Adoption case from Utah Mother puts up for adoption

Dad files $130M lawsuit after son in Utah is given up for adoption Tuesday Dec 31, 2013 12:24 PM EMAIL Jake Strickland Jake Strickland prepared for the birth of his son in December 2010, showing off a stroller that was bought for the boy. BY ERIK ORTIZ, STAFF WRITER, NBC NEWS A dad whose newborn son was given up for adoption by the birth mother — without his knowledge — is seeking $130 million in a lawsuit testing the boundaries of a biological father’s rights in Utah. The adoption of Jake Strickland’s son just after he was born Dec. 29, 2010, was illegal and done “through gross misdirection and … clandestine conduct,” claims the suit filed Friday in the U.S. District Court of Utah. Strickland alleges the mother, Whitney Pettersson, conspired with the adoptive parents, the adoption agency and attorneys to give up the boy — named “Baby Jack” in the suit — without allowing him to seek custody. The complaint also strikes at Utah's parenting laws, accusing them of being “pro-adoption and anti-birth father.” Attorney Wes Hutchins, speaking on behalf of Strickland, said his client just missed his son’s third birthday on Sunday — and is devastated that he can’t share important milestones in the boy’s life. “It’s pulling him apart,” Hutchins told NBC News on Tuesday. On his son's birthday, Strickland and his family gathered around a candle to sing “Happy Birthday” to his absent son, Hutchins said. “They still think about him even though they don't have contact,” he added. Strickland and Pettersson first met in 2009 as co-workers at a restaurant, according to court documents. Strickland said Pettersson was having problems with her marriage, and she later told him she got divorced. They began dating, and three months later, she texted him that she was pregnant. Strickland left Utah for a temp job in Texas, but said he assured Pettersson that he wanted to be present in their child’s life, according to the lawsuit. He started a fund for the baby boy. The couple came up with a name: Jack. Jake Strickland A nursery that was set up in 2010 for Jake Strickland's baby, whom he named Jack. But after Strickland returned to Utah, the romance dissolved. They began discussing parenting options. He said he told Pettersson that he would consider signing up with Utah’s putative father registry, which is how unmarried men can document with the state that they want parental rights. But Strickland didn’t register. According to Hutchins, Pettersson warned him that if he did, she “would view it as an act of distrust” and keep his child from him. “I don’t know if it was done as an act of vindictiveness,” Hutchins said. Pettersson couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday, and attorneys involved in the adoption weren’t immediately available. The adoption agency, LDS Family Services, operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also didn’t respond to a request for comment. According to the lawsuit, Strickland continued to financially support Pettersson, who also had a child from another relationship, until her alleged lies about their son began to unravel. On Jan. 5, 2011, Strickland said he was astonished to learn that Pettersson had given birth a week earlier — unbeknownst to him. He also learned she was still legally married, which meant her estranged husband was the presumed father under state law. The most devastating discovery, Strickland said in the lawsuit, was that Pettersson had already given up their child for adoption. She even got her then-husband to agree to the adoption by telling him that he would be the one saddled with child support payments if she kept the boy, according to Hutchins. Strickland, who now lives in Arizona, mounted a paternity claim. But his fight was complicated because he had never registered with the state for his paternal rights. Despite contesting the adoption, Strickland learned in November 2011 that it was completed. After a 2nd U.S. District judge shot down Strickland’s bid to gain custody, he filed an appeal to the state. His case is still under review. Concurrently, Strickland’s federal lawsuit is seeking $30 million for the loss of the parent-child relationship caused by the adoption and $100 million as a deterrent to ensure another dad doesn't suffer his fate. Hutchins said Utah’s laws are onerous on biological fathers who try to gain custody, noting that they must file a paternity petition, get a sworn affidavit, create a detailed child care plan and prove they were financially invested in the pregnancy, among other requirements. Strickland’s custody case, meanwhile, isn’t the only one gaining attention in Utah. In another high-profile petition, Colorado dad Robert Manzanares is fighting for sole custody of his daughter, whom he claims was unfairly given up by her birth mother when the woman fled to Utah. Utah State Sen. Todd Weiler told NBC affiliate KSL-TV that despite the increased interest in the issue, he’s not persuaded that Utah laws need to be dramatically overhauled. “What we’re looking at in this lawsuit and a few other high-profile lawsuits are one or two bad examples out of 10,000,” Weiler said. “I don’t think it’s good policy for the state to look at one or two exceptions and say, ‘Let’s change the laws for everyone.’”

No Major Bills Affecting Fathers Pending in Richmond, But CS Review Panel Has Yet to Address CS `Cliff Effect' The Virginia General Assembly (legislature) convened January 14 for what is expected to be a short legislative session (45 days). So far legislators appear unlikely to adopt any domestic relations bills that would have a major impact on fathers. Unlike previous legislative sessions, no presumptive joint custody bills are on the agenda for the 2015 session. Likely to be of more interest to fathers during 2015 is what goes on in the Child Support Guidelines Review Panel. At the end of 2013 the panel issued an interim report that ultimately resulted in 2014 legislation increasing child support. Currently, according to the panel's website, no meetings are yet scheduled for 2015. However, at least one issue of crucial importance to fathers, the so-called "cliff effect' feature of the CS guideline, remains to be addressed by the panel. The cliff effect stipulates that the amount of CS payable is unaffected by the amount of time that children spend with the non-custodial parent (nearly always the father) until they are with him for more than 90 days each year. The cliff effect restricts fathers' visitation time with their children, because custodial parents are unlikely to agree to visitation periods that would reduce the amount of child support they receive from the non-custodial parent. Fathers' representatives maintain that this 90-day threshold is outdated, since computerized programs have now greatly simplified the calculation of CS, and have made obsolete earlier objections to a sliding scale method. The purpose of the cliff effect was supposed to be to keep CS calculations from becoming too complex, as supposedly they would be if CS amounts were precisely related to the amount time spend with each parent. Domestic Relations Bills in General Assembly A full list of the domestic relations bills introduced in the General Assembly is available at http://virginiageneralassembly.gov/. The following are official summaries of the domestic relations bills that, if enacted, seem likely to affect fathers: * HB 1549 Revocation of concealed handgun permit; delinquency in child support payments. Provides for the revocation of an individual's concealed handgun permit if such individual (i) has failed to comply with a subpoena, summons, or warrant relating to paternity or child support proceedings or (ii) is delinquent in the payment of child support by 90 days or more or in an amount of $5,000 or more. If the obligor remedies the delinquency, reaches an agreement with the obligee or Department of Social Services to remedy the delinquency, or complies with the subpoena, summons, or warrant, he may reapply for a concealed weapons permit. * HB 1601 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Amends the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to comply with amendments to the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance that were adopted in 2008. The amendments modify the current version of UIFSA's international provisions to comport with the obligations of the United States under the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The bill contains an emergency clause. * HB 1602 Proration of child support. Directs the Department of Social Services, upon receiving child support payments pursuant to one or more judicial or administrative orders, to prorate payments on the basis of amounts due for current support and, upon satisfaction of all amounts due for current support, prorate the remainder on the basis of amounts due for accrued arrearages. The bill directs the Department to allocate payments received pursuant to federal tax refund offset pursuant to subsection h of 45 C.F.R. 303.72. * HB 2034 Temporary delegation of parental or legal custodial powers; child-placing agency. Allows a parent or legal custodian of a minor to delegate to another person by a properly executed power of attorney any powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor for a period not exceeding one year. The bill also exempts from the requirement to obtain a license as a child-placing agency a private, nonprofit organization that does not accept public funds and that assists parents with the process of delegating parental and legal custody of their children, including assistance with identifying appropriate placements for their children, or that provides services and resources to support parents and legal guardians to whom custody has been transferred pursuant to a temporary delegation of parental or legal custodial powers. * HB 2105 Denial of spousal support to spouses convicted of certain violations. Provides that a court shall not award spousal support to a spouse if such spouse was convicted of any violation of Article 4 (Assaults and Bodily Woundings) or Article 7 (Criminal Sexual Assault) of Chapter 4 of Article 18.2, provided that (i) such violation was against the spouse from whom support is being sought and (ii) the conviction occurred within the five-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition for divorce or at any time thereafter, unless the spouse seeking support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a denial of support would be unconscionable. * HB 2190 Child support; incarcerated obligor. Provides that a court shall recalculate the child support obligation of an obligor who is incarcerated during the support period, the recalculation being retroactive to the date of incarceration. The bill also provides that prisoners are exempt from various fees and costs that may be collected by the Department of Social Services in enforcing support obligations. The bill further provides that reductions in the child support arrearages owed by prisoners be granted for timely payments of support * SB 788 Public assistance; changes in custody. Requires any circuit or district court entering an order changing or establishing custody to forward a copy of the order to the local board of social services in the city or county in which any person receiving public assistance on behalf of the child resides. The bill also directs local boards of social services to reconsider public assistance grants upon receipt of such orders and, upon any change or withdrawal of public assistance, notify the new custodial parent of his potential eligibility for such assistance. * SB 913 Filing fees; motions to modify custody or visitation orders. Provides for a $25 filing fee for a petition for the modification of a custody or visitation order filed in the juvenile and domestic relations district court. * SB 923 Child support for disabled child over the age of 18 (Conner's Law). Provides that a court may order child support for any child over the age of 18 who is severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled if such disability existed prior to the child reaching the age of 18 or the age of 19 if the child was a full-time high school student, not self-supporting, and was living in the home of the parent seeking child support. Current requirements that the child also be unable to live independently, unable to support himself, and reside in the home of the parent seeking child support remain unchanged. * SB 957 Child support for disabled child over the age of 18 (Conner's Law). Provides that a court may order child support for any child over the age of 18 who is severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled if such disability existed prior to the child reaching the age of 18 or the age of 19 if the child was a full-time high school student, not self-supporting, and was living in the home of the parent seeking child support. Current requirements that the child also be unable to live independently, unable to support himself, and reside in the home of the parent seeking child support remain unchanged. * SB 1180 Custody and visitation agreements; best interests of the child. Requires the court to consider any history of abuse of persons other than family members when determining the best interests of the child for the purposes of custody and visitation arrangements. The bill removes the requirement that in order for a court, on the basis of certain offenses, to enjoin a parent from filing a custody or visitation petition, the victim of the offense must have been his child, a child with whom he resided at the time, or the other parent of the child. Kenneth H. Skilling January 23, 2015

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