From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:31:23 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

> I have some serious problems about Mr. EuStress's postings.  Sometimes he
> talks about 'accidently' leaving his sperm in a woman who lied to him about
> her birth control, then he talks about his 'children' (?) living in a 
> $70,000 house.  (BTW, in most places, *MOST* houses cost $70,000, unless it
> is in a really bad neighborhood.  At least it's that way, here in the mid-wes
> where housing is quite affordable.)
> 
> Sue

I think he means annual income for the home, Sue. In essense, he says that
because the step-parent has a high income, that means he can hand off the
responsibility. This does lead to the question: what if THEY only had an
income of $4000/yr? The answer is, of course, everybody should then pay 
for the child. There seems to be a consensus to that --albeit a bit strange.
All agree that a child has a right to support, even if the state (society)
is required to pay it. The diverging point is that one side of the question
believes that the state should pay because they don't WANT to, and the 
other believes that the state should pay if it HAS to.

If a parent is incapable of supporting a child, then I have to admit that
they should be relieved of the burden. However, I attach a caveat to the
concept: If they cannot be responsible for their own actions, then perhaps
they should ALSO become a ward of the state, doing certain tasks to pay
for their room and board --cleaning or something. But a declaration of the
inability to serve in their own interests seems requisite. This would hold
true regardless of gender.

Without getting into the equity of the system in dollar amounts, I do note
that the people in favor of non-paternity ignore the contribution of the
CP (be it the mom or dad). Having been a resident parent, I'm all too aware
of the time/work/effort/expense that it takes to raise a kid, no less a
few of them. Dollars do help, and I have to say that I believe that if the
economics of child rearing was equally divided, the CP is going to make a
bigger overall investment than the NCP. That's ONE of the reasons I believe
in joint residential custody when at all possible.

I agree with both Sue and with Don that the system should take these cases
one at a time, and dump the concept of tables and all-consuming standards.
The only standard at play should be a reasonably accurate COST of raising
a child in a certain locality, and that figure should be chopped in half.
If a parent (or both parents) can't deal with joint residential custody,
then and only then should a difference in the financial ratio be invoked.
Further, that difference should be invoked against the party who makes it
impossible to do the shared parenting. At any rate, the cases should be
judged on the merits specific to the cases.

Yes, that got a little off the thread :-)  But perhaps some of the people
who lean towards non-paternity would lean a bit the other way if there
was a better chance for financial/time equity, and that's why I tacked this
onto the post. Of course, some of us aren't going to choose to accept the
responsibility of their participation in making a child, no matter what.
Sometimes I'm reminded of my own kids when I read here:

  "Who spilled this water?"
  "He did!"
  "Did not"
  "Did too"
  "It wasn't my fault it was yours!"
  "Why?"
  "You washed the glass so I could use it."
--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women