Dear Virginia Legislators: 22 January 2003

Each of you should by now be aware of the Child Support Panel Dissenting Opinion written by Murray Steinberg, one of the representatives for non-custodial parents. That opinion was concurred in by two other members of the panel, Maxie Cannon and Cynthia Ewing. What some of you might have forgotten is that the last Child Support Panel of three years ago also had a strong dissenting opinion, again written by the non-custodial representative. Time after time, the representatives of Virginia's child support PAYORS decry the unfairness not only of the attempt to raise Virginia's guideline, but of the fundamental premises on which the guideline is based.

There is no need to cite the details here; they are covered in not one, but now two dissenting opinions in a row, which all of you can access and read. Those of you who might take the time to actually study these opinions will find not mere rancor over having to pay more, but deep concern over fundamental issues of fairness at the heart of the guidelines -- issues that judges in other states have actually challenged as being unconstitutional. The guideline, and Virginia's procedures for its review, are fundamentally flawed.

In particular, you should know that the child support panel is biased against non-custodial viewpoints. The first non-custodial representative selected, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, was dismissed once his views became known by way of a newspaper editorial. The new legal requirement for two non-custodial representatives was then very nearly ignored, and public comment, overwhelmingly in favor of the non-custodial viewpoint, was entirely ignored. In a democratic government, these things should be felt as an embarassment.

Instead of seeking fairness, the panel has placed overwhelming reliance on economic mumbo-jumbo that no citizen of the state could possibly understand at first blush, and which Mr. Steinberg himself -- after long and diligent study -- finds virtually incredible. It is doubtful that many in General Assembly could honestly declare that they understand fully the principles behind Virginia's income shares guideline, not to mention the current economic analysis being peddled now to raise the guideline. Your vote to raise Virginia's guideline is being sought blindly! Mr. Steinberg's dissenting opinion, and the truly excoriating dissenting opinion of three years ago, explain why. You should read them carefully. They point out truths-of-the-matter that should not be ignored.

To raise an already questionable guideline, as is now proposed in House Bills 2261 and 2263, and in Senate Bills 1312 and 1313, risks the perpetuation of what amounts to larceny under false pretenses against a discrete class of Virginia citizens -- the payors of child support. You are urged to see the folly of branding Virginia as a state that ignores public outcry, that relies on analysis because of the agenda it pursues rather than its soundness, and that invites more and more divorce by promising large financial gains to those who prevail on custody.

Sincerely,

Mark Lindamood, Annandale, Virginia