From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:48:32 GMT

slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>I suppose with the American legal system, the more you know, the 
>better off you are.  As a matter of fact, yes, I have gotten it to 
>work for me.  I beat a landlord (which is not easy in pro-owner 
>Indiana) and I feel, given the fact circumstances, that I got a 
>good shake out of my divorce action.  I know others who have 
>benefited, also.  Next time you have a legal action, check out 
>small claims court.  Here in Indiana, the little guy doesn't need a
>lawyer in small claims court.

Good for you; my own experience has been less positive.

HB:
>>In your scenario, children would have to find lawyers to take them
>>on contingency, or else you and I as taxpayers would have to fund
>>the process. In the end, at best the court sez "Pay $X zillion to
>>the plaintiff." How does that address the exploding heart of your
>>cousin? Or suppose your beloved daughter decides to divorce you
>>on the grounds of extreme mental cruelty (you've insisted for
>>years that she clean up her room before going out, you wicked,
>>controlling person) and wins. What now? She goes to live on her own,
>>fully mature 13-year-old that she is, with you paying her bills?
>>Or maybe she gets entry to a government Facility for Emotionally
>>Abused Teenagers, staffed by Sensitive and Caring (TM) personnel, all
>>trained at government facilities? Or rather, she gets A Large Settlement
>>from you, 35% of which her lawyer pockets, while she continues to live
>>in your house, except that you're now subject to random inspections
>>to make sure you don't crowd her personal space. Perhaps she is
>>consigned to the tender mercies of a foster family, who will provide
>>her the opportunities for personal growth that you, mere birth-mother,
>>have so long denied her?

>Maybe all that could happen.  I don't think it would, but that is just 
>my gut reaction.  However, I am well aware of what IS happening, right now
>every day, in my neighborhood, in my city.  Families churning out damaged 
>children.  I am willing to give up some of my all-encompassing parental 
>authority and take the personal risk that I could get trapped in a bogus 
>lawsuit if something could be done for the children who are living hell-life.
>Obviously, you don't want to do that, that's okay.  Free country, and all that.

You misunderstand my position. I'd like to do something to help those
kids whose parents are not up to the task, but I seriously question the
efficacy of the legal system at improving these parent's skill and 
behavior. For example, I would not expect a law which enables the victim 
of a drunk driver to sue the SOB for damages to materially affect the
number of drunk drivers on the road.

Lawsuits are about money; what good is some money to a kid who's been
screwed over by his/her parents? I'd rather do something so fewer parents
damage their kids. That is much harder to so, mostly because it requires
changing peoples values and behavior, something that we're not very good
at, and which takes a lot of time. It's certainly not something that will
satisfy those who want solutions NOW. This whole debate is somewhat akin
to the story of the drunk who was looking for his housekeys under the
corner lamp, because the light was so much better there.

>But think of this, let's say you croak and your ex-wife cracks up and your 
>children get shuttled into an institution that would make the orphanage 
>in Oliver Twist look like a romp in the park.  Wouldn't you want your 
>children to have the ability, the personal empowerment, to fight back? 
>To have some recourse to force the institution to treat the child at 
>least as responsibly as a bank must treat its customers?  Or is it really 
>okay with you that the same unquestionable parental authority that you 
>currently possess is so readily transferrable to any number of institutions 
>of dubious repute?  

No, not at all, but this is a different subject, isn't it? The rights
of children with respect to impersonal institutions are surely not the
same as they are with respect to their parents, legally or morally.

>Well, I've worked in a couple of institutions that 
>provide help for children and I've heard stories about others and were *I* 
>to croak, I would certainly want my daughter to be able to protect herself 
>under the law, just as fully as I would be protected.  Again, if that 
>means that she would have a few more rights with regard to the care I 
>provide, that's a risk I'd be willing to take.

Usually an institutional inmate has severely restricted access
to legal remedies, in practice at least, if not in theory. Granting
additional rights, or rather legal standing, is not likely to change
this significantly. It all sounds to me like tinkering with a broken
machine to try and make it fly; unfortunately, the machine was a tractor,
and no amount of fixing will make it soar through the air.

But we gotta do something, so we tinker. It's a bit like displacement
behavior in animals: the lion paces back and forth, the same eight paces,
day in and day out, because he cannot do what he'd really like to.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
Xref: sparky soc.men:13572 alt.folklore.urban:19464