From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:45:25 GMT

>Child support is for the kids, not the ex-spouse. At least, that's the
>theory. Granted that in practice it can work out differently, but that's
>not what this conversation is about.
>
>--- 
>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 

Well, then let's make it what this conversation is about....

Yeah, Bob - that's the way it's supposed to work.  Funny thing.  I just
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.

Yeah, it's for the kids, alright.

One of the calculation methodologies used in "income shares" based
child support calculations is called "The Rothbarth Methodology."  I
don't know much about this, other than that it included many "costs"
which seemed very extraneous to say the least - and had nothing to do
with the support of children.  Apparently the cost of cigarettes and
alcohol were included as costs for raising children.

My oldest four-year-old drinks a six pack a day now, so he's going
through about $4.00 a day to support his habit (he has mediocre tastes),
while my youngest four-year-old smokes two packs of Lucky Strike
filterless a day.  About the same $4.00.  Pretty expensive over a year's
time.

But seriously, much of the child support guidelines calculations is
logically flawed when taken to its end.  For example, as Jon Wood
pointed out, we are all paying mucho denero for housing for our children
- it's a major part of our child support obligation.  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.
Some live with others and some end up on the streets.  But the court
tells us that this money is not for our ex-spouses, it is for the
children.  So, when you take that statement to its logical extreme, 
the children should reap the benefits of their share of the equity of
their homes that were paid off with their child support.  What's that?
They don't get the return on the investment of their child support in
their homes?  Hummm....  Why not?  It's supposedly their share of the
money.  You mean custodial parents get to reap any and all returns on
the investment of child support in providing homes for the children.

Yes, child support is "supposed" to be for the children, but who
verifies that it ever does go to the children.  Do custodial parents
ever provide proof of the expenditures on the children?  Are they ever
required to?  Why or why not?

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
increases due to my increased earning capacity, inflation, higher
government guidelines - whatever.  It also doesn't include the $15,000
I've paid so far.  So, if my ex- can somehow scrape by and save half of
that money over the next 15 years, is that her money or is it the
children's money?  What if she remarries and, because of that additional
income, she is able to save all the child support money.  When my
children are emancipated, is it her's?

I think that you honestly have to tell yourself that the way the law is
written (or unwritten), yes, she would be able to keep it - all of it.

I guess it brings up several important questions.  Is it child support
or is it alimony in the guise of child support?  Many non-custodial
parents earn enough money to support their children without any
additional source of income.  I'm one of those.  (Oh, and I'm not a
"non-custodial parent" by law in Ohio, I'm considered a non-residential
parent with a shared parenting agreement in the works - but let's not
be picky - she has the kids most of the time and I pay.)  Why not
acknowledge all the hard work I've done in my life to get to this
point, give me some credit for doing my homework, for graduating with a
3.85 GPA, for majoring in electrical engineering, and simply admit that
I am the better provider?  So, if I am the better provider, why not let
me have the kids?  I wouldn't want her child support money.  She barely
makes enough to provide for herself.  And that's the whole point.  Why
does she have the children if she can't provide for them?  If I wasn't
in the picture, YOU - all of YOU - would be paying for HER children.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  A man recently told me that one of his tenants had blown him off
on the rent this month - claiming that she hadn't received her child
support check.  Why can't she earn enough money to pay her rent without
someone else's check?  And if she can't support herself and a gaggle of
children, why is she the custodial parent of those children?

Which physiological component of a mother's being makes her the default
custodial parent?  Ovaries?  I'm serious.  I want to know why women have
custody of the children in 85% of the single parent homes in the US?
Does the court honestly evaluate real parenting skills that contribute
to social order, academic achievement and happiness?  Or do they blindly
ask, "Which one of you is the woman?"??????

If the court awarded NO child support, if child support was made
illegal, an unconstitutional infringement on the liberties of the
individual, would women still insist that they get the children 85% of
the time?   How about this?  Suppose the court awarded custody shares
based on income.  If one parent makes 81% of the total family income,
that parent gets the children 81% of the time.  And, of course, no child
support is paid by either parent.  Is that fair?  Why or why not?  If it
is not fair, does your reasoning have anything to do with ovaries?
Newsgroups: alt.child-support