DOUGHERTY: Would you move that microphone closer?

     KAISER: I do feel a bit awkward testifying before this committee. I know many of you are experts, as well, in domestic law. So, if I can preach to the choir, I guess, it's a privilege. So, thank you for having me here.
 
    I'd like to frame the issue at the outset as one, not only involving divorced parents, or divorcing parents, but one as also involving unmarried parents.

     As a child support director, we're seeing increasing numbers of nontraditional families where the parents never marry, but they still have the same issues regarding access, visitation, child support, as a more traditional family, and I think it would be a sad thing to not include them. In fact, in some of our inner city areas, up to 60 percent of the children born are born out of wedlock. So, I would urge you to expand your vision of what you're doing in terms of domestic law, to include those more nontraditional families.

     I'd like to begin with some statistics, probably known to some of you already, but it helps focus on the difficulties in domestic law.

     High rates of separation and divorce, as well as first to  unmarried parents, have met over a quarter of the nation's children living with only one parent. Indeed, over half of all children sometimes before they reach adulthood will live in a home with only one parent. For too many children, this has jeopardized the emotional and financial support that they need from both parents. Although many single parents provide the nurturing and support that helped their children succeed in life, the evidence is clear that most children do best when they receive emotional and financial support from both parents, and, yet, the trends in our country are that following a marital breakup or a failure to form even a marriage that children end up having contact with only one parent.  Children who have contact with their nonresidential parent are more likely to receive child support. Certainly, I understand that statistic.

     The 9.9 million custodial mother families, 5.7 million non-custodial fathers had joint custody, visitation, or both, in 1991, while 4.2 million had neither.

     Of those fathers with visitation and/or joint custody, who are supposed to pay support, about 81 percent made full or partial payment, while only 56 percent with neither custody nor visitation paid all or some other child support.
 
    In addition to the possible loss of child support, children who lose contact with their nonresidential parent are likely to lose the emotional support of that parent, yet, a large percentage of children who live with only one parent have little contact with the other parent. The national survey of children found that 49 percent of children in its national sample who lived with only one of their residential parents in 1991 had not seen their nonresidential parent in the last year, and only one in six averaged contact once a week or more.

     Because so many nonresidential parents are fathers, the problem of absent fathers and its impact on children is of great national concern. Profound feelings of rejection and grief, often reverberate in the children of these fathers for years. There are sometimes complex reasons why men lose contact with their children, from apathy to a belief that the system is biased against them, lack of employment, and economic success also have contributed to father absence. For whatever reason, the consequence of father absence for children are typically detrimental.

     We know that children who grow up in father-absent homes are less likely to be successful in school, or more likely to engage in illegal activities or less likely to graduate from high school and show all kinds of evidence of lack of well-being.

     What I would like to share with you is that there are better ways to deal with the problems of father-absence, the problems of dissolution of our family structure than we presently have.

     One book I'd like to call your attention to is called "Parenting Our Children in the Best Interest of the Nation." It's a report to the President and Congress, submitted by the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare, in September 1996. I believe Representative Dougherty has a copy available. It makes a number of recommendations that are good, sound recommendations, based upon research across the United States with experts in this area, as to a better way of handling the domestic issues. And, rather than regurgitate this, I would just like to call your attention to this publication, and share with you a few things that I found out in the last year trying to research this subject.

     I've looked at many models other states, and, in fact, other countries utilize in domestic relations. I had the privilege of attending the Second World Congress on Children, in San Francisco, in June of this year, and representatives from many countries came together to discuss childrens' issues in terms of fatherlessness, domestic relations, other methods of helping families who were breaking up to focus on the best interest of the children, and there are many other models that you could look at that are considered best practices.

     For example, the state of Michigan has a Friend of the Court System, and while it's far from perfect, it certainly offers the opportunity for an individual to work with one person who handles both child support and visitation issues, who reports to the court as an arm of the court, and who is available at the outset, say, visitation didn't occur, person, the Friend of the Court could get on the phone and contact the mother and father and immediately try to resolve the situation instead of waiting for a lengthy court process.

     While Michigan, itself, is reevaluating its Friend of the Court System, and right now undergoing some strategic planning to revamp it, it's been considered a very successful model.

     Another successful model is one that is used in Utah where parenting education is mandatory as part of any dissolution process, and I would put to you, it could also be mandatory as part of a paternity establishment process, as well.

     It seems that as parties engage in litigation their positions get more and more hardened and the ability to negotiate, the ability to give and take and the focus on the child is lost. If, at the very outset of litigation, or a court process, the parties focus, instead, on the children and their best interest, involved in parenting education, involving the children, and counseling, the parties do not harden their position. They find a nonadversarial method of resolving disputes, one that lasts with them a lot longer. They participated in the choices and because their compliance is voluntary, it's more apt to occur.

     I can tell you as a Child Support Director for many years, the process of creating laws to get people to do what we want, doesn't always work. The best approach is to get voluntary compliance. Parents, uniformly, want what's best for their children if they can comprehend what that is.

     At the time of dissolution, or at the time of a family breakup, it's probably the hardest time for folks to focus on the  needs of their children, the time when they need the most help, and if they receive that help, in terms of parenting education, in terms of mediation, a nonadversarial dispute resolution process, they can work together to hammer out an agreement that's personal to them, that, because it's personal to them, is more likely to be kept on their developing skills to resolve peacefully future disputes, which are bound to occur. Life is a series of conflict, and with the folks we work with, we see that series of conflict. It's not just today. It's tomorrow and the next day and the next day and the next day, and to call folks back to court every time to resolve these conflicts is counterproductive.

     Other countries, as well as the United States, are looking seriously at parenting education and at mediation as part of a family law process designed to remove the family law issues from the adversarial courtroom and make the solutions more personalized and child focused.

     A year ago, I testified regarding visitation. As an advocate for a pro se expedited process, and, in terms of withheld visitation, I would like to say after considerable reflection and much education over this past year,  I changed that position. The courts are not a place to solve interpersonal problems around children. It's not a win, win or take all, or loser situation. The child always loses. It's better to set the parents up with a model that focuses on their child that is peaceful dispute resolution and to get them into court quickly, and I think there are many judges here who will be testifying to you, who can tell you better than I, about the fact that the court is not set up to hammer out individualized solutions to life problems that folks have, and we're really not doing our children a service to let a few minutes in court determine what happened to them. In fact, what we find is, children end up losing one parent, whether it's despair, desire to end the conflict, one parent typically walks away. So far, in our society, it's been the father. It would be no better if it were the mother. The best parent to children is both parents, and we need to find a way to help adults in our society come to grips with solving problems around child rearing.

     I did want to share with you that the Division of Child Support Enforcement has applied for and received four grants to study various areas around the issues you're looking at, and I'm hopeful that the results of the research will be helpful to you as you make decisions about the future of domestic law in Missouri.

     One of the grants has to do with access and visitation. We received federal funding for what's called the MARCH project, and Judge Haslag, I know is here today, and can tell you more about that, but, in fact, we're funding mediation projects in several circuit courts throughout the state of Missouri, and we picked circuits where there's high income as well as low income, where there is racial diversity, as well as none, urban as well as rural, in an effort to actually study the cost of mediation on the benefit, so we can report back to you, what does it do for families? Is it worth the money? What would it cost? And, I know we had a lot of discussion last year about, what's the price tag that goes with it? It sounds like a good idea, but, we know in Michigan it was very, very expensive to introduce a Friend of the Court System. What would it mean in Missouri? And, hopefully, through this research, we'll be able to give you some factual data that's specific to Missouri's communities, that can help you guide your decision-making. We hope to serve a thousand families who participate in mediation. We have also a couple of other grants, so we've applied for an received.

     One is a Responsible Parenting Program. This is a program that supplies mediation to nonmarried parents. Right now, we establish paternity for nonmarried fathers, but we don't do anything in terms of access visitation, and our Responsible Parenting Program will give access to mediation to these fathers, to help them carve out parenting time, a parenting plan, how they will raise their children, jointly.

     A third grant that we have is called the "Parent Corners". We've obtained federal funds to set up parent education centers around the state where parents can go and obtain, like the state-of-the-art materials on child rearing, on peaceful dispute resolution on those domestic issues that most of us don't know about until we're stuck in the middle of it.

     The last grant we have, studies domestic violence, in terms of all of these issues and I know you'll hear testimony. Domestic violence is a concern that not all families will benefit from mediation where there's been a history of domestic violence, but we have to be a little more sophisticated about how we look at domestic violence and how we help families heal when they have that problem.

     I know I'm limited on the amount of time I'm allowed to speak, so at this, I would conclude my presentation, and offer myself for questioning.

     CASKEY: Any questions?

     SENATOR YECKEL: Mr. Chairman? I just have a question.

     CASKEY: Senator Yeckel.

     YECKEL: I want to know if Ms. Kaiser is going to submit her testimony? So many statistics, I couldn't keep up with you. Are you turning that in?

     KAISER: I can put it in terms of written comments. Is that your request, Senator?

     YECKEL: Well, or just a copy of what you read.

     CASKEY: We are taking a transcript.

     YECKEL: Oh, we are? Oh, okay, thank you.

     KAISER: Most of the statistics I quoted were from "Parenting our Children", and it is a publication we do have available, and I believe you have one in your office, Representative Dougherty. If you would like me to copy you a set for yourself, I'd .......

     YECKEL: No, that's fine. We're taking transcript. It will be there. Thank you.

     CASKEY: Representative Green?

     REPRESENTATIVE GREEN: One question, Senator. You were stating in the state of Michigan they had a Friend of the Court System, which basically stated child support would be enforced, but also that child visitation would be enforced and they would have equal accessibility to the court on both matters?

     KAISER: Yes.

     GREEN: And, was that the direction they were going when they created that?

     KAISER: They've been doing that since the 1930's, I believe. They're a unique model.

     GREEN: And, it's been fairly successful, you say.

     KAISER: It's been very successful. It's not without, I mean, they're rethinking part of the program right now, because it is like the executive and the judicial branches are hooked together. It's almost like having a Department of Corrections in charge of criminal justice. So, there's a bit of due process concern there, but Michigan is currently in the process of reevaluating and revamping its Friend of the Court System.

     GREEN: Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

     CASKEY: Representative Smith.

     REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Director, I have noticed on several occasions that your department sends out these notices to people about child support or whatever, and, they're extremely complicated and can barely be read by the people that you send them to, and I have, on various occasions, complained to your department about that, and the last time I talked to them about that, they said they were going to try to redo those forms. Have you all made any progress in that regard?

     KAISER: Representative, what we have done recently, you've probably read in the newspapers, is bring up our new computer system which will have form generation ability, because I need to get that system statewide first, I have not altered the forms that are within that system. I share your concern that our forms be friendly, and easy to follow. Some of them just about spit at people right now, and I am concerned about that, but, we do need to get the system functioning before we rewrite those forms.

     SMITH: I think it's important that you get those in such a form that people can understand them. I think you're very often dealing with people who are emotionally upset to begin with, and then when you throw that kind of language in front of them, they don't understand it. They're frustrated with it. They try to call you all, and you've got ten million lines, but you can't get through. You can't find somebody to talk to. Can't find the right caseworker. I think it does not serve your system well.

     KAISER: I agree with you, Representative. With our newer forms, you'll see very much of a shift, particularly with drivers' license revocation, that we're bringing up the forms for now. The forms are easy to read. They're user friendly. They give the information, maybe at an 8th grade level, and they're clear.

     SMITH: What is your time-frame on these new forms?

     KAISER: The new forms are being printed right now, the new drivers' license forms. I will be happy to share them with you.

     SMITH: Well, but I'm talking specifically on these other forms.

     KAISER: To go back and rewrite all the forms that are in there, it's probably going to be not a project until next summer.

     SMITH: Next summer?

     KAISER: To be quite frank, yes.

     SMITH: Thank you, Senator.

     SENATOR BENTLEY: May I?

     CASKEY: Patrick has a question.

     BENTLEY: Go ahead.

     DOUGHERTY: Thank you. Just a question on the Friend of the Court thing. It appears from what I read they are kind of conglomeration of both the money side of it and the visitation mediation side of it. Is it possible to have an effective, even though they're - an effective system in Missouri that could use that, but still maintain your current system of the Division of Child Support, primarily already set up to do the money you have? Does that make any sense to look at it that way? Can it work that way?

     KAISER: I think it could work. I did have some personal discussions with the Child Support Director in Michigan to prepare for talking to you today, and he listed some pro's and con's, but the state Child Support System works in conjunction with the Friend of the Court, effectively. A major difficulty he identified was a variation among circuits, because each circuit was individualized and there was not, like the Supreme Court, overall, making sure it was uniform in the application that discrepancies in the circuit were sometimes a problem for individual families.

     DOUGHERTY: And, lastly, in terms of paying for it, my read on it is that if we wanted to do something like that that would address mediation and visitation, etc., at the court level, with court personnel, that we could have a discussion about using some of the child support monies that we currently use within your division to help fund that so we wouldn't be, basically, throwing out an idea with how to fund it. Is that....

     KAISER: That's correct. I verified with the Michigan Director that federal funds are available for such a system under its state plan waiver.

     DOUGHERTY: I'd like to talk some other time with this committee about that more later. Thank you.

     CASKEY: Senator Bentley.

     BENTLEY: Director Kaiser, thank you for your testimony. I have been surprised as a relatively new legislator to find the majority of my calls, I would say, surround this whole subject, and before I became a Senator, I really had no realization of the tremendous scope of this problem. I have two questions.

     One, on the Friend of the Court, which I think sounds like a good idea, but how does that interface or is there any relationship with that in the CASAC Program, the Court Appointed Special Advocate for Children, and might that be a better way to address that having a special friend looking after the child's best interest, first, and, hopefully, pulling both parents into that kind of concern?

     KAISER: That's an interesting question, Senator. I've been a court appointed special advocate, as well as a guardian ad litem, and I understand the role of the CASAC in representing the child's interest in reporting back to the court regarding the, if there's signs of sexual abuse or domestic issues that affect the child. I'm not sure how that would work with the financial aspects of child support, but, emotionally, I think the CASAC's, if well trained, can report to the court on issues that are important to the child.

     BENTLEY: Second question had to do with the new computer system. I'm happy to hear that it's all done, I guess, and working?

     KAISER: It's up and running in Boone County. We're doing our day-to-day work on it. Any Boone County case around the state is being handled on the new computer system. Of course, I owe Boone County a debt of gratitude, because the first county that goes up is going to be the county that discovers the bugs. That's what a pilot is for. So, we've identified a number of problems that we're working on fixing, and as we fix them, we will bring up other chunks of counties in a series across the state. We're taking a very thoughtful approach, not wanting to be disruptive, but certainly, we feel the pressure to get our system up and running.

     BENTLEY: As far as - in order to make the system truly useful, it will have to be up and running in all the states, and it's my  understanding right now that many of the states are having a good deal of difficulty with this. What's your perception?

     KAISER: A number of states will not be up and running in the near future. They are primarily the high population states or states that had county based systems, previously. The technical design of these systems, the technical requirements of these systems are very, very complicated. It may well be that Congress asked us to build something, for example, in California, that cannot be built. So, it's estimated about 60 percent of the actual cases, because it's the high population states that are having the difficulty may be affected, but you should know that all states have a computer system now. It doesn't mean that we won't be able to continue to operate, but we do want our sister states to be up and running. We're all connected in child support. About 30 percent of our cases are with other states, seen with them, and so, we're pressing the federal government in offering ourselves to help other states get their systems up.

     BENTLEY: Thank you.

     CASKEY: Representative Kay Hollingsworth has joined us.

     REPRESENTATIVE HOLLINGSWORTH: So, I'm tardy, Mr. Chair.

     CASKEY: We weren't going to mention that. Any other questions.

     SENATOR JACOB: Mr. Chairman?

     CASKEY: Yes, Senator.

     JACOB: I was curious of what your feeling is about the relationship with the division and the domestic law bar? Do you feel like - in some cases, you'd be working together in terms of the bar representing people trying to make sure that child support is paid, other times there would seem to be an adversarial relationship, and, as a practicing attorney, I guess I've felt like, and I can't really put my arms around it, what it is, but there is some kind of lack of communication or something between enforcement and the Domestic Law Bar, and it seems like sometimes they're not communicating or cooperating, and there's a lot of misunderstanding, and I just was curious of what your impression of that relationship is?
 
    KAISER: Senator, I'm not yet a member of the Missouri Bar, but I have been in a position to practice privately against a child support agency, practice within a child support agency, and now as a Missouri director observe that kind of relationship. I would like to improve the relationship between my division and the Missouri Bar. I'm applying to have my bar membership transferred here, and would like to become active, personally, as a representative of our division within the family law section. I know we're very active with the judicial section, but we have not been as visible in the domestic law area, and I believe the children would be benefitted by us doing that more, to be more open, to be more collaborative.

     JACOB: I'm sorry. How long have you been at this job?

     KAISER: I've been the director in Missouri for a year and a half. I was a previous director in another state for five years prior to that. I'm a domestic lawyer in my other life.

     JACOB: So, have you noticed any difference between the other states and this state in terms of the relationship there?

     KAISER: I'd have to say we were more isolated in this state. It appears that we kept to ourselves more, the child support division, which is......

     JACOB: In the other state or this state?

     KAISER: In this state. It's something that I would like to remedy. The bar, the clients, the children benefit by having the knowledge shared.

     JACOB: I hadn't really thought about it. I guess I just never knew that they were or were not involved with the bar, but, probably an active participation in that would probably increase communication, and better understanding how each other operate.

     KAISER: I think, historically, it's a really good time. Last year, the Governor decided that the attorneys we contracted with should, in fact, be in-house attorneys, so we now employ a number of attorneys who were private contractors before, with a growing presence of the legal profession within our division. I think it's important for their continuing education, as well as to interface with the bar if we do speed or step up to the plate in terms of more of an interrelationship.

     CASKEY: Thank you, very much, Teresa. We appreciate your appearing today.

     KAISER: Thank you.

     SENATOR WIGGINS: Mr. Chairman?

     CASKEY: Yes, Senator Wiggins.

     WIGGINS: Before we go on, I was just checking the schedule. I wanted to clarify something. I notice that we have witnesses through 12:00, and then I noticed a lunch break immediately 12:30, Dr. Warshak and 1:00, John McCabe, and then a break until 2:30. Shouldn't that be Dr. Warshak at 1:30?

     CASKEY: We're going to break from 12:30 to 1:30.

     WIGGINS: Okay. Then, Dr. Warshak would come at 1:30 instead of 12:30, right?

     CASKEY: Correct.

     WIGGINS: Okay. Thank you.

     CASKEY: If that meets your approval.

     WIGGINS: Sure.

     CASKEY: We're serving lunch today, too.

     WIGGINS: Break from 12:30 to 1:30?