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