From: thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:48:14 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <20720143@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:
> In alt.child-support, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
> 
>> >From: bobw@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Bob Waltenspiel)
>> >Subject: What's FAIR Child Support?
>> >
>> >What is fair support for a Non-Custodial Parent to pay a Custodial Parent?
>> 
>> What is "fair" depends on one's point of view.  As a non-parent and
>> a taxpayer, to me a fair level of support is one that (1) eliminates
>> any AFDC or other welfare-type handout; 
> 
> You seem to be forgetting that in many cases this is just not possible.
> There just isn't enough money to go around.  So, it sounds like you're
> saying that regardless of how little someone makes, there is a minimum
> level of suppport that should be paid.
>                        
>                                           (2) allows for the child
>> to be fed, clothed, provided with healthcare, and in school; and 
> 
> Yes, I believe this is a MUST.
> 
>> (3) is satisfactory enough to both parties that they don't further 
>> burden the system with legal process, etc.
> 
> As long as both parties agree on how the support amount is allocated
> between them, this would be great.
> 
> I think you forgot one:
> 
>    4) Is set at an amount that requires BOTH parties to contribute to the
>       financial support of the children, without the cp PROFITING from
>       child support.

But how do you determine this?  Is it possible for the child to be
living in a safe, comfortable environment without the CP also living
in said environment? And if they're living in a nice house in a decent
neighborhood where there's space to play without dodging the cars
in the parking lot, does the NCP feel that the CP is enjoying a
"profit" from the child support?  What if the CP takes the child
on a vacation? Is the beach, or a visit to a historical site a
contribution to the child or a profit to the CP?  And what about the
time the CP spends shuttling the child to activities, staying up wiht
the child when it's sick, cooking for and cleaning up after the child-
does that not figure into the equation?  Every afternoon at about
2:30, at the university where I teach, I see the women (intact families
as well as single parents) leaving the building to go pick up their
kids at school, take them to various practices, games, friend's
houses and so on, run to the grocery store, go home and fix dinner.
Meanwhile, the men are sitting in their offices, doing research and
writing for publication.  Whose career is going to advance fastest?
Who's going to get the big raise at the end of the year? (Well,
nobody this year, but you get the idea.)

> 
>> 
>> So long as the above is satisfied the cost to society of the 
>> CP/NCP dispute is minimized, which is to me the most fair outcome.  
> 
> So, the "most fair" outcome is one which minimizes the cost to society?
> How about one that provides for the needs of the children, and no more?
> 
>> Beyond that I couldn't care less how expenses are split between CP 
>> and NCP.  In my view, laws governing support levels should be
> 
> I suppose you wouldn't care, from your point of view.  I suppose that's
> why we have the absurd laws we do.....since those that are making the laws
> "don't care" who pays, as long as the "cost to society" is minimized.
> 
>> aimed at achieving the above criteria, as opposed to achiveing any 
>> subjective notion of "fairness" from the perspective of either parent.
>> 
>> All IMHO of course.
>>
> Mine too,
> 
> Laszlo
>  
>> -- Steve
Newsgroups: alt.child-support