From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Summary: yes, I would take custody with no support
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:28:14 GMT
Followup-To: misc.kids
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Sep13.064525.20969@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> >Child support is for the kids, not the ex-spouse. At least, that's the
> >theory. Granted that in practice it can work out differently, but that's
> >not what this conversation is about.
> >
> Well, then let's make it what this conversation is about....
> 
> 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.

Well, this is probably a reach for you, but I don't suppose it could
be the case that she used all of the money she had to pay for housing
and food and then it was all gone?  If she'd got the child support
check, she would have used that money for the rent, food, daycare,
shoes for the kids, but since she didn't get the child support,
she just used her salary, whence she usually derives her personal
funds?  One of the things I like about this particular anecdote
is that had she asked the guy to treat her to bowling, rather than
declining the invitation because  she couldn't to pay for herself,
you probably would have slammed
her for treating the guy like a walking wallet.  As it is, you found
another way to use the story against her.

> So, if I am the better provider, why not let
> me have the kids?  I wouldn't want her child support money.  She barely
> makes enough to provide for herself.  And that's the whole point.  Why
> does she have the children if she can't provide for them?  If I wasn't
> in the picture, YOU - all of YOU - would be paying for HER children.

These are YOUR children we'd be paying for, too.
They don't stop being your kids just because you don't live with
them.  If you don't agree, just ask them, the kids, not your x-wife
or the net.

> 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?  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?

Yes, speaking only for myself, if I were to get divorced and my
husband were to pay nothing to support our children, I would still
want custody.  I would still want to wake up every day in the same
house with my kids and be part of their daily lives.  I did not
have children because I thought there was money to be made by
doing it.

I don't know if it's fair to divide the custody up by the amount of
money that each person makes, but it seems pretty silly.  Do the
parents get together in April with their tax returns and divide
up custody for the coming year?  If you get a big bonus or commission,
do you get the kids for the whole next month? People I 
know who make a lot of money often do it by devoting a lot of time and 
energy to their jobs, including a couple of days of travel a week.
I don't know that kids need to spend more time in the home of someone
who's not even home themselves.

I think your entire viewpoint is focused on what is best for the
parents', particularly the father, rather than on what is best for
the kids.

Kate Perkins
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:51:15 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Law
Organization: HP Western Response Center