Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Global Pooling Child Support (GPCS)


Global Pooling Child Support (GPCS) verses Conventional Child Support
Aubree Jo
Back in February I read a news paper article about a girl (Aubree Jo) who was killed last year in an auto accident  caused by her custodial parent mother who happened to be on drugs during the accident. The grandparents feel that the death of their granddaughter would have been prevented had she been awarded to her father who is not on drugs. In attempt to mend a flawed system they began and succeeded in passing the Aubree Jo’s law in the State of Utah on February 14th 2012, which states:

"In determining any form of custody, the court may not discriminate against a parent due to gender, race, religious preference, or age, but shall consider the best interests of the child."

 In order to move forward effectively changes need to be made in area of reducing courtroom and financial bias. Unfortunately I am not the least bit surprised that a drug addicted mother fought for the custody of her daughter and won in the State of Utah. I am also sure that the motivation to receive additional drug money contributed at least in part to her desire to receive custody. I am glad that the Aubree Jo’s Law went into effect. However it is sad that it took such a tragic situation before efforts began to move forward to reduce court room bias.

“The bill, the Andersons (Grandparents of the deceased girl) feel, is the first step toward putting the best interest of the child first, rather than the best interest of the parents, which they feel is currently the case.”

The Utah courts have claimed and will continue to claim that the interest of the children has been and will continue to be the sole priority of the court. Passing a bill that states that putting the children’s interest first will appease some but solve nothing

I am glad the Aubree Jo Law passed, but will it do anything? Will it open the doors for other parents to get their children back from drug abusing ex-spouses? Does it alter the process at all let alone enough to ensure greater courtroom balance? In my personal opinion the greatest step it can possibly have is to act as a catalyst for changes that will make a difference.



Custody Evaluation
All people are subject to bias, including judges, who like the rest of us make mistakes. How do you get around this? During the process of a custody battle, the judge will request a professional opinion from a custody evaluator (someone who has been educated in social science).  Psychology 101 and 102 both repeatedly refer to the process of good science and how it forms the foundation to psychology. I am not going to quote full chapters of old text books, but point out very important lost principles. An important part of any study, on the small scale of a custody evaluation, or on the large scale study reported in a peer reviewed journal is eliminating bias and confounding factors. Many biases come into play in custody evaluations, the largest of them being the knowledge of what judge the report is being prepared for.

Granted, many custody evaluators are diamonds in the rough, but no matter how good or bad they are in their profession, their effectiveness is limited by the current system. The system allows the opportunity for the custody evaluator to know who the judge is and play towards his or her preferences. The system allows the custody evaluator to contact the judge and or the attorneys. It also allows the judge to contact the custody evaluator and or attorneys.

Now I am going to interject some personal opinion stemming from my experience, which in and of its self is also biased.
  • Judges should never contact custody evaluators or attorneys.
  • Custody evaluators should never contact judges or attorneys.
  • Custody evaluators should prepare a full report including the answering of questions prepared by both attorneys and parents. Identical reports should be sealed in three packages. Once the custody evaluation has been sealed, a continuing judge should be selected in a random process from a minimum of 4 judges. Maximum 2 judges per county. This of course will require reciprocal agreements between counties. Once the continuing judge has been selected, the reports can then be distributed, one package to each party and the third going to the continuing judge. Any claim of injustice from the custody evaluator would need to be addressed prior to the unveiling of the results in order for comment to be valid.
  • If the process is going to include social science, then allow the process to follow a scientific manner, thus preventing social science from being degraded to a pseudoscience.

Reduce linking of lives that are trying to be separated.
 If a couple is divorced, one or both parties have decided that they no longer desire to have their lives linked with each other. Sharing responsibilities and time with the children is a right and privilege that each parent has. Unfortunately many parents attempt continued control of an ex-companion using the children as leverage. Some issues of manipulation cannot entirely be avoided through the judicial process, while others such as finances can. Why should former couples be allowed to fight and bicker over finances? Why should attorneys, mediator, and judges have the opportunity to use the money of a child support paying mother or father as leverage? Let their drama be aimed at the process. You cannot attack the other parent without placing the kids in the crossfire.

Now once again I am going to interject some personal opinion stemming from my experience, which, as mentioned before, is also biased.
Some people in legal and social services professions believe that a bias needs to exist in our system in order to reduce joint custody. There is some opinion that joint custody has adverse effects on children. The concept of this states that children need to have a foundation place, one place to call home. This mindset is not wrong and even has backing behind it, but does indeed lack balance. Eliminating joint custody is a poor solution, solving one problem while creating another, like turning the blade of a double edge sword. Split homes have and never will have the wonderful balance of an in-tacted home. In divorce, no one wins; it is no longer about winning, but lessoning the adverse effects of the loss. The best way to make safe a double edged sword is to dull the blades. Reduce contention through disconnecting the lives of the parents. As you come to understand the concept behind GPCS, the more you understand that GPCS dulls the sword.

Many of us know of people who view their ex-spouse as the devil, whether it is true or not is besides the point, their feelings belong to them and their decisions are effected by their feelings. If you knew that a third of your take home pay would go to the Devil would you be excited to unlease your financial ambition towards the good of society?

Many child support paying parents use the reduction of take home wages or inability to hold a job as a means of adversely affecting their former companion’s finances. On the other hand, many paying support feel that their payments are going toward expenses they do not approve of, and in turn either consciously or unconsciously loose the ambition required to for a natural progression in their income. This country was built by strong ambitious men and women, the country needs to move forward continuing in their legacy rather than discouraging it.

Just as the support payer has an opportunity to exert control over their former companion in the conventional child support plan; the child support receiver also has an opportunity to extend a hand in their former companion’s lives through threat of court using our tax paid system as their personal tool.

Effectively set up GPCS nearly eliminates personal financial gains in the court room with an ex-spouse. It also reduces the amount of times were both parents attend court together. For one because they will go to court less; and two because when they go to court for financial purposes it will be opposing the state rather than the children’s other parent.

GPCS allows those receiving child support to receive a constant allowance for their children based on what they are providing for their children rather than through the increase or decrease in their former companions income. If support payments and support checks are based on what the parent is providing it will account for fixed expenses as well as variable expenses.

 Fixed expenses are expenses that do not change as a result of % of custody of the child/ children such as house, utilities, and bed. Only the variable expenses will be affected by time changes in mediation. A parent who desperately feels a need for continued support will be more open to looking at the best interests of the children if his or her own financial stability is not on the line. The same applies to the support paying parent.

More cooperation in mediation, no interaction concerning finances. Less time and money spent on court, custody evaluation, and attorney expenses. Less incentive to use children as leverage for personal gain. The list of benefits only goes up while the negatives remain few.

Most divorced couples return to dating and many remarry. Global pooling means that a person paying support could be dating or married to someone receiving  of portion of their support. Global pooling allows for a system where a man with full custody will receive the same amount as a woman with full custody, assuming that they are providing the same conditions according to the global pool formulas. Just a note many men in Utah have taken huge financial cuts in order to obtain joint or full custody.

If both parties of a divorce feel comfortable with the standard process of one parent paying an allotted amount of funds directly over to the other they should be allowed to do so. However, all other child support should go through a global pool.

Welcomed children incentives
 All children should be allowed the opportunity to feel fully welcomed at both homes with each of their parents. Some parents who are paying out large chunks of money to their former companion cannot afford to provide the basics that they would like to provide seemingly full welcome in their own home. Unlike conventional child support, global pooling child support has the opportunity to account for child care fixed expenses (expenses that exist all the time whether the children are home or not) such has having a room, and a bed. Once global pooling goes into effect those who are receiving higher than average sums of child support will be financially hit. Those who are abandoned or homeless will of course benefit from it. Fewer couples will find the motivation to tie up court time once global pooling begins in their state. All future financial issues need to be brought up to the department of recovery services rather than to their ex-spouse.

Sincerely
Rob Carr