Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    A request for information, please:
       
    1.  Who or what is F.A.I.R.?  (My apologies if I missed it in
        the text.)
    
    2.  Of the woman with child-support court orders, how many actually 
        receive the money they are due?  In a timely fashion?
        Consistently?
    
    The only part of this legislation that sounds suspect to me is the
    "Presumptive paternity" bit.  I feel paternity must be ascertained
    by more than entering a SSN at the birth;  using only that could
    cause some real Kafkaesque situations.
    
    MM
    
    

    In all seriousness, I feel a bit threatened by this as well.
    
    My SO has some children from a former marriage, that his former
    wife doesn't allow him to see or visit.  Since the divorce was about
    10 years ago, the child support is comaratively low.
    
    What I'm afraid of, is that this new legislation will attempt to prove
    that he and I have a common law marriage, which is defined very fuzzily
    by the state we live in, and attempt to take 1/3 or more of our
    combined income.  If this happens, we may be forced to separate and
    divorce from a forced common-law marriage, and date for several years
    until the children turn 18 (they are now 13 I believe).  I balk at the
    idea of paying in excess of $10K/year (not tax deductable) for a family
    that I have never met. 

RE: .1

I do not defend either parent avoiding equally supporting their children.

I personally object to:

The Government making *arbitrary* edicts, instead of getting the parents
to come to an agreement by mediation, counselling, or whatever.

I object to the "presumptive paternity" mentioned.

I object to inflexible formulas which do not, and can not take the circumstances
of the individual situation into account.

I object to fathers being treated like bank accounts.

I object to either parent having less then equal rights and responsibilities
to and with their children, without agreement.

I object to an automatic deduction of support for wages unless there is
consistant nonpayment of agreed upon support. 

I object to fathers not being able to provide for their children's needs
directly, and benifitting from that emotional bond of giving and recieving, and
having control over what *their* money is spent for on *their* children.

I object to having the bureaucracy screw up, and not making the support
available in a timely fashion.

I object to demoting judges to rubberstamps.

I do not object to child support being reviewed on a regular basis.

I do object to manditory guidelines with increases but not decreases in special
circumstances.

I object to a farce of having lawyers and judges time, and parents $$$ *wasted*
by inflexible guidelines which you may have a court date to argue against, but
you cannot win. 

I object to the exemption of the sponsors territory.

I object to the government passing laws, rules, regulations, or guidelines which
prevent, or make it difficult for a parent to continue a relationship with their
children, which in some cases leave parents no choice except abandoning their
children. 

I object to the arbitraryness of the guidelines without concern for the
financial status of the noncustodial parent. 

I object to the assumption that divorced fathers are slime.

I object to fathers who do not know that they *have* children being condemmed
for not supporting them.

I object to fathers not having the dignity of a court hearing; being handled
by the bureaucracy.

BTW, F.A.I.R is Father's Advocacy and Infromation Referal. a nonprofit
organization.

According to FAIR, Child support guidelines in various states range from 17% to
30% of the noncustodial parents pay before taxes, which is equavilent to 25% to
50% of the noncustodial parents take home pay.  Plus medical insurance,
uninsured medical expenses, any expenses when with the noncustodial parent
without support reduction, plus schooling expenses in various states. 

Jim.

    6:
    
    Then let's do something about it.  I wrote to my senator, and altho
    this isn't the one and only answer, I at least feel I've done
    something.
    
    I don't appreciate my government making arbitrary decisions for
    me, either.
    
    

re: .0

Given the large number of Congressional Democratic Presidential
candidates who have lined up to support this bill, I think it would
behoove all of us who have the opportunity to try to pin down Gov.
Dukakis on this.  If he's really the Democratic front-runner, as
some polls show, and he can be gotten on record as opposing this
bill as a bureaucratic civil-liberties-infringing boondoggle, that
could definitely pop the balloon of support for the legislation.

						paul

    Further proof that all things go from bad to worse with a little
    help from a politician. "Just trust me" he said, as he wiped off
    the knife.
    
    -j
    

RE: .7

I intend to... as soon as I recover from typing the article in! :-)

RE: .8

I'd hesitate to say that Dukakis would be against this bill.  Of course,
both MA senators are behind it...

It almost seems like noncustodial parents are a new minority to pick on...

Jim.

    re: .8 Rest assured that Pukakis will endorse any program that
    	gives the government more control over our lives. Especially
    	if money is involved!

    One thing I find very insulting is that the custodial parent (presumed
    to be the mother/woman) is viewed as a welfare case if not married.
    That is an insult to every self supporting woman in the country.
    
    The other thing is, who is going to pay for this?  The parents?
    Are they going to take 10% (or whatever) out of the support to broker
    the transaction?  NO.  They are going to just expand an already
    unweildly beaurocracy (the welfare system), and let the taxpayers
    support it.  And as .0 says, the only people to be really effected
    are the responsible parents, not the frauds, not the illegal aliens,
    not those who have no way of supporting their children (unemployable,
    dead, in prison, in the hospital, etc.).
    
    I do object to the *frequent mandatory* reevaluation.  Who is going
    to pay for the expantion of the judicial system, which is now just
    a rubber stamp?  All of us!
    
    I object to the invasion of privacy.  Should you have to inform
    your employer that you have been divorced X times, from whom, and
    how many children?  I think so, but only if you have a proven track
    record of non-payment.  The responsible fathers who pay as much
    (or more) toward their children's upbringing should not have to
    disclose anything to thier employer.
    
    A better solution would be to make court ordered child support
    enforcable across state lines.  That seems to be the major problem
    anyway.
    
    Elizabeth                           

First off, from my understanding of the bill, the taking of wages is not 
an automatic thing - Wages will be attached only when court ordered support 
payments are not being made.

It is true that the bill leaves open the possibility for abuse (just look to 
the IRS for examples of government enforcement techniques when bureaucrats 
are given the legal clout to take property - in this case, money).  However, 
as the situation now stands, enforcement of child support payments is 
virtually voluntary.  Fathers (to the tune of up to 80% is one figure I 
have heard - another figure I have seen is that 50% don't honor the commitment
at all, and of the other 50%, half only honor the support decree sporatically,
or in part).

I do not like to see government try to rectify inequities - they always manage
to create new ones.  However, something must be done.  The current welfare 
system is a self-serving entity.  The current record of support by absent 
parents (not just fathers) is abysimal.  Moinihan is at least trying.  But 
a better system is needed.

Joe King

    How would non-custodial parents feel about the bill if it included
    provisions for enforcement of visitation, accountability for support
    funds, and penalties for alienation?

    re .14:
    
    Sounds like a better (though not best) system to me.  I would almost
    be for it if it included enforcement of visitation, accountability
    for the funds, penalties for alienation, and any other court ordered
    provisions.
    
    The major objection, still, is that it should only be invoked when
    someone is not meeting their commitments.  Also, I don't like it
    being part of the welfare system.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    How about a provision that required a jurisdiction to be within
    one std deviation of equally distributing parental responsibility
    between parents before the bill is enforcable? 
    
    How about automatic reconsideration of the custody decision as part
    of the process of re-evaluating the amount of child support?

    I think the main problem with the bill is not the child-support
    formulas (which, from what I've read, seem reasonable) nor the
    enforcement provisions (a bill without any enforcement would be
    useless).
    
    The main problem is that it doesn't address the most important
    issue, which is the fairness of the custody decision in the first
    place. The automatic assumption under the current system is that
    the mother will get custody of the children. And this bill, by
    not addressing the custody issue, simply re-inforces this unfair
    assumption.
    
    For example, at the start of my divorce, my wife's lawyer told
    her that if she wanted full custody, she (the lawyer) could
    get it for her. "Because of the childs age" she said, though
    a more complete statement would have been "because you're the
    mother and the child is only 2 and the courts assume a man can't
    take care of a 2-year-old". My wife's lawyer furthermore tried
    to talk her into going for full custody because then she could
    get more money. And, my lawyer confirmed what the other lawyer
    said: If my wife asked for full custody, I should just let her have
    it. Because if I waged a battle (going for joint custody)
    I'd probably lose and furthermore I'd probably have to pay the
    full cost of the custody battle, up to $50,000 (I guess I pay because 
    I am the father?)
    
    Fortunately, my wife was reasonable, and firmly told her lawyer
    that she and I had already verbally agreed on a joint custody arrangement
    and she was not go renege on that agreement. So I came out of it
    OK. But it seems to me that there is the potential for the father
    to really get screwed.
    
    Then you get the law-makers like Moynihan engaging in all this
    father-bashing - i.e., "look at those jerks, they run off
    and don't pay their support and don't take responsibility for
    their own children". But to me, it's not surprising that fathers
    behave irresponsibly if they are already bitter about being screwed
    by an unfair system in the first place.
    
    Here's what I would propose to "fix" the system:
    
    1. Shared physical custody be made the default.
    2. In order to obtain full physical custody, a parent
       should have to prove the other parent is unfit (i.e.,
       history of abuse). 
    3. If one parent desires joint custody and the other wages
       a battle to obtain full custody, the parent desiring full
       custody should bear the full cost of the battle.
    4. If one parent makes joint custody impossible (i.e., by moving
       far away), that parent should forfeit his/her custody rights.
    
    Basically, if the above provisions were the law, then only men
    who *choose* to be non-custodial parents would end up being
    subject to enforceable child support formulas. Basically, what
    I think the law should say to fathers is: Either you put the
    time in to care for your children, or else you pay money to
    the other parent (and in the latter case, the payments *should*
    be strongly enforced). I think if this were the law, you
    would have a vast majority of divorced fathers choosing joint
    custody instead of choosing to run off to another state.
    Even ones that were very uninvolved with the kids during
    the marriage. And the children would benefit because they would
    end up with 2 parents instead of ending up with a mother and
    no father because he ran away to another state to escape child
    support payments.
    
    If provisions such as the above were added, I would consider the
    bill fair and reasonable. As it stands, I oppose it because
    it re-inforces an already-unfair situation.
    
    	- Rich

Rich, you make a couple of good points. 

 This "Family Security Act" seems to be an attempt to enforce child support
payments, more than anything else. Certainly, such an act of enforcement is 
required, given the large (appalling is not strong enough) number of parents
who evade their child support payments now. 

 As to the present "child custody" system, that too seems to need an overhaul,
in that it is no longer axiomatic that the woman will be the only one capable
of talking care of the child, and the man will be the only one capable of
raising money to support the child.

Interestingly, many lawyers to whom I have talked are opposed to the concept of
joint physical custody, in that the child has _less_ stability (having two
"homes", two sets of "rules") than by living full-time with one parent and
visiting the other. There seems to be a tendency to try to dissuade people
from the "joint physical custody" option; a lawyer of my acquaintance referred
to "joint custody" as 'something which only an engineer would dream up; the
child ends up being treated like a library book, or some other possession'.

 I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it is an example of _where_ the re-education
process will have to begin.

					Nigel

First off, a point re: attachment of pay - The Moynihan bill only is extending
a legal right that most states already have.  The problem comes in enforcement
of child support over state lines (and in the complex legal actions that are 
currently required to get a state to take the attachment step - some states 
are more active than others).

The real problem I see with the bill (and for that matter, with the current 
treatment of custody and support situations by the courts) is the attempt to 
treat a horrendous problem through blanket solutions.  The same is true for 
any legistlation that mandates that joint custody should be the norm, or 
tries in any way to rectify current inequities in the way the system works.

Let's face it - there are a very large segment of fathers (and mothers) who 
are simply not capable of providing decent parental care (maybe they can on 
financial levels, but not emotional).  Too often, custody battles are not 
waged for any reasons related to the children - but simply as distorted 
attempts at revenge against the other.

As it now stands, however, judges do seem to have a bias in favor of 
motherhood (I can tell a horror story about a judge who listened to several 
psych's testify that a mother was extremely dangerous - a severe 
manic/depressive - and capable of causing severe physical harm to her kids,
including a court appointed shrink, and turned around and awarded full 
custody to the mother because they were three little girls, and she was there 
mother).  Clearly, a reeducation of judges is needed (not only in this area,
but that's another topic).

Blanket laws do not work, for while they may solve some problems, they 
create new ones.  Moynihan's bill is an attempt to rectify a serious problem,
and the fallout may not be all that bad.  But I believe that any attempts 
to make this bill better by including provisions that proportedly protect 
a father's custodial rights will only compound the problem.

OK - so I'm good on complaining about what can't be done.  I'm not very good 
at figuring out what can be done.  Judges are human and overworked - it is 
not surprising that they make reasonable assumptions about mothers vs. fathers
and parental care based on the past history of the family - However, no one 
should apply those assumptions to any individual case.  Try stopping them,
though.

Joe King

    .14 brings up a problem that I have heard mentioned by fathers
    that are fighting support payments. Accountability for the $
    spent. There doesn't seem to be any check, at present, that
    the support payments are actually going to the children's care.
    Documenting a neglectful situation, for presentation in court,
    is extremely difficult. I heard one guy say that he told his
    ex "This month's payment will be found under the xmas tree at
    my place". Like he said, "Why should I buy presents for the
    kids that frees my ex from having to use the support money to
    buy new clothes?"
    
    Bob Mc

RE: .13

The picture *is* bleak.  The Wage Deduction *is* automatic, whether you have
been good at paying, or not.

"The current record of support by absent parents (not just fathers) is abysimal.
"

The problem is that the problem of 'support; is not an isolated one.  There are
*lots* of problems with being a divorced parent.  In a survey done by FAIR, 84%
of nonpayment of child support are caused by frustration of rights and
priviledges of the noncustodial parent with the children. 

Is anything being done about that??? ***Nothing***

RE: .14

That would certainly be a step in the right direction.  I still think the
presumptive paternity *has* to go, and there are some other things that need
to be equalized.

RE: .16

The drawbacks of Automatic reconsideration of custody would swamp any benifits.
I don't think automatic *anything* is good, really.

RE: .17

"The main problem is that it doesn't address the most important issue, which is
the fairness of the custody decision in the first place."

You got it!

RE: .18

"This "Family Security Act" seems to be an attempt to enforce child support
payments, more than anything else."

Yes, but there *is* quite a bit more objectionable besides enforcement. 
And the enforcement that is there is misguided.

You see, we have all these politicians and lawyers who think that as soon
as they pass a law, or sue you, the problem is solved.  But it doesn't work
like that...

RE: .19

"Let's face it - there are a very large segment of fathers (and mothers) who are
simply not capable of providing decent parental care (maybe they can on
financial levels, but not emotional)." 

I disagree with that ***entirely***.  I think that there is a very large number
of fathers, who have never had the *opportunity* to *learn* to take care of
their children; just as a first time mother would have to learn. An even larger
number have never considered it because, 'of course they can't'.

It's more then a bias...

They are not *reasonable* assumptions.

JIm. 

 

RE: .21 - I stand by my statement about fathers (and mothers) not having the 
emotional capability to parent - Why is it that a father has to wait until he 
is divorced before he begins to learn to be a father?  Granted, there are 
situations where well-intentioned fathers turn the reponsibility for parental 
care entirely over to the mother, and upon seperation, see that they have 
erred, and start to learn to be a parent.  However, a vast majority of fathers
who did not chose to learn how to parent when they were part of a whole family
will not chose to learn to parent when they are divorced.

And I stand by my statement that judges make a reasonable assumption about 
abilities to parent based on the history of the family (and, any argument 
that implies that fathers wait until divorce to learn to parent is further 
prove that the statement is reasonable - clearly if a father is not parenting
while the family is whole, then how can it be unreasonable to assume that the
mother is more skilled at parenting?)  However, it appears you did not read 
all of what I was saying about this issue.  My point is that judges are 
people (despite all of the evidence otherwise), and that it is human nature 
to be biased, to make assumptions.  We all do it - judges are not above it.
But I point this out as the reason we have to reeducate the whole legal 
system about this issue.  It is a fact that judges will have biases - That 
does not, and should not, justify them using their biases in any custody 
situation.  It is not unreasonable for a judge to assume, based on the 
history of the family, that at the point of custody decisions, that most 
likely the mother is the better skilled at child care - It is unreasonable 
for any judge to take that bias into the courtroom.

And as to the issue of non-custodial parents failing to honor support payments 
due to custodial parents abusing the non-custodial parents rights and 
priveledges - Is this supposed to be a case of two wrongs that make a right?
Yes, the custodial parent will be penalized, financially - but so will the 
children.  Up until recently, this may have appeared to be the only way 
a non-custodial parent had available to fight - But, I believe, the court 
system has shown a marked willingness, recently, to come down hard on 
custodial parents who abuse the rights of non-custodial parents.  It is 
unfortunate that the court system has to be used to enforce visitation 
rights - No less unfortunate than the fact that we need to use the courts 
to set support payments, protect support payment rights, and that we need 
courts to devide property, define rights, etc. in the first place.

RE: .20 - Accountability - I agree that there are custodial parents that 
abuse the use of support payments.  Accountability, however, is a real can 
of worms.  Do we really want to get into a situation where we have to, to 
be truely fair, start figuring out how much more it is costing the 
custodial parent to rent a three bedroom apartment, rather than one bedroom?
It is easy to count how much is spent on clothes, on food, on medical 
bills, school bills.  But is this really a true accounting?  How do we 
figure the costs for babysitting expenses, for wear and tear and gas for all 
the trips associated to custodial care?  Do we start putting values on 
the sleepless nights with a sick child?  How about extra wear and tear on 
the appliances.  Yes, abuse of support does exist.  But how many non-
custodial parents are actually being asked to pay anywhere near 50% of the 
true and fair costs of raising their children?  Where abuse exists, and 
can be shown, this is not cause for witholding support - It is cause for 
fighting like hell to change the custody situation - The custodial parent is 
not really abusing the support payments, they are abusing the child.

So, in short (actually, in long), I continue my support for Moynihan's bill.
Yes, it will be unfair to some - I have no doubt of that.  And I regret that
a bill is needed to try and rectify the inequities that exist.  If judges 
did not operate on their biases, if parents honored their responsibilities,
no bill would be needed.  But this is not the case.  And it will not be the 
case after Moynihan's bill is passed.  But it is my belief that the bill is
a decent attempt to take action against a pitiful situation.  It is not 
going to solve much, but I do not believe it will cause more problems than 
it does solve.  It is a step in the right direction - I just wish it was not 
a direction we have to go in.  My biggest fear is what Moynihan's bill will 
actually look like when and if it does pass.  I doubt it will look anything 
like it does now.  And, it would be very difficult, considering the composition
of congress, to convince me that any version of the bill that does pass will 
give fathers a beating.  It looks to me as if very few mothers are going 
to have any input into the bills final make-up.

Joe King

OK - Let me try a different approach.  Up to now, I have been supporting 
the Moynihan bill, reluctantly, on the grounds that it is better than nothing.
It's time I step out with what I view may be a more equitable attempt to 
rectify the problem areas of support and visitation.

1.  My primary suggestion has to do with taking these problems out of an 
overburdened court system by establishing what might be best be called 
a system of arbitration, or a court system that is dedicated to family 
issues.  THis kind of move is being made in several states RE: divorce cases, 
with great success.  Can it work for enforcing support or visitation 
rights?  My opinion is that it can.

Such a set-up should (but may not) cut expenses of fighting for support or 
visitation rights, as well as should cut time involved.  

In other words, a way has to be found to streamline recourse by agrieved 
parents - recourse that does not penalize the children, in the process.

2.  Penalties for failure to meet responsibilities, whether for support, or 
for visitation and other non-custodial rights being abridged, must be 
increased (of course, where there is severe change in financial status, for 
example, reallignment may be necessary, vs. throuwing the person in jail 
for being unemployed).  I do not believe in automatic attatchment of pay for 
support purposes (and I seriously doubt any bill coming out of a predominantly 
male congress will have such a proviso), but a streamlined mechanism (such as 
1) needs to be in place for enforcement.  In addition, stiffer penalties 
need to be considered when such abuse exists.  And this goes for custodial
parents denying non-custodial rights.

In other words, it is my view that in order to rectify the inequities that 
exist, we must find a way to provide quicker, less expensive recourse, and 
we must send clear messages to persons who abuse the rights of the other that
such actions will not be tolerated.

What we have to avoid is any system that mandates specific payments (in the 
words of an old song "he doesn't make much money, 5 thousand dollars per.  Some
judge who thinks he's funny, say's he'll give 6 to her."), as such a system 
would have builtin inequities - Perhaps even more so than the problem it is 
trying to rectify.  We must also be wary of any attempts to mandate joint
custody, or any other custody arrangements - there will be cases where any 
custodial care by one of the parents will not be in the best interest of the 
children.

I have no idea if my suggestions would actually work - First off, the changes 
would never be made:  The cost of a separate system to deal with the problems
of divorced persons would have to be paid for.  We, as a people, have shown 
a marked desire for services and just as marked a desire not to pay for them -
But that's another issue.

Joe King

Maybe this is actually another topic altogether - However, I have been mildly 
surprised that no one has brought up another area of inequity in the current 
status of support situations:  Re-marriage.

Here, I suspect, I will come down firmly on the side of fathers, for although 
things are changing, the situation is still where a vast majority of fathers 
are non-custodial parents paying (or expected to be paying support).

When a non-custodial parent remarries, in effect, the new partner is expected 
to take on the financial burden of the old family.  Fine.  Remarriage does 
not negate previous family ties, and should not.  If any non-custodial parent 
attempts to renegotiate support payments based on getting remarried, that 
parent would be laughed out of court. 

Unfortunately, they'd also be laughed out of court if they tried to renegotiate 
child support based on the remarriage of the custodial parent.

The argument, of course, is that the new partner of the custodial parent should 
not be responsible for the total care of the children from a previous marriage -
Yet, it is the exact argument that is used to show that the new partner of 
a non-custodial parent should be so responsible.  As it now stands, unless the 
new partner of the custodial parent adopts the children, the non-custodial 
parent has little hope of support reduced.

Does anyone feel this is a fair situation?  My earlier suggestion of stream-
lining the system to better serve grievances would also apply to taking a 
closer and fairer look at this situation.  It does not make any sense to me 
to say that one new partner is responsible ("Hey, she knew what she was getting
into when she married him - knew he had support payments to make) and another 
is not responsible ("hey, they are not my kids").

Any opposing P.O.V on this?

Joe King

    More on fairness of support - Again, I step off into an area of
    massive disagreement - What is a fair share?
    
    Specifically, when you have a situation where one parent earns 
    52,000 and the other earns 26,000, is it really fair and equitable
    to say both should contribute exactly the same amount to the care
    of the child?  If the equal contribution is 100.00 each, per week,
    in effective dollars (percentage of income), one parent is actually 
    contributing twice as much as the other (20% of weekly income vs.
    10%).
    
    Just another point RE:  Just what is fair and just support.
    
    Joe King
    

    (This is a reply to #22. I deleted and re-entered a slightly edited
    version of my original reply, which is why there is a gap in
    the reply numbers.)

    I disagree with the statement in .22 about the emotional capability
    of fathers to take care of their children. 
    
    It is absolutely false to conclude that, just because
    the mother was doing the majority of the child-caring when the
    marriage was intact, therefore the father is emotionally
    incapable of doing it.

    I'll use my own situation as a counter-example to that statement.
    
    For the first year of our son's life, my wife and I were doing 
    the traditional thing where I worked and earned the money, and
    she stayed home with our son. So naturally, she was doing the
    majority of the parenting. Not because I was incapable of doing
    it. But because it was the most efficient way of dividing
    up the responsibilities. I am more efficient at earning money
    (income >2 times hers). So we divided up the responsibilities
    in the most efficient fashion, where we each played different roles.
    
    Now upon divorce, what I wanted to do was re-distribute the
    responsibilities in a more equal fashion. She has to
    take responsibility for supporting herself (i.e., go back to
    work). In return, I take responsibility for 50% of the parenting
    (i.e., joint custody).
    
    She agreed to that, and that is what we have been doing for 9 months,
    and it is working out well. If I may be somewhat immodest, I believe
    I have learned in the past 9 months to be an excellent parent, and
    I have a very positive loving relationship with our son, and I feel
    the our son benefits tremendously from having a relationship with
    2 parents. And, in spite of our differences, I can state confidently
    that my ex-wife would affirm the fact that I am an excellent father.
    
    I don't think I'm different or better than most other men. I think
    most men can learn to become good parents if given the chance.
    The problem with the present system is that it *doesn't* give
    them the chance.

    	- Rich

    RE: .28 (originally .24)
    
    Again, I stand by my original assertion that it is a reasonable
    assumption BASED ON THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY (please note, this
    is family, in general, not case specific history), but that I also
    state that it is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE TO TAKE THIS ASSUMPTION INTO
    A COURT ROOM AND APPLY IT TO ANY GIVEN SITUATION.
    
    My point is and has been, that despite specific cases to the contrary,
    the general history of the family is that mothers have had more
    experience at fathering, and that the making of reasonable assumptions
    by humans (which judges are) is going to happen, and that because
    of this, we must push for reeducation of judges so that they don't
    bring this assumption into court and apply it in any blanket form.
    
    The specific case history of any given family can be considered
    in making custody decisions.  It is possible that the situation
    you specify in your response only indicates a real lack of opportunity
    to gain parenting skills, and not an unwillingness - the fact is
    that despite gains in the sharing of house responsibilities, even
    so called SUPER MOMS, are sometimes threatened (their roles of 
    mother) when a father tries to be an active parent - This is not
    my theory, but a theory based on sociological and psych studies
    of family structures.  However, where a parent has displayed a 
    marked and documentable disregard for issues such as school events,
    birthdays, unkept promises, etc., then it is reasonable to make
    assumptions about that parents emotional capability to provide 
    decent parental care.
    
    My contention is not that men, by nature, are emotionally unsuited
    to parenting.  Anyone can be a good parent, if they chose to take
    the time to learn just what that means.  It is my contention that
    too many men (and too many women - one does not become a good mother
    by giving birth) lack the will or the desire to learn - as parents,
    they are reactors, not actors.
    
    Joe King

re: Note 390.26                 

Just a couple of quick comments fome one whose been on all fours sides:
    
    A few years back, the Welfare dept in State of NH attempted to get a 
    bill passed, whereby if a man married a woman with children, whose
    natural father was either absent or unknown (ie not providing support
    so welfare was providing support in lieu of said father), the new
    'father' would not only take on 'legal' responsibility of the children
    while married to their mother, but would continue so if they got
    divorced, which would theoretically 'free' the state/county from
    providing that support. The bill died in committee.
    
    

    >are non-custodial parents paying (or expected to be paying support).
    
    non-custodial pays part of the support, and also gets the deduction
    for all but one (so the custodial parent gets to file 'head of houshold').


    >When a non-custodial parent remarries, in effect, the new partner is expected 
    >to take on the financial burden of the old family.  Fine.  Remarriage does 

    BULL_DIDDLY .. no way ... The new partner is 100% exempt from any legal
    responsibility to someone elses kids (unless they opt to adopt),
    in which case they become the "legal" parent.
    
>child support based on the remarriage of the custodial parent.

    What would be the basis of changing the child support based on
    remarriage of either partner ? 
    
    Did the children ask that their parents be divorced ? 
    
    Did the state intervene and require that they be divorced (state  of
    Washington excepted) ?

>Yet, it is the exact argument that is used to show that the new partner of 
>a non-custodial parent should be so responsible.  As it now stands, unless the 
>new partner of the custodial parent adopts the children, the non-custodial 
>parent has little hope of support reduced.

    Why should they have any hope ? 
    
    Alimony should unconditionally be dropped, and in many places is
    already.
    
>Does anyone feel this is a fair situation?  
    
    Ask the children this question: Would you lilke to go hungry so
    mommy can pay less child support ?
    
    Would you like to watch TV so mommy can work three jobs and not
    pay any attention to you ?
    
    "Fair Share" support: What is fair ? To whom ? Most courts and lawyers
    definition of "What's right" is "Whats in it for me ?".
    
    With one lawyer per 60 people, up from 1 per 300 persons 10 years
    ago, SOMEBODYS gotta pay so they can eat ! [ Don't they   ;^)  ]
    
    Bob_instant_daD_again
    

    RE:  .30 - First off, as far as I am concerned, that NH bill should
    never have even made it to committee.  The point of my response
    in .26 was not to argue that the new partner of the custodial parent
    whould automatically take responsibility for the kids - such a 
    system would add to the difficulty that most custodial parents already
    have when it comes to finding new partners.
    
    And I still stand by the fact that if you marry a person who is
    paying child support, you, in essense, are paying that support -
    your new family structure is legally responsible for the support
    of your new partners previous children.  You seem to have read
    something else into my reply.  
    
    The point I was, and am still trying to make, is that there are
    issues all throughout the whole system that do not make any 
    approach to correcting problems in any area of the system cut and
    dried.  But some approach is better than none.
    
    Should new partners of custodial parents be expected to take on
    a share of the child support currently paid by the non-custodial
    parent?  Not as a rule - but can there be circumstances when an
    adjustment can be made?  I believe there can be - maybe in a case,
    for example, where the new partner of the custodial parent makes
    50,000 while the non-custodial parent has been struggling to pay
    100.00 per week on a 20,000 annual salary.
    
    As for the rest of .30 - I got a little confused.  Were you citing
    arguments against something I have said?  It seemed to me that you
    were citing some very powerful arguments for one of my main 
    questions:  Just what is fair and just?  Too many people (specifically,
    non-custodial parents who are trying to set their support) see it
    as a straight issue of 50% of reasonable costs, without really 
    looking at what reasonable costs are, or for hidden costs that don't
    readily show up in any accounts payable ledger.
    
    As for lawyers, you are absolutely correct.  My earlier suggestion
    of streamlining the system would hopefully achieve some system where
    lawyers would only be needed in the most complicated of cases (BTW
    - another reason no such system would ever exist - look at the 
    composition of the legislature that would have to revamp the system
    and tell me they'd go along with any system that threatens lawyer's
    livelihood).  The case I cited earlier of the man who has not been
    paying child support of 150.00 per month is on it's way through
    the court system.  The ex-wife was told by her lawyer that she would
    win the case, hands down (winning was made easier by her not having
    sought 'revenge' by denying the non-supporting parent his visitation
    rights as retaliation), but she had to come up with a $2,000.00
    retainer for the lawyer before he'd take the case - The retainer
    is the equivelent of just over 13 months support.
    
    Joe King
    

    A BTW to my .31 reply -
    
    I also believe that should a non-custodial parent be paying support
    that is fair, but extremely low due to that parents financial
    situation, and there situation improves (they marry the 50,000 salary),
    then there may be grounds for looking at the amount of support.
    
    My point is that when financial situations alter dramatically, on
    either side of the coin, some adjustment may be justified.
    
    Joe King
    

    I have refrained from this note for a long time....because it is
    such a sensitive issue with me.
    
    Each parent owes one half of their children's support.  They must
    work and or provide that half.  If they remarry and choose to stay
    home then they have to get that money from someplace and it might
    be the new wife/husband.
    
    If they do not earn enough money they should get a second job...if
    they do not do that then they create a liability with the person
    or agency that supplies their share of the support.
    
    First the couple determines the standard of living that is acceptable.
    This might require mediatation.    All expenses are calculated and
    divided by the number of people living in the house.  If the expenses
    are $500 a week to run the household and there is a custodial parent
    living with two dependent children the expenses are $166.66 each.
    The two children cost $333.33 and each parent contributes $166.
    a week.  Simple.
    
    Alimony is justified and maybe should be rephrased as a subsidy
    for the partner who provided homemaking and childcare skills during
    the marriage and did not pursue their career.  This should be for
    a period of time that allows that individual to develop and work
    on a career path.
    
    We, both men and women have brought this current law up.  We have
    ignored our responsibilities to our children and used our children
    as wedges in marital disputes.  And then we scream and holler when
    the government tries to resolve the very basic issue of children
    not receiving adequate care.  
    
    I suggest that we all write our congressman and tell him we do not
    want people who are assuming there responsibility involved in the
    new law.  And then we become very intolerant of irresponsibility
    in our families and amongst our friends.
    
    

    Re: .33 - Sorry, the formula you propose is absurd:
    
    > First the couple determine the standard of living that is 
    > acceptable. 
   
    I'll tell you exactly what will happen at this point. The
    custodial parent will decide that she absolutely requires
    a luxury apartment, a brand-new Volvo, a health-club membership,
    dinners out every night, etc, etc, etc. Because the higher
    the standard of living that is "acceptable", the higher the
    payments. And, conversely, the non-custodial parent will claim
    that it's acceptable for the wife and kids to live in a 1-bedroom
    dump in the slums and eat peanut butter every night. Because
    the lower the standard of living that is "acceptable", the
    lower the payments.
    
    "Oh, divorcing couples aren't *that* nasty", you're probably saying.
    No. But divorce lawyers *are* that nasty. These are *exactly* the
    kinds of games that get played today in determining support
    amounts. Each party fills out a form stating his or her expenses,
    and of course what you do there is exactly the same thing we
    do in software scheduling: Make the best guess and double it.
    Then double it again. The higher your "expenses", the larger
    a fraction of the pie you end up with. Then each party attacks
    the other party's expenses, and you get into all kinds of stupid
    arguments...
    
    The point of coming up with fixed formulas in to end these silly
    games. I am in favor of the fixed-formula  concept as long as a 
    fair and reasonable
    formula can be found. The simple "20% of non-custodial parent's
    income" (the NH formula) is too simplistic and is not fair in
    many cases.
    
    But, back to your proposal:
        
    > All expenses are calculated and divided by the number of people
    > living in the house.
    
    Come on. Are you telling me that if it costs $500 a week for me
    to live by myself, then it would cost $1000 a week for me to
    live with 1 kid, and $1500 a week to live with 2 kids, and $2000
    a week to live with 3 kids, and so on? That's absurd, costs do
    not increase linearly.
    
    The formulas proposed in the federal bill, as I understand them,
    are actually quite reasonable. Much more reasonable than what is
    proposed in .33.
    
    What the bill proposes is:
    
    - Take the combined income of the 2 parents, and then determine
      (by doing a study) what an average intact family with that
      income and that number of children would spend on the children.    
    - Each parent must then pay a pro-rated amount of the child costs
      based on his percentage of the total income. E.g., if the father
      earns $50000 and the mother earns $25000 then the father earns
      2/3 of the total and should be paying 2/3 of the total child
      rearing costs.
    
    This is not perfect but is the best attempt I've seen at
    coming up with a fair formula.
    
    Comments?
    
    	Rich

RE .22

"Why is it that a father has to wait until he is divorced before he begins to
learn to be a father?  Granted, there are situations where well-intentioned
fathers turn the reponsibility for parental care entirely over to the mother,
and upon seperation, see that they have erred, and start to learn to be a
parent.  However, a vast majority of fathers who did not chose to learn how to
parent when they were part of a whole family will not chose to learn to parent
when they are divorced." 

What do you mean by "father"?  If a father has been being a father, then he
still is the father, and he does not *have* to learn.  If you mean learning the
other side of being a parent (''mothering''), then there often is no reason to
learn both roles untill you are on your own.  Often, it is not possible to learn
both sides.  Typically, one person must work, and one person must take care of
the children. *But* it is not necessarily this way out of desire, or choice!

I do not accept your word that it is the "vast majority". I believe in many
cases that is the result because it is assumed that that *will* be the result!
It's a vicious circle which does *not* promote the best for the children, or the
family as a whole.  This vicious circle must be broken!

I may have misread some of your notes... I have to agree that some indication of
willingness and ability to parent by the father should be visible before break
up, but this cannot be *assumed* to not exist, or *denied* solely on the basis
of the other parent's word! 

"clearly if a father is not parenting while the family is whole, then how can it
be unreasonable to assume that the mother is more skilled at parenting?"

I can agree that the mother is more skilled *at present*.  I do not agree that
the mother will always be the best parent, and I do not agree that the best
parent should be the only parent.  *Both* parents are needed.  *Both* parents
should have equal rights and responsibilities unless agreed upon.

"My point is that judges are people ..., and that it is human nature to be
biased, to make assumptions."

A bias is an individual thing.  When an 90% of the judges in a state have that
'''bias''' it's much bigger then a '''bias''', it's an ugly prejudice! 

In the current system, the judges are *not* people.  It often makes *no*
difference what you have to say in court.  You may not even get to see a judge. 

"And as to the issue of non-custodial parents failing to honor support payments
due to custodial parents abusing the non-custodial parents rights and
priveledges - Is this supposed to be a case of two wrongs that make a right?"

No, it is a case of no recourse to getting the noncustodial parents rights. No
one *advocating* doing this, but often, it is the *only* thing you can do. 

Yes, we need accountability...

"Do we start putting values on the sleepless nights with a sick child?"

Yes, we do, and compared to not having a night with the child, having a night
with the child when the child is sick goes on the plus side, not the cost side!

"But how many noncustodial parents are actually being asked to pay anywhere near
50% of the true and fair costs of raising their children?

That isunrelated.  No one is advocating paying less then less then equal
support.  To imply that the parents that are paying should be penalized for
those parents that are not paying is certainly not just! 

"Where abuse exists, and can be shown, this is not cause for witholding support
- It is cause for fighting like hell to change the custody situation - The
custodial parent is not really abusing the support payments, they are abusing
the child."

I doubt that any current judge, or court will agree with you on that...

RE: .23

"OK - Let me try a different approach."

Your alternative makes no mention of the parents having equal rights and
responsibilities, and there being incentives for *both* parents to be involved
in the children's lives.  Without that, I believe it will fail. 

"and I seriously doubt any bill coming out of a predominantly male congress will
have such a proviso"

You forget... No one *ever* thinks it will happen ... to *them*!

RE: .26

No Comment... I guess I'm just not incensed about it yet...

RE: .27

"What is a fair share?"

An equal share is a fair share.  No if, and's, or buts.  Now, if one parent or
the other needs '''alimony''' to train them to be able to earn 'enough' to meet
that support, then so be it.  That '''alimony''' should then be repaid
eventually. 

Yes, I *do* see 50% as being fair when both parents are involved as being
*parents*.  None of this custodial/noncustodial sh!t!  All other things being
equal, both parents should inccur approximately the same expenses for the
children, and no or little child support should be necessary.  But what would we
do with all them lawyers, then??

RE: .32

I can agree to that, in that situation...

RE: .33

That would be a workable solution...  I would settle for that.  But I do have to
point out that there are a *lot* of household expenses that cannot be equitably
split N ways between the parent and the children.  There are quite a few
expenses which the 'custodial' parent would have whether they had children or
not.  It's not quite as simple as splitting the expenses of N housemates N ways.
In that fashion, by having a housemate, you save money; in the same fashion by
having (the) children, the custodial parent should not 'save' money.  I mention
it not to bitch, but to point out an aspect where the custodial parent makes
out. 

RE: .34

"I'll tell you exactly what will happen at this point."

In which case, the standard of living should be set equal for both custodial and
noncustodial parents, or if the noncustodial parent can afford it, halfway
between the predivorce standard and the noncustodial parent's standard.

No problem.

RE: -.1

See above...

Jim. 

    I am sorry I disagree with you totally.  The first issue is to
    determine the standard of living.  If you can't do that between
    the two parents then let the courts do it.
    
    But why should a non-custodial parent be required to improve the
    standard of living for the custodial?  Children become a wedge,
    a means of bartering.
                                         
    The complaint that many non-custodial parents have is there child
    support is not supporting their children.  I think they are justified.
    I think a custodial parent should be required to document the expenses
    that are occurred in raising the child.
    
    I was a custodial parent and the % of income rots.  I couldn't go
    to the landlord and tell him that I only earned X so therefore I
    could only pay him Y.
    
    It works both ways...I want fairness....I want children to be well
    cared for...I want custodial and non-custodial parents to have some
    resources.  I don't want to see them put into a financial bind that
    takes them years to recover from.
    
    Child care expenses can be documented.  That is all a non-custodial
    parent should pay for child support.  
    
    Alimony is another issue.  In my case my ex did absolutely no
    parenting...I assumed his responsibilites.  He owes me for that.
    The woman that stays home during her marriage and foregoes her career
    is owed alimony for a fixed time.
    
    But the real issue is we are screaming because the government is
    getting involved in our private lives...but how did it happen. 
    We let it happen....by being greedy...by being selfish.
    
    I cannot understand this type of child abuse because it is so foreign
    to me.  How can anyone argue over the money required to give a child
    a good life.  What non-custodial parent willingly forces the custodial
    parent to work two jobs.  And what kind of person would use parental
    visiting privileges as a means of extracting dollars from a spouse.
    
    We own this...not you maybe...not myself...maybe....but this is
    one time that the government is at its wits end to protect its future
    citizens...the plan rots...but the behaviors that brought this plan
    up rot worse....