Almost a quarter of a century ago, as a first year law student, I was required to take a course on Philosophy and the Law.  I absolutely hated that class, did not understand its importance, and found the subject matter very frustrating and difficult to comprehend.  I recall the Professor calling upon me to answer questions relating to the material and being completely incapable of responding intelligently.  To my surprise, I now regularly find myself involved in discussions relating to Philosophy and the Law as a result of my writings and people's frustrations with regard to the legal system and family law attorneys.  I am proud to say that I have evolved since taking that course and have come to develop a rather fond appreciation for philosophy. 

The most recent such discussion occurred on Facebook on January 30, 2011, after I posted the following statement, "The brother of a friend of mine, took his life on Wednesday, after losing his business, home, family and dignity as a result of false allegations of domestic violence by his wife in a divorce proceeding….  I wish people would realize the consequences of their actions." 

In response, some people commented that, "equal parenting is needed to solve this perverse problem."  Others opined that the system is somehow corrupt or that it was the result of "purposefully fueling the flames of hatred between a father and a mother to keep them perpetually tied up in court until there's nothing left for them OR the children...."  A great deal of disdain toward lawyers was conveyed to me during the discussion.  In fact, people were commenting about "attorney assisted false allegation instruction… and perjury," both topics about which I have previously written. 

As I mentioned in those articles, " it is estimated that as high as 80% of allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are completely false….  It is widely recognized that false claims of domestic violence are often made in divorce and paternity actions in order to gain a legal advantage. "  Nevertheless, " Judges almost never refer a case to the District Attorney's office for a perjury prosecution" and "persons who knowingly make such accusations are almost never subject to legal sanctions" because otherwise everyone who testified in court "would go to jail."  My article on perjury also explained the California State Bar's position that "since communications between the attorney and his client are confidential, we will not be able to learn what representations by the client the attorney relied upon in presenting the client's claims."

As a participant in the Facebook discussion, I commented as follows:  "I do not disagree with the statement that family law attorneys tend to 'stir the pot' and encourage or assist their clients in making false allegations.  I was involved in a case where my client's wife continuously made such allegations and... made the case much more difficult and expensive than necessary.  After the case was over, the then ex-wife wanted to sue her attorney for having encouraged her to make false allegations in her declaration. She was not able to pursue such a thing because it would have meant her admission that she committed perjury." 

In response, someone said that attorneys "guide divorcees thru the process of annihilating the opposition, with every tactic available, and that includes very dishonest means.  Attorneys are essentially giving the means to break the law, assisting in doing so, AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT."  Interestingly enough, I addressed that issue in my article entitled, "Family Law and Attorneys Fees."

I responded as follows:  "A courtroom/lawsuit is the wrong forum/manner for handling marital discord.  The fact that attorneys (judges were attorneys first) have been found in general not to care about interpersonal relations only makes it worse.   Let's not ignore the fact that emotions are so high that people going through a divorce are suffering from 'temporary insanity.'"

Someone then commented that when people are suffering from such "temporary insanity," it is the perfect opportunity for family law attorneys to "milk them" by fanning "the flames" in order to "line their pockets."

In response, I stated that, "I am merely acknowledging that the system is flawed, but that nothing is perfect.  It is easy to find fault.  The challenge is to find a real solution."

Someone then remarked, "The legal system's performance speaks loudly about its lack of compassion, just as loudly as it does about its lack of justice."  Another person was adamant that equal parenting (50/50 timeshare) was the answer. 

My new found appreciation for philosophy came out in my final remark that "The reality is that procreation proves nothing about one's ability to parent.  You are imagining a world in which everyone is a good parent.  I guess that the legal system and society should turn a blind eye to the fact that parents commit child abuse, child neglect and that children are permanently scarred or worse as a result of the actions of their parents.  While I admit that the system is not perfect and while I believe that the adversarial system destroys families, I am not ignoring the fact that children are innocent victims of the actions of their parents.  They are the collateral damage of their parents' behavior. As much as you want to blame the legal system and the lawyers, the truth of the matter is that if people did not seek out "pit bull" attorneys to go for the jugular of their spouse/the other parent, those types of attorneys would fail to earn a living and things would change.  The reality is that people deliberately seek out destructive attorneys to accomplish their dirty work and then play the blame game.  I was an economics/business major in college.  If there is no demand for such despicable and anti-social attorneys, the supply would diminish.  On the other hand, when the demand is great, so is the supply.  Which came first?  Did the lawyers create the problem or did the society's demand for such lawyers create the problem.  I believe that society's demand for such lawyers created the problem and that the only way to improve things is for society in general to take responsibility for its role in creating the problem and change the reality.  I may detest anti-social lawyers (the majority who do not consider the consequences of their actions and do not care about interpersonal relations), but I do not ignore the reality that they are also the most successful lawyers because they are in great demand by our society."

Since 1960, the governmental department assigned to provide estimates of expenditures on children from birth through the age of 17 has been the United States Department of Agriculture.  Those expenditures consist of the following categories:  housing, food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care, education, and miscellaneous expenses.  I emphasize that the report only covers through the age of 17 because I believe that everyone will agree that parents do not stop supporting their children once they reach the age of 17.  In other words, people should expect that children will actually cost them more than what is set forth by the USDA. 

According to the report from the USDA entitled Expenditures on Children by Families, 2009, "In 2009, estimated annual average expenses on the younger child in two-child, husband-wife families increased as income level rose.  Depending on age of the child, annual expenses ranged from $8,330 to $9,450 for families with a before-tax income less than $56,670, from $11,650 to $13,530 for families with a before-tax income between $56,670 and $98,120, and from $19,380 to $23,180 for families with a before-tax income more than $98,120.  On average, households in the lowest income group spent 25 percent of their before-tax income on a child; those in the middle-income group, 16 percent; and those in the highest group, 12 percent.  The range regarding these percentages would be narrower if after-tax income were considered."  "Compared with expenditures on each child in a two-child, husband-wife family, expenditures by husband-wife households with one child average 25 percent more on the single child and expenditures by households with three or more children average 22 percent less on each child." 

Taking inflation into account, it is estimated that to raise a child born in 2009 to age 17 will cost the lowest income group $205,960, the middle income group $286,050, and the highest income group $475,680.00.  "For husband-wife families with one child, USDA estimates 27 percent of total family expenditures are spent on the child; for two children, 41 percent; and for three children, 48 percent."  "In 1960, average expenditures on a child in a middle-income, husband-wife family amounted to $25,229, or $182,857 in 2009 dollars.  By 2009, these estimated expenditures climbed 22 percent in real terms to $222,360 (assuming a family had child care and education expenses on a child)." 

"Cross-sectional evidence suggests that family size and income are negatively correlated" in that lower income families tend to have more children than do higher income families.  I do not want to get caught up on this inverse correlation and that those having most of the children can least afford it.  However, I do want to point out that those in the lowest income group are effectively keeping themselves in that group by having children they can ill afford to support.  How does one expect to improve their economic station if they burden themselves with expenses that prevent them from saving money and actually cause them to live beyond their economic means?  Rather than taking responsibility for poor financial decisions (having children they cannot afford), people tend to blame others for their circumstances.  Research shows that "a household not only chooses how many children to have, but also when to have them."  Clearly, this does not apply to all income groups because otherwise there would not be an inverse correlation between family size and income.  Nevertheless, for those who are interested in knowing how many children they can afford, if any, the United States Department of Agriculture has developed a "USDA Cost of Raising a Child Calculator".   

Parents almost always tell me that their children mean more to them than anything else.  Considering the cost of raising a child, I would certainly hope this statement to be true.  However, what parents seem to forget when they are divorcing or their relationship is ending is that children are expensive.  Since most parents never used the USDA Calculator, they never really thought about the cost of their children.  It is only when the relationship comes to an end that the parents have to deal with the issue of child support.  Child support is the payment by one parent to the other for the support of the child/children of their relationship.  Federal law requires that the amount of child support be determined in accordance with a guideline.  Child support calculations take into account the respective gross incomes of the parents, tax deductible expenses and the percentage of time that each parent has the children, among other things. 

Reflect upon the following example:  (1) father's gross monthly income is $4,500, (2) mother's gross monthly income is $3,500; (3) there are 3 minor children involved, ages 3, 5 and 7; (4) father has the children 25 percent of the time; (5) father files his taxes as single; (6) mother files as her taxes as head of household; and (7) mother spends $600 a month on child care.  For this example, no other factors exist for purposes of calculating guideline child support.  The father in this case would be ordered to pay the mother guideline child support in the sum of $1,310 per month and he would be left with net spendable income of only $2,019 per month.  After taking into account the child support she receives, the mother would have monthly net spendable income of $4,765. 

Invariably, father would complain that the laws are unfair and that he cannot afford to pay that amount of child support.  He may also be troubled by the fact that the mother is not obligated to account for her use of that money.  The father might refuse to purchase clothing and other basic necessities for the children because he is paying child support to the mother.  However, what the parents have not considered is that according to the USDA Calculator, the estimated annual cost of those 3 children is $29,492 and he is paying the mother $15,720 per year in child support, which is $13,772 less than the estimated annual cost of raising those children.  The child support that he pays to the mother basically equalizes the fact that she has the children 75 percent of the time and therefore incurs 75 percent of their cost.  Father still has the children 25 percent of the time and has costs associated with his time with them.  Both parents struggle to support the children, one thinking he is paying too much in support and the other that she is receiving too little in support.  In reality, the only reason the couple was able to afford the 3 children while still together (assuming that they could afford the 3 children) is because they only had one household to support. 

According to the USDA's report, "As a proportion of total child-rearing expenses, housing accounted for the largest share across income groups, comprising 31 to 35 percent of total expenses on a child in a two-child, husband-wife family.  For families in the middle-income group, child care/education (for those with the expense) and food were the next largest average expenditures on a child, accounting for 17 and 16 percent of child-rearing expenses, respectively."  In determining housing expenses, the USDA takes into account the average cost of additional bedrooms needed to accommodate the children. 

Considering the number of marriages that end in divorce, it might be a good idea if more couples considered the financial costs associated with children before actually having them.

If you have a child support issue, please contact Pasadena Family Law attorney Mark B. Baer, Esq. at Mark B. Baer, Inc. a Professional Law Corporation. 

My last blog entitled, "The Cause and Effect of the Historical Shift in the Role of Attorneys" explained that a lawyer's role in peacefully resolving disputes ended in the 1960's, when individuals began pursuing the practice of law seeking wealth and power rather than to address social issues and to help people.  The personality characteristics of those entering the field of law changed in accordance with that shift. 

According to a June, 1997 article from the American University Law Review entitled, "Lawyer, Knowing Thyself: A Review of Empirical Research on Attorney Attributes Bearing on Professionalism", "Lawyers' relationships with their clients and with the public likely suffer as a result of lawyers' preference for introversion, thinking, and objective analysis, compounded by a lack of sensitivity to human, emotional, interpersonal concerns. Lawyers' preference for introversion suggests an indifference to their outer world, including other people, and their preference for thinking implies a cool, impersonal attitude, both of which suggest that they may not relate well to other people, including their clients. There is recent evidence that lawyers are actually more like engineers than they are like nurses or teachers, being logical and unemotional, yet unlike engineers, in that their work is inextricably involved in interpersonal conflicts and issues.  These lawyer attributes, although they may be adaptive for the practice of law because they allow the lawyer to avoid feeling unduly emotional about his or her clients' cases, may be maladaptive in the client counseling part of legal practice.  One might conclude that lawyers should become more emotional, partial, compassionate, and interpersonally sensitive.  However, there is evidence that humanistic, people-oriented individuals are the least satisfied lawyers."

The article refers to a suggestion by Leonard H. Churmir, Ph.D. "that law schools, large law firms, and judicial appointments committees might consider motivation testing in order to place or direct law students, new lawyers, and politically appointed judges, respectively, and ensure that they will be 'good fits for the position.'"  I found this suggestion of great interest because recently and prior to learning of that suggestion, I had a conversation with a colleague wherein we discussed "the mental state of the attorneys and how their own personalities can interfere with resolving cases."  I told her that "an attorney's own personality was pivotal in potentially having a negative effect on the people they serve" and that before being granted a license to practice law, applicants should be required to undergo some sort of motivation testing.  I recognize and appreciate the fact that the United States is a free country and that the possibility of requiring such motivational testing is unlikely.  However, my area of practice is family law and the potential negative effect that lawyers with a "lack of sensitivity to human, emotional, interpersonal concerns" cause a great deal of damage to families and the children of those families are innocent victims.  That damage is sometimes irreversible and otherwise can take a great deal of therapy to reverse.   

In an article entitled, "Divorce and the Client's Emotional Needs: What Every Divorce Attorney Should Know", Dr. Deborah Hecker states, "Although divorce lawyers do not need to be trained psychotherapists to represent their clients successfully, they need to do what they can to reduce conflict and promote a divorce environment that helps their client remain focused, calm, and goal-directed. An empathetic divorce attorney can see through the anger, greed, and grief and not allow it to impede a successful legal resolution....  A divorce attorney who understands the psychological stages the client is experiencing can better promote adult behavior and provide quality legal resolution."

In 2002, the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association prepared a report entitled, "Public Perceptions of Lawyers Consumer Research Findings". Among other things, that report found that "some consumers feel that lawyers do more harm than good.  This is particularly true of people going through a divorce.  They say that divorce lawyers can exacerbate an already difficult situation....  This idea does not just come from the media.  Personal experiences bear it out." 

After the discussion I had with my colleague wherein we discussed the mental state of attorneys, she published an article entitled, "Family Law Attorneys Can Make Or Break Your Case".  In that article, she references our discussion states, "My colleague made a great point. The more I do this, the more convinced I am that choosing the right attorney is one of the most important decisions you can make."