Local group calls for affirmative action in Domestic Relations office

At the August 19 County Commissioners Meeting, representatives of Daddy Justice, a local organization committed to promoting the custody rights of fathers, returned for the second in a series of visits to the weekly public meeting. The topic of discussion during this visit was what founder Ben Vonderheide called “unconstitutional hiring practices at [the County] Domestic Relations [DR] office.”

Looking at a predominantly female roster of case workers and arbitrators, the group “demanded” that the office implement affirmative action hiring practices to bring more men into the process.

Noting that 94% of DR employees are female, Vonderheide identified this as a root cause for a variety of alleged inequities set forth by this office, including free attorneys for women only and unreasonable child support requirements based upon a broadly estimated “earning potential.” Vonderheide cited the story of one man whose support payments were based on a $400,000 earning potential, even after his yearly income had dropped to around $60,000. Vonderheide said that, if this man were to fall behind in payments, he could have his driver’s license suspended, his bank account frozen, or even be put in jail.

Vonderheide presented an affirmative action program as the solution to problems within DR: “I demand…that the Domestic Relations office engage in affirmative action and, under the basis of established case law, hire only men for any present or future employment positions until the employee base in the Domestic Relations office properly represents the local community demographics.”

A man named Paul Roland also spoke to the Commissioners about his experience with the DR office. According to Roland, after being told by an old girlfriend that she had given birth to his child, he approached the DR to request a paternity test, acting as the plaintiff. However, Roland claimed, once the mother entered in the process, he found himself switched into the role of defendant—largely due to what Roland described as a misleading round of paperwork: “In one swift move, they got me to cancel my complaint, and now I was the defendant,” Roland said.

Another man, Michael Kane, also addressed the Commissioners, and emphasized the legal and financial threat that these DR actions could bring to the County: “Can you imagine the possibility of class action liability? And can you imagine the possibility of qui tam recovery of moneys to this County that’s going to make this [office] building look like child’s play in terms of cash. This is not an issue that can just be brushed aside, because this is a mounting class action liability. You guys have to address this for the good of the taxpayers.”

Bonnie Miller, a member of the public who often attends the Commissioners Meetings, recounted a recent visit to a Lancaster family courtroom. Miller said, in her observation, misplaced priorities led to negligence and inequities similar to what Vonderheide and other men described: “Nobody cared about the children. It was about the husband and the wife; the husband was the bad guy, the husband caused all the problems.”

Commissioner Scott Martin expressed interest in the complaints, and asked that the men who spoke of particular grievances to submit them to him in written form for further consideration.

_______________________

Also at the meeting, the Commissioners approved a grant application for additional State funding for operations of the County’s future Mental Health Court. Teri Miller-Landon, Program Director for Lancaster’s Special Offenders Services, explained that the $195,726 would be used to cover personnel costs, psychiatric evaluations for program eligibility, and housing support staff.

The Court, which is expected to open around January, will provide specialized judicial services for offenders with mental illness. Commissioner and Prison Board Chair Scott Martin commended the program: “Lancaster County has done a great job, and is known state-wide for its specialty courts. Looking at alternatives to dealing with recidivism to lessen the impact on our prison. If anyone’s had a chance to see Drug Court, and the momentum it’s built, it’s truly something that is moving in the right direction. And we all know that drug and alcohol addiction and mental health issues play a tremendous role in criminality in many cases.”

Commissioner Craig Lehman also praised the treatment-oriented approach: “For many of the folks with mental illness that end up in the criminal justice system, that’s the last place they need. They don’t need incarceration. They need treatment. Having a mental health court really puts the emphasis where it needs to be…”