From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:31:33 GMT

<1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><1993Jan4.170957.8804@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>><1993Jan4.065757.6405@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>><1993Jan4.012311.17983@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes...

>>>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a
>>>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>>>of THEIR precious funds.
>>>> 
>>>> So, what is so WRONG with this, Susan?  After all, child support was only
>>>> INTENDED for "support" with respect to basic necessities, not bicycles,
>>>> ponies, and indeed, not even *college*.  These *are* all considered
>>>> privileges and luxuries, and I have no problem with Don or Alan believing
>>>> this way.  The fact that they DO feel this way, does NOT indicate any
>>>> resentment of women, and I rather take some umbrage at your attempt to
>>>> label these men in such a fashion.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but you really blew this one.  The MAIN reason for child support is
>>>to try to approximate that the child does not suffer a huge change (for the
>>>worse) in lifestyle due to the divorce.  THis means if the child was 
>>>provided a certain standard of living before the divorce, it should not
>>>then be dumped into total poverty after the divorce.  Evidently you really
>>>don't understand the logic behind child-support payments.
>>>Perhaps you should read about the recent court case where the millionaire
>>>father was forced to pay the court ordered HUGE amounts of child support,
>>>even though the mother had a very nice income, because the court said that
>>>the money had been provided the child before the divorce, it must still be
>>>provided after the divorce.
>>>Please note: I do think the child was living a totally ridiculous lifestyle..

>>>> If you want your daughter to have a pony or a bicycle, or to go to college,
>>>> what is so wrong with putting your nose to the grindstone and doing it
>>>> yourself?

[...]

>> 	Sorry but *you* blew this one.  This attitude is probably
>> 	the main reason that you experience resistance on this
>> 	newsgroup.
>> 
>
>The ONLY resistance in this group is from you and The Beav, most of the
>rest of the group are VERY supportive.  
>
>Once again, if the father provided a very nice lifestyle before the divorce,
>it is extremely unfair to the child(ren) for him to withhold assigned child
>support at the expense of the child to support his own affluent lifestyle.
>That is the issue, the *ONLY* issue that I have been trying to discuss.
>YOU and The Beav keep trying to cloud the issue.  And that is the ONLY thing
>that Lisa has been trying to discuss.

I can quite frankly accept that it was the ONLY thing that Lisa herself
wanted to discuss, but Lisa's borderline boyfriend, her father, and
Sue Bishop have been loudly trying to justify using child support payments
for ponies and Florida trips.

Sue Bishop, especially after Anne Mitchell's pretty accurate description 
of the crossed channels in this discussion, has been the only one who
persistently clouds the issues with straw men, personal insults, 
unidentified "lurker" grass-roots support, and rather inconsistent 
recourse to the "fairness" of whatever a court may order.


>Child support is figured on an income basis.  That's the law.  I posted
>the information used as calculations here in Ohio.  They are very fair.
>
>> 	If *I* earned $1 million per year, I can't imagine spending
>> 	huge amounts on my kid(s).  I wouldn't want to, and no one
>> 	would make me.  It is hard for me to believe that you would
>> 	believe a kid would not be living a rediculous life style
>> 	being awarded a huge support order.  Of course a person
>> 	who believes that every kid should have a pony might.
>
>Sigh, would you PLEASE get off the pony.

>Well, I am sincerely in favor of the child being provided a reasonable
>lifestyle.  I DID go on record for saying that I thought the lifestyle
>provided by the millionaire father was absolutely ridiculous, and I think
>that children should not be given such ridiculous amounts of money.  
>However, the court did so state ...

>>>Well, some women don't have the skills or the training to do so.  And, why
>>>are you so dead set against the father contributing his fair share?
>> 
>> 	Maybe because he thinks that  $1/3 million dollars is a bit
>> 	more than a fair share.
>
>Just depends on the court's point of view.  Besides, the point that was
>actually under discussion was whether child support should provide more
>than a minimal amount of support.


Apparently, when the "court's point of view" agrees with yours --
namely, ordering child support for ponies and Florida condos --
then it's okay to go beyond a "minimal amount of support." 

But when the "court's point of view" orders a man to pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars per year in child support, then you "go on the
record" to say it's ridiculous (though you notably objected to the
*child* getting the money, not the mother).

For a middle-class NCP, over the course of eighteen years, 
the total child support money including ponies, Florida condos, 
or the *gasp* college savings that *you* personally refuse to give 
to *your* children (seems not to be a necessity in your view) 
amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Are you in favor of court-ordered luxuries, or do you feel entitled
to reject just the ones that *you* happen to disagree with?  

On the record, Sue.  Just what are your principles?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged