From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 13 Sep 92 18:20:11 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

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.

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. 
> 
> 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.

> >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.


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3047 soc.men:15969