From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: It isn't slavery
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:57:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Aug20.172220.10430@nsc.nsc.com> jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe) writes:
>>	This point is very well made.  But I still have to argue the
>>	exact opposite stance for two reasons.
>>
>>	1) There is a thing called freedom and privacy which people
>>	cherish.  There is no way that society has the time, the desire,
>>	or the resources to accomplish the noble task that you suggest.
>
>But I thought it was clear that wasn't my point.  I don't expect our
>society to suddenly adopt the idea that married parents should be required
>to support their children at some arbitrarily defined monetary level - as
>non-married parents (again, usually fathers) are required to do.  The idea
>of setting up the bureaucracy necessary to accomplish that is pretty
>ludicrous.

Indeed. The concept that a child should enjoy the same quality of life
in a broken family as they might in an intact family is ridiculous. Too
many variable enter into the realities.

If one or the other parent in an intact family should become unemployed,
then the economic circumstances of the family would be reduced. The
child(ren) of that family would then have to live within the new con-
straints which that circumstance imparted.

In a custodial parents in a broken family becomes unemployed, then the law
requires that the non-custodial parent compensate for that loss. To make
the situation worse, child support awards are high enough that custodial
parents are actually encouraged to become unemployed, and once they are,
they can prove a greater need for support (according to the law) and get
an increase which makes their returning to work unnecessary.

Eric Brunner's recent post of the California Bill which states clearly
that it should be expected that an NCP income should bolster a CP's
lifestyle is perhaps the best example of this I've seen. 

>What I *was* trying to do was point out the hypocrisy inherent in the
>current system.
>
>>	And just for the record remember/realize that the *ONLY* reason
>>	for the current vigilante attitude toward child support is
>>	MONEY!!!!!  It is marketed with stuff about "the good of the
>
>Ummm...not really the *only* reason.  It's my belief that a large part of
>what you so aptly describe as the current "vigilante" attitude has to do
>with the fact that it's *fathers* who have to do the paying.  That's just
>an extension of the idea, proven by the statistics on custody, that fathers 
>aren't "worthy" somehow (or capable) of being primary care-takers, not-
>withstanding the hard evidence to the contrary.

Yep.

>>	2) It is the child support system that's screwed up.  That
>>	is what should be fixed.  Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>Of course.  Again, I wasn't suggesting that there should be another
>"wrong", rather that we fix the current problem.

A good idea might be to set support according to a basic need as the
state itself does for Public Assistance --instead of trying to BASE
support according to the incomes of the parties. Add to that a pres-
umption of joint residential custody where circumstances permit it,
and things will have a balancing tendency, rather than the lopsided
situation we have now.

Of course, we have a problem of unequal enforcement to contend with
now too. Visitations aren't enforced with any of the vehemence that
support payments are. If the nation is really attempting to instill
greater family values --even in divorce-- then something should be
done to preserve the parent-child bonds in broken families.

>>	The attitude that ex's/kids somehow deserve a guaranteed
>>	meal ticket that the rest of the world has no guarantee about.
>
>Well, mostly - I think if it's your own children you're talking about,
>those you voluntarily agreed to produce whether in or out of marriage,
>then you do owe them an obligation.  As to the ex, however, ah, that's
>another story...

Indeed. The whole idea of divorce is a separation of the parties. To
force a support system between them following a divorce reders the
idea of divorce pretty silly. It would be better to stay married and
just live in separate households. At least, then both could get the
same tax and other benefits afforded only to the CP at this point.
:-)

I'm firm that parents owe a duty to support to their children. But I'm
in significant disagreement with the practice of setting the amount,
the methods of motivating people to pay that support, and the inequity
between the genders so rampant in the system.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Bob Kirkpatrick                  | "Freedom is irrelevant.
  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA |  Self-determination is irrelevant.
  bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us            |  You must comply."  Locutus, st:tng
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support