In family law and public policy, child support (or child maintenance) is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other relationship. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, a guardian, or the state.

Depending on the jurisdiction, a custodial parent may pay child support to a non-custodial parent. Typically one has the same duty to pay child support irrespective of sex, so a mother is required to pay support to a father just as a father must pay a mother. Where there is joint custody, the child is considered to have two custodial parents and no non-custodial parents, and a custodial parent with a higher income (obligor) may be required to pay the other custodial parent (obligee).

In family law, child support is often arranged as part of a divorce, marital separation, dissolution of marriage, annulment, determination of parentage or dissolution of a civil union and may supplement alimony (spousal support) arrangements.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

The right to child support and the responsibilities of parents to provide such support have been internationally recognized. The 1992 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a binding convention signed by every member nation of the United Nations and formally ratified by all but Somalia and the United States,^[8] declares that the upbringing and development of children and a standard of living adequate for the children's development is a common responsibility of both parents and a fundamental human right for children, and asserts that the primary responsibility to provide such for the children rests with their parents.^[9] Other United Nations documents and decisions related to child support enforcement include the 1956 New York Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance created under the auspices of the United Nations, which was ratified by the vast majority of UN member nations.^[10]

In addition, the right to child support, as well as specific implementation and enforcement measures, has been recognized by various other international entities, including the Council of Europe,^[11] the European Union^[12] and the Hague Conference.^[13]

Within individual countries, examples of legislation pertaining to, and establishing guidelines for, the implementation and collection of child maintenance include the 1975 Family Law Act (Australia), the Child Support Act (United Kingdom)^[14] and the Maintenance and Affiliation Act (Fiji)^[15] Child support in the United States, 45 C.F.R. 302.56 requires each state to establish and publish a Guideline that is presumptively (but rebuttably) correct, and Review the Guideline, at a minimum, every four (4) years.^[16] Child support laws and obligations are known to be recognized in a vast majority of world nations, including the majority of countries in Europe, North America and Australasia, as well as many in Africa, Asia and South America.^[17][18][19]

Legal theory[link]

Child support is based on the policy that both parents are obliged to financially support their children, even when the children are not living with both parents. Child support refers to the financial support of children and not other forms of support, such as emotional support, physical care, or spiritual support.

When children live with both parents, courts rarely, if ever direct the parents how to provide financial support for their children. However, when the parents are not together, courts often order one parent to pay the other an amount set as financial support of the child. In such situations, one parent (the obligee) receives child support, and the other parent (the obligor) is ordered to pay child support. The amount of child support may be set on a case-by-case basis or by a formula estimating the amount thought that parents should pay to financially support their children.

Child support may be ordered to be paid by one parent to another when one is a non-custodial parent and the other is a custodial parent. Similarly, child support may also be ordered to be paid by one parent to another when both parents are custodial parents (joint or shared custody) and they share the child-raising responsibilities. In some cases, a parent with sole custody of his or her children may even be ordered to pay child support to the non-custodial parent to support the children while they are in the care of that parent.

Child support paid by a non-custodial parent or obligor, does not absolve the obligor of the responsibility for costs associated with their child staying with the obligor in their home during visitation. For example, if an obligor pays child support to an obligee, this does not mean that the obligee is responsible for food, shelter, furniture, toiletries, clothes, toys or games, or any of the other child expenses directly associated with the child staying with the non-custodial parent or obligor.

In most jurisdictions there is no need for the parents to be married, and only paternity and/or maternity (filiation) need to be demonstrated for a child support obligation to be found by a competent court. Child support may also operate through the principle of estoppel where a de facto parent that is in loco parentis for a sufficient time to establish a permanent parental relationship with the child or children.^[20]

Child support vs. contact[link]

While the issues of child support and visitation or contact may settlement, in most jurisdictions the two rights and obligations are completely separate and individually enforceable. Custodial parents may not withhold contact to "punish" a noncustodial parent for failing to pay some or all child support required. Conversely, a noncustodial parent is required to pay child support even if they are partially or fully denied contact with the child.^[21][22]

However, a custodial parent who is intent on depriving the child of contact with its non-custodial parent cannot currently be stopped from doing so. There is no mechanism available to non-custodial parents to enforce access. Child support payments, on the other hand, are enforced by virtually instantaneous sanctions with or without evidence and regardless of the obligee's ability to pay or of the actual legitimate needs of the child.

Additionally, a non-custodial parent is responsible for child support payments even if they do not wish to have a relationship with the child. Courts have maintained that a child's right to financial support from parents supersedes an adult's wish not to assume a parenting role.^[23]

While child support and contact are separate issues, in some jurisdictions, the latter may influence the former. In the United Kingdom, for example, the amount of support ordered may be reduced based on the number of nights per week the child regularly spends at the non-custodial parent's home.^[24]

Use of child support payments[link]

All international and national child support regulations recognize that every parent has an obligation to support his or her child. Therefore, both parents are required to share the responsibility for their child(ren)'s expenses.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Support monies collected are expected to be used for the child's expenses, including food, shelter, clothing and educational needs. They are not meant to function as "spending money" for the child.^[9] Courts have held that it is acceptable for child support payments to be used to indirectly benefit the custodial parent. For example, child support monies may be used to heat the child's residence, even if this means that other people also benefit from living in a heated home.^[21]

Child support orders may earmark funds for specific items for the child, such as school fees, day care or medical expenses. In some cases, obligors parents may pay for these items directly. For example, they may pay tuition fees directly to their child's school, rather than remitting money for the tuition to the obligee.^[25] Orders may also require each parent to assume a percentage of expenses for various needs. For instance, in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, custodial parents are required to pay for the first $100 of annual uninsured medical costs incurred by each child. Only then will the courts consider authorizing child-support money from a non-custodial parent to be used for said costs.^[26]

Many American universities also consider non-custodial parents to be partially responsible for paying college costs, and will consider their income in their financial aid determinations. In certain states, non-custodial parents may be ordered by the court to assist with these expenses.^[27]

In the United States, obligors may receive a medical order that requires them to add their children to their health insurance plans. In some states both parents are responsible for providing medical insurance for the child/children.^[28][29] If both parents possess health coverage, the child may be added to the more beneficial plan, or use one to supplement the other.^[30] Children of active or retired members of the U.S. armed forces are also eligible for health coverage as military dependents, and may be enrolled in the DEERS program at no cost to the obligor.^[31]

Accountability regulations for child support money vary by country and state. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia child support recipients are trusted to use support payments in the best interest of the child, and thus are not required to provide details on specific purchases.^[32] In California, there is no limitations, accountability, or other restriction on how the obligee spends the child support received, it is merely presumed that the money is spent on the child.^[33] However, in other jurisdictions, a child support recipient might legally be required to give specific details on how child support money is spent at the request of the court or the non-custodial parent. In the United States, 10 states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington) allow courts to demand an accounting on expenses and spending from custodial parents. Additionally, Alabama courts have authorized such accounting under certain specific circumstances.

Obtaining child support[link]

Child support laws and regulations vary around the world. Legal intervention is not mandatory: some parents have informal or voluntary agreements or arrangements that do not involve the courts, where financial child support and/or other expenses are provided by non-custodial parents to assist in supporting their child(ren).^[34][35][36]

A major impetus to collection of child support in many places is recovery of welfare expenditure. A resident or custodial parent receiving public assistance, as in the United States,^[37] is required to assign his or her right to child support to the Department of Welfare before cash assistance is received. Another common requirement of welfare benefits in some jurisdictions is that a custodial parent must pursue child support from the non-custodial parent.

Court procedures[link]

In divorce cases, child support payments may be determined as part of the divorce settlement, along with other issues, such as alimony, custody and visitation. In other cases, there are several steps that must be undertaken to receive court-ordered child support. Some parents anticipating that they will receive child support may hire lawyers to oversee their child support cases for them; others may file their own applications in their local courthouses.

While procedures vary by jurisdiction, the process of filing a motion for court ordered child support typically has several basic steps.

1. One parent, or his or her or her attorney, must appear at the local magistrate or courthouse to file an application or complaint for the establishment of child support. The information required varies by jurisdiction, but generally collects identifying data about both parents and the child(ren) involved in the case, including their names, social security or tax identification numbers and dates of birth. Parents may also be required to furnish details relating to their marriage and divorce, if applicable, as well as documents certifying the identity and parentage of the child(ren). Local jurisdictions may charge fees for filing such applications, however, if the filing parent is receiving any sort of public assistance, these fees may be waived.^{[38][39][40][41]}
2. The other parent is located, and served a court summons by a local sheriff, police officer, or process server. The summons informs the other parent that they are being sued for child support. Once served, the other parent must attend a mandatory court hearing to determine if they are responsible for child support payments.^[39][40]
3. In cases where parentage of a child is denied, has not been established by marriage or is not listed on the birth certificate, or where paternity fraud is suspected, courts may order or require establishment of paternity. Paternity may be established voluntarily if the father signs an affidavit or may be proven through DNA testing in contested cases. Once the identity of the father is confirmed through DNA testing, the child's birth certificate may be amended to include the father's name.^{[20][41][42][43][44]}
4. After the responsibility for child support is established and questions of paternity have been answered to the court's satisfaction, the court will notify the obligor and order that parent to make timely child support payments and establish any other provisions, such as medical orders.

Calculating the amount[link]

Various approaches to calculating the amount of child support award payments exist. Many jurisdictions consider multiple sources of information when determining support, taking into account the income of the parents, the number and ages of children living in the home, basic living expenses and school fees.^{[45] [46]} If the child has special needs, such as treatment for a serious illness or disability, these costs may also be taken into consideration.^{[41][47][48][49]}

Guidelines for support orders may be based on laws that require obligors to pay a flat percentage of their annual income toward their children's expenses. Often two approaches are combined. In the United Kingdom, for instance, there are four basic rates of child support based on the obligors' income, which are then modified and adjusted based on several factors.^[24][30][50] In the United States, the federal government requires all states to have guideline calculations that can be verified and certified. These are usually computer programs based upon certain financial information including, earnings, visitation, taxes, insurance costs, and several other factors.

Change of circumstances[link]

Once established, child support orders typically remain static unless otherwise reviewed. Obligors and obligees reserve the right to request a court review for modification (typically six months to one year or more after the issuance of the order or if the circumstances have changed such that the child support would change significantly). For instance, if the obligor has a change in income or faces financial hardship, they may petition the court for a reduction in support payments. Examples of financial hardship include supporting other children, unemployment, extraordinary health care expenses, etc. Likewise, if the obligor is spending more time with the child, they may petition the court for a reduction or even a reversal in support payments. Conversely, if the child's expenses increase, the obligee may ask the court to increase payments to cover the new costs.

Although both parents have the right to petition the court for a support order adjustment, modifications are not automatic, and a judge may decide not to alter the amount of support after hearing the facts of the case. That is to say, simply because an obligors's income has decreased, a court may find that the decrease in income is of no fault of the child, and will not decrease the child's expenses, and therefore should not have an impact on him or her financially. Likewise, a court may find that an increase in the child's expenses may have been calculated by the receiving parent and is not necessary, and therefore the support obligation of the paying parent should not increase.^{[29][47][51][52]}

In United States law, the Bradley Amendment (1986, 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c)) requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. Specifically, it:

• automatically triggers a non-expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.
• overrides any state's statute of limitations.
• disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
• requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to promptly document changed circumstances or regard for his awareness of the need to make the notification.

Distribution and payment[link]

Child support payments are distributed in a variety of ways. In cases where an obligor is liable for specific expenses such as school tuition, they may pay them directly instead of through the obligee.^[25]

In some jurisdictions, obligors (paying parents) are required to remit their payments to the governing federal or state child support enforcement agency. The payments are recorded, any portion required to reimburse the government is subtracted, and then the remainder is passed on to the obligee (receiving parent), either through direct deposit or checks.^{[53][54][55][56]}

The first payee for child support depends on the current welfare status of the payee. For example, if the obligee is currently receiving a monthly check from the government, all current support collected during said month is paid to the government to reimburse the monies paid to the obligee. Regarding families formerly on assistance, current support is paid to the family first, and only after said support is received, the government may then collect additional payments to reimburse itself for previously paid assistance to the obligee (receiving parent). See 42 USC 657: "(A) Current Support Payments: To the extent that the amount so collected does not exceed the amount required to be paid to the family for the month in which collected, the State shall distribute the amount so collected to the family.".^[57]

Within the United States, a 2007 study conducted through the University of Baltimore estimates that 50% of all child support arrears are owed to the government to reimburse welfare expenses. Half of U.S. states pass along none of the child support they collect to low-income families receiving welfare and other assistance, instead reimbursing themselves and the federal government. Most of the rest only pass along $50.00 per month. The bipartisan 2006 Deficit Reduction Act and other measures have sought to reduce the amount of money claimed by the government and to ensure that more funds are accessible by children and families, noting that more obligors (paying parents) are willing to pay child support when their children directly benefit from payments.^[58]

Duration of support orders[link]

The duration of support orders varies both by jurisdiction and by case. Requirements for support typically end when the child reaches the age of majority, which may range in age from 16^[59] to 21 (New York State) ^[60][61][62] or graduates from high school. Some countries and states have provisions that allow support to continue past the age of majority if the child is enrolled as a full-time, degree-seeking post-secondary student.^[60][61][63] If the obligor owes back child support, they must continue to make payments until the debt is satisfied, regardless of the age of the child.

Several circumstances exist which allow for the termination of a support order for a child under the age of majority. These include the child's marriage, legal emancipation or death.^[64][65]

Compliance and enforcement issues[link]

"Dead-beat" parents[link]

When referring to child support obligors who have developed arrears with respect to their child support obligations and shared expenses, and refuse to pay, the colloquial term dead-beat parents has been coined. The use is often extended to obligors who are in arrears in a blanket manner, including those who are willing, but unable, to pay. While "dead-beat" is a pejorative used by some in the media and some child support advocacy groups, it is not the legal term used to describe such parents. Governmental child support agencies typically describe clients as being in compliance, not in compliance or criminally non-compliant. Compliance is judged by the paying party's performance in meeting the terms of the legal child support court order. In some circumstances, obligors found "not in compliance" or "criminally non-compliant" have even had their professional (e.g. doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc.) and driver's licenses suspended or revoked in an effort to collect monies for support and shared expenses.

Enforcement[link]

Regulations and laws on the enforcement of child support orders vary by country and state. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia, enforcement is overseen by a national office. In others, such as Canada, the responsibility to enforce child support orders rests with individual provinces, with financial and logistical assistance from the federal government.^[66] In the United States child support enforcement is also handled largely at the state level, but non compliant parents who meet certain criteria, such as traveling across state lines to circumvent orders or owing more than two years of support payments, may be subjected to federal prosecution under the Federal Deadbeat Punishment Act.^[67]

One focus of Article 27 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child is the establishment and strengthening of international treaties to further aid in child support order enforcement across national and international boundaries.^[68] Under these agreements, orders established in one country are considered valid and enforceable in another country, and may be pursued through local court processes. The goal of such conventions is to ensure that noncompliant parents will not be able to evade support payments by crossing an international border.

To this end, various international conventions regarding interjurisdictional enforcement of maintenance orders have been created, including the Hague Conference's 1973 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations^[13] and the 1956 United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance.^[10]

More than 100 nations currently have reciprocal arrangements for child support orders. Examples of reciprocal agreements include the UK Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO)^[18] and those of Canada,^[69] Australia and New Zealand,^[70] the United States^[17] and the European Union.^[12]

Consequences of non-payment vary by jurisdiction, the length of time the parent has been noncompliant, and the amount owed. Typical penalties include wage garnishment and denial or suspension of drivers, hunting and professional licenses.^[69][71][72] In the United States, noncompliant parents who are more than $2500 in arrears may be denied passports under the Passport Denial Program.^[73] Australia, Austria, and Finland do not imprison persons for failure to pay child-support arrears.^[74] In the U.S., in contrast, non-payment of child support may be treated as a criminal offense or a civil offense, and it can result in a prison or jail term. On a typically day, roughly 50,000 persons are incarcerated in U.S. jails and prisons as a result of child-support debts.^[75] In addition, child-support debtors are subject to fines and property seizure.^[76][77][78]

The enforcement provisions affecting US passports have thus far survived Constitutional challenges in Weinstein v Albright (2001), Eunique v Powell (2002), In re James K. Walker (2002), Dept of Revenue v Nesbitt (2008), Risenhoover v Washington (2008), and Borracchini v Jones (2009).

Laws in specific jurisdictions[link]

Child support in the United States varies state-by-state and tribe-by-tribe; each individual state and federally recognized American Indian tribe is responsible for developing its own guidelines for determining child support.

For information on child support policies in specific countries, including Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, please see Child support by country.

Effectiveness[link]

A possible side effect from a capitalistic economy such as the United States, the child support system has become a good source of revenue for civil courts, attorneys and parents. It has been argued that United States Child Support laws encourage parents into a legal "tug-of-war" which results in a severe loss of time and income first from both parents (such as legal fees, court costs, and time off work), and finally to the parent who loses in court (typically the father). The premise of the law is to protect the children. In actuality, it is argued, the children are hurt the most by the system due to the alienation of the non-custodial parent. It has been recognized by various government committees that parents are alienating each other both from themselves and from their children. Non-custodial parents feel they are nothing more than a bank account to the family and can get pushed out due to increased hours at work or having to accept a second job to pay support money. This leaves little or no time for the non-custodial parent to focus on time spent with the children.

Attorneys and judges may not want to forfeit the revenues from such a lucrative "business" and there is a pejorative label given to non-custodial parents who resist the child support. They're labeled as "dead beat dads".

Trends from within the United States today are pushing for an adjusted system. Many groups are demanding a more hands-off approach where government does not micromanage the family. These trends may encourage change in local and Federal laws.

Child support industry[link]

Currently the $500 billion child support industry,^[79] a small subset of the divorce industry,^[80] is being criticized by some groups^[who?] for its apparent prioritization towards the needs of:

• State governments (which may collect $2 from the Federal Treasury for every $1 collected from non custodial parent).^[81] This claim is disputable. The reference does not support the claim.
• Perpetuated media stereotypes (violent male roles, victimized, incompetent female roles, and the image that children require support from two parents at all times).
• The various agencies and legal workers whose operation depends on the existence of child support conflicts.
• The parent who would be more favored in a ruling to receive payments (such as when a father's small contribution would be pointless to a wealthy mother).

These reasons are generally referred to when discussing the side-effects of child support conflicts such as:

• The lost opportunity to put the money towards something mutually beneficial to both parents and the child simultaneously.
• The non-custodial parent becoming equivalent to "a criminal without due process rights" (Involuntary Servitude).
• The non-custodial parent viewing the custodial parent as someone who uses the law for financial gain ('using' the child's existence as an income stream).

Criticism[link]

This article should include a summary of Fathers' rights movement#Child support. See Wikipedia:Summary style for information on how to incorporate it into this article's main text.

Current child support guidelines and policies have been criticized by fathers' rights advocacy groups.^{[citation needed]}

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.^[82] Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

McCulley states:

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'.

McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."^[83]

The legal concept was tried in Dubay v. Wells and was dismissed. This was not surprising, since legislation in the various jurisdictions currently sets forth guidelines for when child support is owed as well as its amount. Accordingly legislation would be required to change the law to implement McCulley's concept.

See also[link]

• Aliment
• Child custody
• Costs of raising a child
• Debtor's prison
• Entitlement
• Indentured Servitude
• Joint custody
• Parental Alienation Syndrome
• Parenting plan
• Shared parenting
• Slavery
• List of largest divorce settlements

US specific:

• Bradley Amendment
• California Child Support Guideline Review
• Child support in the United States
• Hermesmann v. Seyer
• State of Louisiana v. Frisard

UK and Australia:

• Child Support Agency (UK)
• Child Support Agency Australia
• Shared residency in English law
• Childrens centre

Canada:

• British Columbia Family Maintenance Enforcement Program

Historical:

• Childwite

References[link]

• Boonin claims that the state can still morally create child support, but some supporters of his analysis might not agree. Here is a link to the article, [13]

• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) 42 U.S.Code §602a(1)& (2)
• Child Support Agency Australia, 2006 Child Support Schemes: Australia and Comparisons 2006 [14]

External links[link]

• History of child support in the UK
• Child Support Agency (CSA) Australia - includes calculators and guides for separated parents
• US Federal Child Support Enforcement - child support enforcement
• Department of Justice - Child Support (Canada)

Martin Bashir
Born	(1963-01-19) 19 January 1963 (age 49) South London, England, United Kingdom
Occupation	Journalist Anchor
Years active	1986–present
Religion	Christian

	Martin Bashir An audio recording of the page.
Problems listening to this file? See media help.

Martin Bashir (born 19 January 1963) is a British journalist, currently with NBC News as a contributor for its Dateline program, and an afternoon anchor for MSNBC, hosting Martin Bashir.^[1] He was previously an anchor for ABC's Nightline and is known for his interviews with Diana, Princess of Wales and controversy surrounding his interview and conflicting statements in his reports on singer Michael Jackson.

Early life[link]

Bashir was born in Wandsworth, South London to parents of Pakistani Christian origin and grew up in Wandsworth. He was educated at the state comprehensive Wandsworth School for Boys and King Alfred's College of Higher Education, Winchester (since 2004 the University of Winchester), studying English and History from 1982–1985, and at King's College London. He is fluent in English, Urdu and Hindi. He identifies as a committed Christian.^[2]

Career[link]

He started work as a journalist in 1986. He worked for the BBC until 1999 on programmes including Songs of Praise, Public Eye and Panorama and then he joined ITV, working on special documentary programmes and features for Tonight with Trevor McDonald.

Bashir came to wide prominence in 1995 when he interviewed (for the BBC's Panorama programme) Diana, Princess of Wales about her failed marriage to the Prince of Wales.^[3][4] Since then he has conducted interviews with, among others, Louise Woodward, the five suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case, Michael Barrymore, Jeffrey Archer, Major Charles Ingram, and Joanne Lees.

Bashir was employed by ABC and co-anchored their current affairs show Nightline. Along with Cynthia McFadden and Terry Moran, he took over Nightline from Ted Koppel in 2005 following the famous news anchor's final broadcast.

In August 2010 Bashir left ABC for NBC and MSNBC where he serves as a contributor for Dateline and an afternoon anchor for MSNBC, as well as an occasional substitute host for Lawrence O'Donnell.^[1] In a recent broadcast in May of 2012 Bashir made this comment on his afternoon show on MSNBC. That Speaker of the House John Boehner "is the most disastrous speaker that the house ever had."

Bashir had a role as himself in the satirical comedy film Mike Bassett: England Manager.

Michael Jackson interviews[link]

In 2003, Bashir conducted a series of interviews with pop singer Michael Jackson, as part of a documentary for ITV, which Uri Geller had fixed up as a friend of Michael. Following the broadcast, which was viewed by 14 million in the UK and 38 million in the US, several media personalities^[who?] accused Bashir of yellow journalism, claiming that he deliberately doctored the recordings in order to paint Jackson in an unflattering light,^{[citation needed]} as well as emphasizing the allegations of child molestation made against Jackson. In an interview with Louis Theroux, Geller said that he felt betrayed by Bashir, and claimed that the ITV documentary had ruined Geller's own relationship with Michael.^[5] The New York Times called Bashir's journalism style "callous self-interest masked as sympathy."^[6]

In response, Jackson and his personal cameraman released a rebuttal interview, which showed Bashir complimenting Jackson for the "spiritual" quality of the Neverland Ranch. Bashir also describes Jackson as a wonderful father and says that Jackson's relationship with his children "almost makes him weep".^[7]

Dieter Wiesner, the pop star's manager from 1996 to 2003, said of Bashir's documentary:

"It broke him. It killed him. He took a long time to die, but it started that night. Previously the drugs were a crutch, but after that they became a necessity."^[8]

Bashir later said of Jackson during ABC's coverage of his death,

"When I made the documentary, there was a small part that contained a controversy concerning his relationship with young people. But the truth is that he was never convicted of any crime, and I never saw any wrongdoing myself."^[9]

Musical career[link]

In 2010, Bashir released his first album entitled Bass Lion. The reggae album was produced by Cary Haase and mixed by Casey Conrad^[10]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Martin Bashir

• Profile and Martin Bashir show at MSNBC
• Martin Bashir at the Internet Movie Database
• Works by or about Martin Bashir in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

Joe Walsh
Walsh in 2012
Background information
Birth name	Joseph Fidler Walsh
Born	(1947-11-20) November 20, 1947 (age 64) Wichita, Kansas, U.S.
Genres	Rock, hard rock, folk rock, country rock, blues rock, electric blues
Occupations	Singer songwriter, musician, multi-instrumentalist, producer, actor
Instruments	Vocals, guitar, keyboards, drums, bass, mandolin, clarinet, oboe, bagpipes
Years active	1964–present
Labels	Asylum, Epic, ABC
Associated acts	James Gang, Barnstorm, Eagles, Ringo Starr & His All-Starr Band
Website	joewalsh.com
Notable instruments
Gibson Les Paul, Fender Stratocaster

Joseph Fidler "Joe" Walsh (born November 20, 1947)^[1] is an American musician, songwriter, record producer, and actor. He has been a member of three commercially successful bands: the James Gang, Barnstorm, and the Eagles. He has also experienced success as a solo artist and prolific session musician, especially with B.B. King and Dan Fogelberg.

Biography[link]

Early life[link]

A native of Wichita, Kansas, Walsh and his family lived in Columbus, Ohio for a number of years. His mother was a classically trained pianist. When Walsh was twelve years old the family moved to New York City. Later, Walsh moved to Montclair, New Jersey and attended Montclair High School there. While attending Kent State University, he spent time in various bands playing around the Cleveland area, including The Measles. Walsh began a lifelong hobby of amateur ("ham") radio with the callsign WB6ACU while living in New York City.

1960s and 1970s[link]

This biographical section of an article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (July 2007)

In January 1968 he replaced Glen Schwartz as lead guitarist for the James Gang, an American power trio. Walsh proved to be the band's star attraction, noted for his innovative rhythm playing and creative guitar riffs. In particular he was known for hot-wiring the pickups on his electric guitars to create his trademark "attack" sound.^[2] The James Gang had several minor hits and became an early album-oriented rock staple for the next two years, including James Gang Live at Carnegie Hall. In November, 1971 Walsh left the group and formed the group Barnstorm, although their albums credited Walsh as a solo artist. Walsh and Barnstorm released their debut, the eponymous Barnstorm in 1972. The album was a critical success, but had only moderate sales. The follow-up The Smoker You Drink, the Player You Get (1973) was titled under his own name (although officially a Barnstorm album) and was Walsh's commercial breakthrough. The first single "Rocky Mountain Way" received heavy airplay and reached #23 on the US Top 40 chart. In 1974 Barnstorm disbanded and Walsh continued as a solo artist.

In December 1974, Walsh released an official solo album, So What and in March 1976, a live set, You Can't Argue with a Sick Mind. These would be his last solo albums until 1978. On December 20, 1975 he joined the Eagles as Bernie Leadon's replacement. His addition steered the band toward a harder-edged sound and away from their early country-style work, and he was featured prominently on their multi-million-selling album Hotel California, co-writing the Top 20 hit "Life in the Fast Lane" (with Don Henley and Glenn Frey) and "Pretty Maids All in a Row" (co-written with former Barnstorm drummer Joe Vitale).

As the Eagles struggled to record the follow-up to Hotel California, Walsh re-ignited his solo career with the well-received album But Seriously, Folks... (1978) which featured his hit comic depiction of rock stardom, "Life's Been Good". Walsh also contributed "In the City" to The Warriors soundtrack (1979), a song penned and sung by Walsh that was later rerecorded for the Eagles The Long Run album.

1980s-present[link]

Following the breakup of the Eagles in 1980, Walsh continued to release albums throughout the 1980s, but sales were poor. He maintained a low profile until the mid-1990s. In late 1984 Walsh was contacted by Australian musician Paul Christie, former bassist in Mondo Rock, who invited him to come to Australia to perform with The Party Boys, an all-star group with a floating membership of well-known Australian rock musicians, which included acclaimed guitarist Kevin Borich, with whom Walsh became good friends. Walsh accepted and performed with the Party Boys on their late 1984-early 1985 Australian tour and appeared on their live album You Need Professional Help. He remained in Australia for some time after the tour, putting together the short-lived touring group Creatures From America, with Waddy Wachtel (guitar), Rick Rosas (bass) and Australian drummer Richard Harvey (Divinyls, The Party Boys). Walsh returned to Australia in 1989 to tour with another incarnation of The Party Boys. Walsh toured with Ringo Starr in 1989, alternating a handful of his best-known songs with Ringo's tunes, as did all the members of the "All Starr" band. Walsh sang the US National Anthem at the beginning of game four of the 1995 World Series. In 1989, Walsh recorded a MTV Unplugged with the R&B musician Dr. John. Also in 1989 Walsh filmed a live concert from the Wiltern Theater in Los Angeles with Etta James and Albert Collins. 'Jazzvisions: Jump The Blues Away'.

While producing their Homegrown album in 1989, Walsh briefly joined New Zealand reggae band Herbs. Although he had left by the time of its 1990 release, he still appears as lead vocalist on two tracks, "Up All Night" and "It's Alright", and the album includes the first recording of his "Ordinary Average Guys" (sung by late Herbs bassist Charlie Tumahai), which subsequently became a solo hit for Walsh as "Ordinary Average Guy".^[3]

In late 1990, Walsh was part of a band called The Best, along with keyboardist Keith Emerson, bassist John Entwistle, guitarist Jeff "Skunk" Baxter and drummer Simon Phillips. The band performed several shows in Hawaii and Japan, with a live video resulting.

In 1994, Walsh reunited with the Eagles for a highly successful reunion tour and live album, Hell Freezes Over. Walsh has toured regularly with the Eagles since then and the group released their first new studio album in 28 years, Long Road Out of Eden, in 2007.

In June 2004, Walsh performed at Eric Clapton's Crossroads Guitar Festival in Dallas, Texas. He was also featured in September 2004 at The Strat Pack, a concert held in London, England to mark the 50th anniversary of the Fender Stratocaster guitar.

In 2006, Walsh reunited with Jim Fox and Dale Peters of the James Gang for a 15-date summer reunion tour. The tour lasted into the fall.

Walsh's song "One Day At A Time" deals with his struggles with alcoholism. He has been in recovery since 1995.

In 2008, Walsh appeared on the Carvin 60th Anniversary Celebration DVD as a celebrity endorser. In the recorded interview, he highly praised Carvin guitars and claims that the bridge design is "just like the first Les Paul models. I can't even get Gibson to reissue it."

Walsh has been a contributor to such causes as halfway houses for displaced adult women in Wichita, Kansas.

Walsh ran for President of the United States in 1980 on top of his music career as a mock campaign. He promised to make "Life's Been Good" the new national anthem if he won, and ran on a platform of "Free Gas For Everyone." Though Walsh was not old enough to actually assume the office, he wanted to raise public awareness of the election. In 1992 Walsh ran for vice president with Rev. Goat Carson under the slogan "We Want Our Money Back!".

Walsh currently has a new album, Analog Man, scheduled for release on June 5th, 2012. The album was co-produced by Jeff Lynne, with Tommy Lee James co-writing some of the album's tracks. ^[4]

Notable appearances[link]

Walsh performing with the Eagles in 2009.

Walsh has produced albums for artists such as Dan Fogelberg and Ringo Starr. He was a background musician (1st guitar solo) on Eagles bandmate Don Henley's 1982 hit "Dirty Laundry" (listed as such in the liner notes of I Can't Stand Still and Actual Miles: Henley's Greatest Hits). Walsh played guitar throughout Who bassist John Entwistle's 1981 solo album Too Late The Hero. Walsh has also contributed to albums by: America's, REO Speedwagon, Andy Gibb, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Steve Winwood and Richard Marx hit "Don't Mean Nothing".^[5]

Onscreen Walsh has appeared in: The Blues Brothers, RoboCop, Promised Land,The Drew Carey Show, Duckman, Mad TV, Rock the Cradle and Zachariah.

On Feb.12, 2012, Walsh appeared on stage with Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl, and McCartney's band at the Staples Center in Los Angeles to close out the Grammy Awards show.

Walsh was a regular guest deejay on the Los Angeles radio station, KLOS during the mid-1980s. They had a Saturday evening feature, with celebrity guest-hosts taking over the mic (Walsh was the guest host far more frequently than any other). He was also a frequent guest and guest-host of Detroit & Chicago radio personality Steve Dahl.

Personal life[link]

Joe Walsh in front of his vintage amateur radio station WB6ACU

Walsh holds an Amateur Extra Class Amateur Radio License. His station callsign is WB6ACU.^[6] In 2006 he donated an autographed guitar to the ARRL in Newington, Connecticut for its charity auction. He has also been involved with the group's "Big Project," which brings amateur radio into schools. Walsh has included Morse Code messages in his albums on two occasions: once on the album Barnstorm ("Register and Vote"), and later on Songs for a Dying Planet ("Register and Vote for Me").

Walsh is best known as a guitarist, but has also played keyboards, bass guitar, harmonica, bagpipes, oboe, and clarinet.

Walsh married Marjorie Bach (sister of Barbara Bach) in Los Angeles on December 13, 2008, making him a brother-in-law of Ringo Starr.

Walsh's daughter, Lucy Walsh, is also a musician; she has worked with Ashlee Simpson and others, and released her debut album, Lost in the Lights, in spring 2008.^{[citation needed]}

Walsh's eldest daughter, Emma Kristen, was born in 1971 and died in 1974 at the age of only 3 as a result of injuries suffered in an automobile accident on her way to nursery school. Her story inspired the track "Song For Emma" on his album So What released later that year. In her memory, he had a fountain and memorial plaque placed in a park in which she played, North Boulder Park in Boulder, Colorado. While touring with singer Stevie Nicks in 1984, Walsh took Nicks to the park's fountain; Nicks subsequently immortalized this story in her song "Has Anyone Ever Written Anything For You" on her 1985 album Rock A Little. Nicks stated in a 2007 interview with the UK's The Daily Telegraph that Walsh had been "the great love of her life."

In October 2004, Walsh undertook speaking engagements in New Zealand to warn against the dangers of substance abuse. He said the visit was a "thank you" to people who took him to Otatara Pa when he toured New Zealand with reggae band Herbs while under heavy alcohol and cocaine addictions in 1989, an experience he has cited as the beginning of a long journey back to health.^[7]

At Otatara Pa in 2004 Walsh said, "This is a special place, and it is very special to me. It was here on a visit many years ago, up on the hills, that I had a moment of clarity. I don't understand it, but I reconnected with my soul, and I remembered who I used to be. I admitted I had problems and I had to do something about it. It was the beginning of my recovery from my addiction to alcohol and drugs, and when I got back to America it gave me the courage to seek help."^[8]

Jimmy Page's sunburst 1959 Gibson Les Paul, better known as his "Number 1" was originally owned by Joe Walsh and was sold to Page in 1970.^[9]

Kent State University awarded Walsh an honorary degree in music in December 2001.^[10]

Instruments[link]

Guitars[link]

• Fender Telecaster Butterscottesch, Sunburst, Blonde, Natural White, other finishes
• Fender Stratocaster Black, White, Sunburst, Turquoise Green, Candy apple Red
• Duesenberg Double Cat 6 Sunburst
• Rickenbacker 330 Jetglo used on the song The Long Run & Rocky Mountain Way
• 1959 Gibson Les Paul that was given/sold to Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page in April 1969^[11]
• Gibson Les Paul Custom Ebony & Sunburst
• Gibson Les Paul Supreme Sunburst used on the song Get over it to his playing slide guitar
• Gibson ES-335 Sunburst
• Zemaitis Custom De Luxe Guitar used in concert on Farewell Concert Tour
• Music Man Guitars various finishes used in The Long Run of Eden Tour
• Gretsch Country Club Models Candy Apple Red & White
• Various Model Carvin & Fernandes Guitars
• Takamine & Guild Acoustic Guitars
• Ibanez : Joe Satriani model with humbucking pickups,silver, red etc.
• Carvin California Carved Top guitar

Amplifiers[link]

• Fender
• Dr. Z

Other instruments[link]

• Fender Rhodes Piano
• Hammond Organ
• Roland JD-990
• Korg Karma
• Korg Trinity
• Moog Synthesizers
• Clavia Nord Modular
• Clavia Nord Electro
• Harmonium
• Mellotron
• Yamaha Piano
• Baldwin Grand Piano
• Fender Precision Bass
• Gibson F-4 Mandolin
• Gibson F-5 Mandolin
• Clarinet
• Oboe
• Bagpipes
• Talkbox
• Timpani

Discography[link]

References[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Joe Walsh

External links[link]

• Official website