From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:44:55 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

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

> 
>  How can anybody justify Child Support Laws of in many states that claim
> "the children's standard of living should not suffer after a divorce"?

The idea is generally that the child still has both providers. This isn't
a statement of support, just observation. The ignored fact is that now
there are two families to support --the NCP with visitation has to provide
a suitable place to bring their kid(s) just as the CP does.

This alone is enough to explain that the amount of disposable income is
reduced. At least, it should be.

>  This is a desire of most parents and adults, or at least it should be. 
> Reality suggests otherwise. A house divided is income dividing. I would
> presume that the economic well being of divorced couples drops. 
>  Feminists argue that only CPs (women usually) income drops. 

It's true that BOTH incomes drop. I pay little attention to the statistics
which show that men have more money after divorce. That's obvious. Just 
look at the workplaces --there is a disproportionate amount of employed
men compared to women. Yes, many factors enter into WHY there are more men
and why men make more money than their female counterparts. But, to try to
include that generality with the specifics of divorce is apples and oranges.
Women don't have the marketplace recognition that men do --equal pay for
equal work --or, for that matter, equal opportunity. But to recognize this
in the middle of divorce, and effect a 'fudge factor' to compensate for
it is not only unfair, but discriminatory in more than one way. It penali-
zes a specific man (family) to pay for the envisioned debt of society to
an inequity. Sort of like --Goerge got a traffic ticket --but Bill should
pay for it because he's a man, he drives, and probably breaks the law too.
There are many levels on which it's wrong.

Anyway, support shouldn't be based on the income levels of the parents. It
should be based on the need(s) of the kid(s) for their particular circum-
stances, of which income (ability to afford) is a factor --but no more so
than the cost of living for the parents.

>  If women seek divorce for no other reason than unreconciable differences,
> why are they intitled to receive a disproportionate benefit of a doubt in
> receiving custody, child support and property? 

Your point is a good one, but your wording leaves a little to be desired.
I am wholly supportive of "no-fault" divorce. One partner, wanting out, is
all it should take. No reasons --just "the bonds of the marital relation-
ship are irretrievably broken." If people don't have to have a trial to
get married, why on earth should they need one for divorce? Sure, some
arbitration so that the assets of the MARRIAGE can be equitably divided.
Each takes what they brought, and each takes a proportional share for the
contribution they make. (House wife/husbands contribute!!!) But get per-
mission from the state to separate? Give me a break.

>  Current child support guidelines presume all NCPs (usually men) as jerks?
>  Why is that, unless of course this practice of claiming CPs (usually women)
> as victims and NCPs as evil is the agenda of the Women's Movement 
> in order to retain a disportionate amount of unearned wealth?

Aren't you too directed here? 

I keep saying this, and I keep getting ignored. But I'll try one more time.

The system screws EVERYBODY one way or another. Women get screwed over, men
get screwed over, kids get screwed over. Instead of always throwing rocks,
perhaps a better approach is finding those places where changes could be a
benefit to all, and get working on those together --even with perceived
enemies. All an enemy is, is someone you haven't found a benefit for an
alliance with yet.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA