Children's Rights Council
Alabama Branch
Dr. Richard C. Weiss, State President
514 Heritage Court South
Auburn, AL 36830
334-826-1832
September 11, 1999
Hon. Aubrey Ford, Jr.
Chairman, Alabama Advisory Committee for Access and Visitation
Administrative Office of Courts
300 Dexter Avenue.
Montgomery, AL 36104-3741
RE: Advisory Committee for Access and Visitation meeting held September 10, 1999
Via Certified Mail # Z 334 247 237
Dear Judge Ford:
I am writing you a formal letter of protest regarding the Alabama AOC Advisory Committee for Access and Visitation Meeting chaired by you which was held yesterday morning in Montgomery. Specifically, I am protesting your exclusion of participation by representatives, including myself, of several state and national groups that represent the interests and concerns of non-custodial parents. Many of us traveled great distances to provide information and feedback to the Committee. One of us had even previously requested to be on the agenda.
I am also protesting the gross misappropriation of federal funding by the Alabama AOC Advisory Committee on Access and Visitation used for this grant program and its noncompliance with grant guidelines, which I witnessed yesterday.
I am the President of the Children's Rights Council (CRC) of Alabama with its national headquarters in Washington, DC. The CRC was instrumental in lobbying Congress to pass legislation (Sec. 469B [42 U.S.C. 669b] that provides funding to states for access and visitation programs. CRC through its state chapters monitors states for compliance with the provisions of the grant and whether the funds are being used appropriately as Congress intended. I strongly affirm that evidence I gathered yesterday at the AOC meeting indicates gross misappropriation of federal funds. I would strongly advise the Alabama AOC to take this complaint extremely seriously because federal funding for Alabama's access and visitation grant programs can and should be summarily withdrawn if these allegations are investigated and affirmed.
I have several major concerns about how the Alabama AOC misuses federal funds. I have major concerns about how the AOC Access and Visitation meetings and programs are managed and the composition of the committee. Not the least of which is my perception of discrimination by the AOC against the very same group of people that the federal funds are targeted to provide relief, significantly non-custodial parents and particularly divorced fathers. I also have major concerns about the priorities assigned by the AOC to its funding of state programs and its real impact, if any, on improving access and visitation of non-custodial parents in Alabama.
There are very serious conflicts of interest involved regarding the assignment of several persons on the Access and Visitation Committee who represent child support enforcement branches of the Department of Human Resources (DHR). These persons should not be sitting on a committee that is charged with adopting rules and procedures that will affect access and visitation. In fact, DHR personnel are not allowed to address issues of access and/or visitation in our state courts during litigation and are authorized only to address money. It is state policy not to have linkage between child support and access and visitation. So exactly why are these persons sitting on the Access and Visitation grant committee and actively participating?
Child support has absolutely no relevance to the federal objectives of this grant program regarding the study and improvement of access and visitation. The participation of DHR child support enforcement personnel in this process is antithetical to the goals of the grant program. It is very disturbing that not only are DHR personnel inappropriately represented on the committee but that their representation equals the number of those representing non-custodial parents. Why?
I am further worried about your own response to our concern about the inappropriate emphasis of the committee on child support. You stated and justified the agenda on the basis that the grant program is funded by the child support agency. This is untrue and an obfuscation. Although DHR is also broadly under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Administration for Children and Families subserves several operations. Access and visitation are separate from child support management. There is no linkage. The fact that the Chairman of the Access and Visitation Committee himself apparently does not appreciate the funding structure of this grant or its real objectives and philosophy is extremely disturbing to us. It questions exactly who is managing this Committee and what the real agenda is. There appears to be an inordinate involvement of one person, a Ms. Peg Walker, on the Committee whose name appears on mostly all reports involving budgeting and finances, appointment of Committee members, and ongoing grant programs. We would like to know what her relationship is, if any, between child support enforcement agencies and domestic violence groups and individuals, which are over-represented on the Access and Visitation Committee and allowed to participate in policy making.
The disproportionate representation of child support enforcement agents on the Committee and invited participation of members of domestic violence groups compared to non-custodial parents (as we witnessed yesterday) is visibly discriminatory against non-custodial parents and especially to divorced and unwed fathers (ostensibly the beneficiaries of this grant program). Child support enforcement agencies and domestic violence groups are notoriously biased against men and historically are opposed to joint custody and equal parenting plans. Their overrepresentation and participation on the Access and Visitation Committee and their directly influencing policy decisions and grant awards is a blatant conflict of interests. It seriously compromises the intended goals of this grant program.
Nowhere in the general provisions of the grant is it stated that "child support/child support enforcement" is relevant to the purposes of this program. The specific language of Sec 469B [42 U.S.C. 669b] is "The Administration for Children and Families shall make grants under this section to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents' access and visitation of their children, by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements."
If anyone, there should be a representative on the committee who is involved in visitation enforcement (if such a person or agency ever existed) and not members of child support enforcement! This would more appropriately follow the guidelines of this grant. I see the overemphasis on child support and domestic violence concerns by the membership of the AOC committee as a severe conflict of interest and a gross misappropriation of federal grant funds.
Given the above problems and major discrepancies with the AOC committee in general, I was most appalled by your statement when we approached you after the meeting that this particular meeting was not relevant to the issues of concern we as non-custodial parents wished to express yesterday. Your justification in excluding us from participation yesterday appeared to be that legislation we advocate involving joint custody and the 12-year old child custody bill (HB97) was not on the meeting agenda. You then forced a non-participatory status ("gag order") on us as non-committee members. This is a tortuous interference with our First Amendment rights to speak at a meeting that is federally funded and thus public domain. Although we are indeed concerned with joint custody and HB97, we as non-custodial parents are also extremely concerned about the other issues the committee addressed yesterday.
One of our non-custodial members, Mr. James Blackston, had telephoned the committee earlier and had asked to be included on the meeting agenda. He was ignored. However, it is most curious that despite your proclamation at the beginning of yesterday's meeting that participation was limited to committee members only, you allowed full testimony on supervised visitation by a non- committee member from the Family Services Center in Huntsville. Your exclusion of participation by any of the non-committee non-custodial parents at the meeting yesterday who wished to provide input or feedback, while allowing input by a different non-committee member representing other interests, is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Your suppression of our right to free speech, especially in the context that we are the people who are themselves the subjects of the federal grant program for whom you receive money, violates our First Amendment rights.
I seriously question how the committee is spending the grant money and what programs or "interests" are being targeted and which interests are being ignored. Specifically, I perceive that a disproportionate amount of grant money is being expended by the AOC Committee on issues that are minimal and peripheral and not representative of the majority of non-custodial parents. It appears that an entire meeting, and almost all of the grant money (excluding inflated personnel and travel expenses), has been set aside to study and/or provide services for unwed and indigent parents. Or, to provide services such as supervised visitation or pro se packets for indigents. However, the vast majority of non-custodial parents are fit parents and not indigent. The major problem in Alabama is not problems with access due to adverse family situation. The major problem is parental exile and disenfranchisement of predominantly fathers (and less so mothers) as the result of Alabama family court practices that are gender-biased and which are based on a "winner-loser" mentality. The major emphasis on access and visitation needs to be on shared parenting programs and expanded custody programs until truly effective legislation with a presumption for joint legal and physical custody is passed by our state legislature.
Regrettably, the vast majority of AOC funding for access and visitation programs is being expended in areas that constitute a very small percentage of cases. Major areas of relevance and our concern-including but not limited to outdated and discriminatory judicial practices that has created an epidemic of fatherlessness in our state-are not funded at all. There is a tremendous need to statistically study the pattern of custody awards in Alabama; the relationship between domestic violence and sole maternal custody where non-related family members or other associates cohabit with children of divorce; the issue of false allegations of abuse and restraining orders prior to evidentiary hearings, etc. Programs that encourage more father contact and encourage shared parenting---increasing both parenting time and responsibilities for non-custodial parents---need to be funded from the AOC monies. Instead, the only group of Alabama non-custodial fathers that are being addressed by monies released by the Alabama Access and Visitation Committee are those who are in need of rehabilitation and education, or those who are unwed or indigent. What about the million or more other fit, responsible and educated non-custodial parents in Alabama who are now exiled from their children by the Alabama legal system? This disproportionate spending and biased prioritization of programs is another gross example of misappropriation of federal funds.
Please let me remind you that I attended the prior AOC Access and Visitation meeting in May as a non-committee member when Judge Hamner was acting as Chair. I was very courteously invited by Judge Hamner to speak in front of the Committee and present my perspectives as a non-custodial parent on issues related to the Committee's specific purposes. As a result of my discourse and the ensuing committee discussion, a subcommittee was formed chaired by Tim Smith, Esq. (I was appointed as a subcommittee member) that addressed important changes in terminology replacing "visitation" and "child support." Yesterday, your exclusion of participation by we eight visiting non-custodial parents who were at the meeting clearly was antagonistic. It defeated in spirit the purpose of this Committee. It was also unethical. If I may have the liberty of using my contribution last spring as an example, by "gagging" us yesterday you may very well have suppressed important and necessary feedback and ideas that the Committee can ill afford to disregard in performing its functions. I doubt that this is how the legislators intended their funding to be used.
Lastly, Judge Ford, I want to end on a more personal note. I objected to your demeanor following the meeting yesterday when we attempted to voice our concerns. Personally, I felt that you addressed us in a perfunctory, petulant, and authoritarian manner. That was unnecessary. It seemed more characteristic of the posture a circuit court judge takes in his courtroom rather than that of a Chairman of a Committee on Access and Visitation. It is very inappropriate and counter-productive to interact with us as if we are in a courtroom of yours. We are not. We are responsible and involved citizens who came to this important meeting (subsidized by federal funds which we as taxpayers contribute) to exercise our individual and public rights as Americans.
We do not need to as you suggested "go talk with our congressmen." That attitude is irresponsible and ignores the mandate of the committee you chair. We traveled to Montgomery to talk to you and the Committee on areas of vital concern to all of us, because you are entrusted and funded by the federal government to serve our public interests. We are not defendants being judged, reprimanded, or ordered to behave in your courtroom. We are professionals, like yourself; several of us are doctors. The reason we elect to actively participate in the AOC meetings on Access and Visitation is exactly because we are NOT in court. Otherwise, we would be treated as having no rights, including neither freedom of speech nor equal protection, among others. In family court, fit and capable divorced fathers are typically "criminalized" for wanting to be involved (in our families) and we are typically (9 out of 10 times) thrown out of our children's lives. I felt no differently at the end of the meeting yesterday.
I pray you re-examine what happened yesterday. There is a large risk of withdrawal of federal funding to the Alabama AOC Advisory Committee resulting from noncompliance with federal grant guidelines and gross misappropriation of federal funds. I would strongly encourage that an open and democratic process is instituted; that the priorities of areas of funding are re-evaluated; that inappropriate personnel (i.e., Child Support Enforcement Officers of DHR and domestic violence workers) are removed entirely from serving on the Access and Visitation Committee; that the management of the Committee by AOC personnel and particularly the issue of vested interests are examined; and that federal funding is not grossly misappropriated.
If you cannot manage this Committee properly to ensure that there is no misconduct, discrimination, misrepresentation or other illegal or inappropriate activities, I urge you to resign as Chairman. The future of our children in Alabama is too important to abuse the opportunity our federal government has given Alabama to significantly promote child welfare in this state.
Yours respectfully,
Dr. Richard C. Weiss
President, Children Rights Council of Alabama
Member, Alabama Family Rights Association
Cc: David Levy, Esq.
Frank W. Gregory
Hon. David Ross
Hon. Perry Hooper
Tony Petelos
Rep. Steve McMillan
Rep. Bill Fuller
Rep. Mike Hubbard
Se. Ted Little
Gov. Don Siegelman
Lt. Gov. Steve Windom
Attorney General Bill Pryor
Sen. Richard Shelby
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Rep. Bob Riley
Tim Smith, Esq.
[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]