Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:18:13 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <c5X2qB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
> 
>> In article <g24XqB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpat
>> 
>> >Toby, you aren't making sense. He doesn't have his kids, doesn't want
>> >his kids, so why on earth should she pay him anything?
>> 
>> Well, remember Sue said:
>> >> >woman) makes very good money, more than she does, has the children every 
>> >> >weekend and as often as possible during the summer.  He also refuses to
>> 
>> If child support is for the children, she should pay him during the summer.
> 
> No, I mean he doesn't EVER have them. So, whether or not it's summer is
> kind of a moot point.
> 

Perhaps I'd better clarify my original posting.  Leona (the mother) offers
her husband full access to the children, weekends and summers.  He does
not actually take advantage of this, only gets them when it is 'convenient'
for him, often cancels or just doesn't show up, leaving the children sadly
disappointed and crying.  They've been divorced for several years and he 
has yet to voluntarily pay  ANYTHING in child support.  Meanwhile she bears
the complete expense for two children that he originally was completely
involved in adoptinging.  Meanwhile she bears the total expense for two 
children that he was originally completely committed to adopting.


> I do see what you mean though. There are two responses, one from the legal
> point of view, and one from the personal.
> 
> The court believes that the primary custodian must maintain the home for
> the kids, even in their absence. Thus, the costs continue even though the
> children aren't in residence.
> 
> I believe that what the court says has *some* merit --although the day to
> day expenses don't really exist. So, I maintain that support should be
> decreased during the child(ren)'s absence. I am also in support of the
> NCP needing _some_ compensation for their household, if they maintain a
> home that the children can visit. So, in that view, perhaps support should
> be stopped during visitation of more than a few days. The NCP contribution
> should be sufficient to cover the costs of 'maintaining' the home in the
> absence of the kids.
> 
>> Incidently if you follow soc.men you will hear about men with full
>> custody still having to pay their ex 'child support'.
>> Sue generalised from one man not paying child support to say:
>> 
>> >> >It's men like that who give the rest of the fathers a bad name in court. 

What I was trying to say is, 'when someone like this doesn't pay even a small
amount of his court ordered payments, then he does give NCPs a bad name.  
 
>> 
>> My point is simply that women have as bad or worse a record on not
>> paying, even if you restrict this to NCPs. So the anti-men attitude
>> Sue expressed is not justified by this - I would say the
>> reverse, this is just another (poor) excuse for men-bashing.
> 
> To that, I have no argument, and join in the chorus you sing from. The
> way that law is interpreted causes some really lousy enforcement of the
> awards made to men --even when it awards custody. 


> 
>> >Child support is for the kids, not the ex-spouse. At least, that's the
>> >theory. Granted that in practice it can work out differently, but that's
>> >not what this conversation is about.
>> 
>> I would have thought that what happens in practice is very relevant.
>> If, say, both the CPs and NCPs contributions were paid into an account,
>> and withdrawals from that account had to be matched with receipts for
>> expenditure on the children, then:
>> (i) NCPs would not be subsidising their ex.
>> (ii) CPs as well as NCPs would be made to pay, so they would
>> both have a motive for asigning realistic child support.
>> 
>> I believe NCPs would be much happier paying under these circumstances.
> 
> I don't dispute that. I was only pointing out that the current thread was
> in terms of a specific subject, not a generalization of the inequities of
> the system. I was under the impression that Sue was giving voice to the
> metaphoric 'man' as she related it to the guy we were talking about. But
> that doesn't mean I agree with the metaphor. It's a nasty stereotype that
> does significant damage to a *lot* of good dads. Sheesh, I'm one of them.
> 

I wasn't trying to promote a stereotype.  So, do you think that a guy like
this gives NCP dads a good a name?

>> >BTW, that was Jeff@allspts who said 'scumbag,' not Sue.
>> 
>> And it was Sue who said (about Jeff's post):
>> 
>> >> >My sentiments exactly!
> 
> Well, ok I guess. I took her to say that she agreed that Jeff had made an
> accurate value judgement of the individual, not the male gender. Oh Well.
> 


Yes, that was what I meant.  

> 
> --- 
> Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3140 soc.men:16321 soc.women:16479 misc.kids:23172 alt.dads-rights:2244