"I messed up"

These were Rashawn Mack's words to his family -- after he shot the mothers of his two children, and just before turning the gun on himself. One mom is dead, and the other's fate is in the balance. Mack is also dead. The kids, both of whom witnessed the attacks, are emotionally traumatized for life.

What did they die for?

One mom died over an argument about a child support order totaling twenty-five bucks a week. For the other mom, the support order amounted to even less -- about $50 a month.

That's right, you heard me. One kid is an orphan, the other is at least without a father and maybe soon to be without a mother too, over amounts of money that for most of us total to less than what we spend on lunch during the week. To be sure, there were other issues involved also, such as one mother obtaining sole custody of a child through family court. But the combined support orders put Mack over the top. Although the article, published yesterday in the New York Daily News, paints a picture suggesting that Mack was certainly no prize, there's no indication of any history of murder or felony. By all indications, Rawshawn Mack was a nasty man with a history of drug possession who used violence to solve problems, but there's no reason to think that he would have been naturally inclined to cold-blooded murder. In fact, his words to his family suggest remorse.

We don't know whether the combined support orders just added the insult of state-sponsored theft to the injury of loss of custody, or whether they actually made it impossible for him to earn a living and support himself. Hell, we don't even know what the man did for a living, if he did anything. All we know is that he was denied custody of one child and that he had a criminal record. It paints a picture of the shooter as a bad, antisocial character. No mention is made, as usual, of the character of either of the victims, or whether they had criminal records.

Two things stand out. No, three:

1. As usual, the New York Daily News, like much of the media, is paying the most attention to men who -- to say the least -- are probably not the best examples of fatherhood to be found in New York. Responsible fathers -- the silent, invisible majority of fathers who don't deal drugs or kill their exes -- are ignored.

2. After my own rape and assault in family court, I can understand the rage that drove this man to do what he did. I am not saying I agree with it or that I would do the same thing. I am grateful that God gave me the resources -- the education, insight, self-knowledge, and impulse control -- to enable me to use words and legal action to express my anger. To communicate my rage in a way that does not kill. But not everyone has this opportunity.

3. There are issues of class and income disparity in this country that cannot be ignored any longer. We continue to do so at our own risk. We need to give men in this country -- particularly black men -- the same resources that we give to women.

Let's hope this tragedy holds the seeds of positive change. Let's do the talking that LaShawn Mack was unable to do.

Sperm donor from Sweden must pay child support

For those who haven't yet heard of this case...

"A Swedish man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have to pay child support, the Supreme Court has ruled."

"The man is biological father to three children with the couple. The Supreme Court has now confirmed rulings by two lower courts that he is liable to support them."

Read the whole thing.

The reaction on the blogosphere has been mixed. Keith McDuffee of Blogging Baby says there just has to be more to this story than is being reported. Opinions among Swedes themselves range from the incredulous to the bizarre. Similar feelings showed up on Suicide Girls, where one commenter makes the intriguing point that, if the man goes to the European Court of Justice to appeal, the case might hold up maintenance payments, possibly for years.

The ultimate irony is that this was probably some gentle, young, naive man who thought he was being liberal and progressive by helping out two gay women. It is unlikely that anyone in Sweden will ever donate sperm again now. Tough luck for infertile women, and for other gay couples.

Houston PBS agrees to provide balance

Read the news from Glenn Sacks. Hopefully New York will follow their lead.

Voicemail from Terry Allen

Manager of Member & Viewer Relations at WNET (Channel 13):

I got your message about "Breaking the Silence". I wanted to apologize for the delay in calling you back, but I had a glitch and I couldn't open your voicemail on our Outlook system (sic), so anyway...I just got your phone number...I wanted to tell you that you're certainly not alone in expressing your disapproval of Breaking the Silence. There have been quite a few people who have come forward. There have been reviews you may have seen in the newspapers that thought that it was a very biased look at the situation, so...I'm saying all of that to indicate that I certainly believe that PBS is aware of the controversy. As a matter of fact, they have already distributed materials, statements by the producers saying that they were not out to support or reject any particular agenda with this. They just simply started out, they say, with a clean slate, and these are the findings they're reporting. Anyway, I will certainly note that you're adding your voice to those who are opposed to the show, thinking that it is biased and does not present a true picture, and that the other side of the coin should be shown at some point. And that will go into our database, and management here at the station will see your views about that. If there's anything else I can do for you, you can reach me directly at 212-560-2849.

Breaking the silence about PBS

Glenn Sacks has started a campaign protesting a new series which begins tomorrow on PBS called "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories".

Readers familiar with Glenn Sacks know that this kind of thing from him is not to be taken lightly. When a T-shirt manufacturer released a series of male-bashing T-shirts onto the market, he organized a protest sufficiently loud to get them removed from store shelves. And when telephone giant Verizon aired an ad depicting a father as an arrogant moron, the flood of calls and e-mails which Sacks organized resulted in the commercial being pulled.

This campaign is a little different. No one is suggesting that the show be pulled off the air. But viewers deserve an opportunity to hear a more balanced point of view. To that end, Sacks has launched an e-mail campaign asking producers of the show to contact Fathers and Families to give equal time to fathers.

The biggest problem I have with the show is that, if the press release is any indication, the show portrays Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as a disorder manufactured by father's rights advocates, when in fact, many of the symptoms of PAS are quite real. The key feature of PAS is a child's voluntary collusion with the primary caretaker in vilifying the noncustodial parent. Folks, I've seen this first-hand, both as a mental health clinician working with children, and (in a milder form) as a noncustodial parent trying to establish and maintain a relationship with my daughter. I can assure you that the symptoms of PAS are quite real. Whether they rise to the level of a mental health diagnosis I'll leave to the experts to decide, but any program, funded with public money, that says the whole idea is based on junk science really suffers from a lack of balance and objectivity that is scary.

Click here to add your voice to mine and to the growing number of others that think PBS needs to present a more balanced portrayal of fathers.

Custodial Father Loses Child Support Challenge

From the Maryland Daily Record:

A father who went all the way to the state’s highest court seeking to wipe out a child support debt he accrued prior to taking custody of his kids will have to pay approximately $10,000 to the state, after all.

The Court of Appeals said on Friday that Maryland courts are prohibited, under §12-104 of the Family Law Article, from “retroactively modifying child support awards prior to the date of the filing of a motion for modification” — in Derek T. Harvey’s case, prior to 1996, the date he got custody of his kids.

Although the top court recognized a conflict between §12-104 and §5-1038(b) — a provision relating to paternity proceedings that allows a court to “modify or set aside orders” it considers proper in light of the best interests of the child — it concluded that the more specific prohibition of §12-104 was a limitation on the broad discretion conferred on courts by §5-1038.

And although the top court recognized that the state Child Support Enforcement Administration may accept less than the total amount of arrearages owed in cases where the debt was owed to the state instead of to a custodial parent, it found the agency did not err in refusing to reduce Harvey’s arrearages.

The agency was not required to consider the best interests of the child in rendering its decision, the court concluded; nor did CSEA act improperly in considering the financial cost to the state of wiping out the debt.

It was Harvey’s position, attorney Daniel L. Hatcher said Friday, that the best interest of the children standard should have carried the day — both in the court’s power to eliminate the arrearages and in the agency’s discretion to accept less than the full amount.

Since Harvey now has custody of his children, his state-owed debt now hinders his ability to, for instance, send them to college, Hatcher asserted.

“The Child Support Enforcement Agency, which you would think, is about helping and supporting children, is now going to make it harder for Mr. Harvey to continue to support his children,” Hatcher contended. “The continued collection activities are now against the household.”

Counsel for the state did not return a call for comment by press time.

Read the whole thing

Lunch with the novelist

In the coffee shop in Barnes and Noble, I'm listening to Samantha carefully lay out the details of the story she wants to write. It's an adventure story about her and four friends moving into Chelsea Piers, an old pier on the Manhattan waterfront that's been converted to a vast, trendy indoor playground. Their residence there is secret; they have to not let on that they live there. They take their meals out at restaurants, sleep underneath the trampoline, and sneak their way out in the morning. Not even their classmates know. Parents figure nowhere in the story -- though the kids do go to school.

Samantha delights, not just in the details of the story, but in the telling of the tale itself. She's clearly enthused about the fantasy, bending my ear about it for nearly an hour as her hot chocolate gets cold. I sip my cappucino listening to the details, enthralled by my child's imagination and wondering if she'll finally have the follow-through to begin writing this one. Looking on from the bookstore walls is a mural with imposing images of the great writers of the last century: Whitman, Joyce, O'Neill, Thoreau.

I could never talk about writing anything with the larger-than-life image of Melville staring me in the face, but hey, that's just me with my home-grown, grown-up neurosis and ultra-high expectations. She's completely confident and at ease. I dismiss the thought and return again to Chelsea Piers, trying to be there with her, under the trampoline with her friends in that dark, enormous place -- a place which would normally be scary and forbidding after dark, but which, in the company of friends, is cozy and exciting.

"In appreciation for all your hard work"

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Zeth
Sent: Oct 2, 2005 1:26 PM
To:
Subject: another child support mistake

Dear J,
I am writing to ask for your help in resolving the latest child support screw-up.
On 9/29, ----- issued bonus checks to its employees. This was between pay periods (after the 9/22 pay period and before this week's pay period). The geniuses at the ------ HR Department held $326 out of that check; I ended up with less than half of it. I don't know whether you have direct deposit or not, but if you do, my bonus money will show up in your checking account transaction history this week or next week.

You will recall that, when several hundred dollars of your money turned up in Samantha's medication pack, you got all of it back from me within a few days, and with no argument. I would like to get the same treatment from you.

The reason I'm coming to you is that, if HR tries to solve the problem by simply skipping the $326 deduction on the next regular pay period, the geniuses at the
CSEU will probably note it as an arrears and try to collect it from me. I am already
fighting with them over $89 that they want to intercept from my tax refund, when
they should instead be refunding me over $300 in overpayments.

So if you can give me cash or a check as soon as you notice the money in your account, I'd greatly appreciate it. This would not solve the remaining problem of my other overpayments, but it would at least correct the error ------ made with my bonus.

And, like I said before, I wish you'd consider coming with me to family court to
get the CSEU out of this process. They have mishandled this account every step
of the way -- particularly since HRA got control of the CSEU from Child Protective
Services -- and have admitted to no mistake. If you want an automatic deduction,
I might be able to provide you with that more reliably through direct deposit at
my bank.

Then, as soon as I deal with these screwups, I will defintely work on dividing the
mutual fund account, which we've neglected for so long. I want to deal with one
problem at a time and from my point of view this child support nightmare is the
bigger problem.

Wishing you and your family well for the holidays,

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Oct 5, 2005 5:53 PM
To: Jeff Zeth
Subject: Re: another child support mistake


Jeff

I am sympathetic with your issues with CSEU. However, I do not wish to get in the
middle of the payment issues between you and CSEU. I have not received any additional payments from them. In addition, should they decide that they have made an error in the amount of money that they issued, they are entitiled to withhold payment from me. Therefore, I would be returning that money twice. The only thing that I can suggest right now, is you can discuss with them whether or not you can make voluntary payments to them instead of having money automatically deducted from your paycheck. I would agree to that if it is allowed.

It is unfortunate that they have not been effective at collecting the support, but
if you recall, I was not effective either. It lead to a lot of conflict between
us, which included when I received the check, asking for you the check, your issue
with the time it took me to cash the check, bounced checks, etc. Since for the
most part we have been able to remain civil to each other over the past few months
I feel that returning to the stressful situation of having to discuss money issues
would overall have more of a negative affect on our ability to get along. In addition, payment is still an issue between us, as I believe you have not reimbursed me for any of the child care expenses that I gave you a bill for. I would also appreciate that you not hold the mutual fund money hostage in return for my cooperation. That is a separate issue that needs to be resolved.

Unlike the situation with the money in the medicine, I do not have possesion of
any money that righfully belongs to you.

J

--------

Anticipating your lack of cooperation, I did speak with someone at the CSEU who
confirmed my overpayment & will be issuing a refund to me. It's too bad you're
choosing to keep money that doesn't belong to you. It was stupid of me to act differently, but I guess I'm not wired to do anything else.

You're the lawyer, J. You know I cannot discuss with CSEU whether I can make voluntary payments. That has to come from a court, obviously. I don't mind automatic deductions. I do mind the way they've mishandled my check-- not to mention the way you people mishandled me in family court.

If we're getting along better, it's in spite of -- not because of -- this arrangement, which seems more suited to people on welfare & social security than to two working professionals. Dealing with this stuff leaves me in a constant state of anger, at you & at everyone involved in this state-sponsored ripoff. I am not an indentured servant, no matter what the State of New York says. I will not cooperate with this system forever.

You keep talking about this childcare bill which I never saw. Please give me a
copy. You never gave it to me. With regard to the medical stuff, I have told you
before. I don't want these receipts coming to me piecemeal. I want all of them
for the year, or all of them for the quarter, or for the month. Then I can compare
what you've spent with what I've spent & can cut you a check. I cannot do that
if you forward me this stuff in bits & pieces. You gave me those receipts with
the statement that that wasn't everything. When you have everything, let me know
& I won't waste any more time.

With regard to the mutual fund account, I can't believe you would interpret my statement this way, after all the delays you caused.

Jeff