Good afternoon, members of the Commission. My name is Brent Wellman, Associate Director of the Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange, F.R.E.E.^[tm]. Our director and founder, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq., is unable to appear today, and I am a last minute stand-in. Therefore my remarks today are impromptu, if not extemporaneous, since in my own case, I had to dash out of a California Assembly Judiciary Committee meeting to be here.

F.R.E.E.^[tm]is a union of concerned parents, step-relatives, and family law professionals dedicated to the proposition that parenting should be a 50-50 proposition, within or without the context of the institution of marriage.

My own qualifications to speak before the Commission have been won through three years of fathers' rights advocacy. In truth, I am merely a 'rocket scientist' working for the Army Aeroflightdynamics Directorate. When I am not that, I am a divorced non-custodial dad. And, when I am not that, I am advocating for dads and kids.

Yesterday, you heard from Jim Cook of the Joint Custody Association (In fact, he and I collided in Sacramento, as I was rushing to get here). F.R.E.E.^[tm], of course, supports this concept. The reasons for joint custody are many, pointing to its being in the child's best interest.

Experts, as the panel knows by now, disagree as to the benefits.

Some point especially to the dizzying fluidity of environment inherent in joint custody, calling the children 'shuttlecock kids,' and the like. Others believe this is an enriching experience for children, exposing them to diversity in ways which will aid them in dealing with later life.

If I may leave that point for a moment, I would like to assert F.R.E.E.'s belief that joint custody is in the best interest of both parents. As pointed out in Dr. Ricci's book, Mom's House, Dad's House, divorced, separated, and unwed parents learn ways to cooperate and work towards a common good, when charged with the joint responsibility of raising a child.

As a microcosm of the real world, parents who get past feelings of hurt, guilt, anger, to resolve their differences in ways other than revenge, withdrawal, rage, teach their children lessons in conflict resolution that are of more [practical] use than school sessions on the subject.

This does not come without risk, as detractors of joint custody point out. Certainly, warring co-parents who don't resolve their differences pose the threat of further damaging the children.

Parents in sole custodial arrangements deserve consideration, as well. While joint custody is catching on, the preferred mode is [still] sole custody. That this shuts children off from one parent is obvious, but [not so obvious is that] half the stars in the child's family constellation are removed, as well.

'Visitation' and 'child support' become the watchwords here. Census Bureau numbers, of which the panel is now aware, show that increased contact [between non-custodial parent and the children] equals increased compliance [with child support orders]. We would point out, then, that from a strictly fiscal standpoint, child support compliance is to be preferred over child support enforcement. We would propose [and challenge] the government [to] initiate a policy of 'passive enforcement,' by establishing incentives [for non-custodial parents] to comply [with child support orders].

[The government can impose its will, as expressed by its laws, in three primary ways: The police power, through a bureaucracy, and through tax incentives. Traditionally, only the first two are applied to family law. We would suggest the Federal Government make creative use of the third method to bring families of divorce together. Here are two concrete ideas.]

Usually, in sole custody, 'mom stays while dad pays' is the norm. We would propose that non-custodial parents who pay support in full each year get some fraction of the [income tax] child exemption, depending on the fraction of support provided each child.

We would also propose tax [and grant] incentives to states which enact a rebuttable presumption for joint custody [statute].

I thank the Commission for its time and attention. I wish you luck and wisdom in forming your recommendations.

The Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange
3140 De la Cruz Blvd, Suite 200
Santa Clara, California 95054
(415) 853-6877
1-500-FOR-DADS