What's wrong with child support formulas

I noted the absurdity of basing child support formulas on adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco consumption statistics, but I really think that the problem runs deeper.

The basic premise that underlies the academic analyses is that a father who is a head of a household and is living with his child will not voluntarily spend any more on on his child than a man who pays court-ordered child support to a mom of a kid he never sees.

That is crazy. Many fathers work long hours and make incredible sacrifices for their families. The idea that he would make those same sacrifices for a wife who betrayed him and a child he never sees is nuts. I cannot even see the rationale for it, and I cannot find where any legislative body has expressed a rationale. It is as if someone decided that there is no social benefit for fathers to be involved with their kids, and that the law should create monetary incentives against it.

Betson-Rothbarth estimator

Ever wonder what sort economic analysis goes into child support guidelines? Most of the states use something called the Betson-Rothbarth estimator. You probably think that it is based on some expert economic analysis of child expenses. Instead, see this explanation:

In the early 1990s, PSI asked David Betson of the University of Notre Dame to revise the Income Shares methodology. He also used an income equivalence approach, borrowing a technique from Erwin Rothbarth. The Rothbarth methodology compares changes in levels of household spending on purely adult goods to determine child costs. The idea is that looking at pure adult goods reduces the problem of shifts between adult and shared goods after having a child or an additional child. For measuring child costs, Betson specifically uses a particular bundle of adult goods to measure a household's level of well being-this bundle being adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco. In other words, he replaced the food-only indirect measure with spending in three adult-only areas and switched from shares of consumption to levels of consumption. Because the cost tables are based on a Betson version of Rothbarth's earlier research, they are sometimes referred to as Betson-Rothbarth tables.

This is wacky. I haven't found Betson's paper yet, so I don't know how it works exactly. But apparently the analysis isn't based on any child expense data at all. The idea seems to be that if a couple with no kids spends twice as much on adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco as a couple with one kid, then a couple with one kid should spend half their money on the kid.

There are too many things wrong with this approach to list right now.

Former governor has gay lover and wants custody

New Jersey news:

Former Gov. James E. McGreevey has revised his divorce lawsuit against his estranged wife and is now seeking sole custody of the couple's 5-year-old daughter -- and child support. ...

McGreevey, who resigned as governor after announcing he had had an affair with a male aide, has retained a new lawyer ...

Last month, after McGreevey originally filed for divorce, Matos McGreevey issued a statement disputing his claim that they had reached a settlement. "We continue to have profound differences about what our daughter should be exposed to, and until they are resolved, there will be no agreement," the statement said.

The revised lawsuit filed by attorney Matthew Piermatti asks a judge to grant custody of Jacqueline to the former governor and grant visitation rights to the former first lady. It seeks child support from Matos McGreevey, leaving it to the judge to decide the amount.

I am guessing that his wife does not approve of his living situation, but will have to cook up some other reasons to persuade the judge.

Woman Hits Boyfriend With Baby

AP reports:

ERIE, Pennsylvania — A woman pleaded guilty Tuesday to swinging her four-week-old son like a bat to hit her boyfriend, fracturing the infant's skull.

Chytoria Graham, 27, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child in a plea agreement with prosecutors. The charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of 20 years because the child was under age 12. There is no mandatory minimum if the victim is older than 13.

The charges stem from an Oct. 8 incident in which Graham returned from a night of drinking and began arguing with her then-boyfriend, Deangelo Troop, authorities said. The argument turned violent, and Graham grabbed her son Jarron by his feet and swung him, hitting Troop and fracturing the infant's skull in the process. When Graham put the boy down, Troop punched her in the eye, police said. She then called authorities. ...

Jarron, who made a full recovery, and Graham's four other children are currently in the custody of her parents.

I am still wondering how a 27-year-old woman manages to have five fatherless children, and whether the boyfriend had any relation to the 4-week-old baby. I am also wondering whether she called the authorities to get medical care for her baby, or to get the police to arrest her boyfriend. And I am wondering how drunk you have to be to use a baby as a club.

Oral argument at the appellate court

I just argued my appeal before the California appellate court in San Jose. I argued for myself, and so did my ex-wife.

On appeal, we get three judges. They are even real judges. We had Nathan D. Mihara presiding, with Wendy Clark Duffy and Richard J. McAdams.

First Mihara asked me how much time I would need. I said that I didn't know because I had never done this before, but that I expect that it will go quickly if there are not too many questions. I think that it ended up taking about 25 minutes. I say "I think" because there was no clock in the courtroom, and the security guards confiscated my electronic devices at the entrance. I had no way of watching the time. Maybe next time I'll bring a simple wind-up non-electronic clock.

Mihara smiled and said that they had already reviewed the papers, and invited to make comments that would supplement those papers. I had already made my best arguments in the papers, so I am not sure the oral argument really makes much difference.

I started by saying that our divorce case has already lasted 3.5 years, and may last another 2 years. This appeal mostly concerns several ways in which the lower court deviated from guideline in ordering child support. I elaborated. My ex-wife was given time to make her statement. I made a brief final rebuttal.

The judges were polite and receptive to the arguments we made. They only showed a general familiarity with the law and the case. We did not get any sharp pointed questions that would show that the judges had seriously thought about what they might do in the case. Maybe their minds were already made up and they were just being coy, but I did not get that impression.

Appeals courts are known for being overly concerned with formalities and technicalies. That is, they will find a way to uphold the lower court by saying that some party did not file some goofy paper on time, if they can.

But these judges did not mention any technicalities. Even when my ex-wife claimed that one of the five or so issues on appeal was not timely because my appeal was filed four days late, the judges did not seem interested. I don't think that this is any indication one way or the other about whether the court will rule based on such technicalities. Maybe they just weren't prepared to discuss them today. Maybe they thought that discussing legal technicalities with a non-lawyer is a waste of time. Maybe they want to decide on an outcome first, and then find whatever justification they need for the outcome later. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they were trying to reach a conclusion on the merits, and they will have to study the law and the record in the case to do that.

At the end, Mihara said that we would get a written decision within 90 days.

They didn't mention the fact that I currently have another appeal pending in the same case. There is a good chance I'll see at least one of those judges again in a couple of months.

Family court judge discovers homeschooling

William Duncan writes:

Last week, a trial court in New Jersey handed down an interesting decision involving divorcing parents who disagree about whether the children should continue to be home schooled. The seven children who live with the mother have been home schooled to date. The court says the father consented to the schooling but is now challenging its continuance. The court eventually says it will not rule on the father's request to end the home schooling, but only after a startling opinion.

The court first orders that the children be tested for the grades they would be in if they were in public school (this portion of the opinion is very confusing since it is not separated from a discussion of an earlier case). The court then opines at length about the perfidy of the school district allowing the children to be home schooled without state intervention. Noting that the school district had not sent officials to the home to check on the children’s progress, the judge said: "This is shocking to the court." The court characterized the children as being "left unsupervised" solely because of the lack of state intervention. (I suspect children who are at home with their mother would not describe themselves as "unsupervised.") The judge also found it shocking that the state Department of Education allows parents to home school without state intervention.

This is an example of a family court judge sticking his nose into a matter where judges would have no role in an intact marriage; assuming the discretion to rewrite the laws as he sees fit; and ultimately showing himself to be incapable of coping with the problem anyway.

The decision doesn't say whether there was a custody dispute, or if the father is willing to do something himself about the kids education.

I say the court should have just ordered joint custody to the parents. If the mom wants to homeschool on her time, that's her business. The dad can send the kids to public school, he should be able to. The public school may not like kids switching in and out, but it should have to get used to it. The school's problem is the least one here.

At any rate, the judge has no business saying that the homeschooling laws are shocking.

We may be headed for a money trial

I just gave my ex-wife the list of accounts that she asked for in court last week.

Unfortunately, it won't do any good. My financial statements are not good enough for her. She wants to subpoena the financial institutions herself, and do her own accounting of all my money for the last ten years.

I don't understand her theory for thinking that I owe her money. We met with an overpriced lawyer named Chip Rose who was supposed to clarify matters, but he only muddied them. He had his own theory about how the case should have been handled, but it didn't match either the law or what the judge has done, as far as I could see.

If she continues on this path, we could spend another year fighting about money in court. It is all based on a theory that I might have deceived her, but I've actually told her the truth at all times. I don't even know what deception she might allege.

Britney Spears

Britney Spears is facing a child custody battle with her ex-husband K-Fed. Legal experts are saying that despite her widely-publicized bizarre behavior, drug problems, and dangerous baby handling, she has little to fear. California family courts favor the mom enough, and her behavior just isn't bad enough.

I am guessing that she'll at least have to promise to enter and complete rehab, and to hire a nanny with good credentials.

Stipulated continuances are too common

In court on Wednesday, I saw that the judge had a notice outside his court describing new procedures for trials. He complained that half of his trials are canceled at the last minute, aggravating his backlog. Half of those cancellations are caused by settlements, and the other half by "stipulated continuances". He find the latter particularly annoying, so now requires pre-trial confirmation conferences in order to try to reduce them.

It is indeed a bad sign when there are a lot of stipulated continuances. It is extremely rare for both parties in a trial to really want a delay. These delays are really for the convenience of the lawyers, not the parties. I would bet that 9 times out of 10, a stipulated continuance is a sign that the lawyer is acting contrary to his client's interests.

Most of the family lawyers in town are scared of trials. They will happily burn 1000s of dollars on trial preparation, but when it comes time to actually have a trial, they run like frightened puppies. People often assume that lawyer are comfortable going to trial, but it is often false.

Another wasted day in court

I just got out of a status conference in family. My ex-wife and I were the first ones up, after some procedural matters. Neither of us had a lawyer. My ex-wife's ex-lawyer happened to be in the court, but she said nothing.

The judge said that we had each asked for things that he cannot do at an
8:30 am status conference. I had asked for a child support order adjustment to reflect my ex-wife's new job, and the judge said that I had to make a motion. My ex-wife had claims that could only be settled by trial. The judge said that he could schedule a trial, or he could move the case into some sort of limbo awaiting action from us.

My ex-wife said that the judge ought to at least order me to pay $6,500 that was previously ordered, because my appeal is technically defective. The judge asked if we had oral arguments scheduled, and I said that the appeals court will hear it next month. The judge said that if it were earlier in the appeals process, he might try to intervene, but now we should wait for the appeals court to rule in April or May.

I was surprised that the judge even said that, as it would be quite improper for the judge to intervene on any issue that is pending in an appellate court. This judge already ruled on the $6,500 a couple of times already, and it is out of his hands.

My ex-wife complained that it might take a year of discovery to prove her allegations about her money. In particular, she complained that she doesn't even have a complete list of my accounts. I agreed to give her a list of accounts in the next week, without a formal discovery request.

My ex-wife was frustrated by the judge's refusal to declare who had the burden of proof in resolving the remaining financial matters. She dreaded the task of spending many months tracing money, only to have her efforts wasted when her proof falls short. If she could just get the judge to say that I had the burden of proof, then she would have nothing to lose by requesting a trial. I'd have to do all the work accounting for the money, and if my worksheets don't add up, then she would have a shot at getting half the difference at a trial. She appeared to be very unhappy with the outcome.

The judge asked again if we wanted him to schedule another appearance. I said that this case has been going on for three years so far, and none of my ex-wifes claims have had any merit. I would like to be on a path towards resolving the case. The judge scheduled another appearance on April 25. At that time, he said that he could schedule a trial in August.

The judge apparently got my status memo okay, and didn't say anything about my defective proof of service. I had sent it in early, with a self-signed proof of service. The clerk sent it back, saying that it was rejected because I signed the proof of service myself. I didn't have a chance to get someone else to sign the proof of service, so I just mailed my status memo back to the clerk, with no proof of service at all.

Common sense would seem to imply that it is better for me to sign the proof of service myself, than to have some random stranger sign it. Common sense would also seem to imply that a technically defective proof of service is better than none at all. You might also think that an official form titled "proof of service" has proving service as its principal purpose. Actually the proof of service has an obscure bureaucratic function that makes no sense when lawyers are not involved.

I will make the account list for my ex-wife, and I'll find out in two months whether she really wants a trial.

Requesting another oral argument

I just got another notice that I can request an oral argument before the court of appeal. I am sending in the form today for oral argument, just as I did before.

I have an oral argument scheduled for next month. I would have preferred that the arguments were consolidated, or that I could wait until I see whether next month's oral argument is a waste of time. My guess is that the appellate court doesn't see non-lawyers like myself arguing family court cases very often, and it is not looking forward to having to listen to me twice in one year.

Ex-wife's court status memo

I just got a status memo from my ex-wife, in anticipation of seeing the judge next week. She now demands:

Petitioner respectfully requests the Court to do the following:
1. Rule on whose burden it is to prove Respondent's separate property contribution to the family home in order to ease issues in preparation for an inevitable trial;
2. Reserve jurisdiction of intellectual property issues; and
3. Order Respondent to once again pay the $6,500 to Bosso Williams law firm plus 10% interest calculated from the date payment was due

She filed for the divorce over 3 years ago. All this stuff should have already been resolved long ago. I hope that another trial is not inevitable.

The $6,500 is under appeal, and the local judge has no say over it. I have no idea what he'll say about the other issues. He ought to just terminate the case, as none of her arguments have any merit, as far as I can see.

Rejecting my proof of service

I just got a notice from the local family court, rejecting my status memo for the next scheduled court appearance. The deputy clerk said, "Reason for return: parties can't do any type of service to one another."

The rules require filing a status memo before a family court status conference in court. It is just a brief page reminding the judge of what is going on in the case. In practice, the rule is only enforced on lawyers.

In court, I often hear the judge lecturing some lawyer for not filing a status memo. Occasionally, some lawyer will complain that he didn't file it because the previous judges did not enforce that rule, and he thought that it was unnecessary. The judge then threatens him with a $500 fine, and that is the end of that discussion.

I mailed the status memo to the court and to my ex-wife. I included a "proof of service" swearing that I mailed it to my ex-wife. She acknowledged receiving it. But that is not good enough, because the clerk wants a piece of paper saying that some stranger dropped the status memo in the mailbox.

Notice of oral arguments

I just got notice that the appellate court will hear oral arguments on March 6.

I actually have two appeals pending. I figured that the appellate court would just consolidate them. But I've heard nothing about the other case.

Paying for someone else's kid

The Christian Science Monitor reports:

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.

Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.

"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present."

In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.

No, the court is saying something worse. The court is saying that the former husband was able to ensure biological ties, that that is plainly not true. The court is forcing financial ties to child with no biological ties.

Father cannot discuss religion

Law prof Volokh writes:

In December, a New York appellate court held that Daniel should be allowed supervised visitation after his parole expires this summer. But the court also upheld, in the name of "the best interest of the children," the trial court's order that Daniel not discuss with the children "any issues pertaining to his religion." ...

The father may be a Mohammedan kook, but the judge is still overextending his authority when he prohibits a man from discussing his religion.

Arrest warrant for skipping class

Seattle crime news:

The Jan. 26 robbery attempt happened about 9 p.m. ... Authorities identified the robber as Samuel S. Curry, 21, of Renton, a father who was named in an arrest warrant for missing court-ordered domestic violence therapy.

Curry was shot and killed after robbing someone on the street of $4.

I am not going to defend Curry, but it is news to me that the police issue arrest warrants just because someone misses a domestic violence class.

In my case, I am not sure whether I was ever ordered to attend therapy or parenting classes or not. The family court judges here have a very hard time making themselves clear. They just implied that I had to do it to see my kids. The classes were a complete waste of time. It never occurred to me that I could get arrested for skipping class.

More on California spanking

Anti-spanking advocate Emily Bazelon writes:

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, who proposed a ban on spanking last week ...
The purpose of Lieber's proposal isn't to send parents to jail, or children to foster care, because of a firm smack. Rather, it would make it easier for prosecutors to bring charges for instances of corporal punishment that they think are tantamount to child abuse.

Her article goes on to admit that there are studies showing that spanking is beneficial, and that studies claiming harm are seriously flawed. What she really wants is to give prosecutors the discretion to put parents in jail when the parents are bad parents.

A U.N. report on violence against children argues that ``the de minimis principle -- that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters'' will keep minor assaults on children out of court, just as it does almost all minor assaults between adults. The U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child has been urging countries to ban corporal punishment since 1996. The idea is that by making it illegal to hit your kids, countries will make hurting them socially unacceptable.

I do hope that the California legislators disregard the silly theories of UN committees.

Attending nonbinding arbitration

My ex-wife and just attending a nonbinding arbitration session with a private lawyer in town. We told the judge that we would do that before the next status hearing.

The lawyer has quite a racket going. He does four mediation session a day, charging $525 for each. He doesn't have the pressure of appearing before a judge, writing legal briefs, or standing behind his legal judgments. He just sits in mediation sessions, and collects money.

His usual procedure is to make his clients first come to a initial session in which they pay him to give a half-hour lecture on how to behave during a mediation session. We skipped that.

I gave the lawyer this explanation of what we wanted:

This is a confidential settlement conference. We are attempting to resolve certain divorce issues out of court. To this end, we are asking Mediator to conduct non-binding arbitration. AngryMom will informally present facts and legal theories in support of certain claims, and AngryDad will argue in favor of his position. Mediator will attempt to give a legal opinion as to who is entitled to what under the law.

I was hoping that the lawyer would give us a convincing opinion that would make further litigation unnecessary. Unfortunately, I don't think that happened. He had his own opinions, including the opinion that our divorce case had not proceeded the way it ought to have proceeded. Well, yes, everything should have been settled a couple of years ago. Some of his explanations of divorce law were useful, but I am not sure all of it was correct. I will have to do some further research.

Value of parenting classes

A reader commented below:

As for parenting classes, though, in some cases, they can be extremely effective. As a social worker, I've taught parenting classes-some classes that were particularly aimed at fathers, although none of them were court-mandated. I've had people tell me that they got some good tips and ideas from my classes. I think a lot of it depends on the frame of mind in which a person enters classes.

It's a shame that many of those doing court work are not experienced parents themselves, although I really don't think being gay makes a difference, as long as he's a parent. As a parent, I really think it could make a difference.

If the classes were just teaching objective facts or scientific wisdom, then it wouldn't matter if the teacher was gay or a non-parent.

The parenting classes used by my local court are not designed to impart any factual knowledge. They are more like Soviet-style re-education camps. The class instructor is supposed to draw everyone into a discussion and report back to the court on who has the proper attitudes. If you don't show sufficient remorse or whatever the instructor is looking for, then you get a bad report to the court.

If you got sent to parenting class for spanking, then you would be at the mercy of some social worker's opinion about whether you have learned your lesson.

I do not believe the promises that a first-time spanking offender will only get parenting classes. That would probably only be true if you admitted your guilt. If you declared your innocence or objected to the law, then the judge would stick it to you any way he could.