 |
| Fathers
See Rift Among Lawyers Child Support Guidelines Are Flawed February 2002 The state’s fathers are hoping they see a rift among lawyers in Massachusetts over the amount of child support that a father must pay. The two largest groups of lawyers, the Massachusetts Bar (MBA) and the Boston Bar (BBA), have both notified the Chief Justice for Administration and Management that a “top-to-bottom review” is required of the guidelines that judges are required to use when determining child support. But the BBA, which is dominated by the large firms, which work mainly for large corporations and have more feminists, is less enthusiastic than the MBA, which represents firms and lawyers from across the entire state. Both are private organizations. The MBA has 17,000 members and the BBA has 9,000. There are 68,000 registered lawyers in the state. The very large firms in Boston are also dominated by the federal and state Civil Rights Acts which require them to satisfy the quotas imposed by the Acts. They must hire and keep happy large numbers of women lawyers. The smaller firms do not have such quotas. The Boston lawyers say they want some changes immediately. One of those concerns mothers who work while receiving child-support payments. The BBA would change the amount of money a woman should be allowed to earn before a judge can consider her earnings when determining the father’s payments. The BBA believes it should be raised above the $15,000 limit that is presently imposed. However, fathers say that the $15,000 limit should be totally eliminated and all of a woman’s income should be included, the same as the man’s. Fathers at ‘Breaking Point’“May I state to you in the plainest possible terms that non-custodial fathers in Massachusetts are at the breaking point,” wrote Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the fathers, to Chief Justice Barbara A. Dortch-Okara. “Unless the Guideline is changed appropriately to allow [fathers] to keep enough of their income to provide a roof over their heads, decent accommodations for their children while in their care, and food in the refrigerator to feed them, the Commonwealth will be responsible for the civil unrest and upheaval that will surely ensue. “Ms. Dortch-Okara, the notion that [the courts should disregard the income of] one, but not both, of the parents, is plainly unjust on its face. To suggest that the custodial parent’s income [should be disregarded] is so transparently sexist as to be absurd. “It is time for you to do the right thing and stand up to the BBA and women's advocates who apparently will never be placated until men are sold into slavery.” Rift Between LawyersAlthough both the BBA and the MBA joined in the request last fall that a “comprehensive review” be made of all the guidelines, there is clearly a rift between the two organizations of lawyers. This was pointed out to the Chief Justice by the fathers, who wrote: “While we are encouraged that the Massachusetts Bar Association recognizes the need to have [Fathers on any committee investigating the matter], the Fatherhood Coalition is extremely alarmed at the recommendations made by the Boston Bar Association, who insist that child support awards in Massachusetts are not high enough.” Unhappy with Dortch-OkaraAlthough neither of the bar associations complained to Justice Dortch-Okara, observers say they are obviously unhappy with the way she conducted the review process, which was required by federal law, this past year. It is too late to change that, but they want her to move forward immediately without waiting for the next federal mandate which will not be until four years from now. Many lawyers who did not wish to be quoted tell MassNews that the guidelines are often very unfair, particularly to men. Both the MBA and the BBA have informed the Chief Justice for Administration that they are concerned about the fairness of the present Child Support Guidelines. The MBA has requested a “comprehensive review” because of “real and serious concerns about many inequities” that arise out of “application of the existing child support guidelines.” In a letter to Justice Dortch-Okara, the lawyers urged her to appoint a commission to report back in no later than a year. They asked that the changes be implemented within six months thereafter. Lawyers Urged to Seek “Deviations”Meanwhile, the MBA is “urging” immediate action and is advising lawyers to make “requests for deviations” where appropriate and judges to grant such requests where “rigid application” of the guidelines would produce an “unfair result.” The MBA has been joined by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers in urging action by the Chief Justice. The Boston Bar Association has also joined, saying that it shares “the MBA’s view that a comprehensive committee be appointed to really analyze these guidelines.” It said it would “like to be involved in a top-to-bottom review of the guidelines.” However, the Boston Bar also requested that four changes be made now in contradiction to the MBA which said, “This is an extremely important issue. There are serious defects, serious problems, that need to be examined. A band-aid approach could be very dangerous.” The MBA committee said in its report that “[n]o assumption should be made that the existing guidelines are fair and equitable; instead, critical examination of the problems and unfair results the guidelines produce should be studied fully.” Fathers Should Be RepresentedThe MBA recommended that the commission consist of thirteen individuals:
It was also recommended that a labor statistician expert be included as a non-voting member. Members of the fatherhood movement expressed the feeling that they should be represented in two of those categories, as “individuals paying support” and also as members of a group “advocating abandonment or decrease” in the present guidelines. They pointed out that women will also have two representatives as “recipients of support” and “a representative from legal services.” The appointments to the Commission would be made under the MBA recommendations by Chief Justice Dortch-Okara; the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court, Sean M. Dunphy; the Chief Justice of the SJC, Margaret Marshall; and the President of the MBA, Carol A.G. DiMento. BBA Says Ma ss. Is Not HighThe BBA says Massachusetts is not high in its support payments. “We have reviewed the child support guidelines for the surrounding states and found that Massachusetts, with the exception of one economic scenario, fell within the median of all support orders calculated under the respective guideline.” It gave the weekly payments under the following hypotheticals to prove its point: Scenario 1 - Mother’s income = $41,756
Scenario 2 - Mother’s income = $0
Scenario 3 - Mother’s income = $18,000
Scenario 4 - Mother’s income = $14,040
Guidelines Not Used if Income Goes Over This CapVT no apparent cap Gross Income vs. Net IncomeCT Net
|
Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. |
An individual representing the interests of recipients of support