From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
Date: 11 Jan 93 22:49:44 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:

>  I'll try again. Irreconciable differences mean the two can no longer get 
> along and will never be able to settle things, the state is involved between
> two people who don't get along, children or no children. My concern with
> the 'no-fault' practice of dissolusionment is that in cases involving 
> children, the state has systematically placed the burden on men. They
> discourage joint physical custody, create guidelines that in principal
> and practice discriminate against the NCP by placing the burden of maintainin
> the childrens standard of living on the NCP (usually men) and then 
> proclaim that irreconcilable differences and their consequences be shouldered
> primarily by one of the parties. 

Ok, I get what you're saying. We may be on the same wavelength, but to
make sure:

Because my views are unaligned with the current methods of divorce, sup-
port, and custody as practiced, I'm opining and what-ifing at the same
time. I don't believe that a divorce needs to imply guilt. Sure, argument
(disagreement, whatever) is the basis for divorce, but I don't think it
has to be the METHOD of divorce.

On the whole, I envision a much more pragmatic solution, and one which
has no winners or losers.

>  How difficult of a "choice" is their in divorce proceedings when the
> person claiming irreconcilable differences is assured of a home, the children
> and a preservation in standard of living? 

Which is exactly my point, Jon. As it is today, the common approach is
like the song: "She got the goldmine and I got the shaft." I guess I
said it quickly, but I did say that a divorce should be "no-fault." If
either or both parties want out, they should be able to go down to the
courthouse and get an unmarriage license.

If the marriage brought children, then the requisite would exist for 
joint physical custody, with each parent paying their share when the
child/ren were with them. IF that was not possible, and it would be
necessary to demonstrate why, then the children would live with a
CP. The support ordered would be set according to specific needs of
that family --given a wide number of indicators, instead of some
unrealistic table based on income, or some even more unrealistic
expectation based in lame views like those advanced by Wallerstein.
So, my scenario defaults to NO support transfer payments, and failing
that, then general economic needs of the kids for an 'average' life-
style would be generated by the court, sliced in half, and there would
be the support bill. Garnisheements, tax refund diversions and all of
the other tricks-of-the-trade would only be invoked on failure to pay
if and only if the reason for non-payment wasn't economic hardship,
but obstinance or vindiction.

Visitation would be enforced, and according to the same standards of
support. 

>  I agree the state should not be giving permission for people to seperate
> and divorce. They also shouldn't be allowed to reduce me to a rich uncle
> where once there was a father, they shouldn't be impoverishing me so that
> my children would retain a standard of living before momma made her 
> descision (with or without state's permission) to replace me. The
> state shouldn't assume that all men wouldn't pay child support by 
> automatically garnishing wages, unless of course the amount is so excessive,
> no man would give up 70% of his income to the state and her without a
> fire fight. The state should never presume that 'irreconcilable differences"
> as stated by the petitioner should translate to a man losing his children, ho
> and income for years to come. 

I have no argument with this, and never have had one. Nobody or no thing
should be able to interfere in a parent's relationship with their kid/s.
(I hasten to add "absent a clear and undisputable harm.") False accusation
of impropriety should not be viewed as "going with the territory" as it
often seems to be these days. Instead, in the same way as someone who
tries to shoot someone, but the gun failed to fire is still guilty of
assault with a deadly weapon, an attempt to jail or rob a parent of their
child should be viewed and dealt with similarly. Put the false accuser
in jail for 7-15 years. Crime is crime. Likewise though, treat an NCP 
who skirts the system as someone who knowingly neglects their child by
refusing support. (I believe that if we approached divorce in the vein
I envision, that the number of non-payers would drop like a brick. I'm
referring here to the surveys and studies which amply show that NCPs
with close and non-restrictive contact with their kids usually pay all
assessed, and on time.)

>  I have a moral problem with the total hands off approach to divorce by
> accepting irreconcilable differences and at the same time making the burden
> of accepting the consequences of divorce a court mandated by legislating
> guideline ultimatums, garnishment without due-process, extreme child
> support amounts, automatic child support cost of living increases. It
> used to be, "I don't like you any more, I'm moving out." Now it is, I
> don't like you any more so I'm going to take you for everything I can 
> get". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the consequences of
> those who get their cake and eat it too. You run into them at 
> the grocery counter too.

I have the same problem, Jon. I think our wavelengths are very similar.
The big difference is that I hate stereotypes. I don't like being a
"Deadbeat Dad" because I'm an NCP. I didn't --and still don't-- like
the fact that I was treated WORSE than most criminals are simply because
my ex made it impossible for our marriage to continue. It stunk then,
and it still stinks now. Anyway, to use stereotypical language defeats
equity, so I balk when I hear people use the term "feminist" as much
as I do "deadbeat dad." It's simply counter-productive. In my own op-
inion, I think we can effect change a lot faster with facts than we
can labels --just as I get irritated by the inuendo contained in the
generalization 'deadbeat,' I am willing to bet that there are quite a
few feminists whose idea of feminism is HONEST equity get irritated
by making the word a disparagement. Why should we offend those who
might be allies? The people who manifest what Rush Limbaugh named the
Feminazis aren't likely to give a hoot what we have to say, so getting
involved in argument with them is a waste of time and energy.

Is my position clearer?

>  I have irreconcilable differences with people who believe in so-called
> fairness. I like to point it out.

I'm sorry to hear that. I have them with people who generalize and stereo-
type --because I believe in fairness.

>  I'll grant you and Lisa that not all CPs are winners. It's just that
> the no-fault system has led to a lot of divorces and a system that
> pins the financial responsibility on one of the parties. In two income
> families where both parties earn equal amounts, the current law incourages
> irreconcilable divorces, if you catch my drift.

Sure I do. But 'fault' states attach a much greater stigma. Mental
Cruelty, Infidelity, Abandonment --all of these are nice phrases, but
they usually hide something a lot simpler: that the marriage was toast
in the first place. My ex had affairs, and it caused our relationship
to die. The bottom line was, that our marriage was irretrievably broken.
To get into graphic detail would have only enhanced the painful quality
of the proceedings --which were bad enough on their own. So mainstream
marrital breakups manifest a large number of things, all of which have
categorical titles --but in the majority of cases, we find that the
Mental Cruelty, Infidelity, and Abandonments we symptoms of a collapsed
relationship. Why blame the divorce on a symptom? Instead, just let
people out of the marriage, and get on with life in the way that best
suits all involved. If divorce were a more pragmatic affair (no pun)
and stupid "he did -- she did" stuff gets discarded in favor of valid
solution to the problems, I think we'd see an awful lot less of the
kind of stuff we experience or read about.

> Marriage does require state involvement Bob. That is why in this day
> and age, males should be duly forewarned. It is much wiser to stay single
> than it is to get married today. It is the wise man who gets a vasectomy
> as a single young man today. These truths are illustrated by our 
> law practices in the good ol' USofA.

Well, I can't argue with that in a lot of ways, nor do I choose to.
The proof of that pudding is in the eating, and too many of us have
food poisoning from it.

Perhaps if we had a system which blew away the arguments --at least as
far as the kids are concerned, then just maybe everyone's lot in div-
orce would improve. As I said before, too many people approach divorce
as a means to their idea of justice. There isn't any justice there and
neither should there be. Only an ending to a bad situation. Today, we
have the ending of one bad situation, and the creation of one that's
a lot worse. We need to change it. We need to make it fair for all
'sides.'

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