PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

THE "MYTH" OF THE SOLDIER WITH PRIMARY CUSTODY

The United States House of Representatives has passed a measure that would prevent troops who are deployed in a war from permanently losing custody of their children. The South Carolina Senate has proposed similar legislation.

The federal amendment was offered by Ohio Congressman Mike Turner who read an Associated Press story about service members who had lost custody because of their duty.

Florida Lawyer Brent Rose writes in his BLOG that this is not as much of a problem [as suggested by the Media] because "the servicemember will probably never get primary custody in the first place." However, we see some merit in the Amendment. According to the Associated Press, "The amendment, which was passed by voice vote as part of a defense policy bill, would reinstate the custody arrangements of a soldier's children in place before the soldier left for war. It would provide an exception for temporary orders issued in the best interest of the child."

Stated another way, this amendment, if passed by the full Congress, will only maintain the status quo while soldiers are deployed. This does not appear to be unreasonable.

As an aside, we note that the House has acted with extreme speed to a perceived problem. This is a serious contrast to how slowly the South Carolina Legislature is enacting Family Court reform which has been under consideration for years.

COPING WITH JAIL OVERCROWDING IN CHARLESTON SC

In Trying to cope with jail overcrowding Charleston Watch filed the report pasted hereinbelow on the May 15, 2007 Charleston County Council meeting. We have said it before and we will say it again--one reason that our jails are so overcrowded is that we spend so much of our limited resources building jails and incarcerating people who get behind on their child support rather than trying to develop programs to either help them avoid being jailed for non-support or to get out of jail once they have been incarcerated for non-support. While it may appeal to some folks' sense of moral outrage to punish those who are in arrears on their child support, this approach does not appear to be cost-effective. And we are having to release convicts before their sentences have been completed because so many of the jail cells are occupied by fathers who fall behind on their support.

While on the subject of innovative programs to relieve jail overcrowding, we would like to call our readers' attention to this article.

________________________________________________________

Some of the Council members expressed surprise at the $4.5 million request to fund housing for the overflow from the County’s crowded jail. They were also surprised at the magnitude of the spending – to provide two 64 bed units - and wondered whether it really was necessary. Council member Thurmond had never heard of the need and was alarmed at a cost that seemed to be 50% above estimates.

In summary there seemed to be two issues. The first was whether the temporary housing was really necessary and second, whether it could be achieved at a lesser cost. Council member Thurmond thought that some help from the court benches in terms of sentencing could alleviate the problem of overcrowding. He also suggested that the County end its policy of taking criminals prosecuted in Federal Courts. Council member Condon also thought there were more “soft” options. Council member Thurmond suggested that the contract be again put out to bidding. Only one bidder was in the final line-up when the contract was awarded.

Most of the other Council members aired their views and all were in favor of proceeding though with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But perhaps the strongest comment came from County Administrator Canterbury who exclaimed the urgency of the situation. As Council member McKeown pointed out earlier, the capacity of the jail is about 660 persons but is now housing about 1700. This is severe overcrowding and did not take into account a possible need to house even a higher number in the near future. The Administrator noted that some of the suggestions made by Council members had been made in the past and they were uncertain and temporary solutions. The County was in a liability situation, and it had to move now.

Mr. Canterbury did not note the potential liabilities relating to the overcrowding. We understand that the County is at risk from both State and Federal authorities. The reluctance of the State to prosecute may reflect the fact that if it did, it would have to house many of the inmates now in the County jail and it does not have capacity to do so, The Federal Authorities may be in a similar position. But we understand that if the County runs foul of the Federal Authorities, the initiative to build a new jail with pass to the Federal Government and the County may have little say as to the location and size. It will also be obliged to pick of the cost which is likely to be well above that projected for the new jail now under consideration. So as Mr. Canterbury didn’t say, the liability is very real.

And as far as the cost, Mr.Canterbury said the $4.5 million is above the $3 million previously assumed. The cost was originally estimated to be higher but was revised downward to $3 million, though we did not hear when this revision was made. He noted that the figures were an estimate. Staff said that a number of firms had been invited to bid on the project. But only two made bids. One was disqualified ultimately because it failed to provide certain completed forms. Why there were so few bids is conjectural. Staff opined that there was enough time allowed in the bidding process. To reopen the bidding would add about 2 months to the timetable. And as this time the County could ill afford such an extension.

MUSC TO END USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

The Charleston Post and Courier reports, MUSC to end use of Social Security numbers, "a move school officials say will safeguard students, employees, volunteers and contractors from identity theft." In light of Think Your Social Security Number Is Secure? Think Again, this action is long overdue.

We have been concerned about the issue of use of family court records for identity theft purposes for some time and have written about the issue on more previously. See, this post for example. Therefore, MUSC's decision is, though belated, a welcome decision. Hopefully, the South Carolina Legislature will take steps to prevent unlimited public access to Family Court Records.

LEXINGTON COUNTY TARGETS BATTERERS

The following article appeared in today's edition of The STATE.

_____________________________________________________________

County targets batterers
FIGHTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

By CLIF LeBLANC

Some men just won’t stop beating women, and Lexington County is trying to block the blows in a novel way.

The Sheriff’s Department has a $1 million plan to hire specialized detectives to combat accused batterers who figure no one can stop them from intimidating or sweet-talking their partners to avoid prosecution.

It would be an innovative, expensive plan that no other police agency in South Carolina has, law enforcement agencies and victim rights advocates said.

Prosecutors hope it helps them convict more batterers when victims are reluctant to cooperate, like the Sheriff’s Department said has happened in 80 percent of its cases since mid-2005.

A federal grant the agency wants would provide the means to intercede between partners and stop people like Gary Dean Morton.

Morton has been jailed nine times in the past two years for ignoring court orders to stay away from the mother of his two children and on domestic violence charges, jail and court records show.

The woman keeps taking him back.

The couple’s troubles are typical of the complexity of violent relationships and the challenges of winning convictions when victims have second thoughts.

South Carolina has a persistent problem with domestic violence. The state repeatedly ranks among the nation’s worst in its rate of men killing their partners.

Though several Lexington County victims have been beaten viciously — a judge even had to stop a defendant with pepper spray in court once — none has been killed in recent years, said Nicole Howland, who prosecutes most domestic violence cases in Lexington County.

Many police agencies have domestic violence officers who help make cases after desperate calls for help.

None has officers to enforce “no-contact” orders from judges and keep cases on track until trial, even if the partners reconcile, police and advocacy organizations said.

The S.C. constitution guarantees that crime victims be free “from intimidation and harm.”

“This would be a direct assignment to monitor that particular right,” said Laura Hudson, one of the state’s most veteran victim rights advocates.

BREAKING THE BONDS

Howland pushed for the $831,000, three-year grant because most couples will not stay apart while their cases are pending.

“People kiss and make up,” said USC law professor Kenneth W. Gaines, who teaches litigation. “It’s hard to keep them adversaries.”

One accused batterer in Lexington County made almost 300 phone calls to his partner over six weeks despite no-contact orders, Howland said.

Another victim took a bus to Tennessee to get away, then returned and married her attacker, who requires her to call him “Master Bob,” the prosecutor said.

Often, victims are pressured by practical concerns.

“A lot of women are going to recant because the stakes are high — our marriages, our livelihoods, our children,” Hudson said.

Hudson points to the trials of former Lexington police chief Stace Day as an example of a wife, Laurie Day, who called police in the heat of a fight then reversed her account in court.

She testified she filed the complaint to hurt her husband because she suspected he had resumed an affair.

The result is two hung juries and an upcoming third trial. Stace Day was fined $500 for violating a no-contact order during the couple’s reconciliation.

Hudson said the Day case damages police, prosecutors, judges and other victims.

“They have been used both by the chief and his wife to settle what was a jealousy situation,” Hudson said. “You’ve spent all this money because people have aired all their dirty laundry to get back at each other.

“It’s got to be discouraging to a woman who has a real need.”

SPECIALIZED ENFORCERS

If the county is awarded the grant, new detectives would become buffers for those victims, advocates said.

The officers would use surveillance to gather evidence and testify that no-contact orders are being violated, and they—not the victim—would ask a judge to jail offenders for ignoring a court order.

Contempt of court can land offenders in jail for up to 30 days.

That could break the cycle of repeated contact by couples.

While the violator sits in jail for contempt, victims can find new homes, go to a shelter, change jobs and arrange to protect their children.

The detectives also would serve warrants or deliver subpoenas, compelling reluctant victims to court, Howland said.

More impact would be seen once the cases go to trial, with detectives helping prosecute the cases even if the victims refuse to cooperate.

Testimony from the detectives could offset restrictions the U.S. Supreme Court recently has approved that limits evidence allowed in cases when the victim is not on the stand.

The justices restricted use of 911 tapes and written statements because that denies accused batterers their cross-examination rights.

UNIQUE BUT COSTLY

The Sheriff’s Department is asking for $831,000 in federal grants to hire and equip the two detectives over three years. An additional $277,000 match must come from the sheriff’s budget.

A decision on the grants is likely by late August.

Lexington County has a history of aggressively combating domestic violence.

In 1999, it established the state’s first specialized domestic violence court, again using federal grants.

The money paid for Howland’s position, as well as two detectives who worked domestic violence cases exclusively. The grant also provided a centralized court and judge and the use of counselors to treat batterers.

Unlike other domestic violence prosecutors, Howland is the only one in the state who works for a sheriff, not a solicitor.

Since the grant expired, three detectives help her prepare cases.

Lexington’s efforts show what focused attention can accomplish, advocates said.

A USC study published in 2003 found a 10 percent increase in arrests and a 50 percent reduction in subsequent violations after the court was established.

Howland’s conviction rate since mid-2005 is about 42 percent, an analysis of figures supplied by the Sheriff’s Department shows.

Sistercare operates two shelters for battered women in Lexington County.

“It absolutely will help,” director Nancy Barton said of the new plan for specialized detectives. “It would be a piece in this whole chain of events to keep batterers accountable.”

Reach LeBlanc at (803) 771-8664.

WEB SITES EXPOSE INFORMANTS & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RAISES FLAGS

This article in the New York Times discusses some of the problems that can result from unbridled public access to court records. The Justice Department has suggested some reasonable constraints on public access to court records.

We could not agree more that some reasonable limits on access to personal information are in order.

As we write this, people who want to snag Social Security information can obtain information from a number of databases including the South Carolina Family Courts.

SOME EDITORIAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS BLOG

Please:

THE SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE--E-MAIL ADDRESSES

We do not know whether South Carolina Senators actually read their e-mails. Our personal experience is that most of them do not. However, in the event that any of our readers would like to send an e-mail to a State Senator on such subjects as selection of judges, they can obtain the e-mail addresses at this site.

EVERYONE COMPLAINS BUT FEW SEEM TO DO ANYTHING

In "My Experience with Judge Kaye Hearn" Mr. Earl Capps sets forth the reasons for his opposition to the appointment of South Carolina Appeals Court Justice Kaye Hearn to the South Carolina Supreme Court.

In a nutshell, Mr. Capps' opposition appears to be based on the fact that Judge Hearn did not award child support to him at a Temporary Hearing some ten years ago. Mr. Capps did not provide enough detail to allow anyone to determine whether the ruling was supported by the facts, though he does indicate that the Trial Judge at the Final Hearing also failed to award child support.

We certainly sympathize with Mr. Capps and have repeatedly advocated Family Court reforms aimed at increasing both the number of custodial parents awarded child support and increasing the collection rates of child support. However, we note that when Senator Glenn McConnell held hearings last year on the subject of Family Court Reform, only a handful of people showed up. Moreover, a few years ago when Larry "Choppy" Patterson sought to be elevated from Family Court to Circuit Court, only a handful of lawyers testified against him.

This situation is not unlike the recent Summerville town elections where less than 10% of the voters participated.

Our point is this--if people want to accomplish change, then they have to participate in the process and they have to advocate change early enough in the process that their voices can be heard. Most important, they have to seek change in the appropriate forum.

The following e-mail was received by one of our readers from the National Center For Men. The reader then forwarded it to us.
_________________________________________________________________________

Dear friend of The National Center For Men,

I am writing to you about our reproductive rights lawsuit, known as "Roe vs. Wade for Men." We need your help if we are to continue with this case.

As you may know, a federal district court judge in Michigan dismissed the suit last year. The judge ruled that the case was "frivolous," dismissed it summarily and ordered the plaintiff, Matt Dubay, to pay the legal bills of the defendants, including the state of Michigan.

In our view, the judge's written opinion was inappropriately sarcastic and his imposition of sanctions against Dubay was intended to dissuade other men from bringing similar cases. The judge wrote that the message of the sanctions would be "ignored by a putative plaintiff at his peril." I personally interpret this remark as a threat designed to suppress the movement for men's reproductive rights. It has already had a chilling effect on other male plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2007, Matt Dubay filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals. Final briefs were submitted last week and oral arguments should be scheduled for this Fall. Going forward with this case will now subject Matt to further sanctions which could ruin his financial life. But Matt has said that this case and the cause it represents are more important to him than his economic welfare and he is willing to stand up to the judge's attempt at intimidation. He knows how imperative it is to challenge this obnoxious ruling and to keep the issue in the public eye. He plans to ask federal judges in the sixth circuit to order a hearing on the important factual and legal issues raised by this case. He wants his day in court. He knows he can still win.

I think Matt Dubay has shown remarkable courage. He was the face of our campaign for equal choice and he has been attacked by a powerful system. Those of us who have supported him with our encouraging words and good wishes have now been challenged to come to his defense. We must not let him fall. A new judge now presides over the federal district where Matt lives. The Court of Appeals might very well respond positively to Matt's compelling legal arguments and send his case back for a hearing on the merits. If the case is remanded for a hearing, Matt can, indeed, still win.

This is the reality we face: Our cause will not succeed simply because we have good intentions or because we are fighting for what is fair and just. Idealism is wonderful but activism must be sustained in a harsh and gritty political world where things have to be paid for. Lawyers have to be paid. Court costs have to be paid. The sanctions will have to be paid. None of this will happen if everyone expects someone else to do it.

We need your help. I know that many of our supporters have their own financial problems but we really do need your help in order to proceed with this case. The National Center For Men receives no government or corporate grants. We survive on small contributions made generously to us by individuals who believe in our work. But if we can't raise significant money now, this appeal will be withdrawn. We will not permit Matt to stand alone, facing financial ruin. "Roe vs. Wade for Men" will come to a sad and premature end.

There are two ways for you to help this case to continue:

1.) A Legal Defense Fund has been established for Matt Dubay. Money donated into this fund will be used to pay Matt's legal fees, sanctions and court costs. The defendants have already motioned for costs associated with this appeal. These costs could be substantial but any money remaining in the fund after Matt's legal bills are paid will be earmarked for further men's rights litigation. Donations made into this fund are not tax-deductible. Please make your checks payable to "Dubay Legal Defense Fund" and mail to:

Dubay Legal Defense Fund
c/o Citizens Bank
4700 Bay Road
Saginaw, MI 48604
attention: Louise Duran

2.) The National Center For Men will gear up its publicity machine to spread the word of the appeal. We did fairly well when the case was first filed, but our operation was limited by limited resources. We can do better. If you want to help us educate the public about the legal appeal of "Roe vs. Wade for Men," you can donate directly to us. These donations are tax-deductible. They will strengthen our organization and fortify the movement for men's equal rights.

Please donate through our website, www.nationalcenterformen.org, or by check to:

The National Center For Men
Post Office Box 555
Old Bethpage, NY 11804

If you donate to Matt's Legal Defense Fund and/or directly to NCM, you may send an e-mail to donation@nationalcenterformen.org requesting e-mail updates on the appeal. We will keep your information confidential and send you updates, as warranted.

We will continue to express our gratitude to our contributors with the gifts we offer through our website, including the "Reproductive Rights Affidavit," an NCM T-Shirt and a DVD of vintage NCM clips. We have added to our gift list a DVD of our work on behalf of men's reproductive rights which includes new (Matt Dubay's case) and old clips. We will mail out the DVD in about one month to those who request it and make a tax-deductible donation to NCM of $100 or more.

I thank you for your commitment to our cause and your generosity. Please know that, without your help in the past, we would not have gotten this far. Your helping us now will assure that our important work continues.

Sincerely and gratefully yours,

Mel Feit, director
The National Center For Men
mel@nationalcenterformen.org

SUPREME COURT RULING A VICTORY FOR PARENTS

We previously reported on JUSTICES HEAR ARGUMENTS ON AUTISM-CASE DISPUTE. The Supreme Court has now rendered its decision and has decided that "Parents need not hire a lawyer to sue public school districts over their children's special education needs."

LOUISIANA JUDGE RULES WAGE LAWS COVER FOREIGN WORKERS

The irony of this ruling is that all those employers who have been taking advantage of illegal immigrants and engaging in unfair trade practices against their competitors may end up getting fined and having to pay a fair wage to boot. This may even take the profit out of cheating.

PARIS HILTON ASSIGNED TO "SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING UNIT"

We only recently heard of the concept and availability of "special needs housing units." And we have gone on record regarding the idea of incarcerating anybody for petty offenses. But the special treatment given to Ms. Hilton is causing us to rethink our position.

Imagine this: Ms. Hilton's "sentence was shortened after jail officials gave her credit for good behavior...Officials considered several factors in calculating the credit, including that she appeared for her latest court date". In the meantime, in South Carolina we are incarcerating indigents for up to two years without providing legal representation. In other instances we are incarcerating people for contempt, who were mistakenly found to be in contempt.

This does not strike us as "justice"

SOME GOOD INTERNET RESOURCES

For access to the "South Carolina Family Law Blog", click here.

For access to a list of publications about Child Custody, click here.

For access to the South Carolina Appellate Cases back to 2000, click here.

U.S. & GREAT BRITAIN RANKED LAST IN CHILD WELFARE

A U.N. study of wealthy nations ranked the United States and Britain at the bottom of the twenty-one countries surveyed. The survey, which assessed everything from infant mortality to whether children ate dinner with their parents or were bullied at school, cited "economic inequality and poor levels of public support for families" as two of the primary causes of the poor ranking.

POST AND COURIER CHANGES FORMAT

Because the Charleston Post and Courier has changed its articles archives format, some links posted on this site are no longer available. Therefore, readers who experience difficulty in accessing linked article should write us at parentsrights8@hotmail.com and request copies of the desired articles. We will attempt to accommodate as many people as we can.

"PARTNERSHIP WELDS WIN-WIN CHANCE"

We find it unbelievable that Carl Williams ended up owing $17,000 after his divorce in 2004 because his divorce attorney "failed to mention" that he was obligated to pay child support. Still, we think that the program mentioned in this article is exactly the kind of program we should be supporting.

Let's clear the jails of non-criminals, unite families, put "dead-beats" to work, and save some money.

THOUGHTS ON LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS OF THE JUDICIARY

A friend of ours thinks that, by definition, all members of both the Judiciary and the Legislature are corrupt. This is why he opposes the election of members of the Judiciary by members of the Legislature;* he cites this "article" in support of his position.

Comments posted on this BLOG, articles posted on this site, and this article seem to make our friend's point. However, we think our friend should consider both the alternatives to legislative elections and alternative views.

First, this Greenville News article challenges some of the factual conclusions advanced in the "Beattygate" article. In "Beattygate," Summerville resident Joseph Kress is quoted as asking, "I just wonder why [State Senator Annette Young] would agree to a deal that now has her supporting [Beatty] the least qualified candidate.” Yet, The Greenville News indicated that the "Judicial Merit Selection Committee gave Beatty the highest number of votes, followed by Appeals Court Judge Kaye Hearn of Conway and Williams." This would seem to make Beatty the most qualified to serve on the South Carolina Supreme Court rather than the least qualified, and thus, deserving of Ms. Young's support.

Second, we note that in a recent pivotal town election in the Town of Summerville, less than 10% of the electorate turned out.

And third, we note that it is "the people" who elect members of the Legislature.

In short, if "the people" are going to continue to fail to exercise their right to vote and are going to base their votes on misinformation, why shouldn't we let the Legislature select Judges? After all, we elected the members of the Legislature, so we must think that they have some sense--or at least that they will vote. More important, they can be held accountable for their votes, whereas voters in the general population can lawfully and secretly base their votes on whatever criteria they choose, including misinformation, prejudice, and nepotism.

*Only the Virginia and South Carolina Legislatures elect the Judiciary. However, Virginia seems to have a little better system of ensuring judicial competence.

RACY BILLBOARD REMOVED IN CHICAGO

The Associated Press has reported that a racy billboard depicting a partially clothed man and woman and proclaiming “Life’s short. Get a divorce.” was removed after a week.

To read the article and to view a photograph of the billboard, click here.

Readers will note that the billboard was neither removed voluntarily nor as result of pressure from the Bar. Rather, it was removed at the directive of a local alderman because no permit had been obtained for its installation.

We can only hope that the attorneys who placed this ad do a better job for their clients than whoever was responsible for obtaining the permit did for them.

""LIFE'S SHORT. GET A DIVORCE." SAYS CHICAGO BILLBOARD

We are strong advocates of the First Amendment. But, this kind of thing brings discredit to the entire legal profession. Maybe a little self-policing is in order. The question is whether the folks who take this approach to the practice of law are serious professionals who deserve respect and enormous compensation or whether they should be treated like street clowns.

JUDGE SUES CLEANERS FOR $65 MILLION OVER LOST PANTS

The Associated Press reports that District of Columbia administrative hearings judge Roy Pearson has sued a cleaners for $65 Million for a lost pair of pants.

We are not so much surprised by the fact that the judge, who is representing himself, has rejected the $12,000 offer of settlement. Rather we are surprised that this guy has not been disbarred.

This case is yet another illustration of how little oversight is exercised over sitting judges. This problem is particularly acute in Family Court, where the judges make decisions without the assistance of a jury and where the attorneys must often temper their challenges to in-court rullings because the judges determine both who will pay their fees and the reasonableness of their fees.

FIGHTING ON TWO FRONTS: DEPLOYED TROOPS BATTLE FOR CUSTODY

This AP article was published in a number of publications. Among other things it mentions laws enacted in California, Michigan, and Kentucky that preclude a parent's absence due to military activation from being used as a basis for permanent changes in custody or visitation. These states also require that Custody Decrees changed on a temporary basis because of deployment revert back to the original Decrees once deployment ends.

We can understand why State Legislators may feel compelled to enact this type of legislation. However, we believe that this type of legislation ignores both the best interests of the children and the rights of the "non-custodial" parents as well. Regardless of why the military parent is absent, the fact remains that that parent both chose to enter the military and that the parent's absence has a negative impact on both the children and his or her ability to care for the children. Additionally, the continued threat of deployment causes uncertainty.

This type of legislation also raises equal protection concerns. For years, men went to war without either the benefit of, or a perceived need for, this type of legislation. Therefore, only the fact that women are not being deployed to Iraq has created a demand for change.

This article discusses a case in which the Court approved attorney's fees charged by the the attorneys for the prevailing party. Although it is not a domestic case, this case does illustrate both the need for placing caps both on what may be charged to the litigants and the imprecision of the word "reasonable."

Just because a judge says a fee is reasonable, does not make it so. Ands just because a judge says that a fee is unreasonable does not make it so.

UPDATE ON CELEBRITY FEUD--BALDWIN V. BASINGER

The New York Times has reported that a judge has ordered Quiet for Baldwin--Basinger Feud.

Whatever else that was decided has not been reported. However, another hearing is set for June 5.

Fitzgerald was right--"[the very rich] are different from you and me." They get hearings much faster than the rest of us.

SOLVING JAIL OVERCROWDING AND BUDGET PROBLEMS

An article in yesterday's issue of the Post and Courier discusses Charleston County's solution for the burgeoning inmate population. In a nutshell, the Charleston County Council plans to spend hundreds of million of dollars to expand the facilities.

In a similar vein, an article in the April 29, 2007 edition of the New York Times discusses some California programs that allow "offenders whose crimes are usually relatively minor...and whose bank accounts remain lofty...pay-to-stay upgrades" where they are isolated from the general inmate population and allowed more privileges. They are provided with "a clean, quiet, if not exactly recherché alternative to the standard county jails, where the walls are bars, the fellow inmates are hardened and privileges are few."

Although critics of these pay-to-upgrade prison facilities claim that they are inherently unfair, the cities that utilize them counter by saying that "the paying inmates generate cash, often hundreds of thousands of dollars a year-enabling them to better afford their other taxpayer-financed operations."

In our opinion, the solution to California's problem is identical to the solution to Charleston County's problem. They should quit building so many jails which have to be stocked with groceries and for which guards have to be hired and and so on and so on. Instead, they should spend some of their time, money, and creative energy teaching young men how to avoid unwanted pregnancies and how to provide for their offspring. We should fine and/or assign public service to people who commit silly/petty offenses rather than incarcerating them. We should reserve our jail cells for the really bad people who need to be segregated from the rest of us and punished. Otherwise, we will eventually run out of money for other things.

Click here for an update on the status of the South Carolina "Virtual Visitation Bill." Click this link for an article that discusses some of the pros and cons of this type of legislation. And for information about virtual visitation legislation throughout the country, log on to Virtual Visitation.

In her piece, "A bean museum or a tax cut? If only it were that simple," Cindi Ross Scoppe discusses the false choice between tax cuts and wasteful government spending. She writes, "The problem is that legislators spend too much money on wants while ignoring our state’s very real, very unmet needs."

We agree that the "choice" between the Bean Museum and tax cuts is a false choice and that the real choice is to determine how best to allocate limited resources. Along these lines, we have suggested one such choice that should be made and have explained our reasoning for making that choice at FUNDS FOR GOOD PROGRAM DENIED--FUNDS FOR BAD PROGRAM APPROVED.

EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT

Under federal law, employer responsibilities regarding child support fall into four areas: