From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:24:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In Message-ID: <1992Sep13.064525.20969@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>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?

   Because CPs are saints and we NCPs are scum by definition.
My X2B is already complaining that the CS leaves her without enough
money to pay for my son's preschool, but she has enough to afford a
new hairdo and new clothes for herself even though the CS is supposedly
her only source of income.

>Many non-custodial parents earn enough money to support their children 
>without any additional source of income.  I'm one of those.  

   Same here.  Plus, my X2B has earning potential approximately equal to
mine as demonstrated by the fact that our salaries were essentially
the same when she was working full time.  

   Will the court 'impute' this earning capacity to her?  Yeah, right.

>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.

   The court won't even listen to any argument that I might be the
better provider and I feel I can make a convincing case.  My X2B had
been working a part-time low wage job ( she wouldn't get a real job )
about 20 hours a week.  I was paying all the bills and she got to spend
all she earned on herself.  Plus I was taking care of the kids all
weekend, EVERY weekend.  So what happens?  The week before we go into
court she quits and tells the court she has no income.  The judge smiles,
says he can't order her to work but orders me to move out within the
week. ( We had been living separately within the same home because
we were barely getting along on my paycheck and she contributed
nothing to the household expenses. )  

   I wanted to reach an agreement regarding selling the house before 
splitting because there just wasn't enough income to support 2 households. 
But she just refuses to exercise any financial prudence. 

   So I have to move out, continue to pay the mortgage, pay child
support, pay rent that almost equals my mortgage plus pay a second
set of utility bills.  Remember, we were barely getting by on my
paycheck with only one household to support before.  

>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?"??????

   You know it's the latter.  Otherwise we'd both be living at home with 
our kids and the Xs would be forced to grow up and take responsibility
for their own lives.

   I knew going into court that the system was biased against fathers
but was surprised that they don't even trouble to hide it.  My X2B asked
that my visitation be reduced to the 'standard' alternating weekends
despite the fact that we had a prior agreement and despite the fact that
I cared for them every weekend before being forced out of my own home.

   When we objected the judge simply stated, 'I don't give any more than
that'. Period, end of discussion.  No consideration of prior history,
no consideration even of what the children want or what might be in
their interest, just the peremptory rubber-stamp.

   What will it take for us to get equal treatment before the law?

                                       Gerry Murphy
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2202 alt.child-support:3057 soc.men:16022 soc.women:16213 misc.kids:22631