From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Reproductive Technologies... (was: Re: Father Notification...)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:33:35 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1gie2pINN1q2@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bz7L6y.4Ep@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>For the bulk of human history 'mothering' children has had to do with
>supporting children.  Now, I'd agree with you that the tender years
>doctrine is crap, and that the social dinosour that only men bring home
>the bacon is likewise crap.

So why not apply some affirmative action to this problem, as feminists are
wont to do in the work arena?

Does >that< proposal meet with your support?  

>I don't think that translates into your claim that society expects men
>to support their children, but doesn't expect women to.  Society as every
>expectation that women will feed and house children when it awards them
>custody.  In many cases, society expects a man to help pay for that food
>and housing, but absent the man, it STILL expects it of women.

Unless she decides to adopt the kid out, in which case she doesn't have to
support anyone.

Just try >that< unilaterally as a man and find out how far it gets you.

>>the woman was the only one qualified to >mother< the child, the man got to
>>support her in the bargain -- like it or not.
>
>horseshit.
>
>there is such a thing as alimony, which provides for the 'support' of a 
>woman.  (OR of a man -- depends upon whom alimony is awarded to at the
>dissolution of a relationship).
>
>Child support, on the other hand, for the support of children, and is
>separate and distinct from alimony.

Right.  So why does there have to be no accounting provided of how the money
was spent?

>>The way this was and is effectuated is to provide, under penalty of law,
>>transfer payments from >men< to >women< purportedly for the children's
>>benefit.
>
>Horseshit again.
>
>It provides for transfer payments from NONcustodial parents to custodial
>parents, and it doesn't require accounting, whether the custodial parent
>is male or female.

But why not Adreienne?

Why should a woman (women are the recipient of 90% of the "child support"
money in this country) be able to receive payments from men, supposedly for
the care of a child, and not have to answer for where the money goes?

In EVERY other case under the law a custodian of funds for a third party has
a fiduciary responsibility to keep track of and account for every thin dime
that is spent for the beneficiary of those funds.  

IF the receipient of the child support funds were a custodian, and IF those
funds were exclusively for the child's support (as you claim they are) then
why would not the normal fidicuary responsibility apply and record-keeping
(and reasonable examination to prevent fraud) be necessary?

Does this have, perchance, anything to do with the fact that child support
is only for the child in name most of the time?

Does anyone actually believe that it costs $1,000.00 a month ABOVE AND
BEYOND a single parent's living expenses to raise a kid averaged over 18
years?

Does anyone believe it costs TWICE that?

If you say "yes" then why not itemize?  If so, and if the expense is real,
there is no problem proving it is there?  EVERY OTHER FINANCIAL CUSTODIAN
MUST DO THIS.  Why are women (in the extreme majority) exempt on this one?

>>those funds, as to just where and on what they were spent, a logical person
>>would conclude that the funds were really transferred for the benefit of the 
>>>mother<, not the child.
>
>A logical person would not necessarily conclude this, Karl.  Armed with the
>facts, a logical person would conclude that the law is gender blind, but
>the application of the law is not.

Wrong.  Since child support is the only financial "custodian" arrangement 
which does not require record keeping, a reasonable person would conclude 
that it is not a custodian arrangement at all.  Therefore, it is not paid 
for the child directly, but rather to the woman (90% of the time) and she 
>might< spend it on the kid(s).

>>Every generally accepted principle in accounting and law says that if you
>>are the custodian of a thing, and that thing (or person) requires upkeep,
>>you must keep records to substantiate that the funds you receive and spend
>>for that upkeep are really spent on what they should be and are not
>>converted to your own personal benefit and use.
>
>And horseshit for a third time.
>
>This is true when we are talking of a corporation, who has fiduciary duties
>to shareholders and/or must account for expenditures when claiming exemptions
>for business expenses.  It holds true where multiple interests have reason
>to concern themselves with the finances of a public trust.
>
>It does not hold true in personal finances, and never has.  The "sole" 
>exception is hardly child support -- the exception is ALL personal finances.
>
>These arguments are sieves.

Nonsense.

If I am a >legal< custodian of someone else's funds, personal or otherwise,
and am being directed to do so by a court (which is EXACTLY what a CP/NCP
relationship is) then I am required to keep detailed records.  PERIOD. 

Do not obfuscate the issue by claiming that "personal" finances are exempt.
Once you land in court your finances aren't personal any longer.

What you declined to mention here is that there ARE multiple interests in 
this case.  Namely the man (90% of the time) >AND THE CHILD<.  (Or is it 
that the only "interest" here is mom?)

That child ought to have access to those records at age 18.  IF the woman 
screws her kid out of >HIS OR HER< child support, which was paid by the 
NCP (and the other half that she was supposed to contribute) that child
should be able to sue to recover based on breach of fiduciary responsibility
at age 18.

Now THAT is an idea I like.

Note that I have no problem with applying it to men when they're the
custodial parent as well.  I've no trouble at all with taking on the 
responsibility of keeping proper records when someone else gives me money 
to manage for a third party. 

Perhaps that's because I have no intent of converting those funds to my 
own use in contravention of both my personal ethics and honest
representation.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:5827 soc.men:21038 alt.feminism:5920