From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:26:38 GMT
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu> bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>In article <2195@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
>|> 
>|> When it comes to child support, the more he MAKES, the more they TAKE.  Also, 
>|> child support is NOT tax deductible, nor does the 'non-custodial parent' get
>|> the tax deduction for the children.  It doesn't increase the mother's tax 
>|> burden by one cent.
>|> 
>
>If child support is a percentage, not a fixed amount, then it would seem
>that the less a man makes, the less he has to pay. Thus he is free to go
>back to school or otherwise reduce his income to 0 without any worries.

Now THERE'S a perceptive statement.  How exactly does one "reduce his income
to zero *without any worries*"???  Become a carefree, happy vagrant and live in
a cardboard box?  The less a man makes, the less he has to LIVE ON, and if he
is already under a child support order, he will continue to pile up arrears 
unless he can afford a lawyer to go into court and get the order changed.  In
other words he becomes an evil deadbeat dad and subject to imprisonment.  Come 
to think of it, I guess you can live on zero income if you go to jail.

And, since school is NOT "free", he is not "free to go back to school" either.

>|> >Bear in mind that the father is free from a significant part of the total
>|> >costs (time & monetary) of child care.
>|> 
>|> Yes, I am "free" of all the time I used to spend with my kids... "free" from
>|> all those conversations we used to have over dinner, or while I was driving
>|> them to school... "free" from having to tuck them in at night... "free" from
>|> taking them out for halloween or seeing them open their christmas presents...
>|> "free" of hugs and greetings at the door, "free" from wiping up spilled milk,
>|> "free" from all those thousands of moments that make the difference between
>|> life with a family and life without one...  the only thing that I was not
>|> free to do was to TURN DOWN all this "freedom"... in that i had absolutely
>|> no choice... 
>|> 
>|> but naturally, haven been given all this "freedom" that i didn't want, the
>|> state naturally expects that i should pay for it... so i spent the past 
>|> three years living in a 9'x12' room, sharing a bathroom with twenty other
>|> people and cooking on a hot plate, while the state garnishes 35% of my 
>|> gross pay and gives it to my ex who now owns the home that I bought and 
>|> paid for...  sounds like a pretty good deal, eh?
>|> 
>|> personally, i don't give a rat's ass about 'reproductive choice', because i
>|> WANTED kids... i loved having them around... i didn't mind changing diapers
>|> or getting up early to help them get dressed for school... i was a good
>|> father, and i did my best to help them grow up strong and self-confident...
>|> my kids used to have a father, but now they have a visitor...
>|> 
>|> i just don't understand how the family courts can be so vicious and so
>|> ignorant... i can't help but wonder... did they have to take EVERYTHING??
>|> 
>
>So, are you objecting to supporting the children you wanted, or
>just pissed off that their mother left you?

Did you actually read what I wrote before you came up with that snappy comeback?

I object to two things:

1) I object to having been summarily exiled from my children's lives.  I was
   their primary caregiver for most of their lives, and we had a strong and 
   loving relationship.  I was one of those "new fathers" that society is 
   supposed to admire.  But none of that mattered at all in court, and now
   I only get to see my kids for about 6 hours a week, and I have to drive
   120 miles round trip to do that.

2) I object to being impoverished by the necessity of making payments that
   far exceed my FAIR SHARE of support.  The award of child support does 
   not take into account the relative expenditures of the parties.  When I
   got divorced, she got the house (which was already paid for), the new car,
   and all of the furniture.  I got my clothes, my books, and all of the 
   outstanding debts (about $5000).  I have to pay rent (she doesn't), and
   I drive an 11-year-old car with 150,000 miles on it.  I am also 100%
   responsible for any medical expense the children might incur, and that is
   not even included in the 35% of gross income that I have to pay for 
   support.  Also, for about two months last year I was out of work, in that
   blissful state of zero income that you describe above, but my child-support
   obligations did not 'drop to zero' during that time... they just kept on
   piling up, so that now I am about $1500 in arrears.  Yes, that's right... I
   am a "deadbeat dad".  Fortunately the state has generously decided to content
   itself with taking an extra $25 a week out of my pay and seizing my income
   tax returns, rather than sending me to jail or putting me on a wanted poster.     
Incidentally, the mother did not "leave me"... she would have had noplace to
live if she had.  I was the one who had to leave.

I get the distinct impression from the tone of your reply that the inequities
of child custody and child support are just a theoretical issue to you... that
you have never had any actual *experience* of losing your kids or having to
pay exhorbitant and punitive alimony-disguised-as-child-support.  Maybe you
think that this can never happen to you... that it only happens to obnoxious
sexist jerks, but never to nice guys who respect women and try to be kind to
others in their daily lives.  Well, dream on, sucker... as likely as not, you'llbe in my shoes someday.

- db



Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support