From: JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:47:57 GMT
 <rgdeiINN5hv@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>
 <92099.145549JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr13.234014.29731@ohmeda.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr13.234014.29731@ohmeda.com>, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
says:
>I might have gotten into the middle of the discussion.  My point of view
>is that this entire thread was from the standpoint of divorce.  If a
>couple is married/common law, and they bring a child into the world, then
>the NCP should provide for the child to the extent that they are able.

No, you're probably right thinking that the discussion is from the point
of view of a married (err...divorced) couple.

>"I don't love my child." or "My child doesn't love me." and they are off
>the hook?  Doesn't wash.  I prefer holding people responsible for their
>actions.  You bring a child into the world, you are responsible for it.

Is a man responsible when he finds out that a woman is pregnant and
has since had a child, while in the meantime starts raising up a family
of his own?  This can't be "factored in".  (I'm talking about the
non-married, non-live-together man and woman; not divorced family)

>Why should the child have to exist at a reduced standard of living?  So
>what if the NCP wants to go off and have another family.  Let that person
>factor into his plans the children he already has.  I think that anything
>less is abandonment, pure and simple, especially if this fact is shoved
>in the child's face.

Should a man and his current family go without, while a child which was
never any part of any of his families go with?  (not ever married stuff)
Is not giving the child any more than the basic necessities of life
considered abandonment?  Is the mother leaving the man to go have the
child considered abandonment of the child's father?  Should the man have
to put up with her actions, and deal with the consequences she causes
when she never told him she was even considering having a baby?
Should the man's family have to reap the consequences of this woman's
actions?

I do see the meaning of child support, when a man and a woman get
married or pledge themselves to each other, and decide to have a child.
They decided this together.  They should take care of the child they
decided to have together.  However, none of the child support stuff
takes into account that the child was never a part of the man's family.
That he and the mother were never married.  The "accident" type of
pregnancy, but where the woman has a choice of what to do with both
of their lives.

They say child support is based on the basic necessities plus a fraction
of the man's extra earnings.  "just like if the child were still in the
family of the man and woman"  BUT, there wasn't ever a family to base
these numbers on, in a non-married man and woman situation.  The figures
base themselves on something which never existed.  Nor do they take into
account the man's REAL family, and that family's needs.  How can the
state agencies take one table of numbers and say its fair for all NCPs?

-Jennifer
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1131 alt.dads-rights:674