National Congress for Fathers and Children
Birmingham, Alabama Branch
James R. Blackston, Director
6185 Hwy 195 North
Jasper, Al 35503-3409
205-221-6558
September 13, 1999
Certified Mail # Z 053 890 497
Honorable Aubrey Ford, Jr.
Chairman, Access Committee
Administrative Office of Courts
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Al 36104-3741
Re: Letter of Protest - Access Grant Funds
Dear Judge Ford:
I am writing this letter of protest regarding your attitude and operation of Alabama's Advisory Committee on Access
and Visitation. Your attitude exemplifies the typical judge in Alabama's courtrooms when deciding divorce issues.
Your example did not add integrity to the committee's goals and purpose and proved beyond doubt that the committee
will be used against non-custodial parents in the future.
Having attended most of the committee meetings, in the beginning I felt the committee had promising attributes. To my dismay on September 10, 1999, I learned the committee is nothing more than a "den of thieves," that steal, rape and plunder public funds to further your own agenda and take from Alabama's "children of divorce."
As chairman of the committee you hold the responsibility for the committee's ultimate failure or success. Perhaps you acted alone in your decision to bar non-custodial parents or maybe you received bad advice. Once again, you prove to Alabama's non-custodial parents that Alabama's judges are their enemies rather than an impartial adjudicator of facts.
Incompetence, prejudicial attitudes and ineptness in serving the public cannot be tolerated inside the public's Access Committee. Is it that easy to forget that we are public servants and do not own public funds to be used for personal gain?
In the September 10th meeting I relived that eventful day in May 1993, under similar circumstances when the chairman of Alabama's Committee on Child Support Guidelines said, "You people are going to have to be quiet in here. You have no say here. You are nothing more than flies on the wall." My memory serves me well. Judge Ford you were present in the child support guidelines committee meeting that day. What did you think of Judge Dorrough's attitude?
Was it Peggy Walker or Robert Maddox that instructed you to bar us from the meeting and refuse to place us on the agenda? Whose idea was the gag order? From whence did the idea come to retaliate against Blackston for previously exercising his constitutional rights? Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 8 Fla. Law W. Fed. C, 579 (11th Cir. 1994) and the present case in federal district court (Civil Action No. 99-A-295-N.)
Several national non-custodial parent organizations lobbied Congress for the Access Grant Program. Some of the organizations include the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, American Father's Coalition, Children Right's Council and the National Congress for Fathers and Children. Access Grant funds are available, solely because of the lobbying efforts of these organizations. These groups form the nexus for the Access Grant Program. The public funds belong to these organizations - not to the State of Alabama to be misused and misappropriated for the personal edification of Alabama's judges. Isn't it amazing that "not one of these non-profit, non-custodial organization's members is on Alabama's Access Grant Committee?"
Were any of the leaders of these organizations contacted about serving on the committee? Did the committee contact Dr. Richard Weiss, State President of the Children Right's Council? Did the committee contact Frank Hicks, President of Alabama Families Rights Association? Did the committee contact Brad Barber, President of the Birmingham Chapter, National Congress for Fathers and Children?
Public Law 104-193, §391 established a grant program to the States to provide support for programs to improve the non-custodial parents' access to and visitation of their children. Alabama designated the Administrative Office of Court (AOC) to administer the program through the Access and Visitation Advisory Committee (Committee.) Additionally, AOC administers the federally funded child support program through the Child Support Guideline' Update and Enforcement Committee.
The program is authorized by Public Law 104-193 §391 as follows:
Objectives: Public Law 104-193, §391
To enable States to create programs which support and facilitate access and visitation by non-custodial parents with their children. Activities include mediation, counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, developing guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. 42 U.S.C. §669b(a.) Program activities do not include measures to collect more child support.
Application and Award Process:
State Governors have designated a single State agency to carry out this responsibility. Eligible applicants for these grants shall be State agencies, courts, non-profit private organizations and local public agencies. 42 U.S.C. § 669b(a)
Uses and Use Restrictions:
A State to which a grant is made under this section may not use the grant to supplant expenditures by the State for activities specified in subsection (a) 42 U.S.C. §669b(d)
Contrary to the requirements of Public Law 104-193, §391, the primary focus of the Committee is never married parents. Children of divorce are not being considered because, in reality, establishing paternity means more child support for the state's coffers and more prestige and pay raises for the enforcers.
The Committee includes all the traditional adversaries and enemies of non-custodial parents. The continuously shifting make-up of committee members include five (5) judges, two (2) child support enforcement (DHR) employees, three (3) lawyers, one (1) Circuit Clerk, one (1) Referee and other occupation unknown individuals. AOC refuses to appoint a knowledgeable non-custodial parent representative to the Committee.
Two members on the Committee, Rev. Dan Cobb and Mr. Ron Price, represent non-custodial parents' interest.
Several non-custodial parents, all fathers, traveled from various and distant parts of Alabama to attend the Access Committee meeting on September 10, 1999. The non-custodial parents included representatives from the Alabama Families Rights Association - Enterprise, Huntsville, Auburn and Montgomery Alabama Chapters, the statewide chapter of Children Rights Council and the National Congress for Fathers and Children, Birmingham Chapter. The various representatives cover a wide range of business and community leaders including doctors, aero-space engineers, Alabama prison officials and computer programers and technicians.
Conducting the first order of business, the Honorable Aubrey Ford, Jr., Chairman, stated that all non-custodial parent visitors would not have a say in the proceedings of the day. Judge Ford stated that issues of non-custodial parents' concerns would not be discussed that day and further relegated them, literally, to the back of the room.
Although Judge Ford did not require all visitors to leave the room, in effect Judge Ford prohibited the non-custodial parents' participation and destroyed the integrity of the committee by relegating the non-custodial parent representatives to the "back of the bus." Judge Ford thwarted the purpose and intent of the federal access grant program. Judge Ford increased the likelihood that the Access Committee's newly designed and self-orchestrated purpose, will be used to deny non-custodial parents access to their children in the future. Little doubt remains non-custodial parents believe that Judge Ford's intentions are contrary to the federal access grant program.
Not-withstanding the bizarre events above, several issues about the overall makeup of the Committee and its activities gravely concern non-custodial parents.
In the September 10th meeting, Rev. Cobb was absent and Mr. Price demonstrated total ignorance of non-custodial issues. Mr. Price rarely spoke at all and offered no evidence or protest against the Committee's disregard for non-custodial parents' issues.
Little doubt remains that the Committee has been hand picked to eliminate non-custodial fathers for the express purpose to enhance child support collection opportunities. Significantly the committee is controlled by individuals unsympathetic to non-custodial parents' issues.
Peggy D. Walker is the AOC Planning and Research Division Director and therefore controls the entire budget for the Committee. Ms. Walker, not listed as member of the Committee, serves as project director for the access/visitation grant. Ms. Walker has worked with the Administrative Office of Courts for 22 years and has been directly involved with the state's child support programs since 1985, including providing staff support to the Alabama Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Child Support Enforcement. Clearly a conflict of interests exist to Ms. Walker's ability to facilitate both programs at the same time - one for mothers (child support) and another for fathers (access.)
According to DHR policies, child support and access are two separate issues and will not be combined in the same context. Ms. Lois Brasfield, lead counsel for DHR confirmed the policy in a Child Support Committee meeting in March 1993. The official policy prohibits child support advocates and enforcers (DHR) from representing both parents in a child support proceeding. DHR will refuse to assist a father with access problems while eagerly providing all assistance to mothers, including attorneys and clerical assistance. Mothers obtain the assistance for a $25 fee by assigning their rights to collect child support to DHR. In most cases the $25 fee will be paid by the father.
Robert Maddox, another AOC employee not listed on the Committee, serves as staff attorney for the AOC and plays a significant role in the Committee's activities. In the September 10, 1999 meeting, Mr Maddox presented an update on the Education and Training of Guardians ad Litem in Custody and Visitation, a program supported by the Committee.
Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)
Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), by definition, is an attorney that represents the interest of the child. Experience by non-custodial parents shows that Guardian Ad Litem attorneys are mostly female attorneys that represent the interests of mothers instead of the child. Programs designed to assist both parents cannot operate fairly in an adversarial atmosphere where court appointed advocates succumb to personal prejudices and public excitement surrounding child support. AOC is using the Access Grant funds to established GAL rules of judicial administration.
Judge Ford stated in the September 10, 1999 meeting that the "GAL has never been a big money making deal."Judge Ford is unduly and unethically concerned with using Access Grant funds for the edification of GAL attorneys in their quest to "make money." AOC must separate the GAL program from the Access Grants and properly utilize the Access Grant for its intended purpose.
Robert Maddox is currently a defendant in a federal lawsuit for his alleged illegal activities and operation of the sister committee on child support enforcement.(1) Both Walker and Maddox's involvement in the Access Committee is a conflict of interest on many fronts.
Supervised Visitation Centers - Historically repugnant to fathers' issues
For example, paying $120 for 90 minutes with your kid, "Supervised visitation" is a booming part of the industry for the State of Massachusetts. In 1994, only three visitation centers existed -- they were pilot projects in Springfield, Roxbury and Brockton. Today, there are 13 state-funded centers absorbing nearly a million dollars a year. These centers not only get state funding, they also charge fathers for the privilege of seeing their own offspring. Rates go as high as $120 for ninety minutes.
The assumption "is that a lot of dads are abusing their children and their access to their children must be supervised," declares Michael Ewing, a fatherhood activist. Though research suggests this assumption is completely false, the supervised visitation industry has skyrocketed anyway.
The centers strongly assume that children's fathers are guilty of some unnamed crime. Caring fathers with the bad luck to be accused often endure insulting, exploitative treatment to see their children. They complain rarely, because the social workers can and do end visitation for little or no reason.
At least some of the men interviewed for this story are devoted fathers. It is clear that some have heroically maintained contact with their children over a period of years, despite having to pay a small fortune in cash and endure repeated harassment by petty, vindictive state officials. During a dozen hours of telephone interviews, not one supervised-visitation official spoke any word of praise for any man's love of his children. ( See Exhibit A )
Legal Services Corporation - Refused financial assistance to fathers that seek custody
In a concerted effort to harm non-custodial parents, Legal Services Corporation abuses its right to exist. On May 12, 1995 the Legal Services Corporation of Alabama, Tuscaloosa Regional Office, 1351 McFarland Blvd., East, Post Office Box 020967, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35402-0967, refused to assist a father except on very limited terms.
Rebecca Brooks, Managing Attorney states, "We agree to provide you legal representation on a limited basis. Our representation will be limited to the divorce action that is presently pending in Walker county Domestic Relations Court. Our efforts will be directed at trying to help you establish visitation with your children, obtain alimony from your wife and accomplish an equitable division of the marital property. We will not represent you if your goal is to seek custody of the children. . . . . . ." (Emphasis added)
Deny Grants to Non-profit entities
The National Congress for Fathers and Children, Birmingham Chapter (NCFC) submitted a proposal for an access grant before the February 26, 1999 meeting. In the February 26, 1999 meeting Ms. Walker minimized committee discussion on the proposal by declaring that access grant funds were previously allocated. Walker's written budget report shows $139,342 surplus but stated orally only $90,000 remained. By the delayed meeting on September 10, 1999, Ms. Walker stated that only $10,000 remained. A full accounting and an independent audit of the access grant funds must be conducted before the Committee can proceed further.
The last meeting of the Committee occurred on February 26, 1999, a time period of almost seven (7) months. AOC intentionally and maliciously delayed the September 10, 1999 meeting until a deadline of August 31, 1999 past. During the time lapse between meetings, AOC lost the authority to allocated the 1998 access grant funds on August 31, 1999. (2)
Maybe Judge Ford's actions exhibit gross incompetence or actions base on bad advice. Maybe he received bad advice from Ms. Walker and Mr. Maddox. In either case Judge Ford's conduct is inexcusable and violates clearly established law that a reasonable person should have known.(3) It's no coincidence that similar circumstances surround illegal activities of the sister Child Support committee that resulted in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Blackston v. Alabama, Supra. From Judge Ford's actions (4) during the September meeting we have "no confidence" that he will perform the appropriate evaluation of non-custodial issues.
Wherefore premises considered AOC must
1. Recuse AOC from further administration of Access Funds or
2. Remove DHR employees from Access Committee;
3. Stop refusing non-custodial parent organizations opportunities for grant funds;
4. Remove all "gag orders" from non-custodial parent representatives;
5. Reconstitute the Committee members to include proper representatives from above named organizations;
6. Separate the GAL program from the Access Grants;
7. Remove Access Grant funding from Legal Services Corporation;
8. Remove Access Grant funding from Supervised Visitation Centers;
9. Judge Ford must recuse himself as chairman on a vote of "no confidence;"
10. A full accounting and an independent audit of the access grant funds.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Blackston
Copies to:
David Gray Ross, Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement
4th Floor, Aerospace Bldg.
370 L'Enfant Promenade SW
Washington, DC 20447
202-401-5364]
David Levy, Esq.
President, Children's Rights Council
300 "I" Street NE, Suite 401
Washington, D.C. 20002-4389
Mr. Frank Gregory
Administrative Office of Courts
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Al 36104-3741
Rep. Steve McMillian
P. O. Box 337
Bay Minette, Al 36507
Chief Justice Perry Hooper
Alabama Supreme Court
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Al 36104-3741
Mr. Tony Petelos, Commissioner
Department of Human Resources
S. Gordon Persons Building
50 Ripley Street
P.O. Box 304000
Montgomery, AL 36130-4000
Endnotes:
1. The Committee refuses to fund NCFC's grant proposal. Failure to consider NCFC's proposal is retaliation against NCFC members because of the federal lawsuit involving AOC employee Frank Gregory and Robert Maddox.
2. This important bit of evidence was orally transmitted by Ms. Walker via the September 10, 1999 Committee meeting.
3. Relegating those with unpopular views to the "back of the bus" has been illegal since the 1950's civil rights era.
4. Judge Ford, as Chairman of the Committee, placed a gag order against non-custodial parent representatives. Refused to address non-custodial parent issues. Refused to consider NCFC's grant proposal. Also delayed all Committee meetings for a period of nearly seven (7) months, until AOC lost the authority to allocated the 1998 access grant funds. After placing a gag order on non-custodial parents representatives, Judge Ford allowed a non committee member to speak. Vickie L. Goodman, M.A., 2227 Drake Ave, Suite 19, Huntsville, Al 35805 256-880-1967. (Supervised Visitation Center.)
Carol Dunlop, President of the Coalition against Domestic Violence in Montgomery (predominantly a feminist group) was allowed to sit at the table and participate at the meeting. Whereas, non-custodial parents were excluded and forced to sit at the back of the room (bus.)
[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]