From: dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:36:10 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>We cannot simply throw government agencies at moral/family problems.
>It has never worked, it isn't working now, and it won't work
>in the future.  More of what doesn't work is *NOT* the answer. 

[...]
>Read what you just wrote!  How many fathers skip on child support
>payments right NOW? (Yes, I know many do so because they don't get
>the visitation they deserve, but let's stick to the scum who walk
>because they don't want to pay).  And these parents are ignoring 
>former wives/lovers and district judges!  Do you think they're 
>going to give a tinker's dam about some brat-kid they were abusing
>anyway?  (Remember, that's why the kid got the divorce to begin with).
>They aren't going to pay squat.  Hillary's idea is not a solution, it's
>craziness.  

We seem to agree implicitly on a speculative point:  There's a strong,
positive correlation between parents who would be delinquent, and those
who are abusive.  (No flames, please; as you note, there may be others
who have legitimate complaints about judgements and circumstances.)
If this is so, then I'd argue that it may be a very worthwhile investment
for the government to pick up the tab where the money can't be recovered
from the parents.  The long term costs to society of having children grow
up in an unhealthy environment are very high indeed.

[...]
>That's what it comes down to.  If you want to make a change, you've 
>got to be willing to put something on the line.  We are trying to use
>government agencies to run interference for us.  They can't.  We cannot
>legislate community.  We cannot legislate morality.  We cannot legislate
>justice.  If you want to stop the violence, it is *YOUR* job to stop it.
>Yours and mine.  Community can be re-built.  It's being done right now
>by groups like the Guardian Angels (read P.J. O'Rourke's "Parliament of
>Whores").  But we have to be willing to make a stand.  You are not just
>making a stand for the neighbor kids - those kids live right next to
>yours.  You are making a stand for your children as well.

Yes, yes, and again, yes.  But how can the community *force* an abusive
parent to stop?  How can they respond when the parent says, "Go away,
it's none of your goddamn business!" ? Who will be the last resort?

>>Why not give
>>the affected and now nearly helpless family members -- the teenagers
>>-- a better chance to help get out of dysfunctional families, rather
>>than relying on the meddlesome government to start the process?

>If this were a better chance, I'd say go for it.  It isn't.  It's a
>non-workable idea freshly painted in dangerous rhetoric.  It creates
>the impression that we don't have to worry about divorced kids,
>because they are "competent" and can - somehow - take care of 
>themselves, with no sweat on our part.  That's a lie.  If we don't
>sweat, we won't like the payback.

Alas, I have to say the same thing in response to your suggestion
that community can solve the problem.  It can't.  Society's structure
today is such that it is very, very difficult to rebuild the community
bonds that we once had.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try; it just
means that we do need to have alternative solutions.  In the meantime,
trying to make the community solve the problem is a non-workable idea
freshly painted in dangerous rhetoric.

By the way, you keep suggesting that I've claimed kids can take care
of themselves.  I've never, ever said that.  I *have* said that in
many cases, they should be allowed to initiate court action.  The end
result of that action would include a determination of what responsible
party *would* take care of the kids.

>>(As an aside, and just to play devil's advocate:  Is it really
>>"government interference" to allow kids to divorce their parents?
>>Then is a *marriage* divorce also a case of government interference ?  And
>>then is *marriage itself* a case of government interference?  In
>>all three cases, the goverment is simply facilitating what the parties
>>themselves have started.)

[...]
>And I have a question for you.  Let's say a 12-year old tries the
>divorce route.  The judge finds the 12-year old competent (congrats to
>the parents for raising a mature kid).  But the judge *also* finds
>the parents competent.  Should the divorce be allowed?  Is this a
>"no-fault" divorce?  Or is it a "for-cause" divorce?  Used to be, 
>couples could only get divorced for cause (e.g. infidelity).  Nowadays, 
>that's not true.  Hillary didn't specify, as far as I know.

>So, look your 12-year old in the eye across the courtroom.  Should
>your child be allowed to divorce you?  Is that child as competent as
>this judge has deemed (the judge has only known the kid a few hours)?
>Whaddayasay?

I'd say I wish somebody had the wisdom of Solomon (the allegorical one,
if not the real one) to solve problems like this.  Clearly in a situation
like this, no matter how "competent" the parents are, *something* went
wrong.  Perhaps the judge and/or counselors, working with the parents
and child, could work out a solution which would allow the child
to return to the parents' home.  But if things were so bad that the child
brought the parents to court (after approval by the counselors and/or
arbitrators I suggested previously), then s/he probably should be given
other options about where to live.

Dan Breslau
dan@codex.com
Disc claimer:  "Hey!  That's my floppy!"

Newsgroups: misc.kids