From: danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: CHILD support
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:48:03 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: helper.systems.caltech.edu

jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:

>In article 727494769@micro, danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine) writes:
>>Just how do you equate supporting one's ex-spouse with hidden alimony
>>and the moral obligation we all have to our children?  I see NO
>>relationship.
>>
>>Danielle
>>

> Believe it or not, a staff member of legislator and former committee chairmanette
>of the Health and Social Services group (Linda Berglin) in the Mn legislature told
>me that child support is not equal. It is just that we are getting back
>what historically has been a man dominated world. 

> You and I are in the same boat, NCPs.

> Historically and at present, NCP bashing is a feminist accupation. You just
>happen to be an extreme, but growing minority. 

>Danielle, do people of both genders presume that you must be one hell of
>a wicked person. Come ON!, a mother who doesn't have custody?! (if ya get 
>my drift). 

>I would think that a women NCP would have a rough go at it. More so than men. 
>Hell, the world presumes a male NCP beat his kids and raped his wife. Having
>no guilt, it don't bother me if they think that way. 
>But what about a women NCP? 
>Have ya had one of those do-gooder government bureaurocrat types slip up
>in front of you like....
(deletions)

Actually, I thought I had posted quite a long response to Lisa detailing
just what it is like to be a female NCP, but it turns out I hit the
wrong key and only "responded" instead of "following up".  I wish I
still had the post, but here is an abbreviated response:

There is tremendous prejudice against female NCPs.  EVERYONE assumes
you must be a horrible person if you don't have custody.  I'll bet
not many men habitually get asked "Why don't you have custody? (Lisa's
question).  Now I realize this is somewhat because the system is
so biased againse male CPs that my case is unusual, therefore suspect.
The facts are that my ex was a widower with 2 great kids.  After 2 yrs,
I adopted the kids.  We separated a year later.  I wanted custody
because I feared his ability to cope with single parenting (he had
drinking problems, was emotionally abusive and was becoming more
physically violent).  He threatened me if I fought for custody.  I 
had every reason to believe his threats.  Those are the facts, plus
the fact that my ex earns 1-1/2 times what I do and gets $500/month
tax free from the SS Admin. for the kids since their bio mother
died. There is also the "fact" that I gave up nearly $10,000 in
equity to get reasonable child support payments ($350/month) which
he renegged on 1 year later, taking me back to court in an effort
to double my payments.  (He was angry because I would not give
up my Decree'd holiday time with the kids.  The kids did not want
to change the schedule, but this did not matter to him).  Well
the judge didn't care much for facts.  He just saw a golden 
opportunity to right the gender bias wrongs.  He awarded by ex
$783/month in cs.  This was even more than my ex was asking for!
No, I am not wealthy, my _gross_ pay was $31,000/year at the time.

I did win a reduction on appeal when I represented myself, then
the new laws (1991) to lower upper income child support kicked in
in WA and I fought again, getting it lowered to $400/month.  He
has recently bought a lakeview home and enrolled the kids in
private school (against my objections), so I guess he isn't doing
too badly....

Anyway, that's the long answer to "what's it like..."

We are _all_ in the same boat, that's why I refuse to descend
to gender-bashing.  Not NCPs are jerks, not all CPs are money
grubbing leaches.  The feminists are to blame for the imbalance
in the laws, but it's up to all of us to stand up for a change.

Danielle

Newsgroups: alt.child-support