Melanie Cummings

ORAL TESTIMONY - CUSTODY /PARENTING TIME /PARENTAL GENDER BIAS /FINANCIAL GREED AND THE ROLE OF THE NYS FAMILY COURT

Melanie I. Cummings: NYS Matrimonial Commission Testimony/Public Hearing

NYS Judicial Institute, Pace school of Law, White Plains, NY – 2/17/05

Good morning. My name is Melanie Cummings. I have been affiliated and am a staunch supporter of several National and State Children and Fathers rights groups for over ten years. Thank you for allowing me to speak in front of the NYS Matrimonial Commission. I am proud to stand here with all non-custodial parents and share with all of you New York State Family Court’s disrespect for the basic human rights of children, fathers, mothers and Hardworking American taxpayer families. The Hardworking Taxpayers of America, to include the Hardworking Taxpayers of New York State, are footing the bill for this injustice, fraud and extortion. Not to mention paying for the divorce cottage industry. Hardworking Taxpayers Federal Tax Incentive Funds = Power. NYS judges are legislating at the bench, which is not their role. Their role is to interpret and uphold the written laws that the NYS legislature has passed. Due to time constraints I will be keep my focus on TANF incentive funding. Yes, the funding that New York State receives from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America in order to pay for social programs/entitlements via child support collected. You will see that this entire New York Family Court System is not about the best interests of the child, it is about the state’s treasury.

NYS has laws that stipulate that BOTH biological parents are required to emotionally and financially support their children and are to receive due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, specifically, Amendments 1, 5, 9 and 14. The U.S. Constitution guarantees BOTH biological parents their rights to their children without any interference from the state and judicial system.

I am here today to explain how NYS family courts, without a compelling state interest, systematically and arbitrarily remove one of the parents from the child(ren)'s lives. Parental contact is crucial – and not through the internet. To make matters worse, I am here today to explain how non-custodial parents (over 90% fathers) are financially driven away from their families post-divorce and the Hardworking Taxpayers of America are being defrauded in the process.

CUSTODY ISSUES/ PARENTAL GENDER BIAS/ CHILD SUPPORT

By a decade of actions, NYS Family Court has spoken – parental equation = mother. This is a misapplication of the law, not in the best interests of children and gender biased. Parental Equation = Father plus Mother. NY’s Office of Court Administration yearly issues a Blue Book, “Report of Child Support Order”. The gender-biased results are 1993 – 90.9% custody to mothers; 1994 – 91.2% custody to mothers. More recent public data is available but the public, who pays for this, is having trouble retrieving it. Need I say more. Non-custodial parents have become the Dred Scotts of the 21^st Century. Now will come the time for NYS Family Court Judges to explain to all children why NYS judges do not like fathers except for their money.

Child support should be based on Net Income – No intact family spends monies on children on gross income. They already gave money to the federal / state governments. End double dipping. It boggles the mind that based on divorce laws, as an adult, a whole team of state financial gurus cannot figure out the transfer of intact family monies nor did they do a study on this. Hire a Columbia University economics freshman student to figure it out. Currently, after four years of college, three years of law school and work experience we have lawyers and judges who are mathematically challenged.

Assemblywoman Weinstein’s Chief of Staff told me several years ago that they cannot make a mother work. Well, you make a father work. You cannot have it both ways. This is discrimination. These mothers choices are illegal. They are defrauding us, the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. Are our legislators, family law attorneys and judges enabling them?

TANF Funding

Welfare Reform has usurped our system of law and destroyed liberty and justice for all. NYS should watch out. Look at what you have done.

NYS has received consistently over six years approx. $2.0 Billion/yr. from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America to use for state entitlement programs to include the NYS Earned Income Tax Credit. The administrative costs are over $1.4 Billion and system costs are over $35 Million. These monies flow in via child support collection incentive matching funds. Information is available via the DHHS – HHS Department, TANF Funding. So as you see, the more you collect into the system, the more federal funding a state receives. Do you really think no one would figure this out. No wonder there are no downward child support modifications – not even if a father loses his job. This is the crux of the problem in the NYS Family Court System. It says it all – it is all about the money to the states, not to the children. Ms. Frye, Chief, Office of Child Support in CA on 3/20/97 testified before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means for the Welfare Reform Bill. She states:

“As we understand it, the proposal goes far beyond the Congressional intent to develop an incentive system that rewards good outcomes and in fact encourages states to recruit middle class families, never dependent on public assistance and never likely to be so, into their programs in order to maximize federal child support incentives”

She goes on to say,

“And my colleagues across the country have already informed me how I can win at this system; recruit the middle class, bring those higher orders into your system and that way you will be able to benefit like some of the other states from the cap removal on the never-welfare population”.

Just think, NYS’s emancipation age is 21 – additional three years of our monies. Where are these monies going? Supporting the judicial system – into New York States General Fund? There is hundreds of millions of dollars in un-obligated and undistributed funds reported to the DHHS.

Let’s recap, Per the NYS Family Court System: Fathers help create a child, fathers are not considered parents, fathers pay child support, fathers have huge problems with parenting time interference which is contempt of court but mothers receive no punishment {PL 135.45 and 135.5 says that custodial interference is punishable}, fathers pay federal and state taxes to pay for social programs/entitlements, mothers collect all federal and state tax credits that someone else is paying, fathers are told to pay for college, mothers collect the college tax credits to include Pell Grants; therefore, pay nothing on a required amount, the state of NY gets billions of dollars to spend on social program/entitlements, fathers are not entitled to social programs and lawyers get rich by this adversarial process. The sad part, children lose a parent and suffer everything that goes with that. What a country!!!! Guess NYS Family Court personnel became everyone’s daddy. Judges are not above the law nor should you have disrespect for parental rights or family rights.

Since Welfare Reform, PRWORA Act of 1996, falls under the Social Security Act, states must follow the federal regulations and federal code. The Social Security Administration’s Form 223, Obligee Form, that it sends to the representative payee parent (who receives social security benefits for the children) with a number of detailed questions asking how the money is spent on the children each month. Use this form for child support purposes with non-custodial parent receiving a copy. Lawyers and judges have made it quite apparent that they have a reckless disregard of the law by alleging it would be too difficult and intrusive for the custodial parent to account for how and where the support for the child is used. Hardworking Taxpayers of America should, therefore, file criminal charges against the judges and lawyers. No immunity! For your information, over 50% of the child support enforcement agencies caseloads are Non-TANF and the monies collected and distributed are also over 50%.

Per public policy and public outcry, it is financially irresponsible to collect hardworking taxpayers' monies without being employed full-time. It appears that mothers take monies from society with no intention of repaying the money. If a father did this, he goes to jail.

College Expenditures

There is no intact family in America nor is there any Federal law in America that states that any parent is obligated to pay tuition, general expenses, room and board, lab fees or books for post-secondary education. This is unconstitutional. It is a parental decision to pay for this; not a law or a child's entitlement but our wonderful lawyers and judges do this daily - judge's judicial discretion. How many people in this room had their parents pay 100% for college and did not have to work during the summer and school breaks to even offset some costs? We are not teaching our children work ethics. If your parents are divorced, the courts say, parents pay up or fathers pay up. Children in New York are quite aware of this entitlement.

JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT

There is none in New York State. Chief Justice Judith Kaye needs to issue a memo stating that only proven unfit parents cannot have custody to their children. This is to include changing each and every NYS Family Court and Supreme Court documentation that says “visitation” to parenting time and also sanctions for false allegations of domestic violence. The lawyers should be sanctioned, too. They are quite aware that filing this false allegation gives you one-upmanship on custody decisions. Then she needs to go to the New York Bar Association and tell the lawyers to cutout all this nonsense, stop wasting money and time and abide by the laws. Too bad their revenue opportunities will be diminished. They can find something more honorable to do with their time. The judges must regularly have their decisions reviewed – review the transcripts. Since so many parents are complaining, something is wrong and the legislating and acting above the law must stop. Sanctions are in order. As for child support – change to based on net income and make it clear and accurate for rebuttable presumption, line by line, and then subtract all federal and state tax credits that a child is entitled to. The double dipping must stop. Do not use in the best interests of the child as an excuse. Are we teaching children to steal from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America? CONCLUSION Let us all be honest here. I am quite sure a fair amount of what I have said today has fallen on deaf ears. And now let me tell you why. New York State is more concerned with the inflow of monies from the Federal Government as well as the inflow of monies into the NY State Treasury and even though you may have momentarily considered some of what I have said to be fair and just, the reality is you are more concerned about revenue than you are of what is truly in the best interest of the child. I do not know how all of you look at yourself in the mirror at night and can you honestly tell me that you could explain the current state of affairs to your own children with a clear conscience. Where is everyone’s moral compass?

Policy objectives and child support enforcement systems need to be modified to reflect the fact that enforcing child support includes enforcing parenting time orders. Unless and until such modification occurs, the repeated violations of and noncompliance with court-ordered parenting time rights will continue to lead to increased bitterness and civil disobedience. In the meantime, a great disservice is done to our youngest citizens as their constitutionally protected parent-child relationships continue to deteriorate. Set the record straight – do the right thing. After four years of college, three years of law school and years of work experience, New York State Family Court Judges have received an F. Over 25 Million non-custodial parents across this nation will receive a copy of my written testimony. I have all original documentation. My written testimony is more detailed. The people have spoken.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY - CUSTODY /PARENTING TIME /PARENTAL GENDER BIAS /FINANCIAL GREED AND THE ROLE OF THE NYS FAMILY COURT

Melanie I. Cummings: NYS Matrimonial Commission Testimony/Public Hearing

NYS Judicial Institute, Pace school of Law, White Plains, NY – 2/17/05

Good morning. My name is Melanie Cummings. I have been affiliated and am a staunch supporter of several National and State Children and Fathers rights groups for over ten years. Thank you for allowing me to speak in front of the NYS Matrimonial Commission. I am proud to stand here with all non-custodial parents and share with all of you New York State Family Court’s disrespect for the basic human rights of children, fathers, mothers and Hardworking American taxpayer families whose rights are guaranteed under our Bill of Rights associated with our U.S. Constitution. The Hardworking Taxpayers of America, to include the Hardworking Taxpayers of New York State, are footing the bill for this injustice, fraud and extortion. Not to mention paying for the divorce cottage industries. Hardworking Taxpayers Federal Tax Incentive Funds = Power. Legislators are allowing this to happen by succumbing to the pressures of special interest groups (i.e. bar associations, women's groups, prison industry and child support advocacy groups), while the federal and state judiciaries compound the problem by their partial and gender-biased applications of the laws. NYS judges are legislating at the bench, which is not their role. Their role is not to be an ideological social service director. Their role is to interpret and uphold the written laws that the NYS legislature has passed.

NYS has laws on the books that stipulate that BOTH biological parents are required to emotionally and financially support their children. NYS has a judicial system that BOTH parents are to receive due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, specifically, Amendments 1, 5, 9 and 14. The U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1, 5, 9 and 14 guarantees BOTH biological parents their rights to their children without any interference from the state and judicial system. The U.S. Supreme Court and various state courts, in such cases as Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)(domestic relations proceedings constitute state intervention that is so disruptive of the parent-child relationship that it triggers constitutional implications), Lehr v. Robertson (1982) and Zummo v. Zummo (1990), have ruled on this by holding that the "best interest of the child" standard is repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. In Zummo v. Zummo, 574 A.2d 1130, 1138 (1990) it was held:

"The status notion that government may supercede parental authority in order to ensure bureaucratically or judicially determined "best interests" of children has been rejected as repugnant to American traditions. Judges and state officials are ill-equipped to second-guess parents and are precluded from intervening in absence of powerful countervailing interests". Citing Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 257-61 (1982).

I am here today to explain how the parent-child relationship is not occurring in the NYS Family Court system. Parental contact is crucial. I am here today to explain how NYS family courts, without a compelling state interest, systematically and arbitrarily remove one of the parents from the child(ren)'s lives. To make matters worse, I am here today to explain how non-custodial parents (over 90% fathers) are financially driven away from their families post-divorce and the Hardworking Taxpayers of America are being defrauded in the process. Per NYS DCSE: “Being a parent – showing your child that you are enough to be there for them, both emotionally and financially, you are showing them your love and respect. You are also teaching them what it means to be a parent – a skill they may one day pass on to their children.”

CUSTODY ISSUES/ PARENTAL GENDER BIAS/ CHILD SUPPORT

	Total Physical Child					# Third
	Custody For Child	#		#		Party	Other-Not
Year	Support Awarded	Mothers	%	Fathers	%	Custody	Accounted. For	%
1993	91,239	82,964	90.9%	3,508	3.84%	206	4,561	5%
1994	82,728	75,455	91.2%	3,439	4.16%	172	3,662	4.4%

More recent public data is available but the public, who is paying the bills, is having trouble retrieving it. Need I say more. Non-custodial parents have become the Dred Scotts of the 21^st Century. Now will come the time for NYS Family Court Judges to explain to all children why NYS judges do not like or respect fathers and issue visiting orders stating that children can only see their father parent 52 days/yr. There are 365 days in a year. Do the math.

When a divorce occurs, NYS Family Court decides which parent will have custody and which parent will be granted parenting time which NYS still calls "visitation". Parents are not visitors; only convicted, incarcerated criminals receive visitors. The family court decides that the "visiting" parent will pay the child support bill. The courts rule against fathers in New York (and around the rest of the country) in 90-95% of all child custody cases and impose on them by force to pay a fictitious, artificial child support obligations, which in reality is de facto alimony. In today’s society, it takes two incomes to maintain one household. Most children are not 1-6 years old, mothers DO HAVE college degrees and fathers are told to pay a portion or all of child care costs. And then, the Hardworking Taxpayers of America give the mothers or custodial parent tax benefits of the child care costs because she claims them but doesn’t pay 100% for them.

The presumption should be joint physical custody/shared parenting. Any court/judge who "awards" custody after a divorce to only one parent and makes the other parent a "visitor", without substantiation, has violated the clear constitutional rights of the citizens of this state. That judge has violated his/her oath of office and committed official misconduct. No court has the authority to intervene to terminate or limit parental rights without a compelling state interest and with showing of, based on real evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one or both of the parents is incapable of performing their parental duties due to physical abuse, neglect, etc. Judges and lawyers violate families on a daily basis. They do it for financial profit and greed. This is destroying the social fabric of America. Judges and lawyers who continue to breakup families and give one parent custody of children in order to maximize welfare funding are committing fraud. I will get to welfare funding in a minute.

Several Joint/Shared Custody Bills (Bill A0330) are being held up by Helen Weinstein and Deborah Glick – NY Judiciary Committee. Are they doing this to use our children as hostage for the passing of their civil union bills? See, it is not about the children. Let Ms. Weinstein and Ms. Glick go into the NY schools and tell each and every child that their father is not counted as a parent and tell the boys that NYS will never allow them to be a parent if a divorce occurs. They are only needed for their money. New York State does not care about a fathers emotional and intellectual offerings as a parent. Fit Fathers in New York State have no constitutional rights, only fit or unfit mothers do. To set the record straight, NYS Family Court judges and lawyers should come out behind their bench in their black robes and go into the school systems and tell boys not be fathers because their state and country has no use for them as parents except for their paychecks that will help foster larger state treasuries and for allowing mothers to extort free monies from them along with putting undue financial pressure on the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. Is this what their parents taught them? Or is it what the law school taught them? Where are these individual’s moral compasses? Maybe their children should be told what their parents are doing.

It is interesting to note, lawyers will not even support mediation – cuts into their revenue opportunities.

The NYS Family Court System is adversarial by definition. Winner takes all mentality, which makes custody an economic windfall; which predominantly goes to the mother. Men get nothing. Lawyers offer minimum advice to a father and tell them up front that judges will never allow a father any kind of custody. Women fought for their rights. With these rights, there is responsibility and accountability. Mothers need to stop playing the victim role and take responsibility for the financial and emotional care of themselves and their children. You cannot have it both ways. Choices have consequences.

A letter from Assemblyman Gordon Burrows on 5/9/74 to the Governor’s Counsel stating not to change emancipation from 21 to 18 because “The Commission wishes to emphasize that any reduction in the parental duty of support has fiscal implications for the State. Enactment of these bills would mean that henceforth any funds expended by the State to assist a person between the ages of 18 and 21 could no longer be recovered from the parent”. First of all, age of majority is 18 – they can vote. Second of all, you recover payments from the PARENTS, per the law, not one parent. Third, NYS is recovering monies from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. They get plenty. Apparently, everyone just wants more, more greed from the judicial system and the lawyers (more billable hours).

Since BOTH parents are emotionally and financially obligated by law to support their children, the divorced, intact family cannot be divided into two families and be expected to maintain the lifestyle that the family enjoyed pre-divorce. If monies are involved in a divorce, there are two entities that are held accountable to pay child support - fathers and the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. By law, a child support payment is paid to the children from BOTH parents, not just one parent. But NYS judges only hold the non-custodial parent accountable to pay for the children. The law of the land does not say this. Child support is not de facto alimony. If welfare mothers are not entitled to receive cash assistance monies unless they are employed full-time, why is it that middle and upper class divorced mothers are? Middle and upper class divorced mothers are unlawfully and illegally receiving additional monies from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. Family court judges are granting such orders based on the incomes of the parents, and not on the true costs of raising children. On top of that, Family court judges are ordering divorced parents to pay child support on their gross income amount. There is NO intact family in the United States that pays for child(ren)'s expenditures on gross income. A parent cannot give monies that the Federal/State govts. already took out of their paychecks. These are unconstitutional denials of due process and equal protection under the law. No one should have to pay de facto alimony for another adult. According to the family courts, as an adult you must support yourself even if you have severe impairments. It boggles the mind that based on divorce laws, as an adult, a whole team of state financial gurus cannot figure out the transfer of intact family monies nor did they do a study on this. Hire a Columbia University economics freshman student to figure it out. Currently, after four years of college, three years of law school and work experience we have lawyers and judges who are mathematically challenged. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had the states arbitrarily and hastily enacts the child support guidelines in order to receive the maximum federal funding. They did this without relevant and accurate data and without an updated child cost study, thereby making child support guidelines arbitrary and capricious {see Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1 (11th Cir. 1999)}. NYS has received consistently over six years approx. $2.0 Billion/yr. from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America to use for state entitlement programs to include the NYS Earned Income Tax Credit. The administrative costs are over $1.4 Billion and system costs are over $35 Million. These monies flow in via child support collection incentive matching funds. Information is available via the DHHS – HHS Department, TANF Funding. So as you see, the more you collect into the system, the more federal funding a state receives. Do you really think no one would figure this out. No wonder there are no downward child support modifications – not even if a father loses his job. This is the crux of the problem in the NYS Family Court System. It says it all – it is all about the money to the states, not to the children. Ms. Frye, Chief, Office of Child Support in CA on 3/20/97 testified before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means for the Welfare Reform Bill. She states:

She goes on to say,

Just think, NYS’s emancipation age is 21 – they get an additional three years of our monies. Where are these monies going? Supporting the judicial system – into New York States General Fund? There is hundreds of millions of dollars in unobligated funds reported to DHHS.

Let’s recap, Per the NYS Family Court System: Fathers help create a child, father are not considered parents, fathers pay child support, fathers have huge problems with parenting time interference which is contempt of court but mothers receive no punishment {PL 135.45 and 135.5 says that custodial interference is punishable}, fathers receive no credits for parenting time expenditures, fathers pay federal and state taxes to pay for social programs/entitlements, mothers collect all federal and state tax credits that someone else is paying, fathers are told to pay for college, mothers collect the college tax credits to include Pell Grants; therefore, pay nothing on a required amount, the state of NY gets billions of dollars to spend on social program/entitlements, fathers are not entitled to social programs and lawyers get rich by this adversarial process. The sad part, children lose a parent and suffer everything that goes with that. What a country!!!! Guess NYS Family Court personnel became everyone’s daddy. The laws were not written this way. Judges are not above the law nor should you have disrespect for parental rights or family rights.

There are laws on the books that say that federal and state taxes are to be considered when making a child support award, but for some reason no judge follows this law. Judges avoid following the law by claiming judicial discretion. All of these tax credits are allegedly for the children as part of the child support award. These amounts MUST be subtracted from the total child support guideline award amount; otherwise, the custodial parent is double dipping, which is not in the best interests of a child. It is called stealing. There is no accountability how child support is spent on the children, and whether or not it is spent on the children. Since Welfare Reform, including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, (PRWORA), falls under the Social Security Act, states must follow the federal regulations and federal code. The Social Security Administration has a form (Form 223, Obligee Form) that it sends to the representative payee parent (who receives social security benefits for the children) with a number of detailed questions asking how the money is spent on the children each month. All that would be needed is to duplicate this form and use it for child support purposes. The non-custodial parent is to receive a copy. Lawyers and judges have made it quite apparent that they have a reckless disregard of the law by alleging it would be too difficult and intrusive for the custodial parent to account for how and where the support for the child is used. Hardworking Taxpayers of America should, therefore, sanction lawyers and judges by having the ability to sue judges and lawyers without them claiming immunities from suit, impeach them easier than allowed now and streamline the ability for the public to file criminal charges against the judges and lawyers. For purposes of equal rights, custodial parents who do not pay into the system should be treated the same. For your information, over 50% of the child support enforcement agencies caseloads are Non-TANF and the monies collected and distributed are also over 50%.

All the children in the system are not one to six years old! Baby boomers' children are getting older. Per public policy and public outcry, it is financially irresponsible to collect hardworking taxpayers' monies without being employed full-time. It appears that mothers take monies from society with no intention of repaying the money. If a father did this, he goes to jail. Did the PROWRA (Welfare Reform Acts) and Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act help to resolve this behavior? No. Isn't the federal government's role an insurer, not provider? Supposedly. Social Security was once considered insurance. Now it is considered a tax. Why are the lawyers and judges allowing this? For obscene profits and gain.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Always remember, children do hear what parents say. Mothers do tell their children that custody means money. None of this is about the best interests of the child. It is about getting back at men (since, under the radical feminist mantra, they cause all the problems). It is about maternal/state greed. Hard- working intact two-income families, especially mothers, should be up in arms about the taxpayer issue. They work and no one gives their families the same huge tax breaks that divorced, custodial mothers get.

Now begs the question about the welfare mom: they must work in order to get their welfare. This is done through child support incentive funding. The only people that do not have to work full-time for money are middle to upper class divorced mothers. Who has choices? Only middle to upper class, divorced mothers. Just think, a lot of these women get remarried, their husbands own a house but the NY Family Judges still give no credit to the non-custodial paying parent for housing which is approx. 1/3 of a child support award. Assemblywoman Weinstein’s Chief of Staff told me several years ago that they cannot make a mother work. Well, you make a father work. You cannot have it both ways. This is discrimination. These mothers’ choices are illegal. They are defrauding us, the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. Are our legislators, family law attorneys and judges enabling them? Welfare Reform has usurped our system of law and destroyed liberty and justice for all. NYS should watch out. Look at what you have done.

College Expenditures

There is no intact family in America nor is there any Federal law in America that states that any parent is obligated to pay tuition, general expenses, room and board, lab fees or books for post-secondary education. However, there are tax credits to help the student with the tuition, lab fees and book costs. Today and the last several years if a parent divorces, the mother's lawyer asks and is granted these fees for the child(ren) in the divorce decree. Now, if it is not written in the divorce child support decree, the custodial parent (90% mothers) go to court and the judges usually grant them these monies. Remember, no child support downward modifications for the $3,000 tax credit for room and board, tuition, etc. Also the child(ren) are not told to seek grants, loans, etc.

The amount of college expenditures is in addition to the child support payment. This is unconstitutional. It is a parental decision to pay for this; not a law or a child's entitlement but our wonderful lawyers and judges do this daily - judge's judicial discretion. How many people in this room had their parents pay 100% for college and did not have to work during the summer and school breaks to even offset some costs? We are not teaching our children work ethics. If your parents are divorced, the courts say, parents pay up or fathers pay up. Children in New York are quite aware of this entitlement.

JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT

There is none in New York State. Look at what happened in Brooklyn and the huge amount of judicial and lawyer complaints filed over the past few years. Chief Justice Judith Kaye needs to issue a memo stating that only proven unfit parents cannot have custody to their children. This is to include changing each and every NYS Family Court and Supreme Court documentation that says “visitation” to parenting time and also sanctions for false allegations of domestic violence. The lawyers should be sanctioned, too. They are quite aware that filing this false allegation gives you one upsmanship on custody decisions. Then she needs to go to the New York Bar Association and tell the lawyers to cutout all this nonsense, stop wasting money and time and abide by the laws. Too bad their revenue opportunities will be diminished. They can find something more honorable to do with their time. The judges must regularly have their decisions reviewed – review the transcripts. Since so many parents are complaining, something is wrong and the legislating and acting above the law must stop. Sanctions are in order. As for child support – change to based on net income and make it clear and accurate what it is for, line by line, and then subtract all federal and state tax credits that a child is entitled to. The double dipping must stop. Do not use in the best interests of the child as an excuse. Are we teaching children to steal from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America? As for reasons for a divorce, the “cruel and inhumane treatment statement”, before any citizen or lawyer of NY allows this into record, it must be proven beyond a reason- able doubt and stated in detail for the record. This is like the Domestic Violence allegations. Since yelling at a loved one is DV; all of us in this room should be convicted. As for parenting time interference - jail the custodial parent. After a few cases, this will cease because everyone will know that the law will be enforced. Yes, Fathers are loving and will physically take care of their children if the mother is in jail. Stop hiding behind that one.

CONCLUSION

Let us all be honest here. I am quite sure a fair amount of what I have said today has fallen on deaf ears. And now let me tell you why. New York State is more concerned with the inflow of monies from the Federal Government as well as the inflow of monies into the NY State Treasury and even though you may have momentarily considered some of what I have said to be fair and just, the reality is you are more concerned about revenue than you are of what is truly in the best interest of the child. I do not know how all of you look at yourself in the mirror at night and can you honestly tell me that you could explain the current state of affairs to your own children with a clear conscience.

Set the record straight – do the right thing. After four years of college, three years of law school and years of work experience, New York State Family Court Judges have received an F. Over 25 Million non-custodial parents across this nation will receive a copy of my written testimony. I have all original documentation. The people have spoken.

Letter to Sondra Miller - Chair for Matrimonial Commission

November 19, 2004

The Honorable Sondra Miller

Associate Justice, Appellate Division

Chair, Matrimonial Commission

Appellate Division, 2^nd Department

140 Grand Street, 6^th Floor

White Plains, NY 10601

Dear Justice Miller:

Re: Matrimonial Commission Hearings –

Official State of New York, Office of Court Administration Documents – 1993 – 1994 Custody Results

It is my understanding that there seems to be some confusion about custody arrangements in divorce hearings in the State of New York. I am particularly referring to the 11/4/04 letter to you from Mr. Dickinson of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. and the testimony of Ms. Linda Hicks on 11/4/04. Ms. Hicks stated that of those men/fathers who seek custody of their children, 70 percent are successful. Ms. Hicks is very wrong. Attached are the “official” documents from the Office of Court Administration {this is a Blue Book with information from the State of New York Unified Court System, Report of Child Support Order, Form UCS-111, Summary of OCS-111 Data For All Cases Reported} stating the following to Judge Jonathan Lippman from Chip Mount, Subject: Child Support Standards Act Report. This report was submitted for Judge Milonas’ signature.

	Total Physical Child					# Third
	Custody For Child	#		#		Party	Other-Not
Year	Support Awarded	Mothers	%	Fathers	%	Custody	Accounted. For	%
1993	91,239	82,964	90.9%	3,508	3.84%	206	4,561	5%
1994	82,728	75,455	91.2%	3,439	4.16%	172	3,662	4.4%

This report is done yearly and should be easily obtainable. This is pursuant to Judiciary Law Section 216(4) as required by Child Support Standards Act. The annual report data is to be seen by the State Legislature and the Governor on amounts of awards of child support, alimony, maintenance and allocations of property included in court orders or judgments providing for child support. I find it hard to believe that each and every judge in New York State has not accessed this report. Pertinent information can be extracted from this report and since this is public information, everyone else should be privy to this yearly information. A database in your offices has been and I reconfirm, has been built years ago. It takes very little time for a computer programmer to write a program to generate this data for years 1995 – present. However, the data is there. This should eradicate any doubts on the gender bias issues. Now will come the time to explain to all children why the State of New York Family Court Judges do not like fathers.

As for non-custodial parents, which are statistically, the fathers, the proof is here. The NY Family Court System is saying that the majority of fathers in New York are not capable of being parents. Sorry. Parental Equation is father plus mother. When a parent divorces, the child does not divorce one parent. Being a parent requires more than every other weekend parenting time. Fathers are not visitors, they are parents. Only convicted, incarcerated criminals receive visitors. In the spirit of this thinking, it is high time that they (fathers) have a seat at the table. They are part of this “Matrimonial Commission”. It affects them, too, not just those in the judiciary. To my knowledge we are an “equal rights” country. Prove it by allowing them seats at the table, otherwise, you are discriminating. The children are theirs, too. Let us finally set the record straight and straighten out the New York State Family Court System.

A little side bar, for your information, the 1998 National Child Maltreatment and 1996 Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect states that female natural parents abuse and neglect their children more than male natural parents. In over 80% of child abuse cases, the natural mother is responsible. With this in mind, why would a judge allow over 90% of mothers to get sole custody. It is an absurdity. It is criminal. After four years of college, three years of law school and work experience, the judges and lawyers are now intellectually and ethically challenged. If shared parenting laws were passed, children have been proven to fair far better post-divorce. These reports are easily obtainable from the U.S. Federal Govt.

If you choose to do nothing about the corrupt NY Family Court System, please make sure you and your staff go into all middle and high schools to do some public service work. You must do this to have respect from the community. Family Court room personnel have lost all respect from the community. Give everyone the heads up about what they are facing. This is a very serious matter. Have a meeting with all the children and state that boys in New York State can be a fit parent but once the NY Family Court System gets involved, they will never be respected or treated as a fit parent. They are only needed for their monies. Nothing else matters. The NY Family Court Judges do not care about their emotional and intellectual offerings as a parent. Only a mother matters. The fit fathers in New York State have no constitutional rights, only mothers do, fit or unfit. Once again, the proof is in the documentation attached. This must be done since New York State Family Court Judges actions speak louder than words.

Just so you know over 2.0 million New York State non-custodial parents are aware of the above information. I have personally made sure of that over the past eight years. Further distribution of this data has been on a national level to over 3.0 million more non-custodial parents. To keep everyone abreast, I will make sure all 5.0 million non-custodial parents get a copy of this information you are in receipt of.

Please contact me if you need any other New York State Official Court data.

Cordially,

Melanie I. Cummings

400 Wyoming Avenue

Millburn, NJ 07041

/mic

Attachments: Blue Book Documentation

11/4/04 Letter to Honorable Sondra Miller from Mr. Randall Dickinson

cc: The Honorable Judith S. Kaye

Chief Justice, New York State

230 Park Avenue, Suite 826

New York, NY 10169

Mr. Jim Hays, President

Mr. Randall L. Dickinson, VP

FaFNY, Inc.

P. O. Box 782

Clifton Park, NY 12065

Ms. Deborah Fellows

New York State Civil Rights Council

1826 Becker St.

Schenectady, NY 12304

Ms. Renee Beeker

Chair, Michigan NOW

Child Custody Family Law Task Force

P.O. Box 18063

Lansing, MI 48901

*You are quoted as stating, “Good, fit mothers are losing custody of children in 70% of contested cases along with their homes, professional licenses and life savings.” Please see all attachments – does not happen in New York State. I highly suggest that you report the truth as a speaker at your NOW – NYS 2004 Convention.

THE DEFRAUDING OF THE HARDWORKING AMERICAN TAXPAYER, WELFARE REFORM AND THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM

Press Conference June 13, 2002, 2:00 p.m., Passaic County Family Court Bldg.

Authors:

Melanie Cummings, New Jersey Council of Children's Rights

Bruce Eden, Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey

Wilbur Streett, Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey

INTRODUCTION

I am proud to stand here with the New Jersey Council of Children's Rights and the Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey in order to share with all of you the legal system's disrespect for the Hardworking Taxpayers of America and disrespect for the basic human rights of children, fathers, mothers and families which are guaranteed under our Bill of Rights associated with our U.S. Constitution. The Hardworking Taxpayers of America are footing the bill for this injustice, fraud and extortion. Legislators are allowing this to happen by succumbing to the pressures of special interest groups (i.e. bar associations, women's groups, the prison industry, child support advocacy groups, etc.), while the federal and state judiciaries compound the problem by their partial and gender-biased applications of the laws.

Every state in America has laws on the books that BOTH biological parents are required to emotionally and financially support their children. Every state in America has a judicial system that BOTH parents are to receive due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1, 5, 9 and 14. The U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1, 5, 9 and 14 guarantees BOTH biological parents their rights to their children without any interference from the state and judicial system. The U.S. Supreme Court and various state courts, in such cases as Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)(domestic relations proceedings constitute state intervention that is so disruptive of the parent-child relationship that it triggers constitutional implications), Lehr v. Robertson (1982) and Zummo v. Zummo (1990), have ruled on this by holding that the "best interest of the child" standard is repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. In Zummo v. Zummo, 574 A.2d 1130, 1138 (1990) it was held:

"The status notion that government may supercede parental authority in order to ensure bureaucratically or judicially determined "best interests" of children has been rejected as repugnant to American traditions. Judges and state officials are ill- equipped to second-guess parents and are precluded from intervening in absence of powerful countervailing interests". Citing Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 257-61 (1982).

We are here today to explain how the parent-child relationship is not occurring in the Family Court systems. We are here today to explain how state family courts, without a compelling state interest, systematically and arbitrarily remove one of the parents from the child(ren)'s lives. To make matters worse we are here today to explain how non-custodial parents (over 90% fathers) are financially driven away from their families post-divorce and the Hardworking Taxpayers of America are being defrauded in the process, re: The Deadbeat Dad Myth.

CHILD SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ISSUES

When a divorce occurs, our judicial system decides which parent will have custody and which parent will be granted parenting time which most states still call "visitation". Parents are not visitors; only convicted, incarcerated criminals receive visitors. The family courts decide that the "visiting" parent will pay the child support bill. The courts rule against fathers in New Jersey (and around the rest of the country) in 90-95% of all child custody cases and impose on them by force to pay a fictitious, artificial child support obligation, which in reality is de facto alimony. Current legislation to "even the playing field" is currently being squelched by the state bar associations, women's' advocacy groups, and child support advocates' groups.

The New Jersey Presumptive Joint Custody Bill, Senate Bill S-259, is being held up because it will create a financial change in the collection of child support for the State. In New York, their New York Family Reform Act, A2767, dated 1/25/01, introduced by Assemblyman Dinga is also being held up.

Since BOTH parents are emotionally and financially obligated by law to support their children, the divorced, intact family cannot be divided into two families and be expected to maintain the lifestyle that the family enjoyed pre-divorce. If monies are involved in a divorce, there are two entities that are held accountable to pay child support - fathers and the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. By law, a child support payment is paid to the children from BOTH parents, not just one parent. But our laws say that only one person is held accountable to pay for the children. The law of the land does not say this. Child support is not de facto alimony. If welfare mothers are not entitled to receive cash assistance monies (i.e., welfare/TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds) unless they are employed full-time, why is it that middle and upper class mothers are? Middle and upper class mothers are unlawfully and illegally receiving additional monies from the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. If the state of New Jersey says that it only takes $450.00/month to support a family of three, why do middle and upper class non-custodial parents need to unlawfully pay three to ten times that amount per month? Family court judges are granting such orders based on the incomes of the parents, and not on the true costs of raising children. On top of that, Family court judges are ordering divorced parents to pay child support on their gross / adjusted gross income amount. There is NO intact family in the United States that pays for child(ren)'s expenditures on gross income. A parent cannot give monies that the Federal/State already took out of their paychecks. These are unconstitutional denials of due process and equal protection under the law. No one should have to pay de facto alimony for another adult. According to the family courts, as an adult you must support yourself even if you have severe impairments. It boggles the mind that based on divorce laws, as an adult, a whole team of federal and state financial gurus cannot figure out the transfer of intact family monies nor did they do a study on this. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had the states arbitrarily and hastily enact the child support guidelines in order to receive the maximum federal funding. They did this without relevant and accurate data and without an updated child cost study, thereby making child support guidelines arbitrary and capricious {see Sierra Club v. Martin, 168 F.3d 1 (11th Cir. 1999)}; and see Exhibit I, "Order Declaring Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Void and Unconstitutional, dated 2/25/02".

Please go to Exhibit II and III in your packet to see an explanation of how the child support payments imposed by the divorce industry result in defrauding the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. The child support award (payment) exhibit shown is an actual case. Remember, fathers are human beings and parents, too. After four years of college, three years of law school and work experience, lawyers and judges are still having problems grasping third grade mathematical skills. There are laws on the books that say that federal and state taxes are to be considered when making a child support award, but for some reason no judge follows this law. Judges avoid following the law by claiming judicial discretion. All of these tax credits are allegedly for the children as part of the child support award. There is no accountability how child support is spent on the children, and whether or not it is spent on the children. Since Welfare Reform, including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, (PRWORA), falls under the Social Security Act, states must follow the federal regulations and federal code. The Social Security Administration has a form (Form 223, Obligee Form) that it sends to the representative payee parent (who receives social security benefits for the children) with a number of detailed questions asking how the money is spent on the children each month. All that would be needed is to duplicate this form and use it for child support purposes. The non-custodial parent is to receive a copy. Lawyers and judges have made it quite apparent that they have a reckless disregard of the law by alleging it would be too difficult and intrusive for the custodial parent to account for how and where the support for the child is used. Hardworking Taxpayers of America should, therefore, sanction lawyers and judges by having the ability to sue judges and lawyers without them claiming immunities from suit, impeach them easier than allowed now and streamline the ability for the public to file criminal charges against the judges and lawyers.

It seems that once a state opts to accept federal funding for child support enforcement (as well as other federally funded programs) it automatically waives sovereign immunity and cannot discriminate in the use of these federal funds. The State child support enforcement agency (Division of Family Development and Probation Division) have failed to comply with their obligations under the federal Child Support Enforcement Acts, Title IV-D, 42 U.S.C. 651-669, and other related statutes. The Child Support Enforcement laws and their reimbursement to the states are a valid exercise of Congress's spending power. By accepting federal funds for the Child Support Enforcement program, New Jersey and all other states waived immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (§5 Enforcement Clause). Under this definition of the federal Child Support Enforcement Acts, the State is involved in a program or activity. It is not acting in its "whole" capacity. Rather, the Division of Family Development and/or the Division of Human Services, acting in its capacity as the child support enforcement agency for the state is receiving the federal funding and reimbursement involved in a "program" or "activity" involving child support collections and enforcement. Therefore, its immunity is waived and is liable for discrimination against the residents of the state for violating their rights.

Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Acts because of the alleged national problem of non-enforcement of child support obligations. The determination of whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid exercise of its § 5 power under the Fourteenth Amendment requires consideration of two questions: (1) Whether Congress exercised its § 5 power when it applied the Child Support Enforcement Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-669, et seq., to the States despite the failure of Congress to explicitly state the basis of its power, and (2), whether extension of the Child Support Enforcement Act to the States is within Congress's § 5 powers. Congress acts pursuant to a valid exercise of § 5 power under the Fourteenth Amendment if the statute purporting to do so may be regarded as an enactment to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, is plainly adapted to that end, and is consistent with and not prohibited by the letter of the Constitution. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 651, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966); Hundertmark v. State of Florida Dept. of Transportation, 205 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2000).

Even though Congress did not state the basis for its power to abrogate the New Jersey's and the other states' sovereign immunity relative to receiving federal funding under the federal Child Support Enforcement Acts, it is not fatal because the Supreme Court has acknowledged the long-recognized rule that "the constitutionality of an action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 244, n.18, 103 S.Ct. 1054, 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1983). Every other Circuit considered this issue that Congress need not explicitly state the basis of its power to legislate in order to validly exercise its § 5 enforcement powers. Anderson v. State University of New York, 169 F.3d 117, 120 (2nd Cir. 1999) and other cites.

New Jersey and other states are obtaining federal funding for its child support enforcement agency/program under false claims of compliance with federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution (due process and equal protection violations). Divorced fathers are a selected and targeted group of people being denied basic Constitutional and human rights by being subjected to draconian, tyrannical state procedure depriving them of their substantive and procedural due process rights as well as equal protection under the law when the State fails to comply with federal regulations, and ultimately fails to comply with the U.S. Constitution. Divorced fathers, who are also Hardworking Taxpayers of America and others similarly situated, are being harmed by the federal funding for such programs. The child support enforcement laws are even-handed on their face, but not in their application. Over 90% of the child support obligors in New Jersey are men. Over 98% of those arrested for nonsupport are men. According to the 1993-1994 State of New York Unified Court System, only 3% of fathers received custody. Child support laws are to apply equally in order to pass Equal Protection muster. New Jersey discriminates on the basis of gender by unfairly awarding child custody to women in over 90% of all divorce and paternity cases, and conversely, unfairly imposes a child support obligation on men in over 90% of all child custody and paternity cases. New Jersey has a judicial policy of violating Equal Protection by granting child custody awards in divorce to women in over 90% of all sole custody and joint custody awards. See Exhibit IV, Page 4 and Exhibit V. There is an enormous disparity of men being obligated to pay child support. This creates an equal protection violation under the laws and Constitution of the United States. The State of New Jersey, as well as the other states, have accepted federal funds from the United States Department of Health and Human Services in a "program" called the Title IV-D "administrative" "program". In accordance with the clear and implied meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5, there is to be no discrimination or denial of equal protection under the laws, against anyone as it relates to federal rights. States may not discriminate on basis of gender unless it serves "important government objectives". Kimel v. State of Florida Board of Regents, 120 S.Ct. 631, 646, 528 U.S. ____, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000); Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971). To protect itself against liability for discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, the State or State Defendant child support agency must show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for discriminating on the basis of gender. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 532-34, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996). In New Jersey, or any other state, there is no "substantial or important government objective to deny men custody of their children in over 90 percent of all divorce or paternity child custody cases and then place child support orders against them in over 90% of all cases".

The Federal Child Support Enforcement Acts require States that accept federal funds waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity to suits brought in federal court for violations of this law under Equal Protection grounds. 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7. By accepting funds offered to the New Jersey Child Support Enforcement, which is an administrative agency, the State waives its immunity only with regard to the individual agency that receives them. There are no coercive conditions on these federal funds, because the State can sacrifice federal funding only for the child support enforcement agency or division and not the whole State. There is no coercive interference with state sovereignty by Congress. Even though sacrificing federal funding for child support enforcement would be politically painful; it would not compel New Jersey's choice to receive funding. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 168 (1992)(state residents can elect to decline a grant if federal policy is contrary to local interests); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 566-67 (1974)(upholding Congress's power to condition federal education funds on non-discrimination in the funded programs). More particularly, when the agency of a state accepts federal funds, the 11th amendment immunity is waived as a part of the federal funding agreement for the agency in charge and receipt of the federal funding, should there be any discrimination or denial of equal protection on the basis of gender without a substantial or important government objective, in the application of the use of the funds, individuals can seek redress in the federal courts. Pursuant to the federal Child Support Enforcement Act, Title 42 U.S.C. §651 et seq., Congress authorized under its Spending Power appropriations for each fiscal year that provided for the funding of a specific New Jersey State "program" for the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by non-custodial parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living. This also includes locating non-custodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State "program" funded under part A of this subchapter), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purpose of this part. Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §658--Incentive payments to States--In order to encourage and reward State child support "programs" which perform in a cost-effective and efficient manner to secure support for all children who have sought assistance in securing support, whether such children reside within the State or elsewhere and whether or not they are eligible for assistance under a program funded under part A of this subchapter, and regardless of the economic circumstances of their parents, the Secretary shall, from support collected which would otherwise represent the Federal share of assistance to families of non-custodial parents, pay to each State for each fiscal year, on a quarterly basis (as described in subsection (e) of this section) beginning with the quarter commencing October 1, 1985, an incentive payment in an amount determined under subsection (b) of this section. Based on the aforecited laws, the amounts reimbursed to the State agencies for administrative expenses, is determined to be anywhere from 66-90% of every dollar expended as well as on child support collections. New Jersey would receive approximately $500 Million-$1 Billion annually as an incentive payment, which would then go back to the State child support enforcement agencies and programs. This is also the reason why downward modifications and change of circumstances happen rarely.

Let us all remember part of the Federal code where child support guidelines are a rebuttable presumption (45 CFR 302), this in itself is not a problem. The problem is the basis for the presumption. A presumption must be based on facts, which can be pointed to and analyzed by independent and unbiased experts on the issue. The underlying facts upon which the child support guidelines are based are unknown. It is impossible for one to refute in the family court a presumption when no one knows what that presumption is. Thus, the child support guidelines are not rebuttable; they are accepted as a non-rebuttable presumption. States have gone to great lengths to hide this from their citizens and have ignored the federal mandate that they conduct economic studies to determine if the application of the guidelines result in an appropriate award of child support (45 CFR 302.56). The New Jersey Child Support Guidelines were never legislated, given any independent and unbiased expert evaluations nor any public input. They were promulgated by a New Jersey State Supreme Court mandate in order to maximize federal funding (Hardworking Taxpayers of America's monies).

COLLEGE EXPENDITURES

There is no intact family in America nor is there any Federal law in America that states that any parent is obligated to pay tuition, general expenses, room and board, lab fees or books for post-secondary education. However, there are tax credits to help the student with the tuition, lab fees and book costs. Today and the last several years if a parent divorces, the mother's lawyer asks and is granted these fees for the child(ren) in the divorce decree. Now, if it is not written in the divorce child support decree, the custodial parent (90% mothers) go to court and the judges usually grant them these monies. Remember, no child support downward modifications for the $3,000 tax credit for room and board, tuition, etc. Also the child(ren) are not told to seek grants, loans, etc.

The amount of college expenditures is in addition to the child support payment. This is unconstitutional. It is a parental decision to pay for this; not a law or a child's entitlement but our wonderful lawyers and judges do this daily - judge's judicial discretion. How many people in this room had their parents pay 100% for college and did not have to work during the summer and school breaks to even offset some of the costs? If your parents are divorced, the courts say, parents pay up or fathers pay up. Children, especially in New Jersey and New York, are quite aware of this entitlement.

TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] (Welfare) FUNDING

This is the crux of the issue. Enclosed in your packet (see Exhibit VI) is Leslie L. Frye, Chief, Office of Child Support, California Dept. of Social Services' (March 20, 1997) testimony before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, stating:

"As we understand it, the proposal goes far beyond the Congressional intent to develop an incentive system that rewards good outcomes and in fact encourages states to recruit middle class families, never dependent on public assistance and never likely to be so, into their programs in order to maximize federal child support incentives".

She goes on to say,

"And my colleagues across the country have already informed me how I can win at this system; recruit the middle class, bring those higher orders into your system and that way you will be able to benefit like some of the other states from the cap removal on the never-welfare population".

This says it all--it is all about the money to the states; not to the children. Remember, most states are raising their child support guideline wage amounts to $150,000 gross income (you are in the 40% tax bracket at this point). Each state receives Hardworking American Taxpayer's monies via federal funding, TANF (incentive awards). These incentive awards are based on the amount of child support that is due to be collected in your respective state. New York's age of emancipation is 21 - they get an additional four years of the Hardworking Taxpayers of America's monies. In New Jersey, there is no emancipation age in divorce matters. The higher the awards, the longer these amounts stay on the books and the more cash each state receives.

Over $40 Billion dollars are spent and there is no accounting for it! See Exhibit VII. Per the Administration of Children and Families office of the U.S. DHHS, $46.8 Billion was spent in Federal TANF grants awarded to states for FY 1997 - 99. For these years, $4.8 Billion was unobligated and $3.6 Billion was unliquidated which equals $7.4 Billion unspent. (See Exhibit VIII. Confirmed in Section 102. Family Assistance Grants of the 4/26/02 Subcommittee Report on H.R. 4090 from Wally Herger, Chairman of Human Resources Subcommittee). See Exhibit IX, Associated Press Release. See Exhibit X, 4/11/02 Testimony to Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee of Marriage Savers stating that the Congressional Research Services, 8/10/01 reported $8.6 Billion of unspent TANF funds. If the states could not find a way to spend it nor did not need these funds, why not return this money to the Hardworking Taxpayers of America? For purposes of equal rights, custodial parents who do not pay into the system should be treated the same. They should pay into the system and be taxed on the child support they receive. For your information, over 50% of the child support enforcement agencies caseloads are Non-TANF and the monies collected and distributed are also over 50%.

With all of this, New Jersey stated that they also have $1.9 Million in the Unclaimed Child Support Trust Fund (NJ Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/01). See Exhibit XI.

Also, in New Jersey, child support awards, collections and enforcement processes are directly/indirectly linked to judicial and state employee pension plans. See Exhibit XII. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that for judges to act as objective, neutral adjudicators, they cannot have a financial interest in the outcome of cases that come before them. See, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973). In these situations, a judge sitting without a jury is tempted to jail/imprison innocent people for debt simply to increase state child support collections to maximize the state's receipt of federal funding.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville, Professor of Political Science, Howard University, Washington, DC, has written an expose in the June, 2002, Liberty Magazine about "The Myth of Deadbeat Dads. It is explicit, factual information about the demonization of fathers. See Exhibit XIII.

Dr. Richard M. Green, Chief of Neurology at the Kaiser Permanente-Los Angeles Medical Center, recently wrote an interesting commentary for the Men's News Daily on "Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Policy". See Exhibit XIV.

We hereby ask:

New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell

John Coiro, C.P.A., Mayor of Totowa

New Jersey Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen

New Jersey State Senator Anthony Bucco

New Jersey Assemblyman David Russo

New Jersey Senator Nia Gill

New Jersey Senator Cody

Ex-Governor James Florio

Bruce Eden, New Jersey Fathers Rights Association

Melanie Cummings, NJCCR

Wilbur Streett, New Jersey Fathers Rights Association

to be part of a Child Support Enforcement Taskforce to:

Audit and reconcile all child support payment accounts since 1996. No federal match for children that were supposed to be emancipated, parental incarceration, obligor's death, etc. Florida is the only known state that ever did a reconciliation.

Why are sheriffs receiving approx. $60,000./month per county to go after claimed child support debtors when it is a civil matter?

Unclaimed Child Support Trust Fund. After five years if the state has not located the owner the funds revert back to the state. Because the state knows who the obligor and obligee are, based upon the child support order, why are they unable to locate the owner? Use all available resources to find the owner. Is the State of New Jersey receiving matching TANF funds on these monies along with interest and what is the state doing with this money? This is to include pre-2000. See Exhibit XV showing dormancy periods of unclaimed property.

Detailed accounting of every dime spent and where it is allocated of ALL TANF Funds received from DHHS. This is to include all public and private agencies, shelters, childcare centers, etc that receive monies. What income level is receiving these services and why only are women and children included for the services?

Explain all the incentive payments and TANF funds that flowed from the Federal government from the U.S. DHHS. Are monies in the General Treasury Account of the New Jersey Budget? These TANF funds are to be used for the needy families, not families that receive alimony, child support, EITC, revenue from IRA accounts, etc. - these components are not listed on a tax return but the families get the funds. No family that receives all these tax-free funds should be entitled to ANY TANF services. Once again, TANF is for the needy. As reported by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, New Jersey had $253.1 Million of unliquidated funds from 1997-1999 and then in 3/2000 (half Year 2000 allocation), had an additional $80.3 Million made available.

Issue a directive to the New Jersey Administration of Courts to stop Debtor's Prison, Weinstein v. Weinstein. Debtor's Prison has been outlawed for years. The ruling, "The record before us is devoid of any evidence that defendant has assets that can be used to satisfy the release amount ordered by the court. Indeed, the judge made no such finding, and, thus, violated the rule of Pierce v. Pierce, 122 N.J. Super. 359 (App.Div.1973). The recent amendment to R. 1:10-3 makes "clear that enforcement by incarceration was never intended to create a so called debtor's prison". Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Comment 1.R 1:10-3. We need to investigate what prisons in the State of New Jersey still have this going on.

Fathers' access to their child(ren). Issue a redirective and enforce the law. This is contemptuous on the part of the custodial parent (mother). The custodial parent goes to jail.

It is quite interesting that welfare caseloads have decreased by 50%, as reported publicly, but welfare monies being spent haven't. In New Jersey, welfare (TANF) spending went from $900 Million to $1.3 Billion. See Exhibit XVI, Page 4. There are plenty of studies at www.welfareinfo.org on everything you need to know about the welfare debate and reauthorization this year.

POVERTY STATISTICS

Not one poverty statistical analysis in the U.S. Government includes any type of payment that a non-custodial parent pays while physically parenting his children. There are no studies that involve non-custodial parents that include housing costs for children, food costs, entertainment costs, clothing costs, medical and dental insurance premium payments, med/dental out-of-pocket expenditures and the big one, the actual child support payment. To make matters worse, BOTH parents allegedly provide for their children financially, but not one statistic includes the custodial parent's child support payments to this income equation. To add insult to injury, not one statistic includes the Federal Earned Income Credit, State Earned Income Credit (currently comes from state TANF funds), Federal Dependent Tax Credit, State Dependent Tax Credit, State Housing Tax Credits, etc. If all of these amounts were added in, our poverty rates would be drastically reduced from what they are now. The Hardworking Taxpayers of America are compassionate people BUT not one statistic will show where these additional monies are going in a custodial parent's household to pay for child support. America's children are taken care of.

In your packet (see Exhibit XVII) you will see responses from the Center for Law and Social Policy and the Urban Institute - "two income families are not accounted for". These two think tanks play a major role in social policy decisions. The CATO Institute published a report on entitlement policies, Policy Analysis 378. This report by Lisa E. Oliphant states that all current entitlement dollars are not accounted for when other researchers publish governmental reports. My personal favorite is the Current Population Reports out of the U.S. Census Bureau, Report No. P60-196. See Exhibit XVIII. When Melanie Cummings contacted the author and other analysts they told her that it was their consensus not to include child support payments from both parents, etc. She suggested that this be brought to everyone's attention at a staff meeting. They also informed her that these reports are done by telephone survey only interviewing custodial parents (who can say whatever they want). These reports only state that approximately 50% of custodial mothers work full-time which is in contradiction to the U.S. Statistical Abstract tables showing from Year 2000-2002 that 75% of custodial mothers work full-time. Remember, these are ALL custodial mothers that are in the system who do receive food stamps, WIC, etc. The figures also include plenty of middle class mothers who have post-secondary education.

All the children in the system are not one to six years old! Baby boomers' children are getting older. Per public policy and public outcry, it is financially irresponsible to collect hardworking taxpayers' monies without being employed full-time. It appears that mothers take monies from society with no intention of repaying the money. If a father did this, he goes to jail. Did the PROWRA (Welfare Reform Acts) and Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act help to resolve this behavior? No. Isn't the federal government's role an insurer, not provider? Supposedly. Social Security was once considered an insurance. Now it is considered a tax. Why are the lawyers and judges allowing this? For obscene profits and gain.

A true poverty rate = Fathers' Portion, Mothers' Portion and Hardworking Taxpayers' Portion. This is to include housing, medical/dental premiums and medical/dental out-of-pocket expenditures to include orthodontia, psychiatry.

PATERNITY FRAUD

Not one parent should have to pay for a child that he did not birth unless they do so by the kindness of their hearts. Mothers do lie and pin child support payments on fathers whose DNA is not compatible with the children he is paying support for. One such case in New Jersey was reported in the 3/18/01 Star Ledger. Nationwide, 30% of children born are involved in paternity fraud where and when tests are given. We need a law on the books about paternity fraud to include severe criminal punishments for the individual who committed the fraud. Melanie Cummings personally called Daniel Phillips, legislative liaison for the NJ Admin. Office of the Courts. She asked him why the courts could not support Assemblyman Peter Biondi's Bill on Paternity Fraud. He said, "Who else is going to pay for these children?" She said, "The mother and real father". He hung up on her. It would seem that Mr. Phillips doesn't care who pays for a child as long as the mother doesn't. The father, biological or not, and the Hardworking Taxpayers of America will pay. As you've heard in my earlier part of the speech, the Hardworking Taxpayers of America DO pay for all of this. A new New Jersey Paternity Fraud Bill, A2374, has a scheduled voting date of 6/17/02.

JOINT CUSTODY/SHARED PARENTING

The presumption should be joint physical custody/shared parenting. Any court/judge who "awards" custody after a divorce to only one parent and makes the other parent a "visitor", without substantiation, has violated the clear constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. That judge has violated his/her oath of office and committed official misconduct. No court has the authority to intervene to terminate or limit parental rights without a compelling state interest and with showing of, based on real evidence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that one or both of the parents is incapable of performing their parental duties due to physical abuse, neglect, etc. Judges and lawyers violate families on a daily basis. They do it for financial profit and greed. This is destroying the social fabric of America and is causing a national security concern. Judges and lawyers who continue to breakup families and give one parent custody of children in order to maximize welfare funding are committing treason.

For everyone's information, the 1998 Child Maltreatment (see Exhibit XIX) and 1996 The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (see Exhibit XX), states that female natural parents abuse and neglect their children more than male natural parents. In over 80% of child abuse cases, the natural mother is responsible. With this in mind, why would a judge allow over 90% of mothers to get sole custody. It is an absurdity. It is criminal. These judicial individuals should be retrained and re-educated. After four years of college, three years of law school and work experience, the judges and lawyers are now intellectually and ethically challenged. If shared parenting laws were passed on a national front, children have been proven to fair far better post-divorce.

THE CHILD SUPPORT / LAW ENFORCEMENT GROWTH INDUSTRY

As stated above, 98% of those jailed for owing child support are fathers. County jails receive $85-125 per day from the state for each inmate. According to a number of sources, on any given day, there are 3,000 men in the New Jersey County Jails. Multiplying this by $125/day, it equals $375,000/day to the law enforcement growth industry. Multiply this by 365 days per year, and we have a $136.9 Million per year business in imprisoning people for debt. Imprisonment for debt is prohibited by all 50 states and the Federal Government. See Exhibits XXI and XXII for two New Jersey agreements, one is with the Sheriff's Department and the other with the Administration Office of The Courts.

Mr. Chris Rockford's 18-month fight for parental rights and joint custody. See Exhibit XXIII. As a result of seeing his child suffer and being deprived of communicating with his son, he suffered an abundance amount of stress that caused hypertension and renal (kidney) failure. Mr. Rockford went to the courts expecting relief and got nowhere.

PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS

Each and every legislator, family court judge and family court lawyer should go into the school systems and tell boys not to be fathers because their country has no use for them as parents except for their paychecks that will help foster larger state treasuries and for allowing mothers to extort free monies from them along with putting undue financial pressure on the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. All marriage licenses should be rescinded or have disclaimers of what will happen to men, their children and their assets in the event of divorce. Let us all see how this fosters self-esteem among boys! Since judicial personnel have been attacking males for years, they should come out behind their black robes and be men/women and tell everyone, including children, the truth about their gender-biased acts. Their actions are currently speaking volumes to everyone who goes into the family courts. Is this what their parents taught them? Or is it what the law school taught them? Obviously law schools leave out the most important curriculum when training legal minds--it's called legal and judicial ethics. Where are these individual's moral compasses? Maybe we should tell the children of the judges what their fathers/mothers are doing. Why is it that lawyers and judges can be fathers? New Jersey State Law states that lawyers cannot be placed in the child support system. The New Jersey Supreme Court handles all child support enforcement for the lawyers.

God gave us the gift of life and with that he gave a cross to bear - Choice. Yes choice. We hope for all of us standing here, we had our children out of love and respect, not for profit and gain. Remember the word of respect, respect for life, truth and pursuit of happiness. Under our U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights you, the lawyers and the legislators, do not have the right to take this way. None of you are not above the law nor should you have disrespect for parental rights or family rights.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS

We are hereby asking:

New Jersey Congressman Bill Pascrell

New Jersey Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen

Arizona State Senator John McCain

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

Oklahoma Congressman James C. Wyatts

to help us ascertain Congressional Hearings on child support guidelines and laws, have detailed explanations of how over $46.0 Billion for 1997 - 1999 and all monies in 2000 - 2001 were spent on all incentive funding and TANF, reasons for all "flawed" computer systems, what contractual arrangements are made in the states, the REAL reason why never-welfared child support payees (mostly fathers) must pay into this system and since money is so important, why custodial parents are only assumed to pay child support but not obligated to pay into the child support system since BOTH parents are financially responsible for their children (remember, the states would get more of the Hardworking Taxpayers of America's monies). The Hardworking Taxpayers of America deserve an accounting.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The last several pieces in your packet of information contain the top 10 statements that feminists stated about destroying the family unit (see Exhibit XXIV). Keep it in your "mental rolodex" during social policy and family law discussions. Always remember, children do hear what parents say. Mothers do tell their children that custody means money. None of this is about the best interests of the child. It is about getting back at men (since, under the radical feminist mantra, they cause all the problems). It is about maternal/state greed. Hardworking intact two-income families, especially mothers, should be up in arms about the taxpayer issue. They work and no one gives their families the same huge tax breaks that divorced, custodial mothers get.

Now begs the question about the welfare mom: they must work in order to get their welfare monies. Fathers have to work or they go to jail - involuntary unemployment is no option. Imprisonment for debt is prohibited by all 50 states and the Federal Government. There are no provisions in the Federal Child Support laws, or the State Child Support laws to imprison for civil child support debt. In fact, the U.S. Courts of Appeals have ruled that child support is a commercial debt subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. New Jersey statutes declare that a child support debt is a judgment at law and must be treated like any other debt. The New Jersey Constitution, Article 1, Paragraph 13, declares that no one shall be imprisoned for debit in ANY case. Since child support obligations are commercial debts, and are therefore civil matters, no one can be arrested for owing child support because there is no probable cause to arrest in a civil matter. Probable cause only exists in the criminal context; it can never exist in a civil context. The U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Courts of Appeals have held this to be so. Arresting and imprisoning someone without probable cause is kidnapping for profit and reward, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious abuse of process, malicious prosecution, an assault, etc.

The only people that do not have to work full-time for money are middle to upper-class mothers who get a divorce. Who has choices? Only middle to upper class, divorced mothers. Their choices are illegal. They are defrauding us, the Hardworking Taxpayers of America. Are our legislators, family law attorneys and judges enticing them? Welfare Reform has usurped our system of law and destroyed liberty and justice for all.

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD