From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reaso
Date: 27 Dec 92 21:46:15 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> 	Bob, as usual you are right, in principal.  And you add an
> 	exceptional command of english to put frosting on your cake.

Thanks, Alan.

> 	Yes, I agree with what you've said.  But you yourself admit
> 	that civil court is less fair than criminal.  And where did
> 	that bias come from?
> 
> 	a) from a system created by feminist lobbies who court
> 	politicians through their feminine charm, voting power,
> 	and some pie-in-the-sky story about "best interest of the
> 	children".  this kind of "usery" would be considered criminal
> 	under any other circumstances.  You have a nack of seeing
> 	and interpreting day-to-day events that you live in the
> 	courtroom to the macroscopic cause of all these things;
> 	WOMEN!  Yes, women suffer along with everyone else.  But
> 	they also perpetuate matters by using the system that
> 	they themselves	created against their ex and kids.  And
> 	while it is obvious that there is animosity against the
> 	male ex from the woman, I can tell you from 1st hand
> 	experience that in my case, my ex doesn't give a shit
> 	about "the best interest of my son", either.  She just
> 	wants me to pay the whole tab so she can ignore him and
> 	not have any burden from him. And lastly, if there's any
> 	left over for her to have a good time with, well,
> 	"I owe it to her".

Well, actually, the system in place was built mostly by men, and at
a time when the idea of feminism was much less accepted than it is
these days... 

> 	b)  Which leads me to the second point.  Greed.  The
> 	U.S. national pastime of suing.  Figuring that someone
> 	somewhere owes you something.  The court system (on
> 	all levels) is based on this.  And fairness is just not
> 	possible.  At ANY level.  I admire several of the female
> 	posters on the net who have said that they don't want
> 	the money from their ex.  An honest attitude.  But there
> 	are MANY more who do.  Weather from greed, vindictiveness,
> 	or both.  And as I've been told, once they find out what they can
> 	get, they'll go for it.  Whatever their past attitudes were.

You bet. But let's change the vantage point just a wee bit, and see
what we come up with.

If, instead of encouraging the very behavior you speak of, the system
took a solely pragmatic view (support was individually based on the
need specific to a child, and the marriage was split in two) I think
we'd see a major difference in how it was used.

> 	And it is these forces which drive the day-to-day misery
> 	which you correctly describe.  And it is the higher level
> 	juristiction that organizations like FREE should be focusing
> 	on and fighting.  It is, in fact, WOMEN who are perpetuating
> 	all this by political pressure, and personal choice to
> 	use it.

Hmmmmm. I'm not so sure that we can say 'the woman did it' and have
an accurate assessment. It isn't that simple. I happily grant that
much of the wrongs of the current system are protracted by 'feminist'
attitudes, but I think that the term (feminist) may be a malaprop.
It's my opinion, of course, and subject to the same inaccuracy as 
another's.

But no matter how I look at it, things always seem to hinge on what
it is that the system will LET people do. Imagine the difference if
(using your greed scenario) the court sounded more like this:

"I understand you think your spouse is a wealthy son of a bitch and
had affairs, but that has nothing to do with your child. Little Pam
needs $450 a month to have a reasonable base of support, and your
part of that is the same as the father. Support is set at $225."

or

"Yes, the court understands that you'd like more money each month,
but the court has set support for your child and no circumstances
show a need which should cause an increase. You cannot withold the
custodial period of your co-parent because you wish things were
different than they are. Your motion is brought in bad faith, and
by statute, this finding denies your motion for increase, and that
means that you will have to pay all attorney and court costs as the
petitioner in this matter."

The income shares model that Jon (and many) have been speaking of
sets a stage for much of the baloney we all have to tolerate. Toy
with the idea in your mind a while and I think you'll see what I 
mean.

> 
> 	Plain and simple.

If only it was... )-:

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