From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,fido.heartland
Subject: Governmental Invasion
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:36:15 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

Janice Marquardt is the 20 year old daughter of Anne and Don. She is
attending college in Seattle. In order to go to school, she has a
part-time job, gets a Pell Grant, and has other grants which, all in
concert pay the bills for tuition and books. She lives at home.

Denise Willimott is the 20 year old daughter of Anita and Gerry. She
attends college in Seattle. Her father pays 1210 dollars a month so
she may pay tuition, buy books, and live at home. Denise has no job.

Don and Anne Marquardt have been married for 22 years. Don made a 
good wage as a civil engineer, and is now retired. He and his wife
live in a modest home, valued at about $160,000, and have nearly
$2500 per month in disposable income from the IRAs and other retir-
ment funds Don and Anne (a school teacher) amassed before they each
retired.

Anita and Gerry are divorced, and have been since 1981. Immediately
after the divorce, Anita remarried. Gerry manages a fast-food rest-
aurant he bought a franchise for 9 years ago. He makes approximately
$2800 per month. Anita has never worked, but her (second) husband,
who owns and operates an automobile dealership, makes approximately
$3700 per month. Denise lives with Anita and her new husband. They
live in a home valued at $190,000. Gerry lives in an apartment, he
pays approximately $550 per month in rent. Anita and her husband
have $3200 per month disposable income, and Gerry has $2300.

Gerry loves his daughter very much. The 14,500 dollars a year he
gives her for school and expenses "goes to a good cause," says he.
He also says that he wishes his daughter had a better understanding
of money and responsibility, and wishes that she would use some of
her spare time working. It seems a little odd that a man who would
prefer his child had a job would give her so much much money, making
it unnecessary for her to work. Fourteen thousand bucks is a lot of
money for a twenty year old.

This is a picture of some of the diversity of the nation we call ours.
In the sixties, one might have said "different strokes for different
folks." Everyone has choice in what they do and how they do it.

Or do they?

Gerry pays the money to Denise as child-support. His ex-wife went to
King County family law court and had Gerry's child support extended 
to his daughter's 22nd birthday. Not only did she get the payment 
period extended from 18 to 22, she got it raised from the $820 dollars
Gerry used to pay, to the new $1210 figure.

Why is it that one family can have the latitude of deciding what they
will contribute to their child's higher education, yet another family
won't? The answer is Law. Law which reaches into some of +the+ most
personal economic decisions a family makes about what luxuries they
need to give to their child.

Is a college education a luxury? Yes, it is --at least when it's con-
scripted. As the two girl's stories exemplify, it's entirely possible
to attend a college and not be granted the liberal funding required
by child support requirements.

Denise and Janice attend the same college, and attend the same classes.
Their majors, and even their minors are the same. They started school
on the same day, and barring changes, they'll graduate on the same day
too.

By the way, these are real people. The names I've giben them here are
ficticious, but the people, the economic figures, and circumstances
are all true.

As true as the intrusion of government into what should be a private
decision.

Government is allowed to do much in the name of higher purpose. Those
in our society who hear of this higher purpose are likely to cheer it
on as they hear the words of those who institute these invasions. Yes,
it's laudable that a child can have a more greatly assured future by
attending a college. No, it isn't laudable that one of the parents,
and one who has no say in the direction of their child, should be made
to foot the bill when other alternatives are readily available.

We don't hear about the many, many honest non-custodial parents who
are going to foot what could be argued as an unnecessary expense. No,
instead we are mustered under the banner of draconian treatment of the
deadbeat dad. We aren't privvy to the pain inflicted on the honest and
contributory non-custodial mothers and fathers who aren't going to be
able to retire on anything besides a quickly evaporating Social Security
system.

We don't hear about people like Gerry, who at age 58 are living on just
under $1200 a month, or the other men and women like him. People who're
earning enough to be considered in the low-middle class, but live just
slightly above the poverty line.

"It's a war," said one recent political figure while referring to the
amount of unpaid support. He must be right. Look at the number of those
who have nothing to do with the problem who have to pay for it.

The government is always going to have plenty of fodder for the rhetoric
machine; that device which pumps out jusification for hundreds of the
intrusions we take for granted as a necessary part of social reform.
As the government continues to set standards for child-rearing costs
based upon "wish-list" figures, with a 10% increase as a safety factor,
there is little hope that non-custodial parents will be able to meet
the requirements. This justifies even greater intrusion, and more of
the dramatic uses of force to coerce compliance. Sadly, it's all based
on fallacy, a fiction hidden by the higher purpose our government is
aspiring to.

Government is invasive. There's no doubt about it. At times it's a
necessary thing. Close inspection will show that the occasions for the
intrusion are fewer than we've become accustomed to. Our system of law
is there to 'protect' society. But it fails miserably when it must
cause the emergence of more victims than the numbers of those it seeks
to protect.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA