From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:33:54 GMT
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>In response to my post Paul Ourada writes:

>>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>>
>>>In my view, laws governing support levels should be aimed at 
>>>achieving the above criteria [which provide for the child's support], 
>>>as opposed to achiveing any subjective notion of "fairness" from 
>>>the perspective of either parent.
>>
>>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  

>There are no laws requiring parents to share their wealth 
>with their children.  I don't see why NCP's should be singled
>out for such a requirement, when it doesn't apply to parents
>in general.

>Am I missing something here?

>>paulo@ohmeda.com

>-- Steve

Well, I see your point.  I think that the courts view it this way:  For the
vast majority of the cases, if the family had an income of $XXXK per year, 
they typically lived at the standard of living that provided.  If the NCP
was gainfully employed, and had reasonable expectation of advancing in her/his
career at the point of divorce, and in fact this does occur, the children
had a reasonable expectation to enjoy the increased standard of living that
would have been produced.  These arguments are used in the business world 
all the time, as I understand it.  The point being is that the children 
should not have to suffer a *decreased* living standard just because their
parents split up.  They may in fact incur such a loss if either of the parents
become incapacitated for some reason.

I must now confess that I have some history that colors my thinking, and I do
this at the risk of people saying that all I have said is without merit.  No
matter, I try to be honest.  My parents remained married until I was in my
mid-twenties.  After they divorced, it was brought out into the open that my
father had not supported his family of seven children adequately.  You see, we
always believed that we had to live from paycheck to paycheck.  We wore 
hand-me-downs we didn't like, wore shoes and clothes that had holes in them.
All the while my father was giving away gifts to the Catholic Church.  Some
of them as large as $100K.  You see, his attitude was that it was all his
money.  He didn't feel that he owed his family anything more than bare 
subsistance.  He barely contributed to any of our educations.  He did send 
us to a private Catholic High School, but there was nothing beyond that to 
speak of.  I am 33 years old.  I didn't finish college until he had passed
away in 1989.  He left a legacy of $1,000,000 to his second wife, so that
she could bribe Vietnamese officials into releasing her family for immigration.
At least that's what his will said.

I don't mind so much about the college issue.  I was an adult, married and
supporting a family.  I was responsible for myself at this point, and it was
his money.  What I do mind is the fact that he built his business and fortune
quite literally at the expense of his family.  We slept in open rooms until we
were well into puberty.  He didn't want to spend the money on putting in 
walls and doors.  The fact is that he literally abandoned his family, and 
made us believe that we were simply asking for unreasonable things such as
to go to a movie now and then, have decent clothes, and not be ashamed to
appear in public.

I am divorced.  I do not like my ex-wife, but I love my son.  I am not going
to abandon him.  Those who do not support their children by forcing them to
live in poverty while they live in relative luxury are guilty of abandonment.
So while I see your point, I believe it is a poor excuse to bail out on your
children.


Paul E. Ourada

paulo@ohmeda.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights