DADS Against Discrimination
FATHERS SUPPORTING FATHERS
USA, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, West Virginia, and Canada

---

State of Washington
Past Bulletins

Bob Karls, Director P.O. Box 65131 Shoreline, WA 98155-9131 Voice: (206) 623-DADS 1-800-246-3237 inside Washington E-mail: dadsofwa@seanet.com

FEDERAL CRIMINAL SUPPORT LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Federal Criminal Child Support Law struck down in Arizona. You might recall that a few years ago Congress passed a law making it a federal crime to be behind in child support for a child that resided in another state. As I recall, this law was passed by voice vote without any dissent.

In US vs. Mussari, a federal judge in Arizona ruled that the law was unconstitutional.  You can view this decision at the DADS website:  http://www.teleport.com/~dads/. As there are now conflicting decisions in different states, this issue will probably go to the US Supreme Court in the near future.

We should all contact our congressmen and congratulate them for their careful, thoughtful, and critical analysis of this law prior to their enacting it by voice vote without any dissent.  Don't forget to mention how commendable they were in honoring their oath to uphold the constitution.  You might also ask if they are now going to help recover the lives which have been ruined by their act and remind them of Isaiah 10:1.

DISABLED FATHER GETS CREDIT FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN. In re Marriage of Briscoe, 134 Wn.2d 344 (Jan. 29, 1998, advance sheets). In spite of the statute (RCW 26.18.190(2)) which clearly mandates that such benefits be counted towards his child support obligation, this father had to appeal to the State Supreme Court before winning this one. King County Superior Court Judge Norma Huggins and Division I of the Court of Appeals had ruled against the father. Justices Dolliver, Guy and Tallmadge dissented.

Some of you may recall Gene Hopp's recent excellant letter of criticism about the bias and uselessness of the Gender & Justice Committee which Justice Guy is chair of.  Justice Tallmadge (known as "bill-a-minute-Phil" when he seved in the legislature) is well known for his consistent support feminist legislation.

INITIATIVE 686 - TO REPEAL POSTSECONDARY SUPPORT

Your help is needed now!!!  Here is a list of meetings and events for getting signatures on the initiative.  Call (206)933-9472 or (509)838-5230 to get petition forms, boards, and information.

MEETINGS:  All meetings start at 7:00 pm

WENATCHEE:  Tuesday, March 24, Wenatchee Library, 310 Douglas,
KENT:  Monday, April 16, Kent Regional Library, 212 2nd N.
FEDERAL WAY:  Tuesday, April 7, Federal Way Public Library, 34200 1st S.
SPOKANE:  Thursday, April 9, NE Community Center, 4001 N. Cook
EVERETT:  Wednesday, April 15th, Everett Public Library, 2702 Hoyt Ave.
YAKIMA:  Wednesday, April 16th, Yakima Valley Library, 102 N. 3rd

IMPORTANT SIGNATURE GATHERING EVENTS:

SUPERSONICS GAME:   March 28, Key Arena, Seattle Center, 2:00 pm;
SEATTLE MARINERS OPENING GAME:  March 31st, Kingdome, 2:00 pm; 
SEATTLE MARINERS GAMES:  April 1 & 3, Kingdome, 5:00 pm

DADS TV SHOW - Monday, 9:30 pm, February 16, 1998. Channel 29 on most public access channel systems in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Interview with local author Lori Mack who wrote "How To Dump Your Wife".

DADS MEETING - INITIATIVE PLANNED TO REPEAL POST-SECONDARY CHILD SUPPORT. The guest speaker at the March 10, 1998 meeting will be Bob Hoyden who is spearheading initiative I-686 to limit the court's power to order divorced and unwed parents to pay child support for adult children. The local NW Women's Law Center just challenged it in court over the ballot title and lost. 220,000 plus signatures must be gathered by July 7, 1998. So its full speed ahead if you want this initiative to carry the day. You can help. For more information and a copy of the initiative contact Bob Hoyden at (206)233-9472. email: SeattleProcess@worldnet.att.net.

CHILD SUPPORT SLAVERY - A True Story
The father had a severe injury and has continuing disabilities to the extent that he is unemployable at this time. He is on general assistance as unemployable. These facts are not disputed.

The father has been homeless and living in his car for several months. His support order was set with "imputed" income and it was impossible for him to pay. He is now behind by a very large amount in child support and it continues to grow at a high rate. The State is now in the process of revoking his driver's license. When, and if, he ever gets back to work, the State will be there to take half of his net earnings for this debt.

When he was certified as unemployable and granted general assistance through the State, he petitioned to modify his child support. The family law commissioner dismissed his petition to modify claiming there was no change of circumstances and said that the father was voluntarily unemployed.

Since the issue of his disability is clear, I am wondering if this man is considered to be an adult dependent person for purposes of statutes which make it a crime to abuse of an adult dependent person? Has this family law commissioner commited an abuse against an adult dependent person? Are this man's doctors required to report this abuse to the State?

The support continues to accrue at the previous high rate. If he ever becomes employable, he will have years of financial servitude, if not a lifetime, to attempt to remove this burden. Is he not enslaved?

CHILD SUPPORT SLAVERY - A Recent California Supreme Court Case
For those of you concerned with the impact of our "compulsory payment of cash" child support system on the issues of slavery, peonage, and involuntary servitude, you would be wise to read this decision carefully.

The Moss case has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. We've followed this case from last year because it concerned a father being held in contempt for not paying child support and there was a discussion of 13th Amendment issues regarding slavery, peonage and involuntary servitude was included in the first appellate decision. raised in case. It was then appealed to the state supreme court.

Although the supreme court's decision is a victory for Moss, the decision is not founded upon the issues of slavery. The decision is based on the evidence (or lack thereof) and on the nature of the conditions imposed by the judge that held Moss in contempt of court under "civil" contempt.

However, the court "discussed" the issues of slavery and involuntary servitude, and their discussion certainly implies that they would rule child support to be an exceptioin to the 13th Amendment issues, if given the opportunity. Those issues weren't before the court in the Moss case. The most obvious exception is written right into the 13th Amendment, and other exceptions have been legally accepted by the courts.

In an age when fatherhood is abased and politically incorrect, I don't think it is a good idea to give them the opportunity to rule. But, if it comes up again soon, I hope someone in California provides more help than Moss can get from a public defender. I guess all those so-called fathers' rights attorneys in California were too busy making money off fathers to have any time to do an amicus brief in the Moss case.

LOCAL ITEMS
For infomation about Tacoma/South King County fathers groups and activities call Mario Young at (253)863-1628.

THIRD ANNUAL FATHERS DAY PICNIC on Mercer Island. Contact Del Parker at (206)232-2560. This year Del has apparently gotten cooperation of the school districts to distribute flyers to children about the picnic. Preparation and organizing is under way. If you can help give Del a call. Del also takes part in local protests at the courthouse and other fathers' rights activities.

Bob Karls
DADS of Washington

An interview with Dennis Crocker and his attorney, Lawrence Gorin. Mr. Crocker and counsel successfully fought a support modification for college support by getting Oregon's post-secondary support law ruled unconstitutional.

The program is scheduled for January 4, 1998 (a Sunday) from 6 to 7 pm on TCI Public Access Channel 29. This channel is carried by most cable systems in the Seattle - Tacoma - Everett area.

Most lenders look at child support as a debt to be included when calculating your eligibility for a loan. If you are a support paying father with such a problem you should contact QPOINT. This lender is not concerned with the amount of your child support payment. You can qualify for what you deserve, like everyone else. For more information contact: David Bonnell, Lending Officer, (425)481-3900, ext. 229, or, 800-544-3444, ext. 229. Please note that your child support needs to be current.

Effective now, DADS monthly meetings will start at 7:30 pm and end at 9:30 p.m. This is the only change regarding the meetings.

Office will be closed from December 23, 1997 to January 5, 1998.

Bob Karls, Director
DADS of Washington
dadsofwa@seanet.com

FATHERS' RIGHTS ISSUES

DADS of Washington
December Bulletin, 1997
Items of interest on fathers rights.

The legislature (here in WA) will be shortly back in action. Now is the time to mail your legislators your concerns about fathers rights issues. Hand written personal letters are best.

I hope the discussion below will inspire you to ask your legislators to do everything possible to end this exclusion of fathers from children's lives.

Meetings will continue as usual.

Next TV show is Saturday, December 6, 1997, 6:30-7:30 pm, Channel 29, Public Access (greater Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma area, channel number may vary).

Bob Karls

FATHER CUSTODY - A PRAGMATIC SOLUTION

A message from VATray@aol.com cited an AP article about a recent Census Bureau report on children raised in single parent households:

"Children living with a single parent do better if the parent is divorced than if the parent was never married."

And the message stated that the newspaper left out part of the quote and that the real quote should have been:

"Children living with a single parent do better if the parent is divorced than if the parent was never married - an even bigger edge if that parent is the father."

No surprise here. What study doesn't show that divorced and unwed mothers are the WORST family for children to grow up in?

What the studies do show is that fathers use AFDC at one tenth the rate for mothers. Mothers abuse children at double to triple the rate for fathers. The divorced or unwedded motherheaded household is the breeding ground for juvenile delinquents, school dropouts, adult criminals, and on and on and on...

WE THE FATHERS are better than anyone as single parents - and second place is not even close. Fathers should be the FIRST choice for custody. Obviously, such preferences in custody are OK since we have a mother preference custody system right now.

The evidence is clear and unequivocal: Children are better cared for, grow up better, have a better future, are least likely to be abused, and are least likely to be on welfare when they are in the custody of their father.

If it is OK to have a preference system for custody, then the father should be the preferred single parent.

Why isn't it required for the judge to give preference to the parent that will support the children without welfare? Judges could, and should do this now, but don't.

Why shouldn't every custody order automatically provide for custody reversal as a preference to the granting of AFDC?

Why isn't it required that every AFDC application require the participation of the father?

Why shouldn't it be public policy that it is best for children to be taken care of by their parents? Actually, I believe that is the "public policy" now. But it's really hard to see any connection to the practices of the mother custody/welfare system.

My vote would go for an additional public policy that it is best for children who can't be taken care by both parents to be taken care of by their father.

Can it be said that fathers' have any rights regarding their children when there is a host of powerful, government sanctioned forces that usurp his rights at every turn?

For example: Women are typically granted AFDC, de facto custody and other welfare benefits without even the slightest attempt to inform or involve the father. The system grants the welfare and then devotes enormous resources to force the father to pay for decisions which he was excluded from having any part in making. His rights to care for and raise his own children have been usurped.

A great many of these fathers would jump at the chance to have their children, raising them without welfare (and without any child support from the worst deadbeats of all - non-custodial moms).

I suggest that the legislature should make hearings mandatory upon application for AFDC. Hearings at which there was authority to suspend child support and change custody under a policy that favored keeping the children off AFDC.

Comments, suggestions and links are appreciated