Republicans defend controversial child support bill
The Republican sponsor of a controversial bill that would reduce child-support payments for wealthy individuals said Monday that he is having changes made so that it would not apply retroactively.
The proposal stirred debate since the State Journal reported Friday that a Republican donor requested specific changes to the bill that could help reduce his court-ordered child support payments to his ex-wife and three children of $15,000 per month.
Among other things, the bill would exempt income above $150,000 annually for support calculations.
Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, said he never promised anything to developer and former Columbus mayor Michael Eisenga, who gave him $3,500 in campaign donations, and who gave his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, $7,500 in donations since 2005.
“I can’t speak to his zealousness on having influence affecting this bill,” Kleefisch said of Eisenga. “There are points that he’s not happy with, and frankly I don’t care.”
Eisenga couldn’t be reached Monday because his company voicemail box was full. His lawyer also didn’t return a call.
Other Republican legislators Monday defended the bill and Eisenga’s role in helping write the bill, saying it’s common for constituents to help draft legislation.
“This bill needs to be looked at for what it’s worth, not who gave what to who’s campaign,” said Rep. Tom Larson, R-Colfax, chairman of the Family Law Committee, which plans to hold a public hearing Wednesday on AB 540.
The bill would require shared child custody except in cases where there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the arrangement would not be in the child’s best interest.
It also would set a formula for awarding child-support payments, rather than giving judges discretion to raise or lower payments based on other evidence. The formula would deduct health-care costs and exempt parental assets and income of more than $150,000 a year.
The bill also would require a judge to increase or decrease the payment based on the formula in the event of a significant income change.
The bill would require a judge to decrease past support orders if they exceeded by 10 percent or more the amount required under the new income limit. Kleefisch said he was changing the bill so it would apply only to cases adjudicated after the bill becomes law.
In October, Eisenga lost an appeal of his court petition to reduce his child-support payments. That was a month after sending an email to a Kleefisch staff member asking that “SPECIFIC changes” be made to the bill.
Eisenga asked the court to reduce his payment from $15,000 to $4,109 per month based on his annual income falling from about $1.2 million to $231,519, according to court documents. Under a prenuptial agreement with his ex-wife, Eisenga retained his $30 million estate and was not required to pay spousal maintenance after their divorce.
Richard Podell, a longtime Milwaukee family lawyer representing Eisenga’s ex-wife, Clare Hawthorne, said his client agreed to spend more than $6,000 a month to send their three children to private school, where they received special speech therapy.
“Clearly, this bill was drafted to help one person,” Podell said. “This wasn’t based on a need in the community.”
Rep. Steve Kestell, R-Elkhart Lake, a bill co-sponsor, said what caught his attention in recent news reports was not Eisenga’s political contributions or involvement in drafting the bill, but the amount of money he was ordered to pay to support his children.
“To me it exposes a situation where child support is being used in a way that was never intended to be used,” Kestell said. “Had I known about this court case, without having any relationship with the people involved, I’d be interested in doing legislation to correct it.”
Larson said the public isn’t served by a system that allows children to receive such a large sum in support payments.
Podell said Wisconsin’s courts have been fair in awarding child support based on the different circumstances of every case.
“Why would you do something that takes the ability of judges to make a good decision out of their hands?” Podell said.
“The Republicans are so foolish to think they’re going to pass something like this. They’re going to run themselves out of work here.”
Reporter Dee J. Hall contributed to this report.
Source and it is really frickin' weird that I used to be the author's neighbor.
The proposal stirred debate since the State Journal reported Friday that a Republican donor requested specific changes to the bill that could help reduce his court-ordered child support payments to his ex-wife and three children of $15,000 per month.
Among other things, the bill would exempt income above $150,000 annually for support calculations.
Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, said he never promised anything to developer and former Columbus mayor Michael Eisenga, who gave him $3,500 in campaign donations, and who gave his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, $7,500 in donations since 2005.
“I can’t speak to his zealousness on having influence affecting this bill,” Kleefisch said of Eisenga. “There are points that he’s not happy with, and frankly I don’t care.”
Eisenga couldn’t be reached Monday because his company voicemail box was full. His lawyer also didn’t return a call.
Other Republican legislators Monday defended the bill and Eisenga’s role in helping write the bill, saying it’s common for constituents to help draft legislation.
“This bill needs to be looked at for what it’s worth, not who gave what to who’s campaign,” said Rep. Tom Larson, R-Colfax, chairman of the Family Law Committee, which plans to hold a public hearing Wednesday on AB 540.
The bill would require shared child custody except in cases where there was “clear and convincing evidence” that the arrangement would not be in the child’s best interest.
It also would set a formula for awarding child-support payments, rather than giving judges discretion to raise or lower payments based on other evidence. The formula would deduct health-care costs and exempt parental assets and income of more than $150,000 a year.
The bill also would require a judge to increase or decrease the payment based on the formula in the event of a significant income change.
The bill would require a judge to decrease past support orders if they exceeded by 10 percent or more the amount required under the new income limit. Kleefisch said he was changing the bill so it would apply only to cases adjudicated after the bill becomes law.
In October, Eisenga lost an appeal of his court petition to reduce his child-support payments. That was a month after sending an email to a Kleefisch staff member asking that “SPECIFIC changes” be made to the bill.
Eisenga asked the court to reduce his payment from $15,000 to $4,109 per month based on his annual income falling from about $1.2 million to $231,519, according to court documents. Under a prenuptial agreement with his ex-wife, Eisenga retained his $30 million estate and was not required to pay spousal maintenance after their divorce.
Richard Podell, a longtime Milwaukee family lawyer representing Eisenga’s ex-wife, Clare Hawthorne, said his client agreed to spend more than $6,000 a month to send their three children to private school, where they received special speech therapy.
“Clearly, this bill was drafted to help one person,” Podell said. “This wasn’t based on a need in the community.”
Rep. Steve Kestell, R-Elkhart Lake, a bill co-sponsor, said what caught his attention in recent news reports was not Eisenga’s political contributions or involvement in drafting the bill, but the amount of money he was ordered to pay to support his children.
“To me it exposes a situation where child support is being used in a way that was never intended to be used,” Kestell said. “Had I known about this court case, without having any relationship with the people involved, I’d be interested in doing legislation to correct it.”
Larson said the public isn’t served by a system that allows children to receive such a large sum in support payments.
Podell said Wisconsin’s courts have been fair in awarding child support based on the different circumstances of every case.
“Why would you do something that takes the ability of judges to make a good decision out of their hands?” Podell said.
“The Republicans are so foolish to think they’re going to pass something like this. They’re going to run themselves out of work here.”
Reporter Dee J. Hall contributed to this report.
Source and it is really frickin' weird that I used to be the author's neighbor.