Spotlight College Saving Early CRC Safe Haven Conference a Brightens on Simplified: Supervision & Success Paternity Fraud 529 Plans Discipline of Son page 15

page 5 page 8 page 12 Winter 2003, Vol. 17, No. 4 Kathleen Parker, see p. 23

$3.95 SpeakOutChildren’s Rights Council forChildren THIS MAGAZINE IS FOR DIVORCED, SEPARATED, SINGLE, NEVER-MARRIED PARENTS AND THE PROFESSIONALS WHO SERVE THEM

White House Conference on Missing and Exploited Children page 10 Strengthen your relationship with your children with CRC’s Parenting

“Will save you many hours of Handbook— searching for answers and sage advice on how to battle less and achieve more.” and Membership Mark Roseman, CRC of Connecticut “CRC has once again demonstrated its ability to provide information to in the Children’s parents which will help them understand their children’s needs.” David Gray Ross, former federal Child Support Commissioner, former judge and Rights Council state legislator

Don’t go through a custody or access This Parenting Handbook is for you! (visitation) battle alone. It’s too risky! Because of the danger of “going it alone” in a new and dangerous field, Inside this Parenting Handbook is CRC also recommends that you join a 88 pages chock full of information on support group to develop a strategy to Divorce, Custody, Mediation, Financial help you and your child. and Emotional Child Support, and other Talk with other people who have expe- topics that affect you, your child, and rience and insight into custody laws, others who can help/hurt you. trends and developments, and who can Read this Handbook to develop a strat- recommend good attorneys and media- egy for cooperative success. tors in your state. See list of CRC chapters in the back of Only $25.00. See order form on back this magazine. To obtain lists of other cover of this magazine. support groups around the country, go to Avoid putting your child in the middle CRC’s website at www.gocrc.com. Then of a battle. Avoid legal bills, including to CRC’s parenting website at self-serving letters back and forth to the www.info4parents.com for information other lawyer that the judge never reads. and resources. Avoid psychological and financial ruin. ❙ columns 4 editor’s message OFFICERS AND BOARD MEMBERS David L. Levy, J.D., President and CEO 25 court cases John L. Bauserman, Jr., J.D., Chairman 28 catalog of resources Samuel A. Brunelli John L. Bauserman, Sr. Terry Cady Teresa L. Kaiser, J.D. DEPARTMENTS GENERAL COUNSEL Michael L. Oddenino, Arcadia, California 13 Bills in Congress DIRECTOR OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES Alfred Ellis 13 Chapter News ASSISTANT DIRECTORS Family Facts Margaret Wuwert—Midwest 14 Mark Roseman—Eastern 22 Around the Country Features DIRECTOR OF INFO4PARENTS WEBSITE and The World Lonnie Perrin, Sr., former NFL football player for Denver Broncos, Chicago Bears and Washington Redskins 31 National Affiliate Spotlight OFFICE MANAGER Organizations and Julie Maggiacomo Carrera Chapters Brightens on CHILD SPOKESPERSON Hadassah Luther, age 15, Young Musician Award Winner Paternity Fraud GRANDPARENT SPOKESPERSONS ARTICLES Ernie Ashworth, member, Grand Ole Opry, and Bettye Ashworth page 5 NATIONAL SPOKESPERSONS Gerald L. Boarman, Ed.D., Academic Education 10 White House Elizabeth Hickey, M.S.W., Author, Parent Education Conference on Missing College Saving Jayne A. Major, Ph.D., Breakthrough Parenting and Exploited Children Hon. David Gray Ross, former Commissioner, Federal Child Simplified: 529 Support Office and former Judge 24 Personal Notes Dwight Twilley, Pop Singer/Writer Plans Audrey Wise, Ed.D., M.A., Family Counselor/Mediator 26 Equal Parents’ Week page 8 EVALUATORS OF RESEARCH John Guidubaldi, D.Ed. D. Richard Kuhn Coming Next Issue FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD Why is early Rabbi Mendel Abrams, D.Min., former President, Board of Rabbis of Greater Washington, D.C. What’s new in Congress for supervision and Eloise Anderson, The Claremont Institute, Sacramento, California families discipline of a son David Birney, Actor, Santa Monica, California The latest in neutral drop-off Hon. Sherwood Boehlert, U.S. Congressman (R-NY) by his father so Jim Cook, President, Joint Custody Association, Los Angeles, California and pick-up sites for children “Dear Abby” (Abigail Van Buren), Los Angeles, California Parenting and step- important? Karen DeCrow, J.D., former President of N.O.W., Jamesville, New York parenting tips Elliott H. Diamond, Co-Founder, CRC, Reston, Virginia page 12 Phyllis Diller, Comedienne, Los Angeles, California Margorie Engel, Ph.D., President, Stepfamily Association of America Cover Photos: Catherine Larry Gaughan, J.D., Professional Director, Family Mediation of CRC Safe Haven Greater Washington, D.C. Meyer and Walter Benda at White House Conference on Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator (D-FL) Missing and Exploited Chil- Conference a Ron Haskins, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution; consultant, The Annie E. Casey Foundation dren. Background image of Success Jennifer Isham, President, Mothers Without Custody (MW/OC), George and Laura Bush. Crystal Lake, Illinois page 15 Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, M.D., Author, Psychiatrist, Scottsdale, Arizona Vicki Lansky, Author/Columnist, Deephaven, Minnesota Change of Address James Levine, Ed.D., The Fatherhood Project, The Family and Work CRC is a member of Institute, New York, New York Please notify CRC three Hon. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Senator (D-MI) weeks in advance of any Hon. Fred Thompson, U.S. Senator (R-TN) address change. Judith S. Wallerstein, Ph.D., Founder, Center for the Family in Send your old and new Transition, Corte Madera, California addresses to Children’s Rights Council, 6200 Editors PUBLISHER Park Drive, Suite 103, The Children’s Rights Council Hyattsville, MD 20782, or 6200 Editors Park Drive, Suite 103, Hyattsville, MD 20782 email us at [email protected]. phone: 301/559-3120, fax: 301/559-3124, email: [email protected] Change of addresses may #1513 www.gocrc.com • www.info4parents.com take up to six weeks, so please notify us as soon as possible. SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 3 The Children’s Rights Council (CRC) is an interna- ❙❙ editor’s message tional, non-profit IRS 501(c) (3) children’s rights organi- zation, based in Washing- Implications of the political ton, D.C. MISSION election on November 5... • The Children’s Rights Council (CRC) is an interna- David L. Levy, J.D. tional non-profit organiza- tion committed to the lov- President, CRC more household income for single parents is ing, nurturing, protecting the better way to improve children’s lives. But and education of children we were grateful to Democrats for supporting through both parents and a (defeated) proposal by Rep. Nancy Johnson extended family. Washington, D.C. — A political election like (R-CT) to spend $20 million of that $300 mil- • CRC is dedicated to help- the one on November 5 is generally defined as lion to promote fatherhood through mediation ing children in promoting who gains control of the House and Senate, and and access (visitation) enforcement measures. family formation, shared which party has a majority of the governorships. We were concerned just the opposite politi- parenting, mediation, par- Behind the scenes, though, interest groups, cally on a small $25 million “promotion of fa- ent education, and miti- large and small, assess the damage or the gain therhood” provision in the Welfare Bill, be- gating the effects of di- they believe their groups have won or lost, and cause the Republican House version would vorce and relationship what new relationships they must forge to pur- offer funds for mediation and counseling, while breakups of children and sue their legislative and political goals The im- the Senate Democrats only want a “jobs bill.” parents. The Labor Department already spends billions pact of the elections on big-time political inter- VISION ests, like seniors and their Social Security, on jobs programs, and we want the measly $25 million in the Welfare Reform bill for the states • CRC’s vision is a society investors and Wall Street, labor, and business where both parents play a are almost immediately assessed on CNN, Meet to spend on parenting programs—whether our non-profits ever get sub-grants or not. significant parenting role the Press, and the McLaughlin Group. in their children’s lives. Hundreds of smaller associations in Wash- We were upset that billionaire Tom Golisano, who spent $70 million of his own money to Children need grand- ington that represent diverse groups, from soft- parents, step-parents, and ware to hardware, to evening wear to all- run for New York governor, and sent out press releases (that did not hit the media) saying he others who are part of the weather-wear, don’t get on TV, but they must family fabric, working as a assess political fall-out. What will the political favored “a presumption for joint custody,” got only 15 percent of the vote. But we were en- team. changes mean to their clients for everything • CRC envisions a society from tax policy to impediments or encourage- couraged that ANY candidate for governor in New York, a state that bucks the national trend where laws, attitudes, and ment of productivity. public opinion affirm that Non-profit organizations, which deal with the towards shared parenting, would express such views. Golisano is a man to watch! for children, “The Best Par- social contract between government and its citi- ent is Both Parents.”™ zens, may not cross your TV screen, but we go We were upset that Democrat Shannon through the same post-election hand-wringing. O’Brien, another strong joint custody advocate, STRENGTHENING I was on the phone and e-mail the morning lost her bid to become governor of Massachu- FAMILIES THROUGH after the election to our non-profit associates setts. But we were glad to see the return of two EDUCATION AND from Maine to California, trying to figure out Republicans—Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL) and ADVOCACY what it all means to our issues—welfare reform, Nancy Johnson (R-CT)—who led the way for Formed in 1985 by con- divorce, and joint custody—yes—joint custody. federal funds “to facilitate non-custodial par- cerned parents who had Imagine such small “parenting issues,” espe- ents’ access to and visitation of their children” more than 40 years collec- cially in divorce, occupying the time and atten- in the 1996 Welfare Reform law. tive experience in custody tion of maybe 200 to 300 child, family, and fa- We are concerned over the fate of Democrat reform and early child- ther advocates across the country. Teresa Kaiser, Maryland’s innovative child hood education, CRC has We know that the $16 billion a year five-year support boss, in the hands of incoming Repub- chapters in 32 states and reauthorization of the Welfare Reform Law was lican governor Bob Ehrlich. Kaiser, who is also four national affiliate orga- stalled in Congress before the election because a board member of the Children’s Rights Coun- nizations: Mothers Without of disagreements between Democrats and Re- cil, sees her job as more than a collection Custody (MW/OC), The publicans. They differed over work require- agency. Stepfamily Association of ments; House Republicans wanting 70 percent She has trained poor non-custodial dads in America (SAA), CoMamas, of welfare families working and participating community based organizations to explain to and Parenting Coalition In- in other job preparation activities 40 hours a other low-income dads how to use “debt-lever- ternational, Inc. week by 2007, while Democrats say a 30-hour ing”—the erasure of past due child support Prominent professionals work-week would be enough. arrearages that are too high for them to pay. in the fields of religion, law, But the issue that especially concerned my Will her outreach approach appeal to social work, psychology, colleagues and me was whether $200 million Ehrlich, or will he insist on appointing a Re- child care, education, busi- (Senate Democratic version) or $300 million publican as his new child support director? ness, and government (Republican House version) would be allocated As non-profit organizations, we can not le- comprise our Family Advi- each year for “marriage incentives,” and what gally endorse candidates, but as individuals, sory Board. we can certainly raise a ruckus—at least over would be funded under those incentives. ASSISTING CHILDREN We prefer the Republican emphasis on coun- the phone and e-mails, where it doesn’t cost us a lot of money. And we always vote. OF SEPARATED, seling, marriage preparation and education for DIVORCED, SINGLE, teens in high school on the benefits of marriage, AND NEVER-MARRIED rather than the Democratic version of provid- PARENTS ing larger welfare checks on the assumption that

4 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN Paternity Fraud Spotlight Brightens on Paternity Fraud Paternity fraud has been obtaining increased attention on TV, radio and in print media. U.S.A. Today carried an article on November 3, 2002. In the last issue of “Speak Out for Children,” we reported on paternity fraud and the growing national movement to use DNA to prove who is the father of the child. The debate continues. California Governor Gray Davis vetoed paternity fraud bill. As stated in The Banner, October edgement Forms,’ which state that state receives from Washington. 2002, the newsletter of Fathers and they are the father of the child. Based Maybe this is why no serious effort Families (an affiliate of ACFC, an on national averages, 3,920 (28 per- is made to counsel men on the con- organization in Boston headed by cent) of these men are victims of pa- sequences of signing the form, why Ned Holstein, M.D.), “DNA tests ternity fraud in Massachusetts each no DNA tests are available onsite, have liberated death row inmates, year. Almost all of the forms are and why the rigid one-year limit has helped clear up unsolved crimes, and signed in hospitals around the time been enacted. identified absent fathers who must of birth, yet simple DNA tests are not “Now, however, the march of sci- pay child support. But in most states, available. Almost none of these men ence is putting states like Massachu- they still cannot liberate a man from is advised by an attorney before sign- setts in a tough spot. DNA tests are child support payments in cases ing the form. After one year, a DNA becoming more and more widely where the tests show he is not the test providing non-paternity is not available. You can get them over the father. enough to free a man from child sup- Internet, and one that is promoted in “Such cases are called ‘paternity port payments. Europe costs only about $18. The fraud,’ because the mother knows “The Massachusetts Supreme Ju- tests do not even require a blood that someone else may be the father, dicial Court (SJC) upheld this policy sample; a simple cotton swab bushed but deceives the alleged father by in April, 2001, in the ‘Paternity of against the inside of the cheek, or a keeping this to herself. These cases Cheryl’ case. In this case, Andrew hair, is sufficient. Whether the state are not rare. The American Associa- was 18 at the time of the birth, and likes it or not, the truth will emerge tion of Blood Banks reported that of just out of high school. Happy about in more and more cases. 280,000 paternity tests conducted in the birth, he believed the mother 12 States Allow Evidence 1999, 28 percent showed the man when she told him he was the father, “Approximately 12 states have passed tested was not the father of the child. and signed the paternity acknowledg- laws allowing DNA evidence to be Paternity fraud is the only scam in ment form. Although the form states used later on to challenge paternity which the states force the victims to that DNA testing could be sought, judgments. Such legislation has been make large payments to the perpetra- this language is literally in the ‘fine introduced in at least eight more tor. print’ on the back of the form. As in states, including Massachusetts. In a “Bert Riddick found out that a most such cases, he did not have a disappointing election year move, former girlfriend had named him as lawyer. Later, he grew suspicious and Gov. Davis of California recently ve- the father of her child when his em- had DNA tests done. But by now, toed such a bill that had passed the ployer began to garnish his wages for Cheryl was five-and-one-half years California Legislature by a wide mar- child support. Riddick could not af- old, and the Court ruled it was too gin. ford the payments. His car was re- late to nullify Andrew’s paternity. He “Fathers and Families will soon possessed and he and his new family must continue to pay child support. submit a bill to the Massachusetts leg- were evicted from their rented home. Financial Incentive islature that would provide child sup- Eventually, his wife went on welfare “A big problem is that Massachusetts port relief to non-fathers if armed after having their second child. Now, has a financial incentive not to bother with the results of DNA tests. But our his three children cram into one room to get the paternity right. In cases bill goes even further. It would cre- in his brother-in-law’s house. where the mother and child are on ate strong incentives for DNA tests Non-Fathers Must Pay welfare, the child support payments to be obtained right away in every “Nevertheless, California courts have go directly to Massachusetts to reim- case of out-of-wedlock birth. That is ruled that he must continue to pay burse for the cost of welfare. So the the only way to avoid the pain and child support for a girl he has never state has a financial incentive to get bewilderment that children will suf- met and whom DNA tests prove is someone—anyone—to sign the pa- fer by learning later on in life that not his child. ternity form to ensure a flow of cash the man they call ‘Dad’ is not their “In Massachusetts, about 20,000 into its coffers. Moreover, the Com- real father. babies are born each year to unwed monwealth receives money from the “This bill is in everyone’s best in- parents. Encouraged by hospital em- federal government for its child sup- terest, because the truth about pater- ployees trained by the Office of Child port efforts. The higher its rate of get- nity can no longer be hidden. Chil- Support Enforcement, about 14,000 ting paternity forms signed—rightly men sign the ‘Paternity Acknowl- or wrongly—the more money the Continued on page 6

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 5 Paternity Fraud

Paternity Fraud mistakes. As in so many other issues, Continued from page 5 also enjoy the satisfactions of father- we are only asking that both parents, hood. And other men will be spared not just fathers, be required to act re- dren will gain the financial support the deep injustice of paying half their sponsibly. and, hopefully, love and guidance of take-home pay for 18 years for a child Meanwhile, Bert Riddick says, ‘The their true father right from birth. who is not theirs. women’s rights groups still have this They will be protected from learning “Only the mother will pay a price— thing where they start the speech with later on that a beloved man is not their the requirement that she tell the truth. the best interests of the child. My re- real father. True biological fathers A small price, indeed. No more ‘deep sponse to that is, the best interests of will be required to meet their obliga- pockets paternity,’ ‘revenge paternity,’ whose child? My children are suffer- tions as parents, but, hopefully, will ‘convenience paternity,’ or honest ing now.”

The CRC View CRC favors Mandatory DNA Testing, But Relationship Trumps DNA

1. Men as well as women should take dad and who has held himself out as changed several years ago. It used to precautions to prevent unwanted dad for a long time. be that states had to try to collect the pregnancy. This is not just a The child will feel that dad does not maximum child support they could; woman’s or just a man’s—respon- want to be her dad. Put yourself in but now, states receive incentives on sibility. the child’s position: how would that a broader range of outcomes, includ- 2. CRC favors universal establishment child feel? ing establishment of child support or- of mandatory DNA testing for ev- We know that some fathers’ groups ders, paternity establishment, collec- ery child, whether the parents are are saying that DNA testing should tion on cases with arrears, and married or not. All legislation be allowed even if there is a long-term percentage of collections on current should require this. As stated in the relationship with the child. One di- support owed. above article, this is an inexpensive, vorced dad who exemplifies this po- The test is no longer maximizing easily performed procedure. Re- sition phoned CRC to say he would collections, so the states no longer quired DNA testing will enable the never relinquish his long-time rela- have an incentive to increase child family to start on a strong founda- tionship with his 10-year-old daugh- support orders or to oppose down- tion. If the person tested is not the ter, but he wanted to allay his suspi- ward modification. In fact, if the father, the parties have the oppor- cion that he might not be the dad. He downward mod results in an order tunity to work through the prob- said that if DNA testing shows he is paid regularly, because the parent can lem, if they wish. But if DNA test- not the dad, he does not believe the afford it—then the state will get ad- ing is postponed, this creates a huge state should require him to support ditional incentive payments. risk for the child’s well-being. the child—but he would pay child The state can collect as little as a 3. If there is no relationship estab- support voluntarily. dollar a year on arrears—and if that lished between child and parent, ei- Perhaps not, but the effect on the is what the person can afford, it is ap- ther because of paternity fraud, or child is potentially the greater harm. propriate—the state gets full credit to- an attempt to deadbolt the dad out If a 10-year-old child learns that her wards incentive payments from the of a relationship with the child, “father” wants DNA testing to find federal government. then DNA should control. That is, out if he is the dad, what will the child Because these arrearages can be the man should be allowed to say think? That her dad does not want to owed to the mother or to the state, it one year, five years, or even 18 be her dad. means that the mother might get only years later, in response to a pater- This is a terrible message to send that one dollar a year in arrears. “That nity request, that he never had the to a child, and is the reason why is why child support agencies are no opportunity to have a relationship CRC—although it supports DNA test- longer advocates for the mother on ar- with the child. ing at birth and if a father has been rears or on downward modifications,” 4. But if there is a long-time relation- pushed away or forced away from a said Teresa Kaiser. Child Support Di- ship between father and child, e.g., relationship—does not support DNA rector for the state of Maryland. a 10-year-old child, CRC thinks that testing where there is a long-term The changes in child support policy the relationship should trump child/parent relationship. DNA test- mentioned above appear in the 1998 DNA. That is, neither the father ing at birth will also preclude the pos- Child Support Performance Incentive nor the mother, nor anyone else— sibility of unknown genetic problems Act, CFR 45303.107 or www.access. should raise the issue of doubtful arising down the road. gpo.gov/nara/cfr. Congress passed the paternity, either by the mom say- Act at the urging of former federal ing to the dad, “You know, you are child support director David Gray not really the dad,” the dad saying States No Longer Benefit Ross, and forward-looking child sup- “I’ve been getting suspicious all By Maximizing Support port directors like Kaiser who wanted these years, and I want DNA,” or to get away from the “collections Regarding the states benefiting finan- an interloper (third-party) saying only” policy and make child support cially from naming someone—any- “I’m the real dad.” more family friendly. one—as the dad, the incentives for The reason for our position is that (See “Speak Out for Children,” states receiving federal reimburse- the child will feel abandoned by the Summer/Fall 1999, Page 10.) ment for child support costs was person he/she has considered to be

6 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN SpeakOut Virtual Visitation Not Enough for Children for Children On July 21, Las Vegas Sun columnist contact’ when they are Sandy Thompson wrote a wonderful young? After all, chil- column in which she said that a Massa- dren who are loved and Speak Out for Children is published chusetts probate judge who had granted cared for are ‘easier to four times a year by the Children’s “virtual visitation” to a divorced father manage.’ And it’s very Rights Council, Inc. Editor: David L. had “missed the mark.” important that children Levy. Contributors to this issue: The column said: ‘be properly socialized Julie Maggiacomo Carrera, Paul “Twice a week the father will be al- and be welcomed with- Robinson, Mark Roseman, Ken lowed to read and talk to his children (a in the family setting and Skilling, and college student intern five-year-old boy and twin two-year-old community.’ Debra Hamilton, University of girls) via videoconference. According to “The Puppy Protec- Maryland. Design and layout: Elsie the Boston Globe, the judge granted the tion Act also contained Smith, Design Solutions Plus. mother sole custody of the children and a ‘three-strikes-you’re- Material in this newsletter approved her moving with them to New out’ provision that authored by CRC may be reprinted York, while the father lives in Massa- would revoke a breeder’s Sandra “Sandy” Thompson without permission, provided the chusetts. license after a third vio- source (“Reprinted from ‘Speak “His ruling doesn’t sit well with some lation for failing to meet sanitary stan- Out for Children’ “) is given. For child advocates who say computers are dards and other requirements. How non-CRC material, obtain permis- no substitute for sitting on a parent’s lap, about a one-or-two-strikes-you’re-out sion from the copyright owner. hugs, or any other loving contact with a law for parents who fail to meet a child’s “Family Facts” may be photo- child. needs or who are abusive? copied for distribution to policy- “Another key issue in the Massachu- “Children deserve as much and more makers and judges. setts case is the move of the mother and protection as puppies. Human contact For further information about children so far away from the father. The is a primary need. Talking to Dad or CRC membership, publications, ideal arrangement is for a child to have Mom on a video screen once or twice a cassettes, catalog, and services, real contact with both parents, except week does not fulfill that need.” write: CRC, 6200 Editors Park Drive, in cases of abuse and neglect. Suite 103, Hyattsville, MD 20782; “ ‘The Best Parent is Both Parents,’ phone 301/559-3120; fax 301/559- says David Levy, president of the 3124. Children’s Rights Council in Washing- Virtual Visitation Opponent Dies CRC has two Web sites: ton, D.C. ‘That is not rocket science.’ www.gocrc.com (our main CRC “Levy does not believe the Massachu- CRC feels that children and families lost a true site) and info4parents.com (for setts virtual visitation ruling is the be- friend when Las Vegas Sun Associate Editor expanded parenting information). ginning of a trend. He knows of only Sandra “Sandy” Thompson was killed in a car CRC’s email address: crcdc@ four such cases. ‘Rather,’ he says, ‘the crash on August 9, just a few weeks after her erols.com. national trend is toward shared par- above column was published. Her car was hit from behind in a four-car SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION enting.’ “Whichever way you cut it, videocon- crash as the 54-year-old Thompson was stopped Annual subscription is $18. Indi- at a red light. vidual copy, $3.95 at your book- ferencing is not shared parenting. How ironic that judges and worse, yet, par- Known as a family rights advocate, one of store or local newsstand. Free to her 1997 columns led to a three-month investi- CRC members. Membership is $35 ents use modern technology to reinforce an ancient notion that children are pos- gation by the Sun and an award-winning series a year. Library Rate: $20 a year. “Family Court: Out of Order.” Individual and subscription copies sessions to be moved around a parental chessboard. “She did a great job of advocating for chil- are 5,000. Readership exceeds dren,” Clark County Family Court Judge Gerald 20,000. “Maybe if children were considered puppies, they would get better treat- Hardcastle said in an article in the Sun follow- EDITORIAL POLICY ment. The voluminous farm legislation ing her death. “In Family Court I think it made Letters, comments and articles are recently passed by Congress, at one time all the judges introspective about how they did welcome. Send to Editor, CRC. contained the Puppy Protection Act. A their job. She was one of those people we could Publisher reserves the right to controversial provision regarding breed- confide in. She kept us all on the right track.” approve for content. Advertising ers required that puppies ‘have plenty For years, Thompson held meetings in her inquiries welcome through pub- of human contact before they are put up office with people who were struggling through lisher. for sale.’ the court. Even if she did not write a column about a particular incident, visitors praised her ADVERTISING “According to supporters of the pro- vision, puppies that have had human for just lending a sympathetic ear for those Media kit requests and advertising caught up in the impersonal world of the courts. questions should be made to Mark contact are easier to manage, and less Roseman, 5 Perkins Avenue, #5, likely to be abandoned by their owner. Narragansett, RI 02882, 401/789- An Associated Press story quoted an 5565, [email protected]. ASPCA spokesman saying ‘It is really important that animals be properly so- © 2003 cialized and be able to fit within the fam- Children’s Rights Council, Inc. ily setting and the community.’ ISSN 1042-3559 “Puppies—as all helpless animals— Winter 2002, Vol. 17, No. 4 need protection. But what about chil- dren? Don’t they need ‘plenty of human

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 7 College Saving Simplified College Saving Simplified: 529 Plans By John Ferri and Barry Ringleheim, UBS PaineWebber, Inc. Parents and grandparents may like the tax-saving incentive in the federal tax law of 2001. The law enhanced state- sponsored 529 plans to assist in saving for college. They are now available in most states.

Details of each plan differ slightly from child who is granted a scholarship, the ing jointly) on behalf of a ben- state to state, but there are two major funds can be withdrawn without pen- eficiary. The $55,000/$110,000 categories. The first is the 529 prepaid alty up to the amount of the scholarship. contribution is, in effect, treats tuition plan. With this program, you Another option is transferring the funds as five separate $11,000/ lock in the future tuition of certain state to another family member who is $22,000 annual exclusion gifts colleges at the current rates. There are headed for college, with no penalty to (one for the current year, then some downsides to these programs. One you. If the investment is not used at all, one in each of the next four is that although you are guaranteed the you can withdraw the funds. However, years). amount of money needed to pay for tu- the earnings portion of any distribution No federal gift tax will result ition, you will not receive a return any not used for qualified higher education as long as no other gifts are higher than the increase in tuition. Sec- expenses will be included as ordinary made to this beneficiary within ondly, most of these programs are re- income to the person receiving the dis- the same five-year period. If stricted to residents within the state tribution and subject to a 10 percent you were to die during this five- sponsoring the program. penalty on the federal level. There may year period, however, a portion The newer version—the also be a penalty assessed on the state of this gift would be included 529 savings plan—gives level and may actually differ from not in your estate. you more options. You only the federal penalty, but also from Talk to your Financial Advi- are permitted to make state to state. sor, attorney or tax advisor, regular contributions There are even more advantages to about the potential benefits to the account, subject these programs, because contributions that both types of 529 programs to state annual and to- are considered gifts for gift tax purposes. offer. Ask them about the legal tal contribution lim- This means your contributions could and tax consequences associ- its. From there, ei- qualify for the $11,000 annual gift ex- ated with your opening a 529 ther a state agency or clusion. A special exception to the Plan account. They can then private company $11,000 annual exclusion allows you to assist you in conducting the working for the state give larger gifts free of federal gift tax. necessary analysis to determine invests the contrib- An individual can chose to make as which education-funding strat- uted amounts for you. much as a $55,000 contribution in one egies would benefit your par- Many of the states year ($110,000 for married couples fil- ticular situation. allow non-residents to participate in their pro- grams. This way if you aren’t happy with your own CRC Note In the CRC book entitled “The state’s plan, you may have other choices. Best Parent is Both Parents: A One of the few advantages to be- Bear in mind, however, that tax benefits Guide to Shared Parenting in the ing a non-custodial parent is that may be limited to in-state participants. 21st Century,” edited by David for the purpose of figuring the Although there is no federal deduction L. Levy, it says (p. 91) “A num- amount of college financial aid of contributions, state deduction varies ber of researchers have noted the your child is entitled to, most col- by state. tendency of non-custodians to leges only consider the income The investment earnings in the plan cease support payments to their of the custodial parent. That is, grow federally tax-deferred. When the children when they become 18 they do not figure the income of time comes, you can withdraw from it years old. The same researchers the non-custodial parent in the as needed to pay for higher education have also pointed out that the computation of aid your child expenses. Right now, you’re thinking costs of attending college, may receive. This can benefit what a help this is to pay for tuition, whether private or public, two your child in two ways: but what about the rest of the experi- year, four year or longer, are es- • If the custodial parent has ence. calating to a very high level at the lower income than your income, More good news! The funds in the same that that higher education the aid package goes up; plan can be used for fees, books, equip- or specialized training has be- • Regardless of relative income ment and supplies as well. The earnings come virtually essential to any levels between custodial and non- portion of the distribution is exempt young person’s successful entry custodial parent, only one of those from federal taxation as long as the dis- to the working world. incomes—the custodial parent’s tribution is used for qualified education “Structuring of child support is considered, whereas for mar- expenses. Students are limited to accred- is, at present, often so rigid and ried persons, generally both par- ited schools, which may include trade arbitrary that many non-custo- programs offered at culinary and voca- ents’ income is considered by a tional institutes. college in computing aid. Should you be the proud parents of a Continued on page 9

8 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN A peaceful gift exchange: Divorcing parents drop off and pick up on neutral ground By Cindy Kranz

The following article appeared in The Lutheran, December 2002, the monthly publication of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, circulation: 600,000. See www.thelutheran.org. CRC thanks Margaret Wuwert, CRC

Deputy Child Access Director, for arranging to have this article published.

Tucked away in five Toledo, Ohio, area so all would focus on children as churches, The Gift Exchange declares a gifts. “It’s so hard for kids who are neutral zone for children embattled by going through divorces and sepa- bitter divorce wars. rations, especially when moms Custodial parents bring their children and dads are almost using them to the churches, including Faith as weapons against one another. Lutheran, Toledo, and St. Mark We’ve had moms and dads come Lutheran, Bowling Green, where non- to The Gift Exchange who can’t be in custodial parents pick them up for visi- the same room with each other. The kids tation or have supervised visits. love both of them.” “People tend to be less combative in Toledo centers are open Wednesday, flict parents. “It creates a situation churches,” says Margaret Wuwert, di- Friday and Sunday evenings and holi- where no one is confrontational,” she rector of the Northwest Ohio Children’s days. The noncustodial parent arrives says. “In terms of supervised visitation, Rights Council, which operates the 15 minutes after the child is dropped off it gives the custodial parent the peace of transfer centers. so paths don’t cross and the child doesn’t mind the child is being watched over.” There are some 17 other centers na- witness arguments. “The courts refer most of the 40 To- tionally, a project of the Children’s David Hanna spends two hours a ledo-area families who use the free ser- Rights Council, which advocates for a week visiting his five-year-old son at vice. It’s often the last hope for feuding child’s right to the involvement of both The Gift Exchange. The two play soft- parents who both want to maintain a parents. “We like to demilitarize the di- ball and fly kites and model airplanes. relationship with their children,” says vorce process ... to get the parent to fo- Hanna brings pizza and pop for their Wuwert, a retired social worker. cus on the children and not the legal pro- meal. “They really go out of their way “We occasionally find a custodial par- cess,” says Al Ellis of CRC. to make a bad situation into a manage- ent who doesn’t want the noncustodial St. James Lutheran Church was the able one,” he says of the trained volun- parent involved,” she says. “They’ll try first Toledo-area site. Bill Fink, pastor, teers who run the program. to erode or undermine the visit. But we decided to change the national CRC’s His former wife, Susan Hanna, says make it clear: It’s not about them; it’s Safe Haven name to The Gift Exchange the center saves children from high-con- about the children.”

CRC Note immediately by the law and by legal ob- ter than obligating divorced parents be- Continued from page 8 ligations. yond the level that parents are obligated dians view the payment of support as “Also, given the expense of divorce, in intact families. a legal obligation with no direct link disposable income, which in the intact “There are important and good-faith to their child’s interests. This is par- family might have been put away as sav- reasons that parents, whatever their ticularly so because the payment is ings for college, is much less likely to be marital status, may have for choosing to made to the (often hostile) ex-spouse, available to families of divorce. Dispos- support or not support their children rather than the child and because able income has been dramatically re- once they reach age 18. there is no accountability for actual duced in at least one, and usually both, “Most case law, as well as the formu- expenditures by the custodian on the households. las and guidelines proposed and in use, child. In addition, the non-custodian “Again, it is not surprising to find that do not require a parent to support a child is often discouraged—even prevented, many non-custodians have had to delay after age 18. in some cases, from having a mean- personal retirement planning for the “Only a few of the formulas or guide- ingful parental role in the child’s life. same reason, and, when their children lines, e.g., Indiana and Washington, D.C. “Therefore, it does not seem sur- reach majority, these parents are faced incorporate a presumption that the costs prising that these non-custodians with a choice of continuing to support of college are to be included in the cal- would resist the extension of an obli- their children or becoming, in the long culation of support. gation—and of a very particular and term, dependent themselves as retirees. “Even though courts and case law in limited relationship with their child “A closely involved parent will want most states do not require a parent to and their ex-spouse—beyond the age to support a child through college or pro- support their children after age 18, we of 18. The child’s emancipation brings vide other stepping stones to adulthood hope that not voluntarily supporting with it the possibility, for the first time that meet that child’s needs. Encourag- your child after 18 would be the rare in years, of a parent-child relationship ing this involvement will succeed bet- exception.”

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 9 White House Conference on Missing and Exploited Children From Catherine Meyer, author, wife of the British Ambassador to the U.S.: I thought the White House conference The Bush Administration held a White House conference excellent. I gathered a lot of key people on Missing and Exploited Children on October 2, 2002. from the administration, including Among the 400 attendees were Catherine Meyer, author, the President and the First Lady. I was wife of the British Ambassador to the U.S., and former also very impressed by the series of Honorary President of CRC; Walter Benda, coordinator steps the administration has taken to of CRC of Japan, and Lawrence White, a CRC member improve the safety of children. Of from Texas. These are their comments on the conference. course, more needs to be done for the From Walter Benda, Catherine Meyer issue of international child abduction, coordinator, CRC of Japan: but at least it was included in the pro- I attend the White House Conference gram. One must not forget that it is a relatively new is- on Missing, Exploited and Runaway sue. So, in conclusion, we must see it as a positive first Children, as the representative of step, even though no concrete action has been taken. CRC. President Bush and his wife spoke. Additionally, top level cabinet offic- CRC Note ers spoke, including Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, FBI Director Rob- Neither Walter Benda, whose two daughters are be- ert S. Mueller, III, HHS Secretary ing held by their mother in Japan, nor Catherine Walter Benda Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Edu- Meyer, whose two sons are being held by her first cation Roderick Paige, John Walsh, husband in Germany, have been allowed to see their victim parent and host of “America’s Most Wanted,” and children in more than five years. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Lawrence (Larry) got his daughter Nina back from Although it was exciting to hear from all of these great the Soviet Union by a “recovery operation” in which people, and their concerns about the issues are sincere, Nina, 6, was spirited out of an apartment in Moscow because of all the focus on Iraq and the war on terrorism and across the Russian border by a group of “recov- right now, hardly anything about this one-day long first- ery experts” hired by Lawrence. Lawrence had not ever national conference made the news, and nothing has seen or spoken to Nina in the more than three years changed for left-behind parents like myself. since her non-custodial mother and grandmother, Because of that, many of us left-behind parents, not both of whom were born in Russia, had taken her to just with cases in Japan, but also in many other countries, Moscow. The recovery was a three-year effort, cost- are making a special appeal to the White House to re- ing Lawrence hundreds of thousand of dollars. focus some of its attention back to this problem, which Lawrence said the FBI had been helpful in arranging affects so many thousands of children and families world- to have an international arrest warrant issued to try wide. to persuade the mother to return Nina to the U.S., One of CRC of Japan’s main hopes coming out of this even though she didn’t, and the FBI provided him conference is to get Bush administration support for our with moral support. If the mother wishes to see Nina, International Safe Haven Center proposal which we have she would have supervised access in Texas, said presented to members of Congress in the past. This pro- Lawrence. posal is being mailed in a packet with other information to President Bush and other key conference participants. Basically, this proposal would establish Access Centers More about Parental Kidnapping on an international basis, similar to the domestic centers Larry Synclair, CRC’s contact in southern California, and CRC operates in the U.S. to provide assured access on a Patti Diroff, who lives east of Los Angeles, spoke at the regular basis between left-behind U.S. parents and their National Foundation for Women Legislators Conference children in foreign countries. in San Diego, November 22 and 24. Larry talked about From Larry Whyte, CRC international parental child abduction, and Patti spoke member from Texas: about CRC’s Transfer Sites, and Equal Parents’ Week. No matter which of the statistics one Larry mentioned that according to the U.S. Justice De- chooses to believe as to the number partment, each year there are about 163,000 interstate of international parental abductions, parental kidnapping cases, and from 1,600 to 3,200 chil- in comparison to the over-all number dren abducted by a parent to a foreign country. of missing and exploited children, the One of Larry’s children, Larry, Jr., 7, has been abducted number is very small, and so no one by the mother and is being held in Russia, in defiance of should have been surprised that ‘our U.S. custody orders. Larry has not seen his child in more issue” was not top of the agenda. That than two years. See photo of Larry and Larry, Jr. on being said, I was surprised at how www.gocities.com/lynclair/index.html. Larry Whyte and much mention was made of this is- NFWL is headed by Robin Reid, whose husband is Sam daughter, Nina sue. Disappointing, although probably Brunelli, a member of the CRC Board of Directors. The or- to be expected, was by and large the ganization consists of 3,000 women legislators from around same manipulation of the facts by various Governmental the country and about 700 corporations. NFWL may be con- officials, trying to make their departments appear to be tacted at 910 16th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 2006, Web aggressively and successfully handling the issue. site: womenlegislators.org.

10 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN $500 CRC College Scholarship Available CRC will award a $500 scholarship in the Young Frank’s dad, Frank Banner, Jr., a deputy U.S. Frank Banner III Scholarship Fund in 2003. Marshal, directs two CRC Child Access Sites in the Dis- More than one scholarship will be awarded, trict of Columbia. if contributions permit. CRC hopes this scholarship fund will focus attention The winner last year, the first time the on the plight of all children at risk of abuse, neglect, and college scholarship was awarded, was Stacy abandonment, all of which are increased when the child Marie Tompkins, niece of a CRC does not have both a mother and a father in the child’s member. life. The fund was established to ac- We welcome your tax-deductible contributions to the knowledge Frank Banner III, who Frank Banner III College Scholarship Fund. Please send turned 14 on September 9, 2001, your contributions to: Mr. Frank Banner, Jr., c/o but his dad could not wish him Children’s Rights Council, College Scholarship Fund, Happy Birthday. That’s because 6200 Editors Park Drive, Suite 103, Hyattsville, MD young Frank was one of 160,000 20782. ■ children kidnapped by a parent each year.

Frank Banner, Jr. ank Banner III Scholarship Fund in Instructions for Student Applicants en’s Rights Council.e than C. (Letters mor e: ent member of the national Childrwing: CRC will award at least one $500 scholarship to the Fr elated to a curr 2003. The rules for applying ar e than a two- to three-page letter to CR • The child must be r ead). The letter should state the follo • The child should write no mor three pages long will not be r our high school;all of 2003; 1. Your name, address, telephone number and the date at the topent, of the you letter; or the adult can om 2. The name and locationou plan toof attendy andchild, in the other F family member) to the member of national 3. What college y 4. Your relationship (child, gr CRC. If unsure as to whetherou havenational had tomembership overcomexperience; in is your currour life, future what career you learned goals orfr life contact CRC; ou in your college e om this scholarship; 5. Explain any struggle that y xceed an additional it, and how it willourself, help youry previousays you wouldaccomplishments, benefit fr y 6. Tell us about y expectations, and in what w y other relevant documents, not to e 7. Sign the letter; anscripts and an • Attach unofficial tr om the CRC member and one other person, such as a counse- three pages. • Letter of recommendation. fr lor or teacher essed to: , Jr. Letters should be addr Mr. Frank Banner y June 15. Children’s Rights Council College Scholarshipark Drive, Fund Suite 103 ecipient(s) will be notified b 6200 Editors P or the following year. Hyattsville, MD 20782eceived by May 15, 2003. R After May 15, apply f Applications must be r

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 11 Early Supervision and Discipline Why is early supervision and discipline of a son by his father so important?

by Dr. James Dobson CRC Note: Write President, Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado Family Coalition, to Dr. Dobson from The Washington Times, Family Times Section, September, 2002. Dr. Dobson often writes wonderful things about “…The animals that fascinate me the met, not one of them genuinely loved children’s needs for two most are elephants. These magnificent his dad. Ninety-five percent of those on parents—a dad and a creatures are highly emotional and sur- death row said they hated their fathers. mom. We were always prisingly intelligent. I suppose that is “In 1998, there were more than 1.2 puzzled, however, why, as why it is disturbing to see them suffering million people in federal or state pris- a member of the National from the encroachment of civilization. ons. Of that number, 94 percent were Commission on Children “That is happening in the Pilanesberg males. Of the 3,452 prisoners awaiting and Families several years National Park in northwestern South execution, just 28 were women. Clearly, ago, he opposed a recom- Africa. Rangers there have reported that as author Barbara Jackson says, ‘It’s far mendation for a presump- young bull elephants in that region have easier to build strong children than re- tion for joint custody. In become increasingly violent in recent pair broken men.’ response to a question years—especially to nearby white rhi- “Some years ago, executives of a greet- from CRC staffer Debra nos. Without provocation, an elephant ing-card company decided to do some- Cruz-Hamilton, Dr. Dob- will knock over the rhinoceros and then thing special for Mother’s Day. It set up son’s office wrote to CRC kneel and gore it to death. This is not a table in a federal prison and invited on November 6, 2002, that typical elephant behavior, and it has any inmate who so desired to send a free Dr. Dobson is unable to been very difficult to explain. card to his mom. The lines were so long, offer an in-depth answer at “Now, however, game wardens think a second trip to the factory was made to this moment. “Please un- they have cracked the code. Apparently, get more cards. Because of the success derstand, this is a matter the aggressiveness is a byproduct of gov- of the event, the card company decided of time, not sentiment,” ernment programs to reduce elephant to do the same thing on Father’s Day, said the letter from Ken populations by killing the older animals. but this time, no one came. Not one pris- Janzen, Senior Director, Almost all of the young rogues were oner felt the need to send a card to his Office of Dr. Dobson. “In orphaned when they were calves, de- dad. Many had no idea who their fathers the meantime, may God priving them of adult contact. Under were. What a sobering illustration of a richly bless your efforts to normal circumstances, dominant dad’s importance to his children. affirm the CRC motto that males keep the young bulls in line “Contrast that story with a conversa- ‘the best parent is both par- and serve as role models for them. tion I once had with a man named Bill ents.’ In the absence of that influence, Houghton, who was president of a large CRC recommends that ‘juvenile delinquents’ grow up to ter- construction firm. Through the years, for our readers who read rorize their neighbors [emphasis he had hired and managed thousands of materials from or listen to added]. employees. I asked him: ‘When you are Dr. Dobson’s syndicated “I know it’s risky to apply animal be- thinking of hiring an employee—espe- radio show, write, and urge havior too liberally to human beings, but cially a man—what do you look for?’ His Dr. Dobson to support a the parallel here is too striking to miss. answer surprised me. He said, ‘I look presumption for joint cus- Let me say it one more time: The ab- primarily at the relationship between tody. Provide educational sence of early supervision and discipline the man and his father. If he felt loved materials to support your is often catastrophic—for teenagers and by his dad and respected his [father’s] position. Let us know of for elephants. authority, he’s likely to be a good em- any results from your com- “Prisons are populated primarily by ployee.’ Then he added, ‘I won’t hire a munications. Ask Dr. Dob- men who were abandoned or rejected young man who has been rebelling son about Joint Custody. by their fathers. Motivational speaker against his dad. He will have difficulty The address is Dr. Dob- and writer Zig Ziglar quotes his friend with me, too.’ son, Focus on the Family, Bill Glass, a dedicated evangelist who I also have observed that the relation- Colorado Springs, CO counseled incarcerated men almost ev- ship between a boy and his father sets 80995, phone 719/531- ery weekend for 25 years, as saying that the tone for much of what is to come. 5181. among the thousands of prisoners he The father is that important at home.”

12 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN BILLS IN CONGRESS

Welfare Reform The Welfare Reform Law, also known as TANF (Tempo- information on parenting skills, encouragement of posi- rary Assistance to Needy Families) that was passed by tive father involvement, including the positive involve- Congress in 1996, expired September 30, 2002. Its provi- ment of nonresident fathers, and other methods. sions have been temporarily extended until the new Con- (b) Enhancing the abilities and commitment of un- gress can deal with a permanent reauthorization in 2003. employed or low-income fathers to provide material sup- The $16.4 billion a year Welfare Reform Act contains port for their families and to avoid or leave welfare pro- the $10 million a year for access (visitation) programs, grams by assisting them to take full advantage of which continue indefinitely, regardless of whether wel- education, job training, and job search programs. fare reform is reauthorized or not in 2003. (c) Improving fathers’ ability to effectively manage In 2002, the Senate’s $25 million “fatherhood program” family business affairs. was mainly a jobs bill, whereas the House Republican (d) Encouraging and supporting healthy marriages version would fund the types of programs that CRC fa- and married fatherhood through such activities as pre- vors (jobs programs are already provided by the Depart- marital education, including the use of premarital inven- ment of Labor.) tories, marriage preparation programs, skills-based mar- Because the Republicans now control the Senate, it is riage education programs, marital therapy, couples expected that House-type provisions will be favorably counseling, divorce education and reduction programs, considered in the Senate. relationship skills enhancement programs, including those The House Bill provision in 2002 for fatherhood pro- designed to reduce child abuse and domestic violence, and grams in H.R. 2893 was as follows: dissemination of information about the benefits of mar- (a) Promoting responsible, caring, and effective riage for both parents and children. parenting through counseling, mentoring, and parenting A new bill number will be assigned when Welfare Re- education, dissemination of educational materials and form is re-introduced in Congress in early 2003.

CHAPTER NEWS

Aloha to Our New Wuwert, who has known Rick for a few years, recommended Rick for the Hawaii Chapter CRC post. Rick’s mom, Teresa Pe- For the first time, CRC has a chapter trella, who was a loving, wonderful in Hawaii. Myrna Murdoch, who is a mom and grandmother, died Novem- non-custodial mother of Alexandra, ber 11, 2002. age 10, heads it. Myrna has had a cus- tody battle and has been in family Ohio’s New Chapter court 92 times, but now has 50 per- cent of the time with her daughter. Maryann Dybiec Schulte is the head Myrna is a former stockbroker, who of CRC’s first-ever chapter in Cleve- Myrna Murdoch and Maryann Schulte and daughter, Alexandra is now a child advocate who wants to land. Maryann has five children, three standardize custody evaluations in son, Jonathan her own and two stepchildren. The family court, start a programs where stepchildren are Lauren, 15 and An- both children and parents going through divorce can be drew, 10. Her children are twins Joshua and Seth, 10 and heard, and require family education for all separating Jonathan, 7. Maryann is a full-time student at Cleveland parents, children and care providers. She also wants Ha- State University, working for her Ph.D. in law. Maryann waii courts to start with a presumption for joint custody. wants to focus on education—educating parents about how to maneuver through the political system with mini- mum harm to their children. “We wish more parents New Director in Michigan would put their children first,” she said. Rick E. Petrella is CRC’s new execu- tive director of CRC of Michigan. Rick has a 7-year-old daughter, Alexandra Marie, for whom he enjoys joint Contact Other CRC Members by E-mail physical and legal custody after he won a court battle. He does graphic Send and receive e-mail from other CRC members around the country. If you are a CRC member, send an e-mail with the following message to arts and printing in the metro Detroit Harry Prillaman, CRC Coordinator for Georgia, who is supervising the mem- area. Rick plans to increase awareness bership list. His e-mail address is [email protected]. of CRC on Michigan, and to address “Dear Harry. I am a national CRC member who would like to join the crc- what he calls “parental parity,” both [email protected] distribution list.” mom and dad having approximately Call the CRC national office at 301/559-3120 or fax 301/559-3124 or e- Rick Petrella and equal physical and joint legal custody. mail CRC at [email protected] to make sure that your national membership daughter, Alexandra There is a bill in the Michigan legisla- is current. Marie ture that would assure that. Margaret

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 13 Family Facts

Children in Joint Custodyetter Do as Well as Children inustody Intact Families…and B Overnights by Infants with the xtended than Children in the Cy the Journal of Other Parent are Fine ovided a compilation vernights with either A research paper published b en in joint chology hasw pr that childr According to Michael Lamb (1994),ess infants e when Family Psy separations, including o ent. ere as well adjusted as of 33 studiesangements that sho w parent, usually do not distr custody arr angements. y care research, infantse able to who de- they are with the other par children in intact families, and better adjusted In terms of da e facilities ar e attach- en in sole custody arr eason to than childr are in paid child car e is no r The research wasen, based 814 onjoint-custody a total ereof 1,846 taken chil- velop and maintain deep andovide secur inferior at- sole-custody childr ould pr 1 intact familiesorce records, that w national ments to their mothers. Ther dren, and 25 suggest that fathers w en on these from court and div tention and supervisiony care worker. to wntheir Fathers childr child should than that not samples, and clinical samples. The findingsangements of of a paid da ge analysis (called meta-analysis)oblems, note this lar en in joint custody arr elations be denied access to their o that childr vioral and emotional pr en in sole grounds. , fathers shouldvernights not be banned in cus-e- have fewer beha en Specifically anted access to o ys a factor in r had higher self-esteem, better family r from being gr en and school performanceangements. thanAlso, enchildr those in intact childr fami- tody matters. Genderw non-primary biase care pla ofcustody their childrfathers custody arr o- fusing to allo ent should defi- es. were as well adjusted as childreported in U.S.A. T e- the opportunity to xtak of the par lies on the omsame the measur findings r eported inf Fam-a r overnights. The se . This is fr e- ch 24, 2002, and as r nitely not be the primaryve factor proven in time deciding andom timethea r day, Mar ol. 16, No. 1. ea- specifics of a custody case olved view of the meta-analysisch, 2002, in the V Journal o Countless studiesen habenefit the most fr esearchers had ram- y maintain a solid,wing inv a di- ily Psychology,oday Mar said: The r f ad- again that childr ents follo U.S.A. Tve that joint-custody and intact f lationship when the e maintaining son to belie oups ar relationship withation. both par en are relatively equal inequent terms contacto efore they ily childr olving fr vorce or separorce custody issues should focusen justment because both gr All post-div elationships inv or Chil- ongoing r ents. on what is best for the child;elationships ther cholo- with with both par should maximize the opportunityccording forto psychildr (See complete article in “Speak Out f to develop and consolidateents. A r omote deep attachmentsents in a dren,” Fall 2002). both of their paray to pr gists, the best w en contact withernight par visits cer- w childr xts. Ov is to allo ariety of conteeater range of activities than wide v ovide a gr tainly pr y visit. esearcher Richardamily a just a da ed in the F, 2000. From an article by notedeview, r October A. Warshak, Ph.D., that appear and Conciliation Courts R vernights A previous article .in Kelly, the same Ph.D.,xtended journal and Michael o by noted E. e okay. See researchers Joan B ents ar en.” Lamb, Ph.D., also said that e or Childr by infants with the other par complete article1. in “Speak Out f Spring, 200

Reprinted with permission from Winter 2002, Volume 17, Number 4, “Speak Out for Children,” newsmagazine of the Children’s Rights Council, 6200 Editors Park Drive, Suite 103, Hyattsville, MD 20782, phone 301/559-3120, fax 301/559-3124. 14 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN CRC Safe Haven Conference CRC Safe Haven Conference a Success

More than 100 people attended the Children’s Rights Council’s first National Child Safe Haven Access Train- Presentations included: ing Conference October 4–5, 2002 at the Ramada Inn, • Access Counselor Accreditation Training – Mark A. Rose- Hanover, Maryland. man, CRC, University of Rhode Island. The attendees came from Canada and states from as • Crimes Against Nature – Chris Kilmartin, Ph.D., psycholo- far away as Alaska to learn ways to establish and main- gist and comedian. tain Neutral Drop-Off and Pick-Up Sites for Children • An Overview of the Access (Visitation) Programs – Judge and Supervised Access Sites. David Gray Ross, Maryland Child Support Director Teresa Kai- Judges, a White House official, state and local offi- ser, and David L. Levy. cials, child and family advocates, researchers, and in- • Those Who Operate Sites – Barriers to Access – Terry dividuals who either operate or want to operate Neu- Cady, CRC Board Member. tral Drop-Off and Pick-Up Sites for Children and • Those Who Don’t Operate Sites – Barriers to Establish- Supervised Access Sites, attended the conference. ing Sites – Stacy Rogers, Deputy Director for Programs, De- Many attendees met the requirements to become Cer- partment of Human Services, Washington, D.C. tified Access Counselors, meaning CRC regards them • The Federal Perspective on Access (Visitation) – Ron as qualified to counsel parents on access (visitation) Haskins, Ph.D., Special Advisor to the President for Welfare Policy. problems. This involves identifying various types of interference with access, and the best way to resolve • Working Within the Law: Working with Family Court those problems, so that children can have frequent and Justices – Judge Larnzell Martin, and Court Administrator Jim Wilson, Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Masters continuing contact with both their moms and their Robert Bloom and Teresa Furnari, Baltimore City. dads. • Domestic Violence: How Stemming Family Violence In- Attendees also qualified for up to nine hours of CEUs creases Frequency of Access and Strengthens Parental- offered through the American Psychological Associa- Child Bonds – Susan Horwitz, Ph.D. tion (APA). • Security Issues: Protecting Children and Families at the Co-sponsors of the conference included The Annie Access Sites – Frank Banner, Washington, D.C. E. Casey Foundation, the National Practitioners Net- • Operations and Guidelines for Access Sites - Al Ellis, Mar- work for Fathers and Families, the Maryland Depart- garet Wuwert, Delicia Barnett and Lonnie Perrin, Sr., of CRC. ment of Human Resources, and the Washington, D.C. Department of Human Services. • Child Abuse Allegation Issues – Robert Gidding, J.D. and Dean Tong, author. John L. Bauserman, Jr., CRC Board Chair- CRC has established a Child Ac- man, moderator. cess Advisory Board to advise CRC • The Outlook for Fragile Families: Are Poor Parents At- of the best ways to improve prac- tractive Candidates for Marriage? – Uriel Johnson, Na- tices, develop new sites, and expand tional Center for Strategic Non-Profit Planning and Commu- site operations. Four members of nity Leadership. this Board were elected at the con- • Recognizing Alienation of Children by Either Parent – ference. They are: Annette Wood- Robert Snow, Ph.D., University of Maryland. roffe, Ph.D., Morgan State Univer- • Faith-Based Participation in Child Access Services – Stacy sity, Baltimore, Maryland; David Rogers Manville, Family Court/Visitation • Joint Custody, Mediation, Parenting Education and Center, Detroit, MI: Delicia Barnett, Parenting Plans – James A. Cook, the Joint Custody Asso CRC Access Site Director; and ciation, Richard Kuhn, CRC. Michael McGuirk, CRC of Massa- Annette Woodroffe, Ph.D. • Supervised Visitation Network Guidelines for Best Morgan State University chusetts., Professor, MIT. The group Practices – Jean Grafton, president, and Nancy Fallows, ex elected Dr. Woodroffe as chairman. ecutive director, SVN. For your ideas, contact her at 443/885-3537. • Community Asserts, Making Referrals for Family Health and Community Skills – Frank Banner, Aaron McCormick and Larry Harrison, CRC of DC.

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 15 CRC Safe Haven Conference

Snapshots of some attendees at CRC’s First Safe Haven Child Access Conference October 4-5, 2002

Teresa Kaiser, J.D., Director, Maryland Child Support Enforcement Agency

Ron Haskins, the Brookings Institution

Hon. David Gray Ross, former federal Child Support Enforcment Frank Banner, Jr., Deputy U.S. Director Marshal

Randy and Nancy Fallows. Nancy is Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network. Stacy Rodgers and Sue Seling, Department of Human Resources, Washington, D.C.

Mary and Al Ellis. Al is CRC’s Director of Child Access Services Julie Carrera, CRC Office Manger, and Margaret Wuwert, CRC Deputy Access Director

16 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN CRC Safe Haven Conference

A sample of presentations at CRC’s First Safe Haven Training Conference.... How Stemming Family Violence Increases the Frequency of Access and Strengthens Parental Bonds

By Susan H. Horwitz, Ph.D.

Susan H. Horwitz, Ph.D., with a clear view of what exactly it is that lence and suffer more from psychological is an Assistant Profes- needs to change. Such clarity means that abuse than their partners (Stith, 2000). sor of Psychiatry and the courts are on the same page with the Family Medicine at the service providers who are on the same Telephone Survey Versus Family Survey University of Rochester page with the child custody evaluators, so There is an obvious discrepancy between Medical Center, Roch- that the protocols can be utilized by all and the statistics advanced by the Bureau of ester, New York. She conducts a private prac- evaluated for their effectiveness. Justice Statistics (BJS, 2000) and those re- tice and teaches several courses in the post- There is much confusion regarding defi- ported by Straus and Gelles (1990). The rea- graduate and Masters degree programs nitions, which may be the result of seem- son for this difference is that the answers within the Family Therapy Training Program. ingly conflicting information gathered from to the BJS telephone survey are analyzed Dr. Horwitz has shared her academic interests national research studies. using a mathematical algorithm and are in domestic violence, custody and divorce, Two of the most well-known sources of coded into one of the BJS crime categories and grief and loss issues by teaching in Roch- information on the prevalence and serious- (murder, rape, sexual assault, aggravated ester and in Hungary, Yugoslavia, and New ness of partner violence are from the Bu- assault, and simple assault). Straus and Zealand. Dr. Horwitz has presented at inter- reau of Justice Statistics’ annual survey (Na- Gelles’ work is a national survey that stud- national, national, and local conferences on tional Crime Victims Survey) and the ies family violence as a family problem. Acts these topics and has published several ar- National Family Violence Survey conducted of hitting, slapping, and pushing are in- ticles in peer-reviewed journals. In June 2000 three times over three decades by Murray cluded in Straus and Gelles’ data collection she completed a community evaluation of Straus and Richard Gelles, university-based along with more severe forms of abuse, re- programs serving non-custodial and mar- family violence researchers. sulting in higher rates of violence that are ginalized fathers. She most recently com- Nationwide reports of all types of vio- generalized across genders. pleted a community-wide research study of lence are collected through the National Though hitting, slapping, and pushing professionals’ response to partner violence. Crime Victimization Survey, conducted an- may be considered moral crimes, they are For further information, contact Dr. nually by the United States Department of not legal crimes. A woman hitting or even Horwitz at 585/275-8307 or by email at Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in punching her partner may be acting out of [email protected]. approximately 50,000 U.S. households. frustration, retaliation, or self-defense, but More than 100,000 individuals participate she may not be taken seriously by her part- Abstract: This presentation focuses on in the survey. BJS measures crime from the ner. The same behavior delivered by her the effects of a child witnessing domestic victim’s perspective, rather than relying on partner twice her size and weight may send violence related to child development and crimes reported only to local, regional, and her to the emergency room. the relationship between the witnessing national law enforcement agencies (Press The male-to-female imposed violence child and his or her father. I discuss com- release from the BJS, 1995). would then be considered both a moral peting views and discrepancies in current Moderate to severe physical abuse result- and a legal crime (assault). In sum, the BJS statistical information advanced by the Bu- ing from partner violence is a crime and is statistics include only criminal acts, where reau of Justice and by family researchers, included in the BJS database. BJS research- Straus and Gelles’ work includes all acts of Murray Straus and Richard Gelles, regard- ers estimate that in 1998, one million crimes violence against partners. ing the prevalence and seriousness of part- were committed against intimate partners How does partner violence effect chil- ner violence. and that 85% (896,340) of the victims were dren? women who were severely abused by their Approximately 27 percent of U.S. house- What constitutes family violence? husbands, former husbands, boyfriends, or holds have children under the age of 12. Of The definition of family violence is perhaps former boyfriends. Fifteen percent of those households, approximately 43 per- the most important precursor to establish- crimes in this category (157,330) were com- cent were affected by partner violence in ing interventions, protocols, referrals, and mitted against husbands, former husbands, 1998. This translates into “…about 4 of 10 treatments for children. If professionals and boyfriends, or former boyfriends by inti- female victims of partner violence lived in parents have different definitions of what mate partners (BJS, 2000). “Violence,” as households with children under the age of constitutes child witnessing, then continu- defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 12” (BJS, May 2000). Witnessing domestic ity and constancy for identifying and man- includes murder, rape, sexual assault, rob- violence and abuse, and coping with its aging the problems related to family vio- bery, aggravated assault, or simple assault. devastating sequelae appear to lead to lence will be elusive. In order to define the Violent crimes are not consistently re- damaging lifetime effects on children child’s experience, we must begin with ported, even though one out of eight hus- (Rouse 1984; Finklehor, 1994; Feldman, what he or she sees. bands uses physical aggression (Straus, 1997; Stith, Rosen, Middleton, Busch, The definition issue is critical because 1990). Lundeberg, & Carlton, 1997). those involved in making policy decisions, Straus and Gelles’ (1990) research on vio- Child witnessing is described in the lit- designing protocols, organizing access pro- lent families, data gathered over three de- erature in two ways: (1) maltreatment and grams for parents, prosecuting cases, coun- cades using their National Family Violence neglect or (2) trauma. seling children, and providing services to Survey and Re-survey, report that men and The trauma literature discusses Post Trau- violent families must be on the same page women aggress at similar rates. There is matic Stress Disorder (Diagnostic and Sta- in order to eliminate or even to reduce fam- little doubt, however, that women have ily violence. It must be a community effort higher rates of injuries due to severe vio- Continued on page 18

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 17 CRC Safe Haven Conference

Horwitz Presentation factors work against father access to chil- Jaffe, P. G., Sudermann, M., & Reitzel, D. Continued from page 17 dren with whom he does not live. (1992). Child witnesses of marital vio- Parenting time and residency disposi- lence. In R. T. Ammerman, & M. Hersen tistical Manual IV) as a descriptor for 25 per- tions are heavily influenced by the credibil- (Eds.) Assessment of family violence: A cent to 40 percent of the children exposed ity of accusations of domestic violence. clinical and legal sourcebook (pp. 313- to traumatic events, which focuses on three Mental health professionals, attorneys, and 331). New York: John Wiley & Sons. types of symptoms: reexperiencing (repeti- judges need to become more educated as Jouriles, E. N. Norwood, W. D., McDonald, R, tive play with traumatic themes, frighten- to the complexities of this social problem & Peters, B. (2001). Domestic violence and ing dreams, trauma-related specific reen- and it’s effects on child development. The child adjustment. In J. H. Grych & F. D. actment), avoidance, and hyperarousal picture becomes confusing, however, when Fincham (Eds.) Interparental conflict and (APA, 1994, described in detail by we assess the importance of father involve- child development: Theory, research, and Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, et al., 2002). ment in their children’s lives. For example, applications (pp. 315-336). New York: Intellectual ability (IQ), socioeconomic one study found that pre-school children Cambridge University Press. status (SES), and emotional support from were more well adjusted when they had Kalmuss, D. (Feb. 1984). The intergenera- an adult have been identified as significant greater access to their fathers, even if those tional transmission of marital aggression. risk or protective factors for both boys and fathers were violent with their mothers Journal of marriage and the family, 11-19. girls. Lower IQ kids with lower SES and (Stover, 2002). Kolbo, J. R. (1996). Risk and resilience among fewer adult supports had (1) poorer cop- It seems that the level of intensity, fre- children exposed to family violence. Vio- ing strategies when exposed to higher lev- quency, and duration of the abuse between lence and victims, 11(2), 113-128. els of stress, (2) greater difficulty with their parents predicts the ramifications for child’s Kolbo, J. R., Blakely, E. H., Engleman, D. (1996). peer relationships, (3) lower self esteem, life adjustment, which may change at each Children who witness domestic violence: and (4) were less accomplished academi- life stage of the child experiences. All of A review of empirical literature. Journal cally than their cohorts with higher IQs, these nuances are important to understand of interpersonal violence, 11(2), 281-293. greater financial support and more emo- as the court attempts to make decisions Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Semel, tional support from adults (Masten, et al, that are truly in the child’s best interest. M. A., Shapiro, D. L. (2002). Trauma symp- 1988, as cited by Kolbo, 1996; Garmezy, toms in preschool-age children exposed 1987; Werner & Smith, 1982; Crittenden, References to domestic violence. Journal of interper- 1985; Erickson & Egeland, 1987; Rutter, Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. sonal violence, 17(2), 150-164. 1980). D., (1997). Children exposed to marital Ney, P. G. (1992). Transgenerational triangles violence. Family violence across the life- of abuse: A model of family violence. In E. Effects of child witnessing of domestic span: An introduction (pp. 136-157). Thou- C. Viano (Ed.) Intimate violence: Interdisci- violence on father access sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. plinary perspectives. London: Taylor and Parents engaged in domestic violence Berman, P. S. (1993). Impact of abusive mari- Francis. are generally viewed as less effective for tal relationships on children. In M. Hansen Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH several reasons, but most particularly be- & M. Harway (Eds.) Battering and family community violence project: Children as cause of the lack of judgment shown by therapy: A feminist perspective (pp.134- victims of and witnesses to violence. Psy- exposing children to violence between sig- 146). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica- chiatry, 56, 7-21. nificant adult figures in the child’s life. Some tions. Riger, S., Raja, S, Camacho, J. (2002). The ra- researchers consider exposing children to Carlson, B.E. (1984). Children’s observations diating impact of intimate partner vio- domestic violence an emotional abuse of interparental violence. In A. R. Roberts lence. Journal of interpersonal violence, (Jaffe & Geffner, 1998). (Ed.) Battered women and their families: In- 17(2), 184-205. Parenting time and the exchange of chil- tervention strategies and treatment pro- Rouse, L. P. (1984). Models, self-esteem, and dren takes on an onerous set of circum- grams (pp. 147-167). New York: Springer. locus of control as factors contributing stances when domestic violence is part of Doumas, D., Margolin, G., John, R. S. (1994). to spouse abuse. Victimology: An interna- the story. Parents who are violent with one The intergenerational transmission of ag- tional journal, 9(1), 130-141. another present a dismal picture for coop- gression across three generations. Jour- Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., eration and joint parenting, two essential nal of family violence, 9(2), 157-175. Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. elements that predict the well being of chil- Fantuzzo, J. W., & Mohr, W. K. (1999). Preva- (1997). The intergenerational transmis- dren who have separated or divorced par- lence and effects of child exposure to sion of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. ents. domestic violence. Future of the children, Paper presented at the Fifth International If the custodial evaluator presents a clear 9(3), 3-21. Family Violence Research Conference, picture of domestic violence, the nonresi- Feldman, C. M. (1997). Childhood precursors Durham, NH. dential parent, the father in approximately of adult interpartner violence. Clinical Von Steen, P. G. (1997). Adults with witness- 70 percent (or more) of today’s divorces, will psychology: Science and practice, 4(4), 307- ing histories: The overlooked victims of likely be awarded minimal time and most 334. domestic violence. Psychotherapy, 35(4), likely supervised visitation. Though abusive Harris, S. M., & Dersch, C. A., (2001). “I’m just 478-484. husbands can be good fathers (Sonkin, et not like that:” Investigating the intergen- Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (Feb. 2001). al., 1985), there are risks related to fathers erational cycle of violence. The family An update on the “Cycle of Violence.” In exhibiting poor impulse control and anger journal: Counseling and therapy of couples Research in brief, National Institute of Jus- management with their partners that may and families, 9(3), 250-258. tice. color a judge’s opinion about the ability of Jaffe, P. G., & Geffner, R. (1998). Child custody a father to manage active, stubborn, or disputes and domestic violence: Critical even defiant children. issues for mental health, social science, Additionally, children with greater con- and legal professionals. In G. W. Holden, tact with fathers who abused the child’s R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children mother showed less positive feelings to- exposed to marital violence (pp.371-408). ward maternal figures than those children Washington, DC: American Psychological with less contact (Stover, 2002). All these Association.

18 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN CRC Safe Haven Conference

Shared Parenting Ranges from 19% to 25.8% of Divorced Families in the U.S.

By D. Richard Kuhn, CRC evaluator of research

Kuhn, who has an M.S. in Computer Science, has with father” and “living with mother” categories, it is possible to more than 20 years experience doing research derive the level of shared physical custody from CPS data, pro- and computer analysis for the federal govern- vided the level of sole father custody is known. ment. He has had more than 40 articles pub- Let

lished in engineering and computer research LF = percent counted as “living with father”; journals such as IEEE and ACM. He has analyzed government data SF = percent actually in sole father custody; on custody and related matters for more than five years for the J = percent in joint physical custody.

Children’s Rights Council. He had collaborated with John Guidubaldi, Given the Census Bureau data collection rule cited above, LF = SF Ed.D. on several research articles publicized by CRC. + J/2. That is, the percentage of children counted in the CPS as Abstract. This paper describes a method for calculating the pro- “living with father” includes all of those in sole father custody, plus portion of shared physical custody cases among divorced single one-half of those in substantially equal shared physical custody. parent families. Although the Federal government has not col- So lected direct data on physical custody of children since 1994, it is J = 2(LF – SF). (1) possible to derive these figures indirectly using data from the Bureau of the Census. Accurate determination of levels of shared From equation (1) it is now straightforward to calculate the level custody is important because many public policy issues, includ- of shared physical custody if figures are given for percentage ing child support and planning for access/visitation center grants, counted as “living with father” and percent actually in sole father may be affected by assumptions regarding child custody. Using custody. Data from the CDC National Center for Health Statistics Federal data, we calculate the 2001 level of shared physical cus- show that 21.4 percent of divorces in 1994 specified joint physical tody among divorced families. Using the most conservative val- custody (using a definition of 30 percent or more residence with ues for all components of the calculation, the lower bound for per- both parents) [NCHS, 1996], up from 16 percent in 1990 [NCHS, centage of shared physical custody among divorced single-parent 1995]. (NCHS no longer collects this type of data, so the 1994 fig- families is shown to be at least 19 percent. A more realistic calcu- ures are the latest available.) The same data show that sole cus- lation indicates that the level is 25.8 percent. tody awards to fathers remained at approximately 9 percent for all years surveyed. The 9 percent figure is consistent with studies

The U.S. Census Bureau’s annual Current Population Survey (CPS) of custody awards from the past two decades, so we use SF = 9 provides a statistical sampling of selected demographic charac- percent for calculations in this paper. A later section of the paper teristics for the United State. Among these data are marital status, considers the effect on calculations if the value of SF is in fact higher presence and age of children, and presence of spouse. A limita- than 9%. tion of CPS data collection procedures requires that children in shared physical custody be counted as either “living with mother” Data Analysis or “living with father” [Census, 1997]: Individuals, families, and households are sampled annually by the “Report children whose divorced parents have joint custody of Census Bureau, and reported in the March Supplement of the Cur- them and who live 50 percent of the time with each parent in the rent Population Survey. The Bureau maintains an online database household where you find them. Otherwise, report them in the of all CPS data since 1992. An extract and reporting system, the household where they live most of the time.” Federal Research and Review Extraction Tool (“Ferret”), is publicly Another Census program, the American Community Survey, uses available on the internet. Using Ferret, we collected 2001 data on a somewhat looser procedure that does not require 50 percent single parent families and households in three categories: single residence for shared physical custody families [ACS, 2002]: parent households, single parent households with a single resi- “Children in Joint Custody—Children who live under joint cus- dent over 18 years of age, and single parent families possibly shar- tody agreements and move often between the separate residences ing a household with other persons. This procedure was used as a of their parents are considered to be current residents of the consistency check to ensure accuracy, because limitations of CPS sample unit if they are staying there when contact with the unit is data collection procedures may introduce a small degree of nu- made.” merical bias (discussed below). Procedures for the Decennial Census are essentially the same Single parent household data: Figures are shown below for fami- as the CPS [Census, 1999]: lies with the following characteristics: divorced, unmarried male “Children in Joint Custody—Counted at the residence where or unmarried female head of household, one or more own chil- they live most of the time. If time is equally divided, they are dren living in the household. counted where they are staying on Census Day.” Because the CPS is a large random sample, the “count them Parameters Thousands Percent where you find them” rule means that it is equally likely that a LF1 = Male head of household, child in shared physical custody will be counted as “living with divorced, unmarried, own children father” as “living with mother.” Therefore half of children in shared in household: 957.6 24.3% physical custody are counted as living with their mother and half counted as living with their father. Since Census Bureau proce- Female head of household, dures are not completely consistent on the issue of shared resi- divorced, unmarried, own children dence, it is possible that CPS data may include cases where resi- in household: 2,978.9 76.7% dence is not precisely 50 percent, but to be counted as members Table 1. of a particular household, children must have a substantial amount of time in residence there. Because sampling procedures result in shared custody children being divided equally between “living Continued on page 20

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 19 CRC Safe Haven Conference

Kuhn Presentation Continued from page 19

However, it is possible that the figures for “divorced, unmarried figure of LF2 = 20.8 percent for LF in equation (1) results in J = 2(20.8 male or unmarried female head of household, one or more own – 9) = 23.6 percent for the lower bound. Using figure LF3 in Table 3, children living in the household” may overestimate the number the level of shared physical custody among divorced single par- of divorced single fathers. This could occur for families in which a ent families is J = 2(21.9 – 9) = 25.8 percent. It is important to note divorced father is cohabiting with a partner, has an out of wed- that divorced single parent families represent a little over one third lock child with that partner, and is reported as head of household. of all single parent families, which had the following breakdown It is not possible to determine a reasonable estimate for this com- in 2000: never married – 41 percent; divorced – 37 percent; sepa- bination of parameters from the CPS data. rated – 18 percent; widowed – 4 percent [Census, 2001]. To eliminate the potential upward bias in the figures above, we Error Analysis. To many readers, the figures given in the previ- tighten the parameters to the following: divorced, unmarried male ous section may seem surprisingly high. It is therefore important or unmarried female head of household, one adult and one or more to consider sources of error that might inflate the estimate. This own children living in the household. These figures are shown section proposes several potential error sources and analyzes their below. effect, showing that the level of shared custody exceeds 19 per- cent. Parameters Thousands Percent • Statistical accuracy. We examine statistical non-sampling error for the most conservative sample: male head of house- LF2 = Male head of household, divorced, unmarried, one adult hold, divorced, unmarried, one adult with own children under 18 with own children under 18 in in household. Using Census Bureau procedures [Census, 2002] household: 472.0 20.8% for calculation of standard error of percentages (below), we find that sx, p = 1.21. Female head of household, divorced, unmarried, one adult s = (b / x) p(100 − p) with own children under 18 x, p in household: 1,834.3 79.2% where b = 2,068 (Census parameter); x = 2,306,354; p = Table 2. 20.8 Therefore the 90 percent confidence interval (standard for

Unlike the previously calculated value, this figure is likely to un- Census figures) for LF2 is 20.8 ± 1.99. This means that the ac- derestimate the number of divorced single fathers, because it is tual value of LF2, considering statistical error, could be as low restricted to households with only a single adult. It thus excludes as 18.8 percent or as high as 22.8 percent, which would result cases in which there is a single parent family with one or more in J = 19.6 percent to J = 27.6 percent, that is, 23.6 percent ± 4 children under 18, but also a child over 18 living in the household percent. (a very common situation in both intact and single parent fami- Using the more realistic sample: male head of family, di- lies today). This may account for the large difference (more than vorced, unmarried, with own children under 18 in family results one million) between Table 1 and Table 2 for number of house- in a 90 percent confidence interval for LF3: 21.9 ± 1.5 (b = 2,068 holds. (Census parameter); x = 4,275,200 p = 21.9), which results in J = 25.8 percent ± 3.0 percent, using the Census-standard 90 Single parent family data: percent confidence interval. Table 4 shows error margins for Because some single parent families may be part of a house- confidence levels between 90 percent and 99 percent. hold with other persons present, we consider the following pa- rameters: divorced, unmarried male or female head of family, one Confidence interval or more own children living in the family. These figures are shown 90% 95% 99% below. Margin of error ± 3.0% 3.6% 4.7% Parameters Thousands Percent Table 4.

LF3 = Male head of family, divorced, unmarried, with own • The calculation using equation (1) is based on the assump- children under 18 in family: 936.8 21.9% tion that 9 percent is the correct value for sole custody awards to fathers. This figure is consistent with both NCHS data and Female head of family, divorced, other studies of custody awards. Although the NCHS data ac- unmarried, with own children tually show a slight downward trend for sole custody among under 18 in family: 3,338.4 78.1% fathers from 1989 to 1994, it is possible that this value has Table 3. increased beyond 9 percent in the following years. If so, the calculated level of shared physical custody would be affected

The figures in Table 3 could conceivably include families in which as shown in Table 5 (for different values of SF ). a divorced parent is cohabiting with a partner who also has a child by a previous relationship. However, such cases are likely to be S = sole father custody rare, and it is not clear whether this data limitation would overes- F timate or underestimate the percentage of single father families. 9% 10% 12% Because the data are collected for families, rather than households, J = percent shared relatively little error should be introduced. We therefore consider parenting 26% 24% 20% the data in Table 3 the best available data on divorced single par- Table 5. Calculated level of shared custody based on ent families. varying assumed values of sole father custody Calculation of shared parenting level: Using the figure of 24.3 percent for LF1 in equation (1) results in J = 2(24.3 – 9) = 30.6 per- cent for an upper bound on the level of shared custody. Using the Continued on page 21

20 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN CRC Safe Haven Conference

Kuhn Presentation Continued from page 20 2002 CRC Church However, the NCHS data showed a steady increase of the Year in joint physical custody awards from 1989 through 1994, so it is unlikely that the 2001 award rate could be CRC honored Providence Baptist Church below 21 percent, the figure reported in 1994. Note that in Baltimore as the “2002 Church of the the NCHS data refer to custody awards, not percent- Year.” The church provides strong support age of population, but since children of divorced fami- among its Elders and membership for the lies spend an average of approximately eight years in Safe Haven Child Access and Supervised a single parent family, a steady 21 percent award rate Access program that has operated at the would result in nearly 21 percent for the population in church for 18 months. The award, an en- seven years. graved plaque, was presented October 4, • Another significant limitation of the CPS data is that it 2002, at CRC’s First Safe Haven Child includes only divorced parents who have not remar- Access Conference to Rev. Doctor Douglas ried. Other studies have estimated that approximately Summers, pastor of the church, and to Reverand Doctor Summers 75 percent of divorced men and approximately 50 per- Stacy Rodgers, a member of the church. cent of divorced women remarry within 10 years. But if this pattern holds, then the proportion of fathers with joint physical custody would actually be underesti- mated, because men are being removed from the sample population (of unmarried, divorced persons) See Pierce Brosnan Custody Movie faster than women. CRC highly recommends the movie entitled Evelyn, star- Conclusions ring Pierce Brosnan. The movie tells how a father got If CPS figures are correct, then approximately one quar- Irish law changed in the 1950’s to allow a father, for the ter of the divorced families in the US today have shared first time, custody of his children. physical custody. Using the most conservative figures for After the mother deserted the family, the father’s statistical error and number of children living with single daughter, named Evelyn, had been placed in a convent, fathers, a lower bound for percentage of shared physical and his two sons placed in an orphanage. With help from custody among divorced families is at least 19 percent. This a few capable attorneys who were willing to challenge is a significant demographic change from only two decades Irish law, the father got custody of all three of his chil- ago, when all surveys indicated that shared physical cus- dren. tody was rare. Public policy regarding single parent fami- “The movie in two courtroom scenes, and a terrific lies may thus be impacted if it is assumed that shared physi- story, shows why children need the love and attention of cal custody is less common than new data indicate. Policy both parents,” says Dr. Audrey Wise, CRC spokesperson, planning may benefit from collection of accurate data on who lives in New York. “This is a must-see film.” shared physical custody.

References ACS, 2002. American Community Survey, Data Collection and Processing. Census Bureau, 2002. www.census.gov/ Intellectual acs/www/AdvMeth/CollProc/CollProc1.htm Get a 3.9% CRC Census Bureau August 01, 1997. Interviewer’s Manual Basic Credit Card Property Monthly Survey, Current Population Survey. Part C, Chap- Get the CRC VISA Credit Protection ter 3: Basic Demographic Data. www.bls.census.gov/cps/ Card, and obtain a low 3.9 intmanc3.htm Other references to the same Census percent introductory rate. Charlie Ruggiero, who ob- methodology rule: www.census.gov/population/www/ The credit card displays the tained trademark protec- censusdata/resid_rules.html and www.census.gov/acs/ CRC logo, and CRC receives tion for the name and logo www/Methodology/CollProc.htm a small contribution every “Children’s Rights Coun- Census Bureau, 1999. “Plans and Rules for Taking the Cen- time you use the card. CRC cil” and the name and logo sus”. www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/ receives more if you break for our newsletter “Speak resid_rules.html up a large purchase into Out for Children,” is a spe- several small purchases. cialist in trademark, Census Bureau, 2001. Current Population Report, P20-537. patent, copyright, and li- Census Bureau, 2002. Source and Accuracy of the Data for For an application, con- tact CRC, or call MBNA at censing law. He is a part- the March 2001 Current Population Survey Microdata File. ner in the law firm of www.bls.census.gov/cps/ads/2001/ssrcacc.htm 800/523-7666. If you have trouble obtaining approval, Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero NCHS, 1995. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 13 contact CRC; we can’t guar- and Perle, 1 Landmark (October 23, 1995), Sally C. Clarke, National Center for antee approval, but we will Square, 10th Floor, Stam- Health Statistics. gladly try. ford, CT 06901, telephone NCHS, 1996. Personal communication with Sally C. Clarke, 203/327-4500. National Center for Health Statistics. Beat the Tax Man: Contribute to CRC Keep working for children. Consider establishing a charitable trust or a bequest to CRC. Contact CRC for further assistance. We will be happy to help you.

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 21 AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD

Child Support Payments Increase Washington, Oct. 25, 2002—The statistics for mothers raising children The percentage of custodial moth- number of mothers receiving all the without a father at home. ers who received none of the child sup- child support they were due increased More custodial mothers worked, port due to them remained relatively by more than 25 percent during the fewer lived in poverty and few col- unchanged at 25 percent between late 1990s, the Census Bureau re- lected public assistance during the 1993 and 1999, though tougher en- ported. six-year period. The welfare over- forcement measures were installed A strong economy and stricter en- head overhaul of 1996, which is up midway through that period. forcement prompted more fathers to for renewal now in Congress, nudged Still, said David Siegel, deputy pay in full, analysts said. more single mothers off assistance commissioner for child support en- More than 2.8 million women col- rolls and into jobs. forcement of the Department of lected all the child support they were Critics noted the report failed to Health and Human Services, enforce- owed, representing nearly 46 percent paint an updated picture of life for ment cases have increased since fed- of all custodial mothers due payments single parents since the economy eral and state governments started in 1999. That was up from nearly 2.2 started to sour in 2000. cracking down on deadbeat parents. million, or almost 37 percent of the “The problems we are seeing now Since then there have been other mothers owed support in 1993. is that so many people are struggling new outreach initiatives such as job Timothy Grall, author of the again,” said Geraldine Jensen, presi- search assistance for fathers who can- Census Bureau report, said this was dent of the Association of Children not afford to pay child support that a significant increase over prior for Enforcement of Support. “In a lot have improved the situation, HHS payments. of ways it makes child support more officials said. The report included other upbeat important than ever.”

CRC Owns Trademarks The CRC response: So, increasing the support due beat up on a parent to support CRC owns the rights to several trademarks. from all parents from 37 percent their children. Parents with joint They are: to 46 percent is hailed by Timo- custody (shared parenting) pay up thy Grall, author of the census re- to twice the amount of child sup- port, as a “significant increase” port as parents who have sole cus- over prior collections. tody or no access to their children, Reg. No. 1,804,391 For 20 years we have had the according to the Census Bureau. biggest bundle of laws imaginable America hasn’t quite learned to collect child support—auto- that children of divorced and Speak Out for Children® matic wage withholding, liens never-married parents need both Reg. No. 1,814,877 against property, intercept of tax of their parents. How else to ex- returns, 10 Most Wanted lists, jail plain that sole custody is still the time—and yet we are only at the norm in Maryland and Virginia, Access Counselor 46 percent mark? although the District of Columbia Accreditation Program® If the government, like industry, passed a strong joint custody law had to show results, what business in 1995. Even in D.C., however, Registration No. 2,454,222 would still be operating with less the “pro se” forms at the court than a 50 percent success rate? Es- house are written as though sole National Council for pecially after spending billions of custody is still the law, and so far tax-payer dollars? we have been unable to get the Children’s Rights® Child support officials are well forms changed. Still, we appreci- Reg. No. 1,597,410 intentioned. The fault is not with ate the judges who give joint cus- them. The problem is lack of a tody to fit parents. We have a trademark application pending two-parent approach. The public Adults support those who are for the phrase will someday demand more two- part of their lives. parent families for the support of And when children have two The Best Parent is Both our nation’s children. parents to help them, crime, and That will come about with more drug use decrease, and school per- Parents™ jobs and job training for poor non- formance goes up for most of those If other groups wish to use this phrase, custodial parents, more shared children. they must add the trademark symbol after parenting, mediation, expedited Someday, we will act on that the name, or state that this is a trademark of handling of access (visitation) common sense approach and de- the Children’s Rights Council, Inc. complaints, parenting education, mand results for our children— and parenting plans. and society. Research shows overwhelm- And then we will have more ingly that when both moms and emotional as well as financial sup- dads are an active part of their port for our children. children’s lives, you don’t have to

22 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN Around the Country and the World

A killer who loves children is still just a killer By Kathleen Parker Nationally syndicated columnist, November 6, 2002

Learning to pick one’s battles is one of life’s great les- Some might argue that Muham- sons. Unfortunately few learn it, especially these days mad suffered a condition specific when nearly every human incident is freighted with po- to men—he lost his children in tentially sweeping implications. custody disputes. While it is true In the era of identity politics and groupthink, no deed that fathers often lose their goes unspun. Even the accused sniper now has a rallying children to divorce—sometimes to section. From disenfranchised blacks who feel his pain? selfish vengeful ex-wives—it isn’t No. From radical Muslims sympathetic to anti-Ameri- necessarily so that Muhammad can terrorist acts? No. was treated unjustly. Until we Even though it probably will be a year or more before know more, we might consider the John Allen Muhammad’s guilt or innocence will be de- possibility that Muhammad lost Kathleen Parker termined in court, he has attracted unlikely sympathiz- his children because he was the ers from the ranks of some divorced dads. In a marvel of sort of narcissistic violence-prone dot-connecting, some men’s activists are interpreting his man who was capable of wholesale murder and terror. unraveling as the nearly inevitable result of the tortures Few would have defended Andrea Yates’ right to care he endured on the rack of America’s family court system. for her children when she clearly was dangerous to every- Internet threads to that effect have begun circulating. one, including herself. Would that her husband had re- Television “spundits” have courted experts to lend cred- moved his children from their insane mother instead of ibility to the aphorism. “It’s the family, stupid.” continuing to impregnate her against doctors’ warnings. Muhammad’s sisters have confirmed his lousy life, and Why did the sniper snap? No less plausible is another former in-laws and ex-wives have noted his frustration theory in circulation that the sniper was demonstrating over divorces and lost custody battles. One of the stranger for “his people,” fellow radical Muslims, a model for ur- theories is that Muhammad killed or wounded more than ban terror. See what one man with a weapon can do? a dozen innocent civilians so that when he eventually What is true and deserving of continued discussion got around to killing an ex-wife who lives in Maryland, and urgent remedy is that too many children are grow- her death would seem random. Wouldn’t two or three ing up without their fathers. Although some judges and victims have served such a purpose? family courts are getting better at balancing children’s A men’s discussion thread that made it to my e-mail needs against grown-up wants, we are far from the neces- box includes the suggestion that Muhammad deserves sary goal of ensuring all children access to both parents. the defense of fellow spurned fathers. Feminists rallied Men’s organizations that promote fatherhood and for Andrea Yates, who drowned her four small children, shared parenting are doing important, commendable they said; now is the time for activist men to rally around work as long as their focus is on what best serves children. Muhammad. John Allen Muhammad has served no one’s interests but Four words, fellows: That dog don’t hunt. his own. In this picture, he deserves to stand alone. If ever there were a time to step out of frame, this is it. © Tribune-Media Services. Let me explain: In the word of public relations, one of the first lessons people in the public eye, especially poli- ticians, learn is to avoid getting photographed with the wrong people. When the cameras are trained on a serial killer, in other words, step as far away as possible. Once the photo is taken, no one will care or remember Advertise Here! that you were just a bystander to the moment. You’re in it; guilty by association. Or, as in this case, you diminish 25,000 Readership your credibility by demanding sympathy where none is deserved or likely forthcoming. For parents, attorneys, educators, Attaching one’s cause to such vile acts is a classic les- son in self-defeat. Muhammad may have cracked, as some psychologists, clergy... have surmised, owing to a variety of circumstances that “Speak Out for Children” publishes news, advice, may include his family problems. He also had a failed business. He also was homeless. He also was a former research and information from around the world on military man who was discharged from service without honor. Family Law, Access, Child Custody and Divorce. The man had lots of problems, as do lots of people who nevertheless do not start shooting people. Reasons do not Media kit available from Mark Roseman, constitute excuses. As a memorable “Saturday Night Live” skit once darkly revealed, “Hitler had reasons.” 5 Perkins Avenue, #5, Narragansett, As for Andrea Yates, the only similarity is that both Yates and the sniper killed innocents, but Yates killed RI 02882. Phone 401/789-5565. her own children, not random strangers, as she was a diagnosed psychotic suffering a condition specific to women.

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 23 Personal Notes

Congratulations MICHIGAN—Mickey Fivenson, long- • Patrick and Susan McCarthy of New time CRC member, thanks CRC for help- Jersey Citizens Against Paternity to... ing him through a difficult time in his Fraud for their work on A-2374. Paul Robinson, 80, life and the lives of his two sons, for NJCCR President Erik Purasson and Honored whom he eventually won equal joint Board Chairman Alice Tulanowski were Paul Robinson, who pro- custody in Michigan. Zack, 20, is a jun- banquet speakers, as was CRC President vides invaluable volun- ior at the University of Michigan and David L. Levy. teer assistance to the Adam will be entering the University of CRC main office by re- Michigan next Fall. Both boys are Eagle OHIO—From Jim Welty, director, CRC trieving phone mes- scouts and accomplished athletes. of Northeast Ohio. sages, maintaining and Mickey believes his active involvement Bob Moline, who is the right-hand Paul Robinson updating our database, in the boys’ lives helped them all- man for CRC of Northeast Ohio, was fi- supervising mailings, around. nally granted supervised visitations with and trouble-shooting technol- his daughter Allysa. He is to get two ogy and computer problems, NEW JERSEY—Tom Greco, who was hours per week, which does not sound turned 80 on December 28. a founding member of NJCCR (New Jer- like much, but considering he has had More than 20 people attended sey Council for Children’s Rights), and no contact since December 1, 1996, this a party for Paul at the national a dentist, graduated from Seton Hall is great. Six years ago, his ex-wife cre- office on Dec. 8. Paul has been Law School in 1995 and became a mem- ated abuse allegations and with the aid active in the custody reform ber of the N.J. bar. He has now relocated of appeals and stall tactics, has been movement for 30 years, and for to Scottsdale, where he is again a full- quite successful. more than 20 years has headed time dentist. Through the years, Bob has done ev- Fathers for Equal Rights and His law degree comes in handy, how- erything required by the courts includ- Women’s Coalition of northern ever, and he counsels people going ing polygraphs, counseling, and psycho- Virginia, a CRC affiliate. through divorce, and is active in custody logical exams. All have been favorable. Thanks, Paul. reform. Pro se forms are plentiful in the He has not missed any child support Maricopa County Courthouse, but payments. Still, until recently, the sys- Julie Passes the (First people still help, Tom says. Tom is at tem was reluctant to allow an order of Year) Bar 480/570-2600. visitation. I always half-jokingly told Julie Carrera, CRC’s Office The New Jersey Council for Chil- him that if he did what his ex alleged he Manager, is attending on-line dren’s Rights held its annual Awards did, then why not incarcerate him. If law school at Concord Univer- dinner November 19, 2002. Award win- they don’t, then he must not be guilty sity School of Law, based in Los ners were: and should be seeing his child. If noth- Angeles. In December, she • Melanie Cummings for her finan- ing else, at least supervised. passed the California Bar’s first cial child support analyses, and her Sadly, I learned today his ex is trying year of law school bar exam advocacy of child support reform, to thwart his small victory, however, the required for students attending nationwide; juvenile court judge is probably not go- an on-line California law • Roger F. Gay, for his impact on child ing to allow it. Six years not being al- school. Julie had to go to San support policies, and for superior lowed to see your child is absurd. Bob is Francisco in October to take journalism; a true example of determination and the first year exam. Congratu- • Anthony Impreveduto, District 32, patience that we all can learn from. lations, Julie! Assemblyman, for his sponsorship of A-2374, the New Jersey paternity CHAPTER ADVISORS fraud bill; CRC asks chapter heads to serve from • Anju D. Jessani, mediator, for her time to time as advisors to the CRC na- contributions to the New Jersey tional Board of Directors. They inform AOC publication, Parenting Time: the Board of the needs and interests of A Child’s Right; our 38 chapters around the country and abroad. Past chapter head advisors have Organize a CRC included Fred Wall of North and South Chapter! Carolina; Margaret Wuwert of Ohio; CRC NEEDS Mark Roseman of Connecticut; and CRC wants chapters all across Dominick Romano of New Jersey. The the country. • Free or reduced rent office space. newest advisors, who will serve for Get a tax write-off as you help 2003-04, are Alice Tulanowski, of Join CRC for $35 and ask kids and CRC. 2,000 square feet NJCCR, and Harvey Walden, CRC of for FREE 88-page or more anywhere in the Wash- Maryland. ington, D.C. area (Maryland, D.C. Affiliation Handbook. or Virginia) CRC thanks everyone who Call 1-800-787-KIDS, • Volunteers to help with filing, contributed through the phone calls, and writing letters. or join online at Combined Federal Campaign and • Lawyers to write CRC Amicus the Holiday appeal. www.gocrc.com Briefs on appeal. Thank you!

24 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN ❙❙ court cases

Relocation of a Child Can be State Cannot Seize Tax Refund for Challenged Arrears A trial court was wrong to rule that a parenting plan The Louisiana Department of Social Services was not entered into by the parents at the time of their divorce entitled to seize the federal and state tax refunds of a was a final determination of custody, and that the father father who had paid his child support obligations, in or- could not seek a re-examination when the mother der to recoup a retroactive arrears provision that was announced her intention of moving to Seattle with the included in a modification of the child support monthly child, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, amount, the state’s Court of Appeal, Third District, held held Oct. 8. Oct. 30. The lower court had authorized the mother’s move, in The state had several methods of enforcing child sup- the process turning down the father’s petition for a cus- port obligations, the court said, but all were dependent tody modification. In doing so, the trial court interpreted on a failure of an obligor to comply with a current or as a final judicial custody determination the stipulated prior court order. The appeals court upheld a lower court agreement between the parents at the time of the divorce. injunction preventing the Department of Social Services The agreement provided for joint legal custody, with from seizing the father’s tax refunds. the mother having primary physical custody, the father The parents were divorced in 1986, and the father was having “reasonable visitation,” and a series of procedures ordered to pay the mother $250 per month for the daugh- to resolve any disagreement between the parents. The ter. In August 2000, at the request of the mother, the appeals court agreed with the father that there should be state sought an increase in the monthly amount. a de novo examination of the best interests of the child, Subsequently, the parties reached an agreement that in light of the planned moveaway. The appeals court noted the amount would be increased to $587, payable through that, despite the detailed provisions of the agreement the Department of Social Services, and that the modifi- between the parents at the time of the divorce, there was cation would be retroactive, with the father paying $25 no indication that they intended for the custody arrange- towards the retroactive arrears. The father immediately ments in their agreement to be final. began complying with the modified arrangements. How- [Rose v. Richardson, Cal. Ct. App., No. B156621, 10/ ever, the state told him in late 2001 that it intended to 8/02, www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/ seize his federal and state tax refunds to recoup the ar- B156621.PDF] rears that resulted from the new arrangements. A lower court granted an injunction against the seizure, and the appellate court upheld the injunction. “Having consented Father Has Custody Rights Over to the repayment procedure, the state and [the mother] Grandparents cannot now ignore the clear terms of the stipulation,” the court said. The “best interest of the child” standard no longer ap- [Louisiana v. Thibodeaux, La. Ct. App., No. 02-0586, plies in custody cases where there is a dispute between a 10/30/02, www.lacircuit.org/PROCT30-02.htm] parent and non-parents, the Oregon Court of Appeals said Oct. 30. The court was ruling on the custody of a child, born in Parents May Have to Alternate 1993, in a situation where the parents never had mar- ried, but where the father had maintained contact with Dependency Tax Exemption the child and paid most of his child support obligations. Federal tax law does not preempt California family law The mother was murdered by her husband in 1999, and courts from alternating the dependency exemption be- the maternal grandparents then took over responsibility tween parents, even though one may have custody dur- for the child. ing the calendar year for less than half the time, the Cali- The father sought custody, but a lower court ruled that fornia Court of Appeal, Second District, held July 18. it was in the child’s best interests to remain with the The parents shared physical custody of the child, and grandparents. The father appealed, arguing that recent neither parent paid child support because the family law case law had replaced the best interest standard with one court found that the guideline amount was rebutted by requiring a rebuttable presumption in favor of parental the parents’ “essentially equal” joint custody arrange- custody. The Court of Appeals said that the state Supreme ment. The mother appealed, on the basis that the federal Court had interpreted the custody statute to mean that tax code defined a custodial parent for the purpose of the custody could be awarded to a non-parent only if it did exemption as “the parent having greater custody for a not “violate some supervening right belonging to the bio- greater portion of the calendar year.” However, the ap- logical parent.” The appeals court also noted that another pellate court affirmed the allocation arrangements. A case, settled in 2000,Troxel v. Granville, made it clear family law court may order a custodial parent to waive that use of the best interest standard could impermissi- the exemption, so as to allocate it to the other parent, the bly infringe upon a fit parent’s fundamental constitu- court said. tional right to make decisions concerning the care, cus- [Rios v. Pulido, Cal. Ct. App., No. B150900, 7/18/02, tody, and control of his or her children. The appeals court www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinarch.cgi] ordered that custody be awarded to the father, with a The above cases are summarized from Family Law six-month transition period. Reporter, published by The Bureau of National Af- [State v. Wooden, Or. Ct. App., No. A111860, 10/30/ fairs, Inc. They appear here by permission of the pub- 02, www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A111860.htm] lisher. Further information about the cases, normally including the full text of the court opinions, is avail- able at the URLs shown after the case names.

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 25 EQUAL PARENTS’ WEEK AROUND THE WORLD by Patti Diroff, CRC’s International Director of Equal Parents’ Week

People in 18 states and 10 foreign coun- ing EPW a statewide event throughout tries tied purple ribbons and held candle- Pennsylvania. light vigils and other activities to observe 2. CRC of California hosted a the seventh annual observance of Equal candlelight vigil at the State Capitol in Parents’ Week (“EPW”) September 23– Sacramento. We hosted a reading of our 29, 2002. message to the California legislators and A candlelight vigil at the Historic Lib- to the public. A few public people ob- erty Bell in Philadelphia, Pa. and the served us and agreed with our position. World Peace Bell in Newport, Ky. were A few of our children were there to high- among the 15 public events, in conjunc- light our focus on the needs of a child. tion with “Home Vigils” and other ac- 3. The CoMamas and Bonus Fami- tivities in Alabama, California, Con- lies held two “Virtual” Home Vigils in necticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, California. Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, CoMamas “Virtual Vigil.” We all Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, arrived in the chat room at 5:00 p.m. New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, PST. We talked about the CRC motto, and Wisconson. “The Best Parent Is Both Parents,” how Two “virtual” Home Vigils in crucial it is for stepwives (mother and Carlsbad and Discovery Bay, Calif., and stepmother) to cooperate, and the goals a single woman in Russia, are among the of the CoMamas Association. We invited F.A.C.E. Vigil in Philadelphia “Home Vigils” reported. Twenty public individuals to light their candles, one at activities in conjunction with “Home a time, as we “read” through the Five Vigils” were held in Australia, Belgium, Candles Ceremony. Although our vigil Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, En- attracted only 10 people, it included rep- gland, Peru, Russia, and Thailand. resentatives from all around the coun- “Parenting is not a light switch that try, and was very powerful. The step- you turn on and off,” said Diroff. “You wives were inspired by what went on. do not parent at certain times and then Many of them were crying. One had her stop until it is time to be a parent again. stepdaughter light a candle. One had just Children are not light switches, either. written a nasty letter to her stepwife, They don’t stop needing their parents which the Vigil convinced her not to until it is time to need their parents send. They all vowed to redouble their again. Too many custody orders repress efforts to try to get along with their the love and bond between noncustodial stepwives for the sake of the kids. parents and children and replace it with Bonus Families “Virtual Vigil.” Parents Coalition of BC, Vancouver, BC, Canada an unnatural and dehumanizing process Jann Blackstone Ford, Director, states, which forces them to ‘turn their rela- “Bonus Families sponsored a virtual tionships on and off’. The resulting de- candle lighting vigil on September 23. tachment is taking a far-reaching toll of Members were invited to light a virtual Equal Parents Week for 2003 emotional and pyschological damage.” candle at our message board at www. will take place the week of Special credit is extended to everyone bonusfamilies.com/Info/equal_ September 21–27. who participated in the 35 public activi- parents_week.htm. Bonus Families is a ties and home vigils held internation- non-profit organization dedicated to Vigils will be held on ally during EPW. positive coexistence between separated Wednesday, September 24, Highlights of U.S. Activities or divorced parents and their new fami- 2003 at 7:30 p.m. lies and supports positive interaction be- 1. FACE (Fathers & Children’s tween ALL parent figures—not just bio- Equality, Pennsylvania) held a candle- To participate, contact Patti logical parents. This includes bio light vigil at the historic Liberty Bell in Diroff at 909/591-3689, email: parents, of course, but also bonus par- Philadelphia. Through the efforts of [email protected] ents [step-parents, foster parents, and FACE President Susan Wolpin, the or website: http://members. single parents]—anyone who is a paren- Pennsylvania State House of Represen- tripod.com/epweek tal role model to a child. We believe kids tatives issued Resolution No. 654 declar-

26 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN need as much love, direction, and sup- CBC in Toronto received two of these port as they can get.” bouquets, CFRB Radio hosted Ed Hoyt, 4. R-Kids of Minnesota held a Vice President of the NBCEP on its candlelight vigil in a public area on the morning radio show. corner of General Mills Blvd. and Hwy. 9. Parents of Broken Families in 55 in Golden Valley attended by four Kamloops, British Columbia held a people. The rain stopped and we candlelight vigil in Riverside Park, shielded our candles against the wind Kamloops, British Columbia. and cold. After the five candles’ read- 10. Parents Coalition of British ing, we discussed our efforts and strat- Columbia and the British Columbia egy for the future, including family law Men’s Resource Center held a public litigation and revised laws that R-Kids candlelight vigil in front of the Van- is sponsoring. couver Art Gallery attended by approxi- 5. CRC of Nebraska/Iowa. Lieuten- mately 40 people, including those that ant Governor Dave Heinemann with joined in from the general public, cov- Governor Mike Johanns presiding over ered by CTV and Channel 9. the ceremony, signed a proclamation of 11. Equitable Child Maintenance “Equal Parents’ Week” on September 19 and Access Society (ECMAS) along at 10:00 a.m. at the Nebraska State Capi- with Grandparents Unlimited in Ed- Fathers are Capable, Too (FACT), Toronto, ON, Canada tol. Eight CRC members were in atten- monton, Alberta held a candle- dance. In addition, chapter members light vigil. There were about held 11 home vigils throughout Ne- two dozen supporters in atten- braska and Iowa. dance. TV news broadcasts 6. CRC of Northwest Ohio held a aired that night and the follow- fundraiser dinner and candlelight vigil ing day. Mayor Bill Smith pre- with 97 people in attendance. Al Ellis, sented our organization with a CRC Access Grants and Retired Judge proclamation. Andy Devine were guest speakers. The 12. Fathers are Capable, Chapter also participated in the week Too (FACT) held a candlelight long activities of “You Got to Love Par- vigil in front of All Sainta ents,” Ohio’s statewide “Parents’ Week” Kingsway Church in Toronto, event, during which Equal Parents Week Ontario. also takes place. PERU Papas Para Siempre, Lima, Peru 7. Children’s Rights Council of 13. Papas Para Siempre (Parents New York City held a public candle- Forever) held a candlelight vigil in lic candlelight vigil was held at light vigil at the Plaza Park in New York Lima, Peru, and was covered by a large Praça da Liberdade in Belo City. Rafee Kamaal, Chapter Co-Presi- newspaper article. Papas Para Siempre Horizonte, Minas Gerais State. dent, described it as “An excellent event, is the first Peruvian Association for Jose Nestor Cardoso, an twenty five people came, including men, separated parents. Tomas Angulo Apase director, held a home women and children. The overall mes- Mendoza, President, states, “We are sen- vigil with his wife Catarina (a sage expressed by the group was a need sitizing public opinion and publicizing psychologist and consultant for to show our love, concerns, and longing these concepts through national news- Apase). Media coverage in- to be with our children on a more con- papers and television appearances. We cluded an editorial and two TV sistent basis...and the hope that others are intensifying our efforts for a law news broadcasts (5-minute in- will also soon be able to have an oppor- project for improve regimen [for visita- terview and 30 minutes live tunity to spend more time with their tion] and then shared care. In November, coverage). children.” Channel Five mentioned the we held conferences with newspapers, vigil on their newscast. BELGIUM television, and radio about Christmas 15. Ghislain Jean Joseph and separated parents, and appeared be- Other Countries Duchâteau, President of fore our Congress for a formal presen- GOUDI (Divorced Parents CANADA tation about new legislation. Service by Information), 8. The New Brunswick Children’s BRAZIL held a home vigil attended by Equal Parenting Association 14. Apase (Associação de Pais e seven persons. “Week van de (NBCEP) held a candlelight vigil in Mães Separados, Assoc. of Divorced Gelijkwaardigheid van Ouders front of City Hall, Saint John, New Parents) held several activities. Thou- Kinderrechtenraad” is Equal Brunswick. The Mayor and Minister of sands of EPW brochures were distrib- Parents’ Week in Dutch. Health and Community Services drove uted over several days. A presentation 60 miles to attend. In addition, 75 purple to the city council of Florianópolis balloons/bouquets were distributed on (Santa Catarina State) was made. A pub- Monday, Sept. 23. Two days after the

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 27 ❙❙ catalog of resources

A. B. C. D. E.

For Kids NEW! NEW! H. The Best Parent is Both For Better or For Worse: E. This Child of Mine: A Parents: A Guide to Shared Heart Full of Love, written Divorce Reconsidered, by Therapist’s Journey, by Parenting in the 21st Cen- by Bette S. Margolis, illus- Mavis Hetherington and Martha Wakenshaw. Stories tury, the CRC book edited trated by Christie L. Kline. A John Kelly, 2002. Surprising of abused and neglected by David L. Levy, 1993. If you wonderful book for that results from the most com- children who are travelling would like copies (individual special 7- to 9-year-old in prehensive study of divorce the road to recovery. This or bulk order) autographed your life who is undergoing in America. book can help other abused by David L. Levy, just state to parental divorce. HB-254 ______$26.95 children to recover. whom you would like it SB-101 ______$15.00 HB-209 ______$12.95 autographed (yourself, per- 50/50 Parenting, by Gayle haps your children—give A I Love You More Than..., Kimball, Ph.D. Almost 300 Father and Child Reunion, their names). by Elizabeth Hickey and co-parents and 83 children by Warren Farrell, Ph.D. How SB-221 ______$10.00 James Cohen. Illustrated by report on life in married, to bring the dads we need Order 10 copies or more Lynda Smart Brown, 1998. divorced, and step-family to the children we love. each only $4.00 HB-102 ______$16.95 situations. HB-251 ______$25.00 SB-201 ______$9.95 Throwaway Dads, by Ross B. It’s Not Your Fault, Koko F. Putting Kids First, by D. Parke and Armin A. Brott, Bear, by Vicki Lansky, 1998. D. Divorced Dads, Shatter- Michael Oddenino. A must 1999. The myths and barriers Koko Bear can help children ing the Myths, by Sanford L. read for caring parents and that keep men from being understand divorce and Braver, Ph.D., 1998. The sur- professionals, by CRC’s Gen- the fathers they want to be. sends a good message. prising truth about fathers, eral Counsel. Includes a “An essential guide not only SB-107 ______$5.99 children and divorce. Children’s Bill of Rights. for fathers, but for a culture HB-205 ______$24.95 SB-215 ______$9.95 that is not sure what to do For Parents with them” (Gurian, Michael) For the Sake of the Chil- REVISED! HB-248 ______$20.00 NEW! dren, by Kris Kline and G. Creating a Successful C. Divorce Poison, by Dr. Stephen Pew, 1992. Dis- Parenting Plan, by Dr. Jayne Richard Warsak, 2001. A cusses how to share your A. Major, 1998. Nationally leading authority on divorce children with your ex- acclaimed author of “Break- helps parents shield chil- spouse despite your anger. through Parenting” and dren from the crossfire of Kline is CRC’s Florida coordi- “Winning the Custody War separation and divorce. nator. PHOTOCOPIES ONLY! Without Casualties” HB-253 ______$26.00 HB-206 ______$9.00 SB-218 ______$24.95

F. G. H. I. J.

28 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN Catalog of Resources

K. L. M. N. O.

For Stepparents Surviving Divorce— Legal Issues Parental Kidnapping Women’s Resources After NEW! Separation, by Mavis NEW! Autographed Copies! I. Step-Wives, by Lynne Maclean. K. From Courtship to They Are My Children, Too, Oxhorn-Ringwood and HB-502 ______$5.00 Courtroom: What Divorce by Catherine Meyer, 1999. Louise Oxhorn, 2002. Law Is Doing to Mariage, Powerful account of a Mothers and step-mothers Fathers’ Rights, by Jeffrey by Jed H. Abraham, 2000. mother’s loss of her children. learn to get along for the Leving. A best-selling book Abraham, a lawyer, mediator, A case of international pa- sale of the child. for fathers who want to and joint custody advocate, rental kidnapping. Written SB-340 ______$13.00 maintain contact with their writes a chilling picture of by CRC’s former Honorary children. how today’s divorce laws President. Stepfamilies Stepping SB-510 ______$12.50 make life miserable for fami- HB-801 ______$23.00 Ahead, edited by Mala Burt lies. for the Stepfamily Associa- Mediation/Conflict SB-701 ______$15.00 NEW! tion of America. Resolution N. Run to the Sun, by Rob- SB-303 ______$9.95 Custody for Fathers, by ert Davé, 20001. A terrific Healing Hearts, Helping Carleen and Michael suspect novel. The story of For Grandparents Children and Adults Re- Brennan, 1994. Includes parental kidnapping, con- cover from Divorce, by more than 100 strategies spiracy and remedies of- J. Grandparents as Parents: Elizabeth Hickey, M.S.W., that have helped fathers win fered by CRC. A Survival Guide for Rais- CRC’s National Parent Edu- (share) custody of their chil- HB-803 ______$16.95 ing a Second Family, by cation Director, and Eliza- dren in a mom-biased sys- Sylvie de Toledo and beth Dalton, attorney and tem. The Recovery of Interna- Deborah Edler Brown. A mediator HB-705 ______$12.00 tionally Abducted Chil- “how-to” manual for grand- HB-602 ______$15.00 dren, by Maureen Dabbagh, parents who are raising their L. The Father’s Emergency 1997. This book is a guide, grandchildren. Guide to Divorce/Custody outlining the legal steps to HB-403 ___ Reg. $17.00 Battle, A Tour Through the try to recover your interna- Subscribe Predatory World of Judges, tionally abducted child. For Single Parents Lawyers, Psychologists Dabbagh provides advice on to CRC’s and Social Workers in the working with foreign attor- Still a Dad, The Divorced “Speak Out Subculture of Divorce, by neys and embassies, and Father’s Journey, by CRC’s Robert Seidenberg, with the gathering information on own Serge Prengel, 1998. for Children” legal insights of Williams the abductor. Published with praise from Dawes, Esq., 1997. HB-804 ______$20.00 Warren Farrell, Karen newsmagazine! SB-707 ______$15.00 DeCrow, and James A. Cook. SB-2501 ______$13.95 NEW! Individual $18 M. Betrayal of the Child, by Authors & Stewart Rein, 2001. A father’s guide to Family Courts. “A Publishers Library $20 book that refutes the single Advertise your parent theology and con- 100 additional cludes that only two parents book here! books listed on FREE with CRC can serve the best interests Contact Mark Roseman at of children” (Dr. John 401/789-5565, email: www.gocrc.com Membership! Chipingdon) [email protected] SB-710 ______$22.95

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 29 Catalog of Resources

Child Abuse Videos Reports Special CRC CD NEW! Children: The Experts on Interference with Access O. Ernie Ashworth and Elusive Innocence: Sur- Divorce, by Elizabeth Hickey, (Visitation) as a Tort. Up- Friends: Sing out For the vival Guide for the Falsely MSW 1994. The children dated 1997. Children’s Rights Council, Accused, by Dean Tong, speak from their own expe- R101 ______$10.00 Hadassah sings “Hear the 2001. “Elusive Innocence rience of going through Cries of the Children” should be a wake-up call to their parents’ divorce. Parenting Plans. Three dif- CD-101 ______$12.00 child advocates and law- V101 ______$25.00 ferent parenting plans. makers” — Kathleen Parker, R102 ______$10.00 Bumper Stickers nationally syndicated col- Don’t Forget The Children, umnist. by the Dallas, Texas Associa- Joint Custody as a Child’s P. The Best Parent is Both SB-911 ______$15.99 tion of Young Lawyers. A Right. More than 40 re- Parents, white printing on a CRC award-winning video search reports over the past black background. The Parental Alienation that provides information 15 years that show the posi- $1 apiece _ 6 for $5.00 Syndrome, A guide for on co-parenting in the event tive effects of co-parenting mental health and legal pro- of divorce. (joint custody) on children. Kits fessionals, by Richard V102 ______$20.00 Includes two joint custody Gardner, M.D., 1995. An au- legal briefs you can adapt Equal Parenting Week Kit, thoritative work on the Pa- Psychotherapeutic & Legal for use in court. Instructions, Suggested Ac- rental Alienation Syndrome. Approaches To Parental R103 ______$10.00 tivities, ribbons and button. SB-903 ______$35.00 Alienation Syndrome $10.00 (PAS), by Richard A. Gardner, Children Held Hostage, M.D. An in-depth discussion Dealing with Programmed of ways that parents can and Brainwashed Children, alienate the child against by Stanley S. Clawar, Ph.D., the other parent. C.C.S. and Brynne Rivlin, V103 ______$25.00 M.S.S., 1991. This book is approved by the American Bar Association. SB-905 ______$50.00 P. Catalog Order Form

CUSTOMER BILLING INFORMATION: Qty. Title Price (ea.) Total ______Date of Order ______Name ______Address ______City ______(10% off for CRC members; membership is $35/year, see form on page 26) ______State ______ZIP ______Sub-Total ______Daytime Phone ______S/H $4.00 first item ______Fax ______$1.00 each addtl. item ______E-mail ______Total enclosed ______PAYMENT INFORMATION: SHIP TO: ❑ (Please complete if delivery address is different from above.) Check: payable to CRC ❑ Charge: Visa, MasterCard, AmEx Name ______Card # ______Exp. ______Address ______Signature ______City ______

State ______ZIP ______Mail your order to Phone your order to Daytime Phone ______CRC Books CRC at 301/559-3120 6200 Editors Park Dr., Ste. 103 Fax your order to Fax ______Hyattsville, MD 20782 CRC at 301/559-3124 Order on the website at www.gocrc.com

30 WINTER 2003 | SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN NATIONAL AFFILIATE ORGANIZATIONS AND CHAPTERS

INTERNATIONAL Arizona Hawaii Michigan Dan Carrigan, director South Carolina—See North CRC of Great Britain Conrad Greene, coordinator Myrna B. Murdoch, coordinator Barbara Toth, coordinator Center for Children of Separation Carolina CRC of Arizona CRC of Hawaii CRC of Michigan and Divorce Tony and Christine Coe, Tennessee coordinators P.O. Box 454 4224 Waialae Avenue, #5-230 P.O. Box 653 4950 Park Road David Courson, coordinator Scottsdale, AZ 85252-0454 Honolulu, HI 96816 Edmore, MI 48829-0653 Charlotte, NC 28209 Children’s Rights Council of the CRC of Tennessee United Kingdom phone: 480/970-5903 phone: 808/737-7333 and phone: 517/427-5774 phone: 704/522-1331 2120 Griffintown Road fax: 480/970-5925 808/341-7333 email: barbtoth@ fax: 704/342-0272 38-40 Gloucester Road White Bluff, TN 31708-5207 email: [email protected] crcofmichigan.org London, SW7 4QU England California Ohio phone/fax: 615/952-2498 phone: 011-44-207-590-2701 Patricia Gehlen, coordinator Illinois www.crcofmichigan.org Margaret Wuwert, coordinator email: [email protected] fax: 011-44-20 7584 4230 P.O. Box 160591 Terry Cady, coordinator Rick Petrella, executive director CRC of Ohio Texas email: [email protected] Sacramento, CA 95670 CRC of Illinois CRC of Michigan 4069 West Sylvania Avenue Diana Buffington, coordinator www.equalparenting.org phone/fax: 916/635-2590 905 Wayne Avenue 6632 Telegraph Road Toledo, OH 43623 CRC of Texas email: [email protected] Deerfield, IL 60015 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 phone: 419/473-8955 CRC of Japan 3705 Billie Faye Drive phone: 847/374-0461 phone: 248/376-2102 fax: 419/472-1709 Walter Benda Paul Stroub, president N. Richland Hills, TX 76180 P.O. Box 583 Sacramento Chapter fax: 312/322-3553 email: [email protected] tollfree: 1-866/473-8957 phone: 817/589-8395 email: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Max Meadows, VA 24360 phone: 916/939-0390 Minnesota fax: 817/595-0860 phone: 540/637-3799 email: [email protected] Indiana Bruce Kaskubar, coordinator Kevin O’Brien, director e-mail: [email protected] email: [email protected] Larry W. Campbell, president Bob Monday, coordinator CRC of Minnesota CRC of Southern Ohio www.community.dallasnews.com/ www.crcjapan.com CRC of Northern California CRC of Indiana 5905 Chateau Road N.W. P.O. Box 8805 dmn/crctx and 1116 Cottonwood Drive 540 Crest Point Lane Rochester, MN 55901 Cincinnati, OH 45208 Children’s Rights Coalition David Brian Thomas Roseville, CA 95661 Plainfield, IN 46168 phone/fax: 507/289-5745 (call phone/fax: 513/624-7223 (affiliate) 4-18-15-903 Kamiki Tazawa phone/fax: 916/771-2735 phone: 317/685-4656 before faxing) email: [email protected] P.O. Box 12961 Setagaya-Ku email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: brucekaskubar@ www.pacegroup.org Capitol Station Tokyo, Japan 156 Grandparent Rights in New deltakinetics.com Maryann Dybiec Schulte, Austin, TX 78711-2961 phone: 011-81-3-5317-0357 Contact in Southern California (Oceanside) Strength (G.R.I.N.S.) Missouri executive director fax: 215/499-8056 CRC of Sierra Leone Larry Synclair Kay and Ray Berryhill, co-directors Scott Field, chair CRC of Cleveland email: [email protected] Yottro Kargbo phone: 760/966-0079 0689 County Route 5 CRC of Eastern Missouri cell: 216/496-0365 Virginia 3505 Covered Bridge Lane email: [email protected] Corunna, IN 46730 P.O. Box 220661 pager+voicemail: 216/736-9420 Murray Steinberg, president Woodbridge, VA 22192 www.geocities/lsynclair/ phone: 219/281-2384 (call before Kirkwood, MO 63122 email: maryanndybiecschulte@ CRC of Virginia, Richmond Chapter phone/fax: 703/897-7845 index.html faxing) phone: 314/963-4668 cox.net 9244 Royal Grant Drive alternate phones: Colorado Iowa—See Nebraska/Iowa James Welty, president Mechanicsville, VA 23116 NATIONAL Scott 314/838-7092 CRC of Northeast Ohio phone/fax: 804/559-7090 AFFILIATE Mark Entrekin, coordinator Kentucky Mark Holdenried 314/772-1169 CRC of Colorado Kevin O’Brien, coordinator 2804 East Center Street email: [email protected] ORGANIZATIONS email: [email protected] N. Kingsville, OH 44068 4715 Ranch Circle Ann Swango, director www.hometown.aol.com/ Paul Robinson, president Mothers Without Custody Colorado Springs, CO 80918-4118 CRC of Kentucky phone: 440/224-0694 Fathers United for Equal Rights (MW/OC) crceasternmo/myhomepage/ phone: 719/548-8798 P.O. Box 534 index.html Oregon and Women’s Coalition Jennifer Isham, coordinator fax: 719/597-2218 Florence, KY 41022-0534 Roy Nolan, coordinator P.O. Box 1323 website only: www.mothers email: [email protected] phone: 859/647-2235 Nebraska/Iowa CRC of Oregon Arlington, VA 22210-1323 withoutcustody.org Les Veskma, M.D., executive Connecticut email: [email protected] P.O. Box 2095 phone: 703/451-8580 Stepfamily Association of www.pacegroup.org director, NE/IA Portland, OR 97208 fax: 703/451-9321 Mark Roseman, coordinator Colleen Kavan, president, Omaha America (SAA) (see Rhode Island) Maine phone: 503/232-8630 email: [email protected] Chapter fax: 503/233-9390 Margorie Engel, Ph.D., president Tom Chandel Washington State Larry Kallemyn, executive director Julia Booker, state contact Les Veskma, president, Lincoln 38 Thompson Street CRC of Maine Chapter Pennsylvania Jamaica Filgo 650 J Street, Suite 205 P.O. Box 7 Michael Nieland, M.D., president CRC of Washington Lincoln, NE 68508 West Haven, CT 06515 Ruby and Mark Tupper, co- phone: 203/479-1585 Bridgton, ME 04009 presidents, Tri-City Chapter CRC of Pittsburgh 10011 33rd Avenue S.E., Apt. A phone: 402/477-7837 phone: 207/647-5711 1400 Inverness Avenue Everett, WA 98208 1-800/735-0329 email: [email protected] Curt Morehouse, communications www.ctcrc.org email: [email protected] director, Omaha Pittsburgh, PA 15217 phone: 425/379-9666 Joint membership in SAA and phone: 412/621-0222 email: [email protected] CRC: $35.00 for the first year Grandparents and Children Maryland Lyn and William Huerter, Embrace (Grace Foundation, Inc.) Harvey Walden, coordinator coordinators Rita A. Jones, president West Virginia Parenting Coalition CRC of Maryland Bill Clemens, J.D., treasurer Ginger Thompson McDaniel, International, Inc. Formerly GRACE, Inc. CRC of Nebraska Jean Castagno, president 417 Pershing Drive P.O. Box 45387 CRC of Philadelphia coordinator Belinda Rollins, president Silver Spring, MD 20910-4254 P.O. Box 11413 CRC of West Virginia 1025 Connecticut Avenue N.W., 75 Fernwood Drive Omaha, NE 68145-0387 phone: 301/588-0262 phone/fax: 402/330-3353 Philadelphia, PA 19111 109 North Arthur Drive Suite 6156 Old Saybrook, CT 06475-3031 phone: 860/388-0500 (Call about monthly support email: [email protected] phone: 215/844-2372 (Rita after Charleston, WV 25312 Washington, D.C. 20036 group meetings) 6 p.m.) or 215/745-0594 (Bill) phone: 304/744-6534 phone: 202/530-0849 fax: 860/388-9200 www.crcne.org email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] fax: 304/744-8657 www.parentingcoalition.org www.members.tripod.com/ New Jersey email: [email protected] Delaware Erik Purasson, president Kurt Krusen CoMamas ~mdcrc/ CRC of Harrisburg/Capitol Region Wisconsin Louise Oxhorn and Lynne James A. Morning, president New Jersey Council for Rob Snow, Ph.D., and Sandra Children’s Rights (NJCCR) 15 Beaver Road Bob Eisenbart, coordinator Ringwood-Oxhorn CRC of Delaware P.O. Box 1311 Snow, Ph.D., chairs P.O. Box 391 Camp Hill, PA 17011 CRC of Wisconsin P.O. Box 231804 CRC of Greater Baltimore phone: 717/763-0673 640 12th Avenue Encinitas, CA 92023 Dover, DE 19901 Bloomsburg, NJ 08804-0391 phone: 302/734-8522 2 West 39th Street phone: 908/995-0082 fax: 717/763-7183 Union Grove, WI 53182 phone: 760/942-4572 Baltimore, MD 21218 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] email: [email protected] phone/fax: 410/889-9404 www.njccr.org Randy Morkved, contact Wyoming District of Columbia email: [email protected] STATE CHAPTERS Frank Banner, coordinator New York CRC of South Central Cori Erickson CRC of the District of Columbia Massachusetts Rafee Kamaal and Elizabeth Pennsylvania 50 East Loucks Street, Suite 206 Alabama Carolyn Brumber, coordinator P.O. Box 151 Sheridan, WY 82801 Tim Smith, president Hillcrest Children’s Center Schnee, co-presidents 1325 “W” Street N.W., 3rd floor CRC of Massachusetts CRC of New York City Glenville, PA 17327 phone: 307/674-5595 Alabama Family Rights 16 Union Street phone: 717/227-1213 fax: 307/674-5510 Association Washington, D.C. 20009 4 West 105th Street Holliston, MA 01746 New York, NY 10025 fax: 717/227-1828 email: [email protected] P.O. Box 9239 phone: 202/232-6100 fax: 202/483-4560 phone: 508/429-5282 hotline: 212/431-7724 email: [email protected] Huntsville, AL 35812 email: [email protected] phone: 1-800/992-1190 phone: 212/864-0318 Melanie Will, contact Florida email: [email protected] CRC General Counsel and Family email: [email protected] Kris Kline, coordinator Nick Palermo, Esq., president CRC of North-Central Law Attorney www.alfra.org CRC of Florida CRC of Massachusetts Marlin Pierce Pennsylvania Michael L. Oddenino c/o Law Office of Nicholas Palermo phone: 570/850-0652 or Alaska 502 S. Willow Avenue, Unit 5 CRC of Albany Arcadia, California One Boston Place, 5th Floor 13 Campagna Drive 570/837-8991 Gary Maxwell, coordinator Tampa, FL 33606 email: [email protected]; Boston, MA 02109 Albany, NY 12205 email: [email protected] CRC of Alaska phone: 813/635-0633 www.oanglaw.com phone: 617/988-2820 phone: 518/459-8474 P.O. Box 920083 fax: 813/620-9068 Rhode Island CRC Board Chairman and Famly email: [email protected] fax: 617/522-9655 Mark Roseman, coordinator Anchorage, AK 99509-2083 email: [email protected] North Carolina/South Law Attorney phone/fax: 907/277-3980 Georgia Carolina CRC of Rhode Island John L. Bauserman, Jr. email: [email protected] Harry A. Prillaman, coordinator Steve Carrier, board chairman Fred Wall, Jr., coordinator 5 Perkins Avenue, #5 Northern Virginia CRC of Georgia CRC of Massachusetts 509 North 7th Street Narragansett, RI 02882 email: [email protected] 311 Apache Drive 511 Main Street Wilmington, NC 28401 phone: 401/789-5565 Canton, GA 30115 P.O. Box 904 phone: 910/762-4952 phone: 678/643-5924 Sturbridge, MA 01566 email: [email protected] fax: 770/704-0917 phone: 508/347-5960 email: [email protected] fax: 508/347-9870 email: [email protected]

SPEAK OUT FOR CHILDREN | WINTER 2003 31 Speak Out for Children, Winter 2002, Vol. 17, No. 4 A Non-Profit, Tax Exempt Organization Strengthening Families and Non-Profit Organization Assisting Children of Separation and Divorce U.S. Postage PAID Washington, D.C. Permit #881 6200 Editors Park Drive, Suite 103, Hyattsville, MD 20782

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

our expirationopriate. date on label Please checkand renewy if appr

I will receive a New Member Packet, including the latest issue of “Speak Out for Children,” a bumper BENEFITS INCLUDE: sticker saying “The Best Parent is Both Parents,” • Quarterly News Magazine er a discount Hertz coupon, a low APR credit card • “Best Parent...” Bumper Stick application, and, if requested, the names of 3 groups • Discounts on 100 books that can help me. • A voice in Washington and State Capitals • Conference Discounts MEMBERSHIP DUES: • Much, much more! ❑ New Member, $60 (with Parenting Handbook) ...... $_____ ❑ New Member, $35 Date: ______(without Parenting Handbook) ...... $_____ ❑ Renewal, $35 ...... $_____ Name: ______❑ Student, $20 ...... $_____ Address: ______❑ Library, $20 ...... $_____ City: ______❑ Speak Out for Children subscription only, $18 ...... $_____ State: ______ZIP: ______❑ Gift, $25 (suggested)...... $_____ Home #: ______Work #: ______❑ Institutional Membership, $99 ...... $_____ Ideal for government offices and community E-mail: ______agencies. Institutional membership includes 3 Is any of the above information new? ❑ yes ❑ no subscriptions to “Speak Out for Children,” and the other benefits for 3 individuals. ❑ Please send me the names of 3 groups that can help me. Yes! I want to join the CRC! I want Yes! ❑ Contributing Member, $60 ...... $_____ ❑ Supporting Member, $250 ...... $_____ PAYMENT INFORMATION: ❑ Sustaining Member, $500 ...... $_____ ❑ Check: payable to CRC ❑ Charge: Visa, MasterCard, AmEx ❑ Life Member, $750 ...... $_____ ❑ CRC’s Custody and Parenting Card # ______Exp. ______Handbook, $25 ...... $_____ (see ad on inside front cover) Signature ______❑ Book order total from page 30 ...... $_____ TOTAL ENCLOSED $ ______Mail to: CRC, 6200 Editors Park Drive, Suite 103 ❑ I want $15 of my dues applied to the duties of the Hyattsville, Maryland 20782 CRC Chapter in the state of ______. Phone CRC at 301/559-3120, fax 301/559-3124 To join or order books, use our secure server at May we occasionally give your name to other groups for mailings approved by CRC? ❑ Yes ❑ No www.gocrc.com