4 posts tagged “child support”
http://www.pro-selaw.org/pro-selaw/index.asp
This
website is designed as a resource center on self-representation in
civil legal matters. Our purpose is to provide a collection of
materials and resources that can be used to create legal service
delivery systems that are based on the concept of "pro se" or "self"
representation within federally funded legal services programs, courts,
pro bono programs, and other community-based programs.
Pro Se means "on one's own behalf." A 1991 American Bar Association study of self-represented litigants showed:
- Persons with incomes less than $50,000 are more likely to represent themselves.
- About 20% of self-represented litigants report they can afford an attorney but do not want one.
- Self-represented persons are more likely to be satisfied with the judicial process than those who are represented by attorneys.
- Almost 75% of those who represented themselves in court said they would do it again.
Self-representation,
when combined with the power of modern information technology can be an
important means of providing increased access to the legal system.
This resource center contains:
-
A searchable Directory of Pro Se Programs operated by legal service providers;
-
White papers and research on the research concept;
-
A Discussion space where organizations that want to design and operate pro se assistance programs can post questions and receive answers from other
professionals who are engaged in operating pro se programs.
www.stopfamilyviolence.org/349
by Sarah Childress
Published on September 25, 2006 by Newsweek
Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody
by Sarah Childress
It took
six years for Genia Shockome to gather the courage to leave her
husband, Tim. He pushed her, kicked her and insulted her almost from
the moment they married in 1994, she says. She tried to start over with
their children when the family moved from Texas to Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
It didn't last long. Tim called her constantly at work and, after they
split up, pounded on her door and screamed obscenities, she alleged in
a complaint filed in 2001. Tim was charged with harassment. As part of
a plea deal, Tim agreed to a stay-away order—but denies ever abusing
her or the children. In custody hearings over the past six years, Tim
has insisted that he's been a good father, and argued that Genia's
allegations poisoned their children against him. The judge sided with
Tim. This summer he was granted full custody of the kids, now 11 and 9.
Genia was barred from contacting them.
Genia is
one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a
controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory,
children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or
coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading
defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to
domestic-violence advocates. And it's working. The few current studies
done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one
2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard's Jay Silverman, 54 percent of
custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor
of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument
in nearly every case.
This
year the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges denounced
the theory as "junk science," and at least four states have passed
legislation to curtail its use in custody cases involving allegations
of domestic violence. "It's really been a cancer in the family courts,"
says Richard Ducote, an attorney in Pittsburgh who has represented
abuse victims in custody cases for 22 years. "It's made it really
difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection,
you're deemed a vindictive, alienating parent."
It may
seem hard to fathom how a judge could award custody to a parent accused
of abuse. But battered spouses often don't file criminal charges—so no
judicial finding is made against their mates—and family-court judges
typically aren't trained to referee the complexities of abusive
relationships. (Although men are sometimes battered by their wives,
women are the victims in the majority of abuse cases.) Judges often
throw out documented evidence of spousal abuse, arguing that it is
irrelevant in a custody case. And experts say that family-court judges
often look favorably on the alleged abuser because he seems more
willing to share custody than the accuser—who is hellbent on keeping
the father away from the child. According to a survey by Geraldine
Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San
Bernardino, attorneys will caution battered spouses against reporting
abuse in court so they don't lose their children. (Stahly and other
academics say the parental-alienation argument has more legitimacy in
custody disputes that don't involve charges of abuse.)
Parental-alienation
syndrome was first introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in
the 1980s. Fathers-rights groups picked up on the idea and began trying
it out in court. These groups condemn abusers. But Dan Hogan, executive
director of Fathers & Families, a nonprofit group that advocates
for joint custody, argues that all too often the accusers lie in order
to win custody of their kids.
There's
a small but growing movement to ban parental alienation in custody
cases, sparked by embattled parents bonding online. They've linked with
lawyers and advocates for battered spouses across the country. At least
four states, including California, have laws protecting parents who
make good-faith abuse allegations. Others may soon follow their lead.
Greg Jacob, an attorney who takes cases for abused parents pro bono, is
drafting legislation to shop to Virginia and Maryland next month.
Meanwhile, parents like Genia keep fighting. "It's so hard, having my
children lost," she says, her voice breaking. "This was my life—my
children."
The Department of Human Services (DHS) is struggling to accurately and timely identify who is qualified to receive assistance, costing the state millions in misspent assistance dollars and millions more in potential federal sanctions and lost incentives, said a report from Auditor General (OAG) Thomas McTavish released on Friday.
DHS, which is responsible for determining eligibility for cash, food assistance, childcare and Medicaid cases, didn't effectively catch or fix errors in determination in the four years reviewed by the audit, from October 2002 through November 2006, the audit said.
Among the chief finds of auditors was that DHS mistakenly sent out payments in fiscal year 2006-06 in 7.5 percent of cases, which the report attributed to ever increasing caseloads from workers.
Although DHS has made strides in its system, the error rate in Michigan in 2005-06 was still 1.5 percent higher than the federal government tolerates, opening the state to economic sanctions much like the $89 million the federal government initiated for the fiscal years 1995-02.
Not only is Michigan inaccurate in its approvals but it's slow, too, the report said.
Michigan ranks 45th in its turnaround time with 81 percent of clients receiving approvals within the 30 days required by the federal government. That compares to Massachusetts , which ranked first and informs nearly 99 percent of its clients about their case status within a month.
In order to progress further, DHS said, it needs more "resources," because, although officials agreed with many of the audit's suggestions, they can't comply with them without more funds.
Among the fixes the department said it would initiate with more money is a study of how many workers it needs to handle caseloads and what tasks could be done by other staff members to increase worker availability for clients.
With more than 75 percent of workers and 87 percent of managers reporting that caseloads are too high, the study will likely find that more staff is needed, but the department said it can't hire more workers without additional funding.
As usual, the Department immediately cries "We need more money! We need more staff!" They told the OAG they would use additional dollars to "do a study". In fact, the OAG said that "DHS did not conduct a workload analysis to determine optimal caseworker staffing levels" and not only did they not do that last year, they hadn't done it in 2001-02 after being told they should by the Auditor General. So now they say they will if we give them more money?
You may read the audit for yourself. Here is the link: http://audgen.michigan.gov/comprpt/docs/r431028505.pdf
Does DHS need more staff? Do they have too many managers and not enough case workers? It is hard to get those answers; the Department is not forthcoming. The bottom line is the Department of Human Services has been woefully inefficient and inept for years and it continues to be in spite of repeated Audit Reports reporting the problem and even suggesting the solution. This is a problem that cannot be fixed by the OAG and it cannot be fixed by the Legislature. It must be addressed by the "Executive". That's right folks; I am talking about the governor and her department heads.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but my Transparency bill, which would expose the entire state budget, including that of the DHS, to the sunshine for everyone to see and closely examine, would go a long way toward resolving many of these issues.
On March 12, 2008, a joint committee of the Legislature met to ask for answers from the Department. What was their answer? We need more staff. We need more time. We are implementing a new program in the NEXT TWO YEARS. Once we have that in place, it will be better.
Here is hoping that Director Ismael Ahmed, the recently appointed Director of DHS can effectively address the issue.
What is Going on in the House?
To keep abreast of
bills moving through the House of Representatives, check my blog. I will be
posting when the House is in session at www.CorePrinciples.blogspot.com
A great site a yahoo group friend sent me, hope its helpful and has always share the info.
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/home.htm
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cjeresources.htm
Resources
Websites & Organizations
The following are a few great resources we've found that may be useful to judges, litigants & others interested in the legal process:
* California Courts Self Help Center
* Admin. Office of the Courts Temporary Judge Resource Page
* Hastings Law Library Research Guide - Judicial Directories (downloadable pdf)
* Information on California Appellate Judges from the California Courts Website
Self-Help Centers
The Legal Self-Help Center of Marin
30 N. San Pedro, Suite 160
San Rafael, CA
Phone: (415) 492-1111
Family & Children's Law Center
30 N. San Pedro Rd., Suite 245
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 492-9230
Fax: (415) 479-2553
Community-Based Organizations
Elder Financial Protection Network (EFPN)
1450 Grant Avenue, Suite 200
Novato, CA 94945
Phone: 415. 897-9555
Fax: 415.897.9393
Web: Elder Financial Protection Network
Email: info@bewiseonline.org
Institute on Aging - Marin County Offices
1005 A Street
Suite 207
San Rafael, CA 94901
Phone: 415-456-8692
Web: Institute on Aging
Email: info@ioaging.org
Marin Abused Women's Services
Women's English Hotline (415) 924-6616
Women's Spanish Hotline (415) 924-3456
Men's Hotline (415) 924-1070
Web: Marin Abused Women's Services
----------------------------------------------
If you have a problem with a case, judge or commissioner -- submit a complaint to:
State of California
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
Go to -- http://cjp.ca.gov/filingacomp.htm
for detailed instructions
Send a copy to:
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Phone: 415-865-4200
Fax: (415) 479-3621
Email: lfoa@lfoa.org
Legal/Courts Organizations
Marin County Superior Court
Kim Turner, Court Executive Officer
3501 Civic Center Drive Room 116
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 473-6244
Web: Marin County Superior Court
Marin County Bar Association
Daniel Harris, President
(Jeff Lerman, President-Elect)
30 North San Pedro Rd., Suite 140
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: 415.499.1314
Web: Marin County Bar Association
Legal Aid of Marin
30 N. San Pedro Rd., Suite 220
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 492-0230
Fax: (415) 492-0947
Web: Legal Aid of Marin
Bay Area Legal Aid- Marin County Office
30 N. San Pedro Rd.,
San Rafael, CA 94903
Toll-Free Phone: (800) 551-5554
Phone: (415) 479-8224
Fax: (415) 479-8549
Web: Bay Area Legal Aid
Email: info@baylegal.org
Lawyers For One America
4136 Redwood Hwy Suite 9
San Rafael, CA 94903
Phone: (415) 479-3636
Web: Lawyers for One America
Additional Legal/Courts Organizations:
* Marin County Women Lawyers
* National Center for State Courts
* Administrative Office of the Courts
* CCC Justice - Contra Costa Courts Accountability Group
We are always growing our list of resources, please check back often!
336 Bon Air Road 447 - Greenbrae, CA 94904 - 415-267-6149 - Email CJE
