Illinois Fathers

SAVE is a not for profit organization in Maryland who works to help end false allegations, ending domestic violence and does so in a non-biased manner. We recently received an action alert from our friends out at SAVE and are forwarding it on to our members who may be interested in VAWA reform.

For more information: visit SAVE’s DVLP page.

— Original Message —

Dear Friends,

The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) this coming Thursday at 10am. As you know, we have found many flaws in this bill, which is why we created the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA).

The Partner Violence Reduction Act:

Gives priority to real victims.
Reduces false allegations.
Removes provisions that violate the Constitution.
Protects families.
Provides legal assistance for alleged victim and alleged offender.
Requires third-party accreditation.
Curbs immigration fraud.
Makes the law gender-inclusive.

Today we’d like you to call members on the committee. Tell them to reject VAWA and to support the Partner Violence Reduction Act. More info: www.saveservices.org/pvra

Please contact the members listed below:

Chuck Grassley (202) 224-3744
Orrin G. Hatch (202) 224-5251
Jon Kyl (202) 224-4521
Jeff Sessions (202) 224-4124
Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972
John Cornyn (202) 224-2934
Michael S. Lee (202) 224-5444
Tom Coburn (202) 224-5754

Call them once, call them twice, call them several times. Call Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Ask your family, friends, church family, co-workers and neighbors to call. And don’t forget to ask your facebook, twitter and google+ friends too.

It’s now or never, folks!

This video was sent to us by a guy who dealt with the issues HB1604 is intended to fix before HB1604 was even written. Sound familiar?

Ms. Carrie Adams has been a mainstay of our organization since it’s inception and has participated in every Fatherless Day event, many of our Court watches, various protests, and even was a speaker at one Fatherless Day even as well as a prominent voice in the May 1oth demonstration with the Illinois Family Law Study Committee. While she has never been in a position of leadership, she has been one of our strongest and most vocal members. So many people in our organization have heard her plight to see her children, so many have seen the issues that she faces. Even in this later hour of her life as the advanced stages of Lou Gehrig’s Disease has left her confined to a wheel chair, her ex is at it again! Ms. Adams, who is no longer capable of driving to her ex’s home or that of her children is being accused of harassment and stalking and is being subjected to a hearing for a restraining order. To add insult to injury, it is our understanding that the restraining order is being sought to protect her 18 year old daughter from her… by her ex-husband. One would have to ask why the daughter isn’t the one filing for the order of protection since she is an adult. Ms. Carrie Adams has a court hearing and would like for anyone in the general public to attend. So we kindly ask for all those who Carrie has attended your court watch that you please consider returning the favor and attend hers.

Details of her court date are as follows:

Court House Cook County
Richard J. Daley Center.
50 W. Washington Street,
Chicago, IL 60602
Thursday Dec 8th at 9:30 am
Judge Kathleen Kennedy
Room 3010 Cook County IL

It’s time to let her go. It’s time to end this. It’s time to allow her children to be the adults they now are. It’s time to let this mother have some peace.

Archives of the show last night are now available online. This was an excellent show that brought all the issues surrounding HB1604 to the surface and showed the importance of the bill.

Children Need Both Parents – Illinois Fathers

Some opponents of HB1604 made some downright degrading comments regarding non-custodial parents during the debate.  In fact, some of it was so strong that we thought it best to purchase an audio/video of the entire debate that took place yesterday(Wednesday) in the full Senate.  As you can see and hear in the video, it was determined that a 3/5ths majority would be needed to pass the bill because if passed it would go into effect immediately.

An unofficial vote was taken.  The result of the vote was 27 in favor, 22 opposed, 1 voting present and 9 abstaining.  Because the vote was unofficial, the only record we have is the scoreboard in the video.  From the scoreboard in the video, the best vote breakdown we can determine is as follows.

Research in Support of HB1604:  Talking Points on HB1604.
Full Analysis of Senate Debate: HB1604 Senate Debate Analysis.

Yesterday, House Bill 1604, The Steven Watkins Memorial Act passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with a vote of 7 to 4 and was sent to the Senate Floor for the second reading. The bill is on the calendar for it’s third and final reading today. Today, our Senators will vote on this bill. Debate during the Senate Judiciary Committee was spirited and heavy. House Bill 1604 does hold some strong ramifications for the State of Illinois, it will create an environment where the failure to allow a child to spend time with their parents is considered just as important as the money provided for their care.

Illinois Fathers is “without words” when it comes to giving thanks to all of you who took the time to contact the Senators on the Judiciary Committee as well as your own State Senators.  Many different organizations around this state have been working in concert with our volunteers to help provide the research, statistics, and education to our law makers on the importance of this bill  and we are also grateful for everyone who took the time to be present for the hearing.

In Illinois, nearly 80% of all abuse and neglect reports to the Department of Child and Family Services each year are unfounded. Meaning that there was not substantial proof to indicate that any abuse ever occurred. Meanwhile, a similar number of custody cases come up in family each year. Question is, how many of those mirror up with the DCFS cases? It comes to no surprise that abuse allegations are used to shift litigation, as evident of the quote on our front page. The problem is, the Violence Against Women’s Act is coming up for re-authorization at the federal level.

From our friends at SAVE Services, they have informed us that Senator Leahy (who is leading the re-authorization) is not going to take into consideration the issue of false allegations. Likewise, there will be no consideration of several of the other flaws of VAWA, namely: no  accountability, no gender-neutral treatment of victims, no  holding back on mandatory arrest policies, and of course, no repercussions on false allegations. While no person,  man, woman, or child, should be abused. We must have a system in place that deals with abusers in a way that doesn’t leave itself open for rampant abuse in and of itself.

To see more on the current issues surrounding VAWA, please visit SAVE Services for more information.

This information is posted from the Child Support Advisory Committee established by Health and Family Services. The original copy can be found here: http://www.childsupportillinois.com/advisory/

What are child support guidelines?

• Child support guidelines are required by law to be used to determine the amount usually awarded for the support of minor children when parents do not reside together.

Why does the State review the child support guidelines every four years?

• Federal regulations (45 C.F.R. 302.56) require that States review guidelines every four years, that the review includes an analysis of deviations from the guidelines, and that the review consider economic data on the cost of child rearing.

What is the guidelines model Illinois uses now?

• Illinois uses a model called “percentage of obligor net income”. This model assumes that child rearing costs will be shared between parents and assesses a percentage of the non-residential parent’s net income as the support to be paid to the parent or guardian who resides with the child or children. The percentages are based on number of children that are being supported. More details on the current model can be found on the HFS website Calculating Child Support Obligation Web Page.

When was the most recent review and what was decided?

• The Child Support Advisory Committee conducted the 2010 review in early December. The Committee recommended that Illinois replace the percentage of obligor income model with an income shares model.

What is the income shares model?

• The income shares model for determining child support is used in 38 states throughout the US, and is the most commonly used method today. The basis for income shares is a table that uses economic data to determine the amount that parents who reside together expend for the needs of their child or children, based on combined family income and the size of the family. The method then determines the pro-rated amount each parent should contribute to their child or children when the parents do not reside together.

Why did the Illinois Child Support Advisory Committee recommend that Illinois consider replacing the percentage of obligor income model with the income shares guidelines model?

• Although percentage of obligor income and income shares yield approximately the same results for most families, income shares can yield markedly different results for certain families – primarily families where the parents incomes are very different. In general, income share is considered a more equitable approach to computing child support.
• Additionally, percentage of obligor income does not provide guidance about adjustments when parents each have a significant amount of parenting time – often called “shared parenting” – or when one or more children live with one parent and another child or other children live with the other parent. Income shares does offer a mechanism for shared parenting time to be included in guidelines calculations, if the parenting time meets a minimum threshold that will be established in the adoption of a new model.
• Percentage of obligor income does not easily allow for consideration of families where one or both parents have unusually high or unusually low income. Income shares does offer a mechanism for consideration of these factors.
• Most of all, income shares begins with an explicit understanding between parents of what is the normal cost two parents of their combined income circumstances spend to rear children, and what their relative proportion of those expenses should be. Parents begin their new parenting circumstances with facts and with the knowledge that the process is fair.

What’s next?

• The Child Support Advisory Committee is in the process of drafting a legislative proposal. Once a draft is completed, the Committee and HFS will seek sponsorship of the bill from a Member of the General Assembly for presentation in the Spring 2012 session.
• The legislative proposal will include a suggested effective date. That date is likely to be some years in the future – perhaps as far out as 2014- to allow for the amount of time it will take to implement a new system and to provide the necessary education and training.

On September 15th, we will host our quarterly meeting at the Urbana Free Public Library. The meeting will be held in the basement conference room starting at 6:30pm. We will be showing Janx Morton’s new Guilty Until Proven Innocent movie for those in attendance.

This past legislative session, The Steven Watkins Bill made numerous headlines when it attempted to set standards for people who violated visitation agreements by setting sanctions like the removal of one’s drivers and professional licenses, possible jail time, and other harsh penalties. The genesis of this bill was to set the standards for enforcement of visitation interference, the act of refusing court ordered visitation to a parent or other party granted visitation by the courts, on par with the same standard as child support enforcement. Currently, all of the penalties and more exist in Illinois Law to help enforce the payment of child support, and they exist under the same standards as the ones defined in House Bill 1604.

Steven Watkins’ parents were able to secure an order from the courts, one that was challenged at the Appeals Court and upheld and even went for review to the Supreme Court, who turned down the review. With the Supreme Court’s approval that visitation for the child’s grand parents was legally justified and not needing to be reviewed by the Court, the Watkins had what seemed like a solid ability to keep their grand daughter in their lives and to allow her half sister to continue a healthy relationship with her. But Jennifer Watkins demonstrated the fundamental flaw in the visitation order process when she moved out of state and utterly ignored repeated requests of the courts to allow her daughter to see her grand parents. As a result, the State of Illinois went full force in enforcing the law with every tool available from the civil and criminal side. This included 9 counts of misdemeanor visitation abuse, a civil indirect contempt of court charge, as well as a Governor’s warrant for extradition signed by both Governor Quinn and the Governor of Florida.

Many of our members and many non-custodial parents across our State have similar issues with custodial parents deciding to terminate their relationships with their children. This case was an extreme example of what so many other parents go through everyday in our State. Sadly, even with the full weight of the law allowed under current statutory guidelines, the Watkins still haven’t seen their granddaughter. And her half sister still hasn’t seen her either.

Critics of House Bill 1604 mentioned that the laws to enforce visitation already exist on the books today and are adequate to address the issues of visitation interference. It is our extreme disappointment to publish, that on August 23rd, 2011, Judge Julie O’Kane of Orange County, Florida released Jennifer Watkins. This essentially ends the extradition of Jennifer back to the State of Illinois to face the full ramifications allowable under current Illinois Law for visitation Interference. This includes both the civil and criminal penalties allowed.

To add insult to injury, Jennifer Watkins filed a motion in Florida to have her visitation case transferred to Florida Courts, obviously in a bid to try and have the visitation modified.

It is clear that even though our State does have the laws in place to address the issues that House Bill 1604 is intended to help protect against, it is also clear that these laws are sorely insufficient and this serves as a strong example of why House Bill 1604 needs to become law.

Fla. judge rules against Watkins extradition

Jennifer Watkins released from Florida Jail