DATES FOR FATHERS UNITED AND WOMEN'S COALITION LEGAL CLINIC 2014-2015

Thursday November 20 2014 Thursday December 4 2014 Thursday December 18 2014 Thursday January 8 2015 Wednesday January 21 2015 Thursday January 22 2015 Thursday Febuary 5 2015 Thursday Febuary 19 2015 Thursday March 5 2015 Thursday March 19 2015 Thursday April 2 2015 Thursday April 16 2015 Thursday April 30 2015 Thursday May 14 2015 Thursday May 28 2015 Thursday June 11 2015 Thursday June 25 2015 Thursday July 9 2015 Thursday July 23 2015 Thursday August 6 2015 Thursday August 20 2015 Thursday September 3 2015 Thursday September 17 2015 Thursday October 1 2015 Thursday October 15 2015 Thursday October 29 2015 Thursday November 12 2015 Thursday December 10 2015 Thursday January 7 2016

REPORT FROM FATHERS FROM VA ON NEW PROPOSED CHILD SUPPORT LAW

House Subcommittee Endorses Child Support Increases The outcome of the Jan. 15 subcommittee consideration of HB 933, a bill that would increase the child support amounts in the statutory CS guideline, is very disappointing to fathers. By a substantial majority, the House Courts of Justice Civil Subcommittee in Richmond voted to approve the bill and send it on to the full Courts of Justice Committee. The subcommittee made their decision despite testimony against the bill by FFV's Kenneth Skilling and by Virginia Beach mediator Diane Poljacik. The official record of the subcommittee's decision is below. Subcommittee members had no comments on the testimony of those who opposed the bill, although these opponents raised significant objections to HB 933. By contrast, there was significant interaction between subcommittee members and those who supported the bill. FFV is now trying to discover from sources in Richmond what will happen next. Specifically, we want to know when the bill will be taken up in the main Courts of Justice Committee, chaired by Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield). As yet, it is unclear whether the full committee will simply rubber-stamp the subcommittee's decision, or conduct a comprehensive re-examination of HB 933. At the moment, FFV is thinking of a lobbying campaign that would focus on individual members of the full committee. Jan. 20 ("lobby day" in Richmond) seems to be a suitable day for conducting this campaign. However, much depends on the timing of the full committee's consideration of the bill. On Jan. 15 HB 933 was introduced in the subcommittee by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax County), who participated in the Child Support Guideline Review Panel, and is a member of the House Courts of Justice Committee. In mid-December, the panel produced a report that was the basis of HB 933. In her introduction of the bill, Watts focused on the fact that the Virginia guideline had not been changed for many years. She claimed that the changes in HB 933 were based on a carefully conducted study of the costs of raising children. She was questioned by panel members about some aspects of this study, and asked about the treatment of CS for mothers who had several children by several different fathers (an issue that was left for later consideration by the review panel, and not included in HB 933). Watts said the CS guideline was considered "tremendously helpful" by divorce lawyers. Craig Burshem, a senior official of the Division of Child Support Enforcement and also a member of the review panel, supported the adoption of the new CS schedule. So too did representatives of the Virginia Bar and the Virginia Poverty Law Center, in very brief statements to the subcommittee. Diane Poljacik criticized the CS guideline as insufficiently flexible and as encouraging a one-size-fits all mentality. In addition, she said, some elements of the guideline embody double counting of child-rearing expenses, and custodial parents benefit from this. Kenneth Skilling told the panel that the present CS schedule is self-updating, because the CS amounts are related to income, and as income rises so too does the amount of money payable to the custodial parent. In addition, he said, the panel had been told that other states (many advised by the same consultant who had advised Virginia) had raised their CS amounts. However, the CS review panel did not consider Massachusetts, a state roughly comparable to Virginia, which recently significantly reduced the CS amounts in its CS schedules. Skilling also noted that the CS review panel had decided to extend its work into 2014 and beyond -- an unprecedented decision, since all previous CS review panels had gone out of existence after they submitted their reports. In the panel's report to the General Assembly, there was no mention of its decision to extend its life. In addition, Skilling said, there is no recommendation in the panel's report for any change to the "cliff effect," the feature that specifies that a noncustodial parent's visitation time is not reflected in the CS he pays until after the children have been with him for more than 90 days each year. In this context, Skilling stressed that the CS review panel acknowledged that it had not finished its work. So, he said, it's premature to act on a panel report that covers only some of the issues under examination -- particularly since all the actions proposed in HB 933 are disadvantageous to noncustodial parents, whereas those that might benefit noncustodial parents (such as ending the cliff effect) have been left for later consideration. Subcommittee members commented on the views of those who supported enactment of HB 933 and questioned some aspects of their testimony. However, there was no interaction with those who opposed the bill. Their statements were simply listened to without comment, before the subcommittee proceeded to a vote. House Subcommittee Endorses Child Support Increases The outcome of the Jan. 15 subcommittee consideration of HB 933, a bill that would increase the child support amounts in the statutory CS guideline, is very disappointing to fathers. By a substantial majority, the House Courts of Justice Civil Subcommittee in Richmond voted to approve the bill and send it on to the full Courts of Justice Committee. The subcommittee made their decision despite testimony against the bill by FFV's Kenneth Skilling and by Virginia Beach mediator Diane Poljacik. The official record of the subcommittee's decision is below. Subcommittee members had no comments on the testimony of those who opposed the bill, although these opponents raised significant objections to HB 933. By contrast, there was significant interaction between subcommittee members and those who supported the bill. FFV is now trying to discover from sources in Richmond what will happen next. Specifically, we want to know when the bill will be taken up in the main Courts of Justice Committee, chaired by Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield). As yet, it is unclear whether the full committee will simply rubber-stamp the subcommittee's decision, or conduct a comprehensive re-examination of HB 933. At the moment, FFV is thinking of a lobbying campaign that would focus on individual members of the full committee. Jan. 20 ("lobby day" in Richmond) seems to be a suitable day for conducting this campaign. However, much depends on the timing of the full committee's consideration of the bill. On Jan. 15 HB 933 was introduced in the subcommittee by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax County), who participated in the Child Support Guideline Review Panel, and is a member of the House Courts of Justice Committee. In mid-December, the panel produced a report that was the basis of HB 933. In her introduction of the bill, Watts focused on the fact that the Virginia guideline had not been changed for many years. She claimed that the changes in HB 933 were based on a carefully conducted study of the costs of raising children. She was questioned by panel members about some aspects of this study, and asked about the treatment of CS for mothers who had several children by several different fathers (an issue that was left for later consideration by the review panel, and not included in HB 933). Watts said the CS guideline was considered "tremendously helpful" by divorce lawyers. Craig Burshem, a senior official of the Division of Child Support Enforcement and also a member of the review panel, supported the adoption of the new CS schedule. So too did representatives of the Virginia Bar and the Virginia Poverty Law Center, in very brief statements to the subcommittee. Diane Poljacik criticized the CS guideline as insufficiently flexible and as encouraging a one-size-fits all mentality. In addition, she said, some elements of the guideline embody double counting of child-rearing expenses, and custodial parents benefit from this. Kenneth Skilling told the panel that the present CS schedule is self-updating, because the CS amounts are related to income, and as income rises so too does the amount of money payable to the custodial parent. In addition, he said, the panel had been told that other states (many advised by the same consultant who had advised Virginia) had raised their CS amounts. However, the CS review panel did not consider Massachusetts, a state roughly comparable to Virginia, which recently significantly reduced the CS amounts in its CS schedules. Skilling also noted that the CS review panel had decided to extend its work into 2014 and beyond -- an unprecedented decision, since all previous CS review panels had gone out of existence after they submitted their reports. In the panel's report to the General Assembly, there was no mention of its decision to extend its life. In addition, Skilling said, there is no recommendation in the panel's report for any change to the "cliff effect," the feature that specifies that a noncustodial parent's visitation time is not reflected in the CS he pays until after the children have been with him for more than 90 days each year. In this context, Skilling stressed that the CS review panel acknowledged that it had not finished its work. So, he said, it's premature to act on a panel report that covers only some of the issues under examination -- particularly since all the actions proposed in HB 933 are disadvantageous to noncustodial parents, whereas those that might benefit noncustodial parents (such as ending the cliff effect) have been left for later consideration. Subcommittee members commented on the views of those who supported enactment of HB 933 and questioned some aspects of their testimony. However, there was no interaction with those who opposed the bill. Their statements were simply listened to without comment, before the subcommittee proceeded to a vote.

Meeting Dates for Legal Clinic for 2014 and Jan 2015

The following are the meeting dated for the Legal Clinic at Messiah Methodist Church in Springfield VA Room 265 JAN 2,16,30 FEB 13,27 MARCH 13.27 APRIL 10,24 MAY 8,22 JUNE 5,19 JULY 3,17,31 AUGUST 14,28 SEPT 11,25 OCT 9,23 DEC 4,18 2015 JAN 8,22

Discounts for Seniors

Senior Discounts Keep this list - - - and send a copy to your senior friends and relatives. As I was waiting in line behind an older gentleman at Wendy's recently, I heard him ask for his senior discount. The girl at the register apologized and charged him less. When I asked the man what the discount was, he told me that seniors over age 55 gets 10% off everything on the menu, every day. Being of 'that' age myself, I figured I might as well ask for the discount too. This incident prompted me to do some research, and I came across a list of restaurants, supermarkets, department stores, travel deals and other types of offers giving various discounts with different age requirements. I was actually surprised to see how many there are and how some of them start at the young age of 50, Dunkin Donuts gives free coffee to people over 55. If you're paying for a cup every day, you might want to start getting it for free. YOU must ASK for your discount when ordering! RESTAURANTS: Applebee's: 15% off with Golden Apple Card (60+) Arby's: 10% off (55+) Ben & Jerry's: 10% off (60+) Bennigan's: discount varies by location (60+) Bob's Big Boy: discount varies by location (60+) Boston Market: 10% off (65+) Burger King: 10% off (60+) Chick-Fil-A: 10% off or free small drink or coffee (55+) Chili's: 10% off (55+) CiCi's Pizza: 10% off (60+) Denny's: 10% off, 20% off for AARP members (55+) Dunkin' Donuts: 10% off or free coffee (55+) Einstein's Bagels: 10% off baker's dozen of bagels (60+) Fuddrucker's: 10% off any senior platter (55+) Gatti's Pizza: 10% off (60+) Golden Corral: 10% off (60+) Hardee's: $0.33 beverages everyday (65+) IHOP: 10% off (55+) Jack in the Box: up to 20% off (55+) KFC: free small drink with any meal (55+) Krispy Kreme: 10% off (50+) Long John Silver's: various discounts at locations (55+) McDonald's: discounts on coffee everyday (55+) Mrs. Fields: 10% off at participating locations (60+) Shoney's: 10% off Sonic: 10% off or free beverage (60+) Steak 'n Shake: 10% off every Monday & Tuesday (50+) Subway: 10% off (60+) Sweet Tomatoes: 10% off (62+) Taco Bell : 5% off; free beverages for seniors (65+) TCBY: 10% off (55+) Tea Room Cafe: 10% off (50+) Village Inn: 10% off (60+) Waffle House: 10% off every Monday (60+) Wendy's: 10% off (55+) White Castle : 10% off (62+) RETAIL & APPAREL: Banana Republic: 10% off (50+) Bealls: 20% off first Tuesday of each month (50+) Belk's: 15% off first Tuesday of every month (55+) Big Lots: 10% off Bon-Ton Department Stores: 15% off on senior discount days (55+) C.J. Banks: 10% off every Wednesday (60+) Clarks : 10% off (62+) Dress Barn: 10% off (55+) Goodwill: 10% off one day a week (date varies by location) Hallmark: 10% off one day a week (date varies by location) Kmart: 20% off (50+) Kohl's: 15% off (60+) Modell's Sporting Goods: 10% off Rite Aid: 10% off on Tuesdays & 10% off prescriptions Ross Stores: 10% off every Tuesday (55+) The Salvation Army Thrift Stores: up to 50% off (55+) Stein Mart: 20% off red dot/clearance items first Monday of every month (55+) GROCERY: Albertson's: 10% off first Wednesday of each month (55+) American Discount Stores: 10% off every Monday (50+) Compare Foods Supermarket: 10% off every Wednesday (60+) DeCicco Family Markets: 5% off every Wednesday (60+) Food Lion: 6% off every Monday (60+) Fry's Supermarket: free Fry's VIP Club Membership & 10% off every Monday (55+) Great Value Food Store: 5% off every Tuesday (60+) Gristedes Supermarket: 10% off every Tuesday (60+) Harris Teeter: 5% off every Tuesday (60+) Hy-Vee: 5% off one day a week (date varies by location) Kroger: 10% off (date varies by location) Morton Williams Supermarket: 5% off every Tuesday (60+) The Plant Shed: 10% off every Tuesday (50+) Publix: 5% off every Wednesday (55+) Rogers Marketplace: 5% off every Thursday (60+) Uncle Guiseppe's Marketplace: 5% off (62+) TRAVEL: Airlines: Alaska Airlines: 10% off (65+) American Airlines: various discounts for 65 and up (call before booking for discount) Continental Airlines: no initiation fee for Continental Presidents Club & special fares for select destinations Southwest Airlines: various discounts for ages 65 and up (call before booking for discount) United Airlines: various discounts for ages 65 and up (call before booking for discount) U.S. Airways: various discounts for ages 65 and up (call before booking for discount) Rail: Amtrak: 15% off (62+) Bus: Greyhound: 5% off (62+) Trailways Transportation System: various discounts for ages 50+ Car Rental: Alamo Car Rental: up to 25% off for AARP members Avis: up to 25% off for AARP members Budget Rental Cars: 10% off; up to 20% off for AARP members (50+) Dollar Rent-A-Car: 10% off (50+) Enterprise Rent-A-Car: 5% off for AARP members Hertz: up to 25% off for AARP members Holiday Inn: 10%-30% off depending on location (62+) National Rent-A-Car: up to 30% off for AARP members Overnight Accommodations: Best Western: 10% off (55+) Cambria Suites: 20%-30% off (60+) Clarion Motels: 20%-30% off (60+) Comfort Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Comfort Suites: 20%-30% off (60+) Econo Lodge: 20%-30% off (60+) Hampton Inns & Suites: 10% off when booked 72 hours in advance Hyatt Hotels: 25%-50% off (62+) Intercontinental Hotels Group: various discounts at all hotels (65+) Mainstay Suites: 10% off with Mature Traveler's Discount (50+); 20%-30% off (60+) Marriott Hotels: 15% off (62+) Motel 6: 10% off (60+) Myrtle Beach Resort: 10% off (55+) Quality Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Rodeway Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Sleep Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) ACTIVITIES & ENTERTAINMENT: AMC Theaters: up to 30% off (55+) Bally Total Fitness: up to $100 off memberships (62+) Busch Gardens Tampa, FL: $3 off one-day tickets (50+) Carmike Cinemas: 35% off (65+) Cinemark/Century Theaters: up to 35% off U.S. National Parks: $10 lifetime pass; 50% off additional services including camping (62+) Regal Cinemas: 30% off Ripley's Believe it or Not: @ off one-day ticket (55+) SeaWorld Orlando, FL : $3 off one-day tickets (50+) CELLPHONE DISCOUNTS: AT&T: Special Senior Nation 200 Plan $29.99/month (65+) Jitterbug: $10/month cell phone service (50+) Verizon Wireless: Verizon Nationwide 65 Plus Plan $29.99/month (65+). MISCELLANEOUS: Great Clips: $3 off haircuts (60+) Super Cuts: $2 off haircuts (60+)

Fathers MIssing from families Washinton Times

Missing dads is a problem 
not only in poor 
homes Many wealthy parents 
are married to careers Comment(s) By Luke Rosiak - The Washington Times Thursday, December 27, 2012 Daniel Patrick Moynihan The inner cities, where only 1 in 10 black children live with both parents, and the wealthy suburbs, where many fathers spend more than 60 hours a week on the job, have more in common than meets the eye, family advocates and faith leaders said. They made the comments Thursday after The Washington Times published an analysis this week of U.S. census data that provoked concern for children from widely disparate camps. Welfare policies among the poor have put government in the role of the father and equated fatherhood with a monthly check, said Glenn T. Stanton, director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs. This has left many fathers free to walk away from their children knowing they will not starve thanks to programs that provide cash assistance to single mothers in proportion with the number of children they have, he said. For fathers who are physically present, it sends a message that a few hundred dollars is a sufficient role. "I think it would be difficult to overstate the significance of a welfare check replacing a marriage," though a committed relationship between a man and a woman — even if the man provides only the same modest income that welfare payments would — "rivals maybe a college education as a path" to upward mobility, Mr. Stanton said. But if single mothers on welfare are married to the government, others said, the frantic and competitive lives of many men in the upper-middle class have wedded them to their jobs and relegated fatherhood to a role more centered on financial support than emotional guidance. "I don't strictly believe it's an inner-city deal," said Hugh Cunningham, pastor of the Sojourn Church in the Dallas suburbs. "A lot of suburban men are married to their work. What they bring home is leftovers." Although those wounds may be hidden under better clothing, the lack of two emotionally available parents crosses cultural and demographic lines. "I don't think there's anyone who hasn't been shaped either by a father's affirmations or the wound of their absence," Mr. Cunningham said. "There isn't a whole lot of a difference between so-called Christian families and secular families when it comes to unsuccessful families or families that malfunction." No matter how much money is poured into entitlement programs — or how much a father makes — "you spell love T-I-M-E," which is something the government cannot provide, said Joel Garcia of Latino Townhall, a Las Vegas-based charity whose mission is to provide education, mentoring and coaching to Hispanic youths. "A dad is much more than an on-time, reliable paycheck. He's a human who contributes in very unique ways, and it's also the relationship between the father and the mother," Mr. Stanton said. Moynihan revisited The Times' in-depth analysis of millions of data points, which attracted thousands of comments online and requests for data and maps from community nonprofits, found that the rates of two-parent households have decreased markedly in every state over the past decade, especially in the South, a traditional bastion of purported family values. It found that 32 percent of white families with children below the poverty line have two parents, while the rate was 41 percent for Hispanics and 12 percent for poor blacks. But the problem is concentrated among blacks regardless of economic status. Most black children above the poverty line also live with only one parent, compared with 22 percent of whites. That reality has academics revisiting a nearly 50-year-old report that explored the impact of government assistance and family situations on the black community. The 1965 report by Daniel Patrick Moynihan — at the time an assistant secretary in the Labor Department, who would later become a Democratic senator from New York — examined why rates of government dependence increased among blacks even as employment opportunities widened and brought a backlash from members of his own party. In the ensuing decades, policies focused on propping up single mothers economically rather than addressing fatherlessness, with programs including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamps and the Women, Infants and Children food program all geared toward single women, especially those with multiple children. "We said, 'How do we build the resources for single mothers to be able to compensate for absent fathers, instead of equipping families to remain intact?'" said Kenneth Braswell Sr., director of Fathers Inc. in Albany, N.Y. "We ignored the core of the Moynihan report, which was pay attention to the black father, because that guy is the one that's going to determine the outcome." Fifty years and few answers An analysis looking back on the report found that many factors tied to the presence of male role models among poor blacks have only worsened. The Urban Institute and Mr. Braswell's group, in preparation for a Feb. 22 event, found that the percent of black women who are married declined from 53 percent to 25 percent over the past half-century, compared with a drop from 65 percent to 52 percent for white women and a 67 percent to 43 percent drop for Hispanics. "Now you have an increased number of black researchers who are saying 'Whoa, this guy was on point. I may not like the way he went about it, but in terms of his numbers, they can't be disputed,'" Mr. Braswell said. Black men were 5 percent more likely to be working than black women in 2011, the groups said, and black women were more likely to hold jobs than white women for most of the past decade. Last year, that number was about equal. "What we did in 1965 is misdiagnose the issue. It's like catching a cold and saying the issue is you have a runny nose," he said. "That's just a symptom. We went right at healing the runny nose, and the bacteria were popping up all over: guys having children by multiple women, not feeling obligated to stick around." The Moynihan report did not provide a prescription. "He said, 'Here's the data, it's now your job to figure out where to go with this,'" Mr. Braswell said. Even with nearly 50 years to reflect on the findings, solutions are not clear-cut. "We're also not going to provide any recommendations" this month, he said. To Mr. Cunningham, the pastor, a clue is provided by a half-century of money-intensive government payments that accompanied only the further decline of families. "The government doesn't have the power to fill" the role of parental guidance and love, he said. "We'll throw money at it, but it's not a money problem," he said. Tight budgetary times could provide an impetus. "I think there's phenomenal hope because I don't have an expectation that the government can do it; they're running out of money themselves. The feds are going to drop it down to the state and they'll drop it down to the local level, and then the communities will have to rise up." Churches, community groups and neighborhood volunteers with youngsters' ears will do the grunt work, he said, engaging in non-monetary substitutes for parenting such as the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. The incentive to act is there, Mr. Braswell said. "If it was a travesty in 1965, what is it now?" © Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/27/missing-dads-not-problem-only-poor-households/print/#ixzz2GOYrS26j Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Discipling your children

The Wall Street Journal HEALTH & WELLNESS December 24, 2012, 12:23 p.m. ET Smarter Ways to Discipline Children Research Suggests Which Strategies Really Get Children to Behave; How Timeouts Can Work Better By ANDREA PETERSEN When it comes to disciplining her generally well-behaved kids, Heather Henderson has tried all the popular tricks. She's tried taking toys away. (Her boys, ages 4 and 6, never miss them.) She's tried calm explanations about why a particular behavior—like hitting your brother—is wrong. (It doesn't seem to sink in.) And she's tried timeouts. "The older one will scream and yell and bang on walls. He just loses it," says the 41-year-old stay-at-home mother in Syracuse, N.Y. Mike Right What can be more effective are techniques that psychologists often use with the most difficult kids, including children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiant disorder. Approaches, with names like "parent management training" and "parent-child interaction therapy," are backed up by hundreds of research studies and they work on typical kids, too. But while some of the approaches' components find their way into popular advice books, the tactics remain little known among the general public. The general strategy is this: Instead of just focusing on what happens when a child acts out, parents should first decide what behaviors they want to see in their kids (cleaning their room, getting ready for school on time, playing nicely with a sibling). Then they praise those behaviors when they see them. "You start praising them and it increases the frequency of good behavior," says Timothy Verduin, clinical assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Child Study Center at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York. This sounds simple, but in real life can be tough. People's brains have a "negativity bias," says Alan E. Kazdin, a professor of psychology and child psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Parenting Center. We pay more attention to when kids misbehave than when they act like angels. Dr. Kazdin recommends at least three or four instances of praise for good behavior for every timeout a kid gets. For young children, praise needs to be effusive and include a hug or some other physical affection, he says. image image Jason Greene for The Wall Street Journal Heather Henderson of Syracuse, N.Y., plays Legos with son Archer, 6. She has tried various tactics to discipline her sons but 'we're always at a loss.' According to parent management training, when a child does mess up, parents should use mild negative consequences (a short timeout or a verbal reprimand without shouting). Giving a child consequences runs counter to some popular advice that parents should only praise their kids. But reprimands and negative nonverbal responses like stern looks, timeouts and taking away privileges led to greater compliance by kids according to a review article published this month in the journal Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. "There's a lot of fear around punishment out there," says Daniela J. Owen, a clinical psychologist at the San Francisco Bay area Center for Cognitive Therapy in Oakland, Calif. and the lead author of the study. "Children benefit from boundaries and limits." The study found that praise and positive nonverbal responses like hugs and rewards like ice cream or stickers, however, didn't lead to greater compliance in the short term. "If your child is cleaning up and he puts a block in the box and you say 'great job,' it doesn't mean the child is likely to put another block in the box," says Dr. Owen. But in the long run, regular praise does make a child more likely to comply, possibly because the consistent praise strengthens the parent-child relationship overall, Dr. Owen says. The article reviewed 41 studies looking at discipline strategies and child compliance. Parents who look for discipline guidance often find conflicting advice from the avalanche of books and mommy blogs and the growing number of so-called parent coaches. (In 2011, 3,520 parenting books were published or distributed in the U.S., up from 2,774 in 2007, according to Bowker Books In Print database.) "Many of the things that are recommended we know now to be wrong," says Dr. Kazdin, a leading expert on parent management training. "It is the equivalent of telling people to smoke a lot for their health." image image Jason Greene for The Wall Street Journal Heather and Jay Henderson with their two boys, Archer, 6, and Heath, 4, spend time together at their home in Syracuse, N.Y. Parents often torpedo their discipline efforts by giving vague, conditional commands and not giving kids enough time to comply with them, says Dr. Verduin, who practices parent-child interaction therapy. When crossing the street, "A bad command would be, 'be careful.' A good command would be 'hold my hand,' " he says. He also instructs parents to count to five to themselves after giving a child a directive, like, for example, "Put on your coat." "Most parents wait a second or two," he says, before making another command, which can easily devolve into yelling and threats. The techniques are applicable to all ages, but psychologists note that starting early is better. Once kids hit about 10 or 11, discipline gets a lot harder. "Parents don't have as much leverage" with tweens and teens, says Dr. Verduin. "Kids don't care as much what the parents think about them." Some parents try and reason with young children, which Dr. Kazdin says is bound to fail to change a kid's behavior. Reason doesn't change behavior, which is why stop-smoking messages don't usually work, Dr. Kazdin says. Overly harsh punishments also fail. "One of the side effects of punishment is noncompliance and aggression," he says. Spanking, in particular, has been linked to aggressive behavior in kids and anger problems and increased marital conflict later on in adulthood. Still, 26% of parents "often" or "sometimes" spank their 19-to-35-month-old children, according to a 2004 study in the journal Pediatrics, which analyzed survey data collected by the federal government from 2,068 parents of young children. At the Yale Parenting Center, psychologists have found that getting kids to "practice" temper tantrums can lessen their frequency and intensity. Dr. Kazdin recommends that parents have their kids "practice" once or twice a day. Gradually, ask the child to delete certain unwanted behaviors from the tantrum, like kicking or screaming. Then effusively praise those diluted tantrums. Soon, for most children, "the real tantrums start to change," he says. "From one to three weeks, they are kind of over." As for whining, Dr. Kazin recommends whining right along with your child. "It changes the stimulus. You will likely end up laughing," he says. Researchers noted that not every technique is effective for every child. Some parents find other creative solutions that work for their kids. Karen Pesapane has found yelling "pillow fight," when her two kids are arguing can put a halt to the bickering. "Their sour attitudes change almost immediately into silliness and I inevitably become their favorite target," said Ms. Pesapane, a 34-year-old from Silver Spring, Md., who works in fundraising for a nonprofit and has a daughter 10, and a son, 6. Dayna Even has found spending one hour a day fully focused on her 6-year-old son, Maximilian, means "he's less likely to act out, he's more likely to play independently and less likely to interrupt adults," says the 51-year-old writer and tutor in Kailua, Hawaii. Parents need to take a child's age into account. Benjamin Siegel, professor of pediatrics at the Boston University School of Medicine notes that it isn't until about age 3 that children can really start to understand and follow rules. Dr. Siegel is the chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' committee that is currently reworking the organization's guidelines on discipline, last updated in 1998. Write to Andrea Petersen at andrea.petersen@wsj.com

Child support guideline Panel for Sept 20 postponed

Fathers For Virginia Note About CS Review Panel The next meeting of the Virginia Child Support Guidelines Review Panel that had been scheduled for September 20 has been postponed. Although the panel's website does not yet (Sunday afternoon) reflect the change, Fathers For Virginia representatives were told on Friday that the September 20 meeting would not take place. The next meeting of the panel is likely to be on November 5 in Richmond. We will update you as soon as we know, but we were told on Friday that Dr. Jane Venohr, the Review Panel's economist, is likely to present a report at the November 5 meeting. Her report will contain specific recommendations for new child support amounts to be incorporated in the statutory CS guidelines. On another issue, we had understood that the panel's report on the issue would be finalized in time for the 2013 legislative session. However, we were told on Friday that the report is to be finalized in time for the 2014 legislative session. This timetable clearly gives us more time for comments. The new timetable does not diminish the importance of continued participation by fathers in the Review Panel's meetings. From what we were told on Friday, it seems unlikely that we will get enough time to study Dr. Venohr's report before the November 5 meeting, but we will have opportunities at later Panel meetings to offer our comments. For more general background on the situation, see the Review Panel's website http://dls.state.va.us/childsupport.htm. Check out the minutes to be found in the Meetings section of the website. In particular, look at the minutes of the last meeting, on June 12, 2012. They indicate the direction in which the panel is going. FFV Representatives testified at the previous meeting, on November 16, 2011. Some of the major issues for FFV are in testimony by FFV President Fred Hawkins (http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/childsupport/meetings/111611/Hawkins.pdf) and by me (http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/childsupport/meetings/111611/Skilling.pdf). For those of you who didn't attend the September 8 meeting in Springfield, the following are the major points that were made during the meeting: We have a good opportunity at the present time to raise fathers' issues. There is great concern in Richmond about the costs to taxpayers of fragile families, which Social Services Commissioner Martin Brown says were about $2.4 billion in 2011. Brown seems aware that some government programs have unintentionally created incentives for single-parent families. FFV representatives have stressed that raising child support figures is one way of increasing the incentives for single-parent families. Despite the general impression that the custody situation in Virginia is now more or less gender-neutral, the statistics indicate that this is emphatically not so. Division of Child Support Enforcement statistics show that, as of October 2011, 93.39 percent of custodial parents were female and only 6.23 percent of custodial parents were male. Wholesale discrimination against fathers continues. Fathers must tell the CS Review Panel that it should not go further down this road by recommending increases in amounts of child support, which overwhelmingly is paid by fathers. The current guidelines should be revised to remove the present 90-day limit above which there is no recognition of the noncustodial parent's expenses in caring for his children. A computer program to calculate CS amounts is in widespread use throughout Virginia. The availability of this computer program (VADER --Virginia Attorneys' Divorce Electronic Reference) removes earlier objections that substitution of a sliding scale for the 90-day limit (the so-called "cliff effect") would make CS calculations too complex. There are signs that Commissioner Brown's views about the importance of two-parent families are filtering through to the Division of Child Support Enforcement. DCSE is one of the agencies under his control. For example, DCSE is considering ending the Ten Most Wanted list of noncustodial parents who are delinquent in child support. The DCSE background notice on this proposal says, among other things: "In addition, with the Commonwealth’s increased focus on strengthening families, it is not appropriate to embarrass or humiliate child support obligors and their families, especially since many of the individuals on the lists were those who were unable to pay rather than those who were unwilling to pay. This sort of enforcement tool does not encourage noncustodial parents to pay support and, in fact, may serve as a disincentive." FFV has written to DCSE supporting this proposal. We will try to keep you updated on these issues. Meantime, cancel any plans you have made to attend the September 20 meeting in Richmond! Kenneth Skilling September 16, 2012