From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:15:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Apr9.002919.1781@memstvx1.memst.edu> thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu frobs:
>In article <1992Apr5.061306.23492@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) twiddles:
>> immediately start catching up on all the child support that you missed
>> when you were eating out of trash cans.  You apparently don't think
>> that it is unfair that if the family had been intact, the family would
>> have had to "eat" the lack of income, but because NCPs don't have
>> rights, they should not be granted a "pardon" for losing a job (even in
>> a recession).  I would even bet that you think it is fair that NCP
>> fathers can be forced to pay their children's college tuition, but that
>> no intact families' parents, nor CPs are forced to pay college tuition.
>> You probably don't think it is so bad that 96% of all children of
>> divorces live primarily with the mother (a study in the Texas Bar
>> Association Journal).  You probably don't it is unfair that women get
>> some form of custody in 90% of all divorces.  You probably don't think
>> it is unfair that men are sexually discriminated against in divorce
>> courts.  You probably don't think it is unfair that NCP fathers pay an
>> average of $170 per month per child to the CP mother, but NCP mothers
>> pay $11 per month per child to CP dads (the very same Texas Bar
>> Association Journal study).  You don't think it is unfair that CS
>> payments were calculated based on what intact families can afford to
>> spend on their children, then that number was increased by 30% for safe
>> measure.  You probably think that it is fair that women's groups have
>> attempted in several states (and succeeded in California) to get that
>> amount increased by another 40%.  You probably don't think that it is
>> unfair that even though an NCP father pays 100% of the child support
>> for the children, that the CP mother gets the child support deductions.
>> You probably don't think that it is unfair that if a shared parenting
>> couple makes $25k each and each spends 50% of the time with the
>> children, that the father should pay the mother $5k a year net in child
>> support.  Joel, I bet you don't even think that it is all that bad that
>> you got screwed to the gills.  After all, you are a man and men should
>> just take it and go on.
>> 
>And you, Aaron, probably think it's fair that women still make, on the
>average, about $.70 for every dollar a man makes, that the standard

Oh, poppycock!  Is it $0.59, $0.63, $0.70 or what?  Men make more money
because men work more, men are told that their role in society is to be
a bread-winner, their success is measured by how much they make, they
take all the appropriate classes to obtain those practical and exciting
jobs working for huge, multi-national companies or small, lean, mean
fighting-to-stay-alive companies.  They don't study "French Literature"
or "Men in History"  unless they plan on going the whole ride, get the
PhD and then teach the stuff.  They take jobs that are back-breaking,
manual, hard-labor at great risk to life and limb.  Society also
virtually requires that they work.  They cannot take time off from work
to raise the children for a few years.  They cannot take time off from
work to play bridge, help with the local charities and other volunteer
work.  They make more because they work more.

Are you trying to say that men are paid more for doing the same job
that women do?  I think not.  I'm pretty sure that is a federal crime
- sexual discrimination.  All the women in my department who are equally
qualified with the men in the department and hold the same positions
make virtually the same amount as the men.  If more women had obtained
MSs in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, they could work here
too and make the same pay as all the men who did it.

Of course, I've read (but I can't cite the specific source off the top
of my head) that women spend 50% of all the money in the United States
and that the demographic group with the most money is elderly women.
So, even though women earn %30 of the money, they get the other 20% from
men.  Then men die and leave them everything and the women end up with
all the money.

>of living goes down 74% for the mother and children and up substantially
>for the father after divorce, 

Fiddle-dee-dee.  Intact family.  Mom makes $0k per year.  Dad makes
$50k per year.   They net $34k.  Total expenses are $30k.  Divorce.
Two kids.  Mom gets kids.  Dad pays Mom $13k per year net ($17k per
year gross).  Dad now makes $33k gross.  Mom ordered to get job by
court.  Mom makes $17k per year gross ($13k per year net).  Mom's
income is now $26k net per year.  Dad's is $26k per year net.  Dad pays
$66% of daycare.  Dad's bills for year (new place to live and
utilities, daycare, car, food, living expenses) are $24k per year.
Dad's tax rate goes up - he doesn't get deductions.  Mom's expenses are
now $24k.  They  both have $2k disposable income per year.  Before they
both had $2k each disposable income per year.  That is the way things
are supposed to work with child support.  Nobody gets a better deal.  Of
course, this is a family where the father makes a half-way decent
income.  Most couples income potentials are much closer together.  In
all those cases, the women end up with more disposable income - and thus
the higher standard of living of the two.  And the dollars don't reflect 
that Dad and the kids have lost something very significant and more 
important than money - time together.

>that in 75% of the cases where the father
>contests custody, he wins (figures used in that California case you
>mentioned). 

Yep, you got me there - California is in Texas.  I think that Texas Bar
Association Journal study states that men get sole custody in 10% of
divorce cases and that 80% of those men lose that sole custody within
two years.  The mother knows that she can move the case to a different
judge - a biased, sexist judge, and have the custody determination
reversed.  That study also states that almost 80% of non-custodial
fathers experience efforts by the custodial mother to thwart the limited
visitation time that he has with his children.

Men get some form of custody in roughly 30% of divorces.  Women get some
form of custody in 90% of divorces.  96% of children living in single
parent homes with primarily with the mother.

Contesting custody can mean a father contesting the mother filing for sole 
custody (which they file for in the majority of cases) and getting an
award of shared parenting - where the father becomes the
"non-residential parent" of "non-custodial parent in sheep's clothing".
What great victories for these men.   So they get 20 to 35% of the time
with the children and only have to pay 33% of their income to the
mother.  Yeah, that's a win if I ever saw one.

>> in this society.  Crime is skyrocketing in this country.  Juvenile
>> delinquency is a serious problem and is getting worse.  At the same
>> time, in the last 20 years the number of children being raised by
>> single parents has increased 350%.  Coincidence.  Yeh, sure.
>> 
>Control that for socio-economic factors.  The kids who get in trouble
>are, by and large, kids being raised in poverty as 1 in 5 children
>in the U.S. are - mostly because their fathers aren't contributing
>to their support, the mothers don't get paid enough for the jobs
>they do and don't get any support services.  

Yes, so why are all these mothers having all these babies to men that
are not committed to them or their children?  So, why don't women work
hard to make money to support these children, give them that necessary
time with their fathers so that they can receive input from both sexual
role models, so that fathers can become empathetic to the task of
raising children so that they will be willing to bend over backwards to
help take care of those children?  What are the crime rates for children
raised in poor intact families with fathers who take an active role in
their children's lives?  What are the crime rates for children raised by
their fathers as the primary caretaker?

Women don't get any support services?  How much does welfare cost the
United States every year?  Billions - Hundreds of billions - you don't
say.  How much of that do men get?

>> The family unit has broken down.  It is so easy for people to just blow
>> apart a family rather than stay in it and resolve the problems.  Women
>> are the benefactors of divorces - they get the children, they get child
>> support and they can go on and marry someone else and have that child
>> support as additional income.  
>
>Statistically, this doesn't wash.  Men are far more likely to get 
>married soon after a divorce -most remarry within 2 years, while
>only about 25% of women remarry within 5 years.  Many of those
>second wives work, so the men are living in 2 income homes, while

I dispute your figures.  If mothers can't remarry because men are not
attracted to pre-made families (feminist propoganda), then maybe women
should consider giving up some of that time they have the kids and
letting the father be involved in their lives.  Women say they are
biologically better parents and just love kids (feminist propoganda),
so wouldn't prospective second wives be more attracted to fathers with
children than single divorced men?  Women with custody have that
additional income to attract new prospective mates.  Men NCPs have that
child support commitment to drive off that prospective mate.

The only stats I've ever seen show that 80% of divorced individuals will
remarry.  Then 60% of those folks will have a second divorce.

So, if you saying that the important factor in the remarriage rate seems
to be who has the free time to go out looking for prospective second
spouses and women would be better off remarrying, maybe they should
consider giving up some of the time with the children to their exes.  It
would lower the men's remarriage rates and raise the remarriage rates of
women.  It would also give the children access to both of their parents
and give both parents access to their children.  Gosh, you might have
something here.

>the ex-wife and children are living in 1 income-plus-support-if-she
>can-collect-it, which is not the same thing as a two income home,
>whatever you may think. ($175 a month! What a laugh! The schools
>get more than that in money for supplies, books, etc, alone!)

I pay $1034.22 per month net.  She doesn't have to declare that as
income.  She gets the deductions on the children.  I pay taxes on that
money.  I have to declare it as income.  After the child support is
taken out of my check, she has a greater net income than I.  yet,
because I have a greater gross income, the court makes me eat all debts
of the marriage and gives her all assets.  After expenses, she has money
left over - disposable income.  She just bought a new bed.  I have no
furniture and had to borrow money to pay my electricty bill this month.
I'm trading cars with my mother because her car is paid off and mine is
new.  My mother will basically buy and use my car and I get her car - a
car with 107,000 miles on it.  My ex2b also got a new car.  She is
paying for it in part with my child support.  Based on what has happened
so far in my divorce, I will probably end up filing for bankruptcy to
get out from under the debts of the marriage - otherwise, I won't be
able to afford to live.  She gets everything that we bought while
married and all the furniture, appliances, utensils, etc. that I owned
before we were married.   The court can justify this because I make 3
times as much money as she makes.  I make roughly $50k and she makes
about $16k.  She has a degree - I don't.  My situation is not atypical.

OK - problems with Math, I understand - it was your boyfriend or Algebra
II and you had no choice.  Society told you that your value in this
planet was on your back with your feet in the air.

OK.  Picture this.  Man earns Y.  Women, being typical, earns .7Y (your
numbers).  Man and woman marry.  Expenses are A.  A is very close to
Y.

Credits = Y + .7Y
Debits = A

Children emerge from said union.  Expenses go up to 1.3A.  Woman stops
working.

Credits = Y
Debits = 1.3A

Because of financial strife, said union disolves.  Mom files - becomes
"Plaintiff".  Court orders Mom to be CP.  Dad is NCP.  Court orders Mom
to get her job back.  Dad ordered to pay Mom Ysupport.

Family #1 (Mom and kids)		Family #2 (Dad - alone)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + Ysupport		Credits = Y - Ysupport
Debits = 1.1A				Debits = .8A

Let's say for example that Ysupport is .3Y - nah, I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt - .2Y.

So 

Credits = .7Y + .2Y = .9Y		Credits = Y - .2Y = .8Y

Mom's in about the same boat as when she was not working and married to
Dad.  Mom has option of filing for welfare (AFDC).  Mom has option of
working harder to make real equal pay as any man as is required by law.  Mom
has option of taking Dad back to court and getting additional support.
Dad can make ends meet but has no disposable income.  Make Ysupport .3Y
and she's better off and Dad is worse off.  Ysupport can often be .3Y -
it is > than .3Y for me.

Now, let's add your twist - Man remarries and only man remarries....

Family #1 (Mom and kids)		Family #2 (Dad and sex-kitten)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + Ysupport		Credits = Y - Ysupport + .7Y
Debits = 1.1A				Debits = A

Dad and sex-kitten live in lap of luxury, vacation in Bahamas, buy nice
clothes - would be better provider family for original children.  In
Family #2, children would have benefits of having two mothers and one
father.  Court does not agree - ups Ysupport to .4Y.  Mom now has
enough.

Family #1 (Mom and kids)		Family #2 (Dad and sex-kitten)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + .4Y			Credits = Y - .4Y + .7Y
Debits = 1.1A				Debits = A

Then Dad and sex-kitten make critical error in judgement.  They
accidently create kids.

Family #1 (Mom and kids)		Family #2 (Dad, sex-kitten and kids2)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + .4Y			Credits = Y - .4Y + .7Y
Debits = 1.1A				Debits = 1.3A

Everybody is pretty much even - broke.  That's the way the court wants
it - nobody has money to fight in court.

Now, let's change it and add my twist.  Mom actually remarries first.  

Family #1 (Mom, Hulk and kids)		Family #2 (Dad - alone)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + Ysupport + Y		Credits = Y - Ysupport
Debits = 1.3A				Debits = .8A

Mom, kids and Hulk live in lap of luxury, vacation in Bahamas, buy nice
cars and house.  Dad's CS stays the same.  Dad's broke, Mom's not.

Then, let's add your twist (all men remarry) again.  Judge keeps
Ysupport at .2Y.

Family #1 (Mom, Hulk and kids)		Family #2 (Dad and sex-kitten)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + Ysupport +Y		Credits = Y - Ysupport + .7Y
        = 1.9Y   			        = 1.5Y
Debits = 1.3A				Debits = A

Both families have disposable income.

Then Dad and sex-kitten make critical error in judgement.  They
accidently create kids.

Family #1 (Mom, Hulk and kids)		Family #2 (Dad, sex-kitten and kids2)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + Ysupport + Y 		Credits = Y - Ysupport + .7Y
        = 1.9Y				        = 1.5Y
Debits = 1.3A				Debits = 1.3A

Sex kitten must work or Dad's second family will go route of first
family - except faster.  Mom, Hulk and kids live in lap of luxury.

Let's say Mom and the Hulkster also have new kids.

Family #1 (Mom, Hulk, kids1 and 2)	Family #2 (Dad, sex-kitten and kids2)
=================			================
Credits = .7Y + Ysupport + Y 		Credits = Y - Ysupport + .7Y
        = 1.9Y				        = 1.5Y
Debits = 1.3A				Debits = 1.3A

Even though Mom has more kids than Dad, she and the Hulk have more
disposable income.

You can play out many scenarios and Mom generally ends up with the
better deal - because she has this additional income of child support
and he loses that child support money.  The worst case for her is when
she doesn't remarry but he does and in that case, he could provide a
much better home for his children.  But do the courts award custody to
fathers who remarry?  Yeah, if he can prove that she is forcing the
children to serve her cocaine on the end of a dildo that she has them
shove up her butt (and even if there were 20 witnesses - it would
probably require pictures).  Otherwise, it would be very costly for him
and sex kitten and they would probably lose anyway.  After all, he's
the man.  Sex kitten doesn't count - she's not the mother and she is
stupid enough to actually marry the abusive asshole anyway - even after
he has been exposed to the world by Mom.

>>85% of all divorces filed in the US are
>> filed by women - because they can get a better deal.  
>Or because they're tired of being treated like second class citizens
>by their own husbands.

Or because they are not interested in solving problems or trying to save
a family, but understand that they will be a better deal from the court,
will be able to thwart visitation for the father, will be able to make
the father's life a living hell if he wants to the see the children and
have a life with them, and because it is easy to blame men for all
problems, not take responsibility for her own actions and characterize
her husband as "another one of those abusive male creatures" and her
self as "another one of those victimized female saints", get the court
to buy into it and get the kids and child support.  That is the standard,
typical divorce.

Remember Johnny Carson?  There weren't kids involved in his last few
divorces, but every wife took him for everything they could get.  Did
they earn that money?  Why would the courts believe that she was worth
half of what he made while they were married?  Did she help him in some
way to earn that $16 million a year salary?  If she hadn't been around,
would he have been able to earn that salary?  Hey, these women did
virtually nothing to help him earn that money - they lived in the lap of
luxury and probably after they got tired of him, decided to cash in.

>> Do the children suffer greatly when the family is torn apart and they
>> lose the father figure role model and influence?  No doubt.  Funny thing
>> that exposure to fathers is directly proportionate to achievement,
>> success and happiness in the children, where exposure to mothers is
>> directly proportionate to lack of achievement, low test scores, juvenile
>> delinquency, and crime rates. 
>
>My honor student daughter (who has seen her father 3 times in 10 years) 
>would be surprised to hear that.  So would the children of many friends
>of mine who have done just fine - because they were lucky enough
>to be in relatively stable economic circumstances.
>

So, you have some examples.  Big deal.  You're a good mother and he is
slime.  Big deal.  On average, children who are not exposed to their
fathers and who do not have a significant relationship with their
fathers suffer.  Children who are raised by single mothers suffer
greatly.  Exposure to fathers is directly proportionate to achievement,
empathy and success.  Exposure to mothers over fathers is directly
proportionate to lack of achievement and crime.

>> Children need their fathers - they NEED them,
>> Dammit.  They NEED them.  They need BOTH parents.
>
>Yes, they need both parents.  Not necessarily on a joint-custody basis,
>but of course, they need both parents - in many ways - emotionally,
>physically, and financially. Aren't you the one who is defending
>pulling the support out from under the kids?  How does that fit in
>with your above assertion?

No, I'm not supporting pulling the parents' support away from the
children.  I think that if both parents agreed to have children, they
should both support them equally - no matter what happens to the
marriage - equally.  They should also both have the same legal rights to
their children as when they were still married and that the children
should spend roughly equal time with each.  If they live too far away
from one another, they should rotate who is the primary care-taker every
couple of years or so, or make it a 30/60 to 35/65 split.

Joint custody is not so bad.  It's very good in probably  a vast
majority of cases.  It lets the kids know they still have two parents
that they will see often.  It gives fathers the opportunity to become a
nurturing care-taker - something many of them can do quite well when
given the opportunity.  It gives mothers the opportunity to have some
peaceful, relaxation time and to establish themselves on their own.  It
has been endorsed by all fathers' right organizations, most children's
rights organizations, most learned sociologists, most learned
psychologists and yes, even most women (who have investigated it).
Most of the statistically significant studies have many good things to
say about it and very few have any bad things to say about it.  Until
you can think objectively about the topic, until you take the time to
do some research and read some objective research on the topic,
condemning it is being narrow-minded, prejudiced, sexist and biased.

Joint custody is logical - it makes sense.

>> The Eleventh Commandment:
>> "An NCP has NO chance for a win-win."
>> 	-- Joel (My Way is the Right Way) Clark
>
>That depends a lot on the CP - it does sound like Joel got a bad deal. I
>do know people who have worked out very amicable arrangements with their
>exes- they even spend the holidays together - exes, 2nd spouses, kids -
>everybody!

So, you do admit that whether or not the NCP gets screwed is almost
solely a function of whether the CP wants to screw him or not.  Yes,
divorce doesn't have to be the great tragedy that it is.  So, how do we
fix this?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM