From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: If it's good for the goose..  was (Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:08:08 GMT

In article <168CEB513.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> news@mont.cs.missouri.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.142336.486@ll.mit.edu>
>x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
> 
>>  Suppose both man and women have engineering degrees (lets say 2 BSs).
>>The happy couple decides that she will stay home raising kids, and he'll
>>go merrily to his place of employment every day.  Things turn sour - they
>>divorce.  Do you think he should be obliged to pay 100% as she was not
>>gainfully employed at the time of divorce, or do you believe she should be
>>held 'available for work' because of her degree, and have imputed income?
> 
>Since they *both* agreed that she should stay home with the kiddies, and
>since, if she is not working she doesn't have any income, I think that
>the subject of her share of the support is moot until she has a job- and
>yes, if it were up to me, she should find a job.
> 
>>  Just a note on the way the system works here.  The more 'successful'
>>he is at his job (reflectd in higher pay) the more he is penalized at
>>divorce time through support.
> 
>Just another note... The more 'successful' the custodial parent is at
>his/her job (reflected in being awarded custody) the more he/she is
>penalized at divorce time (raising a child alone).
> 
>You know, I'm a custodial parent. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling
>that a lot of people think that raising a child (or two) alone is a piece
>of cake compared to writing out a support check once a month. 

You ignore the 80 hours (whatever) of work required to earn the money
which which to write the check. That is, neither is a "piece of cake".

>It's not.

Why trivialize either? 

>I know just as many people who opted to be the non-custodial parent as the
>custodial one. Not everybody *wants* to raise children alone. So please, let's
>stop this subtle insinuation that all custodial parents sit in front of the
>TV eating BonBons all day while the ex-spouse slaves away to make support
>payments. 


>         Support is based on *ability* to pay. 

I think this policy varies from state to state. I have heard of a man in
New York (I think) who was ordered to pay combined alimony and child support
of (I think) 50% more than his gross salary. A friend in Ca is working 
with the state (it seems they grant all fathers automatic deadbeat-dad
status, and attach the wages directly, and they take whatever they want,
and it seems that they are not bothered by excesses like a requirement
to notify him of changes in what they take). 

>                                              It would be pretty ridiculous
>to have the parent who makes the least money (and often spends the most time
>with the child) pay a higher % of his/her income than the wealthier parent.

As I understand it, very few women, no matter how wealthy, pay any alimony
or child support if not the CP. I caught the tail end of Ophrah (sp?) last
night and the topic was alimony and child support. One of the women owned
a company and was ordered to pay for 2 years, she had not paid a cent, and
the courts did not attach her wages. It seems that in the same fashion
as 'a women cannot be sexist', we have the situatioon where there is and
cannot be such a thing as a 'deadbeat-mom'. If she does not pay, no big
deal, get a job. If he does not pay, things change radically, and not for
the better.

>Diane


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism