Friday, March 04, 2011
SOME DEVELOPMENTS ON SHARED/EQUAL PARENTING
The South Dakota House passed a Shared Parenting bill. House Bill 1255 passed the floor by a vote of 53-16. The bill then went to the Senate for a hearing on March 2. We will update readers on the progress of this bill as information becomes available to us.
Maryland House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB1132, another shared parenting bill. Ten of the twenty-two members of the committee were bill cosponsors. Testimony lasted for three hours and can be accessed here.
Labels: Custody, Family Court Reform
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Those who want the background story may wish to review both the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Form and The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). However, the long and the short of this issue is that the PRWORA mandates that all states which receive certain federal funds both set up a New Hire Reporting Registry and require that all employers—with limited exceptions--report new hires to the state Child Support Enforcement agency. South Carolina has created and posted the requisite forms on the Internet, but remains the only state that does not require mandatory reporting by employers.
So why would the South Carolina Senate refuse to make New Hire Reporting mandatory and thereby risk losing $80,000,000 per year in federal funding? Simple--the South Carolina business community considers mandatory reporting of new hires "anti-business" and "a burden on employers." And why would that be, one may ask? The answer is that the New Hire Reporting Form not only has to be filed in a timely manner, but that it contains the SSN (or Green Card #), D. O. B., and address of new hires and that the information on the submitted form is to be checked against a National Database. The South Homebuilders Association and the Chamber of Commerce--among others--oppose this legislation because, once it is enacted, businesses will not be able to hire undocumented immigrants below minimum wage, house eighteen undocumented Mexican workers in one apartment, avoid with-holding F. I. C. A., or avoid obtaining Worker's Comp Insurance. Moreover, once the New Hire Reporting Law goes into effect, businesses that fail to comply with the reporting requirements can be both audited and fined.
The bottom line is that if the South Carolina Senate would push forward on this legislation finding 70,000 “Deadbeats” would become much easier.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Dodging Child Support, Family Court Reform, Federal Fines, Problems at DSS
Monday, July 26, 2010
BONNEAU POLICE CHIEF IS DETAINED, BUT NEITHER JAILED NOR BOOKED
The Post and Courier reported in "Bonneau chief is detained over cash:"
Franco F. Fuda, chief of the small Berkeley County town's three-person police department, was never actually arrested or taken to jail, said Dan Moon, public information officer for the Berkeley County Sheriff's Office.Officers detained the Bonneau police chief Wednesday at Berkeley County Family Court until he paid money that he owed.
Moon said he knew few details about the case, but he said either Berkeley County sheriff's deputies or Bonneau police officers detained Fuda and held him at Family Court until about 3:30 p.m. "He was never technically in our jail at all; he came up with the money he needed," Moon said.
The Berkeley County Detention Center has no record of Fuda being held there, and Berkeley County Family Court was unable to deny or confirm over the phone Fuda's having been in court.
Moon said he did not know what specific type or amounts of payments were due.
The action of the Berkeley County Family Court is unprecedented. Normally, a person who is held in Contempt is booked immediately after being found in Civil Contempt. We are not arguing that that is the appropriate way to handle these cases. However, it is the standard way for the Court to handle civil contempt cases. Ask Greg Forman if you doubt us.
Those wishing to learn more about the issue of Civil Contempt in Family Court may want to read "DAVID BARDES DESCRIBES SC'S 'INHUMANE TREATMENT OF INDIGENT FATHERS THAT HAVE NO MONEY TO PAY CHILD SUPPOR'T" and "Supreme Court rejects claim that indigent is entitled to court appointed attorney to defend civil contempt." "'DEADBEAT' DAD NO MORE" may also be of interest.
Labels: Civil Contempt, Family Court Reform
Saturday, January 30, 2010
TIME TO TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES
We posted "TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES" on June 2, 2009. Given South Carolina's increasing unemployment rates and declining ability to provide social services for its most vulnerable citizens, we renew the call.
We posted "TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES" on June 2, 2009. Given South Carolina's increasing unemployment rates and declining ability to provide social services for its most vulnerable citizens, we renew the call.
Labels: Family Court Reform, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Sunday, January 03, 2010
IT IS TIME TO CREATE A FAMILY COURT VICTIM'S COMPENSATION FUND
One of the things that interests us about the article "Back From Brazil, Seeking an Ordinary Life for a Son" is that Representative Christoper H. Smith of New Jersey, who helped Mr. Goldman get his son back, has introduced legislation to place a time limit on such court battles and to help with legal costs. We believe that legislation should also be enacted to compensate the victims of Family Court such as fathers who were wrongly incarcerated for Contempt, mothers who had their children removed from their homes after false allegations of child abuse were made, and folks who spent time in jail as a result of either accounting errors or clerical errors of the Court Administration.
One of the things that interests us about the article "Back From Brazil, Seeking an Ordinary Life for a Son" is that Representative Christoper H. Smith of New Jersey, who helped Mr. Goldman get his son back, has introduced legislation to place a time limit on such court battles and to help with legal costs. We believe that legislation should also be enacted to compensate the victims of Family Court such as fathers who were wrongly incarcerated for Contempt, mothers who had their children removed from their homes after false allegations of child abuse were made, and folks who spent time in jail as a result of either accounting errors or clerical errors of the Court Administration.
Labels: Family Court Reform
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
AN UPDATE FROM FITSNEWS ON THE SEGARS-ANDREWS MATTER
Click here to review the latest from FITNEWS on the Segars-Andrews matter.
The comments--from those both pro and con to Judge Segars-Andrews--are so nasty, one has to wonder both whether anyone is innocent in this whole affair and what the latest revelations will bring. Certainly, this case provides some insight into the level of dysfunction in the South Carolina Family Court System. And it helps explain why South Carolina cannot manage to solve its problem of non-support.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Family Court Reform, Institutional Mismanagement
Saturday, December 19, 2009
SOUTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL MERIT SELECTION COMMISSION REPORT ON THE HONORABLE F. P. "CHARLIE" SEGARS-ANDREWS
Click here to access the Final South Carolina Judicial Merit Selection Report on Judge Segars-Andrews. We have read it in its entirety and still do not understand the basis of the Commission's ruling. It is obvious that Judge Segars-Andrews exhibited both (much regretted) poor judgment and an unnecessary disdain for Steven S. McKenzie, Esquire. However, the manner in which Judge Segars-Andrews conducted herself in the one case that the Commission cited in its ruling does not appear to be so egregious as to disqualify her from serving as a judge for all time and to effectively destroy her reputation. In our opinion, in reaching the conclusion that it reached based on the evidence before it, the Commission abrogated its responsibilities both to the general public and Judge Segars-Andrews and made a mockery of a system that is supposed to be designed to operate in an objective and impartial manner.
The long and the short of this case is that the publicly accessible evidence does not demonstrate that Judge Segars-Andrews is unqualified to serve as a Family-Court Judge, but only serves to demonstrate that she is human and, therefore, capable of exhibiting both lapses in judgment and errors in reasoning.
Labels: Election of Judges, Family Court Reform, Judicial Reform
Monday, December 14, 2009
"ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT?" ASKS THE POST AND COURIER
The Editorial "One strike and you're out?" appeared in the Sunday, December 13, 2009 edition of The Post and Courier. We take no position on accuracy of some of the facts presented. However, because we beleive this Editorial make some points worthy of discussion and consideration, we have posted it in its entirity:
The unfortunate decision to disqualify Family Court Judge Charlie Segars-Andrews from re-appointment bodes ill for the state's judicial screening system. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission, in this matter, failed the tests of openness, clarity and fairness.
The commission based its assessment of the judge on one 2006 divorce case that drew a complaint from one of the litigants. A single case isn't sufficient unless the judge's behavior or judgment was egregious, and in this case it seems the judge's behavior and her rulings were appropriate. That's what both the Court of Appeals and the state's Judicial Conduct Commission found and what the commission was advised of.
The crux of the issue is that Judge Segars-Andrews did not recuse herself after she learned late in court proceedings that a lawyer in the case she was hearing had shared in a $300,000 award with a law partner of Judge Segars-Andrews' husband.
Ms. Segars-Andrews was advised by a legal ethics expert that she was obligated to continue on the case, and she did.
Yet the Judicial Merit Selection Commission disqualified her solely on the basis of that same case. Unfortunately, they deliberated behind closed doors, so the full extent of their reasoning is unclear. But it appears that one strike, and a judge with 16 years of service -- a judge who went well beyond her duties and established a successful juvenile "drug court" -- is out.
To further confound the public, the commission has refused to divulge e-mails and other communications related to Judge Segars-Andrews.
The state's judges should be held to highest ethical and behavioral standards. A judge who abuses his or her power should be removed from the bench as should a judge whose rulings are regularly flawed. Litigants deserve assurance that their cases will be handled wisely and fairly.The intent of the state's judicial selection system is commendable: to put the best people on the bench by screening them based on their merit instead of appointing them based solely on political connections.Appropriately, the process uses objective tools (like SLED checks, financial reports, newspaper articles and a general review of a judge's performance on the bench) and subjective evidence from litigants with reasonable complaints.
But the process should in no way allow a litigant, or the commission, to drum out a judge because of a distasteful ruling. Judicial rulings almost always leave someone dissatisfied. The Judicial Merit Selection Commission should not allow itself to be a place for unhappy people to vent their displeasure with a judge because of a ruling.
The S.C. chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers is among those who have expressed serious concern about the commission's decision regarding Ms. Segars-Andrews and its lack of transparency in reaching that decision. Indeed, when public officials do the public's business in secret, the public becomes justifiably distrustful of the process.
The Judicial Merit Selection Commission, and all other officials who are part of the judicial selection process, should strive to be open, fair, wise and impartial, and they should provide South Carolina with judges who are the same.
The commission's decision to disqualify Judge Segars-Andrews doesn't measure up to those standards.
Labels: Family Court Reform
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
FITSNEWS ON THE SEGARS-ANDREWS CONTROVERSY
Good judge who offended powerful people or corrupt judge who is getting what she deserves? Maybe the public will never know the whole truth. But, one thing is certain--the whole judge-selection process is a shambles and needs to be rethought.
Labels: Family Court Reform, Judicial Reform
Saturday, December 05, 2009
THE CONTINUING SAGA OF JUDGE SEGARS-ANDREWS
There are no on-line posts to this article. However, on-line posts to the previous articles in this series clearly reveal that there is serious sentiment for Family Court Reform. We do not have enough information about particular anonymous complaints lodged against Judge Segars-Andrews to comment about their validity. We were, however, struck by the revelation by State Senator McConnell that the wife's attorney submitted fees of $166,000 while the husband's fees were only $8,000. The fact that Judge Segars-Andrews made the husband pay his wife's attorney eleven times what he paid his own attorney certainly raises questions about her impartiality. Therefore, the judge's travails may just be beginning.
Labels: Election of Judges, Family Court Reform
Thursday, December 03, 2009
DID SOUTH CAROLINA JUDGE GET TREATED FAIRLY?
The Post and Courier has reported that Judge Segars-Andrews' "rating remains the same" and that she will not be eligible for re-election to the bench. This seems like a high price to pay for exercising a discretionary decision that, in hindsight, may have been a bad decision. After all, the lawyer who failed to report the conflict to Judge Segars-Andrews at the outset of the proceedings has apparently escaped unscathed.
Labels: Family Court Reform, Judicial Reform
Sunday, November 22, 2009
JUDGE'S RULING UNDER SCRUTINY
The Charleston Post and Courier has reported that long-time Family Court Judge Charlie Segars-Andrews is in jeopardy of losing her judgeship. Assuming that she is as horrible a judge as is alleged, one has to wonder how she has managed to remain on the bench for sixteen years.
Labels: Family Court Reform
Saturday, October 10, 2009
THREE MORE REASONS FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL RECORDS
Back on June 2, 2009, we called for closer transparency of the financial records of Family Courts and Sheriffs. And that was before we learned Former Clerk of Court Elizabeth Smith arrested, incarcerated at Beaufort County Detention Center, released on bond, Ex-Greenville County court clerk faces embezzlement charge and, County official in SC resigns amid audit.
Hopefully, audits will establish that these three individuals are guilty of nothing more than carelessness and any missing funds can be recovered. But, regardless of the outcome of these cases, they serve as a reminder that greater transparency of the financial records of Court Clerks and other agencies that process fines and taxes is warranted.
Labels: Family Court Reform
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
TELL PUBLIC HOW MONEY IS SPENT IN FAMILY COURTS AND SHERIFFS' OFFICES
An editorial in The Post and Courier exhorts government entities to Tell public how money is spent. We think this is a good idea. We would especially like to know how much money the Family Courts and Sheriffs' Offices are generating through fines, fees, interest, penalties, and court costs and how these funds are being spent. Keep in mind that it was recently discovered that a jail captain in Dorchester County South Carolina managed to embezzle at least $300,000 without anyone noticing. The fact that so much money could have been taken without detection alone suggests that the amounts of off-the-book receivables must be staggering.
Labels: Family Court Reform, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Monday, May 04, 2009
WHY NOT A FUGITIVE SAFE SURRENDER PROGRAM FOR "DEADBEATS?"
The Federal Marshall's Safe Surrender Program is touted as a "unique, creative, and highly successful, initiative that encourages persons wanted for non-violent felony or misdemeanor crimes to voluntarily surrender to the law in a faith-based or other neutral setting...[which] offers individuals with felony and misdemeanor warrants the ability to turn themselves in to law enforcement and have their cases adjudicated in a safe and non-violent environment."
Last week, this program "resulted in more than 400 people turning themselves in at a Wilmington (Delaware) church in the first two days of the four-day effort to get wanted fugitives off the streets." And last July, this program was implemented in South Carolina.
This program appears to be very effective. Therefore, we would like to see similar programs implemented for "Deadbeat" parents so that they too can come out of hiding, "turn themselves in to law enforcement and have their cases adjudicated in a safe and non-violent environment." 70,000 parents in hiding and ever-increasing child support arrearages in South Carolina is testament to the fact that the system is "broken into pieces" and that new approaches have to be considered.
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Child Support Collection, Family Court Reform, Wasting Court Time
Sunday, April 19, 2009
IS JAILING "DEADBEAT DADS" DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD?
In the article "Question: Is Court-Ordered Child Support Doing More Harm Than Good?"* authors Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. and Geraldine Jensen present two compelling and opposing arguments. However, we submit that the wrong question is being asked. The better question which was posed by Tony Fantetti is "Should 'deadbeat dads' face jail time?" As Mr. Fantetti points out, many fathers cannot meet their financial obligations. And he then goes on to suggest:
Of course, we--as a society--would never even consider incarcerating a mother merely for being financially irresponsible, particularly without hard empirical evidence that spending some time "in the barb-wired hotel all dressed up and nowhere to go" would somehow teach those mothers how to be responsible. Otherwise, Octoplet Mom would be spending time in Los Angeles County Jail rather than spending time with Dr. Phil. So why are we so eager to take this approach with fathers? Should we not at least answer the question of whether jailing "Deadbeat Dads" is doing more harm than good. Should we not consider not just whether THE RECESSION is contributing to homelessness, but whether it is impacting on the ability of fathers to continue to pay child support at the Court-ordered levels as well.Those demanding the incarceration of fathers in arrears on child support should themselves be jailed for their own overdue payments to their creditors. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Discriminately incarcerating one class of people (fathers) for overdue financial obligations in a society, and not incarcerating others who are guilty of the same, amounts to a state-sanctioned discriminatory inquisition.Perhaps all single mothers with delinquent and outstanding medical bills for treatment of their children should be summarily jailed? If a father becomes involuntarily unemployed following massive layoffs, and is without income and therefore "refuses" (or so he's accused) to pay his child support should be jailed for being a "deadbeat," then it logically follows that a mother who "refuses" to seek medical treatment for a sick child simply because she is without the means to pay is also without a valid excuse and should be locked up as well.
Labels: A. C. L. U., Child Support Collection, Civil Contempt, Family Court Reform, Inmate Labor, Silly Laws, Sixth Amendment, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Monday, April 13, 2009
IT IS NOW TIME TO CONSIDER THE IDEA OF PRISON REFORM
The following letter was published in The Post and Courier in response to this Editorial:
The prisons are the last step in a very broken system. There are too many things you can go to prison for, there are far too few options for judges to use outside of incarceration, and there is too little recognition of the damage our criminal justice system does to offenders who pose little danger to others.
Though Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's comparison between Japan, a homogeneous, fairly static society with very little immigration, and the United States, a heterogeneous, mobile country with a large number of immigrants, breaks down, he is correct that putting people into prison for anything that does not threaten another's safety is damaging to both the public who pays and the offender who is forever changed by the experience.
Prostitution, gambling, drugs, writing bad checks and shoplifting are just a few of the crimes that society should not endorse, but prison is not the correct response.
However, what actual sanctions will our society accept?
In the end, to fix the corrections system, we must start with the lawmakers who feel prisons are the only way to be tough on crime.
Then the courts need more options for sentencing and a changed outlook on the law being only a revenue source for lawyers. Saying prisons are broken because of the high numbers in them is the same as saying graveyards are broken because of being full of dead people.
Stan Burtt
S. Laurel Street
Summerville
We do not wholly embrace Mr. Burtt's belief that "the law [is designed] only [to provide] a revenue source for lawyers." Still, we think the ideas expressed by The Post and Courier, Mr. Burtt, and Senator Webb all have some merit. We believe however, that the suggested "dispassionate analysis of what the public is getting for [its] money, and how outcomes could be improved by making changes in the way it is spent" should extend to the areas of Civil Contempt and incarceration for what in many cases amounts to imprisonment for debt.
Labels: Civil Contempt, Family Court Reform
Monday, March 30, 2009
WHY SHOULD LARRY MCKEOWN NOT BE STANDING IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE?
We admit that being a Program Manager of a state agency is a difficult job with huge responsibilities. Still, in our opinion, someone needs to seriously consider whether Larry McKeown should be standing in the unemployment line.
Look, the guy gets paid $99,971 per year to run the South Carolina Child Support Enforcement Division. And it is a mess. For example:
- South Carolina has one of the lowest child support collection rates in the country;
- South Carolina is the ONLY State in the country that lacks a computerized child support tracking and distribution system and has been fined over $60 Million by the the United States for this failure;
- The CSED website is out of date and contains at least some misstatements of the Law;
- The CSED is unable to locate the child support collection agencies for the States of Alabama, Maryland and Pennsylvania; and,
- The total child support arrearage in South Carolina has increased from $700 Million in 2005 to $1.2 Billion at present.
If the buck does not stop with Mr. McKeown, where does it stop?
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Family Court Reform, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement
Friday, December 26, 2008
NEEDED GOVERNMENT REFORM--INCREASING CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
According to the article California fined $1.2 billion for network fiasco, only South Carolina and California have been fined for failure to implement a computerized child support tracking and collection system. And although we must confess that we are not sure of the status of South Carolina's attempt to implement a computerized child support tracking and collection system, if it has not already been addressed, we believe that this matter should take top priority. Note these statistics. And for more up-to-date and complete information on the subject of national child support arrearages and collection rates, click here.
When compared to California’s fine, South Carolina’s reported fine of $49 Million (or whatever) may seem insignificant. Still, one has to wonder why the South Carolina Legislature has taken another $1.2 Million from DSS and "awarded" it to Heritage Community Services and the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. The Department of Social Services needs all the money it can get to do its job, avoid federal fines, and secure federal matching funds for various programs. Moreover, instead of shuffling DSS Chiefs who fail to make any progress in reducing the $1.2 Billion arrearage to other high-paying State jobs, the Legislature should give them their permanent walking papers.
When compared to California’s fine, South Carolina’s reported fine of $49 Million (or whatever) may seem insignificant. Still, one has to wonder why the South Carolina Legislature has taken another $1.2 Million from DSS and "awarded" it to Heritage Community Services and the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. The Department of Social Services needs all the money it can get to do its job, avoid federal fines, and secure federal matching funds for various programs. Moreover, instead of shuffling DSS Chiefs who fail to make any progress in reducing the $1.2 Billion arrearage to other high-paying State jobs, the Legislature should give them their permanent walking papers.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Family Court Reform, Government Reform
Monday, December 24, 2007
EARL CAPPS IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!
In Going to Jail for Thirty-Six Bucks Blogger Earl Capps makes it very clear that he is not happy with the Family Court Child Support Collection system in Dorchester County South Carolina.
We sympathize with Mr. Capps and agree that we are in serious need of Family Court Reform.* However, we do not think that Clerk of Court Cheryl Graham is the culprit in this case; she has very little power in the area of Child Support Enforcement. Basically speaking, these Enforcement Orders are spit out by a computer often after the Obligee calls to complain. Remember, only about half the non-custodial parents are paying any child support and only about half of those who are paying are paying the full amount ordered. Therefore, for everyone complaining about the Family Court being overly aggressive in its enforcement duties, there are three or four people complaining about it being too lax.
*See, for example, our posts at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/07/south-carolina-child-non-support.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2006/12/south-carolina-dss-chief-resigns-from.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2005/05/some-suggestions-for-reform-we-have_09.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/04/aclu-of-sc-urges-sc-supreme-court-to.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/06/s_06.html, and http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/03/child-support-and-debtors-prison-from.html.
*See, for example, our posts at http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/07/south-carolina-child-non-support.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2006/12/south-carolina-dss-chief-resigns-from.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2005/05/some-suggestions-for-reform-we-have_09.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/04/aclu-of-sc-urges-sc-supreme-court-to.html, http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/06/s_06.html, and http://parentsrights.blogspot.com/2007/03/child-support-and-debtors-prison-from.html.
Labels: Child Support, Family Court Reform
