Thank you to one of the most special people in my life for finding this and sharing. Our Children are indeed crying... They will have to rebuild what the last generation has destroyed.
Tuesday, May 22. 2007
When the Children Cry...
Support the DC Rally for Parental Equality on August 18, 2007
Posted by Lary Holland
at
03:40
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: commercials, lary holland, protests, title iv, title iv part d, title iv-d, title iv-d program, Title IV-D Reform, Title IV-D Welfare, title iv-program, video, washington d.c., welfare reform, Youtube
Monday, May 21. 2007
Happy Birthday to My Son
Happy Birthday to my now 8 year old son!!! He is kept from half of his family and the world knows that we all love him and are here waiting. Our doors are always open. Aunt Kari, Grandpa, Grandma, Buddy, and the rest of his family love and miss him.
Wednesday, May 16. 2007
Father's Speak Out Against Pennsylvania Judge
FATHERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST PENNSYLVANIA JUDGE
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania—Pennsylvania made history
yesterday by becoming the first state in the country
to rule that a sperm donor could be held liable for
child support. A panel of the Pennsylvania Superior
Court ruled unanimously that Louis Frampton, Jr., who
donated his sperm to a lesbian couple so they could
have a child, could be required to pay child support.
Frampton died in March of a stroke.
Arthur S. Leonard, a New York Law School professor
and an expert on sexuality and the law, told the
Associated Press, “I’m unaware of any other state
appellate court that has found that a child has,
simultaneously, three adults who are financially
obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled
to visitation.”
A coalition of fathers’ rights organizations,
spearheaded by Fathers 4 Justice, reacted immediately
to the decision, calling it “absurd.” The coalition
says that the decision will not only compromise the
confidentiality of sperm donors, but will open the
floodgates of litigation over such cases. “This
decision represents yet another example of the
inequality men face in family court,” said Jeff Dick,
president of the Pennsylvania delegation of Fathers 4
Justice, which is based in Pittsburgh.
Dick said that the group plans to target Superior
Court Judge Maureen E. Lally-Green, who sat on the
panel that issued the ruling. Lally-Green is a
Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. Dick said that the coalition recommends that
Pennsylvania voters vote against Judge Lally-Green by
voting for her opposition. “We are urging all men in
Pennsylvania not to vote for Judge Lally-Green because
she apparently has no intention of protecting our
rights. We expect a jurist on the highest state court
to understand the concept of equal protection of the
laws. Judge Lally-Green obviously does not.”
Republican presidential candidate Dr. Mark Klein, who
is currently campaigning in Iowa, also reacted to the
court’s decision. Tony Taylor, a spokesman for the
www.Klein4change.com presidential campaign, said that
Dr. Klein was “outraged” by the decision. Taylor
suggested that the decision is one example of why men
should vote for Klein instead of more established
candidates, such as John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.
“Mark Klein is the only presidential candidate running
on a platform of fathers’ rights. In this regard, he
is different than candidates such as Barak Hussein
Obama, who spits in the faces of men by suggesting
that inequality against men is not a federal issue,
but that women’s rights are. It’s important that the
federal government acknowledge this double-standard
and rectify it. Klein will do that.”
Curtis Patton, a Pennsylvania family attorney and
long time advocate for fathers’ rights, called the
decision “troubling.” He said that the Court should
have dismissed the appeal. “A cause of action has to
exist from the filing of the case through all stages
of appeal. Mr. Frampton’s death, in my opinion, would
have rendered the whole matter moot.”
Fathers 4 Justice and other fathers’ rights
organizations will hold a press conference on May 14,
the day before the judicial primary in Pennsylvania,
in an effort to convince voter to vote for one of
Judge Lally-Green’s opponents. The press conference
will occur at NOON at the City County Building in
downtown Pittsburgh. All media outlets are encouraged
to attend.
Lally-Green was first elected to the Superior Court
in 1999 for a ten-year term. She also teaches at
Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh.
Fathers 4 Justice is a nationally-recognized advocacy
group for divorced fathers. The organization fights
against inequality in family court.
Posted by Lary Holland
at
23:36
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: Court of Appeals, friend of the court, nationwideblueprint.com, Pennsylvania, Title IV-D Reform, Title IV-D Welfare, title iv-program, welfare, welfare reform
Child Support Offices Violating More Citizens' Privacy...
Child Support Paperwork Glitch Exposes Private Information of over 10,000 Citizens.
Add 10,000 more exposed to possible identity theft.
In March of 2007 this article demonstrated (Identity Theft:: Opt Out of Family Court Services Before it Happens to YOU! March 26, 2007) a good justification for protecting your private information by opting out of the egregious family court services. Now we have another article exposing a "computer glitch" exposing 10,000 more people to identity theft concerncs as reported at Worldlink.Com.
(http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/05/14/news/news14051407.txt)
Child support paperwork glitch affects many in state
Monday, May 14, 2007 12:02 PM PDT
ROSEBURG (AP) - A private contractor that provides monthly statements to state child support recipients may have sent up to 10,000 of them to the wrong people, according to a spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of Justice.
The printing company noticed the computer glitch and contacted officials with the state Child Support Division, operated under the Department of Justice. The contractor was asked to send corrected statements and a letter to recipients mailed the wrong ones, said Stephanie Soden, a Justice Department spokeswoman.
Candice Booth of Roseburg said she got a statement intended for someone else, and was worried that her identity could be stolen.
Soden spoke with Booth Friday and tried to reassure her that the name and account number on the child support statement could not be used by anyone else to obtain additional personal information.
A Child Support Division Web site that allows recipients to obtain additional information about their account requires both an account number and a person's Social Security number.
The error affected up to 10,000 recipients from around the state, Soden said. The Child Support Division handles 250,000 support cases statewide.
Posted by Lary Holland
at
23:21
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: Identity Theft, lary holland, nationwide blueprint, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Oregon, Privacy, Title IV-D Reform, Title IV-D Welfare, title iv-program, welfare, welfare reform
More Exposure On Child Support Enforcement Program Failure
Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement Program Exposed as Failure)
Government Welfare Program Misses the Target and Leaves the Nation's Poor in the Dark. Program serves the greedy not the needy.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
8:50:00 PM MDT
Feeling Angry
Article Exposes the Title IV-D Program in Minnesota
JACK EHRLICH
STATE VIEW
Duluth News Tribune
Friday May 11, 2007
A bill in the Minnesota Legislature to increase state funding for child support collection, on the surface, looks reasonable. Proponents argue in favor of reinstating funds for child support enforcement that were cut at the federal level to help reduce the federal deficit. They argue Minnesota taxpayers should now pick up the tab.
As so often seen, proponents use the imagery of a poor mom needing her child support check. While this may be effective public relations, it does not reflect the realities of a program that has gone astray of its original mission, which was supporting needy families on welfare.
Congress intended the program, called Title IV-D, to only be available for those on welfare and those at risk of falling on welfare, and only in cases where the father was found guilty of abandoning his children to public assistance. This program is costing much in Minnesota because citizens and judges have been led to believe everyone who goes through a divorce or paternity action with kids must be in Title IV-D. As a result, more than 60 percent of the people in the program don't belong. This welfare-service program has no eligibility standards and no means of testing and is thus fiscally irresponsible, unnecessary, and potentially harmful to families.
I know of a woman, a partner in a major Minneapolis law firm who makes more than $250,000 a year, who uses the child support enforcement program to collect $1,000 per month in child support from her unemployed ex-husband. He can only afford to feed the children macaroni and cheese when he has them. Is this how we want tax dollars employed?
Minnesota's child support program can be harmful to the well-being of children and contributes to gender polarity. An estimated 80 percent of child-support employees are women supporting the agency bias. When fit, loving fathers who have remained involved with their children simply cannot afford exorbitant child support payments, the child support enforcement agency wrecks their credit ratings, suspends their drivers' licenses, and has them arrested. When they lose their job, judges often impute income and threaten fathers with jail even if they can't afford to pay. Then, with a bad credit rating, a suspended drivers' license, and an arrest record, the dads can no longer find work because nobody wants to hire a deadbeat. The system creates deadbeats out of fit, loving fathers.
In February 2006 the Minnesota Legislative Auditor's Office wrote in its Child Support Audit Report that "Minnesota's program has the second-highest spending level in the country" and that "Minnesota has the second-most child support staff in the country."
Additionally, the state auditor was instructed to report about the ongoing issue of due process and whether custodial parents, non-custodial parents and children were being treated fairly. The completed report didn't provide any findings about ongoing due process and fair treatment. Under the direction of the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Title IV-D agency, the legislative auditor's office ignored its duty to study this issue.
Contrary to Minnesota's Legislative Audit Report, local county child support workers across Minnesota are making inaccurate statements and lobbying to get more tax dollars. They are trying to claim Minnesota's child support program is well-managed and cost-effective when, in fact, it is a waste of money and can be harmful to families and children.
The parents of Minnesota have been asking year after year for legislative reform that recognizes the importance of fathers' involvement with their children. Said another way, Minnesota's child-support program has been broken for many years, and to increase any funding now is not the answer.
During a divorce, fit and loving parents who have done nothing wrong face the removal of their children based on the opinion of a custody evaluator whose decision is almost always accepted by the courts. There's no trial by jury in family courts. Criminals get more rights and a higher burden of proof than fit, loving parents do when faced with separation from their children.
Ask family court judges how many times they've ordered a father arrested for non-payment of court-ordered child support compared to how many times they've had a mother arrested for failure to provide court-ordered parenting time to a father. The answer clearly will reveal what the system of family law considers important.
Divorce is extremely hard on children. They need the love and caring of both parents. I encourage the Legislature to implement programs designed to keep both parents equally involved and equally responsible for providing for their children.
Jack Ehrlich is a member of the Roseville, Minn.-based Center for Parental Responsibility, which advocates for the rights of non-custodial parents
For more information on the Child Support Program (Title IV-D, Child Support Enforcement) you can visit the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Reform at http://www.nationwideblueprint.com.
Posted by Lary Holland
at
12:55
| Comment (1)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: Child Support, child support enforcement, CPR, CSE, equal custody, equal parenting, Minnesota, nationwide blueprint, nationwideblueprint.com, Title IV-D, title iv-d welfare, title iv-program, welfare, welfare reform
Friday, May 11. 2007
In Case You Missed It: Father Reunited With Daughter!!
A father was finally reunited with his daughter after a year and half! A dad had sole custody of their daughter and the mom showed up at dad's house and took off with the little girl and was nowhere to be found. Mom concealed the daughter for over a year. Eventually America's Most Wanted caught up and reunited the dad with his daughter after a couple of weeks of being aired and tipsters reporting the location of the child and the mom. This was truly a happy reunion indeed. Check out the video below from March 25, 2007:
Posted by Lary Holland
at
02:42
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: child custody, child support, family court, in general, kidnapping, sole custody, title iv-d, video, Youtube
Saturday, May 5. 2007
Lary Holland On Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement)
The Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Welfare Reform
The purpose of the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Welfare Reform is very simple: "To reestablish the program as a safety-net for those that need it most" and to prevent States from forcing the inclusion of already self-sufficient and affluent families into State run welfare programs at the expense of the U.S. and local taxpayers.
Preventing the States from using Title IV-D welfare to generate revenues is essential for program success and is required for States to focus on providing a safety-net for needy families. Improved administration and legislation that limits Title IV-D incentives for increasing the number of broken homes will keep over participation problems from plaguing Title IV-D and allow States to focus on needy families.
Additionally I Speak on why Child Support Budget Cuts are Good for Taxpayers, Parents, and Children
Supporting budget cuts will improve the availability of services for child support enforcement to low-income families, since the current focus of the programs is on revenue generation for the state not on collections for lower-income needy families.
Currently the state-run child support enforcement services have little to no focus on lower-income families due to difficulty in actually collecting from under- or unemployed program participants.
State provided child support enforcement services focus on higher-income families, which gives the appearance of program success through the use of use of income withholding orders to facilitate collections.
Because there is a significant level of overparticipation from wealthier families that should not be receiving benefits the lack of collections for lower-income family are going unnoticed while the program is being labeled a success.
Taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill for collection services for individuals that would not otherwise qualify for welfare services when those participants can afford to provide services for their own domestic relations disputes.
There are an ample number of private collection and law firms that provide services to both lower-income and higher-income families to make up for any alleged reduction in state collections as a result of reduced funding. The private collection and law firms are notably more successful in their outcomes as they focus on their clients, not on maintaining caseloads for state budgeting purposes.
Speaking Out Against Politicians Advocating for the Greedy Instead of the Needy.
Who Should Pay for Voluntary Child Support Services in Iowa? (Piece against the Misinformed Chuck Grassley)
Submitted by Lary on Fri, 04/13/2007 - 04:42.
Would you pay for services that you don’t receive? Just last week Sen. Chuck Grassley sought guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding Iowa’s child support enforcement program and how best to address a new fee requirement within the federal guidelines of how the state’s child support enforcement program is intended to operate. Senator Grassley’s solution to the recent federal legislation requiring a fee for services is to go against the proposed federal regulations enacting the changes and requests that the applicant of the services not be required to pay for the services that they choose to apply for and receive from the government.
The commenting period of the proposed federal regulations affecting child support enforcement that are going into effect later this year expired on March 26, 2007, according to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (United States. Administration for Children and Families. Federal Register. Vol. 72. No. 15. January 24, 2007). Despite Senator Grassley’s failure to get his comments of the proposed regulations in on time, he appeals with his letter to the now resigned Dr. Wade Horn, who in the past has overseen the child support enforcement program administered under Title IV Part D of the Social Security Act.
Aside from the Senator’s untimely response to the federal regulations, Senator Grassley issues his concerns without presenting the majority of the facts and overlooks a key set of points that the constituent taxpayers should be informed of. Right now the Title IV Part D program (Title IV-D) that Iowa voluntarily participates in to receive certain federal block grants and incentive payments for their child support enforcement program is focusing the program on revenue generation for the state and not focusing the program to assist actual means tested needy families.
The Iowa State program suffers tremendous over participation of families that are 150% or higher above the poverty-line. Because of the significant level of over participation from wealthier families receiving voluntary services at no cost the failure of collections for the mandatory lower-income participants are going unnoticed while the program is being touted as a success. Essentially the mandatory participation in the state child support enforcement program by families receiving other forms of government assistance are being left behind while the state focuses on adding higher-income families and focusing resources on easier targets through income-withholding orders to continue maximizing federal funding received by the state of Iowa.
After reviewing the “Grassley Solution” proposed to the U.S. AFCF by the Senator, he is advocating for the recovery of the federally mandated application fee to be recovered from what he labels as an “absent-parent” instead of by the parent requesting the voluntary services by “withholding it from child support collections from the absent parent, and then collecting an additional $25.00 in child support to keep the custodial parent whole.”
Where a benefit recipient is determined to voluntarily request services using an application for child support enforcement services, it would be more than appropriate for the State of Iowa to follow the proposed rule by the Administration for Children and Families stating that “Retaining the annual fee from support collected on behalf of the family may be the least administratively burdensome method when collections in excess of the first $500 are disbursed to the family.”
The Grassley Solution will certainly raise administration costs associated with the child support enforcement program and further take the focus off the people that need the program the most and since the application fee will only be taken out after the services are proving successful to the family requesting the services, Senator Grassley is hard-pressed to justify his solution that will result in increased administration expenses to be reimbursed by our federal tax dollars.
Reigning in the Title IV-D program is good for our taxpayers, good for parents, and most of all good for children.
Posted by Lary Holland
at
06:06
| Comments (0)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: articles, michigan, nationwide blueprint, senator chuck grassley, social security act, title iv-d, title iv-d welfare, washington d.c.
Marilyn Stephen, Fighting for Her Job, Not Children...
Marilyn Stephen, Fight for Her Job, Not Children...
Leaving Needy Children Behind While Focusing On Easy Collections from middle and upper income families, drowning out the voices of those who need services the most.
Marilyn Stephen focuses on one side of the argument, of course its the side that protects her job and the thousands of government employees that benefit from the providing universal welfare services to middle and upper-income families against their will. WLNS.Com Channel 6 News doesn't have the full story in their April 14, 2007 online edition at http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=6369698.
Supporting child support budget cuts will improve the availability of services for child support enforcement to low-income families, since the current focus of the programs is on revenue generation for the state not on collections for lower-income needy families.
Currently the state-run child support enforcement services have little to no focus on lower-income families due to difficulty in actually collecting from under- or unemployed program participants.
State provided child support enforcement services focus on higher-income families, which gives the appearance of program success through the use of use of income withholding orders to facilitate collections.
Because there is a significant level of overparticipation from wealthier families that should not be receiving benefits the lack of collections for lower-income family are going unnoticed while the program is being labeled a success.
Taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill for collection services for individuals that would not otherwise qualify for welfare services when those participants can afford to provide services for their own domestic relations disputes.
There are an ample number of private collection and law firms that provide services to both lower-income and higher-income families to make up for any alleged reduction in state collections as a result of reduced funding. The private collection and law firms are notably more successful in their outcomes as they focus on their clients, not on maintaining caseloads for state budgeting purposes.
Posted by Lary Holland
at
05:07
| Comment (1)
| Trackbacks (0)
Defined tags for this entry: child custody, child support, child support enforcement, lary holland, Marilyn Stephen, Michigan, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Title IV-D Reform, Title IV-D Welfare, title iv-program, welfare reform
(Page 1 of 2, totaling 10 entries)
next page
