In the matter of the Adoption of Matthew Stephen Jensen and Jacob Paul Jensen
COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO
January 23, 1981
John W. Potter, P.J., John J. Connors, Jr., J., Frank W. Wiley nJ. concur.
DECISION & JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause came on to be heard upon the record in the trial court. Each assignment of
error was reviewed by the court and upon review the following disposition made:
Respondent-appellant Stephen Gerharter is appealing a judgement entry of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, which found:
"Upon examination of the evidence adduced at the hearing the Court finds that
respondent, Stephen Erwin Gerharter, has failed, without justifi- able cause, to properly
maintain and support his children for one year prior to the filing of the petition for
adoption on September 5, 1979, and that his consent to this proceeding is not required to
3107.07(A) of the Ohio Revised Code.
The judge then ordered that the petition for adoption should proceed according to law.
The two children who are the subjects of this adoption petition petition are Matthew
Gerharter, born December 23, 1972, and Jacob Gerharter, born July 21, 1975. The children's
parents', Stephen Gerharter and Geraldine Jensen, marriage was dissolved by the District
Court of Dodge County, Nebraska, on February 24, 1977. Ms. Jensen received custody of the
two children along with possession of the family home with the obligation to make payments
on the house..............
[Complete copy of this revealing court document is available upon request! Feel free to
copy and distribute it to politicians who need to be aware of the kind of people ACES
She did not make those payments. She attempted to have her own children adopted against
the desire of their own father. The trickery which is described in the balance of this
court document is obscene. The lengths to which this unscrupulous woman went to discredit
and harrass the father of her own children is incredible. It is as revealing of her
personality as her letter of January 6, 1989 which says:
"We see no strong evidence that children will benefit from judicial or legislative
interventions that have been designed to promote parental participation [by the father]
apart from providing economic support."
DEMAND GERALDINE'S RESIGNATION
ANCPR News Commentary
ACES Up Their Sleeves?
The Dirty Politics of Child Support
March 10, 1999
Texas legislators have come under heavy lobbying efforts from a
Toledo-based group called ACES - Association for Children for
Enforcement of Support. In their never-ending quest to collect more and
more money for mothers, ACES cheats - but this is nothing new for them.
ACES has successfully kept their founder's dark past from the public,
coning politicians (George and Barbara Bush fell for them), the media
(Hollywood fell for them) and the public. Geraldine Jensen, ACES'
founder, violated court order after court order but now has become the
darling of lawmakers throughout America. She moved 1,500 miles away so
her ex-husband couldn't see his kids. When he did make these trips, she
conspired with her new husband to change plans at the last minute to
prevent him from seeing his children ("Child-support advocate widely
assailed for tactics," The Toledo Blade, Oct., 22, 1989). Finally, she
put her own children up for adoption (without the father's knowledge)
for the sole purpose of denying the biological father the right to see
his children. All against court orders. The Ohio Court of Appeals
issued a scathing decision against Ms. Jensen in 1981, overturning the
adoption (for the complete legal text, see www.ancpr.org/jensen.htm or
1981 WL 5460 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.)). But it's been kept quiet.
But that's "Gerri" - the individual. What about ACES as an
organization? Newspaper reports show that they have intentionally
inflated membership numbers to qualify for grants and get politicians'
attention. In 1988, the IRS found their claim that they do not lobby to
be bogus and their numbers didn't add up. Employees and volunteers who
wouldn't falsify information were fired. Ms. Jensen never gives
comments to the press (and hence, the public) on this.
But that's the organization - what about ACES' principles? In a
nutshell, ACES believes that money is the answer. Yet research shows
just the opposite - kids need both parents, not money. In fact,
children raised in intact homes living below the poverty line
outperformed children from broken homes living above the poverty line.
In welfare cases, child support is used to reimburse the government. If
welfare did not lift this child out of poverty, then child support
certainly can't, because the child won't see a nickel of this money.
ACES has been very successful lobbying Congress and state legislators;
child support laws are tougher than ever. But what about the children?
Are children better off today than they were in 1975? Hardly. By any
measure, children are worse off today despite continued record child
support collections. Why is this? First, child support forces
noncustodial parents into exile. Most people don't realize child
support is not based on actual earnings. If you get laid off, your
child support doesn't change. Attempting to lower child support is
costly, time-consuming and unpredictable (it may actually be raised).
Combine this with the draconian punishments and you've forced parents
into exile - causing irreparable harm to the child.
Secondly, if money really is the solution - why won't ACES
proposals requiring custodial parents to keep receipts proving the child
support was actually spent on the children? Did you know that custodial
parents can spend this tax-free money any way they wish? There are no
audits, fines or penalties for embezzling the children's money.
Finally, why doesn't ACES endorse equal joint physical and legal
custody? Dallas child psychologist Richard Warshak reports single moms
experiencing "overload" with having both a full-time job and sole
custody. The ill effects of children raised without fathers is
well-known. True joint custody solves both of these problems.
"Force the father to take responsibility for his actitons and
support" is the standard battle cry. Would we consider the able-bodied
person who parks in handicapped spots to be a "responsible person" as
long as he pays the fine? Of course not, so why do we consider a parent
responsible if they zip a check off once a month?
If you don't believe that child support awards are excessive, listen to
what radical feminist Karen Winner writes in her book, Divorced From
Justice; "There is accumulating evidence that men are challenging their
wives for custody of the children precisely because it is cheaper to
keep them than to pay child support." She sums it up quite nicely.