From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:29:35 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


In article <1993Jan4.170957.8804@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.065757.6405@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan4.012311.17983@zooid.guild.org>, Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>> This time, I decided that I'm just not going to let this one slide...
>>> 
>>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes...
>>>>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah
>>>>eri) writes:
>>>>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
>>>>> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the
>>>>> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
>>>>> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a
>>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>>of THEIR precious funds.
>>> 
>>> So, what is so WRONG with this, Susan?  After all, child support was only
>>> INTENDED for "support" with respect to basic necessities, not bicycles,
>>> ponies, and indeed, not even *college*.  These *are* all considered
>>> privileges and luxuries, and I have no problem with Don or Alan believing
>>> this way.  The fact that they DO feel this way, does NOT indicate any
>>> resentment of women, and I rather take some umbrage at your attempt to
>>> label these men in such a fashion.
>>> 
>>
>>Sorry, but you really blew this one.  The MAIN reason for child support is
>>to try to approximate that the child does not suffer a huge change (for the
>>worse) in lifestyle due to the divorce.  THis means if the child was 
>>provided a certain standard of living before the divorce, it should not
>>then be dumped into total poverty after the divorce.  Evidently you really
>>don't understand the logic behind child-support payments.
>>Perhaps you should read about the recent court case where the millionaire
>>father was forced to pay the court ordered HUGE amounts of child support,
>>even though the mother had a very nice income, because the court said that
>>the money had been provided the child before the divorce, it must still be
>>provided after the divorce.
>>Please note: I do think the child was living a totally ridiculous lifestyle..
>>
>>
>>> If you want your daughter to have a pony or a bicycle, or to go to college,
>>> what is so wrong with putting your nose to the grindstone and doing it
>>> yourself?  My mother managed to do it herself, without support, so what's
>>> stopping other women from not relying on child support for things other
>>> than necessities?
>>> 
>>
>>
> 
> 	Sorry but *you* blew this one.  This attitude is probably
> 	the main reason that you experience resistance on this
> 	newsgroup.
> 

The ONLY resistance in this group is from you and The Beav, most of the
rest of the group are VERY supportive.  

Once again, if the father provided a very nice lifestyle before the divorce,
it is extremely unfair to the child(ren) for him to withhold assigned child
support at the expense of the child to support his own affluent lifestyle.
That is the issue, the *ONLY* issue that I have been trying to discuss.
YOU and The Beav keep trying to cloud the issue.  And that is the ONLY thing
that Lisa has been trying to discuss.


> 	A "carte-blanc" attitude when it comes to NCP father support/
> 	spending.  You believe that a person should contribute
> 	a huge amount of money because they MAKE a huge amount.
> 

Child support is figured on an income basis.  That's the law.  I posted
the information used as calculations here in Ohio.  They are very fair.

> 
> 	And you know, it gets tiring "beating a dead horse" (if I 
> 	can use that expression around you) by retracing old and
> 	obvious net issues.
> 
> 	If *I* earned $1 million per year, I can't imagine spending
> 	huge amounts on my kid(s).  I wouldn't want to, and no one
> 	would make me.  It is hard for me to believe that you would
> 	believe a kid would not be living a rediculous life style
> 	being awarded a huge support order.  Of course a person
> 	who believes that every kid should have a pony might.

Sigh, would you PLEASE get off the pony.  Once again, supporting a pony
is no more expensive than supporting a dog.  Actually it's usually less;
hay is much cheaper in many areas than dog food.  

> 	It is also curious how much knowledge about this particular
> 	kids life you claim to have.  And it might also suprise you
> 	how much of that money is simply being absorbed by the
> 	mother.
> 


Well, I am sincerely in favor of the child being provided a reasonable
lifestyle.  I DID go on record for saying that I thought the lifestyle
provided by the millionaire father was absolutely ridiculous, and I think
that children should not be given such ridiculous amounts of money.  
However, the court did so state that the child should not have to have
a tremendous life style change just because the parents got divorced and
the (very rich) father did not want to continue to provide the life the
child was used to.  

> 
> 
>>Well, some women don't have the skills or the training to do so.  And, why
>>are you so dead set against the father contributing his fair share?
> 
> 
> 	Maybe because he thinks that  $1/3 million dollars is a bit
> 	more than a fair share.
> 

Just depends on the court's point of view.  Besides, the point that was
actually under discussion was whether child support should provide more
than a minimal amount of support.


Sue
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men