Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 2 P40 potx

A 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) INCOME COMPUTATION – WAGE EARNER MOTHER FATHER 1. Domestic Gross Income _____________$_______________$ (Insert on Line C.1. below)* B. INCOME COMPUTATION – SELF-EMPLOYED _______________ ______________ (Ϫ) _______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ 1. Self-Employment Gross Income* 2. Reasonable Business Expenses 3. Domestic Gross Income )woleb.1.CeniLnotresnI( C. ADJUSTMENTS TO DOMESTIC GROSS INCOME emocnIssorGcitsemoD.1 ( diaPtroppuSdlihCd eredrO-truoC.2 Ϫ ) _______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ (diaPecnanetniaMderedrO-truoC.3 Ϫ) _______________ ______________ (devieceRecnanetniaMderedrO-truoC.4 ϩ) _______________ ______________ __________________________ ___emocnItroppuSdlihC.5 (Insert on Line D.1. below) D. COMPUTATION OF CHILD SUPPORT 1. Child Support Income _______________ ϩ _______________ ϭ ______________ 2. Proportionate Shares of Combined Income _______________ % ______________% (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 0–5 6–11 12–18 Total _______________ _______________ _______________ _______________ ϩ _______________ ϩ _______________ ϭ ______________ *Interstate Pay Differential Adjustment? _______________ Yes _______________ No **Multiple Family Application? _______________ Yes _______________ No 4. Health and Dental Insurance Premium _______________ ϩ ______________ ϭ ______________ 5. Work-Related Child Care Costs Formula: _______________ ______________ Amt. Ϫ ((Amt. X %) ϩ (.25 ϫ (Amt. x %))) for each child care credit ϭ ______________ Example: 200 Ϫ ((200 ϫ .30%) ϩ (.25 ϫ (200 ϫ .30%))) 6. Parents’ Total Child Support Obligation _______________ ______________ (Line D.3. plus Lines D.4. & D.5.) 7. Parental Child Support Obligation _______________ ______________ (Line D.2. times Line D.6. for each parent) 8. Adjustment for Insurance and Child Care (Ϫ) _______________ ______________ (Subtract for actual payment made for items D.4. and D.5.) 9. Basic Parental Child Support Obligation _______________ ______________ (Line D.7. minus Line D.8.; Insert on Line F.1. below) CASE NO. ___________________ [continued] A. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 378 CHILD SUPPORT Less 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 (or ders 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 function, 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 (ϩ/Ϫ) _______________ (ϩ/Ϫ) ________________ 2. ٗ ٗ Parenting Time Adjustment (if b. %___) (ϩ/Ϫ) _______________ (ϩ/Ϫ) ________________ 3. ٗٗIncome Tax Considerations (ϩ/Ϫ) _______________ (ϩ/Ϫ) ________________ 4. ٗٗSpecial Needs (ϩ/Ϫ) _______________ (ϩ/Ϫ) ________________ 5. ٗٗAgreement Past Majority (ϩ/Ϫ) _______________ (ϩ/Ϫ) ________________ 6. ٗٗOverall Financial Condition (ϩ/Ϫ) _______________ (ϩ/Ϫ) ________________ _______________ ________________ F. DEVIATION(S) FROM REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AMOUNT 1. Basic Parental Child Support Obligation _______________ ________________ _______________ ________________ _______________ ________________ _________________ (Line D.9. from above) 2. Total Child Support Adjustments (ϩ/Ϫ) (Line E.7. from above) 3. Adjusted Subtotal (Line F.1. ϩ/Ϫ Line F.2.) 4. Enforcement Fee Allowance** Percentage _______________% (Applied only to Nonresidential Parent) Flat Fee $ _______________ ((Line F.3. ϫ Collection Fee %) ϫ .5) or (Monthly Flat Fee ϫ .5) (ϩ) _______________ (ϩ) 5. Net Parental Child Support Obligation (Line F.3. ϩ Line F.4.) **Parent with nonprimary residency ________________________________________________ Judge/Hearing Officer Signature ________________________________________________ Date Signed _____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Prepared By Date Approved CASE NO. ____________________ TOTAL (Insert on Line F.2. below)7. FATHERMOTHER AMOUNT ALLOWED FATHERMOTHER AMOUNT ALLOWED A sample child support guidelines worksheet (continued). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHILD SUPPORT 379 occur 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’semployerinanother 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. child ren lived in poverty. As a result, in the 1990s, reliance on AFDC increased dramatically nationwide. In recognition that many fam ilies 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’sresources change. Back child support can be ordered if a modification or other order delays payment. Remarriage or COHABITATION does 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. Achild’s ADOPTION releases 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’sincome 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 on ce 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 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 380 CHILD SUPPORT support. 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 order s 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 1990 s, a majority of support orders lacked provisions regarding HEALTH 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 becam e 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 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHILDREN’ S DEFENSE FUND 381 threatened. 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 SUPPORT payments with the help of the INTERNAL 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 of GEORGE W. BUSH with respect to federal support for low-income children. Edelman and the organization have embarked upon a mission called Leave No Child Behind,callingfor 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 President BARACK 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 StatesBest States Rank Rate Rank Rate 1 New Hampshire 8.8% 51 50 Mississippi 29.3% 9.8% Louisiana 10.5% Arkansas 25.8% 25.8%New Mexico4811.0%Utah4 2Hawaii 3Maryland 5 Connecticut 47 Alabama 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. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 382 CHILDREN’ S RIGHTS because 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 syste m 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 be en provided in their legal status. PARENS PATRIAE (“the state as pare nt”) 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 experiencing DIVORCE; 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 co mpetent children such as Mays and Kingsley must be allow ed 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 m inor, Kingsley alone did not ha ve 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 a CHILD CUSTODY or 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 a GUARDIAN AD LITEM to identify the children’s needs and to GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHILDREN’ S RIGHTS 383 advocate 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 proce ss 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. BAIL is 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 co uld adults. Some constitutional prote ctions 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 liberal WARREN 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 of EQUAL 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 so me 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. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 384 CHILDREN’ S RIGHTS Cannon, 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 identifica tion 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. Furth er, 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 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 1882 385 passage 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) v CHIPMAN, 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 Middlebu ry 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 182 2. Chipman died April 23, 1850, in Ripton, Vermont. v CHISHOLM, SHIRLEY ANITA ST. HILL A distinguished congresswoman, scholar, and African American spokeswoman, SHIRLEY CHISHOLM was 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 co mpassion, she remains a fierce and eloquent voice on national matters. Daniel Chipman 1765–1850 ▼▼ ▼▼ 17501750 18001800 18251825 18501850 18751875 17751775 ❖ ◆◆◆◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ 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 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 386 CHIPMAN, DANIEL Chisholm 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 neighb or- 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 educatio n 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 co mmunity and Shirley Chisholm. AP PHOTO. ▼▼ ▼▼ Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm 1924–2005 1925 1950 1975 2000 ❖ ◆ ◆ ◆❖ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 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. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHISHOLM, SHIRLEY ANITA ST. HILL 387 . control immigration until the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHINESE EXCLUSION ACT OF 18 82 385 passage of the Immigration and Nationality Amendment Acts of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89–836, 79. Became a professor of law at Middlebury College 1808–15 Served as member of the governor's council 1818 Returned to General Assembly 1 822 An Essay on the Law of Contracts for the Payment of Specific Articles. and to GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CHILDREN’ S RIGHTS 383 advocate that those needs be met. This caretaker “for the lawsuit” may be an attorney chosen to act on behalf of the