From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 15:35:26 GMT

news@mont.cs.missouri.edu
<168CEB513.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>

|In article <1992Dec31.142336.486@ll.mit.edu>
|x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave) writes:
| 
|>  Suppose both man and women have engineering degrees (lets say 2 BSs).
|>The happy couple decides that she will stay home raising kids, and he'll
|>go merrily to his place of employment every day.  Things turn sour - they
|>divorce.  Do you think he should be obliged to pay 100% as she was not
|>gainfully employed at the time of divorce, or do you believe she should be
|>held 'available for work' because of her degree, and have imputed income?
| 
|Since they *both* agreed that she should stay home with the kiddies, and
|since, if she is not working she doesn't have any income, I think that
|the subject of her share of the support is moot until she has a job- and
|yes, if it were up to me, she should find a job.
| 
|>  Just a note on the way the system works here.  The more 'successful'
|>he is at his job (reflectd in higher pay) the more he is penalized at
|>divorce time through support.
| 
|Just another note... The more 'successful' the custodial parent is at
|his/her job (reflected in being awarded custody) the more he/she is
|penalized at divorce time (raising a child alone).

I'm not sure I agree entirely.  The biggest thing that affects raising 
the child alone is the availability and willingness of both parents, not 
only to participate, but also to not interfere with the other parent.
That goes both ways, as in a non-interfereing CP AND a participating NCP.
The lack of either of these hurts the kids.  I'm not sure what it has to do 
with the CP being 'successful'.

|You know, I'm a custodial parent. I'm getting the uncomfortable feeling
|that a lot of people think that raising a child (or two) alone is a piece
|of cake compared to writing out a support check once a month. It's not.

No its not a piece of cake, I stayed home for a year with my daughter, 
but there are (for me) those cherrished memories from doing it, that I 
wouldn't have if I had been going to work every day.  Everyparent has 
their burdens and joys, my comment is for NCPs who have burdens but are 
involuntarily excluded from the joys.

|I know just as many people who opted to be the non-custodial parent as the
|custodial one. Not everybody *wants* to raise children alone. 

True - and further not all NCPs desire to stay involved, which is a shame IMO.

|                                                              So please, let's
|stop this subtle insinuation that all custodial parents sit in front of the
|TV eating BonBons all day while the ex-spouse slaves away to make support
|payments. 

Generalizations work both ways.  Just the other day (last week) Mass wrote
to my employer saying that I owed my ex $66K and to up my child support 
withholdings.  Now since my support is direcly removed from my paycheck
and my employer cuts her her checks, does this make any sense?  Did Mass
do ANY research on the case at all? Or am I automatically the bad guy, 
because I'm the NCP?  BTW if I had not been able to produce records, the ex
could refuse to sign saying that I'ld paid and I could owe that.  Ick!
  Generalizations hurt us all, I (for 1) apologize if I've insinuated
all CPs are deadbeats, which I may have done because thats my history,
its certainly not true.

|           Support is based on *ability* to pay. It would be pretty ridiculous
|to have the parent who makes the least money (and often spends the most time
|with the child) pay a higher % of his/her income than the wealthier parent.
| 
|Diane

Agreed.  Each according to their abilities and strengths.  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism