Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

> >Child support is for the kids, not the ex-spouse.

> Yeah, Bob - that's the way it's supposed to work.  Funny thing.  I just
> got off the phone with a guy who was talking with a woman about going
> out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
> bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.
> Yeah, it's for the kids, alright.

The child support is for the children.  However, their expenses (new shoes
when feet grow, etc.) do not go away when the child support checks do not
show up.  She is far from the first single parent to have to forgo their own
social life, their own clothing needs, etc. because *all* of their meager
income was spent on the children.

> One of the calculation methodologies used in "income shares" based
> child support calculations is called "The Rothbarth Methodology."  I
> don't know much about this, other than that it included many "costs"
> which seemed very extraneous to say the least - and had nothing to do
> with the support of children.  Apparently the cost of cigarettes and
> alcohol were included as costs for raising children.

I agree that this should not be the case (though I have never seen it).

> Yes, child support is "supposed" to be for the children, but who
> verifies that it ever does go to the children.  Do custodial parents
> ever provide proof of the expenditures on the children?  Are they ever
> required to?  Why or why not?

The person who pays the support is allowed to ask for such proof.  If the
recipient cannot justify the expenses there are alternatives to a simple
payment.  One such system is to put the "kid's" money into an account that
requires proof of expense (and therefor, an intermediary cost) or both
signatures for a withdrawal.  This account is used to pay medical, clothing,
etc. that are incurred for the children.

> Why does she have the children if she can't provide for them?  

Hopefully, because she *can* provide non-monetary parenting.

> P.S.  A man recently told me that one of his tenants had blown him off
> on the rent this month - claiming that she hadn't received her child
> support check.  Why can't she earn enough money to pay her rent without
> someone else's check? 

Most people have a budget level that reflects their expected income regardless
of it's actual amount.  If part of it is missing for several months in a row,
they are in trouble.  Maybe she does earn enough to pay rent and raise their
children at a different level of spending but thought they could afford to 
ballet lessons, or whatever, because she was expecting that check.

> If the court awarded NO child support, if child support was made
> illegal, an unconstitutional infringement on the liberties of the
> individual, would women still insist that they get the children 85% of
> the time?   How about this? 

I got 'full' custody because I wanted it and he did not, it had 
nothing to do with cashflow.  If no cash was available, custody would not
change but our life style would have.  As an engineer, I could certainly
raise 2 boys without his money but he wanted children and earns big bucks
so why shouldn't he provide them with some of the luxuries they had before
he decided to dump me?

> Suppose the court awarded custody shares
> based on income.  If one parent makes 81% of the total family income,
> that parent gets the children 81% of the time.  And, of course, no child
> support is paid by either parent.  Is that fair?  Why or why not? 

I would be against this.  Custody needs to be granted to whoever can be
"there" for the children.  Sometimes that is the mother, sometimes the father.
The person who earns most of the money may well be the person who works long
hours and takes lots a business trips (which is why I will probably not ever
be into the big bucks) and does not have time to share with his/her kids.
If so, the kids would suffer under the proposed system.  This is not a gender
issue in the sense that there are women who put career well out in front of
family needs as well.  "Earns good money" and "makes a good parent" are two
virtues that are mostly unrelated.  I use the word "mostly" because someone
who has no resposibilty is probably bad at both.

P.S. After my parents' divorce, my father had full custody of me.  Mom had my
brother and sister.  They lived in a large house while we lived in a small
apartment.  Eventhough I am female, I understand the other side from personal 
experience.