From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:08:53 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1ee74rINNpm7@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <Bxv81E.39s@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Ok, how about this as a proposal? (for the second time)
>
>As a general comment, I think that you proposal makes some basic assumptions
>and statements that don't necessarily reflect reality, but that's neither
>here nor there as we get into the specifics of the proposal.
>
>I don't see the first two points as being particularly related, so
>I'll go on:

(I do)

>>3)	Provides a declaration that in custody cases, and in the event of
>>	a split of a present-case family unit, that both parties will be
>>	presumed to be equally capable of parenting, and that the split
>>	shall be 50-50 with regards to custody.  Further, the default 
>>	support award shall be >zero< (since both parents have the 
>>	responsibility half the time, they both inherently bear half the
>>	costs).  In particular, repeal the "tender years" doctrine at
>>	the federal level and require proof by preponderance of the
>>	evidence that a parent is >unsuitable< -- not "less suitable" --
>>	before the default custody split of 50-50 is modified.
>>
>>	Further, should one parent choose to move away from the original area
>>	where the divorce took place, the parent which decides to move shall 
>>	bear the cost(s) of transporting the child(ren) involved to comply
>>	with the custody decision.  In no case shall this movement be
>>	grounds for modification of custody.
>
>So, we cart kids cross country twice a year, changing schools, etc., to
>accomodate this plan.   Is this plan to be implemented even if the parents
>agree otherwise, that is to say, even if they make a different plan that
>suits their needs better?  I'll presume not.                               

No, you presume falsely.  

The >default< award of custody and child support can be one thing, and not
prevent two parents from agreeing to something else.  However, there is then
>no< basis for child-support laws which confiscate 40% of a man's >pre-tax<
earnings -- or more -- and then attempt to assign an "earnings potential" to
that same person so when they lose their job they STILL are on the hook for
the original amount!

If either party to a divorce is pigheaded enough to move across the country
KNOWING FULL WELL that this will cause custody problems for the other parent
then they should damn well pay for the privilege.  

Note that this isn't sexist.  I'll even go so far as to suggest that such 
an arrangement isn't in the best interest of the kids most of the time.  But 
that's neither here nor there -- the point is, if you want to do something 
for hedonistic reasons when you have kids to support (like move away from 
the area where you were living before) and can't get your ex to agree to 
move with you, then you, as the one who initiates the move, should be the 
one who pays for the consequences to your kids' lives.  

And that, in a shared parent environment, means you pay for the plane 
tickets.

Of course it's easier to say "well, we'll just modify custody so that nasty
b$@#@$#" doesn't have it any more.  But that's not in the best interests of
the kids -- it's in YOUR best interest.  And once you have children to
support, like it or not, your family MUST be your primary responsibility.

>>4)	Provide a declaration that any allegation of abuse made by one
>>	parent or another which is proven false and baseless shall be:
>>	1)	A class X felony (similar to dealing narcotics)
>>	2)	Immediately cause the accusing person to be ineligible to
>>		receive further custody of children in said dispute.
>
>Ah.  A disincentive for a parent to report suspected abuse.  Gee, great 
>idea.  Really serves to protect the child, huh.

Nope.  Note the >proven< false and baseless above.  

Child abuse allegations are the "nuclear weapon" of custody disputes.  They
are used all too often.  This will make certain that they aren't used where
they should not be.  Note that this also means that a person with the
government (aka "Guardian ad Litem") who wants to persue an abuse agenda had
better be able to prove that something went on before going in front of a
judge to get custody modified.

In this country, suspicion is NOT conviction, nor should it be treated as
such.  Today, in child custody cases, an accusation is as good as a
conviction.  Today, a woman can accuse a man of abuse in a custody battle,
have the entire accusation found baseless, malicious and false, and face 
no criminal sanction for the malicious act -- an act which is as damaging 
to the kids and the accused as selling narcotics 20' from the door to a school. 

This must end.

>>5)	Provide that interference with custody arrangements of any kind 
>>	by a parent is grounds for immediate loss of custody of the child(ren)
>>	affected, and is additionally a federal felony.  This is intended to 
>>	prevent situations where parents "impound" their children against a 
>>	court order or in the hopes of "swinging" a custody dispute.
>
>Now, I know that this, and 4 before it, are in response to current abuses
>within the current system.  But don't you feel that they open their own
>doors for abuses in the new system?  I don't think these two proposals do
>anything to serve the best interests of the child.....

I do.  How much damage is done to a child when he or she heard that "Daddy's
an asshole, and you'd rather spend the time with me than go visit him,
right?"  Or "we're just going away on a little vacation" -- that involves
moving halfway across the country where the kids can't see their other
parent.  Or any one of a number of other excuses.  

The damage done to kids through this kind of psychological abuse is
unbelieveable.  Psychological abuse is just as damaging as physical 
abuse to a kid.

How can you abuse the above paragraph (5) if you're a parent?  Unless, of
course, you consider that complying with split custody is an abuse?  Or
unless you feel that one parent has a >right< to withold shared custody and
parental time from the other.  

Need I say that such a claim is preposterous?

>>This package of legislation would provide the following:
>>
>>2)	It would >guarantee< the right of a man to choose whether or not to
>>	become a father, while insuring that the woman (who is the ultimate
>
>I don't believe that we have established whether anyone has a right to 
>become a parent.  And this series of legislation doesn't provide that in
>any case.  It gives the man veto power on supporting a child he fathers,
>but it doesn't provide any right to *become* a father.  I sincerely hope,
>since the implications of that kind of law would be pretty scarey!
>
>But the major problem I see is how to implement these rules, and how to
>deal with the inevitable fall out.  And, of course, how to adjust these
>rules so they do what they are intended to do.

I have posted a follow-up which addresses a large part of this, and some of
the ambiguity in the proposal.  I don't believe that either (4) or (5) has
much room for interpretation.

>What *are* they intended to do, Karl?  The current series of rules in place
>are intended to serve the best interests of the *children*, not the parents.
>Now, granted, there are flaws in the original set, and they don't always
>accomplish this objective, but it is nonetheless true that at least they
>are aimed at the best interests of the children as their object.  Your rules
>don't seem to be.  

No, they're intended to serve the best interests of the MOTHER.  C'mon
Adrienne, you don't REALLY believe that allowing a woman to hide her kids
from the law, to pretend they're sick when they're not, to blatently
ignore custody decisions, and to make baseless and false abuse allegations -- 
and get away with it under the law -- are in the best interests of the 
children, do you?

Do you REALLY believe that only a woman can properly raise children?  Do
you believe that men should pay for kids, and women should raise them?  Do
you believe that a man should be liable for a child which results from 
his decision to have sex, while a woman should have not one, but TWO 
distinct choices which do not involve parental responsibility -- AFTER
gestation has taken place?

>How does 'notification' *really* work?  How does notice of "choice" *really*
>work?  How does carting the kids back and forth from house to house *really*
>work?  How are children served by these provisions?  And does this proposal
>solve more problems than it initiates?

It works by people being honest and giving one another proper notification.
It does not work if you find ingenious ways around it.  But in that case,
since you haven't complied with the requirements, the infringer pays --
unlike today where the man pays and the woman chooses.

You want proof in a potentially hostile situation?  Send your notifications 
return-receipt requested with a notary's seal on them, or have a process
server do it for you.  That's legal proof if you feel you'll need it.

>> Nonetheless, I believe
>>that a >balanced< approach such as this, which can be supported by both men
>>and women, is the only way both men and women will manage to guarantee their
>>reproductive freedom >and< their rights and responsibilities with regards to
>>minor children.
>
>Yeah, but it doesn't do much for the minor children, and therefore can hardly
>be considered 'balanced'. 

It certainly does do a lot for children.  It guarantees them equal parenting 
time from BOTH parents.  It guarantees that they will not become pawns in a 
child custody battle based on false and damning abuse allegations.  It 
guarantees that should a parent try to circumvent the law, and avoid split 
custody, that said parent will be punished just as heavily as any child 
abuser -- since that is what they are.  And it guarantees that should a 
child be wanted by >either< parent after birth, yet not the other, that 
a means exists to guarantee that the parent which wants the child can
take care of and raise same.

>>Further, I will go so far as to suggest that there is a simpler solution to
>>the problem of "fair" reproductive freedom that is now present in law:
>>	Remove a woman's right to choose whether or not to become a parent
>>	after a pregnancy occurs.
>>I think it is obvious to both men and women that this is a less desirable
>>alternative than the proposal above.  Nonetheless, I believe it is a
>>defensible position for men should women decide not to permit equality,
>>within the limits of biology, in this process.
>
>But my original complaint, Karl, is that you are ignoring the limits of
>biology in your analysis, and still do.
>
>How do you propose to deal with that limitation "fairly"?

I'm not ignoring the limits of biology Adrienne.  I acknowledge that men
cannot become pregnant, and that they do not have the right to force ANY
woman, at ANY time, to bear a child against her wishes.

However, with choice comes responsibility.  Since women want the choice to
have or not have kids at any time, they should bear primary responsibility 
for that choice.  Only through CONSENT should a man become a father.  
That consent is NOT at the sex act.  Sex is for many purposes other than 
procreation.  To suggest otherwise is to ask all men in the country to 
immediately withhold sex from their mate(s) unless they intend to 
produce children.  

I dare say that women, and men, would find that unacceptable.

Today a woman can easily end up pregnant.  The >only< birth control
methods available to men are condoms and sterilization.  Condoms have a 5%
failure rate per year.  Sterilization has a near-zero failure rate, but is
considered permanent.  

Therefore, if a man EVER wants a child he must risk being called "father",
and being on the hook for support, every time he climbs into bed -- WITHOUT
his consent.  NO WOMAN IN THE UNITED STATES FACES THIS REALITY TODAY. 

This is sexist, wrong, and violates the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution.

>>Anyone want to join in on this one and see if we can get some legislative
>>action on this proposal at a federal level?
>
>I'd like to see an economic analysis first.  Is that available at the net
>address you posted earlier, or does that reply only contain the contents of
>this proposal as posted here?  I'll pick it up if it does.

An ECONOMIC analysis?  I thought that the children were the important issue
here?  Or is this another way to find that since women would have to bear
more of the cost of raising children, and yet would have less >control< over
same (they'd have to split it 50-50!) that it is unacceptable?

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions