From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 14 Sep 92 07:32:32 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

gayle@disk.uucp (Gayle) writes:

> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> 
> >got off the phone with a guy who was talking with a woman about going
> >out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
> >bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that maybe all of the money SHE could have earned
> could have been spent on food, medicene, diapers or ANYTHING for the kids?
> That she has evidently used all her resources to provide for the kids while
> the father was obviously negligent in sending support?

Why does it have to be negligence? Maybe all that meant was that she had
to wait a couple of days for the due date. C'mon Gayle, you sound a bit 
like the other end of the spectrum. Maybe a little middle groud would do
everyone some good.

> >with the support of children.  Apparently the cost of cigarettes and
> >alcohol were included as costs for raising children.
> 
> Does it really matter? If the amount of money for ciggarettes or coke (?)
> provides her happiness (?), isn't that worth the small amount it would take
> to make her a happier person then maybe a happier mother? I know, it's grasp-
> ing, but I'm so sick of men fussing about money, are your kids not worth it?
> If a woman is not able t support herself currently do you think it wouldn't
> bother her (of course I can't speak for everyone), but the kids must come fir
> If a woman is not trained in a field where she can earn higher wages, then ho
> can she possibly earn enough to cover all expenses when SHE works. Would you
> fuss if you were responsible for daycare while she did work, or would you rat
> pay for the other items?

Sure it matters. If the money was being spent on household goods --laundy,
cleaning supplies, more rent --that sort of thing, that would be fine. But
the point Aaron is making is that when parents divorce, they, well, they
divorce. Ex-hubby shouldn't be buying smokes and drinks for mom and mom
shouldn't be buying them for him. That's what divorce is all about. The
only interface that should remain after divorce is mutual support and care
for the children of the marriage.

>  My one question, how can men fuss soooo much for paying, when they say they
> care for the child so much? Seems rather contradictive to me. Money IS a fact
> of life, but it seems to me (from personal exp. again I can't judge for every
> want to, whether or not it affects the children. 

Pardon me, but that was a cheap (and pretty innaccurate) shot. I bitch about
the money while I:

fund and coach the little league team
fund and den lead the cub scouts
attend all school meetings
participate in the dance, gym, swimming, basketball and volleyball teams
drive the kids every which way to get them where they need to go
do volunteer time in the class rooms

My kids think I'm pretty good as dads go, and my ex-wife got caught saying
that even though divorced, I was the one person in life she could depend
on to stick by the kids --in addition to herself.

Now tell me, how is it I can't possibly care about my kids because I bitch
about the money? I know a fair number of dads in the same boat I am.

> > Our children have
> >to have a place to live.  But they tell us, as non-custodial parents,
> >that we owe our children a place to live that is not our home:  that is
> >not something we tell intact families - they aren't even legally
> >obligated to have a home.  Sure, they want to, but some can't afford it.
> 
> Because it seems in a divorce, if you dont point out EVERYTHING a man HAS to
> do, they'll weasel out of it. Don't you want your children to have a home?
> If they can't receive the best emotional nurturing, etc .. from you then you
> would just as soon they not have a home? Intact families usually don't HAVE
> to be told anything, they can decide that on their own. 

Look at this. How can you say that? I'm going to take this slam personally,
because it not only isn't true, but it isn't true of many, many men. It
sounds to me like you have some bitterness in you that causes you to adhere
or even multiply the stereotype that's so much in fashion these days. Shame
on you. How would you feel if I was saying that all women have no ability
to reason, and only take care of the kids because they want to prove they
can do SOMETHING? You'd be pretty annoyed. Well, that's what you're doing
in your own right against men. Some of us guys aren't model citizens. But
as with many things, the negative gets all the attention and the majority
good things get forgotten.

When was the last time you heard a newscast that was 90% good stuff and
only 10% bummer? See what I mean? Lots of us are pretty reasonable and
caring people, and we don't need to get shelved with the ones who aren't,
just because someone had a bad experience, and was able to hear it repeated 
for someone else on the nightly news.

> >Based on my current child support payments, I will pay $187,000 in
> >child support over the next 15 years.  That figure doesn't include
> 
> Isn't this probably lower than the amount you would pay were you still
> married? I mean, vacations, toys, etc ... ?
> But you're just fussing because YOU aren't getting it?

Oddly enough, no it isn't. It is, on the average some 20% more. At least
in my case I can say that. What makes me say that? My ex-wife. She was
pointing out the other day that divorce has driven up the cost of child
rearing for both of us.

Aaron only spoke of paid support. But stop and think about the 'NCP'
needing to pay for a home suitable for the kids to 'visit' in. I have 
my kids for 120 days of each year. Since I have 3 kids (four with my
step-daughter) and each are old enough, that means a house with rooms
for each. Five bedrooms isn't cheap. I know it, my ex knows it. Don't
you?

> Well, *I* have had the same problem. *I* was unable to pay my rent due to
> the fact that I have not received child support. *I* cannot work outside
> the home now because my youngest child (10 months) has medical problems.
> YET, MY ex refuses to pay all the back "maintenance" he owes because he
> feels I should go out and work. Due to the fact that I lost a son last year,
> and my youngest now is having medical problems _ I trust no one with him, and
> would be unable to afford the care for him while I did work. This medical
> problem, fingers crossed, should be "conquered" within the next 6 months, but
> it seems my ex just doesn't care what happens NOW. Well, I want my son to
> LIVE. Why doesnt HE (ex) seem to think of that also, instead of the money.
> Yet he says he "loves" the kids. Though not once in the past 8 months has he
> inquired to his well being, doesnt even look at him when were in court.
> This is fatherly love? If so, then this is the exact reason these kids are
> better off with the mother.

It sounds like you have good reason to dislike the man, but no good reason
to dislike men. I'm sorry when anybody loses someone they love. I can also
understand that they might want to attach blame when it happens. You might
ask yourself is that's what you're doing. As someone uninvolved who deals
with circumstances like this on a daily basis, I'll say it sounds pretty
much like it from your post. But that's as far as I'll go.

I hope things improve for you.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women