From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:02:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: ohmeda.1992Apr14.000214.29817
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems

ken@smsc.sony.com (Ken Beck) writes:


>> In article <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
>> says:
>>>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>>>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>>>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  Of course, I haven't
>>>addressed the issues of voluntary impoverishment, and a host of other
>>>issues, for those readers who have been keeping up.
>>

>Suppose you have a household with $100k, with the $80k to $20k split you
>suggest.  The parent making $80k wants the children.  (Assuming both parents
>are normal, healthy folks that love the children, one could certainly argue
>that the parent earning 4x the others income is better able to provide a good
>environment for the children.) If this parent gets custody, the children
>benefit from this higher income.  In fact, even without child support, that is
>taking $0 from NCP, the children are living in a household with 80% of the
>original households income.

>Now suppose this person doesn't get the children, because, say, they're male.
>The only way I can think of for the children to benefit from the higher wage
>earners income is to take a lot of money away from NCP and give it to CP.
>Okay.  How much do you take.  $12,000 a year sounds like a lot of money.
>Well, that only gets the children to 32k.  Well, how about $25,000.  Sorry,
>still only to 45k.  The bottom line is you would simply have to take just
>about all of it.  So, now NCP has an *much* improved life-style which *may*
>indirectly benefit the children.  Of course, there is never any accounting for
>this money, so NCP may choose to use it to buy clothes or a sports car or
>whatever.  You could call this the "have-a-baby, get-a-porsche" plan 1/2 :-)

>I personally don't think it's fair.  I agree that children of divorce should
>get a reasonable amount of child support.  An amount that is tied to how much
>it actually costs to raise the children. Boosting lifestyle just isn't
>reasonable and doesn't work.  The $100k a year household disappeared with the
>divorce.  Nothing you do, short of reconciliation, can bring it back.  If the
>life-style is that important, give the children to the higher wage earner.  If
>it really is that important, it should be weighed in along with the sex of the
>parent when deciding custody.  (I was going to say things about loving
>environment, etc., but realistically it come down to sex of the parent.)

>hea@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>This is precisely the logic that has resulted in thousands of our
>>children being raised in poverty - which means, not necessarily
>>in this order - 1) a drain on the welfare system and the taxpayers
>>2) children who don't benefit from available educational resources
>>and consequently will never be as productive as they might have
>>been and 3) children who are faced with such hopelessness that they
>>turn to drugs and crime.

>There is a big difference between providing sufficient support to avoid these
>problems and handing over the fruits higher wages earners income.  I also have
>to wonder how many children of "wealthy" fathers, I mean, NCP's, face these
>problems.  Those who are earning a good income are just too easy to find, which
>is fine.  It would be good if all were so easy to locate.

>One final parting shot.  Both parents are responsible for the well-being of
>the children.  Granted, it could be real hard if one is a dead-beat and
>doesn't own up, but why does that insure poverty and welfare?  CP is by
>definition helpless and unable to earn a living?  An adult?  I find it a very
>sexist attitude to assume that if NCP (generally male) doesn't pay, then CP
>(generally female) goes on welfare.  There is a presumption here that women
>are incapable of taking care of themselves financially.

>Ken

Ken, I refer you to a reply to Jennifer Brown, that I just got through posting.
I feel that your attitude is somewhat of a cop-out.  Yes, there are problems
with the system; that's why we're all writing to this newsgroup.  There are
solutions.  A fellow posted not too long ago about his involvement in 
changing the laws here in Colorado.  One of the things that the legislation
that he was working on was supposed to address was the issue of how do
you make the CP accountable?  I haven't heard whether that legislation actually
went through, or not, but he sounded reasonably certain that is was going to.

In Colorado, one doesn't hand over money until the entire CP's household is 
living at an equal standard of living to the NCP.  A value is placed on the
cost of raising the child(ren) based on the combined incomes.  NCP's spouse's
income has no bearing, and verse visa.  The amount each parent then pays into
the "pool" is then determined proporionately.  I feel that, while there are
flaws, this is a relatively fair solution.  Unfortunately, unless that 
legislation mentioned above has gone through, there is no means to hold the
CP accountable.  Also, current law puts a cap on the tables at $100K combined
income.  Anything after that is fair game for either side, and the NCP can
play all sorts of games to hide/protect income.

I don't know how you are reading this, but I am completely calm and this is
not a flame.
From: bobw@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Bob Waltenspiel)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:23:44 GMT
Subject: Re: What's FAIR Child Support?
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA