From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:39:52 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:

> Isn't it strange that society insists on all of this belly hoooo when
> it comes to fathers who have left the home, but society will not
> ask for an accounting from still married couples?  How many children
> out there with both parents still together don't get enough to eat, wear
> or enough medical attention.......We should make all parents accountable
> for their children......

AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHH!

Thank you, but what the 'law' is already doing FOR us is quite enough.

Family values, regardless of what the media says, or what bandwagon
Bush/Clinton choose to jump on, cannot be legislated. Given that Oper-
ation Desert Storm failed to 'cure' the problems it was mounted to
fix, what says that more force is necessary at home. 

Some things cannot be thrust at people in general when the problem is
an individual one. 

Like snowfalkes, all people are different. Legislation would like to
lump everyone into a single class or category, and it can't. The large
number of problems with family law demonstrate that clearly. To say we
should apply a misfunctioning system to everyone when it isn't working
for a 'few' is a bad idea in my book.

Although it can be very difficult to assay the quality of the system
from many posts in these groups --due in large part to the great emot-
ional involvement of the individuals-- there is some very VALID info
being passed out (and ignored) here.

Right off the bat, I can say that nobody should be told how to parent.
IF their parenting is clearly harmful, then the practices need to be
intervened with on an as necessary basis. But to attempt to cure some
problems by ensnarling every family with the defocused opinions of a
few is ludicrous. In the first place, it seeks prior restraint, which
is effectively (in this case) declaring someone guilty of a crime they
haven't commited and probably won't commit.

When it comes to accountability of parents, neither should be required
to state what they spend. To do so would be held against an artificial
standard similar to the one the states impose on child-support. It
would be inaccurate. Bear in mind that the states and the Fed is asking
(demanding) that parents adhere to a standard that they don't hold them
selves to. Public Assistance pays about $550 per month in cash and food
stamps amounting to another $230. All in all, thats a total of $780 to
pay for ALL living costs for two adults and one child. (Given that the
allocations are individual, eg: they start with one parent then add a
prorata of that amount for each additional person.) In other words, the
state system says that an individual can live on $250. When you com-
pare that to a support award of $650 for a child in that same environment
and status, you have to ask "why?" It either works for everyone or it
doesn't. What is the difference between a kid who ends up on welfare
because dad dies, and one whose dad had to move out? If the state is going
to insist that changes in their lives doesn't affect their lifestyle,
shouldn't they be setting an example for all to follow? 

So, if we apply accounting to a system which is bad to start with, then
any accounting is going to be meaningless.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men