From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:53:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.022250.5550@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) comments:

|In article <1993Jan4.153526.7202@ll.mit.edu> x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
|>news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
|><168CEB513.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
|>
|>|In article <1992Dec31.142336.486@ll.mit.edu>
|>|x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
|>| 
|>|>  Suppose both man and women have engineering degrees (lets say 2 BSs).
|>|>The happy couple decides that she will stay home raising kids, and he'll
|>|>go merrily to his place of employment every day.  Things turn sour - they
|>|>divorce.  Do you think he should be obliged to pay 100% as she was not
|>|>gainfully employed at the time of divorce, or do you believe she should be
|>|>held 'available for work' because of her degree, and have imputed income?
|>| 
|>|Since they *both* agreed that she should stay home with the kiddies, and
|>|since, if she is not working she doesn't have any income, I think that
|>|the subject of her share of the support is moot until she has a job- and
|>|yes, if it were up to me, she should find a job.
|>| 
|>|>  Just a note on the way the system works here.  The more 'successful'
|>|>he is at his job (reflectd in higher pay) the more he is penalized at
|>|>divorce time through support.
|>| 
|>|Just another note... The more 'successful' the custodial parent is at
|>|his/her job (reflected in being awarded custody) the more he/she is
|>|penalized at divorce time (raising a child alone).
|>
|>I'm not sure I agree entirely.  The biggest thing that affects raising 
|>the child alone is the availability and willingness of both parents, not 
|
|I'm a bit confused here, are you saying that the best situation for
|raising a child ----alone---- is with two willing and available parents?
|
|What does alone "mean" to you?

Uh Oh!  I've been caught idly throwing terms about!
My comments pertain to people who have sole or primary physical custody.
Parents that are alone through (for example) death are in a different 
ballpark.

|
|>only to participate, but also to not interfere with the other parent.
|>That goes both ways, as in a non-interfereing CP AND a participating NCP.
|>The lack of either of these hurts the kids.  I'm not sure what it has to do 
|>with the CP being 'successful'.
|>
|>|You know, I'm a custodial parent. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling
|>|that a lot of people think that raising a child (or two) alone is a piece
|>|of cake compared to writing out a support check once a month. It's not.
|>
|>No its not a piece of cake, I stayed home for a year with my daughter, 
|>but there are (for me) those cherrished memories from doing it, that I 
|>wouldn't have if I had been going to work every day.  Everyparent has 
|>their burdens and joys, my comment is for NCPs who have burdens but are 
|>involuntarily excluded from the joys.
|>
|>|I know just as many people who opted to be the non-custodial parent as the
|>|custodial one. Not everybody *wants* to raise children alone. 
|>
|>True - and further not all NCPs desire to stay involved, which is a shame IMO.
|
|This seemed to be the situation where the word "alone" would be appropriate.

You are correct, I agree.

| 
|>|                                                              So please, let's
|>|stop this subtle insinuation that all custodial parents sit in front of the
|>|TV eating BonBons all day while the ex-spouse slaves away to make support
|>|payments. 
|>
|>Generalizations work both ways.  Just the other day (last week) Mass wrote
|>to my employer saying that I owed my ex $66K and to up my child support 
|>withholdings.  Now since my support is direcly removed from my paycheck
|>and my employer cuts her her checks, does this make any sense?  Did Mass
|>do ANY research on the case at all? Or am I automatically the bad guy, 
|
|It sounds like you had to prove yourself innocent.

Yes and I still haven't heard the last of it.  I submitted the records on 
Dec 22 (2 night mail) and if Mass isn't finished with their review by Jan 
15 my witholdings will go up anyway!  Then I suppose I get to go after the 
state for excessive witholdings?!?  That'll be simple won't it.

|
|>because I'm the NCP?  BTW if I had not been able to produce records, the ex
|>could refuse to sign saying that I'ld paid and I could owe that.  Ick!
|>  Generalizations hurt us all, I (for 1) apologize if I've insinuated
|>all CPs are deadbeats, which I may have done because thats my history,
|>its certainly not true.
|
|Generalization is as neccesary as breathing, and it is a good starting
|point. The problem is when it becomes a stopping point rather than a starting
|point. What is the difference between a child asking 'why', in response to
|every children and an older child or adult? The experience which allows one
|to categorize and generalize and extract order from the chaos around us.
|

I suppose.

| 
|>|           Support is based on *ability* to pay. It would be pretty ridiculous
|>|to have the parent who makes the least money (and often spends the most time
|>|with the child) pay a higher % of his/her income than the wealthier parent.
|>| 
|>|Diane
|>
|>Agreed.  Each according to their abilities and strengths.  
|
|This sounds like communism.  :^)
|

Well, your average happy household is kind'a run that way.  Somebody earns 
money, somebody washes the dishes, and the kids need new roller skates and
a bandaid from the last skates.