Newsletter
A Child Advocacy Company
Bringing Support to Parents
Building Strength to Children
Bringing Support to Parents
Building Strength to Children
Disclaimer: BS Kids LLC legal research and information has been prepared for educational and informational purposes only. This material is not legal
advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Transmission of the information is not intended to create and receipt does not constitute a
lawyer-client relationship between BS Kids LLC , the author of the information and any other legal publisher. Customers of BS Kids should not act upon
this information without seeking professional counsel. The opinions expressed in the material presented to BS Kids clientele is based on information
found in legal publications. BS Kids LLC, 6 Mackinac Court, Pooler, Ga. 31322 (912) 988-1001 or 781-756-1214.
advice or legal opinions on any specific matters. Transmission of the information is not intended to create and receipt does not constitute a
lawyer-client relationship between BS Kids LLC , the author of the information and any other legal publisher. Customers of BS Kids should not act upon
this information without seeking professional counsel. The opinions expressed in the material presented to BS Kids clientele is based on information
found in legal publications. BS Kids LLC, 6 Mackinac Court, Pooler, Ga. 31322 (912) 988-1001 or 781-756-1214.
Past Newsletters
Winter 2008
Winter 2008
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| BS KIDS BEAT VOLUME 7 SUMMER 2009 BS KIDS Finally, summer has decided to arrive….took long enough, no? Unfortunately, the season is so short that with all the rain we have had, it’s time to play catch up! I hope you are all enjoying the summertime! Looking forward to the fall, there are many issues worth discussing in this newsletter and many ways that you can all get involved! WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH FAMILY LAW With the economic downturn affecting many in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts, family law is suffering on many levels. First and foremost, many couples are being forced to remain married, because their greatest asset is their family home and with the housing market being such as it is, many couples are forced to remain together. This creates for a very difficult family living environment. Child Support has also captured national attention with many *obligors* having a very difficult time keeping up with their payments due to the loss of jobs and then trying to get back into court for a modification is another nightmare too! Eventhough both states are trying diligently to ratify their child support guidelines, as we all know this takes time. Keep a look out on the legislation section of the BS KIDS website for alerts regarding child support meetings this coming fall. Lastly, both states are still trying to persuade their legislative officials the need for shared (or comparable) parenting. I am sure that this will once again be a topic for discussion this coming legislative session. LEGISLATIVE UPDATES HB 139 – Relative to the determination of parental rights and responsibilities has been retained in the Child and Family Law Committee. Come this fall, their will be sub committee meetings to further discuss the passage of this bill in New Hampshire. We will post all public sessions for those who are able to attend. For those who prefer to send testimony, please remember that this is just as good a method for getting your opinion heard. Many times, after a particularly long public session the House/Senate members might not remember every point that was made during the public session. However, having written testimony to refer back to, keeps your testimony fresh in their minds. Do you have an idea for a new law or a change to an existing law that you would like to have introduced into the House or Senate? Now is the time to contact your local officials with those ideas. The first day to submit bills for the next term is September 21st, which will be here before you know it! Get involved; share you thoughts with your local representatives. If you need more information on how to get a bill introduced, please contact us at: info@bskids.net. One positive event that happened this summer was the SB 88; Relative to Marital Masters was vetoed by the Governor. Although the bill passed in both the House and Senate, it was unconstitutional and Governor Lynch vetoed the bill. We’ll be sure to keep you posted on any new developments. Below please see the message the Governor sent in vetoing the bill: VETO: Veto Message of Governor John H. Lynch Regarding Senate Bill 88 By the authority vested in me, pursuant to part II, article 44 of the New Hampshire Constitution, on July 1, 2009, I vetoed Senate Bill 88, an act relative to the recommendations of marital masters. I am vetoing Senate Bill 88 because marital masters are not judicial officers within the meaning of the State Constitution and I believe this bill would vest marital masters with the characteristics of a judicial officer. In 2007, the Supreme Court requested the introduction of Senate Bill 112 to allow the recommendations of marital masters to become final absent review and signature by a judge, unless a party requested review of the decision by a judge within 10 days. The Senate questioned the constitutionality of the Supreme Court’s proposed legislation and passed a resolution asking the Supreme Court to issue an advisory opinion addressing the constitutionality of SB 112. The Supreme Court ruled that SB 112 was unconstitutional because marital masters are not judicial officers within the meaning of the State Constitution and are only authorized to make recommendations that have no binding force upon the court. Opinion of the Justices, 155 NH 524 (2007). In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that it would not opine on whether the constitutional infirmity of SB 112 could be cured if parties to the case consented in advance to marital masters entering final judgment without the participation of a judge. Then, during this session, the Supreme Court requested the introduction of SB 88. This bill would allow marital masters to enter final judgment absent approval by a judge if the parties to the case consented in advance to the arrangement. The general court did not ask the Supreme Court to opine on the constitutionality of SB 88. If marital masters are not judicial officers under the State Constitution and cannot make recommendations that have binding force upon the court, I question why the advance consent of parties to a case can override the requirements of the State Constitution. I also question the wisdom of asking our citizens to assume the additional responsibility and potential burden, during stressful cases in the family division, of deciding whether to allow a marital master to act as a judge. Presently, under state law, the administrative judge of the judicial branch family division, with the concurrence of the supreme court, nominates marital masters for appointment by governor and council. Under the State Constitution, judges are nominated and appointed by the governor and council. If the desire is to have marital masters enter final judgments in court, the appropriate remedy would be to have them nominated and confirmed as judicial officers are appointed. NEWS Below are two recent articles that we thought you would find interesting. To read more, please go to www. bskids.net and check out Today’s headlines. If you see a story of interest, please feel free to forward it to us, for inclusion on the website. FAMILY COURT INJUSTICES TO MEN By Phyllis Schlafly Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial? Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"? Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place? Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father? Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy? These are among the injustices the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley. His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay. Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer. Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one. Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits. But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father). This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful. Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wash., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened. The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream. There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men. THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD: Middle-income family spends $221,000 to raise baby ST. LOUIS – It's no secret that raising children can be expensive, but how about nearly a quarter of a million dollars expensive? A government report released Tuesday says a middle-income family with a child born last year will spend about $221,000 raising that child through age 17. The report by the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion identified housing as the largest single expense, followed by food and child care/education costs. The $221,000 in expenses rises to about $292,000 when adjusted for inflation. USDA economist Mark Lino, who co-authored the report with Andrea Carlson, often hears people say children cost a lot when the annual findings are issued. "I tell them children also have many benefits, so you have to keep that in mind," he said. Families with more income spend more money on child-related costs, the report said. A two-parent family that earns less than $57,000 annually will spend about $160,000 on a child from birth through high school. Those with an income between $57,000 and $99,000 spend about $221,000 and those with higher incomes are expected to spend roughly $367,000 through age 17. Most single-parent households in the U.S. makes less than $57,000 and are expected to spend about 7 percent less on child-rearing costs compared to two-parent households in that same income group, according to the report. Costs of raising a child are highest in the urban northeast and lowest in the urban south and rural areas. The USDA report helps courts and states determine child-support guidelines and foster care payments. It does not address costs specifically related to childbearing and paying for college. One of the largest changes over time has been the increase in costs related to care for young children. The report was first issued in 1960, when such costs were largely negligible, but with more working families turning to outside help with child care, it has grown to be a significant expense for many families. The report does not give total costs related to early child care. A mother of three, Raben Andrews of St. Louis, said the government figures sounded right to her. "Well, that's not half of it," joked the 42-year-old public school teacher. "I still have to put the little buggers through college." GET INVOLVED Have you ever thought about volunteering your time to a local social service agency? Do you know how many agencies exist throughout Massachusetts and New Hampshire? Do you have a talent or hobby that you just don’t get enough time to enjoy? With today’s economic situation, many families are struggling to make ends meet. That means that they need help, whether that is extra clothing, food, shelter or just someone to spend sometime with them, why not think about donating an hour or two a month to make a difference in someone’s life? After all, it just takes a moment to make an impression on someone! To get started, you can search on line at United Way, Volunteer Match or Social Service Agencies in your town/city. Why not get involved and make a difference today! E-MAIL ALERTS If you are interested in getting alerts from BS KIDS regarding news, legislative activity or getting involved opportunities, please sign up on our website at www.bskids.net COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS BS KIDS is looking to include areas of interest to our readers. If there is a topic or area of concern that you would like to learn more about, please let us know. You can e-mail us at info@bskids.net or call 781- 756-1214. I |