From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:02:55 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

gayle@disk.uucp (Gayle) writes:

>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>>got off the phone with a guy who was talking with a woman about going
>>out (as in dating).  She told him that she didn't have any money to go
>>bowling with him because her child support check hadn't showed up.

>Did you ever stop to think that maybe all of the money SHE could have earned
>could have been spent on food, medicene, diapers or ANYTHING for the kids?
>That she has evidently used all her resources to provide for the kids while
>the father was obviously negligent in sending support?

	Good point...

>>with the support of children.  Apparently the cost of cigarettes and
>>alcohol were included as costs for raising children.

>Does it really matter? If the amount of money for ciggarettes or coke (?)
>provides her happiness (?), isn't that worth the small amount it would take
>to make her a happier person then maybe a happier mother? I know, it's grasp-
>ing, but I'm so sick of men fussing about money, are your kids not worth it?

	Might I suggest that if she requires cigarettes and alcohol to be
happy, the child's best interest might be with a parent who doesn't require
those things to be happy?  Might I suggest that if she requires those things 
to be happy, she should earn those things?  Might I suggest that if the kids
had more visitation time with Dad, she'd have more time to earn the things
for herself that make her happy?  Aren't the kids worth it?

> My one question, how can men fuss soooo much for paying, when they say they
>care for the child so much? Seems rather contradictive to me. Money IS a fact 
>of life, but it seems to me (from personal exp. again I can't judge for everyone) that men think of divorce as an "abandon decree." A decree to do what you
>want to, whether or not it affects the children. 

	The men in question are fussing about spending money on the mother,
not the children.  If the mother is unhappy without additional support, then
perhaps she shouldn't have primary custody, and he should (apparently being
happy because he makes enough money to provide for "two" happy people)?  
Especially since that would free up some time for her to earn the money to 
be happy?

>> Our children have
>>to have a place to live.  But they tell us, as non-custodial parents,
>>that we owe our children a place to live that is not our home:  that is
>>not something we tell intact families - they aren't even legally
>>obligated to have a home.  Sure, they want to, but some can't afford it.

>Because it seems in a divorce, if you dont point out EVERYTHING a man HAS to
>do, they'll weasel out of it. Don't you want your children to have a home?
>If they can't receive the best emotional nurturing, etc .. from you then you
>would just as soon they not have a home? Intact families usually don't HAVE
>to be told anything, they can decide that on their own. 

	What doesn't seem to be taken into account is that the same amount of
income is now required to support two homes instead of one.  Obviously, you
cannot maintain the same standard of living for everyone under those
circumstances.  Everyone's standard of living must go down under those
circumstances...unless, of course, the person who earns the most money gets
the children.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights