As part of the PICSLT research, new cases are reviewed to determine whether or not courts have begun to enforce the constitutional rights of parents. Thus far, there is little evidence that they have. Court decisions of the past decade have typically formalized the bizarre propaganda used by those who brought corruption to family law in the first place.

{Update A Return to Welfare As We Knew It? The beginning of the end of child support reform }

At least two state courts have deviated from this pattern. In Nebraska (Drennen v. Drennen, 426 N.W.2d 252 (Neb. 1988)) and Minnesota (Holmberg v. Holmberg, Carlson v. Carlson, and Kalis-Fuller v. Fuller, Ct. Nos. C7-97-926, C8-97-1132, C9-98-33, C7-97-1512, Slip Op. (Minn. S. Ct. Jan. 28, 1999).) the state courts have found the shift from decision-making by the judiciary to administration unconstitutional. Regardless of how important recognition of the problem should be, the courts appeared quite cowardly in demanding change. As a practical matter, the decisions had little effect.

At present (October 1999), PICSLT research is focused on completing a review of objective methods for determining child support awards. That process is expected to lead to a complete child support guideline that actually determines "child support."

{ Update: See State Reviews .... }

During this review however, it became apparent that some review and discussion of cases is needed, showing the flaws in judicial reasoning used in avoiding constitutional rights.

At present, the summary of cases is simply that parents (especially fathers) have no constitutional rights in relation to family issues. Even a simple analysis tells us obviously, that guidelines currently in use produce wildly inappropriate results.

This page is being posted with the thought that when time permits, a somewhat more detailed look at case decisions can be posted, pointing to specific flaws in the excuses made by state and federal courts in allowing continued use of unconstitutional child support guidelines.

While we wait however, readers might want to take a look at the decision in P.O.P.S. verses Gardner (998 F.2d 764 (9th). Since the federal reforms took effect, the incorrect subjective arguments have been on the winning side, not only in legislatures, but also in the courts. The 9th Circuit Federal Court decided that parents and children have no constitutional rights related to an award of child support because the ideas that had been encoded in law in the State of Washington were characterized as "subjective."

What a bizarre argument that is! Is the Court saying that the Washington State Legislature is so incapable of thinking objectively that it is unreasonable to expect an objective standard in the State of Washington? Is the Constitution nullified because legislators do not choose to be objective?

Just for fun, here's a quote from the New Jersey child support commission. ( http://www.state.nj.us/judiciary/pr5-19.htm ) The New Jersey guidelines are put in place by the state's Supreme Court. They use exactly the same type of guideline as the State of Washington, developed by the same Colorado based collection agency.

Throughout, the Supreme Court's goal has been to develop child-support guidelines that protect the interests of children and are objective, fair to custodial and non-custodial parents, result in appropriate child-support awards, and permit judges to use their discretion when necessary.

I guess the New Jersey Supreme Court hasn't asked for the federal court's permission to be objective. How else can we account for their expectations? One group of judges says they're being objective, the other says it's impossible to be. Is there nothing left for commentators but to decide which to laugh at the most?

See also: Minnesota decision against CS system, analysis of NCSL

Return to Index Page