From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:08:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.235906.23883@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>In article <P9csoB2w164w@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   ) writes:
>>Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>>
>>> the time I was just furious, because in generalizing she was talking about
>>> ME as well as other wonderful single moms I know who I could never imagine
>>> saying those are the reasons they have kids.
>>> 
>>> My reasons for having a child? It was an "accident", although I really
>>> doubt someone who really didn't want a child would allow an accident,
>>> except in situations where they were using birth control but got pregnant
>>> anyway, or were raped (of course). To tell you the truth Dan, I longed for
>>
>>Now wait a minute.
>>
>>I'm a man, and I complain about the child-support laws which exist today.
>>I complain about money --to use your terminology.
>>
>>I complain because the system is inequitable: It is income-based versus
>>need-based, and not only that, it imparts a standard based on general
>>incomes for locations to which they don't or can't apply.
>>
>>I complain that the money issues are driven in the courts by sexist
>>attitudes which reflect (on the whole) female wants versus objective and
>>pragmatic approaches to the economics of child-rearing. I complain 
>>because these attitudes extend into the areas of not only custody, but
>>visitation too.
>>
>>So, I'm one of "all those men who complain about money," to use your
>>terminology. Mic, for someone who got furious over a generalization,
>>you certainly weild generalization like a sword. You've made ME angry.

[...]

>>Yes, I complain about the money. You bet I do. The laws on basic support
>>grants allows (in my state) for 45% of my gross to be tapped. Which, BTW
>>is what they get from me. However, the law also allows for consideration
>>of other elements, like my new wife's income for 'Extraordinary Expenses'
>>above and beyond the basic support award. That translates into my wife
>>paying support for kids that aren't even hers. Yes, Mic, I do complain
>
>Thank you for sharing that. I really aprreciate it, because  truthfully, I
>only know what the laws are in Wisconsin, which is 17% of the man's
>income. I find this reasonable, though of course, my son's father does not.
>Freedom is an invaluable thing, but what you are paying is quite
>ridiculous. I have been reading this area for quite some time now, and I
>understand why many men are upset. I understand it when a man's financial
>security is in jeopardy while the woman walks off smiling, what bothers me
>is certain people not wanting to pay ANYTHING. I hope you can see why that
>would bother me. I sympathize with your problems. It sounds like you got
>involved with a doozy of a woman! 

17% is a remarkably low amount.  Mic, do you have a job?
Does the father of your children make the same amount as you or less?
Does Wisconsin follow support guidelines pursued by other states?

Typically, the CP (esp. of small children) has the option to be
unemployed, in which case settlements like 45% from the NCP are
really not extraordinary -- at least in my state, Pennsylvania.

If this indicates a "doozy of a woman," then the population
of female doozies is fairly large  :-(



>See that's all I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear the personal side of it.
>I wanted to see how you and others feel about these kids, and whether you
>spend any time with them. That's what I care about, knowing the kids
>aren't feeling abandoned by you. Thank you for the response to this
>question, I was very happy to know that you include them in your life.

It is quite difficult and frustrating to try to stay involved 
in a child's life when the CP doesn't agree.  Support payments
are enforced far more strongly than visitation.  Divorces not always
being the most amicable of situations, it isn't overly surprising
that there may be cases of NCP's who find it hard to overcome the 
obstacles, despite a deep and strong love for their children.

I rather doubt that many of the men who complain about payments
are complaining simply because they value money more than their children.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a widely accepted view.  

Rather, imagine that to the wound of having lost your children, 
the salt of required, slave-labor payments is added.  Or worse, 
in the name of "the interests of the child," your ex is 
him/herself clearly living off the fruits of your labor.  
I think any person would cry out at the injustices.


>>I complain because the costs of the support system --no less the support
>>itself, drove me and my new wife into bankruptcy while my ex was able
>>to buy a new (and pretty expensive house). I complain because the bank
>>took my new wife's car --that she bought with her own money before we
>>were married-- in the bankruptcy. Not to mention a number of other items
>>which included the house she owned and had been paying on for eight years.
>>I complain that the whole situation caused me to go on public assistance,
>>and that the amount of support didn't waver a bit --staying at the same
>>amount it was set at. The amount, by the way, was 220% of my income at
>>that time.
>
>All I can say is that the government works for the good of the children.

I don't think I would agree on that.  It would be a nice goal, though.


>>Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
>Michelle

Don
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2138 alt.dads-rights:1492 alt.parents-teens:1043 misc.kids:19328 soc.men:13450 soc.women:13826