CASKEY: We want to try and give you as much time as we can, but I'm certain that we won't hold the committee much longer.

     PAINTER: I appreciate you staying, as it is. I would love to be able to just come back tomorrow. I'm sure there's a lot of things I'd like to hear tomorrow. Unfortunately, I have to give a mid-term exam, in my second job, one of the two jobs that I keep.

     CASKEY: Just give them all "A's. They'll appreciate it.

     PAINTER: I'm sure they would.

     CASKEY: You tell them that I told you to. Make me friends. Why don't you proceed. We'll do the best we can.

     PAINTER: Okay. Like I said, obviously, tomorrow I have to.....

     CASKEY: Give an exam.

     PAINTER: ......teach. That's the second job that I hold down, and I'm not as well prepared or as eloquent, probably, as all of the speakers you've heard today, and I don't speak from any organizational point of view, or statistical point of view, but, from a personal point of view, and I try to be very objective about this, although it's a very personal and emotional thing to me.

     Over the last few years, I've been through this system, the way it is, and, one of the things that you've heard about today is this, someone called it the race to the courthouse, or whatever.

     I did not have a custody battle, but, basically, because I heard there was a judge earlier today, who mentioned that 80 percent of cases in his pre-trial conferences, there's no issue, the lawyers present no issue of custody. I think it's a lot of times because the lawyers have recommended to their people that custody is a battleless, pointless. I know that that happened to me. I wish that I would have taken the time to fight for my kids. I wish I would have known what was going on with them, and the kind of things that would go on with them since. I have seven beautiful children and I love them very much, and I've seen them go through an enormous amount of agony, based on the only thing I can determine is the spite of their mother.

     I've been through amazing things. Right now, I have to respond to a court subpoena to present records or response, attempting to hold me in contempt. Amazingly enough, this is filed, even though it's a civil case, it's filed by the prosecuting attorney's office, acting, I guess, as my wife's private attorney. The expectation is that I can afford somehow private attorney to defend myself, attempting to say that I'm in contempt because I cannot keep up with the maintenance provisions of my order, and here's the bottom line.

     It is absolutely best for children to have both parents, and we see this alienation and we talk about where this alienation comes from, and what happens to fathers, or estranged parents, whoever they may be, generally, it is fathers, and I think part of the problem is there's a presumption or maternal prejudice on the part of the courts.

     My decree has driven me through bankruptcy. I've been extradited from another state to Missouri to post a bond, even though I've shown up in court dozens of time voluntarily to defend myself. This cost me a job. The decreased income that I'm making as a result of costing me my job and having to move in here is not taken into consideration by the court, because the causes that caused me to be behind, give me a "dirty hands" and they refuse to hear a motion for a modification. I've been through the visitation problem. I stood in front of my home that I used to own, but now that I'm not allowed to walk up to, with the police knocking at the door on Christmas Eve, who could see the children home, with my decree that says I should have had them that week, and have them tell me there's nothing I can do. I have the prosecuting attorney's office coming after me and saying, well, you're behind on maintenance, even though your child support, this year, my child for this year, which is current, was $16, almost 500, $16,429, out of my take-home pay, of only $19,000, some odd, leaving me a whopping $3,000, and they're attempting to throw me in jail, and before the end of this month, probably will manage to throw me in jail for not being able to come up with another $7,750, in maintenance.

     The bottom line is, when I called about the fact that I couldn't see my children on Christmas eve, that they refused to answer the door to the police, the reality is, they tell me, well, that's a civil matter, why don't you get a lawyer. I talk to a lawyer, they say give me $1,500, and I'll go into court an they'll tell her to stop doing that. The one thing you have to look at in the law is you talk about, and I heard a lot today about, what is the enforcement of this? The enforcement has got to be equivalent. There is an enormous amount of enforcement. There is a witch hunt out there for what's deadbeat or what they call "deadbeat", but the reality of it is, they're beating some people to death. I'd be happy. I'd be thrilled if all I had to do was to provide for my children, but the court has attempted to alienate me, okay, by providing a situation in which they allow coercion. Because of the time of the filing, my children were not primarily residing with me. Any attempt that I would have to get the kids would only ensure that a couple of lawyers got a lot richer, and the end result would have been the same. We can talk about, well, the law allows this, and the law allows that, but the bottom line is for real people, it doesn't, and I think a presumption - there was a lot of testimony here that mediation is better than presumption of joint physical custody. I know that in my case, if there was a presumption of joint physical custody, there was a lot better chance that there would have been mediation. I would have been more than happy to have had mediation, but that was not going to happen, and my X was not going to allow that, and her basic idea of negotiation was to say, I want $3,500 a month or we're done talking. But, the bottom line is, I didn't make that much money before we were divorced. So, it was, basically, a denial of any possibility of mediation. The fact that the law presumed me to be a bad parent, let's face this. I have to go in if I want custody under this situation. If I want to see my kids, not primary custody, but even equal custody, and prove, not that I'm as good a parent, so that I can be equal, but that I'm a better parent, and, in fact, that she is a criminal parent of some sort. Otherwise, they will do nothing.

     The bottom line is I have to go in now and, in my most recent thing, and I only say this as my most recent thing, I've gone through one thing after another. The prosecuting attorney's office, in St. Charles County, with all due respective for the Representative from there, has been very abusive of this process. I've never had a problem showing up in the court and was coming back into town to show up in court when I was living out of town, but they decided to extradite me which means I spent a week in jail, and a week in the back of a truck in shackles, so that I could post a thousand bond, in St. Charles County, even though I never had failed to appear for any court appearance, whatsoever, or defend myself. And, the sad thing is, and I didn't want to linger on this issue, but I just recall their faces at this moment and I think I have to say it, how abusive they are at that process. They do not care about the children. They claim to care about the children, but let me tell you two things. They were willing to throw me in jail for being unable to pay maintenance, even though that means I won't be able to pay child support. Furthermore, when I was arrested and extradited, I had a five-year old son, who was left alone during this Christmas episode when I was attempting to get visitation. One of the police officers said, do I know you. I've been here before. I said, well, I always have to have the police here when I come to get the kids. And he says, no, I was here when we found your kid alone. I had a five-year old kid left alone, who my eldest son, who is 12, told me he was left alone daily because he was responsible to get home from school and find him. I have a five-year old who was left home alone, every day, was locked in the house. The phone was locked away because she's afraid they'll call me. By the way, they're not allowed to call me. She told them that they didn't know where I was. Family Services just bought this, even though my address hasn't changed. My mother's address was still there, had been there for 30 years. She had every way to contact me. Now, prior to that, they had no problem finding me when they wanted to extradite me. She knew right where to tell them where I was, because I wasn't hiding where I was, but when she wanted to hide where I was, they wanted to believe that they didn't know where I was. The bottom line is, regardless of what the laws say, unless they clearly provide for equal enforcement, unless they're some way that they're implemented and enforced correctly, they don't matter.

     The other thing I say is that a lot of times they're abused because, and I say that, I think this group here, that is the legislature and the law as they provide it, have provided an incentive program. I've seen the prosecuting attorney's office from St. Charles County on the news, claiming how wonderful they were of collecting back child support. And, in my opinion, they're trying to put notches on their belt that are dollars. I've been in the same place for months before, and months after, and would have been returning at the end of that month, when they picked me up. They picked me up when, I will tell you, and this is the other thing that tells me they have no concern for these kids. I have a visitation arrangement because I was out of town to have my kids for a month in the summer. I drove to St. Louis. I picked up my kids. I drove them home. The next day they showed up at work and arrested me. My girl friend, who was living with me at the time, by the way, whose life has been destroyed by this, as well, brought my kids to me. I sat and I looked at my kids through the glass in that jail, and I talked to my kids and I watched them cry, because the prosecuting attorney's office was so concerned about them.

     You have a witch hunt for child support, and an ostrich approach to visitation.

     My kids, in three years, apparently based on what I've been informed by my ex-wife, my seven children, in the last three years, have never had, they must have never had, because I've never been informed of any, never had a conference at school, or an outside event, or anything, go on in their lives. Now, when I'm visiting them, I know, for instance, that one of my daughters, Teresa, was in the hospital. I never knew about it. But, when you talk to the reality of it is, with the lack of visitation, or lack of compliance, the law says you can go in, and you can get something done, and you can get custody changed. Well, that's good for what you might be able to do and that's fine for the rich, but any lawyer I talk to wants $1,500 to even think about it. Well, based on, I hope what is kind of humerous, is my income, you realize, I don't have the money to do that. I'm working two jobs to keep up with my child support, to stay out of jail.

     DOUGHERTY: Mr. Painter, I'd like to ask you a question on something you said earlier. It's still running around upstairs, other than the whole story, which is nightmare, to say the least. You made a statement, and I thought I recall, I was not allowed, they wouldn't allow me to file a motion or to proceed with modification. I don't get that.

     PAINTER: Yes. I was behind on child support at the time. My decree was issued at February 9th, supposedly, although me nor my lawyer received it for two months after that. When I received my decree, I received the wage withholding before the decree and the wage withholding claimed I was behind already, in the decree I had never seen. That's a statement on the - but that gets into the actual operations of the courthouse.

     GREEN: I'd just like to make a statement, Senator. For the last year, I've heard from a lot of judges and a lot of attorneys and a lot of fathers, and I'm glad the fathers, like yourself, have taken the time to come up, because the system does not work. I had a personal experience in the system of a family member. The judges aren't making it work. The lawyers aren't making it work. The system isn't working, and that's why we're having these hearings, and I just want to say, I'm glad I'm finally hearing from some fathers, instead of judges and professors, because they're the individuals it affects the most. Thank you.

     CASKEY: Representative, will you fill out a witness form?

     PAINTER: I'd like, actually, to make a comment about some people that are outside, the Core family, because they're other people affected.

     My divorce was not over me. It was over my wife's five-year affair with the drug addict, across the street, basically. I have determined that. He was at home because his wife was supporting him because he was in and our of cocaine rehab, and she was sleeping with him. That was what my divorce was over. For some reason, however, that was not considered sufficient grounds for denying maintenance, for some reason, in my case, because the judge felt that she needed a whole bunch of money. I have other opinions as to why that occurred, but they would be accusatory, and I don't think that I should say them on record.

     CASKEY: Senator Yeckel.

     YECKEL: Mr. Painter, I just had a question, and I missed the first part of your testimony, so I apologize if you're offended, but  when did you get your divorce?

     PAINTER: When did I get it?

     YECKEL: What year?

     PAINTER: That's a good question. It would have been, officially, I guess, 1996, early ‘96, in February of ‘96. The trial was in ‘95. The decree is dated February 9th, but, based on certain, off the record testimony from workers in the courthouse, it wasn't signed to actually two months after that, just before I received it.

     YECKEL: Okay, and so you did get your divorce under the new family court system.

     PAINTER: I presume. I don't know when your court system went in or out or otherwise, and that's speaking from any judicial knowledge here.

     YECKEL: You did not. That's what - I wasn't sure when it was implemented. So, it was not under the new family court system.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: I've got a question.

     CASKEY: Representative Hollingsworth.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you. Is it Mr. Painter, or Pointer?

     PAINTER: Painter, just like someone who paints.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Mr. Painter, what kind of visitation or custody is in your "decree".

     PAINTER: I have - I did get pretty well the visitation that I requested, and it is a little different. I was in Maryland at the time of the trial, and I preferred at the time, and I think I even still prefer now, although I would prefer it to be more frequent, like on all their school breaks, longer visitation, because of the same sorts of things you were hearing about. It was a horror story for me to get my kids for the weekend. I would spend all Friday night trying to get them. Like I said, even under this plan, I spent two days trying to get them at Christmas. It's just more than a human being  can deal with.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: So, do you know what the......

     FIELD: The nature of it is, it's one month in the summer and one week at the Christmas break.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: And, she is the primary custodian?

     PAINTER: She is the primary physical custodian, and I'm the legal custodian.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Physical custodian?

     PAINTER: And, I'm the joint legal custodian.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: You have joint legal custody?

     PAINTER: I have joint legal custody, although I've never been informed of anything that goes on in their lives, whatsoever, nor are they allowed to call me.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     CASKEY: Any other questions? Had you finished your comments?

     PAINTER: Yeah, if I could just make one more comment, about some other people, and how they're affected.

     One of the reasons that I think that my decree was entered for such an enormous amount of money relative to, especially what I make now, but, certainly even what I made then, much more, we talked about yet a law that required garnishment or wage withholding at the same time of the decree. It was in excess of what the federal law allows them to wage withhold from me, which to me is amazing, in and of itself, but one of the reasons is, I think the presumption that someone was staying with me at the time, in Maryland, and she was seeing if she could settle that, although she still had a house back here. This was someone that I met well after my separation, but that I feel whose life has been punished as a result. In my understanding of the constitution, people deserve representation, and, indirectly, her and my mother, both, who had lent us both a considerable amount of money into the marital property, of which I was stuck with and forced into bankruptcy, and who was not given visitation by the children's mother, because she is very spiteful about me finding out about her affair. These people have been hurt, too. This person, because she was in my life, they decided, well, she can support him, his mother can support him, and he can give everything he has to this family, and I don't mind supporting my children and there are guidelines for child support, and they may be high, low, or indifferent, and I don't have a problem with supporting my children, but the presumption is, well, he can then support this family, because this is what's in front of me, and that's what's easy to do, but I want let these other people who are hurt by this, these other people who aren't claiming, and, in essence, ordering to support John. I won't consider whether or not they have money. My mother is on a fixed income. She's retired. My brother is staying with her. He has terrible medical conditions. He has ALS. He's dying with Lou Gehrig's disease, and she has to take care of him, and the woman who I was with, she has her own kids, and is trying to support them, and she's under her divorce decree, and receiving child support and trying to scrape by, where they presume that anyone who is involved with anyone else's life who doesn't have the opportunity to present themselves in court must be enormously rich and able to provide whatever they expect of you provided, is ludicrous. These people are not represented in the trial and should not be considered under the law.

     DOUGHERTY: Mr. Painter, could I ask you two questions. You don't have to answer them. It' probably out there somewhere in the public. Who was the judge, and who was the lawyer?

     PAINTER: My lawyer was Steven Bell. The judge was Lucy Rauch. My lawyer feels that my wife's attorney was Virginia Busch, of the August Busch family, which I'm sure everyone is familiar with. He was a St. Louis County attorney, and now a St. Charles County attorney, and I think that that had a big influence. And, I think that my life has been destroyed from it. I'm a productive member of society, who loves his kids and tries to take care of his kids, and I'm pushed to the point where they're, basically, going to throw me in jail, basically, because you don't play the game right, and it's all what lawyers are in or out, or drinking buddies, or what goes on, and I could make a lot of statements about what may or may not go on behind closed doors, and I probably shouldn't, but there's a lot of gray area. There's a lot of smoke.

     CASKEY: Representative Ridgeway has a couple more questions.

     RIDGEWAY: Thank you, Senator. Just a couple. You were divorced in 1996, is you say, when you got the order, right?

     PAINTER: Well, that's when the order was entered, yes.

     RIDGEWAY: But your trial was in 1995.

     PAINTER: Yes.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay. You were extradited from Maryland. Is that right?

     PAINTER: Yes.

     RIDGEWAY: You were employed, you and your wife, when you had an intact marriage you lived here in Missouri?

     PAINTER: That's correct.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay, and was she working outside the home at the time?

     PAINTER: During the time of our separation, I watched the kids and provided for her to go to a med academy and she was certified as a phlebotomist and a medical assistant. She started working and then right before the trial, quit her job. She claimed that she had to stay home with the kids.

     RIDGEWAY: Were you unemployed at that time?

     PAINTER: No, I was not unemployed.

     RIDGEWAY: You were working here in Missouri?

     PAINTER: Yes.

     RIDGEWAY: And so, she went to school, became a phlebotomist. She was employable......

     PAINTER: Uh huh, employable, yes.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay, but then she never took a job.

     PAINTER: She did take a job.

     RIDGEWAY: She did take a job.

     PAINTER: She worked for a couple of months, and then she quit, because she was afraid without other arrangements, that she might have one on the house payments.

     RIDGEWAY: How much money did she make, per month?

     PAINTER: She was making $7.50 an hour, whatever that comes out to. It was a decent job.

     RIDGEWAY: And, you were working, also, at the time.

     PAINTER: I was working at the time, sure.

     RIDGEWAY: And, how much were you making, per month, or per year at the time?

     PAINTER: I was making a salary of about of $55,000 a year.

     RIDGEWAY: Wow. What were you doing?

     PAINTER: I am a software engineer, programmer.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay, and then you went to Maryland.

     PAINTER: I took a job in Maryland, yes.

     RIDGEWAY: Was your maintenance and support order based on Maryland or Missouri?

     PAINTER: It was based on - I was living in Maryland, at the time of the trial.

     RIDGEWAY: How much were you making in Maryland?

     PAINTER: I was making $55,000.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay, and now you've moved back to Missouri, and I think your testimony was something, you're making around $19,000 net.

     PAINTER: I've netted this year, so far, $19,000. I'm attempting to consult and do other things, working two jobs. Basically, I lost my job in Maryland because I was extradited by St. Charles County.

     RIDGEWAY: So, the extradition lost you your job. You got fired?

     PAINTER: Right. And it's took me a couple of months to get working again, find suitable employment. When you consult, sometimes things are slow. Things have been a little slow the first part of this year. It's up now, but anyway you cut it, even under the original order, they were asking for some.......

     RIDGEWAY: You said $16,000, plus, in child support and maintenance. Is that correct?

     PAINTER: It would have $16,000, it would be what I paid, just this year, so far, in child support alone. According to my order, I should be paying $2,417 a month, or 73 percent of what my disposable income was at the time of the trial.

     RIDGEWAY: I'm sorry, say it again. How much per month?

     PAINTER: $2,417.

     RIDGEWAY: Does that count any arrearage that they say, or is that just flat what's in your order?

     PAINTER: No. That's just everyone under my order, with a disposable income of $33,000. This went to the appellate court and, basically, what it says, and there's these two words I'd love to throw out here, and this is what concerns me. This went to the appellate court and, basically, my lawyer argued, as he should, that he has to be able to live on what is left, and the Missouri statutes calls for that. They would never, the judge and the opposing attorney, or the counsel, or anyone in the appeal would comment as to what it would require from me to support myself. No one would make that kind  - the appeal, basically says, yes, he has to have enough to support himself, but, we have to maintain her standard of living, and that is just as important, and then the appeal, basically, goes on to say what I consider to be a statement - in lay terms I would call it, we can do whatever we please, if the court has "broad discretion".

     RIDGEWAY: I just want to pick up on three more numbers here. Out of that $2,417.00 that you were paying every month, how much of that was maintenance and how much is child support?

     PAINTER: $1,642.00 in child support. $1,642.97.

     RIDGEWAY: And the balance was maintenance.

     PAINTER: $775.00 a month, yeah.

     RIDGEWAY: Okay, and how many children do you have?

     PAINTER: Seven.

     RIDGEWAY: Seven. You've got the two I didn't have.

     PAINTER: I have trouble with the Form 14, as well, in that not in the form, itself, which may or may not be high or low, but the form was modified, just for my case, just to squeeze in more money.

     RIDGEWAY: And the last question. How many years were you married?

     PAINTER: I was married, I always love this question. I was married eight years before my separation, five years before her affair, and ten years before it got to trial.

     RIDGEWAY: So, that would be ten years.

     PAINTER: Well, I consider it five, but the court only considers it none.

     DOUGHERTY: 23 if you add them all together.

     RIDGEWAY: Let me ask a different question. What year did you get married?

     PAINTER: 1984.

     RIDGEWAY: Thank you. I have no further questions.

     CASKEY: Any other questions?

     HOLLINGSWORTH: I have one. Thank you. Is the maintenance ongoing, or is it for amount of time.

     PAINTER: It's for eternity.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: It's for eternity? Nine hundred bucks or something in lump?

     PAINTER: Uh huh.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: And, your oldest child is how old?

     PAINTER: He is 13.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: And, the youngest?

     PAINTER: Would now be four.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: So, you've got one more year before he goes to school, the last one.

     PAINTER: Six of them are in school, even though they claim she can't work, and that's the other thing, that's the thing I was going to say about the Form 14. My Form 14, it says work related day care........

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Well, why do they say she can't work?

     PAINTER: I have no idea, but the amazing thing is they don't think she needs to be home. They just think she can't work, because they scratched out work related day care, in the Form 14, and wrote in education, and I'm paying day care, as well.

     HOLLINGSWORTH: Thank you.

     PAINTER: You're welcome. I thank everyone for their time. I know I've kept you here late, just because I can't be here tomorrow, and I'm sorry.

     CASKEY: Thank you, very much.