From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Biological Reasons for Male Choice
Organization: Netcom. San Jose, California
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:43:33 GMT

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes ...
> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>Hmmph.  Sounds like the old line "women are weaker than men and must
>>be cared for and protected by men."
>
>Hmmph.  Sounds like you amuse yourself in the privacy of your own room
>by making up arguments that you want to attack, rather than dealing with
>the arguments your opponents have actually raised.

That too.  :-)
But you didn't comment on the point I made that child support 
and custody have nothing to do with biology or gender.

Careful, or I might use your own comment against you.

>Oh, by the way, your 'so often it's nearly a cliche' could use a little
>evidence.  We'd all really love to see some information that would give
>and idea on how big this problem really is.  Might motivate some of us
>to do something about it.

Three examples, right off the top of my head, and ones you've probably
read about yourself.  Granted, they are specific examples and don't
necessarily indicate a trend, but they do indicate that such
situations are not rare.

The most recent and notable is, of course, the Farrow/Allen tiff.
Aside from the various irrelevencies, note that Allen has been banned
from seeing his children by the courts (but Farrow hasn't).

And a few years ago a woman spent a couple years in jail rather than
let her ex-husband communicate with his child.  She's now free, the
kids in New Zealand with the mother's parents, and the father is out
of luck.

And lastly, the following news story which I posted a few days ago.

-----------------------------------------
Orange Country Register

SANTA ANA -- A dilemma only for the ultra-rich: Can a court order you
to indulge your children?

Through not a burning legal issue, it still ignites furious debate in
Organge County's highest court.

When a wealthy Laguna Hills woman demanded an increase in her husband's
child-support payment -- with evidence showing monthly expenditures by
her 15-year-old daughter that included $2,000 for clothing, $300 for
jewelry, and $1,600 for entertainment and travel -- one justice
blanched.

"If the custodial parent in this case wants to teach her daughter to be
a 'power shopper,' so be it," Presiding Appeals Justice David Sills
wrote in a recent decision.  "The law of child support, however, does
not require (a father) to subsidize the tuition for such training."

But Sills proved to be in the minority.  Two other justices overruled
his ire and approved a boost in child-support payments from $2,000 to
$6,000 per month.

Associate Justice Edward Wallin and Associate Justice Henry Moore Jr.
said case law is clear.  A parent;s lifestyle can be a factor in
determining the amount of child support.

At the center of the debate is Ed Ulyate, 45, who made a fortune
selling mini-blinds.

Three years ago, he divorced his wife of 21 years, Sheryle.  He bought
out her half of the Irvine company, 3 Day Blinds, then valued at $15
million.  Ulyate then married his secretary, sold the company for $35
million and settled into -- by his own sworn statement -- a "life of
luxury" with a Virginia estate, a Florida waterfront home, $10 million
in the Back, 32 vintage automobiles, an airplane, a helicopter, and a
48-foot yacht.

After Ed Ulyate's bonanza, his ex-wife came to court with a list of
demands for her daughter.

Sheryle Ulyate argued that her ex-husband, already paring $2,000 in
monthly child support, should contribute for their child a $50,000
Porsche. a swimming pool, a diamond ring, and an increase to $15,000
per month in support payments.

In a 1990 court hearing, Superior Court Judge Nacy Wieben Stack cut
back the list.  She ordered no Porsche, pool, or ring.

But Stock did find that the child's usual expenses amounted to $9,000 a
month and ordered Ed Ulyate to pay $6,000 of that each month until the
girl graduates from high school in June.

Ed Ulyate filed an appeal arguing the increase didn't make sense,
particularly when his ex-wife earns $768,000 a year on interest from
her millions.

Only Presiding Justice Sills agreed.  "In a free society, parents may
spoil their children -- courts should not compel it," he said.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: talk.abortion