Contemporary Letter

From the Desk of Karl Denninger

June 20, 1999

The Honorable «FirstName» «LastName»

«Address1»

«City», «State» «PostalCode»

I reproduce for you a short excerpt that is of great importance this Father’s Day.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…..

Fifty-five words.

I’m sure you recognize them. They form the first part of the declarative paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, a founding document of this country’s government.

Today, on Father’s Day, I want to discuss with you the importance of that document as it relates to fatherhood and children, and how it relates to the issues at hand.

Let us view the issue of custody and its surrounding areas of law from the perspective of the children who are the real victims of your legislative policies and those of this state in general. We will assume two parents and a child in this hypothetical family, and look at the perversions that this State’s – and your – policies foist off on these individuals.

To make this more personal, we shall name our child "Charlie".

In this intact family, Charlie is free to seek attention and interactive time with either or both of his or her parents at will. If Charlie wants a hug from his father, he can simply walk over to him and extend his arms. Likewise, if Charlie falls outdoors while playing, he can ask his mom to kiss the wound and make it "better".

This right – to the comfort, company, companionship and support of both of Charlie’s parents, is a fundamental right as precious as life itself. You only need to be in the company of a healthy, intact family for a few minutes to discern this fundamental truth. Who could possibly argue that Charlie’s desire for that care, comfort and companionship does not rise to the level of "liberty and pursuit of happiness" – an unalienable right for which our forefathers’ risked their lives?

Now, fast-forward to divorce court. In one bang of the gavel, Charlie is "assigned" to one of his parents as a "primary parent" – he is effectively now owned by that party. The other is assigned the majority of the financial responsibility for Charlie. Charlie is told when he may enjoy the care, comfort, and companionship of those most dear to him – his parents – and on what timetable he may have contact with them.

Charlie is no longer a free individual and he no longer has the most precious of his civil rights. He has become a slave and his rights infringed, with as much certainty as if he had been sold to a third party. Charlie’s unalienable right to the care and companionship of his father, for example, is now probably restricted to four days a month – and any attempt by Charlie to increase this time or contact is a violation of the law.

This restriction on care and companionship by family members, along with the prevention of Charlie’s desire to the companionship of his parents is precisely the condition of slavery that we abolished one hundred and thirty years ago.

More to the point: By what authority does the judge take Charlie’s right to that companionship on terms and at times that he deems appropriate away?

Remember what we are dealing with here again, if you please:

"….that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…."

The founding fathers did not add to that sentence "unless you are a minor or a divorced parent."

Charlie has committed no offense. Indeed, according to our current system, nobody has committed an offense; the divorce was, almost certainly, granted as a "no fault" action!

From this point the situation deteriorates further. Should Charlie’s father decide that he is willing to protect Charlie’s desire to see him more often, he can only do so by attempting to violate both Charlie’s and his mother’s rights – by attempting to reverse the original custody determination. To protect his rights he must place Charlie’s mother in the exact position that he formerly occupied.

By what justification does any court infringe upon the rights of not one but two people in a divorce proceeding while claiming to "protect" the third? Our Constitution and body of law states, in clear language, that all persons have equal standing before the law – we are all entitled to equal protection. Yet the laws that you personally oversee, enact, and continue to promulgate violate those principles – and by doing so abuse children – every single day.

Now let us turn to the parents for a moment.

Dad, 93% of the time, has twenty percent of his net income garnished as "child support". What are we doing here? We are assigning all of the control and decision-making regarding Charlie’s diet, clothing, medical care, shelter, education and environment to his mother! Dad has been reduced to the person who pays the bills – despite any court order to the contrary, he must pay his ex-wife for her decisions – whether he agrees with them or not! If he disagrees with her decisions, or even if she spends the money not on Charlie but on a new BMW there is nothing he can do about it.

What about Charlie’s Mother? She, for her part, has been adjudicated by this same court to bear no responsibility for Charlie’s financial needs – food, clothing, medical care or housing. In fact, for any income beyond $20,000 that Charlie’s father may have, his "child support" payment is in excess of all of Charlie’s actual and reasonable needs.

For your edification, here is an actual example of how this all plays out. Since I’m in the mode of making this personal, I will do so with my own, current experience:

I am a joint custodian of the daughter born from my short (2 year) marriage, having spent over $300,000 to secure and maintain those rights against my ex-wife who attempted to forcibly eject me from our daughter’s life. That attempt included replacing me with her new (female) lover via a false ex-parte order of protection and other (unsuccessful) attempts to manipulate the court system, all of which I ultimately paid for.
I have voluntarily assumed the cost of medical insurance, despite being on COBRA and therefore having to spend nearly $350 a month for this coverage. When COBRA expires I will have to secure this coverage privately at incredible expense.
I have voluntarily assumed the cost of all pre-college private school tuition expense; an expense that currently exceeds $6,000 a year and will exceed $10,000 a year in two years’ time.
I am personally responsible for my daughter almost exactly half the time, and spent $300,000 in legal fees to secure that right. I endured multiple acts of perjury, false pleadings, and other abuses of the legal system by my ex-wife, all of which have gone unpunished to this day and all of which were material to the cost of the litigation. Part of this expense was due to a summary order to pay $56,000 of my ex-wife’s attorney fees while being denied an evidentiary hearing on the merits of her petition. This denial came from Judge Klein despite my response to her pleading documenting evidence that she had dissipated nearly a quarter of a million dollars during the divorce proceedings in violation of the automatic dissolution stay in section 5/501.1.
Notwithstanding my personal commitment to my daughter’s well-being on an emotional, physical, educational., social and financial level, I was told by Judge Klein that this was a "guidelines case" and was ultimately ordered to pay $1860.00 per month in "child support".
My ex-wife quit her $100,000 a year job within three months of the judgment, and on information and belief is now working only sporadically if at all, choosing instead to live on the child support payments!

I could raise a half-dozen children on $1860.00 per month, especially if I only had them half the time. Under 750 ILCS I have no right of recourse, as there is no accountability in the law for where "child support" is spent. Quite simply, I have no right of review as to how these funds are expended under the law as it exists today, and my ex-wife has no requirement to contribute one penny to my daughter’s upbringing herself.

First we remove Charlie’s right to self-determination in that he loses any right to determine, for himself, who shall provide the hugs, kisses, pats on the head and care that he wants and needs in his life. We then further compound the civil rights violations by violating the rights of Charlie’s father to determine in any meaningful way how Charlie is financially supported and on what those funds are spent. Finally, we relieve Charlie’s mother from any responsibility to financially provide for Charlie, and give her what amounts to a blank check to spend as she wishes – on herself – without any oversight, check or balance on her behavior. If Charlie’s father attempts to "take the law into his own hands", having been denied any way to exercise his right to due process, we revoke his driver license and ultimately send him to jail.

What is the heinous offense for which Charlie’s Dad, under this scenario, would be imprisoned?

Being a father.

Is there a solution to this problem that is fair, equitable, and does not require infringing anyone’s rights?

There certainly is.

On the following pages you will find a legislative agenda that will accomplish precisely that goal.

This agenda protects the rights of the children first, and those of the parents as well. It destroys the economic incentives that currently exist for parents to abuse their children in the process of divorce and paternity proceedings. It continues the same rights and responsibilities that existed prior to divorce with regards to children, and provides a strong incentive for both parents not to interfere in the relationship between their children and the other parent.

This legislation also has "teeth" in it to punish those adults who insist on carrying on their campaign of terror at the expense of the children involved. With this change to 750 ILCS a child may no longer be used as a pawn in a power struggle between adults during divorce proceedings. No longer may false accusations of abuse occur without consequence. No longer may parents spend any ordered "child support" on their own follies without recourse. No longer may a parent willfully destroy his or her assets, then bill the other for the costs of their litigation.

There is no doubt that some parents of both genders abandon their families and children.

If this situation arises we can and should bring the full weight of the law down upon those who abandon or abuse their families, and the presented model legislation provides our children protection against abandonment and abuse.

Unlike the current body of law in 750 ILCS 5, however, this legislation recognizes that before one is to be punished one must have first committed an offense. It also recognizes that children come first, because unlike adults they have neither a voice nor the ability to defend their own rights.

It is our sacred duty, as a state and nation, to protect children from marauders wherever they are found – including divorcing parents.

Creation of new life is a sacred expression of our own humanity and is a pact with both the future and past generations. Whether you believe that this expression arises from God or from the social principles of justice arising under governments and men, it is your duty as legislators to step in and stop the rampant abuses perpetrated against this state’s children.

Under this system of law the dynamics of divorce and custody will change in this State, and the beneficiaries will be our children.

The primary effect will be to reduce the number of divorces undertaken for foolish or vindictive reasons. If this change in the law does nothing else, it will have served our children well.

But there is more that we can expect from this legislation – much more – in the cases where one or both parties insist on destroying the family despite their inability to bill the other party for their decision.

If both parents cannot agree to a custody and support plan the judge will be bound to impose the same responsibilities and privileges that each parent had prior to the divorce or proceeding. Both parents will be required to contribute equally to their child’s upbringing and care. More importantly, the child will have the same rights they he or she had before as well – the right to the care, comfort, and parenting of both of his or her parents.

Neither parent will become a "visitor" with the bang of a gavel. Neither parent will have an economic incentive to sue for sole custody (and child support), as a simple request for shared parenting will be sufficient to derail such a demand. Neither parent will be able to threaten the other with a ruinously expensive custody battle. Neither parent will have the right to file a false allegation of abuse and use that allegation to gain permanent custody. Finally, neither parent will have the right – or ability – to disrupt the children’s access to and time with the other.

Please note that this agenda does not prohibit the parties to the divorce from reaching a different result under circumstances where both parents agree to a different arrangement or where one party is found unfit by the court. On the contrary; the entire point of a level playing field in these situations is to improve the odds that the result will be the best possible outcome for all parties. Even in the worst of circumstances, where the judge attempts to impose shared parenting and one party abandons the children in response, the outcome is no worse than we have now with the present "mother custody" presumption. Since the majority of cases will not include child support, the enforcement agencies will be able to address the cases that deserve their attention – those who run off on their children.

For the vast majority of divorces, however, this outcome will disappear. The parents, cognizant of the fact that neither can use the children for their own selfish ends, will have to negotiate from a position of equality and with the children’s best interest at heart. The children will win, in that they will enjoy a better and more fulfilling relationship with both parents. The parents will win, in that neither parent is disenfranchised. Should the parents be unable to put their own demands aside for their children instead, the law will require the judge to do so for them. Should either parent subsequently neglect or abuse their children, the existing process for removing custodial rights from any parent via DCFS intervention remains in place.

Until you, as a legislator in this state, back and pass legislation substantially in accord with this agenda I will proclaim you to be an abuser of our state’s children, as you truly are. I will act in concert with others to remove you from office come the next election should you not have personally stood up for the rights of our children – in public, on the record – to formulate and pass this agenda.

I hold you personally responsible for the current state of affairs. As a legislator you, in concert with the other members of the Assembly and Senate, have the power to stop these abuses. Each day that passes without your documented and public action to do so is a personal ratification of the laws of today and your personal signature before both man and God in acquiescence to the abuse of our nation’s children.

It is time that you stood up to and faced what you believe in. If you are unwilling to take a public stand for the rights of both parents and children, you can expect that I, and others like myself, will go to great lengths to shine the light of truth upon your refusal. We will do so whether you refuse with pen or in silence. We will loudly, and in public, point out to all that it is you, personally, individually and jointly with the others of the Legislature, who are responsible for this American tragedy.

I will point out that you are, truthfully, an abuser of this State’s children.

These are harsh words, to be certain. The truth, however, needs no apology, and if you consider the impact that today’s legal system has on children and families the truth of that statement is self-evident. So is your role in either perpetuating the current abuse or stopping it – starting today.

It is my hope that come time for the next election I can list all of your names in a full-page political advertisement as supporters of the rights of Children and Families – and help you retain your offices. It is my hope that the side of the page reserved for those who abuse our kids will remain blank.

I call upon you to introduce, support, and pass legislation embodying the agenda attached to this document, and to indicate your support and intent both in response to this letter and in public through your words and deeds.

I welcome dialogue towards the end of introducing and passing this legislation during the current year; you may contact me at any time through the information on the first page of this address.

Sincerely,

Karl S. Denninger

Enclosure

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The current state of the law regarding divorce and custody of minor children is implemented in a fashion that leads to constitutionally-prohibited violations of the rights of both children and parents within the United States in the aggregate, as the current code:

Removes children from parent's direct care and control.
Impermissibly denies children the right to the direct care, custody, and love of their natural parents in most cases without a finding of predicate harm.
Impermissibly denies parents the right to make decisions about expenditures that further the interests of their children and transfers that control to another through the enactment and enforcement of the current "child support" laws within the several states.
Operates in a manner that is biased against men as a gender in violation of the Constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law.
Impermissibly violates a citizen's right to due process by assuming that allegations of criminal conduct such as physical and sexual abuse are proven prior to trial, and exacts punishment for alleged offenses which have not been proven.
Impermissibly violates citizen's rights to due process of law by assigning increased obligations and oversight to divorced parties which do not exist for married parties, or those who adopt children in an unmarried state, in the care and raising of this nation's children.

Current research documents that children are less likely to do well in single-parent, mother-headed homes. Such children are more likely to have serious psychological problems, drop out of school, become involved in serious felonies before the age of 18, give birth out of wedlock, run away from home and quit school prior to graduation. All of these problems have been directly tied to the incidence of family breakup.

Further, it is documented fact that women initiate nearly 75% of divorces, and that as many as 7 out of 10 are initiated against the expressed desires of their husbands. As such it is the duty of the several state legislatures and Congress to discourage the destruction of families in the first place, and where such a result cannot be avoided, mitigate the damage to our children. Finally, contrary to popular belief, it is also a documented fact that of those parents who fail to pay child support, 95% of them are either dead, incapacitated, or unemployed - and thus unable to meet their obligations.

Towards the end of fair play, equitable treatment, and responsibility under the law for all parties towards our children we therefore must:

Recognize that the current custody decisions handed down by the legal system do not grant custody - they remove custody from one or both parents. Since this results in the denial of one or both parent's civil rights and the civil rights of the children involved, such an adjudication is only permissible where criminal standards of proof can be cited. It is legally impermissible under the Constitution to remove an individual's civil rights without prior adjudication that a violation of the law has first taken place.
Remove the financial incentives that currently exist for initiation of divorce.
Remove the ability of either parent to be ejected from their home and their children's lives for any period of time without clear and convincing proof that this removal of a parent's rights is necessary to protect the children involved.
Require couples contemplating marriage to have a full understanding of the consequences of divorce, including the consequences for any children they may produce.
Seek to reduce conflict post-divorce by requiring divorcing couples to truly act in the best interest of their children, which in short means removing the ability of one parent to effectively render the other a "visitor" or "uncle" to their kids.

THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION IS HEREBY PROPOSED IN ANY SUIT AT LAW WHERE DIVORCE, CUSTODY OR CHILD SUPPORT IS AT ISSUE:

SECTION A – CUSTODY

All biological parents are presumed equal under the law and shall have the right to be treated equally at the bar. It is hereby declared that children have the fundamental right to direct care and interaction of both biological or adoptive parents, and that parents have the fundamental right to equal parenting time, parental oversight, and direct care of their children.
In recognition of the fundamental rights set forth in Section A.1, joint legal and residential custody shall be presumptive, with an approximately 50/50 parenting time division. The court shall direct the parents to develop a parenting plan implementing this provision prior to trial, and shall impose such a plan should the parents be unable to agree among themselves.
Any court ordering a deviation from the above presumption must document those deviations in the judgment or order(s) establishing the deviation under one of the following permitted exceptions:

The parents have privately agreed in a valid prenuptial, postnuptial, or other contractual document to a different custody arrangement under the provisions of Section A.4.
One or both parents has been found guilty, under criminal standards of proof, of a violation of the law which bears directly on the care and custody of the child or children involved, and for which the appropriate criminal penalty and rehabilitation proscribed at law have not been completed.
Interim orders may proceed on the basis of an allegation of criminal conduct material to custody provided that an arraignment on the predicate charge or charges has taken place and with the proviso that should the predicate charge be dismissed, or the defendant found not guilty, that this exception shall be immediately extinguished and the interim order immediately modified.
A parent is found to be unfit for joint custody due to a current condition of mental illness, substance or alcohol abuse, mental disorder or physical incapacity.
One or both parents have abandoned the children and their domicile, or have announced their intention, in a verified pleading or personal court appearance, to do so following the entry of the judgment contemplated by the court.

The courts shall recognize and give full faith and credit to all private contractual agreements between the parties concerning child custody, support, and related matters, regardless of when said agreements are made (prenuptial, postnuptual, pre or post-conception) unless it finds that (1) the agreement is unconscionable, (2) that implementation would likely lead to the neglect of the child or children involved, or (3) is contrary to the public interest as expressed in Section A or B of this legislation. All such claimed agreements must be in written form. Should the court find such an agreement invalid it may impose the standard shared parenting time division as defined herein, but may not impose sole custody unless a deviation is permitted under Section A.3.
The word "visitation" shall be replaced with "parenting time" in all related and relevant sections of law.
No parent may violate the civil rights of the other to be an involved parent, or of the child to a full, continuing, custodial relationship with either parent by removing, or attempting to remove, the child or children from the metropolitan area where they reside at the time the parents separated or, in the case of unmarried couples, when the child or children were born. No parent may remove the child or children from the school district in which they are currently attending school, or the district where the child or children have attended school within the previous 180 days, without the written consent of the other parent. Any attempt to do so shall be treated as a willful abandonment of joint parenting under Section A.3 by the parent attempting removal and sole custody shall be awarded on a permanent basis to the other parent.
A parent who constructively interferes with a custody order such that the other parent is substantially deprived of their parenting time more than once in a calendar year, or more than three times in three years, shall be presumed to have abandoned joint parenting under Section A.3 and sole custody shall be awarded on a permanent basis to the other parent.
All existing custody orders may be re-litigated on an expedited basis under this section, provided that the parties reside in the same metropolitan area. A parent seeking to modify sole custody to joint residential custody under the presumptions of this section, and who does not reside in the same locale as the other parent and child, shall be required to first establish domicile in the locale where the other parent and child reside. An injunction shall issue upon the filing of a petition for modification enjoining the custodial parent from relocating during the pendancy of the case in these circumstances.
All attorneys of record shall be required to inform their clients prior to retention of the provisions of this section, including the penalties for interference with custody or attempted removal of the children from the metropolitan area or school district. Pro-se litigants shall file a notarized statement with their initial petition or response denoting their understanding of same, or shall be sworn in and enter into the record their recognition and understanding of these provisions upon initial appearance.

SECTION B - CHILD SUPPORT:

All joint residential custody arrangements adjudicated under Section A shall not contain a child support award for ordinary, customary, and routine living expenses, as both parents are presumed to be sharing said expenses in an equitable manner via their shared parenting agreement.
The Court may order support to be paid in the form of a qualified medical support order for the specific purpose of maintaining health insurance and providing for the payment of uninsured medical costs of the child or children. The actual cost of necessary health care shall be allocated equally to the parents.
A private support agreement, entered into by the parents as part of a variance of the presumptive nature of shared custody, shall be ratified and enforced by the Court unless the trial court finds that it is unconscionable or is likely to lead to the neglect of the child or children involved, or is otherwise in violation of the terms of this section of the law. Should the Court so find both custody and child support shall be set aside and remanded for renegotiation by the parties.
All private support agreements shall terminate automatically by statute upon emancipation of the child or children involved, except that a private agreement allocating the cost of post-secondary education beyond the age of majority is permitted.
All private support agreements shall include the terms and conditions upon which they may be re-negotiated or modified. No agreement may be accepted by the court which attempts to deny re-negotiation or modification upon a substantive change in the custody of the children or the earnings of either parent.
A private support agreement is inextricably tied to the residential status of the child or children involved. Should such an agreement's re-negotiation fail under Section B.5, the parties may re-litigate the full custody and support matter under the presumptions of both Section A and B of this legislation and both sections of the previous agreement (bearing on custody and support) shall be void.
In the event that support is ordered by the Court due to a Section A.3 exception to joint residential custody in a nonconsensual format (due to abandonment, incapacity, or conviction for a related criminal offense) the Court shall assess support against any absent parent (either or both) in an amount not to exceed the following percentages of net income for the number of children covered: (1) - 20%, (2) - 25%, (3) - 32%, (4) - 40%, (5) - 45%, (6 or more) - 50%. "Net income" is defined as the income from all sources less Federal, FICA and State income tax, mandatory retirement contributions, union dues, health insurance premiums, prior obligations of support or maintenance (including alimony in the instant case) and expenditures for repayment of debts or expenses that represent reasonable and necessary expenses for the production of income, preservation of life or health and reasonable direct expenditures for the child or other parent. The amount of support shall be stated in all such cases in dollars.
A rebuttable presumption exists that parents who are assessed support will comply with said orders. Only upon conviction for civil or criminal contempt of court in regards to compliance with such orders of support shall the court be authorized to attach, seize, or otherwise encumber any parent's assets (such as through wage garnishment, seizure of income tax refunds, or other process usually reserved for the enforcement of orders in contempt).
The state shall petition the Federal Government to permit and enforce the split of the dependent income tax deduction for all parents, and request that all parents who have and obtain joint custody under Section A be qualified for this tax relief. Until such relief is granted, all existing and new divorce decrees shall specify that the deduction shall be taken on alternative years by each parent, and that both parents will cooperate in signing the appropriate IRS forms to effect this deduction transfer.
No parent may be forced to pay child support beyond the point at which their children achieve the age of majority or emancipate themselves , including but not limited to post-secondary educational expenses.
If support is assessed under section B.7 both parents shall have a right of audit which may be exercised not more than once per calendar year. In such an audit the trustee for the child shall produce documentation sufficient to substantiate that the support ordered and paid was actually used only for the benefit of the child. The following determinations shall apply to said audits:

Support shall be deemed "paid" if evidence of either (1) withholding from wages, or (2) encashment of privately delivered funds (ie: cancelled checks or bank statements documenting same) is produced.
A portion of rent, mortgage, and utility costs shall be permitted only if the parent receiving the support has sole legal and physical custody of the child or children involved, with the other parent having the child or children in his or her care less than 20% of the time. If this inclusion is allowed it shall be determined as the incremental expense for the child or children in the household, measured by the actual incremental expense. For example, if two children share a bedroom, then the increment for rent shall be the incremental rent required over a comparable home (house or apartment) with one fewer bedroom. Real estate agents may be employed by the auditor as an expert witness to document reasonable incremental mortgage or rent payments in the area in which the child or children reside. Incremental utility use, exclusive of telephone, shall be rated at 15% per child with a cap at 50% of the utilities consumed. Telephone costs beyond basic line expense (ie: usage charges, long-distance, cellular or pager service, etc.) are disallowed.
Food and other direct consumables shall be ratably apportioned over the number of persons in the household.
The recipient of support is required to produce documentary evidence of the expenses claimed to be for the benefit of the child where such expenses are variable (ie: grocery register tapes, clothing, etc)
Other direct expenses made only on behalf of the child for reasonable, ordinary and customary needs, exclusive of gifts, shall be permitted in the computation of actual expenses.
Excluded from consideration shall be luxury or "designer" items of any kind, private or parochial school tuition, fees, or expenses, charitable contributions made on behalf of the child, elective transportation expenses (ie: automobile insurance, costs or payments for a vehicle driven by the child), elective medical procedures and any expense otherwise separately paid (ie: health insurance, where a qualified medical child support order is in effect)
The audit shall be performed in the offices of a certified public accountant (CPA), appointed under court direction, who shall render a written opinion to the court under this section as to the actual amount of money spent on the child or children under the definitions of this section. Included in this report shall be the amount and percentage of total expenditures for each major category of expense (ie; housing, food, clothing, school supplies, etc.) The CPA shall also render an opinion on the cooperation of the parties with the process and quality of documentation produced.
The court shall then determine the reasonableness of the support award and any required adjustments as follows:

Willful failure to cooperate with the CPA or audit procedure shall be conclusive evidence of malfeasance on the part of the non-cooperative party and shall be an act of criminal contempt.
The court shall order the disclosure of both party's net income. Except for good cause shown, copies of the party's federal and state tax returns shall be determinative of net income. Either party shall have their income imputed by the court should it determine that a party is attempting to "hide" income or voluntarily evade their financial obligations.
The recipient of support is required to document that they are "matching" the received child support in ratable proportion to their income. This shall be determined by increasing the amount of support paid by the percentage of net income that the recipient has in comparison to the payor of support. For example, if the recipient has 50% of the net income of the payor, then the paid support amount shall be increased by 50%. If the recipient has 100% of the net income of the payor then the paid support amount shall be increased by 100% (twice the base value). This value shall be called "ANC", or "amount necessary for the children".
Should the court find that the amount spend on the child or children, per the audit opinion, falls within the range of 80% to 120% of the ANC, it shall take no action on the results of the audit and the costs of same shall be split equally between the parties.
Should the audit find that the amount spend on the child or children was less than 80% of the ANC the court shall order the amount of child support to be reduced for a period of 12 months by an amount such that that the paid-but-not-spent amount is recovered by the non-custodial parent over that 12 month period. Should this modification result in an order for less than zero dollars said time period shall be extended until the overpayment is fully refunded. At the end of this time period the order for support shall be issued to self-modify to an amount that shall prevent overpayment in the future. The court shall also order the recipient of support to pay all costs of the audit and court proceedings incident to the audit.
Should the audit find that the amount spent on the child was more than 120% of the ANC the court shall order an increase up to but not beyond the guideline amounts in this section sufficient to recover the underpayment within 12 months. If the modification would exceed statuatory guidelines then the amount of time said increase shall remain valid may be extended beyond 12 months as necessary. The court shall also order the payor of support to pay all costs of the audit and court proceedings incident to the audit.

All existing support orders shall be brought into compliance with these guidelines and rules upon petition to the court, or within two calendar years, which ever first occurs.

SECTION C - ABUSE AND NEGLECT ALLEGATIONS

No allegation of abuse in a divorce or custody case shall be given judicial notice except as provided for in Section A.3, and no order of protection may issue that impairs either parent's custody of the child or children involved unless the standards indicated in Section A.3 are met.
The issuance of an "ex-parte" order shall be denied unless it is accompanied by the filing of a criminal complaint and arrest of the suspect contemporary with the requested "ex-parte" order of protection. Dismissal or acquittal of the predicate charge(s) involved shall operate to immediately extinguish the order of protection and any temporary or permanent sole custody award as provided for in Section A.3.
A person bringing a false petition before a court, or making a false statement under oath, for the purpose of obtaining such a protective order shall be tried in accordance with the laws of the state in question for Perjury, and upon conviction shall suffer the penalties prescribed at law for that offense. Indictment, prosecution and conviction for such an offense shall be deemed a criminal offense relevant to the care and custody of the child or children at issue, and shall operate as constructive and permanent abandonment of joint custody under Section A.3.
A person bringing a petition for an ex-parte protective order before the court which is found to be insufficient, that is withdrawn, or where the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dismissed, shall be subject to civil suit at law for damages suffered by the defendant, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest and punitive damages if the respondent has been denied access to his or her children during the interim period. The accused parent may also bring an action for damages, including both emotional distress and punitive damages, on behalf of the minor child or children involved, and shall be deemed the custodian of any funds recovered under such an action for the benefit of the minor children so harmed.
Attorneys at bar for litigants in custody, divorce and support matters are required to inform their clients of the consequences of false or unsubstantiated pleadings under this section, including possible criminal and civil penalties along with the permanent loss of custody, and obtain their signature acknowledging same as part of their retention agreements. Pro-se litigants shall be required to submit a notarized statement containing this section verbatim and their knowledge, acceptance and understanding of same.

SECTION D - FEE REQUESTS

No such request may be heard or granted (even on an interim basis) on a non-evidentiary basis, as doing so violates the respondent's right to due process of law and is contrary to settlement interests thereafter; thereby being presumptively in violation of the civil rights of the litigants and/or children involved.
Sufficient defenses to an attempted fee recovery petition shall include any of the following, individually or in combination. Should the court find that any of the below defenses apply it shall deny the fee petition:

That the fees were incurred to pursue non-responsive or inappropriate avenues of litigation, including but not limited to "fishing expeditions" during discovery.
That the fees were incurred in an attempt to violate the presumptive nature of custody in a divorce or custody proceeding as defined in this legislation, except where a valid exception under Section A.3 is proven at trial. Should such an allegation be raised an interim order may be assessed. If the person bringing the fee petition does not prevail in the Section A.3 exception for any reason (including settlement) the fees assessed shall be remitted back to the payer along with interest from the date of payment at a rate three percentage points above the published prime lending rate in the locale where the action was heard.
That the petitioner had, under their control or ownership, sufficient assets or money to fund the litigation they pursued at or prior to the litigation's inception, and disposed of those assets or funds for other than necessary living expenses.
That the petitioner took any other action to prejudice their own earnings capacity and/or financial position that had a material impact upon their ability to afford said fees, including but not limited to charitable contributions, voluntarily leaving employment, being terminated from their employment for cause or transferring assets under their control to others.

Discovery shall be permitted prior to the hearing for any such petition to the extent necessary to prove or disprove any of the above sufficient defenses in D.2 above.