From: thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:29:19 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr5.061306.23492@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.002508.25760@SSD.intel.com> joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark) writes:
>>
>> 
>>PS: I for one am ashamed at how Coren was treated by this group.  It was
>>biased and prejudicial.  Just because someone has been treated that way by
>>the system is no excuse for propagating it.  I sympathize with the anger
>>many people feel (it's worse than divorce) and I HAVE been there.
>>I think this group has drifted over the last year more and more toward a
>>bias expressed by angry NCP's and away from rational discussions on 
>>our old favorite: "What is best for the child".
> 
> I don't recall anyone really slamming her that bad, Joel Clark.  I
> think I slammed her the worst.  I told her that until she could
> understand what it was like to be in her father's shoes, she wouldn't
> be able to understand that she was asking for advice on how to screw
> her father.  Evidently, you don't think it is such a terrible thing to
> be an NCP who has to pay child support even when you don't have an
> income - or that when you do become gainfully employed that you should
> immediately start catching up on all the child support that you missed
> when you were eating out of trash cans.  You apparently don't think
> that it is unfair that if the family had been intact, the family would
> have had to "eat" the lack of income, but because NCPs don't have
> rights, they should not be granted a "pardon" for losing a job (even in
> a recession).  I would even bet that you think it is fair that NCP
> fathers can be forced to pay their children's college tuition, but that
> no intact families' parents, nor CPs are forced to pay college tuition.
> You probably don't think it is so bad that 96% of all children of
> divorces live primarily with the mother (a study in the Texas Bar
> Association Journal).  You probably don't it is unfair that women get
> some form of custody in 90% of all divorces.  You probably don't think
> it is unfair that men are sexually discriminated against in divorce
> courts.  You probably don't think it is unfair that NCP fathers pay an
> average of $170 per month per child to the CP mother, but NCP mothers
> pay $11 per month per child to CP dads (the very same Texas Bar
> Association Journal study).  You don't think it is unfair that CS
> payments were calculated based on what intact families can afford to
> spend on their children, then that number was increased by 30% for safe
> measure.  You probably think that it is fair that women's groups have
> attempted in several states (and succeeded in California) to get that
> amount increased by another 40%.  You probably don't think that it is
> unfair that even though an NCP father pays 100% of the child support
> for the children, that the CP mother gets the child support deductions.
> You probably don't think that it is unfair that if a shared parenting
> couple makes $25k each and each spends 50% of the time with the
> children, that the father should pay the mother $5k a year net in child
> support.  Joel, I bet you don't even think that it is all that bad that
> you got screwed to the gills.  After all, you are a man and men should
> just take it and go on.
> 
And you, Aaron, probably think it's fair that women still make, on the
average, about $.70 for every dollar a man makes, that the standard
of living goes down 74% for the mother and children and up substantially
for the father after divorce, that in 75% of the cases where the father
contests custody, he wins (figures used in that California case you
mentioned). 
> Thank you very much for helping to end the biases in the system.  Thank
> you for helping to further the causes of truth and justice.  Thank you
> for supporting equality.  Thank you for your efforts.  Thank you very
> much from the bottom of my heart.
> 
> Joel, you probably think I'm a martyr because I stand up for what I
> believe is right and condemn what I believe is wrong, sexist,
> misandrist, dehumanizing, a major source of the problems that we have
> in this society.  Crime is skyrocketing in this country.  Juvenile
> delinquency is a serious problem and is getting worse.  At the same
> time, in the last 20 years the number of children being raised by
> single parents has increased 350%.  Coincidence.  Yeh, sure.
> 
Control that for socio-economic factors.  The kids who get in trouble
are, by and large, kids being raised in poverty as 1 in 5 children
in the U.S. are - mostly because their fathers aren't contributing
to their support, the mothers don't get paid enough for the jobs
they do and don't get any support services.  
> The family unit has broken down.  It is so easy for people to just blow
> apart a family rather than stay in it and resolve the problems.  Women
> are the benefactors of divorces - they get the children, they get child
> support and they can go on and marry someone else and have that child
> support as additional income.  

Statistically, this doesn't wash.  Men are far more likely to get 
married soon after a divorce -most remarry within 2 years, while
only about 25% of women remarry within 5 years.  Many of those
second wives work, so the men are living in 2 income homes, while
the ex-wife and children are living in 1 income-plus-support-if-she
can-collect-it, which is not the same thing as a two income home,
whatever you may think. ($175 a month! What a laugh! The schools
get more than that in money for supplies, books, etc, alone!)
And if Joel Blow number 2 doesn't toe the
> line, she can do it to him too.  85% of all divorces filed in the US are
> filed by women - because they can get a better deal.  
Or because they're tired of being treated like second class citizens
by their own husbands.
Are some of these
> divorces justified?  Sure.  Are some of them pretty marginal?  You bet.
> Do the children suffer greatly when the family is torn apart and they
> lose the father figure role model and influence?  No doubt.  Funny thing
> that exposure to fathers is directly proportionate to achievement,
> success and happiness in the children, where exposure to mothers is
> directly proportionate to lack of achievement, low test scores, juvenile
> delinquency, and crime rates. 

My honor student daughter (who has seen her father 3 times in 10 years) 
would be surprised to hear that.  So would the children of many friends
of mine who have done just fine - because they were lucky enough
to be in relatively stable economic circumstances.

 Amazing misogynist coincidence?  If only
> that were that case.  Children need their fathers - they NEED them,
> Dammit.  They NEED them.  They need BOTH parents.

Yes, they need both parents.  Not necessarily on a joint-custody basis,
but of course, they need both parents - in many ways - emotionally,
physically, and financially. Aren't you the one who is defending
pulling the support out from under the kids?  How does that fit in
with your above assertion?
> 
> And yes, Joel, we were just too hard on poor Coren.  I think we should all
> send her money.  Hey, everybody, let's start the "Let's all give Coren
> money so she can drive a nice, new car - real soon Fund".
> 
I didn't see Coren's message - I thought she was looking for college
money.  I had friend once who was upset because she and her major-
executive husband had to delay moving out of their very expensive
condo into their more expensive house because his daughter didn't 
want to attend the local community college.  I had no sympathy.
Not putting your kids through school is a sure way to end up with
them moving back in with you - and their 3 small children- a few
years later when they can't support themselves.

> Coren, I have another word of advice.  Marry a guy like Joel - they're
> easy.
> 
> Joel, you wouldn't happen to have any chickens around your place, would
> you?
> 
> Oh, and watch me sign my name to this one too.
> 
> Aaron (I just tell the truth and they think it's hell) Hoffmeyer
> TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
> 
> Yep, there it is.
> 
> The Eleventh Commandment:
> "An NCP has NO chance for a win-win."
> 	-- Joel (My Way is the Right Way) Clark

That depends a lot on the CP - it does sound like Joel got a bad deal. I
do know people who have worked out very amicable arrangements with their
exes- they even spend the holidays together - exes, 2nd spouses, kids -
everybody!

> 
> Oh, and Joel, I think you just got chopped, bud.
> 
> I'll apologize up front - "Sorry."  Doesn't that make it all better?
Newsgroups: alt.child-support