The legislation created the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and required states to establish state child support offices.. To ensure that orders remain adequate and equitable
Trang 1A sample child
support guidelines
worksheet
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY
PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
Child Support Worksheet
IN THE _ JUDICIAL DISTRICT _ COUNTY, KANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF:
_
and _
CHILD SUPPORT WORKSHEET OF
(name)
(Insert on Line C.1 below)*
B INCOME COMPUTATION – SELF-EMPLOYED
_ ( ) _ _
1 Self-Employment Gross Income*
2 Reasonable Business Expenses
3 Domestic Gross Income
) w o l e 1 C e i L o t e n I
C ADJUSTMENTS TO DOMESTIC GROSS INCOME
e m o n I s o r G c i t s m o D 1
( d
i a P t o p S d li h C d r e r O -u C
_ _ (
d i a P e n n t n i a M d r e r O -u C
( d
i e R e n n t n i a M d r e r O -u C
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ e
m o n I r o p S d li h C 5 (Insert on Line D.1 below)
D COMPUTATION OF CHILD SUPPORT
(Each parent’s income divided by combined income)
3 Gross Child Support Obligation**
(Using the combined income from Line D.1., find the amount for each child and enter total for all children)
Age of Children Number Per Age Category Total Amount
_ _ _
*Interstate Pay Differential Adjustment? _ Yes _ No
Example: 200 ((200 30%) (.25 (200 30%)))
(Line D.3 plus Lines D.4 & D.5.)
(Line D.2 times Line D.6 for each parent)
8 Adjustment for Insurance and Child Care ( ) _ (Subtract for actual payment made for items D.4 and D.5.)
(Line D.7 minus Line D.8.; Insert on Line F.1 below)
CASE NO _
[continued]
A
378 CHILD SUPPORT
Trang 2Less common methods for securing child
support owed are the SEIZURE of government
security bonds, collection of the full amount by
the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (this method was
still under consideration in 1995), and seizure
and sale of property or other forced payment
The effects of reporting delinquent obligors to
credit bureaus are being studied
Interstate orders (orders for support to be
paid by a parent in a different state) pose
additional problems for enforcement Although
three in ten child support cases are interstate,
only 10 percent of the delinquent collections
nationwide result from these cases This
circumstance has caused child support
collec-tion, usually considered a state funccollec-tion, to
become an issue of national importance
Although most states have long-arm statutes enabling them to retain jurisdiction over obligors in other states, delays result when the laws are not uniform Failures to collect across state lines are due to heavy case backlogs, multiple and conflicting orders, lack of priority given to interstate cases by the responding state, and an inability to locate the noncustodial parent
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), which was developed in 1992, contains what is called the one order, one time rule,
in which the initial state retains jurisdiction in order to prevent multiple orders The act limits modifications and provides that they must
Child Support Worksheet
E CHILD SUPPORT ADJUSTMENTS
APPLICABLE N/A CATEGORY
1 Long Distance Parenting Time Costs ( /) _ (/)
2 Parenting Time Adjustment (if b % _) ( /) _ (/)
3 Income Tax Considerations ( /) _ (/)
5 Agreement Past Majority ( /) _ (/)
6 Overall Financial Condition ( /) _ (/)
_
F DEVIATION(S) FROM REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AMOUNT
1 Basic Parental Child Support Obligation _
_
_
_
(Line D.9 from above)
(Line E.7 from above)
3 Adjusted Subtotal (Line F.1 / Line F.2.)
4 Enforcement Fee Allowance** Percentage _%
(Applied only to Nonresidential Parent) Flat Fee $ _
((Line F.3 Collection Fee %) 5) or (Monthly Flat Fee 5) ( ) _ ()
5 Net Parental Child Support Obligation
(Line F.3 Line F.4.)
**Parent with nonprimary residency
Judge/Hearing Officer Signature
Date Signed
_
CASE NO
TOTAL (Insert on Line F.2 below)
7
FATHER MOTHER
AMOUNT ALLOWED
FATHER MOTHER
AMOUNT ALLOWED
A sample child support guidelines worksheet (continued) CHILD SUPPORT 379
Trang 3occur in the child’s home state The model legislation also features direct income withhold-ing, so that the state of origin can communicate directly with the obligor’s employer in another state It also requires that states that adopt the uniform law provide enforcement services to one another
In October 1994 the U.S Congress’s Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act became effective (28 U.S.C.A §§ 1 note, 1738B, 1738B note), enabling states to enforce and modify orders under certain circumstances
Public Assistance
In 1991 the Census Bureau found that nearly half of all single-parent families headed by a woman live at the poverty level A report on child support enforcement presented to the Senate in 1994 found that more than one-fifth
of all U.S children lived in poverty As a result,
in the 1990s, reliance on AFDC increased dramatically nationwide
In recognition that many families require public WELFARE because a noncustodial parent does not contribute, Congress adopted Title IV-D of the Social Security Act in 1975 (Social Services Amendments of 1974, Pub L No 93–
647, 88 Stat 2337 [1975] [pertinent sections codified at 42 U.S.C.A §§ 661–665 (1988)])
The legislation created the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and required states
to establish state child support offices Under Title IV-D, services such as locating noncusto-dial parents, determining parentage, and estab-lishing and enforcing support orders must be provided free to families that receive AFDC In addition, these services must be provided at very low cost to custodial parents who do not receive AFDC The federal government requires states
to provide these services as a condition for receiving AFDC services
In the 1990s child support was sought as part
of the regular intake procedure for unmarried parents who were requesting public assistance
To comply with federal funding requirements, most states require that an unmarried parent seeking AFDC identify the absent parent and cooperate in efforts to establish parentage and secure child support
Modifying Awards
A family’s postdivorce economic situation will likely be different from its predivorce economic
situation In most cases, divorced parents set up separate households whereas they lived together
in one home while married Because the same resources cannot support two households at the same level as a single household, awards are often considered inadequate by the custodial parent and burdensome by the obligor
An existing support order may be modified if the child’s needs or the paying parent’s resources change Back child support can be ordered if a modification or other order delays payment Remarriage orCOHABITATIONdoes not neces-sarily affect child support, although if demon-strated to be a permanent change in circum-stances, it could become a basis for modification
A child’sADOPTIONreleases the obligor from future payments but does not cancel an arrearage Some orders are automatically modified when certain conditions are met For example,
an escalation clause allows the child support amount to increase as the obligor’s income increases A cost-of-living-adjustment (commonly referred to as COLA) clause permits modification without a hearing when there is an increase in income coupled with inflation The purpose of these clauses is to keep cases out of court Courts usually do not approve automatic increases that are not based on an increase in income
To ensure that orders remain adequate and equitable, Congress began in 1993 to require that states review and, if necessary, adjust child support orders at least once every three years
if the custodial parent receives federal public assistance This arrangement differs from state modification standards that are based on changes in circumstances
BANKRUPTCY does not end a child support obligation A child’s move, if authorized, does not end support And an obligor’s estate may be required to continue support payments after the obligor’s death In most cases, the obligation ends only when the child reaches the AGE OF MAJORITY, marries, or can support herself or himself
In some states, the court may terminate or suspend child support as a way to enforce a visitation order The difficulty with this modifi-cation is that the child may suffer as a result
Other Awards
Financial awards for higher education are sometimes included in an order to pay support but are not meant to substitute for primary
380 CHILD SUPPORT
Trang 4support Education awards are common in
families in which children are expected and able
to complete postsecondary coursework Courts
have denied awards for tuition, for lessons, and
for other education-related expenses when those
expenses are deemed unnecessary
A responsibility to provide health care is
occasionally clarified in orders for support,
especially when one or both parents have access
to an employer-provided health plan In the
early 1990s, a total of 25 million children had
no employer-provided insurance, and 8.4
mil-lion had no coverage at all Nevertheless, also in
the early 1990s, a majority of support orders
lacked provisions regardingHEALTH INSURANCE
An obligor may be required to maintain a
life insurance policy naming the child or
guardian as BENEFICIARY
FURTHER READINGS
Bahr, Stephen J., et al 1994 “Trends in Child Custody
Awards: Has the Removal of Maternal Preference Made
a Difference?” Family Law Quarterly 128 (summer).
Calhoun, Janelle T 1995 “Interstate Child Support
Enforce-ment System: Juggernaut of Bureaucracy ” Mercer Law
Review 46 (winter).
Grall, Timothy S Current Population Reports “Custodial
Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support 2005 ”
Washington, D.C.: U.S Government Printing Office.
Available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/2007
pubs/p60-234.pdf; website hom epage: http://www.
census.gov (accessed July 12, 2009).
Haynes, Margaret Campbell 1994 “Child Support and the
Courts in the Year 2000 ” American Journal of Trial
Advocacy 17 (spring).
Mason, Mary Ann 2000 The Custody Wars: Why Children
Are Losing the Legal Battle and What We Can Do About
It New York: Basic.
Ramsey, Sarah H., and Douglas E Abrams 2008 Children
and the Law in a Nutshell 3d ed Eagan, MN: West.
Sampson, John J., and Barry J Brooks 2002 “Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act (2001) with Prefatory
Note and Comments ” Family Law Quarterly 36 (fall).
Solomon-Fears, Carmen 2002 Paternity Establishment:
Child Support and Beyond Damascus, MD: Penny Hill.
U.S Dept of Health and Human Services 2000 Income
Withholding for Child Support Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Dept of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children & Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement Available online at http://www.acf.hhs.
gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2001/im-01-06a.htm; http://
www.acf.hhs.gov; website home page: http://www.acf.
hhs.gov (accessed July 12, 2009).
Zmijewski, Daniel Robert 2003 “The Child Support
Recovery Act and Its Constitutionality after U.S v.
Morrison ” The Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy
12 (winter).
CROSS REFERENCES
Child Custody; Divorce; Family Law; Parent and Child;
Welfare.
CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) is a national organization that is committed to the social welfare of children Founded in 1973, the NONPROFIT group uses its annual $9 million budget to lobby legislators and to speak out publicly on a broad array of issues on the law, the family, and society It is involved in the welfare debate: The CDF has consistently fought for federal welfare programs that directly help poor children, a cause that has enjoyed signifi-cant success in Washington, D.C In the 1980s its intensive LOBBYING efforts saved billions of dollars in proposed funding cuts In the early 1990s, close ties with the administration of President BILL CLINTON increased its influence leading to new federal legislation Besides its work on Capitol Hill, the organization issues reports on the health and the economic and social well-being of U.S children The organi-zation owes much of its effectiveness to the work of its founder and director, CIVIL RIGHTS attorney MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN
The first black woman to pass the bar exam
in Mississippi, Edelman fought racial discri-mination in the 1960s She initially came to national attention by stopping efforts in Mis-sissippi to deny African Americans money from the federal Head Start program By the end of the 1960s she ran an advocacy group called the Washington Research Project whose chief focus was antidiscrimination law The group acquired powerful allies—one staff attorney was Hillary Rodham, who later became First Lady Edelman lobbied extensively for federal health care and CHILD CARE, but to little avail By 1973 she realized that “the country was tired of the concerns of the sixties When you talked about poor people or black people, you faced a shrinking audience I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” She renamed her organiza-tion, made children’s issues its primary focus, and began building the corporate sponsorship that has grown to include such major donors as American Express and Coca-Cola
The CDF has taken a stand against cutting federal programs that benefit low-income children Leading its list are the Head Start and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition programs Although viewed as a liberal organization, it has blasted presidential administrations from Jimmy Carter’s to George H.W Bush’s whenever budgets have been
CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND 381
Trang 5threatened It has attacked social spending cuts
as“callous” and motivated by “greed,” arguing that welfare is properly seen as a children’s issue In a display of its influence during the Reagan era, the CDF convinced Congress to spare approximately $2.5 billion in cuts In addition to supporting existing programs, the CDF has argued in favor of greater federal support for underprivileged families in the areas
of housing, day care, child immunization, so-called family preservation programs, and em-ployment training
The organization’s research and recommen-dations are often the catalyst for debate For example, its 1991 study Bright Futures or Broken Dreams: The Status of the Children of the District
of Columbia and an Investment Agenda for the 1990s—noting items such as infant mortality, teenage pregnancy and MURDER, and child abuse—concluded that “across almost every indicator of health, income, and social well-being, the status of children in the District is abysmal.” Edelman opened the CDF’s first local office in the District of Columbia She called society’s failure to save children’s lives unforgiv-able and blamed it on local and federal governments Such conclusions sit well with traditional liberals but not with conservatives
Nationally syndicated columnist Mona Charen, for example, attacked the CDF for wanting “a bigger and bigger welfare state, with less and less emphasis on personal responsibility and self control.” Even neoliberals such as author Mickey Kaus found the CDF’s social analysis to be outdated and its answers impractical Kaus wrote
in the New Republic, “Are American taxpayers more likely to open their wallets for someone with an unvarnished analysis of the underclass problem, or someone who tries to overwhelm analysis with emotionalism about children?”
Despite such criticism, the organization’s agenda flourished during the Clinton adminis-tration, in part due to long-established personal and political ties between the Clintons and Edelman: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON was CDF chair from 1986 to 1992 The president promoted several of the CDF’s positions in his legislative goals He signed family-leave legisla-tion and stepped up enforcement of CHILD SUPPORTpayments with the help of theINTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE He also proposed budgets that fully funded or expanded Head Start and WIC; advocated a comprehensive federal immuniza-tion program for children; and supported health care reform that ensured care for children and pregnant women
The CDF was critical of the administration
ofGEORGE W.BUSHwith respect to federal support for low-income children Edelman and the organization have embarked upon a mission called Leave No Child Behind, calling for comprehensive legislation to provide federal support for the health, safety, and education of all children The mission is named similarly to an initiative advocated by Bush that resulted in the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub L No 107-110, 115 Stat 1425 (20 U.S.C.A §§ 6301
et seq.), which was primarily an educational bill Edelman and other CDF supporters have disapproved of several of Bush’s initiatives relating to children’s programs The CDF has expressed support for some of PresidentBARACK OBAMA’S early initiatives, including Obama’s stated policy regarding expansion of children’s health coverage
FURTHER READINGS Children’s Defense Fund Available online at http://www childrensdefense.org/ (accessed May 13, 2009) Ventrell, Marvin, and Donald N Duquette 2005 Child Welfare Law and Practice Denver: Bradford Publishing Company.
CROSS REFERENCE Family Law.
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS The opportunity for children to participate in political and legal decisions that affect them; in a broad sense, the rights of children to live free from hunger, abuse, neglect, and other inhumane conditions
The issue of children’s rights is poorly defined in legislation and by the courts, partly
Children Living in Poverty: Best and Worst States a
Worst States Best States
50
25.8%
New Mexico 48
11.0%
Utah
4
2 Hawaii
3 Maryland
SOURCE: Children’s Defense Fund, State of America's Children 2008
11.1%
26.8%
24.3%
49
a Washington, D.C was considered a state for the purpose of this study.
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY
PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
382 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
Trang 6because U.S society as a whole has not decided
how much autonomy to grant children
Al-though the United States is built on protecting
the interests of individuals and the twentieth
century saw the rights of people with special
needs recognized, the nation has yet to extend
to children legal standing (the right to bring a
court case) and legal protection similar to that
of adults
When most children’s advocates talk about
children’s rights, they are not referring to the
same rights held by adults, such as the rights to
vote, drink, smoke, and run for office Instead,
they mean that more emphasis should be placed
on children’s status as “natural persons”
deserving of benefits under the law as provided
in the U.S Constitution and its BILL OF RIGHTS
The U.S legal system grants rights to people
who are deemed competent to exercise those
rights This qualification poses a dilemma for
advocates of children’s rights because most
children lack the skills to advocate for
them-selves in the political, judicial, or economic
arena Yet, children’s rights supporters believe
that because of this powerlessness, children
must be granted more protections and power
than has been provided in their legal status
PARENS PATRIAE(“the state as parent”) is the
philosophy that guided many court decisions in
the 1990s This approach basically assumes that
the government has a duty to make decisions
on behalf of children to ensure that their best
interests are met But the doctrine can be
interpreted as allowing government interests to
replace interests children may wish to express
on their own behalf It also assumes that what
the government wants matches what the child
needs, which may or may not be true
How U.S society defines and provides
children’s rights has implications for many
areas: how children are represented by
attor-neys; how resources are distributed, for
exam-ple, in a family experiencingDIVORCE; how long
some children will live in abusive situations or
foster care; how the role of families is viewed;
and more
Court Standing
Twelve-year-old Gregory Kingsley made the
news headlines in 1992 when he went to court
to sever his legal ties to his parents—and won
(In re Kingsley, No JU90-5245, 1992 WL
551484 [Fla Cir Ct Oct 21, 1992; Kingsley v
Kingsley, 623 So 2d 780 (Fla Ct App 1993)])
A year later, Kimberly Mays, age 17, won her legal battle to end any parental rights her biological parents might attempt to exercise (Twigg v Mays, No 88-4489-CA-01, 1993 WL
330624[Fla Cir Ct Aug 18, 1993]) What was unusual in both cases was that children were allowed to advocate for their interests on their own behalf Some children’s rights advocates believe that competent children such as Mays and Kingsley must be allowed to use the courts
to pursue their interests But these particular cases may have done more to promote the discussion of children’s rights than to promote actual rights
For example, when Kingsley’s mother sub-sequently appealed the termination of her rights, the appellate court ruled that as a minor, Kingsley alone did not have standing (Kingsley v Kingsley)
It was ultimately the support of adults who later joined Kingsley in bringing the case (including his adoptive parents), along with his parents’
inability to care for him, that influenced the appeals court to affirm the lower court’s decision
The situation surrounding Mays’s parentage
is so unusual that few similar cases are anticipated to arise Mays was raised by Robert Mays and Barbara Mays after being mistakenly identified as their daughter in the hospital where she was born When Mays’s biological parents discovered the switch more than a decade later, they sought visitation with Mays, starting a battle between them and the man who had believed that Mays was his daughter and had raised her alone after his wife’s death
Except when there is evidence of neglect or abuse, parents usually retain their status as preferred caretakers of their children The case
of Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S 390, 43 S Ct
625, 67 L Ed 1042 (1923) established that the Liberty Clause of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT gives parents the right to raise their children
The government’s assumption is that parents’
priorities match their children’s
The situation is less clear when the conflict
is between children and their parents, as in the cases of Mays and Kingsley When a family court is considering aCHILD CUSTODYor support petition, it may become aware that the parents are not acting in their children’s best interests
In these cases, the court may appoint aGUARDIAN
AD LITEM to identify the children’s needs and to
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 383
Trang 7advocate that those needs be met This caretaker
“for the lawsuit” may be an attorney chosen to act on behalf of the child in court But heavy increases in child protection and family court caseloads nationwide have led to long delays in making determinations on behalf of children—
and have led many advocates to suggest that a solution may lie in allowing children to initiate actions for themselves
Many situations in which children and parents do not share common interests have not been resolved in favor of the minors These include cases that challenge laws requiring minors to get their parents’ consent before an ABORTION or that challenge parents’ efforts to commit their children to psychiatric institu-tions For example, in Parham v J R., 442 U.S
584, 99 S Ct 2493, 61 L Ed 2d 101 (1979), the Supreme Court decided that when parents seek
to institutionalize their children in mental hospitals, the due process provided to the children need be no more than an evaluation
by an independent medical decision maker
Again, the Court upheld the government’s assumption that what is best for the children
is what the parents and the state decide, despite criticisms that this is not always true
Juvenile Justice
Some advocates of children’s rights believe that children should be afforded the same constitu-tional and procedural safeguards that adults are given in court The juvenile justice system is cited by some experts as an area in which the protections granted to children lag behind those provided to adults For example, children may
be detained in situations where adults would not be.BAILis not set for children, and children
do not receive the benefit of a jury of their peers In some states, as recently as the late 1980s, minors could receive longer incarcera-tion sentences than could adults
Some constitutional protections were won
in the late 1960s on behalf of juveniles who could be tried as adults These protections included the right to an attorney’s advice at the time when the court was deciding whether to try the juvenile as an adult, the right to a hearing on that issue, and the right to the same information the court would use in making a decision (In re Gault, 387 U.S 1, 87 S Ct 1428,
18 L Ed 2d 527 [1967]; Kent v United States,
383 U.S 541, 86 S Ct 1045, 16 L Ed 2d [1966]) However, advances in this area have not
kept pace with federal and state legislation expanding the punishment of juveniles as adults
Constitutional Issues
Legal commentators have noted that the courts were seemingly willing to recognize the consti-tutional rights of children during the 1960s and 1970s A series of U.S Supreme Court decisions recognized minors’ rights to counsel
in criminal proceedings, to protection from SELF-INCRIMINATION, as well as other procedural rights and general privacy rights However, according to some commentators, the 1988 case of Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier,
484 U.S 260, 108 S Ct 562, 98 L Ed 2d 592 (1988) marked a turning point in the Court’s recognition of children’s constitutional rights
In that case, the Court limited the right of children to exercise free speech and free expression According to the decision, chil-dren’s rights “are not coextensive with the rights
of adults in other settings.”
One 1993 study of constitutional decisions concluded that from the 1960s to the early 1990s, the U.S Supreme Court was increasingly less supportive of expanding children’s claims
to constitutional rights The study showed that under the liberalWARREN COURT, 100 percent of decisions about constitutional cases upheld children’s claims The Burger Court, which followed, upheld children’s claims in 59 percent
of such decisions, and the Rehnquist Court in
22 percent of such cases to 1993 The cases in the survey concerned issues ofEQUAL PROTECTION, due process, privacy, free expression, and free exercise of religion
Statistics such as these prompted concern among experts as to the denial of basic legal rights given to children During the mid- to late-1990s, a number of scholarly article were published advocating expanded rights for chil-dren However, the trend toward restricting children’s rights continued into the early 2000s Courts, with some frequency, find that children are not capable of managing full legal rights and of making decisions on their own behalf The question of how far society should go in allowing children to participate in determining their destiny remains a difficult challenge
FURTHER READINGS Archard, David William 2003 Children, Family, and the State Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate.
384 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS
Trang 8Cannon, Scott A 1994 “Finding Their Own ‘Place to Be’:
What Gregory Kingsley ’s and Kimberly Mays’
‘Divorces’ from Their Parents Have Done for
Chil-dren’s Rights.” Loyola Law Review 39 (winter).
Coons, John E., Robert H Mnookin, and Stephen
D Sugarman 1991 “Puzzling Over Children’s Rights.”
Brigham Young Univ Law Review 1 Available online
at http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1991/1/coo.pdf;
website home page: http://lawreview.byu.edu (accessed
July 12, 2009).
Dale, Michael J 1992 “The Supreme Court and the
Minimization of Children ’s Constitutional Rights:
Implications for the Juvenile Justice System ” Hamline
Journal of Public Law and Policy 13, no 2 (summer).
Federle, Katherine Hunt 1993 “Constructing Rights for
Children: An Introduction ” Family Law Quarterly 27
(fall).
Jackson, Rochelle D 1999 “The War Over Children’s
Rights: And Justice for All? Equalizing the Rights of
Children ” Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 223.
John, Mary 2003 Children’s Rights and Power: Charging Up
for a New Century London, New York: Jessica Kingsley.
Mezey, Susan Gluck 1993 “Constitutional Adjudication of
Children ’s Rights Claims in the United States Supreme
Court, 1953 –92.” Family Law Quarterly 27 (fall).
Ramsey, Sarah H., and Douglas E Abrams 2008 Children
and the Law in a Nutshell 3d ed Eagan, MN: West.
Sommer, Cristina Dugger 1994 “Empowering Children:
Granting Foster Children the Right to Initiate Parental
Rights Termination Proceedings ” Cornell Law Review
79 (July).
CROSS REFERENCES
Child Abuse; Child Custody; Child Support; Divorce;
Family Law; Guardian ad Litem; Parent and Child.
CHILLING EFFECT DOCTRINE
In constitutional law, any practice or law that has
the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a
constitutional right, such as freedom of speech
CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 1882
Passed by U.S Congress in 1882 and signed
into law by President Chester A Arthur, the
Chinese Exclusion Act (22 Stat 58) created a
ten-year moratorium on the immigration of
Chinese laborers into the United States The Act
represents the first law ever passed by Congress
that denied entry to the United States on the
basis of race or ethnicity Congress indefinitely
extended the act in 1902 and made it permanent
in 1904 Although it was repealed in its entirety
in 1943, when China became an important ally
to the United States against Japan, its residual
effect on Chinese-American relations continued
far beyond
Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States
began during the 1850s’ Gold Rush, which
eclipsed a period of great poverty in China
Chinese laborers flocked to California, where they soon became an exploited workforce because even the meager wages they earned in California represented far more than they could have earned in their homeland By the 1870s, clear resentment existed among American miners, who felt their own wages were being held down by the industrious Chinese U.S
miners also felt that the laborers were sending too much gold back to China, believing the natural resource should stay within the United States Moreover, the Chinese were beginning to prosper in the laundry business, particularly in overcrowded San Francisco, where Victorian tastes and cultures approved of such domestic indulgences Mounting political pressure resulted in heated debate, and final passage of the act occurred on May 6, 1882
Under the provisions of the act,IMMIGRATION
of Chinese laborers to the United States was suspended for ten years Chinese laborers already
in the country were permitted to remain, even following temporary absences, but were barred from NATURALIZATION Illegal immigrants were to
be deported Non-labor Chinese students, tea-chers, merchants, or those “proceeding to the United States from curiosity” were permitted entry The act expressly defined “Chinese laborers” as “both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.” Additional provisions of the act levied heavy fines on those who would bring in or “aid and abet” any Chinese person unlawfully within the United States
Under the Geary Act (making the act permanent), other provisions were added to require Chinese residents in the United States to register and obtain a certificate of residence
This act required that they be photographed and submit photograph copies with local police
Moreover, they had to carry identification with them at all times The federal government paid for all related costs associated with compliance
Following an influx of general post-war immigrants during the 1920s, Congress began
to implement quotas and requirements pertain-ing to national origin By 1943 Congress repealed all exclusion acts, instead leaving in place a yearly limit of 105 Chinese Further, Congress gave foreign-born Chinese naturaliza-tion rights of citizenship The so-called origin system (with several subsequent modifications) continued to control immigration until the
CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 1882 385
Trang 9passage of the Immigration and Nationality Amendment Acts of 1965, Pub L No 89–836,
79 Stat, 911
FURTHER READINGS American Federation of Labor 1902 Some Reasons for Chinese Exclusion Meat vs Rice American Manhood against Asiatic Coolieism Which Shall Survive? Senate Doc No 137, 57th Congress, 1st Session Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
“Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.” 22 Stat 58 Available online at http://hopkins.stanford.edu/chinese.htm; web-site home page: http://hopkins.stanford.edu (accessed September 13, 2009).
“Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.” Excerpted from Teaching with Documents: Using Primary Sources from the National Archives Available online at http://www.
ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=47; website home page: http://www.ourdocuments.gov (accessed July 12, 2009)
vCHIPMAN, DANIEL Daniel Chipman was born October 22, 1765, in Salisbury, Connecticut He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1788, pursued legal studies, and was admitted to the Vermont bar
in 1790
In 1794 Chipman relocated to Middlebury, Vermont, where he established a successful legal practice and acted as counselor until 1819 In
1797 he became state attorney for Addison County, performing these duties until 1817
Chipman entered state politics in 1798 as a delegate from Middlebury to the General Assembly From 1808 to 1815 he served as a member of the governor’s council, acting as speaker in 1813 and 1814
In 1814 Chipman began service in the federal government as a congressman; he left his post after one session, due to illness In 1818
he returned to the General Assembly and represented Middlebury during that year and again in 1821
Chipman’s career interests also extended to the field of education He accepted a professor-ship of law at Middlebury College in 1806 and taught for the next ten years
The last years of Chipman’s life were devoted to his writing; however, he also served
as a Vermont supreme court reporter in 1823, and as a representative to two state constitu-tional conventions, in 1843 and in 1850
As an author, Chipman wrote numerous publications, including several biographies His most famous work is An Essay on the Law of Contracts for the Payment of Specific Articles, published in 1822 Chipman died April 23,
1850, in Ripton, Vermont
vCHISHOLM, SHIRLEY ANITA ST HILL
A distinguished congresswoman, scholar, and African American spokeswoman, SHIRLEY CHISHOLMwas the first black woman elected to the U.S House of Representatives A dynamic public speaker who boldly challenged traditional politics, “Fighting Shirley Chisholm,” as she called herself during her first congressional campaign, championed liberal legislation from her seat in the House beginning with her inauguration in 1968 and continuing until her retirement in 1982 Admirers and foes alike dubbed her the “Pepperpot” because of her fondness for saying, “I breathe fire.” Known for her wit, dedication, and compassion, she remains a fierce and eloquent voice on national matters
1765 Born,
Salisbury, Conn.
❖
1775–1783 American Revolution
1788 Graduated from Dartmouth College
1797 Appointed state attorney for Addison County
1794 Moved to Middlebury, Vt.
1798 Elected
to the Vt.
General Assembly
1806 Became a professor of law at Middlebury College
1808–15 Served
as member of the governor's council
1818 Returned to General Assembly
1822 An Essay on the
Law of Contracts for the Payment of Specific Articles published
1843 Participated in Vermont state Constitutional Convention
1850 Died, Ripton, Vt.
1861–65 U.S Civil War
386 CHIPMAN, DANIEL
Trang 10Chisholm was born Shirley Anita St Hill
on November 30, 1924, in the impoverished
Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn Her
father, an emigrant from Guyana, worked as an
unskilled laborer, and her mother, a native of
Barbados, was a seamstress and a domestic
worker Extraordinary circumstances separated
Chisholm from her parents for much of her
early childhood Struggling to save money for a
house and for their children’s education, the
St Hills sent their four daughters to live on the
farm of a grandmother in Barbados From the
age of three to the age of 11, Chisholm received
a British elementary school education and
acquired a West Indian rhythm of speech An
important influence on her early life, her
grandmother instilled in her the values of pride,
courage, and faith Her parents took her back to
Brooklyn at the age of 11
Graduating with an excellent academic
record from a Brooklyn girls’ high school,
Chisholm earned a scholarship to study
sociol-ogy at Brooklyn College She quickly became
active in political circles, joining the Harriet
Tubman Society, serving as an Urban League
volunteer, and winning prizes in debate Her
interest in her community led her to attend city
meetings, where, as a student, she astonished
older adults by confronting civic leaders with
questions about the quality of government
services to her predominantly black
neighbor-hood While beginning to establish her profile
in her community, she also impressed her
professors with a powerful speaking style and
was encouraged to enter politics She received
her sociology degree with honors in 1946 While
working in a nursery school she studied for a
master’s degree in elementary education at Columbia University where she met Conrad Chisholm, whom she married in 1949 Two years later she received her master’s degree in early childhood education
Over the next decade Chisholm built a reputation as an authority on early education and child welfare She served as the director of the Friends Day Nursery, in Brownsville, New York, and, from 1953 to 1959, of the Hamilton-Madison CHILD CARE Center, in Lower Manhat-tan Taking her expertise into the public sector, she became an educational consultant in New York City’s Bureau of Child Welfare from 1959
to 1964 In addition to her professional work, she participated in a variety of community and
Shirley Chisholm.
AP PHOTO.
◆
◆
◆ ◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
1939–45 World War II
1950–53 Korean War
1961–73 Vietnam War
1924 Born,
Brooklyn, N.Y.
1927–35
Lived with her
grandmother
in Barbados
1946 Graduated from Brooklyn College
1959 Became consultant with N.Y.C Bureau
of Child Welfare
1964 Elected to N.Y State Assembly
1968 Became first African American woman elected to U.S House
1971 Helped found National Women's Political Caucus
1972 Ran for president
1982 Retired from Congress; joined Mount Holyoke College's faculty
1985 Became first president of National Political Congress of Black Women
1993 Declined nomination as U.S ambassador to Jamaica
2000 Named first Sen Wynona Lipman Chair in Women's Political Leadership at Rutgers University
1992 Carol Moseley Braun became first African American woman elected to U.S Senate
2005 Died, Ormond Beach, Fla.