MEASURING SUCCESS IN CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME! PART III

(This article is written by an author who chooses to write anonymously in order to protect him/herself from retaliation.)

I ended Part II with the question of how the designers of this pilot program are measuring its success.  One factor I suggested they consider would be how much child support the custodial parent and the children are receiving.  Here is how the Pilot Program reports on success:

 

Current support collection rate:

- Goal:  increase the number of cases with improved collection rate

 

Total dollars collected

- Goal: increase the number of cases with improved total dollars collected

 

Frequency of child support payments

- Goal: increase the number of cases with more frequent child support payments

 

Isn't this all already achievable by making the Agency do the job of follow up on support cases?  Wouldn't you want to include mothers in the process if you were trying to find out where Dads are working and hiding money?  Who are they collecting from?  The mothers who lost custody when their ex's enrolled in the fatherhood program and used their unpaid support to sue them for custody of the child  victims of violent crimes?  Where does the money go?  What about the number of kids receiving support?

 

You would think that the measure of a "Responsible Father" would be his ability to "solve problems" without unnecessary litigation and court intervention, and by minimizing the number of times he requires the child's home to bear the financial and emotional burden/stigma/risk of going before a judge.  But not this program--Judge Munro wants Dad off the job, in court, suing for custody.

 

Here is another measure of success the Pilot Program proposes:

 

Court attendance rate

-Goal: improve court attendance for problem solving participants

 

Again, I am not really sure how many of these program objectives serve the needs or benefit children--even if they are met.  How will increasing enrollment and eligibility (eg. the number of nonpaying parents) benefit children rather than attorneys?  How about the following goal:

 

Program participation (participation in appropriate community-based social service oriented programming)

- Goal: increase program application rate

 

- Goal: increase program eligibility rate

 

- Goal: increase program attendance rate

 

- Goal: increase program completion rate

 

With so many court appearances, the noncustodial parent is sure to miss work.  Regardless, I don't think the CSSD official (who makes $30K per year and needs only a high school diploma to get their job) who is conducting psychological assessments, really has time to  function as an employment agency.  I am sure the child would love it if during the time you were hauling Dad into court and destabilizing the family, CSSD spent money helping the parent they actually live with to maintain stable employment and have ample childcare.

 

Employment rate

- Goal: increase the percentage of obligated noncustodial parents who obtain full-time employment (non-temporary)

 

FACT:  Finding a job for every voluntarily childless parent doesn't help the kids they neglect.

 

TRANSLATION:  Switch custody. 

 

There is no research that says increasing time with a noncustodial parents helps an unsupported child per se.

 

Access and visitation

- Goal:  increase the parent's ability to resolve access and visitation issues

 

You know, I bet children would LOVE to be able to define whether  this pilot just emboldened dangerous violent offenders to come into their lives and further victimize them.  Whether the noncustodial parent's "ability to resolve access and visitation issues" meant silencing crime victims and targeting the custodial parties trying to protect them?

 

Unfortunately, Judge Munro is pretty clear the she DOESN'T want children testifying in custody hearings.  I imagine that the Skipp children and the Boyne children would love to tell Munro to go f**k herself, but they don't get to define what the "success" of these programs means to them.  Sometimes, they just end up dead and have their lives ruined, but to the psychopath, they're satisfied with their ability to "resolve" these access problems with a gun, an ax, and ignition of lighter fluid.

 

These seem like failure rates to me.  what about you?  Did going to jail and being held in contempt arbitrarily for 6 - 12 months of terrorizing court hearings in which your freedom and resources were looted help your family?

 

So let's get the lowdown on "Overall Program Success". 

 

- Goal:  50% of parents have underlying contempt action concluded (no finding of contempt) within 6 months of entry into pilot

 

- Goal:  85% of parents have underlying contempt action concluded (no finding of contempt) within 12 months of entry into pilot.

 

What I find most interesting is that out of the 45 participating parents, only 3 of them were women, yet all of the "success" anecdotes in the program about the 3 NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS.  We don't hear anything from children or custodial parents, and we don't know under what circumstances these mothers lost custody.

 

This is actually a statitstic that demonstrates how badly run child support services is, not the ability or willingness of the parents to meet their financial obligations:

 

Past Due Support

- The average amount of past due support owed:  $16,600

 

Judging from the demographics of the unfit participants, I think the money from the pilot program would have been better spent cutting the kids a check directly for some groceries, then barring violent offenders from contacting them.

 

The list below is a summary of issues facing the 45 obligated non-custodial parents, 3 of whom are mothers.  Note that each parent has multiple issues:

 

* 77% are current receiving some form of government assistance (eg. medical, food stamps, SAGA, etc)

 

How do noncustodial parents and voluntarily childless fathers get on welfare?  Only via fatherhood programs which have no income eligibility requirements.  Unlike programs for mother and children, you do not need to be poor and homeless, you just need a cock.

 

* 73% have a criminal history (convictions)

 

Why would we want convicted offenders raising kids?  What kind of crimes did they commit?  Was there any attempt to screen these offenders?

 

60% do not have a valid driver's license

 

Why? Taken away or just don't have one?  There's a difference.  One nondriver is a criminal, the other is not, and why is CSSD help the DMV losers?

 

52% have substance abuse issues

 

Don't drug addicts and kids make a great combo

 

48% do not have a reliable form of transportation

 

45% have mental health issues

 

What kind?  Treated or untreated?  This tells me nothing about the participant except they are disabled.  However, we are aware that approximately 25% of criminals have been diagnosed with psychopathy and once you add antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder to the mix, all mental health illnesses, you  then have about two thirds of criminals.  Does this sound like the kind of parent you want to reintroduce in the the life of a child?  I don't think so.

 

Here is a news flash!  If the program grant was for $300,000, and the result was the the parents collectively paid $35,820 in child support, you program actually LOST MONEY.  If your Magistrates ordered most of the fathers to get on public assistance and to wage custody wars against mothers, IT IS A HORRIFICALLY DANGEROUS WAY TO DIVERT federal funds to cronies at the Male Involvement Networks.

 

The following is a summary of orders made by the Family Support Magistrate based on the preceding issues:

 

47% of obligors were referred to New Haven Family Alliance, Male Involvement Network for services such as job readiness, parenting skills, personal finance skills. 

 

These Networks also provide attorneys to fathers. For more information on this click on the following link:

 

http://maleinvolvementnetwork.org/How_MIN_Works.html

 

29% of obligors were ordered to apply for substance abuse treatment services

24% of obligors were ordered to apply for mental health services

16% of obligars were ordered to apply for social security benefits

9% of obligors were ordered to apply for SAGA benefits

 

But how did the children feel?  What about the newly childless mothers whose due process and civil rights were violated?  Dunno.  They weren't asked.

 

And finally, the report concludes:

 

"All respondents believed that they were treated fairly by both the Magistrate and Child Support Officers (100%).  in addiion, the majority of respondents reported their case was handled fairly by the court (96%) and the overall outcome and referrals matched their needs and current circumstances (93%)."

 

Moral of the story is that if you are a victim of a violent crime trying to rescue your child, don't expect job or housing assistance when these predators come after your family.