family life, lamented
the breakdown of the family, said family life had more to do with what
happens in America than what goes on in Washington - that's probably
true, and thank goodness. But it offered no real action agenda for
improving the plight of our most troubled families.

			*	*	*

When I was four, my mother remarried. And though their marriage was not
free of difficulty - some of which has been reported in the press - my
brother and I benefited from the love of my stepfather and his extended
family. They enriched my life and my sense of what I could do with it.
My mother has been widowed in her life three times, but luckily is
married to a wonderful man who has also been a friend and inspiration
to me.

			*	*	*

And finally, we've worked to increase child support enforcement through
innovative efforts like reporting every delinquent parent who owes more
than a $1,000 to every major credit agency in our state.

The thrust of all these efforts is to find, what I would call, a third
way to approach the American family - beyond the traditional politics
of both parties, beyond the Administration's cheerleading for family
values on the one hand, and on the other hand, the old big-government
notion that there's a program for every social problem.

			*	*	*

If family values are going to mean something, we must offer the nation
a third way - guarantee opportunity for every family, but demand
responsibility from every individual.

			*	*	*

Parents have to work two jobs and spend more hours at work and too
little time with their kids because wages are declining in America.
You're on your own. If parents without health care, who live in deadly
fear they won't be able to care for their children without going
bankrupt, they're on their own. If poor, uneducated parents need
preschool for their children so they'll have a chance to do better than
their parents, well, they're on their own.

The problem is, nobody is on their own in this country, we're all in
this together. The more we ignore these problems today, the more we'll
all pay for them tomorrow in lost economic strength, in increased
violence, in costlier jails, in poorer schools, and lost futures. As my
friend Governor Ann Richards of Texas said of the looters and the
shooters of the streets of Los Angeles:  "These young hoodlums who burn
and batter and turn our streets into killing fields were once our
children - small and helpless and needing our attention and our love,
and we let them go - tossed them aside like yesterday's news. Now they
are making headlines that we don't want to read. God may forgive them
but we can't condone their action or reclaim their lives.  They are
lost to us. This tragedy must end with this generation.  It must stop
now."

			*	*	*

First, we should reward work and family. Today millions of Americans
work full time but don't make enough to lift their families out of
poverty. That's wrong. No one who works full-time and has children at
home should be poor in America.

			*	*	*

The truth is, most people on welfare don't like it any more than you
do. A few years ago, I asked the woman in our welfare-to-work program
in Arkansas what she liked best about her new job. And she said -
wasn't earning a paycheck - it was knowing that when her son went to
school and they asked him what your mother does for a living, he could
give an answer.  People want the dignity of work.

			*	*	*

We can end welfare as we know it, not by punishing the poor, but by
empowering them to take care of their children and to be role models.

			*	*	*

Third, we need to do more to protect America's children from the
consequences of divorce and absent fathers - and on some occasions,
absent mothers. I was born to a single mother who was lucky enough to
have the support of an extended family.  Today, in the governor's
office, I have old pictures of my grandfather and my great-grandfather.
Unfortunately, too few children know who their great-grandparents were,
and too many have parents who should pay for their upbringing but
don't.

We need to get tough on child support enforcement with a nationwide
crackdown on deadbeat parents. In our state, if you fall more than a
thousand dollars behind in your child support, we report you to every
major credit agency in the state. People shouldn't be able to borrow
money for other things before they take care of their children.

Because of that and other efforts, like putting the name and social
security number of a father on a birth certificate if a mother shows up
to give birth without a father - thus shifting the burden to the man to
disprove his heritage - we collected more than $41 million from
"deadbeat parents" in 1991 - money that we didn't have to pay in
welfare or other public spending. These are the kinds of things that we
ought to do. We have to do more of them.

We must make the toughest possible child support enforcement efforts in
this country. We should enlist major credit agencies all across the
country to follow the example that Arkansas and a few other states
have. We ought to say to people everywhere, "Pay for your children
first or you shouldn't get credit." We ought to have a national system
of child support collection utilizing the Internal Revenue Service and
tax records.

I'm tired of seeing custodial parents bear the whole burden for the
problem of raising their children. Governments can't raise children -
people do - and the people who bring children into this world should
all bear a responsibility for raising them.

			*	*	*

Millions of Americans are already caught in a squeeze between taking
care of their parents and taking care of their children. We should not
now make them choose between work and family - not if we are going to
be a pro-family country where most parents have to work.

			*	*	*

Our schools should also reinforce these family values and parental
involvement by bringing more parents in. Schools all over America can
follow the example of the Beasley Academic Center, a public junior high
school in Chicago. It's located in a neighborhood with the highest
murder rate in all of Illinois. But every week, 75 fathers and even
more mothers regularly volunteer in the schools.

			*	*	*

When my daughter was in her last month of sixth grade last year, I
remember taking her to school one day - as I do everyday when I'm home
- and seeing a very handsome man walking his child to school. He had
two other little children with him. And one of these little children
came running up to me, holding out his hands and jumping up into my
arms. He held me very tight. Now, as you know, I'm a politician, so I
love that - I mean, the baby wanted to kiss me.

But, if you know anything about child development - this child was
almost two years old - it's not a very good sign for a two-year-old
child still to be indiscriminately bestowing this sort of affection. So
I asked this man, I said, "How many children do you have?" He said,
"five." I said, "You mean you have the one that went in there, these
two, and two others?" And he said, "Oh, no, no, these two are not
mine." He said, "My wife and I had a daughter who died. And in honor of
her memory, we decided that we would spend the rest of our lives,
serving as foster parents for children in need. These two children I
have are not mine, they were abandoned by their mother, alone at home,
for two whole days." They were twenty months old.

"So the state gave them to us to care for - for a while - and we're
loving them and hoping that their mother can learn to love them and be
a good parent and eventually to take them back."

There are millions of children like that all over this country -
hanging in the balance. They are part of our national family. Of
course, we must exhort their parents to do a better job, and we must
write into our social programs incentives for stronger family values.
But we cannot ignore the plain need for a national policy to value
families ... to reconnect all Americans to our most cherished values
and the idea of progress for those who live by those values.

========================================================================

Child Support Enforcers Target First Professional: Woman Fights to Keep
Psychology License

Tucson psychologist Theresa Flores wanted a simple divorce and custody
of her two children when she walked into a courtroom nearly three years
ago. Instead, she ended up losing custody and now is fighting to keep
her professional license over non-payment of child support.

Flores has the dubious distinction of being the first professional
targeted under a new state of Arizona law designed to force payment.
The law, which took effect June 18, allows state officials to suspend
the licenses of professional who fail to pay child support, including
architects, chiropractors, funeral directors real estate agents
veterinarians, dentists medical doctors, and certified public
accountants.

Flores, who owes her former husband nearly $15,000 in delinquent
payments, is challenging the law. In a lawsuit filed last Dec. 13 in
Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, Flores seeks to overturn the
law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Meanwhile, a Phoenix judge granted her an injunction that enjoined the
state Board of Psychology Examiners from suspending her license.

Flores, 39, said she feels frustrated to be caught up in the new law.
"They're treating me as if it was a disciplinary number, and it's not.
I haven't been accused of any unprofessional conduct or in any way has
my professional life really been under attack," she said recently.
"It's a simple matter of a totally personal thing - the child support
arrearages."

She said it is a misconception to think all professionals are wealthy.
Her monthly net income is about $1,100, she said. "I'm not a rich
doctor, I don't have my own building. I don't have a large booming
private practice," Flores said. Her lawyer, Ethan Steele, said his
client is seeking money for legal expenses from professional groups.

Under the law, parents who are delinquent in their support payments are
subject to probation or suspension of their license unless they pay or
work out a payment plan with the court. The law allows a judge to
notify the appropriate state board that one of its licensees is in
arrears. The board then must contact that professional and hold a
hearing within 30 days.

The board may place the professional on probation if suspension of a
license "would create extreme hardship" to that person or the
professional's clients, according to the law.

Source: Arizona Daily Star, August 1992

========================================================================

Lawyerspeak <-> Orwellian Doublespeak

By Michael Rivero, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Animator

Tender years, primary caretaker, more nurturing parent, child support,
spousal support, the level accustomed to, absentee parent,
non-residential parent, reasonable visitation, the best interests of
the children..... War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is
strength.

Lawyerspeak is a deliberate mask. Like the inflated rape statistics and
other lies used to support the feminist "cause," it has little to do
with fairness or equality. If you study the parallels between the
practices of the feminist extreme and the white supremacists of the
1950s, you'll see that what is happening here is political repression
and economic subjugation.

In the 60s, the FBI, as part of the COINTELPRO program of domestic
covert operations, published the "Black Panther's Coloring Book." I
think I still have a copy stashed away in a trunk. It was a coloring
book, purported to be given to black children by the black panthers,
with pictures of black people killing white people. It so infuriated
the average citizen that most people chose not to notice incidents of
political repression against black political leaders, because the
blacks somehow deserved such treatment, which is, of course, what the
FBI intended.

These days, the "coloring book" has been replaced by the afternoon TV
show, and while the extremists are too extreme to be taken seriously,
the overall effect has been to create a socially acceptable impression
that:

     1.	All men are rapists and that's all they are. 

     2. Women are naturally superior parents.

     3. All domestic violence is initiated by men.

     4. Men who actually love their families and voluntarily want to be
	responsible for them are too rare to take seriously.

     5. Men are biologically incapable of the same compassion and
	empathy that women are.

The net result is that political repression, which would be denounced
if applied to an ethnic group or to women, is tolerated by a public
that assumes that men, as a class, somehow deserve such treatment. The
removal of the presumption of innocence as a fundamental legal
principle is tolerated by a populace which assumes that the man, if not
guilty of the specific charge, simply MUST be guilty of something
else.

Lawyerspeak is a deliberate obfuscation device to keep the focus
shifting around. Those precious basic assumptions, without which
political repression cannot thrive, must be protected. Whites cannot be
allowed to see that all Blacks are not killers and looters. Women
cannot be allowed to see that all men aren't rapists and brutes. The
isolation must be maintained, the media image preserved, the legal
shortcuts left intact, if the political repression is to yield the
expected financial and empowerment gains. Otherwise, the feminist
leaders lose their blocks of votes; publishers' sales decline; judges,
attorneys and psychologists have to get "productive" jobs; the
manufacturers of rape whistles have to find another product to sell,
and afternoon TV has to start working to hold the audience again.
There is no large scale overriding conspiracy, merely the aggregate
desire to exploit any situation for profit. Once political repression
can show a profit, it develops a frightening momentum on it's own.

The early part of the trail to the death camps was lined, not only by
anti-semites, but also by the businessmen who were able to assume the
properties and assets of the deported owners. The ethnicity was merely
an excuse.

When the Black Panther's coloring book arrived in our home, neither I
nor my parents (who should have, after all known better) even thought
of talking to a black family to see if this was how they really felt.
The coloring book's very nature discouraged independent evaluation.
Likewise, when the flood of lies regarding men as
rapists/abusers/molesters/raving monsters first gained the attention of
the press and TV, the very nature of the accusations discouraged
independent evaluation.  Women were afraid of what they thought men
might be, and the communication between the genders slowed - indeed,
almost stopped. And that's just as the purveyors of the legal-speak
intended. Obfuscation. Preservation of basic and unprovable
assumptions. Fletcher Prouty said it best, "Politics is power.  Nothing
more."

========================================================================

Broken Homes

By Daniel Patrick Moynihan, US Senator from New York

When a family breaks down, young men ultimately lose a sense of
character and responsibility. There is one unmistakable lesson in
American history: A community that allows a large number of young men
to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any
set of rational expectations about the future - that community asks for
and gets chaos, crime, violence, unrest, disorder ... are very near to
inevitable.

[Editorial Comment: This was written 20 years ago.]

========================================================================

Why Cities Burn

By Asa Baber

I really like John McLaughlin. He is a crusty, amusing, tough-minded
man with an ability to laugh at himself. He is also one of the few
hosts on national TV that understands the problems that men face today
in this culture.

I was a guest on _John McLaughlin's One on One_ last May. I got on one
of my favorite topics and said, "I believe that until we stop
separating fathers from their children, we are going to have a society
in which we burn down our cities and have muggings in the streets. The
only answer to these problems is to bring fathers back into the
community." (This, let the record show, was ten days before Dan Quayle
blamed Murphy Brown for the burning of Los Angeles.)

According to conventional wisdom, the causes of our urban ills are as
follows: chronic unemployment, drug consumption and merchandising,
police brutality, racial strife, a breakdown in law and order, miserly
government funding, redlining by banks and real estate developers,
citizen disinterest, cultural myopia and economic depression.

An incident occurs, a population explodes, a city burns, a city is
looted, a city tries to recover, a postmortem is held and the usual
analyses and explanations are paraded before us. Some action is taken,
some money is handed out, some government grants and bank loans are
restructured. There is a fuss. Briefly. But inevitably, the media lose
interest, and life in the mean streets goes back to "normal."

The reason the problem of urban violence has not been effectively
addressed, my fellow Americans, is that the single most important cause
of urban unrest is usually ignored.

The deepest and most pernicious cause of our widespread national agony
is the disappearance of fathers and mentors from the community. We have
allowed fathers to become expendable in their children's lives, and we
are paying dearly for our cavalier attitude.

You will find millions of dollars allocated to rebuild businesses and
clean up city streets. But you will find no significantly funded
programs designed to bring fathers and mentors back into the community.
The megabucks go for window dressing, not radical rethinking.

For the moment, consider what a negative impact the absent father has
on his sons. In the introduction to my recently published collection of
*Men* columns (_Naked at the Gender Gap_), I wrote the following about the
universal need for fathers and mentors:

"When a young man grows up without valid mentors, when he is deserted
and misled and abandoned, he is placed in a terrible psychological
limbo. He is basically left without definition as a man. He remains
uninitiated, uninformed, and lost in confusion, sometimes for his
entire life. He also remains angry and embittered, feeling he has been
cheated by the men he depended on."

There you have it. When the father is expendable, when he is disposable
and disrespected, when his vital and necessary role in the growth of
his children is unacknowledged, young men (and, I believe, young women,
too) become rebellious. They yearn to burn. They carry within their
hearts what seems to be limitless anger.

What can we do? The following agenda will seem either incendiary or
foolish to some of you. But I assure you that I mean every word of it.

We must change our child support and custody laws. We must signify that
the father-child relationship is sacred and that the state cannot step
in and abolish it. We must have a better understanding of the pressures
a father faces, and we must reconstruct our social contract so that he
is encouraged - not forbidden - to see his children and be involved
with them.

One day, I hope, the following practices will be common in our
culture:

     1. Joint custody. The state will admit that it cannot declare
	fathers null and void. Unless proved abusive or derelict in a
	court of law, the father will always retain full parental
	rights in the eyes of the state. From the beginning, the
	father-child relationship will be considered sacred under the
	law.

     2. No strings access. There will be a certain number of days per
	week in which a father may be with his children. No strings, no
	conditions, no excuses. The children cannot be withheld from
	him at this time. He is their father. He has a right to be with
	them. Period. If there are disputes over child support payments
	or other issues, they are not reason enough to bar the father
	from seeing his children on these special days.

     3. Accountable use of child support payments. The state will spend
	as much energy ensuring that child support payments are being
	responsibly used by the mother as it will in pursuing the
	father for those payments. And the father will be given
	evidence of that accounting. He will not simply hand over his
	money to someone he may not trust to be spent without his
	knowledge.

     4. Enforced cooperation. If games are played with these
	arrangements and if fathers are barred from reasonable time
	with their children, the state will be vigorous in supporting
	the fathers' rights to have access to their kids.

     5. Definition of reasonable time. This is the most important
	element in the revised legal code. Instead of assuming that a
	father's importance to his children's growth is minimal, the
	law will finally acknowledge that the father is crucial to a
	healthy child, family and community. Fathers will be awarded
	maximum time with their kids.

If and when we reach these conditions, we will have a healthier and
safer society, and we will have taken one giant step toward our
survival as a people. If we continue to ignore this issue, our cities
will burn and our culture will die.

The choice is ours.

Source: Playboy Magazine, September 1992

========================================================================

Why Cities Burn: Another Opinion

By Matt Rosenblatt

Asa Baber describes a serious problem, and makes some suggestions for
dealing with it - suggestions with which I agree.

One way of looking at a problem is to ask questions like these:

     *  Did we always have this problem? If not, when did the problem
	start (or, when did it start to get serious)?

     *  Did this problem come about by itself, or did we (or some of
	us) bring it about by something we did?

     *  If we brought it about by something we did, why did we do that
	thing? What did we hope to gain? Did we gain what we hoped? Is
	the current problem part of the "price" we have paid - maybe,
	of the price we have to pay - to gain what we wanted?

     *  Is what we gained worth the price? If not, maybe what we did
	was a mistake. Societies are made up of mere, fallible humans,
	and there is nothing shameful in admitting a mistake when we
	have made one.

     *  Can we ameliorate the problem by undoing the action that
	brought it about? Can we ameliorate the problem by repealing
	any laws that may have caused or intensified the problem?

While Mr. Baber's suggestions are good, I cannot help thinking about a
story of the so-called "Wise Men of Chelm":

 "One day, the Wise Men of Chelm gathered to discuss the road accidents
  that were happening not far from town. There was a winding mountain
  road with no guard rail, and horses and wagons were missing the
  curves and falling to the valley below at a fearful rate.

 "The Wise Men came up with a solution: The town would build a hospital
  at the bottom of the mountain, so that anyone who fell could get
  prompt medical care."

You may as well know my own answers to the questions I posed. You
probably have guessed them, because you've probably seen them
elsewhere. We have changed our laws and our government policies and
regulations to maximize the personal growth, self esteem, and self-
fulfillment of men and women, without regard to the interests of
children. Easy, no-fault divorce has turned out to be an emotional as
well as a financial disaster for little ones. It was a mistake. We
should repeal it. Once children are born to a marriage, it should be
nearly impossible to dissolve that marriage unless one of the parties
acts so badly as to have committed a crime, such as assault-and-battery
or adultery.  There are those who say that this is "totalitarian," that
"how can we force two people to live together when one or both of them
no longer love their spouse?" And the answer is that I am not looking
to bring about some totalitarian society - just to restore the state of
the law to what it was in, say, 1950, when the law did indeed force
couples to continue living together unless they had awfully good
grounds for divorce.

I am of the opinion that once someone becomes the father or mother of a
child, it is not only permissible but praiseworthy and obligatory to
hold that grown-up's happiness, self-esteem, personal growth, and
self-fulfillment secondary to the welfare of that child. By no means
was the United States a totalitarian society in 1950, when that was the
law. Were many grown-ups less free to enjoy themselves then than they
are now? Sure. But the price for today's grown-ups' freedom to enjoy
themselves has been paid by millions of innocent children over whose
lives divorce has cast a permanent shadow.

Lest you think I have some personal axe to grind against divorce, I
should tell you that I don't. My parents stayed married until the day
my father died. My wife and I celebrated our fifteenth wedding
anniversary last Friday. Neither of us was ever married before.

One of the things that the "advisors" tell divorcing parents to do is
to promise their children that, "No matter what, I'll always love you."
Really? "But, Mom: isn't that what you and Dad promised each other at
your wedding? Didn't you promise you'd always love him? And now you
tell us that you're divorcing him because you don't love him anymore.
You broke your promise to Dad. Why should we believe you now when you
make the same promise to us?" Do you have an answer for the child
perceptive enough to ask this question? Why, indeed, should he believe
his parents' promise?

Sometime during the `sixties, we as a society took a wrong turn.
Playboy magazine may call it the "Playboy Philosophy," but I call it
the game of "Studs'n'Sluts," a descent into hedonism - including both
"free sex" and a "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers" "free drugs"
indulgence. But it hasn't been free.  Someone has had to pay the price.
It's bad enough when that price is only money, as when taxpayers have
to part with their hard-earned money for "drug and alcohol
rehabilitation" to dig the fun-lovers out of the hole they dug for
themselves with their fun, and for "welfare" to keep the "love
children" of the Studs'n'Sluts from freezing or starving. But it's ten
times worse when the price for some people's pleasure, self-esteem,
self-fulfillment and personal growth has been their children's ruined
lives. We ought not to stand for it any more. There is no moral right
to "free sex," any more than there is any moral right to break up a
marriage with children for a mere whim. Let's undo our mistake. Let's
get our society back in its old, historic grooves.

========================================================================

Transquips #14

JUDGE: I rarely do so, but for whatever purpose it may serve, I will
indicate for the record that I approached this case with a completely
open mind.

========================================================================

Child Support Guidelines Advisory Commission

CAPRA has been represented on the Child Support Guidelines Advisory
Commission since it began 18 months ago. We just received a copy of the
Initial Review of the Economic Issues Relating to Ohio Child Support
Guidelines, dated July 22, from Dr. Williams. Dr. Williams was hired by
the commission due to the pressure applied by CAPRA, among others, for
knowledgeable assistance on economic and mathematical issues. Dr.
Williams concurs with the position of CAPRA that there have been a
number of flaws in the work done by the Department of Human Services in
establishing child support guidelines.

One problem that we have with the specific income-shares based child
support guidelines employed by DHS is that the calculations were
derived from the Rothbarth methodology for determining the costs of
raising children. This system includes, among other things, the
consumption of tobacco and alcohol as legitimate costs for raising
children. To quote Dr. Williams, "Each methodology poses unique issues
of measurement. A potential drawback of the Rothbarth methodology is
that it relies on some categories of expenditures that are prone to
measurement error." [Like, uh, maybe tobacco and alcohol?  How many
packs of cigarettes and how many beers do your children consume per
day?]

Another problem was the department's insistence that the current child
support tables be adjusted for inflation by simply adding 19.6% rather
than indexing as we insisted. Dr. Williams states, "The appropriate
method for adjusting the economic tables for inflation is analogous to
indexation of income tax brackets." He further explains the method of
indexing in a manner that is substantially similar to that argued for
by CAPRA.

It is hard to say what will result from the advisory commission's
study, but now we hope it will be mathematically and economically
correct.

========================================================================

Transquips #15

Before we recess, let's listen in on one last exchange involving 
a child:

Q: And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral, O.K.?
A: Oral.

Q: How old are you?
A: Oral.

========================================================================

ATTORNEY REFERRAL LIST

(listed alphabetically)

Pamela Bertram
502 South 3rd Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 221-0725

Andrew Fishman
765 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43206
(614) 444-3606

Bradley Frick
50 West Broad Street, Suite 3300
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 228-0505

Patricia Grimm
4937 West Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43228
(614) 878-1092

Ralph A. Kerns
743 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43206
(614) 444-1100

Barry Wolinetz
Luper, Wolinetz, Sheriff & Neidenthal
50 West Broad Street, Suite 1200
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 221-7663

========================================================================

The FACE Newsletter Staff

Jack Quinn 	Research, Contributing Editor
Aaron Hoffmeyer Research, Typesetting, Contributing Editor
Tony Lamey 	Research, Contributing Editor
Paul Bokros 	Research, Contributing Editor, Mailing List
Mike Driscoll 	Mailing List

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FACE Officers

Mike Driscoll 	President
Tom Tavener 	Vice-President
John McKinley 	Treasurer
Bob Fowler 	Secretary

------------------------------------------------------------------------

c 1992. All copyrights are implied and applicable.

========================================================================

"I am asking you to stop men who beat women ... get them jailed or 
get them killed." 
	- Andrea Dworkin, Montreal Gazette, May 13, 1991

"Feminism is the belief that every gender stereotype is imprisoning, 
unless perchance it flatters women, or insults men."
	- Mike Royko

As we started having children of our own, we began to see our 
parents in a new light, to realize that they were not, really, so 
different from us, and that only they could provide us with 
something very precious, something that had been missing from our 
lives: reliable baby-sitting.
	- Dave Barry

Sorry so short.  One of these days, I'm going to get ambitious.  And on
that day....

BOOM!!!  Although you can't tell it, I'm getting tired of doing this
thing.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  I have postscript.  Will travel.

while :
do
	print - "All work and no play, \c"
	print - "makes Johnny a dull boy. " #just to piss 'em off
	sleep 2
done

"In some societies they believe that the egg is the symbol of the soul.
Would you like an egg?"
	- Lou Cipher, Angel Heart

"Would you like a clump of hair?"
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids