Open Letter to National Parents
Organization
It is time to explain your actions
Part 2
Ohio Interference
It is far past time for the National Parents Organization to explain why they have worked against every organization that has independently sought to bring comprehensive changes to the approaches that states take to custody laws across the county.
Now it is time to address the National Parents Organization’s and Don Hubin’s numerous failures in Ohio. There have been some organization name changes over the years that will appear in that many are not familiar with that I have to explain to all.
Fathers and Families was the original name for the National Parents Organization (NPO).
Ohio Family Rights will appear in some documents as National Organization for Parental Equality (NOPE) which has since folded. Ohio Family Rights originally was known as Parents And Children for Equality (PACE).
Just to be clear I have known Hubin for over 15 years and everything that I presented here is firsthand knowledge, not “rumors”. He was the person that recruited me to PACE as a Chapter Director. There is a tremendous amount of information that he has kept hidden as far as his numerous failures in the past and actions that he has taken to block the last equal custody bill in Ohio.
Don, did you tell everyone that you were on the Child Support Guidelines Committee for Ohio and quit “because they won’t listen to me”? Very easy to see why no one listens to you when you have failed so many times in Interested Parties meeting to stand up and support why you want to make changes to the law.
Don, why weren’t you prepared with an answer when Ron Young asked the question about who would oppose the bill that became HB232. I sat silently in that meeting and then when you and the others couldn’t answer him and I did in an honest manner, why did you look at me like I dropped the F-bomb in front of the Pope.
Don, did you tell everyone how you chose your vacation over making one phone call to Ron Young to restore HB 232 back to the way it was originally written? That was confirmed to me by Ron Young when I went to him to ask him to be a primary sponsor on HB253.
Don, why were you trying so hard to get to stop Chuck E. and Mike G. from testifying about HB232? Was it because they were will to say what really needed to be said about that bill?
Don, at public testimony of HB232 why weren’t you prepared for the opposition to that bill? You knew I was that last person with a witness slip that could testify and refute the claims and all you could do was try to discourage me from refuting the claims made. Then after I destroyed Stucki, you sucked up to him.
Don, when the judges said they wanted a meeting to discuss HB232, did you even try to get that meeting, or did you fail to follow through again?
Don, did you reveal that you told Ray Lautenschlager and Roz McAllister from a meeting in Cleveland telling them both that they could not mention that SB144 (last Ohio equal custody bill) when they had direct knowledge of what that already introduced bill contained and what it would do for every father at that meeting?
Don, how many did you throw out of the meetings in Columbus and Cincinnati that knew about the already introduced legislation?
Don, why have you never stated what the flaws were in SB144/HB253 when you received a copy of those bills 6 months before introduction and never responded with any flaws that you saw? Time is long past for you to state the flaws.
The same applies to Ned Holstein whose only response was “We don’t think it will pass.” Funny because that was the same response he gave everyone in Massachusetts that wanted to strengthen the bill that was being proposed at the Massachusetts Family Law Task Force. That information came directly from another member of the Task Force who told me the Ned was the only one in opposition to strengthening the bill they were proposing.
Don, did you tell everyone how you went to Representative Weddington’s home and asked him to withdraw HB253. Confirmed by Representative Weddington, himself.
Don, please explain the following letter to Senator Bacon and why you were asking for changes to the law that were well covered in SB144/HB253 and months after both bills had been introduced. You would have already read both the introduced bills by this time and common sense says you also know that your proposals would have weakened the introduced bills.
August 25, 2011
The
Honorable Kevin Bacon
Senate Building
1 Capitol Square, Ground Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Dear Senator Bacon:
Thank you for meeting with us. We are all volunteers for Fathers and Families of Ohio. Fathers and Families advocates for children’s true best interests after parental separation or divorce. We are reforming the family courts to treat fathers and mothers as equally important to the well-being of their children, to make shared parenting after separation or divorce the norm, and to arrange finances after separation or divorce equitably.
We would like to discuss with you a number of well-defined, feasible legislative changes that will advance the interests of children of divorced and separated parents. We would like your assistance with these legislative initiatives. We ask you to consider sponsoring those you feel comfortable sponsoring and to assist us in locating potential sponsors for the others. It is worth noting that these are not partisan issues, nor do they require new funding. These issues are:
1. Presumption of Shared Parenting during Temporary Orders
2. Parenting Time Enforcement
3. Disabled Parents Protection Bill
4. Presumptive Child Support in Shared Parenting Cases
5. Child Support Self-Support Reserve Correction
Let me say a bit about each of these initiatives.
1. Presumption of Shared Parenting during Temporary Orders
Decades of social science research clearly establish that, except in rare cases, when parents divorce, children do best if the parents share in the day-to-day responsibilities of rearing the children. Unfortunately, current Ohio law does not encourage—and, in fact, actively discourages—true shared parenting. This begins at the stage of temporary orders, when parents first come before the court. At this time, the court designates one parent the custodial and residential parent and the other a mere “visitor” in the children’s lives. This sets a destructive pattern for the family—one that is often difficult for the disenfranchised parent to change.
Oklahoma has successfully addressed this problem with a legal presumption of shared parenting during temporary orders when it is requested by one of the parents. Several years ago, then Representative McGregor asked LSC to draft Ohio legislative language modeled after the Oklahoma bill. This bill was never introduced. We seek now to get this bill introduced and passed into law. We have included a copy of the bill as drafted by LSC (“LSC 125 2352”).
2. Parenting Time Enforcement
One of the most corrosive patterns of behavior exhibited in separated parenting is interference with a parent’s court-ordered parenting time. Such interference hurts the children and causes frustration and anger in the other parent. It undermines compliance with child support orders as obligors who can’t see their children seek to punish the offending parent. Currently the only legal redress for interference with parenting time is a motion for contempt. This is an inadequate remedy because it is expensive and time-consuming and unlikely to be effective unless the pattern of violation is extreme and very persistent.
Several committees impaneled by the Ohio Supreme Court have recommended strong measures for dealing with parenting time enforcement. (We have included some excerpts addressing this issue from the report of the Ohio Task Force on Family Law and Children, 2011, and the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Children, Families, and the Courts, 2005.) The idea is to provide “right-sized,” “user-friendly” tools that will head off serious violations before they occur. Despite repeated recommendations from official state committees, nothing has been done legislatively, or in Supreme Court Rules, to address this problem.
We favor an approach pioneered by Missouri. This approach provides for aggrieved parents to file a simple “Family Access Motion” when parenting time has been unjustifiably interfered with. Courts are required to address the issue quickly and with appropriately sized sanctions for violators. Missouri’s experience with these motions has been very positive.
3. Disabled Parents Protection Bill
A parent’s disability should not affect his or her custodial status unless that disability would impair the ability to care for the child. California, among other states, has recently recognized this and acted to protect the parental rights of disabled parents. We advocate a change in Ohio law patterned on this recent California legislation, which provides as follows:
3049. In any proceeding to determine child custody or visitation under this part, in which at least one parent is disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), there is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof that the disability of that parent may not form the basis for an order granting custody or visitation to another party, or for an order for imposing any condition or limitation on an award of custody to or visitation by the disabled parent, unless that other party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a grant of custody or visitation to, or a condition or limitation on custody or visitation by, the disabled parent would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child. This section applies to any proceeding regarding custody or visitation, including, but not limited to, a request for a modification of an existing order for custody or visitation.
4. Presumptive Child Support in Shared Parenting Cases
Based on current Ohio statutory and case law, courts are required to designate one parent a presumptive obligor and one parent a presumptive recipient of child support in shared parenting cases. But neither statutory nor case law indicates how a court is to make this designation. This vagueness in the law leads to inconsistency between courts. And, in cases where the parents have roughly equal parenting time and responsibilities, it violates requirements of equal protection of the law and is manifestly unfair.
There are broad changes necessary in Ohio’s child support law. But with respect to this problem we seek a rather limited remedy for a clear omission in Ohio law. We propose amending ORC 3119.07 to require a court to treat the child support obligation of both parents in a shared parenting situation where both parents are custodial and residential parents equally unless the court finds that such treatment would be unjust, inappropriate, and not in the best interest of the child.
We have attached a draft of the sort of legislative change we seek to enact.
5. Child Support Self-Support Reserve Protection
Federal law requires that state child support laws provide for a “self-support reserve.” What this is intended to do is to protect a child support obligor from being pushed below the poverty line by child support obligations. The federal law is motivated by the awareness that pushing parents who pay child support obligation into abject poverty will not result in increased resources for the children and will have the effect of driving the obligor into an underground economy and, usually, out of the child’s life.
When the Ohio child support law was drafted, it incorporated a very serious error: it defined the self-support reserve in terms of the combined income of the two parents. This causes a problem when the obligor’s income is near the poverty level but the recipient’s income is well above that level. In such cases, the Ohio self-support reserve will not protect this obligor from being driven below the poverty level.
This problem has been recognized by all of the recent Ohio Child Support Guidelines Councils. We know of no organization that supports this aspect of the current law. The only reason the problem has not been corrected is that legislation to correct it has always been incorporated in broad, sweeping child support reform legislation—legislation that it has proven impossible to pass.
It is wrong to hold the correction of this universally recognized problem hostage to broader child support agendas. We seek to have a bill introduced that would correct the current mistake in Ohio’s definition of the self-support reserve.
Conclusion
We believe that the above legislative initiatives are well-defined, limited, and feasible. They will not involve new funding. Most importantly, they will improve the situation for Ohio’s children of divorced and separated parents.
Sincerely,
Donald C. Hubin, Ph.D., Chair
Fathers and Families of Ohio Executive Committee
Image my surprise when I went to talk the Senator LaRose about the Military Rights bill that he was working on and was told that “we are getting ready to start writing that custody bill”.
Image the surprise on his face when he was told that the bill had already been introduced and was given both the Senate and the House bill numbers off the top of my head and on the spot.
When Senator LaRose called the Interested Parties meeting that many attended again you failed at every chance in that meeting to explain why you wanted to weaken the already introduced bill. At every statement, you made about changes to that bill you were asked a simple question – Why do you want to weaken language in an already introduced bill? You sat there with a blank stare and said nothing. For those that weren’t at that meeting read what was presented by everyone that day and all the information from the various sources including LSC.
For those that have not read SB144, it is here but it will not be introduced again because of research to strengthen Ohio law and make it more consistent.
Don, did you tell everyone that you went against the recommendations on of your own Columbus Board when you refused to make the phone call to Wagner that would have allowed SB144 to move forward in Committee? That was confirmed to me by many that were on that board and quit or contacted me to apologize for your actions.
Don, why did you try to get LaRose to reintroduce HB232 which you knew was highly flawed by changing one word in that bill? I found out what you were trying to do from a member of the Ohio Fatherhood Commission who gave me a couple since it was going to be discussed at one of their meetings. Again I had to reach out and explain to the members to flaws in that proposal and in HB232 and that a much stronger bill had been introduced before.
BTW- One thing that was discussed that day was what would happen if the “Baby Mama Rule” was removed from the law. I explained the legal effect to them, not you.
Don, again in 2017 you tried to get the Ohio legislature to introduce a “presumption during temporary orders” . When are you going to learn to read Ohio law and understand that Ohio already has a presumption of equal custody that extends through not only temporary orders but through the entire process? Still haven’t read this which shows all the places where a presumption exists have you?
Don, again at the Interested Parties meeting in October of 2017 you sat and failed to support yourself with any kind of a counter agreement to the opposition to your proposal which included me because I repeatedly pointed out that the presumption already existed.
Don, why do you keep trying to use “substantially equal” when you know the judges and many others opposed that language and that it is incorrect? Heck, I even gave you and others a visual of that when I stood Marc up next to me in the meeting. You, like others, still fail to grasp what “equal” is in legal terms and the Constitution.
While I pointed out the numerous flaws in Ohio law and the approach to custody that day you sat silent.
Yet again that day you walked out hand in hand with the member of the BAR Association that opposed your own bill. Shameful is all I can say.
Don, can you please explain why you and The Fathers Rights Movement were not truthful and forthcoming when TFRM-OH posted that they were asking for people to join their database and provide their information on a Google Form. Why did people that signed up start getting emails from NPO, not TFRM-OH? Or did you hide that and pay TFRM-Oh to boast your email list?
Don, just how much money has NPO spent on paid placements in all these papers in your claim that you are doing all these things in Ohio? You got yourself exposed on that one when you falsely claimed in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that Ohio need shared parenting which already exists?
Don, have to ask why you claim that shared parenting doesn’t exist in Ohio when you told many during PACE days that you had equal custody? Wasn’t that a large part of the basic argument that you made before the Ohio Supreme Court when you claimed that there should be an automatic deviation provided on child support?
Let us now address that you claimed to be a groundbreaking study on local orders in Ohio. I really found this claim to be extra false since you admitted at the Interested Parties meeting that you had never even looked at them after I told everyone that I had. Then when you do the report you failed to provide correct analysis of those orders and did not look at all the inconsistencies that exist even in the individual counties. Extremely sloppy and shameful work for someone that claims to have a Ph.D.
I forgot, you were holding hands with the attorney that had just testified against your “presumption during temporary orders” failed proposed change to the law.
Ray R. Lautenschlager
National Legislative Director
Ohio Family Rights
|
|
|
Donald C. Hubin, PhD, Ohio, Interim Chair DonHubin@nationalparentsorganization.org · Director, Center for Ethics and Human Values, The Ohio State University · University of California, Davis, University of Arizona |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Philip Dyk, Connecticut · Partner, Alinda Capital Partners · Claremont McKenna College |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Robert A. Franklin, JD, Texas, Journalist for National Parents Organization · National Parents Organization's 'featured columnist' · Formerly Executive Editor, Houston Law Review · University of Houston |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Matt Hale, MBA, Kentucky · Architectural Sales, Spohn Associates · Bradley University, University of Louisville |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Benny Hau, MD, California · Medical Director, Physician Assistant Program; Assistant Professor, School of Allied Health, Loma Linda University · Yale University, Loma Linda University |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Linda Reutzel, Missouri · Owner/CFO FGR Mechanical, Inc. · Southeast Missouri State University |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Management |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Ginger Gentile, California, Deputy Executive Director · Activist filmmaker, public speaker and media strategist dedicated to building large coalitions that support making divorce and separation healthier for children. · Her previous, Erasing Dad, (Borrando a Papa, 2014) caused joint custody to be enacted in Argentina. · Third feature documentary, Erasing Family, premiering in the fall of 2019, exposes the trauma children suffer when a loving parent is erased from their lives after divorce and is told from the children's point of view. · Columbia University |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Lianna Mika, Massachusetts, Office Manager · Manages National Parents Organization's files, database, and general office |
|
|
||
|
Executive Directors Emeriti |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Founder and Chairman Emeritus · Nationally recognized expert on the effects of the environment on human health · Founded Fathers and Families, now National Parents Organization, in 1998 to reform the family courts · Harvard College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Daniel B. Hogan, JD, PhD · Management consultant and author of four books on the regulation of psychotherapists · Yale University, Harvard Law School and Department of Psychology |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Glenn Sacks, MA · Leading voice for family court reform · University of California, Los Angeles |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Rita Fuerst Adams, MBA · More than thirty years' experience in not-for-profit management, organizational development, and fundraising · Capital University, Ohio University |
|
California |
Nazly Behnia |
||||
|
Georgia |
Jason Ibarra |
||||
|
Legislative Liaison |
David James |
||||
|
Florida |
Dawn Endria McCarty |
||||
|
Hawaii |
Tina Lia |
||||
|
Idaho |
Jerry Papin |
||||
|
Illinois |
William Cozzi |
||||
|
Kansas |
Will Mitchell |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Chris Batcheller |
||||
|
Kentucky |
Matt Hancock |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Jason Griffith |
||||
|
Director of Women's Outreach |
Alexandra Beckman |
||||
|
Clinical Director of Family Preservation |
Jen Warawa |
||||
|
Maryland |
Andrew Marshall |
||||
|
Massachusetts |
Ned Holstein |
||||
|
Coordinator |
Richard Fucillo |
||||
|
Missouri |
Linda Reutzel |
||||
|
New
York |
Clayton Craddock |
||||
|
North
Carolina |
Dustin Long |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Michelle Capps |
||||
|
Military Liaison |
April Kirk |
||||
|
Ohio |
Don Hubin |
||||
|
Pennsylvania |
Stephen Meehan |
||||
|
Texas |
Chris Piper |
||||
|
Director of Legislative Affairs |
Dave Edmondson |
||||
|
Director of Media and Communications |
Miles Olson |
||||
|
Utah |
David Daniels |
||||
|
Chairman of Legislative Affairs |
Dan Deuel |
||||
|
Virginia |
Christian Paasch |
||||
|
Co-Chair |
Kristen Paasch |
||||
|
Washington |
Dan Hund |
||||
|
West
Virginia |
Chad Phillips |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Dakota Collins |
||||
|
Social Media & Women's Outreach |
Samantha Smith |
||||
|
Wisconsin |
Tony Bickel |
||||
|
California |
Nazly Behnia |
||||
|
Georgia |
Jason Ibarra |
||||
|
Legislative Liaison |
David James |
||||
|
Hawaii |
Tina Lia |
||||
|
Idaho |
Jerry Papin |
||||
|
Illinois |
William Cozzi |
||||
|
Kansas |
Will Mitchell |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Chris Batcheller |
||||
|
Kentucky |
Matt Hancock |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Jason Griffith |
||||
|
Director of Women's Outreach |
Alexandra Beckman |
||||
|
Clinical Director of Family Preservation |
Jen Warawa |
||||
|
Maryland |
Andrew Marshall |
||||
|
Massachusetts |
Ned Holstein |
||||
|
Coordinator |
Richard Fucillo |
||||
|
Missouri |
Linda Reutzel |
||||
|
New York |
Josh Blumenthal |
||||
|
Co-Chair |
Clayton Craddock |
||||
|
North Carolina |
Dustin Long |
||||
|
Ohio |
Don Hubin |
||||
|
Pennsylvania |
Stephen Meehan |
||||
|
Texas |
Dave Edmondson |
||||
|
Utah |
David Daniels |
||||
|
Chairman of Legislative Affairs |
Dan Deuel |
||||
|
Virginia |
Christian Paasch |
||||
|
Co-Chair |
Kristen Paasch |
||||
|
Washington |
Dan Hund |
||||
|
West Virginia |
Chad Phillips |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Dakota Collins |
||||
|
Social Media & Women's Outreach |
Samantha Smith |
||||