Conference turris::womannotes-v1

	    I wish I knew.  My mother was in a similar situation, and
	none of her approaches were satisfactory.  She got remarried,
	and ended up with two more children and another divorce.  We
	moved in with her parents, and ended up taking care of them
	as well.  We kids had to get jobs as soon as we were able to.
	    It's very hard to raise kids with one salary these days;
	most two-parent families have both parents working just to
	make ends meet.
	    *Sigh!*  Whatever happened to all those community-based
	alternative living arrangements people were dreaming about in
	the '60s and '70s.
			<_Jym_>

    I know that I am more fortunate than alot of single women who are
    raising kids because I earn a reasonable salary and am able to swing
    myself and the 3 kids that I support with no financial help from
    their father.
    
    However, it wasn't always this way.  When I got my divorce, I was
    aware of the number of women who never see the support due them.
    So I wrote into my divorce agreement that any payments NOT made
    by their father (support, half of medical, half of schooling/child
    care) were deducted from his half of the house settlement.  I have
    rights to the house and do not have to pay him his half until my
    youngest (who is 6) is 18 (or 22 if he goes to college).  My lawyer
    liked the idea so much he has recommended it to several other women
    since.
    
    At this point, in another 6 years, the house will be entirely mine.
    I know that isn't the same as income each month, but it is one way
    to protect myself.  After all, I hope to send all 3 to college and
    the house may be the only way.
    
    Just something to consider
    
    Ellen

	    [RE .2]:  That sounds like a great idea!  Mind if I forward
	it to the Usenet?
			<_Jym_>

    re: .3
    
    Feel free to send it to Usenet, Jym.  If the idea can help anyone
    else, I will feel I've made some mark.
    
    Ellen
    

    This problem does not affect me directly, but it makes me SO mad
    everytime I hear about another father who pays no support.  And
    apparently feel no sense of obligation to do so.  What makes me
    even madder are the courts that don't mandate a reasonable amount
    of support to begin with and the lack of enforcement for those people
    who simply choose to ignore the court order!
    
    Unfortunately, I have no specific information that would be helpful
    for .0 (though .2's idea was GREAT!) and I'll leave that to those
    in similar circumstances; but I'm wondering if there's something
    we can do to make a difference on a more global level...writing
    letters, donating to organizations that track down defaulters (is
    there such an organization?)...?  I dunno, any ideas anyone?
    
    -Tracy
    

    You may want to suggest your legislators check Colorado Springs
    law. The district attourny's (sp?) office will help find and procescute
    weasles who don't pay support. They even put up a billboard in town
    listing the number to call. It has a message to fathers that says
    "your childern need love and money". 
     
    I'm not in this situation myself but my Dad never gave my Mom a
    cent after he divorced her and left her with 3 kids. It's funny
    now that he wonders why his kids don't call or visit much. I don't
    hate my father and I won't ignore him but I'll always remember he
    deserted us. My Mom will live with me when she's too old to go it
    alone. My Dad will get a nursing home. Maybe what we need is to
    make divorced fathers listen to folks who were the childern of a
    divorce where no support or attention was paid. It might make them
    think. Liesl
    

    I don't want to dispute Colorado law, but I have been in
    the situation and worked with the DA's office here.  They
    were wonderful right after the seperation and when I was 
    unemployed.  But when I got my job a DEC, they refused to
    help me.  They explained that if I had a job, I could afford
    a lawyer. They only were trying to get the welfare role down.
    They did however procecute my husband when he didn't make 
    any payments for over two years, (I did have to wait the two
    year period for some reason only known to them)  Then the courts
    in their infinite wisdom, garnished his wages for 25 a month.
    Considering the only thing I wanted from my ex was daycare
    paid for,the courts allowed me 100 a month.  Sure goes a long
    long way!  
    Just thought I'd add my experience with justice.
    oh yeah, the poor poor man makes over 35k a year, so I am 
    sure the hardship is tremendous.  My sense of humor is a tad
    low when discussing this sore spot
    vivian

    I've had the pleasure of experiencing this from another vantage
    point...as the second wife.  My husband lost his home (80K in equity),
    the new car, the hitchcock furniture/chine/etc, kids and whatever
    else you accumulate in 15 years of marriage when his wife filed
    for divorce...since then he "acquired" 20,000 in bills while she,
    a working woman and a disgrace to women everywhere, thinks the world
    owes her a living.  She lives in a prestigious neighborhood, travels
    to Europe with her new husband and has "maintained" her standard
    of living....but the success that we have in our jobs ($$$) is
    evaluated and given to her (who hasn't bettered herself with
    education,etc in the 5 years since the divorce was final)....
    
    It appears that the divorce laws are not used as they were intended.
    I like the latest divorce process, send $4.00 for a divorce kit
    and complete the paperwork together, review it with  a lawyer and
    for approximately 80.00 you're divorced....better than giving all
    the
    money to the lawyers.....hopefully the coming years will modernize
    our divorce process....
    

    
    RE: .8
    
    I not only hear what you are saying, but due to my own personal
    experiences so far, agree with it.  The current divorce process
    here in Taxachusetts is definitely less than fair.  I won't go into
    the details here.
    
    So where do I send the $4 to??
    
    					Joe

    I have been seperated for over 8 years.  The main reason I haven't
    filed?  $$$$$$  Because we have a child who I have raised virtually
    on my own, lawyers feel there may be a problem with obtaining the
    child support at a whopping 100. They truely want lottsa money to
    do the paper work!  If you have that address, I would appreciate
    it!  Oh yeah, one year I asked the hubby if we could give ourselves
    a happy new year and go in halves on the divorce.  Sure he says....
    you pay my half and I will pay you back....duhhhhh  Thats another
    reason we aren't divorced yet.  So maybe the book would give him
    an incentive.  At $40 each, I don't think I would mind paying his
    half and not getting paid back.  ;-)
    
    vivian

    Want to hear this one:  
    
    My parents recently divorced in Massachusetts, my mother bought
    my father out (house, furniture, everything on the land except my
    father's tools, electric saws, sanders, etc.) for $47,000.  My father
    has a big fat paycheck and took the money and bought himself a house
    with his girlfriend.  Fine, that's not my point.
    
    My parents have a 21 year old daughter that, at the time, still
    had one year of school left and the courts said that my father had
    to provide for her education.  Well, he isn't the one shipping off
    tuition, money for supplies, books, personal clothing, bus money,
    etc.  No, the "lawyers" decided to take $12,000 away from the
    settlement that my mother would pay my father in order to provide
    for my sister.  Well, that really stinks because tuition isn't a
    fixed cost and neither are books, supplies, clothing, medication,
    etc.  So, my father made out pretty well because each time the bill
    comes in the mail, my mother is off to the credict union to get
    some money to pay for my sister's education.  So, my father got
    $12,000 less than "he deserved".  He's living and my mother is still
    paying. 
    
    Yes, I'm angry but it's a looooong story and was a terrible divorce.

    It's just me.. must have had a bad line..
    
    I question whether the $$ amount is warranted - he has a  gross
    income that excedes mine...  I only wish more men felt the
    responsibility for their children.
    
    To all of you - GOOD LUCK..     Nancy

    Child Support is also being discussed in note 334.* in parenting...
    
    <KP7> will get you to parenting
    
    Gale

    

	I too am soon to be on the opposite side of the fence on this 
issue. And I've written and re-written this reply so many times now 
it's boggling.  Mostly because  I cannot tell you how frustrated and 
enraged I am at this.  The injustices in the system extend beyond those 
of you who aren't getting your child support payments or are having 
other problems with these payments.  There are those of us women 
who've spent their life saving, getting a good education and generally 
skimping on things to be able to buy a house, a car, and provide some 
financial security for themselves only to have it all go away due to 
the injustices of the courts.

	I just can't believe that because I've provided for myself and 
because I've found a wonderful man whom I want to spend the rest of my 
life with I now have to provide for a family I've never met.  And by 
the way - it will be MY money as my income and assets are 
significantly higher than his - she took everything he had to start 
with!

	But, calming down a bit, what I really wanted to contribute to 
this file was the awareness of a bill that is currently under 
consideration in our illustrious government.  I feel it's fair - or at 
least close to fair for BOTH sides of the fence.  And I'd like to hear 
what you folks think.  Unfortunately the article describing this bill 
was about one year ago so, please excuse me if I get anything wrong - 
I'll try to paraphrase as much as I remember here.

	This bill if made into law would allow the state to determine 
a percentage of the non-custodial parent's income that would be 
applied to child support.  This means that the state would say - o.k. 
it's 10% and ALL child support payments would be assessed at that 
percentage of the non-custodial parent's pre-tax income.  Although one 
may take issue with the percentage determined by the state and how it 
does so, I believe it would help ALL of us by eliminating the amount 
of jockeying that goes on today which only serves to help lawyers make 
more money!

	What do YOU think?

-marie-

    Marie,
    
    I can understand where you are coming from and I agree that a man
    should not have to give more than his share to raise his children.
    
    But I was in a situation which I am sure a lot of women were in.
    My ex-husband finagled his income (he was in business for himself)
    so his share of the child rearing expenses were considerably less
    than mine.  
    
    It is my contention that each parent should contribute one half
    of a childs's support.  The minimum being what is reasonable to
    live in the area and the maximum being maintaining the lifestyle
    prior to the divorce.
    
    If for whatever reason the non-custodial parent cannot make that
    contribution she/he has created a liability with the the custodial
    parent and those monies are due when there is an ability to pay.
    
    This is fair!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    And I would be very comfortable financially right now if it were
    true.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    But I have a treasure that he will never have...the love and respect
    of four great adult children.
    
    Joyce

    re: .15
    
    SOunds like a nice plan. To the best of my understanding, the courts
    award child supportayments on the basis of what the judge thinks
    is the amount the children need to provide "as as possible to their
    needs", and to ensure the children DO NOT become welfare liabilities.
    
    To say 10%, for some "non custodial parents" that would be less
    than $1000 a year, for others it would be $100,000 a year. So
    for the parent with only $12,000 year job, they'd pay "up to" $6000
    per year, and for the parent with $150,000 per year income, they'd
    pay maybe $10,000 per year.
    
    You mention "fair" ? WHo determines what is fair ? The only mesaure
    I am  aware of, as to what is fair, is to set the two parents down
    with a "binding arbitrator", and discuss the "abilities to pay","the
    childrens needs", and come up with a "fair plan" of support (monetary,
    physical, emotional) to benefit the children.
    
    Only trouble with that, it'd put too many lawyers out of business!
    
    Bob
    

RE: .*

Please pardon my venom...

I'm on the other side...

I believe that both parents should have equal rights, and equal responsibilities
to their children.

I tried sharing the same apartment so that we could both be with the children as
much as possible.  Finally I got physically sick from the abuse, and went to
court to try to get her out; she had just returned from living with her parents
a month ago.  

The result:  I was ordered out of *my* apartment, then, two weeks later, she
decides she doesn't like the apartment, and decides to move out of it!  When I
went to court I was not even given a chance to speak!  

Justice, fairness, and equity are foreign concepts to the Probate court.
Injustice is done under the guise of "the good of the children".  So much
injustice that the situation is intolerable for one third of divorced fathers,
and they disappear.  Two thirds eventually have nothing to do with their
children except pay and pay and pay becuase the system discourages their
involvement.  And at any time any agreements can be voided by the custodial
parent by the magic words "it's not good for the children". 

The great law touted in .15 resulted in me supposedly paying 30% (state
legislative guideline) of my gross pay for child support.  Great, a third of my
pay goes for taxes, and another third is 'taxed' (which is what it feels like
when you have no say in who, what, why, how, or where it's being paid or spent!)
away for child support, and I'm supposed to live on the rest.

So I'm told, 'oh, you'll just have to make do'...  Well, before the split up, we
were living in a dump in the slum section of the city, sharing an apartment with
other people. I have no expensive toys or what not.  *How much lower can you
go?*  There was a point when I spent three months between my car and my office
because I could not stand to go home, and I could not afford to pay rent on two
places.

Not only that, but the 30% of my gross is 90% of the expenses of the children.
Granted, there are a lot of nice things missing from their life that I would
like them to have, but most of them just are not possible now.  I refuse to pay
more then 50% so that she can have it easy, when I can't afford a place to live,
or a place that I could have the children stay there, let alone a place as good
a place as her's.  She now has a job, let her provide her *equal* share of
support. 

Money isn't even the most important issue.  I want my children.  But both the
court and she feel that she should get the children.  I want joint custody! I
have just as much right to the children as she does, and the children have just
as much right and need for me.  I can and have taken care of them for up to a
month at a time.  I'm not an abuser, or an addict.  But the only way that I can
get joint custody is if she agrees to it.  And she will not agree to it because
she wanted to move back to her parents in a midwest state.  Not that I'm against
that, but I still want my children!  Yes, joint custody will affect them, but
the divorce is effect them in any case, and having their father driven away will
effect them even more. 

The court system is preventing me from being a full parent.  It takes money away
from me so that I cannot *give* to me children, and recieve love from them. It
will not allow me to care from them when I would have rather stayed home with
them when she was unhappy staying home because I had to support them.  I have
not rights to my children except such time that an uncle might spend with them.
That is not enough time to be a Father! 

I will not cooperate with such a system which is seperating me and my children.
I will only pay my share of their expenses, and I will continue to demand the
right to equal time with them.  Currently I am in "Contempt of Court", and I
feel nothing *but* comtempt for that Court.  I will be going back to court, and
will quite likely go to jail, but I will not be part of any agreement, or obey
any order, untill I have equal rights and responsibilities with my children.

If my wages are attached, I will stop working.  If I'm sent to jail I will
not be able to support my children *at all*.  Is that "for the good of the
children"?! 

    
    Stepping very softly, since what the hell do I know about parenthood.
    
    It is a rather painful irony that the same discrimination and
    stereotyping that have sent so many women up in arms in this conference
    now has occasion to stick a knife in the other half of the species
    as well.  That's what it is, you know.  The same unforgivable idiocy
    that remands women to second-class citizen status is also the cause
    of the problems outlined in .18.
    
    DFW

    The problem is there isn't a definition of fair.
    
    And this is yet another example of how the justice system has failed
    us.
    
    It would seem that the state would have by now some guidelines around
    custody of children and child support.  But each case is determined
    by the mood of the judge...and/or the presence of clever lawyers.
    
    To me the answer is simple.
    
    There are a few basic concepts...
    
       Children are the responsibility of both parents...divorce does
       not free one or both from any responsibility.
    
       The cost of child care is a given and can be documented.  Child
       support should never be more than 50% of the cost to raise a
       child.  Standards of living can be determined...but at no point
       in time should the non-custodial parent be expected to raise
       the standard of living of the custodial parent.  
    
       Alimony should be considered when the custodial parent's income
       is limited.  A portion of alimony could be the custodial parent's
       portion of the child support.  There are positive tax implications
       to this argument for the non-custodial parent or there was prior
       to 1987.
    
       Participation in child rearing should be mandatory...joint custody
       should be the practice not the exception.  Parent's who feel
       the other parent is unfit should have to prove this in court
       and that issue should be decided separately from child support.
          
    These are just some very basic ideas.  It would seem that the courts
    would have worked out what is 'fair' have it documented and have
    that be the reference.  The current procedure is for a lawyer to
    cite a prior case and argue the validity of her/his case based on
    another judge's opinion.  
    
    I can understand your frustration, Jim.  I have been there but it
    has to be worked through the courts.  Think about being in 'contempt'
    and consider working the issue through an association.  There are
    groups for Father's wanting custody, etc. 
    
    As a woman, as a feminist I took responsibility for my share of
    my children's support.  As a custodial parent I was told that the
    courts could only assess my ex based on his income.  The rent, nor
    the groceries were not based on my income so I took another job.
    My ex did not share in the child care responsibilites even as an
    'uncle'.
    
    In retrospect it was well worth it...I have four of the nicest adult
    children and I would do it all over again.  
    
    But I should have fought the battle through the courts instead of
    giving in and taking the extra job.  Until parents insist on their
    rights the process will continue to be unfair.
    
    Joyce

    I'm glad that men and women are both feeling free to speak up about
    their experiences with the legal system.
    
    Jim, I never realized that you have been going through such a painful
    legal ordeal.  I never realized that fathers could be denied access
    to their children without abuse or addiction being a factor.  I
    believed that even if they lived with their mother during the school
    week, the father saw them on weekends and some vacations.  I hope that
    you and your ex-wife have good support so that a better outcome
    may yet occur.
    
    When I got divorced, I thought it would be fairly simple since there
    were no children, no money to speak of, and no real estate.  It
    was simple, except for one thing.  I said that I didn't want alimony, and
    that we had divided our belongings agreeably.  The judge insisted
    on entering a notation in the record so that if I ever went on welfare,
    my ex would be hit for alimony instead.  
                                             
    We were married when I was 19, and divorced when I was 24.      
    I was very upset about the court's decision to do this even though 
    I had no intention of going on welfare.  I believe that if I went 
    on welfare ten years from now that would still be in effect--and 
    we have been divorced for ten years now.   If I had gotten pregnant
    by another man, and gone on welfare, it would have seemed grossly
    unfair to penalize my ex-husband.   It felt unfair to me that I
    couldn't be granted the same freedom I had before getting married.
    
    I don't understand why the courts insist on making decisions like
    this which potentially penalize a man who has not contributed to a 
    problem while simultaneously giving so little support to some women who
    are struggling to be responsible single parents.
    
    
    Holly                  

    This response has nothing to do with the last few entries.  It just
    seemed like the best place to put it.  I'm sure some of you have
    gotten it in the mail (mass NOW mailing), but I'll post anyway for
    those of you who do not.
        
-   1.2 million American marriages end in divorce each year.  A couple
    is just as likely to be separated by divorce as by death.
    (Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution, 1985)
    
-   In the first year following divorce, statistics show that while
    men's standard of living rises an average 42%, for women and their
    children it drops a sickening 73%.
    (Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution, 1985)
    
-   Almost one female-headed family in 3 is poor; about one in 18 families
    headed by a man is poor.
    (National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity, Twelfth Report,
    August 1980)
    
-   Women receive child custody in 9 out of 10 uncontested divorce cases.
    Support was awarded only 59.1% of the time.
    ("The Effects of Non-Support", National Conference of State
    Legislatures Information Release #9, 1983)
    
-   A 1984 survey by the Census Bureau revealed that only half of women
    received the court-ordered child support due them.  A quarter received
    only partial payments; and another quarter received nothing at all.
    (US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, 1985)
    
    [Here's the worst one - this disgusts and TRULY sickens me]
-   A Colorado study found that two-third of fathers are ordered to
    pay less each month for child support than they are spending on
    car payments.
    (Yee, The Denver Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 1, 1979)
    
-   In 1983, 13.9% of divorced women were awarded alimony.  Of these,
    23% received none of the alimony due them.  Among those receiving
    payments, the average amount was $3980 a year.
    (US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, 1984)

    [Here's another truly stomach-turning statistic]    
-   Despite the intent of the "equitable distribution" laws, a judicial
    task force in New Jersey discovered an unofficial standard among
    judges who rarely awarded more than 35-40% of marital property to
    the wife, even if she had custody - and the accompanying expenses
    - of children.
    (NJ Supreme Court Task Force on Women in the Courts, "Summary Report",
    1983)
    
-   In Colorado, the cost of licensed day care is *twice* [my emphasis]
    the amount of the average child support payment.
    ("The Effects of Non-Support", National Conference of State
    Legislatures Information Release #9, 1983.)
    
-   Non-custodial fathers' defaults on child support payments have cost
    their children $4 billion *a year* [my emphasis].
    (US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, 1981)
    end of article
    
    Excuse me while I get sick and *very* angry.  And some people wonder why
    women are mad.  And some people call us bitches if we ask for what is
    *ours*.  And some people say that feminists are *against* the family?
    Some wonderful world we live in, eh?  That treats little children
    and poor women like dirt and rich men like kings.
    
    	-Ellen

    It may  be  sickening,  but  it's  not  surprising.  This  is  the only
    'civilized'  country  in the world where people have to *pay* to have a
    child. Subsidies are handed out everywhere except where they're needed:
    food,  housing,  medical  care, education. In many countries (with less
    barbaric political systems) these are considered *rights.* And when you
    examine  our  history, the present stance is quite consistent with past
    policies.

    Now *that* makes *me* sick...

					-JJRitz-

    RE .24   > *RIGHTS*    At whose expense ? The taxpayer.
                         
    What excuses parents from the consequences of their 
    decisions ?  Taxing me to subsidize your children is 
    barbaric.

I have a few quesstions about the statistics you are quoting.

>< Note 24.23 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Spring is for rock-climbing" >
>    
>-   In the first year following divorce, statistics show that while
>    men's standard of living rises an average 42%, for women and their
>    children it drops a sickening 73%.
>    (Lenore Weitzman, The Divorce Revolution, 1985)

	Does this mean that, on the *average*, ALL men are 'profiting' 42% 
and ALL women are declining 73%, or that 42% of the men live ??% better and 
73% of the women live ??% 'worse'.  Note that ALL can be exchanged for 'men 
as a whole'.
    
>-   In Colorado, the cost of licensed day care is *twice* [my emphasis]
>    the amount of the average child support payment.
>    ("The Effects of Non-Support", National Conference of State
>    Legislatures Information Release #9, 1983.)

	Hmmm.  I thought child support was supposed to pay for the material 
needs of the child [food, clothing, etc].  It was my impression that those 
were the criteria for basing the amount [that or % or gross salary].  You 
can get into a lot of "who's right" arguments over this one.  On one hand, 
you can argue that day-care allows the mother to go out and work [to, 
presumably, stay out of social programs].  On the other hand, the father 
can argue as to why he has to pay for her to work.  I would NOT want to be 
in the middle of that one.
    
>    Excuse me while I get sick and *very* angry.  And some people wonder why
>    women are mad.  And some people call us bitches if we ask for what is
>    *ours*.  And some people say that feminists are *against* the family?
>    Some wonderful world we live in, eh?  That treats little children
>    and poor women like dirt and rich men like kings.

	I think Jim Baranski would have a say about that.  What the 
statistics don't show is WHY that happens.  I think that, for every 
slime-bag father who defaults on his <you-name-it> payments, there's 
another father who can't see why he has no say in the raising of his 
offspring, yet pays for it.

	Regardless of who is at fault in each case, it's usually the 
children who suffer the most.  Pawns in an adult power-broking world.

	Ellen, I have a real question for you.  It may give a little 
insight.  I would ask for your opinion on the circumstances surrounding my 
divorce.  Now, we didn't have any children, so [for the moment] save that 
for later [I'll address that in another reply if you respond].  Let me 
stress that I am NOT being arrogant or snide or sarcastic.  I'm serious.

	I was married to Lisa in July 1982.  We lived together for a couple 
months and had dated/been engaged for a totals of just under 2 years before 
the wedding.  We had known each other for almost 3 years.

	My career had trouble getting off the ground, she was working in a 
retail store.  We got into the usual debt problem.

	In 1984, things started turning sour.  The owner of the house we 
were living in was foreclosed on and we had to find a place to live.  By 
some miracle [and borrowed money from my family] we bought a small condo in 
July of 1984.

	By the fall, she was dating another man and sleeping with him 
whenever she could.  He was acting like T. Boone Pickens making his latest 
acquisition.

	I finally told her that I owuld give her what she wanted [a 
divorce] in October.  She had talked about a trial separation but I 
couldn't handle it.

	By now, I have gotten my first good job in a year.  She's now 
working above minimum wage for the first time as a receptionist/secretary 
and bookeeper for a small firm.

	In the settlement, she got her personal effects and the car she 
bought.  I got my car and the condo.  The judge wondered why the agreement 
had me getting all the equity.  My statement was that I had borrowed money 
from my side of the family, I made all the payments, it was my wife who 
wanted out while I wanted to try and patch things up, I made all the 
payments, therefore, it's mine.  Divorce granted March 1985.  No alimony.

	Now, my career has skyrocketed [I'm making roughly 2.5 times what I 
was making 3 years ago].  She is still plodding along at around $6/hr.  
We're friends.

	Question:  Is this, in your eyes, fair?

	I would also open this question to others who are [or get labelled] 
"radical" or "militant" feminists, or anyone else.  I am curious as to why 
people might think this would not have been a fair settlement.

    re: .24:
    
    >food,  housing,  medical  care, education. In many countries (with less
    >barbaric political systems) these are considered *rights.*
    
    Hold on!  These things, listed above, are not 'rights'.  All of
    them are services?  By what 'right' should you be able to call the
    services of a farmer, carpenter, doctor, or teacher your right?
    
    A right is something that you could have if you were the only person
    around, such as the rights to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness,
    as well as to be left alone, and other similar things.  You could
    have all of them if there were no one else.  But education and medical
    care etc. are all things which you have to have someone else to
    do for you.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    I think we sometimes interchange child support with alimony, they
    are not the same.  I divorced in 1970 and have been single since
    (my choice). I have never recieved one cent of child support. My
    children are adults now and any new laws won't help me, but paying
    for day care is part of child support, unless the father is willing
    to support the family, the woman has to go out and work. My ex choose
    not to be involved with his children, he was granted liberal visitation
    rights and chose not to excercize them. This is the case with many
    fathers, but not all.  
    
    I have spent thousands of dollars trying to get support but he still
    avoided his responsibility. I could have bought a new car with the
    money I spent on legal fees.  
    
    I guess the point that I am trying to make is I don't see the
    relationship between dividing property in a childless divorce and
    child support.  Who gets the sofa and the paintings is not child
    support. Child support is food, shelter, medical bills, staying
    home from work with a sick child, and shoes for fast growing feet.
    
    pat

    .26
    
    Yes, it seems your case is fair.  But why do you state your case
    when the issue is child support.  Your case would not be included
    in the statistics.
    
    A parent's morality does not negate the other parent's responsibility.
    
    Child support should be realistic and based on the cost of raising
    children.  If the non-custodial parent cannot *afford* to pay their
    share they should get a second job or a liability is created to
    the agency or individual that makes up the difference.
    
    There are many horror stories around child support.  Ellen gave
    the statistics.  Many non-custodial parents pay more than their
    share for the support of their children.
    
    But the statistic says that the largest percentage of non-custodial
    parents DO NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE, OR DO NOT HONOR THEIR AGREEMENTS.
    
    Child support both financial and emotional is one of our greatest
    crimes.  Children have been the victims of divorce for years and
    yet we have not found a process to eliminate this crime.
    
    *sigh*
    

    I simply cannot understand parents of either sex who abandon their
    children, emotionally and financially, after a divorce.  My parents
    were divorced when I was 2.  Though my mother had sole custody,
    my father paid his child support on time, and even increased it
    voluntarily when the need arose.  But when my mother remarried,
    had two more kids (for a total of four), and then her new husband
    walked out, he didn't pay a dime.  Years later, when my mother
    married for a third (and so far last) time, hubby #2 insisted on
    being released from all child support obligations in order to
    allow #3 to adopt his kids.  Sick.
    
    I was divorced when my son was not yet 3.  I have shared legal and
    physical custody of him, and his mother and I split his expenses
    50-50 (which is fair according to our incomes).  I am his father,
    and will NEVER relinquish my duties or obligations to him.  I am
    meeting more and more fathers who share my views on what it means
    to be a parent.  I think it is a good sign.
    
    But I really don't know what we can do about the majority that yield
    Ellen's statistics.  I do think that a large part of the problem
    is the continued insistence by our society that fathers are unimportant
    to children except as wallets from which to extract cash.  When
    a man is told from childhood that only mommies take care of kids
    and that fathers should keep out of the parenting business, it's
    hard to fight.  I can't BELIEVE the crap I got (and still get) from
    certain women and many men about my level of involvement with my
    son.  (A silly example - taking my son to the pediatrician and having
    the nurse call out "Mrs. Lionel!"  I just sat there and glared at
    her.  But not once in the many visits I made did I ever see a father
    in the office.)
    
    If you want to fight for fair and equitable parental responsibility
    after the divorce, how about doing something to promote it BEFORE
    the divorce!  A father who's been shooed out of the nursery all
    the time isn't going to feel so obligated to spend time and money
    on the child that he has never been allowed to get close to.

    					Steve

    re .26
    
    Your divorce was a lot like mine, which I described earlier.  I
    think it was fair because neither of you appeared to hold back your
    career to help the other during the marriage.  If Lisa had worked
    as a clerk for 2 years, say, instead of attending college, and had
    funnelled all her money into supporting you to get a graduate degree,
    I think I would have a different opinion about how fair it was.
    
    I believe that happens to a number of doctors' wives.
    
    If the scenario I described above was true (she helped put you through
    school) would you feel some obligation to help her get started on
    her career?  I know this is hypothetical, but I've seen it happen
    in real life too many times.
    
    Holly

> < Note 24.28 by OURVAX::JEFFRIES "the best is better" >
>    
>    I guess the point that I am trying to make is I don't see the
>    relationship between dividing property in a childless divorce and
>    child support.  

	I'm not equating alimony and child support.  Personally I believe 
that child support is an obligation/responsibility and alimony [without 
mitigating circumstances] is grand theft.

	What I was trying to do is get a view on the word 'fair'.  Now, if 
someone looked at my divorce on the surface, they would say I got away with 
murder.  In the statistics, it would show that I got away with the house, 
no alimony and no other obligations, while she was stuck in a $5-$6/hr job 
with little future.  In real life, however, the story is quite different. 

	Does anyone have any statistics on who 'walks out'?  In the 5 
divorces that I have been personally involved with [either myself, or a 
close friend], the wife has 'walked out' 4 times out of 5.  My personal 
sample is MUCH too small to draw any real conclusions.

	IN NO WAY do I mean to 'justify' the sleaze-bags who walk out on 
their children without a word.

---

re .31

	If Lisa had put me through school, I would feel personally 
obligated to pay her back every penny she laid out for my education.  That 
is one of those mitigating circumstances I mentioned earlier.

    RE: Which ever asked what child support was for...
    
    Medical care, eye care, food, clothes, rent, electricity, water
    bills, phone, amusment parks, flute lessons, tap-dance lessons,
    school field trips (please enclose a dollar with this permission
    slip to offset transportation costs), gym clothes, gas in car to
    take them to the different places, movies, cabbage patch dolls (insert
    your favorite toy here)...
    
    Get the picture?  Child support is used just for that, the support
    of the child. It is not limited to just food and clothes.
    
    GLK
    
    

RE: .32 in regards to who walks out on whom:

Gathering statistics on who walks out is not pertinent on what makes a fair 
settlement regardless of whether children are involved.  The person who walks 
out is not necessarily the one to blame for a marriage breaking up.

..Karen

    Interesting.  I have 5, am divorced, and have custody of the first
    3 who were from marraige #1.  If you think that the statistics in
    24.0 are upsetting, you ought to look at the number of kids who
    are abused by their mothers and what fathers have to go through
    to get custody in these cases.
    
    My experience has been that courts are so biased towards women that
    most men usually give up in frustration.  I would have too, were
    it not for the financial resources being made available to me and
    the strong support my family provided, and the continuous begging
    of my children to help them.
    
    It still took over $50,000 and two years.  And that's with witnesses,
    phsychologists, testimony, and two lawyers.  The kids have finally
    recovered pretty much, but the court's bias really would astound
    most thinking individuals.
    
    I spent so much time in court rooms I really got to know a lot about
    the situation of divorce and settlements.  I did a lot of talking
    to men in the corridors and here's my opinions:
    
    1.  Men are easily taken avantage of by the system.  It seems that
        3 out of 4 of the men I would talk to had been the victums of
        sexual abuse charges at least once during the process, as women
        sought to get the upper hand.  I don't know how much of this
        was grounded in fact or not, but in my case, when my ex was
        trying to recover the situation she used this tactic and I do
        know in my case it was unfounded.
    
        Courts don't usually attempt to get to the bottom of these
        types of accusations, nor are they illegal, although there have
        recently been bills introduced to effect this situation.
    
    2.  The law says that men and women are EQUAL in custody proceedings.
        This is hardly the case as the statistics show.  Most often
        the children do go to the mother, unless she has hospilitized
        them at least once (which was the question I was asked at one
        point in my proceedings).
    
    3.  Most men feel that the settlements that they are stuck with
        are unfair since the courts often award such high percentages
        of their income to the wife.  I know of 2 "drop outs" who said
        that it was so unfair they just wouldn't ever pay.  I can see
        their point.  These people had well paying jobs and lots of
        assets, but the settlement put them into a poverty position.
        It's pretty hard to maintain a position in the high rollers
        class on $250/week so these individuals essentially saved face
        and dropped out.  Of course this only hurts the kids, as we
        all know, but when people's emotions get involved it's hard
        to think rationally.
    
    3.  The number of fathers whos visitation rights get violated is
        probably close to 100 % .  In fact, I don't know of anyone who
        has not had problems in this area.  The recourse is uneffective,
        takes lots of money, and more than that lots of work time.
    
    4.  There really is only one solution to this litigation mess that
        I think would work.  Let's face it, families who have to support
        two households on one income when they used to support one
        household on that same income are going to have a drop in the
        standard of living all around.  This hurts the children.
    
        The solution is to give custody automatically to the individual
        who can exhibit the greatest income (barring substantiated 
        abuse, addictions etc.), and then to work the finances on that
        basis.
    
        Admittedly this would give custody most of the time to the father,
        but the number of children being totally unsupported would drop
        very quickly.  In addition, the mother, now faced with only
        supporting herself would be far less likely to wind up in poverty,
        and would have more time to catch up in her career.
    
        The father on the other hand with the day to day responsibility
        of the children to attend to would be kept fairly busy and would
        be less likely to become involved in activities (you can define
        or imagine) that would represent a drain on his resources.
    
    I know this idea and my comments may seem a bit different from our
    societal conditioning  of thinking of women as the child care
    providers, and the convoluted situations that this conditioning
    then forces upon our divorce arrangements, but I really believe
    that we have to focus on the well being of the children.  Children
    living in poverty is not pretty.  I think my solution would correct
    the majority of this.
    
    /Len
    

    re .35:
    
    >3.  Most men feel that the settlements that they are stuck with
        >are unfair since the courts often award such high percentages
        >of their income to the wife.  I know of 2 "drop outs" who said
        >that it was so unfair they just wouldn't ever pay.  I can see
        >their point.  These people had well paying jobs and lots of
        >assets, but the settlement put them into a poverty position.
        >It's pretty hard to maintain a position in the high rollers
        >class on $250/week so these individuals essentially saved face
        >and dropped out.  Of course this only hurts the kids, as we
        >all know, but when people's emotions get involved it's hard
        >to think rationally.
    
    FLAME ON!
    
    You can see their point?  I can see why they're upset.  But to withhold
    support of *their own children*?  *FILTHY SLIMEBAGS* in my humble opinion.
    So they can't maintain a position in the high rollers, eh?  Oh, excuse
    me while I *weep* for them.  I know *very* well that ex-wife and children
    are paying for it in *poverty* or a 73% drop in living standard.  He
    had children - that's a risk.  And now you're saying that he shouldn't
    have to foot the bill (his percentage) to properly care for his
    own kids?  He's pissed off and that gives him the right to not pay?
    We as a society should, right?  Sorry, I don't buy it.  I don't know
    any reasonable person who would.
    
    >3.  The number of fathers whos visitation rights get violated is
        >probably close to 100 % .  In fact, I don't know of anyone who
        >has not had problems in this area.

    Do you have statistics to back this up?  I at least have some facts
    to back up what I wrote in .24.  I'd appreciate it.  BTW, I personally
    know a couple who shares joint custody of their child.  They don't
    have any major problems.  So there's one fewer than "100%".
    
    >4.  There really is only one solution to this litigation mess that
        >I think would work.  Let's face it, families who have to support
        >two households on one income when they used to support one
        >household on that same income are going to have a drop in the
        >standard of living all around.  This hurts the children.
    
    The statistic I quoted (with the reference) shows that the *man's*
    living standard increases by 42% after a divorce.  The woman and
    children's drops by 73%.
    
        >The solution is to give custody automatically to the individual
        >who can exhibit the greatest income (barring substantiated 
        >abuse, addictions etc.), and then to work the finances on that
        >basis.
    
        >Admittedly this would give custody most of the time to the father,
        >but the number of children being totally unsupported would drop
        >very quickly.  In addition, the mother, now faced with only
        >supporting herself would be far less likely to wind up in poverty,
        >and would have more time to catch up in her career.
    
    Well, I do not agree with this.  Then in 9 out of 10 cases, custody
    would be awarded to the father which is as wrong as 9 out of 10
    custody cases going to the mother.  I do believe that the best parent
    should get custody, where the best parent (all other things being
    equal) is the parent who spends the most time caring for the children,
    which the last time I knew, was *still* the mother, but a lot less
    often than in the past.  Of course, I do believe joint custody should
    be considered more often by everyone involved.
    
    FLAME OFF
    
    The statistics presented in .24 perhaps paint a bleaker picture
    than it really is.  To be fair, I got the impression that 50% of
    the women and children were getting their payments and were perhaps
    being treated fairly.  So there's a large percentage of horror stories,
    but a large percentage of fair stories as well.
    
    DJPL, you asked me directly about this.  I see your situation as
    fair enough.  As others have pointed out, we're mostly talking about
    child support here, which is far more serious than anything, it
    sounds, in your situation.
    
    However, if a woman with children is to work and support herself
    (i.e. no alimony), then child care costs must factor into the child
    support payments on the part of the father.  Makes sense?
    
    And, as someone once said, "whatever the father is asked to pay
    is more than he can afford and far, far less than what is needed
    for the children."
    
    	-Ellen

        For my money, the root problem is the 1.2 million divorces.
        
        Ellen Gugel said in .36:
        
            'And, as someone once said, "whatever the father is
            asked to pay is more than he can afford and far, far
            less than what is needed for the children."'
        
        and that about wraps it up. If you break up a family so that
        they have to have two entire households where they had one, it
        just isn't going to work unless there was an extremely high
        surplus being generated every year.
        
        If you divorce what you will be doing will be unfair to you,
        your spouse and your children. There is no win possible for 90%
        or more of the households in the country. The obvious solution
        is to just not divorce. Period. Anything else is guarenteed
        to cause serious suffering. 
        
        Ah, you say but what of abusive spouses and people growing
        apart, and...? The answer is to not marry badly, unwisely or in
        haste. The answer is to not start having children until you have
        established a household that can last 20 years or more. And
        given the success rate of birth control, unless you are willing
        to believe absolutely that abortion isn't killing your unborn
        child, THAT means that you oughtn't to get involved in sexually
        active relationships (with fertile members of the opposite sex
        at least), before or outside of marriage.
        
        All that boils down to some very old solutions to some very old
        problems: fidelity, confining sex to marriage partners, marriage
        until death do us part, etc. Low as these solutions are in the
        popularity polls, you will find that unwise marriage leads to
        divorce, divorce leads to suffering, sex leads to babies and sex
        and babies lead to hasty and unwise marriages. Bad forumlas.
        
        JimB. 

    Dear JimB
    
    I like and respect your values and how I wish my husband felt half
    of what you feel.
    
    But show me the test...the test that insures that a marriage will
    indure, that the partners will work together, that the children
    will be loved and protected.
    
    But the test is reality and there are indications that two people
    will be able to develop a long term partnership but in the event
    it does not happen one has to consider alternatives.
    
    Children deserve two happy parents, women deserve husbands (men
    who love them) and men deserve wives (women that love them).
    
    Each of us has to evaluate our marriages based on criteria we
    establish.  If old fashioned means living in an intolerable situation
    I can't agree with that.  Old fashioned was often marriages arranged
    by the family and marriages based on love (which we all know is
    blind).  The selection process that you subscribe to Jim requires
    thought and effort.  I don't think that was a part of old fashioned
    marriages.  The Pre-cana workshops offered by the Catholic church
    the past fifteen years have attempted to work with young couples
    to identify weaknesses in their relationship.
    
    An old fashioned marriage was one where people stuck together through
    thick and thin.  There are many sad stories of people who lived
    miserable lives and children who never knew happiness or laughter
    in their home.
    
    God know we are not perfect.  He expects me to try the best I can
    and I don't believe he expects me to be unhappy.  I can serve him
    and my fellow human beings best by being happy.  
    
    Every effort to keep the marriage intact should be made when there
    are children.  But if the situation is intolerable than an alternative
    needs to be explored.  
    
    At that point the primary consideration becomes the children, their
    welfare and their support.  
    
    

    Re: .37, .38
    
    I must agree with Joyce.  I only wish life were as simple as Jim
    wants it to be.  My wife and I were married for six years before
    we had our child; we'd been together for ten.  Both of us were
    earning a comfortable income, both were successful in our
    careers.  We planned having a child a year and a half in advance.
    Guaranteed success, right?  Well, of course you know
    by now that it wasn't - three years later we were divorced.
    
    Yes, try your darndest to marry "right".  Wait long enough before
    having children to give your marriage some stability.  But no matter
    how many things you do, even being perfectly faithful and
    intent on staying together forever, people change.  Things happen.
    We're not perfect.
    
    I agree with Jim - divorce when children are involved is a no-win
    situation.  We just have to do the best we can.  When I realized
    my marriage was over, I cried - not for myself, but for my son,
    who would no longer know the comfort of two loving parents who loved
    each other.  Yes, his parents still love him, and he is with each
    of us an equal amount of the time, but he's never with us together.
    This hurts him.  It hurt me as I grew up.  I compensate as best
    as I am able, and so does his mother.
    
    At least in our situation, there are no visitation arguments.  We've
    done well with an informal arrangement that is patterned after our
    written agreement, but is more flexible.  I can only hope it stays
    as good as it is.
    					Steve

        Given the number of my friends who are divorced, and even the
        number of them who are divorced and in this file, I don't intend
        to argue the question of what can and should be done to save a
        troubled marriage. The potential for finger pointing and chest
        thumping is far too real.
        
        What I will say is that we often doom relationships by setting
        unatainable standards for our spouses, or by accepting the old
        saw that "people change" as if they do so without any control
        over the directions they take, or by concentrating on our needs
        and not on our duties to and concern for our spouse. All too
        often we relenquish our control over our own lives.
        
        When I talk about the importance of marriage and of maintaining
        it, I often get told how lucky I am, or how out of touch with
        reality. Now as much as I refuse to even appear to point at my
        friends and declare that I know why their marriages failed and
        what they should have done differently, I am even more adament
        about not washing the dirty laundry of my marriage in a notes
        file.
        
        What I will say is that we have had problems in the 14 years
        we've been married and in the 3� years before that. In fact
        we've had terrible problems. I will not say what they are, but I
        will say that I've seen a number of marriages fail for less.
        Please believe me, I understand how much work it can be to hold
        a marriage together. It isn't luck or human perfection that
        makes a marriage last. It is love, trust, commitment, duty, and
        hard work. It is also joy, optimism, forgiveness, excitement,
        and fun.
        
        I understand that it will always be hard for those who have
        divorced to see my view on it. I don't really hope to convince
        them. None-the-less, I sincerely believe that convincing the
        next generation and the ones after that stakes are high, that
        the reasons for marriage and for accepting responsibility for
        one's own life, and the rewards to be attained, is the only way
        to deal with the problems of divorce, child support, AIDS and a
        large number of the sexual and marital problems we face. 
        
        JimB.

    Another part of the problem as I see it is people having children
    far too early in their marriage - before they are *really* completely
    sure that they are going to stay together for any length of time.
    
    Sure, some marriages end after 10, 20, or 30 years, but how many
    marriage that will end in divorce do so within the first 5 years?
    
    Elizabeth
    

    re .41 and earlier
    thankyou Jim...those were wonderful responses...
    
    My marriage has, like Jim's as he described in his note, not
    been some easy magical journey...it has taken a lot of work and
    love and trust by the two of us...
    
    I have often regarded it as something like travelling over a plain
    and then you suddenly come to a brick wall... if you manage to
    climb the wall...then you stay married...
    
    We have also been through some very rough times ...and times
    that I would not be willing to share in public....but "after
    20 years" to paraphrase "Fiddler on the Roof" "its nice to know".
    that we love each other.....and we have trouble sleeping at night
    if the other one isn't there...and we can trust each other and
    listen to each other....
    
    it is also interesting to me to realize that we knew each other
    and dated for almost two years before we married....tho that was
    by necessity not choice....sigh
    
    My feeling is that waiting longer, and going through premarital
    counceling would both help prevent the divorce rate...
    
    *BUT*
  
    *seriously* how do you argue with young people who are at
    the mercy of their glands....I have never heard that in all of
    human history anyone has ever found a reasonable answer....think
    of how popular the tale of the 'star crossed lovers' is...
    
    Bonnie
    
    and my appolgies for continuing this segue from the original topic

    The last few replies have focused on the issue to do with a woman
    and man becoming friends and, eventually, deciding to live together
    in marraiage ' forever '.  The fact that we, as woman and man, change
    as people , over time, gives rise to a change in the dynamics of
    the friendship - and potential rupture in the marriage.  The pain
    in experiencing a rupture is beyond anyone's expectations.
    
    
    As a previous noter indicated, the Catholic Church takes a serious
    look at the issue and attempts to assist engaged couples in working
    on their relationship prior to the marriage.  However, this ministry
    is at best imperfect.  Perhaps, a separate topic would be fruitful
    here.  As one who has spent some fifteen years in the church working
    with engaged couples prior to their entering marriage, I realize
    only too well the difficulties involved.
    
    
    There is a marvelous book recently published that handles a lot
    of these and other issues raised in this conference.  The author,
    Diane Vaughan [ Professor of sociology at Boston College ], writes
    in 'UNCOUPLING' about the process by which a couple build a
    relationship and how that relationship may at times unravel.  She
    contends that the process of uncoupling is worthy of analysis.
    
    As she points out in the book, she undertook the writing after some
    reflection on her own uncoupling and separation and worked on the
    issue through research and interviews etc.  A fine piece of
    contemporary writing on the subject.
    
    
    
    
                               Mike Iwanowicz
    

> < Note 24.36 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Spring is for rock-climbing" >
>    FLAME ON!
>    
>    You can see their point?  I can see why they're upset.  But to withhold
>    support of *their own children*?  *FILTHY SLIMEBAGS* in my humble opinion.

	While I agree that withholding support is criminal, I have to ask a 
question.  When the mother denies the father his visitation rights and 
[sometimes] starts turning the kids against him [daddy's a slimebag, never 
loved you, etc, all despicable tactics no matter who does them], the 
father's only recourse is to go to court.  There he gets an injunction.  
The mother will suffer no penalties from disobeying this order.  The father 
can get injunction after injunction and the mother can keep ignoring it.  I 
have seen this happen at least twice.

	Not many things make my blood boil more than when parents use 
[sometimes inadvertently] their kids as weapons in the fight between each 
other.

>    So they can't maintain a position in the high rollers, eh?  Oh, excuse
>    me while I *weep* for them.

	Look at it in a different perspective.  After divorce, Father has 
to support wife [alimony] kids [child support].  Well, if he had a $1000/mo 
mortgage on the house, he has to sell.  Now, no bank in the world is going 
to give a mortgage to a man going through a divorce or just through one.  
The judge has ruled that the wife is entitled to money to keep her 
lifestyle up, but the husband is ignored.  I think the expression 'high 
rollers' was a poor choice of words, but I think I see the situation behind 
it.

>				I know *very* well that ex-wife and children
>    are paying for it in *poverty* or a 73% drop in living standard.  He

	I asked before, is that ALL women AVERAGE a 73% drop, or 73% of the 
women average a ??% drop.  Just curious.

>    had children - that's a risk.  And now you're saying that he shouldn't
>    have to foot the bill (his percentage) to properly care for his
>    own kids?  He's pissed off and that gives him the right to not pay?

	Well, if he's paying for his kids and isn't getting to help raise 
and nutre them and get the enjoyment from them, what id he supposed to do?  
I don't agree with holding back the child support, but there HAS to be 
SOMEthing.

>    The statistic I quoted (with the reference) shows that the *man's*
>    living standard increases by 42% after a divorce.  The woman and
>    children's drops by 73%.

	If the man makes the payments that he is supposed to, that's 
impossible.  I think, however, it may be reflective of the fact that men's 
salary, on the average, increase higher and more often than women's and the 
women that are left out with no skills drag the figure down.  I *do* notice 
that it is rare when the man is left out in the cold with no skills.
    
>    fair enough.  As others have pointed out, we're mostly talking about
>    child support here, which is far more serious than anything, it
>    sounds, in your situation.

	As I said, I wasn't trying to compare the two [alimony & child 
support] but to show how a case can be misrepresented by statistics.
    
>    However, if a woman with children is to work and support herself
>    (i.e. no alimony), then child care costs must factor into the child
>    support payments on the part of the father.  Makes sense?

	Absolutely.  Just make sure the mother lives up to her obligations 
as much as the father and we could wipe out the problems.  This is not 
meant to say the mothers are all at fault.  It's just that I hear the same 
complaints from almost all the fathers.

        One of the problems with the earlier statistics is that they
        don't clearly dentiate between alimony and child support.
        
        Take the "the standard of living of men goes up by 42%, and
        that of women and children goes down by 73%". Are we talking
        about divorces with children, without or both? If we're talking
        about both, the statisics may be invalid, at least as stated.
        In divorces without children, it can easily be the case that
        the man's goes up and the woman's down and everyone in this
        file would think that it is fair--as illustrated by the fellow
        who gave us the details of his divorce.
        
        On the other hand, the 73% drop statistic is for "women and
        children". Well, logically speaking there can't be children
        in a marriage without children. Therefore the statistics
        for children are only going apply in the worst situation
        the one in which everyone loses. the comparison ends up being
        
        	Men		vs		Women	Children
        	SINC				SINC
        	DINC				DINC
        	SIC				SIC	SIC
        	DIC				DIC	DIC
        
        where	SINC = d single income, no children
        	DINC = dual income no children
        	SIC = single income with children
        	DIC = dual income with children.
        
        That has to stack the statistics. The men will do OK in the DINC
        case, quite well in most SIC cases, and badly in the other two,
        with a very wide range of results in the SIC case. The women
        will OK in DINC cases, quite badly in all others. The children
        will always do badly.  Averaging the six cases on one side and
        comaparing it to the four on the other side will not reveal the
        actual situation at all well. It will make very dramatic
        statistics though. 
        
        JimB.

    
    re 28
    	i have been a single parent with 2 children for 12 years.
    have recieved no support from ex, either monetarily or emotionally.
    In fact, she has not come around in 7 or 8 years....
    
    i do not put her down in any way to my daughters.
    
    i sure could have lived (we could have lived) a lot better with
    a little extra $ and her physical appearance.
    
    re 30
    	and schools are forever telling the children to
    	"take this to your mother..."
    	"have your mother sign this..."
    	"please tell your mother about p.t.a....."
    	etc...
    	had to shoot 3 different teachers because of this....
    
    re: 35
    	courts/custody....
    	you said it...
    	woman walks in and says..."my husband is gone give me
    custody and sick him for support..."
    	voila!..it;s done..
    
    	i also had to take $$$$ and years to get custody...
    my problem was that the courts couldn't get hold of her so
    they refused to give me custody until they heard her side of the
    story....:-)
    	hypocrites.
    
    re: 37...no, the problem is not divorce...
    (no, not you again!!!!:-)
    the problem is people are not realistic!
    noone can promise forever.
    period.
    and since this is true....no one should promise forever...
    
    and no one should get married with the intent of making it last
    forever come hell or high water...
    it's not important.
    
    people should have relationships.
    not worry about how long it lasts...
    sign contractual agreements....on everything...!
    depend upon themselves for support....get their own education
    and career so they don't have to worry about some one else...
    and, in the case of children......and i tell my daughters this....
    find someone who seems like a nice father...
    discuss the merits and responsibilities of children...
    come to an agreement that, regardless of how long the relationship
    lasts, they will both continue to act responsibly toward the children
    both emotionally and financially.
    
   re 38
    	women deserve husbands?
    	men deserve wives?
    
    	i absolutely disagreeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
    people deserve to be happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
   peoplel deserve the truth!
    we should stop forcefeeding our kids with stuff that is going to
    put them in womannotes in 25 years bitching about the same problems
    that most of you are going through now...!!!
    
    when will we stop these perpetual notions?
    when will we wake up?
    
    IT"S OK NOT TO EVER MARRYY!!!
    IT"S OK TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE LOVING RELATIONSHIP IN YOUR LIFE!
    IT'S OK TO CHANGE AND GROW!
    (DAMN IT, THAT'S WHY WE KEEP GETTING NEW VAXES...AND NO ONE COMPLAINS
    ABOUT THAT!)
    IT'S OK TO HAVE A CHILD WITHOUT A FATHER!
    OR A MOTHER!
    
    sorry, lost my cool....
    but i'm back now...
    
    re 42...trouble with people having children before they are completely
    sure they wil remain together......
    	do you after they die?
    	cus that's the only time you can ever be completely sure how
    long a relationship will last.
    
    way back when, i suggested that people not get married but, rather,
    just have relationships that are bound, somewhat, by legal contracts.
    Many noters, unenlightened and undeveloped, thought it would take
    all the real love and meaning out of the relationship.
    
    they, apparently, would rather go through the hastle and pain of
    these custody problems, divorce problems....
    such fun.
    
    right now i'm involved with a person.
    we live together.
    we own a few things "together"
    mostly, i buy my stuff and she buys her stuff.
    we are very happy
    (forgive me for writting like "dick and jane" but it seems it's
    the only way to get through to some people)
    we don't share "things"
    we share life.
    and living.
    we do things together and enjoy life very much.
    when/if we seperate (which is something i don't think about) she
    will know what is hers and i will know what is mine.
    
    the reason we stay together is because we still love each other.
    I think that's a good reason.
    people who stay together because they are married and made a commitment
    or for the sake of the children....(notice no mention of love)...
    are staying together for bad reasons.
    
    it's far better (healthier) for our children to see us...
    happy!
    seperately or together.
    it's better that they see us working together for our happiness
    and theirs, regardless of divorce.
    it's better that they see that 2 people can seperate and not hate
    each other.
    
    let us stop feeding them stuff that will make them sick in 25 years.
    

    RE: .49
    
    I agree with you for the most part - that forever, only, always
    is not always realistic for life.  However, that's how marriage
    is defined by the courts and churches, and it's assumed that someone
    did something wrong.  Two people can't just grow apart, according
    to them.
    
    On the other hand, children should (ideal situation) have two parents
    in their home who love them and each other.  That is why I said
    that people should wait until they have a stable relationship before
    having children.  Even worse, what a lot of people do, is to bring
    children into a failing marriage/relationship in order to save it
    or 'make him marry me'.  The extra stress of the child is likely
    to break what fragile relationship there is.  It would be better
    that they split up before there are children to worry about.  After
    all, even in your relationship with contracts, someone is going
    to have custody of the children.  The reality is that one of the
    parents may need to move before the children are grown.  The other
    may not want to or be able to move.  Thus the children may only
    see limited amounts of one parent.
    
    Elizabeth

        In this sort of discussion people alwys get around to saying
        "people change--you grow apart". While I agree that "people
        change", you need to be very clear about what you mean by that.
        Do you mean that something outside of the changes them--"people
        are changed"? or do you mean that they change themselves--
        "eople change themselves?
        
        The whole "we just grew apart" line is based on the notion that
        we are changed, that we have no control over ourselves and our
        fates, we are at the mercy of others or of forces we don't
        control.
        
        I don't by that. If you grew apart, if you went off in separate
        directions, then it is because you decided to, or at the very
        least because you didn't decide not to. Neither love nor life is
        a passive thing. They are actions you take, things you do. If as
        you walk down the road of life you choose to go down different
        paths and find yourselves widely separated, it is because you
        chose differently at the cusps, because you did not include each
        other in your plans and your decisions.
        
        For love and a relationship to last you have to be thinking
        of each other, you need to compromise at the forks in the
        roads. You have to explore different possibilities together.
        If you take two paths that you expect will remerge, you have
        to notice that they don't and then back track and rejoin.
        
        "We just grew apart", "we fell out of love", "people change",
        and the likes are all ways of saying that you gave up on the
        other person. that the two of you did not really value each
        other, that you were unwilling to compromise, that you didn't
        make sharing your lives a priority. In this day of looking out
        for number one, it is not too surprising that we often fail to
        consider the needs and desires of others when making plans. It
        is always easier to blaim one's life on others or uncontrolable
        forces. 
        
        JimB.

    
    
    (I can't believe I am doing this....)
    
    Definition of family
    
    	(the one I like)
    
    "All members of a household, those who share one's home."
    
    Why does it have to be one/two parents and children, why not
    (so I am from the sixties) five or six parents and ten children
    of whom all care for (meaning love, concerned about, pay attention
    to).
    
    Flame on
    
    The concept of one house one mother one father one set of 
    chldren is not in the best interest of the species.  It is
    a fragile situation.
    
    Flame off
    
    I think I may get back to normal by Monday.
    
    _peggy		(-)
    			 |	Care for all children
    				as you care for your own
    				for the Goddess is in them all.
    

RE: .23

Those are all very interesting statistics... I find several of them hard to
swollow; several of them are quite dated.  I have to remind myself that they
have nothing to do with me.  However, I think wonder about the complimentary
statistics: 

How many of those 'poor' women  choose not to work?

How many of those 'poor' women gave the fathers the option of having the
children?

How many of those fathers are paying more then half of the expenses of the
children? 

What is the total distribution of who is paying how much, and what percentage
of what?  Don't just tell me the tidbits you can make propaganda out of.

I think nothing of alimony.  I don't see why anyone should have more then a
small amount of short term alimony. 

RE: .24

I don't understand this note at all...

RE: .25

I have to agree with that.  Taxes are at best a necessary evil.

RE: .28

"but paying for day care is part of child support, unless the father is willing
to support the family, the woman has to go out and work."

What if the father were willing to take care of the chilren???

RE: .29

"If the non-custodial parent cannot *afford* to pay their share they should get
a second job or a liability is created to the agency or individual that makes up
the difference."

And if the custodial parent cannot *afford* to pay their share???

"But the statistic says that the largest percentage of non-custodial parents DO
NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE, OR DO NOT HONOR THEIR AGREEMENTS."

I can say the same about custodial parents, too!!!

RE: .31

One of my ideas for child support and alimony was to send Ric's mother back to
college to complete her degree, so that she could support herself, and the
children when they were with me without being financially dependant upon me. I
also offered to pay all of her old college debts.  She choose to ignore that
possiblility. 

There was no sacrifice of one career or schooling for the other's, we were both
in college untill we ran out of money, at which time *I* sacrificed, and started
working for DEC, instead of staying home with my son.  My son was a year old
before his mother started work. 

RE: .33

What child support should be spent on:

"Medical care,         For the child only.
 eye care,             For the child only.
 food,                 For the child only.
 clothes,              For the child only.
 rent,                 For the child only.
 electricity,          For the child only.
 water bills,          For the child only.
 phone,                For the child only.
 amusment parks,       No.
 flute lessons,        No.
 tap dance lessons,    No.
 school field trips,   No.
 gym clothes,          No. (not if they don't fall under clothes)
 gas in car for trips, No.
 movies,               No.
 cabbage patch dolls,  No.
 ..."                  No.

child care,            Yes.

In short, I don't want to subsidise the mother's possibly wastefull habits, or
her lifestyle.  I will not stand still for having money taken from me so that
the mother can 'give' the child an extra.  *I* will decide what extra's *my*
money is buying for *my* child.

RE: .35

Interesting ideas...  I favor something a bit a bit more on the conventional
side.  If a parent cannot support *thier* share of the child support, all other
things being equal, they should not get the children. 

I'd like to know what you're idea of high rollers is :-/

RE: .36

"He had children - that's a risk."  That is a one sexed statement.  Shouldn't
the risk be equitable?

I don't think that you should be counting joint custody cases.

""whatever the father is asked to pay is more than he can afford and far, far
less than what is needed for the children.""

I don't understand that.  What are you getting at?

I can *barely* afford to survive and pay half of my children's expenses. Not at
the level which I was at before, but just survive.  I will pay that. I refuse to
pay more.

RE: .51

I agree that people do not 'just' grow apart; or at least people should and can
not allow that to happen.

Jim. 

    re DJPL:
    
    Yes, I forgot to answer your question the first time around about
    the 73% drop in living standard of women and children.  This is
    just what the statistic said - I don't understand how anyone could
    misunderstand it.  It says an average 73% drop in living standard
    for women and children - NOT a piddly drop for 73% of women and children!
    It also addresses *women and children*, not women without children
    (as was your ex's case).
 
    re .53:
       
>Those are all very interesting statistics... I find several of them hard to
>swollow; several of them are quite dated.  I have to remind myself that they
>have nothing to do with me.  However, I think wonder about the complimentary
>statistics: 
    
    You're right, they have nothing to do with you.

>How many of those 'poor' women  choose not to work?
    
    Probably quite a good number of them, and probably with their
    husbands' blessings so that she could raise their children.  I have
    to believe that this is usually a joint decision between a couple.

>How many of those 'poor' women gave the fathers the option of having the
>children?
    
    Do you mean to tell me that some fathers had *no* say in the matter?
    Jim, I want to take you seriously.  What about responsibility for
    one's actions (and the possible pregnancy that may result)?

>How many of those fathers are paying more then half of the expenses of the
>children? 
    
    Don't know again, but men's salaries are generally higher than women's
    salaries, and I believe that each parent should pay percentage-wise.
    Does this *not* seem fair to you?

>What is the total distribution of who is paying how much, and what percentage
>of what?
    
    I'm not sure I understand the question.  If you mean, where does
    the money paid by fathers go, I'll assume to the children.  If the
    mother is squandering it, then I think the father should get a good
    lawyer, or else try to reason with his ex-wife (if things can still
    be talked out).  If this is not what you meant, please restate the
    question.
    
>Don't just tell me the tidbits you can make propaganda out of.
    
    Do you have some more recent data that tells a different story?  Maybe
    things are getting better for divorced women and their children?
    I certainly haven't heard anything that supports that theory.
    
    BTW, I'm not talking about *your* individual case or anyone's
    individual case.  These are trends for the general population.

>I think nothing of alimony.  I don't see why anyone should have more then a
>small amount of short term alimony. 
    
    Well, we disagree.  What about a woman who has been married 40
    years and has devoted her entire life to her husband and family?
    She will probably never be able to fully support herself at that
    stage in life.  There are exceptions to almost every simplistic rule
    you can think up.  For young women (under 40 years or so?), you're
    probably right.

>RE: .28

>>"but paying for day care is part of child support, unless the father is willing
>>to support the family, the woman has to go out and work."

>What if the father were willing to take care of the chilren???
    
    I think that should be taken into account, definitely!  Either parent
    will most likely be a better care-provider than a babysitter.  However,
    don't most people work 9-5?  If both the mother and father work
    those hours, then you still need child care.  Flextime is a good
    alternative for those of us lucky enough to get it.

>One of my ideas for child support and alimony was to send Ric's mother back to
>college to complete her degree, so that she could support herself, and the
>children when they were with me without being financially dependant upon me. I
>also offered to pay all of her old college debts.  She choose to ignore that
>possiblility. 

>There was no sacrifice of one career or schooling for the other's, we were both
>in college untill we ran out of money, at which time *I* sacrificed, and started
>working for DEC, instead of staying home with my son.  My son was a year old
>before his mother started work. 
    
    I don't know what is going on with you and your family, Jim, but
    it doesn't sound good from anyone's perspective.  I don't agree
    with what your ex is doing (based on what you say), and I do wish
    you all the luck in the world.  I can only encourage you to continue
    to act responsibly and applaud your actions so far.  I want you to be
    happy! (as well as responsible ;-) )

>RE: .36

>"He had children - that's a risk."  That is a one sexed statement.  Shouldn't
>the risk be equitable?
    
    Yes!  It seems that it is an equitable risk, doesn't it?  I was
    talking about fathers paying their share in this note.  If the shoe
    was on the other foot, I would have said "she had children - that's a
    risk".  Neither one would be a sexist statement, when you look at it
    *in its proper context*.

>I don't think that you should be counting joint custody cases.
    
    Huh?  I don't think the statistics are counting joint custody cases,
    which are still relatively few, percentage-wise.  I still think
    joint custody is the best overall situation for the children.

>>""whatever the father is asked to pay is more than he can afford and far, far
>>less than what is needed for the children.""

>I don't understand that.  What are you getting at?
    
    Just what it says.  I think it was what someone was saying before
    - that the arithmetic just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give either
    party the "financial edge" when it comes to a divorce.  Both parties
    (at least in theory, but not according to the statistics, as a general
    rule) will suffer a drop in living standard.



    
    
    
    Again, to make this clear, I am just pointing out some very saddening
    trends.  I am *not* pointing fingers at individual men.  I *am*
    trying to get everyone (probably especially men) to see that the
    *trends* are stacked against divorced women with children.  We've
    all heard of the "feminization of poverty".  I post some statistics
    to show everyone that this is truth and individual men try to show
    show the statistics wrong by telling us their situation is different.
    That is no proof against the facts.
    
    However, let me *encourage* the men who have written here saying
    that their situation is different to continue to do their utmost
    for and to love their children!  I applaud your efforts in a time
    when *many* men (according to the statistics) are not doing the
    same thing!
    
    	-Ellen

    Jim, I wish the people who make decisions in court could see you
    with your baby and your two year old son!  Your love and concern
    for them is very evident, and you are obviously very committed to
    their well-being.
    
    It sounds like one of the things that is making you furious is that
    your wife is somehow taking you for a ride.  By getting all this
    money from you, she is free to neither work nor watch pennies.
    If you keep careful records of what you observe of her spending
    patterns, habits, purchases, and so forth, I think you would have
    a basis to go back to court in the future.  
    
    I wish you well.
    
    Holly

    I have a friend who is in the following situation.
    
    Several years ago, he was divorced.  They had two children.  He
    was ordered to give over half of his *gross* salary to the children
    for support.  He does not have a very good job - his wife makes
    triple what he does.  He cannot afford (literaly) food, much less
    housing, car, etc. on the remainder of what he makes.  To make matters
    worse, he got a 'supervised visitation only' set up - where he is
    allowed to visit the children in their mother's presence - and at
    her convenience, minimally once a year.  Even her lawyer said
    (according to him) at the divorce proceedings that this was ridiculous.
    Still the judge went along with it, even though there have been
    no allegations of abuse.  After the divorce, when he visited them, she
    would re-start an old argument making his visit everything but
    pleasant.  Due to his former wife's behavior and the financial
    situation, he decided that he would completely remove himself from
    their life, and simply drop them a letter now and then to let the
    children know where he is, and whenever they want to contact him,
    he's willing to do whatever he can for them.  This man obviously
    cares about his children - when talking about them in the presence
    of close friends, often tears will arise.
    
    Is this a fair situation?  Shouldn't we prosecute this scum-bag
    to the extent of the law?  
    
    BTW, he has attempted to get things changed in court, with no results.
    
    Elizabeth                                     

RE: .54

"I have to believe that this is usually a joint decision between a couple."

I have never heard of this being a joint decision.  Usually the mother does
whatever she damned well pleases.

"Do you mean to tell me that some fathers had *no* say in the matter?"

I mean *****exactly***** that!

"What about responsibility for one's actions (and the possible pregnancy that
may result)?"

What about it?  I am and was prepared to fullfill my share of responsibility,
but I will not be forced to shoulder anothers responsibility, especially because
of another's gross carelessness.  Nor will I accept having the rights/
priveledges/joys of being a parent taken away from me. 

"I believe that each parent should pay percentage-wise. Does this *not* seem
fair to you?" 

No, that does not seem fair to me.  Just as I believe in *equal* pay for women,
not a percentage, so I believe in *equal* support, not a percentage.  Now, I
feel that a parent should provide for their children as best they are able, but
I don't feel that has any connection to a forced outrageous child support.

Not to mention the fact that the mother moans about not having enough money,
yet she could easily be making 5K$ more a year, and chooses not to.

Additionally, I feel I should have the right to choose how *my* money is spent
on *my* children, currently, I do not have any say.  If I had the say on how
*my* money was spent on *my* children, I would feel 100% better about it. 

"If the mother is squandering it, then I think the father should get a good
lawyer, or else try to reason with his ex-wife (if things can still be talked
out)."

You would not believe what abyssmal deadends those courses of action are.

"Do you have some more recent data that tells a different story?"

Currently the MA courts are giving 30% gross of fathers salary for child support
no if's, and's, but's, or else's.  This child support is automatically deducted
from wages. 

Taxes are about a third of the gross, and the fathers are supposed to survive on
one third of their pay, which is really a 50% reduction of take home pay.  And
in my case, the court ordered child support is 83% of the expenses of the
children.  Can you explain that when the mother could easily be making more
money?  On top of this, the men usually get most of the debts, *including* the
mother's lawyer. 

"She will probably never be able to fully support herself at that stage in
life."

I disagree.  I can't think of *any* person that should not be able to support
themselves after two, or at most four, years of schooling/retraining. 

"I think that should be taken into account, definitely!  Either parent will most
likely be a better care-provider than a babysitter."

I do not have the option of watching my children.  In fact, this month, when the
daycare had it's vacation, I offered to watch the children.  I was refused. I
would only be allowed to watch the children if I continued to pay their mother
the money for daycare.  Right!  I am supposed to be able to take an unpaid
vacation, *and* pay her the daycare!  I can't afford that! 

"Just what it says.  I think it was what someone was saying before - that the
arithmetic just doesn't (or at least shouldn't) give either party the "financial
edge" when it comes to a divorce."

Thank you for explaining that for me...

"I applaud your efforts in a time when *many* men (according to the statistics)
are not doing the same thing!"

My point is that I think that there is one small difference between these "scum"
who "desert their children".  They believed what society, and the mothers told
them.  I could sooo easily be in their shoes, it makes me cry!  I'll bet that at
least half of those men who deserted their children were repeatedly told "I'm
going to take you for all you've got!", "The Children are better off without
you; they're better off with *ME*!", "Why don't you just disappear!"  How
many of them were able to see their children when they wanted to without
hassles?  Without thier children being alienated from them?

When divorced father's are treated as other then slaves to toil for the
*mothers*, so that they may have the children, without being denied the fruits
of being a parent, *that*'s when father's will stop abondoning their children.
Right now, you see, they have already lost their children, and they have nothing
to lose, and everything to gain by abandoning them. 


BTW  The horrible shaft that fathers get when it comes to custody, or visitation
pretty well matches the horrible situation the mothers are in when it comes to
child support?

This situation is not at all as one sided as it seems...

I'm sorry if I come down hard on this/you, I don't mean to be personal about
it, but it hurts pretty bad. 

RE: .55

"If you keep careful records of what you observe of her spending patterns,
habits, purchases, and so forth, I think you would have a basis to go back to
court in the future." 

I wish that that were possible...  But I have no way of keeping track of the way
she spends the money.  Taking that back to court would be worthless; the courts
don't care if she is 'uneconomical'; it's not their money.  In fact, they even
encourage that the mother be given enough money for "'extras'".  Which +of
course+ are ostensibily for the children.

Jim. 

    re: .57
    
    Jim, you've hit on something there when you say that the men who walk
    out on their children have been trained by society and their mothers
    [and fathers!] to think that children belong with their mothers and
    that fathers are good only for providing money.  [Remember _Leave It to
    Beaver_, with mother constantly manipulating stupid father into
    thinking he was in charge?] 
    
    Your wife, and most of us who were raised in the fifties and sixties,
    were taught the same thing.  
    
    We're ALL trapped in the same stupid, narrow, unfair, inequitable sex
    roles in an unfair, stupid, narrow, exploitive society.  Women were
    taught skills that would let them get more from the men in their lives.
    In the extremely traditional pattern, if you weren't Cinderella, Alexis
    Carrington was the best you could hope to be.  And did anybody ever
    wonder how Prince Charming managed to pay the bills for all those glass
    slippers his wife was forever losing? 
    
    When the divorced father believes he's only good for money, and
    the divorced mother believes he's only good for money, there isn't
    much hope for an equitable settlement or a happy outcome.
    
    The only solution is not to prevent divorce or even to put more
    thought into getting married, it's to REMAKE SOCIETY into something
    less unfair. 
    
    --bonnie

    There is  a  front  page  article  in today's Boston Globe about a
    woman  who  has  been  living  in  battered women's shelters since
    Christmas  because her ex-boyfriend continually threatened her. To
    add insult to injury, the courts are now ordering her to allow the
    father  visitation  rights  on the grounds that he's only hit her,
    and  never  hit  the child. The argument is that the fact that the
    parents  are  fighting  is no reason to deny the father visitation
    rights.  

    This seems  awfully  similar  to the case a few months ago where a
    woman  asked  the  court  for  a  restraining  order  against  her
    ex-husband, the judge insulted her and didn't issue the order, and
    the  ex-husband killed her. It seems that the Massachusetts courts
    are  not  protecting woment against violent lovers even though the
    law  is  now  quite  clear.  It  seems that a change of laws isn't
    sufficent, and one needs a change of mores as well.

--David

RE: .57 ( re .54):

>>"I have to believe that this is usually a joint decision between a couple."

>I have never heard of this being a joint decision.  Usually the mother does
>whatever she damned well pleases.
    
    Maybe *some* marriages are so piss-poor that it is not a joint
    decision, but of all of the couples *I* know of, these decisions
    are made jointly within the *partnership* of marriage, by *two*
    *reasonable* people.

>>"Do you mean to tell me that some fathers had *no* say in the matter?"

>I mean *****exactly***** that!
    
    That's BULLfeathers!  You have sex, babies are a possible outcome.
    I don't know anyone so ignorant that doesn't know that there is
    a connection between sex and babies!

>>"I believe that each parent should pay percentage-wise. Does this *not* seem
>>fair to you?" 

>No, that does not seem fair to me.  Just as I believe in *equal* pay for women,
>not a percentage, so I believe in *equal* support, not a percentage.

    Fine, I believe in equal pay for women and men also.  But that's
    not the *reality* now, is it?  Equal support is not possible in
    today's world.  We *totally* disagree.  A *percentage-wise* agreement
    would be the fairest agreement.  I don't know any *reasonable* person
    who would disagree with this arrrangement.  You pay what you can
    afford.  Simple as that.

>>"Do you have some more recent data that tells a different story?"

>Currently the MA courts are giving 30% gross of fathers salary for child support
>no if's, and's, but's, or else's.  This child support is automatically deducted
>from wages. 
    
    Glad to hear something's finally being done about this abysmal
    children-in-povery syndrome!

>>"She will probably never be able to fully support herself at that stage in
>>life."

>I disagree.  I can't think of *any* person that should not be able to support
>themselves after two, or at most four, years of schooling/retraining. 
    
    How about someone's (maybe your own) 60-year grandmother?  Think
    she'll ever be employable, even after four years of schooling?

>>"I applaud your efforts in a time when *many* men (according to the statistics)
>>are not doing the same thing!"

>My point is that I think that there is one small difference between these "scum"
>who "desert their children".  They believed what society, and the mothers told
>them.  I could sooo easily be in their shoes, it makes me cry!  I'll bet that at
>least half of those men who deserted their children were repeatedly told "I'm
>going to take you for all you've got!", "The Children are better off without
>you; they're better off with *ME*!", "Why don't you just disappear!"  How
>many of them were able to see their children when they wanted to without
>hassles?  Without thier children being alienated from them?

>When divorced father's are treated as other then slaves to toil for the
>*mothers*, so that they may have the children, without being denied the fruits
>of being a parent, *that*'s when father's will stop abondoning their children.
>Right now, you see, they have already lost their children, and they have nothing
>to lose, and everything to gain by abandoning them. 
    
    I agree.  Men in custody cases are also victims of a sexist society.

>BTW  The horrible shaft that fathers get when it comes to custody, or visitation
>pretty well matches the horrible situation the mothers are in when it comes to
>child support?
    
    True, but the fathers aren't in financial *poverty* and *that's*
    what I was talking about in this note.  Now, we could argue, which
    is worse?  Mothers-and-children in poverty after divorce *or* men
    who aren't allowed to visit their children.  Both are very bad, but
    the former is much worse in my opinion.  Is that what we're arguing 
    about here?  Which is worse?  I know your situation is not unique, Jim,
    it's just that it is very *one-sided* and you think just because you
    are getting the shaft in a bad way that the mothers-and-children in
    poverty after divorce is not an important issue.  I *truly* resent
    your trying to make it seem as if this is a non-issue just because
    your ex is giving you a hard time.

    I guess I'm trying to say that your situation is *bad*, I agree,
    you're getting the shaft, but HOW does that make the statistics
    about mothers and chidren in poverty any better?  HOW?

    	-Ellen

    RE: .60 I'm not sure if you're just saying you don't know me (true
    as far as I know) or that I'm not a reasonable person but I disagree
    totally that making a man pay child support based on how much he
    makes compared percentage wise with what the woman makes is fair. I believe
    that the only fair way to divide child care costs is by percentage
    of custody. The person with the most custody should pay the most.
    If that means that the mother can't afford greater then n% of the
    costs then she should not have more then n% of the custody. Now
    if one parent doesn't want custody in relationship to what they
    could afford and wants to make greater payments and let the other
    have custody fine. As long as it's by agreement and not court ordered.
    
>>I disagree.  I can't think of *any* person that should not be able to support
>>themselves after two, or at most four, years of schooling/retraining. 
>    
>    How about someone's (maybe your own) 60-year grandmother?  Think
>    she'll ever be employable, even after four years of schooling?

    Sure, why not? My wife's mother (62 and on disability) could and
    would work at something if she had to. BTW, how many women 60 and
    over have children under 16? Not a while lot I'll bet. This is a
    red herring.
    
>    True, but the fathers aren't in financial *poverty* and *that's*
>    what I was talking about in this note.  Now, we could argue, which
>    is worse?  Mothers-and-children in poverty after divorce *or* men
>    who aren't allowed to visit their children.  Both are very bad, but
>    the former is much worse in my opinion.  Is that what we're arguing 
>    about here?  

    Jim is talking about the case were men *are* in financial poverty
    *and* aren't allowed to visit their child. Personally I'd rather
    be in financial poverty and have custody of my son then have all
    the money in the world and not have custody. So I'd have to say
    that being poor and having my son is a much better deal then not
    being able to see my son regardless of the money it'd leave me.
    
    Of course women with dependent children being in poverty is a serious
    issue. But to blame it on men not paying their 'fair share' when
    that share is greater then their share of custody in anything but
    fair.
    
    			Alfred

    re .61
    
    >but I disagree
    >totally that making a man pay child support based on how much he
    >makes compared percentage wise with what the woman makes is fair. I believe
    >that the only fair way to divide child care costs is by percentage
    >of custody. The person with the most custody should pay the most.
    
    While I might agree with you IFF men and women had equal income
    opportunities, they do not at this time, and if individual men cannot
    face the fact that their gender has kept women at a lower earning
    potential, I don't know what we [women] can do: maybe beat them
    over the head? How about a strike?    :)
    
    What we _do_ get is lip service: yes it's bad that you don't make
    as much as us, but no, we won't compensate for that [or even recognize
    it and how it hampers your freedom] when _our_ wallets are at stake.
    
    One problem which would be more likely to arise with the proposition
    above is an unusual type of custody battle becoming much more common:
    the parents fight over who is _stuck_ with custody.  This happened
    to a friend of mine when her parents both decided to start new families
    without her.  Horrible situation.
    
    Lee

    RE: .60 (Re .57, Re.54)
       >>>"I have to believe that this is usually a joint decision between a couple."

>>I have never heard of this being a joint decision.  Usually the mother does
>>whatever she damned well pleases.
    
    >Maybe *some* marriages are so piss-poor that it is not a joint
    >decision, but of all of the couples *I* know of, these decisions
    >are made jointly within the *partnership* of marriage, by *two*
    >*reasonable* people.

     
    Of course, the marriages where one or both persons is doing whatever they
    damn well please are probably the ones most likely to fail, and
    get into this situation.
    
    >>>"Do you mean to tell me that some fathers had *no* say in the matter?"

>>I mean *****exactly***** that!
    
    >That's BULLfeathers!  You have sex, babies are a possible outcome.
    >I don't know anyone so ignorant that doesn't know that there is
    >a connection between sex and babies!
     
    Shouldn't one spouse be able to *believe* that the other is using
    the method of birth control that he/she says he/she is?  What about
    women who get pregnant deliberately just to keep him, or make him
    marry her, or save the marriage?  There really are lots of women
    who do this.  I'm getting tired of people, male or female, who use
    children as pawns in their game of life.
    
    Elizabeth
    

re .63

>			I'm getting tired of people, male or female, who use
>    children as pawns in their game of life.

	Amen.  Best thing I've reaad tody.

	If foster care were in better shape than it really is, I would say 
take the kids out of the home, put them in Foster care, and let the parents
wage all the war they want while keeping the kids away from it.  Then,
after the war is won [face it, with a battle, someone is going to lose] the
kids go to the custodial parent(s) and the agreements are already in place.

RE: Ellen

There are a couple of misunderstandings here.

"How many of those 'poor' women  choose not to work?"
    
I am refering to postdivorce work.

"How many of those 'poor' women gave the fathers the option of having the
children?"

I am refering to the father having full or part time custody after the divorce.

RE: .60

"I don't know any *reasonable* person who would disagree with this arrrangement.
You pay what you can afford.  Simple as that."

If that were the case, I would not be as riled as I am.  The courts do not care
one iota whether the father can afford the child support payments, or not.
There are quite a few homeless fathers who cannot afford a place to live because
of outrageous child support payments.

"Glad to hear something's finally being done about this abysmal children-in
-poverty syndrome!" 

Yes, it's been replaced with the father-below-poverty syndrome, leaving fathers
no alternative, except to disappear.  That is not better, that is infinitely
worse. 

"Do you have some more recent data that tells a different story?"

I have the results of a new survey, sponsored by FAIR, Father's Advocacy,
Information and Referral).  The data was collected by professional social
workers from 2,228 fathers calling FAIR's number, and 482 in depth interviews to
elaborate the findings. 

   "It was concluded that when fathers are allowed to visit with their children
   and maintain a relationship, the support default rate was 6%.  When
   visitation was frustrated by the mother, the default rate climbed to 64%.  It
   was found that court ordered visitation was frustrated in 77% of the cases
   studied." 

Even if I read this survey pessimistically, and say that the only people
involved are fathers with an axe to grind.  That still says to me that all of
them don't like the current situation, and would rather be with their children
if they could.  The scum who just want to get off scott free, will not be
calling, they could care less!  And the fathers who are relatively happy will
not be calling.  So we have no way of relating proportions of fathers in general
to fathers who were in the survey.  Even so, it's rather startling: 


100% = Unhappy fathers with an axe to grind.
 =
 77% = Unhappy fathers ... who don't see their children because of the mother.
 +
 23% = Unhappy fathers ... who still see their children.


100% = Unhappy fathers with an axe to grind.
 =                                                          (financial reasons?)
  6% = Unhappy fathers ... who default without frustrated visitation.
 +
 94% = Unhappy fathers ... who default because of frustrated visitation.


It seems obvious, even given the source, that mothers are to large extent
responsible for the child abandonment.  There are a hell of a lot of fathers out
there that wish things were otherwise; that did not want to abandon their
children, but saw no other course.

"How about someone's (maybe your own) 60-year grandmother?  Think she'll ever be
employable, even after four years of schooling?"

I think that at that point in life, is not Social Security supposed to take over?
And in any case, I don't care how old, or how handicapped a person is, there is
always usefull work that needs to be done, that they can do. 

"Mothers-and-children in poverty after divorce *or* men who aren't allowed to
visit their children.  Both are very bad, but the former is much worse in my
opinion.  Is that what we're arguing about here?  Which is worse?"

I'd rather have, or give Love then Money, any day!  And so would the children
of divorced parents I've asked what it is like!

"I *truly* resent your trying to make it seem as if this is a non-issue just
because your ex is giving you a hard time."

It's not that I don't think children in poverty are a problem.  

Yet, I know several single mothers who have survived quite well, without *any*
help from the father.  If they can do it, so can others.  I think that that part
of the problem lies within the mothers themselves. 

I do think that fathers not providing their share of support is a problem,
***and*** I think that mothers not providing thier share of support is just as
much of a problem!  Ric's mother thinks *I* should get a second job to pay the
child support.  Forget it!  Let her get the second job to pay *her* share of the
child support!  Sure, it's rough, and it should be better, but it doesn't make
it any less rough, or any more better, and quite a bit more inequitable to heap
it on me.

I feel that any mother worth her salt is capable of her share of providing for
the children, perhaps with a starting push.  It is rough, but if they can't do
that, and the father is ready willing and able, then perhaps the father should
have custody.  In any case I feel the noncustodial parent should be able to have
the children as much as they want!

I do think that children not having both parents because of divorce, *is* a
problem, because of the love *and* the support, that the child misses out on. 

I *don't* think that "cracking down on scum who desert their children", is the
solution.  Here I am trying to be a good father, and the system is making it
*extremely* difficult for me to.  How much harder it must be on those with a bit
less perseverance then I?  I am sure that once a certain level of frustration is
reached, being in poverty and having already lost your children, there is no
reason for the fathers to stick around.

That is what should be changed.  The system should *encourage* and *support*
both parents to love and support the children.  I did not divorce my children!
Currently, the system tries to squeeze blood from a turnip, and really does not
care about the overall wellbeing of the people involved.
     
"I guess I'm trying to say that your situation is *bad*, I agree, you're getting
the shaft, but HOW does that make the statistics about mothers and chidren in
poverty any better?  HOW?"

It doesn't make it any better.  But it let's people know that the 'fathers' have
as mixed a pot of spaghetti as the 'mothers'.

What I *truly* resent is having to *fight* for my children, when an equitable
solution was possible, that would have provided for me, and my children.

RE: .59

"To add insult to injury, the courts are now ordering her to allow the father
visitation  rights  on the grounds that he's only hit her, and  never  hit  the
child. The argument is that the fact that the parents  are  fighting  is no
reason to deny the father visitation rights."

That is currently the courts stand on the matter, and I suppose I can see,
*some* reason to it.  In the PARENTS Conference, you will find the story of a
father who was being abused, yet the mother got ***custody***.  It cuts both
ways.

RE: .64

'The kids should be put in foster homes'

I would certainly find that preferable to my current situation.  Then, both
parents would have to pay cild support evenly, and have even rights to 'visit'
the children. 

Jim. 

    <--(.65)
        
    
    Jim, I hear that you're in pain about all this, but your cause is
    not helped by blatant errors in reasoning:
    
    
   " If that were the case, I would not be as riled as I am.  The courts
   do not care one iota whether the father can afford the child support
   payments, or not. There are quite a few homeless fathers who cannot
   afford a place to live because of outrageous child support payments. 

   ... 
    
   Yes, it's been replaced with the father-below-poverty syndrome,
   leaving fathers no alternative, except to disappear.  That is not
   better, that is infinitely worse. 
    
   ... 

   It's not that I don't think children in poverty are a problem. 

   Yet, I know several single mothers who have survived quite well,
   without *any* help from the father.  If they can do it, so can
   others.  I think that that part of the problem lies within the
   mothers themselves. "
   
   
   What I see you saying is that since some women manage to cope without
   any financial support from the man, the women who cannot have some
   sort of character defect.  Yet I am quite sure that if one of us were
   to suggest that since some men in your situation manage to cope, you
   have a character defect, you would be *very* upset.   How do you
   square the two?
   
   						=maggie

    Jim--
    
    I'm curious.  If you had the power to decide, what would have been
    a fair ruling in your case?  Fair to both you and your wife?  I'd
    be interested to know about % of income and % of time having custody.
    
    Did they ask you what you thought should happen?  Did they ask your
    wife?
    
    Holly

    Re: .59
    
    Reading more about the Mass. case where a mother was ordered to
    allow an abusive father to visit the child - I found it startling
    that the judge who made this ruling was a woman, and somewhat
    surprising that nobody here mentioned it.  
    
    Just to make things clear - I am just as horrified at the ruling
    as anyone. 
    				Steve

RE: .66

That's not what I was saying at all...  If you had taken a larger context,
it would have been obvious.

I'm saying that there are many ways into, and out of, a dilemma.

Some women can rise above the situation, and support themselves well, *but* I
have not said that they should have to, nor have I said *everyone* could. And, I
am not suggesting that *any* mother manage to make do without the father's help.

In my shoes, one person's way of coping would be to disappear, another's might
be to be homeless, another's might be to take that second job.  I have
considered all of them, and I have decided to make a bloody row about this
injustice, and I cheer on any mother who choose to do the same if the father
took off (all other things being equal).

I am merely saying that there are other ways out of the problem, and that I
don't believe that branding divorced fathers as "scum", or passing laws to hunt
them down, is going to solve anything. 

Jim.

    Those of you that know me understand that this is an extremely hot
    issue with me.  I have my story, Jim has a story, Joan has a story,
    my friend Bill has a story, Eva had a story, Steve has a story, Sue
    has a story, Bob has a story, Eric has a story.  Each story revolves 
    around child support and it is a story because it is a perception of 
    the author's intrepretation of the truth and fairness.  But what is the
    real truth and who is the real judge of fairness?  Is it what is
    equitable as far as the parents are concerned or is the real equity
    that the courts are trying to determine the best interests of the
    child.
    
    I cannot believe some of the statements that are in the 71 replies
    to this note.  Tell me I am wrong...did someone say that the custodial
    parent should pay the largest percentage?  Are children possessions
    like a car and if you enjoy them you have to pay everything.  Did
    someone say that children are conceived when woman decide they should
    be?  Do we really expect divorce, child support and all the
    aftereffects of a bad relationship to be fair?
    
    It takes two people to make a marriage and two people to break one
    up.  If your only mistake was to choose the wrong partner that was
    where you failed.
    
    It was not easy raising four children on the child support that
    I received.  Some had it better than I and some had it worse.  Clearly
    my children's father did not provide emotional or financial support
    to his children.
    
    I did what I felt was right for the children.  I did not bad mouth
    their father, I worked hard, and somehow even with my weaknesses
    I survived and I have four great friends that just happen to be
    my sons and daughters.
    
    What does he have?  He has a beautiful home, two cars, a wife that
    uses a lot of Valium (I broke that habit the week he left), and a dog
    who loves him.
    
    I am angry because it could have been better if he had paid half.
    I could have spent more time with the children, the children knew
    what was going on and they had a sense of loss.  
    
    But in a lot of these notes I see a lot of anger.  And very little
    love of the children that are being supported.  No wonder we cannot
    decide these issues equitably...
    
    

        RE: .72
        
        Hear! Hear! One of the few lucid notes in this discussion. So
        long as the motivating factor is anger, and not love, we are
        doomed to a much less reasonable outcome than is ideally
        possible. And that's in a situation where it is guaranteed that
        everyone involved is going to be hurt some, even if the ideal is
        acheived.
        
        RE: .60
        
            "How about someone's (maybe your own) 60-year grandmother?
            Think she'll ever be employable, even after four years of
            schooling?"
        
        Let's see, my grandmother is 94 and confined to a rest home, so
        she doesn't quite fit the bill. But, my mother--my boy's
        grandmother--is 62, and when she was 59 she lost her job as a
        realestate agent because she was too nice to be profitable. It
        was the only job she'd had in more than 30 years, and she'd been
        trying and failing at it for about 5 years. The year she turned
        60 she started a new career as an assistant high school
        librarian. She's not self sustaining yet, but then again after
        39 years she and my father are really pretty comfortable, so she
        doesn't have to be.
        
        The point is that yes, I can picture my mother who is a 60+ year
        old grandmother becoming employable, because just in order to
        have something to do she's doing it. With the motivation of
        having to do it, she'd do that much better. Being 60 isn't that
        debilitating, you know. Neither is having children or
        grandchildren, nor being female. 
        
        Sure there *are* people who can't support themselves. My
        institutionalized 94 year-old grandmother, for one. Then again,
        when she was a 45 year-old housewife with two teenage kids, my
        grandfather died, and she, my aunt and my father took turns
        supporting the family. In her prime she was one tough old
        battle-axe. Now she couldn't, though. But even though there are
        people who can't support themselves, I don't think it's fair to
        assume that older women are incapable and pitiful. It terribly
        short changes some very strong and determined folk. 
        
        It also strikes me as sexist and agist, and whatever -ist it is
        when you assume that being a traditional housewife renders you
        incompetant. That someone who cares so much about feminine
        equality could say such a thing strikes me as evidence that when
        anger and frustration drive an argument, it takes complete
        control.
        
        JimB. 

    Rather than being ageist....I think it is a fair desription of
    *some* older women that they had always expected to be taken care
    of and that it would be very difficult for them to get training
    and get a job to support themselves if they become divorced or
    widowed in their 50's and 60's. Cases should be decided on a person
    by person basis.....and alimony is more apt to be given to older
    women with no job skills who have been supported comfortably by
    their husbands since they were married....
    
    (and my 100 year old grandmother has been self supporting since
    my grandfather ran off on her nearly 50 years ago....:-) ;-)
    
    Bonnie

    If we are talking about older women who have been housewives for most
    of their adult lives, either alimony can be given to them for a short
    time so that they can get training to become employable, or if we are
    talking about post-retirement age women, as long as there is social
    security, the women have a claim on their husband's social security if
    their marriage has lasted more than (I believe) 10 years. 
    
    Obviously, there is nothing more that can be gotten from a husband who
    dies - the women have to fend pretty much for themselves. 
    
    My sister is setting herself up exactly for this kind of thing - she
    got married when she was 18, right out of highschool.  Her husband is
    the same age, has a fair (not really good) job, yet they have been
    married for 4 years now, and have 3 children, and she is planning more.
    I don't really know what *he* wants, but he goes along with it.  The
    woman has no training, etc.  Our father keeps asking her to get some
    schooling, get a part time job, or something, because he is afraid that
    some day he will either leave her, becomes disabled or ill, or die.
    Her answer is that this will never happen.  She really *wants* to be a
    wife and mother, and is burying her head in the sand to some very real
    possibilities.  I think too many women, particularly older women, have
    a very bad case of poor planning.  Still, does the poor planning
    justify a former husband supporting the woman for the rest of her
    life? 
    
    Elizabeth

    re .61:
    
    >RE: .60 I'm not sure if you're just saying you don't know me (true
    >as far as I know) or that I'm not a reasonable person but I disagree
    >totally that making a man pay child support based on how much he
    >makes compared percentage wise with what the woman makes is fair. I believe
    >that the only fair way to divide child care costs is by percentage
    >of custody. The person with the most custody should pay the most.
    >If that means that the mother can't afford greater then n% of the
    >costs then she should not have more then n% of the custody. Now
    >if one parent doesn't want custody in relationship to what they
    >could afford and wants to make greater payments and let the other
    >have custody fine. As long as it's by agreement and not court ordered.
    
    This is ridiculous.  The children should go to the BEST PARENT,
    not the RICHEST PARENT.  This is an extremely classist remark,
    but don't feel so bad, we live in a classist society.  Something
    is inferior about poor people, right?  They chose to be poor, right?
    <barf>
    

    Now I really think Joint Custody should be the default in normal
    child custody cases.  The mother and father who can't stand each
    other's guts is just too bad.  That's *not* a reason to not grant joint
    custody. (I'm not talking to anyone in particular).
    
    So, Jim Baranski, I see more clearly what you're talking about now
    and I understand better.
    
    But, the bottom line is the children's welfare.  If I had to choose
    between a child in poverty and a father in poverty, I'd choose the
    father (or mother) to be in poverty, but *of course* with access to
    his (or her) children!  I *don't* want to see taxpayers take over the
    parents' job of financial support.
    
    I totally agree with you about this - you *need* to see your children
    as often as possible and *they* need *you* (the "you" being distinct
    from "your money")!

    	-Ellen    

    re .-1:
    
    >re -.1
    
    >Its apparrent to me that you have zip understanding of the emotions
    >surrounding this issue.
    
    	And YOU do, I suppose?

    >If men are soaked excessively, and yet are subjected to the presence
    >of their kids, the kids will get quite a helping of bitterness which
    >ill-suits a child growing up.
    
    	*Subjected* to the *presence* of their kids?  What?  Don't fathers
        and children *want* to be together?  That's what Jim Baranski
        and other fathers in this file have said.  I believe them. 
        Don't you?
    
    >I'm afraid you'll have to find another way to destroy men. This
    >isn't a good one.
    
    I'm not surprised at a cheap shot like that from YOU, Mr. Holt.
    
    	-Ellen

re .78 [and by proxy .77]

I think I get the gist of the idea, if disagreeing with the choice of 
words.

I know a man who does not have custody of his 2 children.  He is paying a 
_large_ percentage of his pay towards child support.  The mother is living 
with another man [getting support from him].  So far, there isn't _that_ 
much of a problem.  He pays, regrets is, but sees that the children benefit 
from the money.

Now for the problem.  When the father gets to visit his children, they are 
getting cooler and cooler to him.  They get the constant diatribe of 
anti-dad hate from the mother and the 'father figure' is no help in this 
case.

When said father goes to visit, it's like he is having an open wound ripped 
open and salt poured in.  His children are getting distant.  They can't 
'take sides' against their mother's comments because they have to depend on 
her for everything [doesn't every 8 and 6 year old?].

For him to see his children is turning into sheer torture.  If he doesn't 
visit, he's accused of neglect.  If he does, he has to watch his children 
say things like "mommy says I HAVE to be with you" and "when can I go 
HOME"..

I think that's what Mr. Holt meant.  He may be guilty of nothing more than 
choosing a bad abbreviation.  Then again, maybe not.

Can you see what I'm trying to explain?

Hmmm...  Nobody has commented on my statistics... how odd... I wonder if
that's good, or bad...

RE: .68

What I think of, as being a good, fair settlement, is what I proposed to
do in the beginning.  

I had proposed paying for her to go back to college, and finish one of her 4
major degrees:  Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics, or Civil Engineering
(she kept switching majors) This would allow her to support herself, and the
children, when they are with her; there would be no normal child support. 

This would make her financially independent from me, it would not make a
difference monetarily, who has the children, if I (God forbid) disappeared, or
if I died, or was disabled.  I would also pay for half of any extraordinary
expenses of the children:  private school, long medical illness, etc.

It also, from my perspective, beats the hell out of having to drag her around
for the next 20 odd years, like a ball and chain. 

We meet in college, and married in college, and left college when we ran out of
money.  She had not finished a degree, and I had only finished one of the dual
degrees I was working on:  Electrical Engineering, and Computer Science.  Even
though neither of us sacrificed for the other's career, I feel obligated to
make sure that she receives a degree.  What she does with it, is her business. 

As far as custody goes, I feel it would be best if the children nominally spent
their first few years, up to school age with their mother, and then from school
age, up to ten years, or so, with me.  At that point, they should be capable of
making their own decision.  The 'noncustody' parent should have the ability to
see the children whenever, and as often, as they wish. 

We have no property, to speak of, and the household goods can be divided easily,
I think.  There are about 20,000$ in debts, mostly college loans, split evenly,
which I offered to take. 

Did they ask me?  Yes, and then ignored it entirely.

Did they ask her? Yes, she did not say much, all she had to do was to not agree
with me, and she would, and did, get her way. 

The biggest problem with this arrangement, is that because child support and
custody is "infinitely negotiable", she could take custody, have me pay off the
loans, and pay for college, and then take away the 'at will' 'visitation', and
demand the normally outrageous child support.  Once I would have trusted her for
it; now I'm not so sure. 

RE: .72

"Tell me I am wrong..."

"did someone say that the custodial parent should pay the largest percentage?
Are children possessions like a car and if you enjoy them you have to pay
everything." 

Yes, and I can understand that feeling.  It feels like @#$% to lose your kids,
and then be told, 'well, as a consolation, you get to keep paying for them...'
Maybe it would not be fair, but at least then there would be some unfairness on
each side, and it would *begin* to balance out, instead of the usual scene
whether the one with the children gets everything, and the other gets the shaft!
No, they are not possessions, but if you lose them, they might as well be dead,
and it doesn't make sense to have to keep paying for something you don't have.

"Did someone say that children are conceived when woman decide they should be?"

No. 

"Do we really expect divorce, child support and all the aftereffects of a bad
relationship to be fair?"

Yes, *I* do.  I except people to be as fair as possible, in whatever situation
they find themselves, or at least evenly unfair.  And I think that it can be
done.  And untill fathers feel that they are being treated fairly, you will have
fathers abandoning their children.  If you want to stop children being
abandoned, do something about that! 

"It takes two people to make a marriage and two people to break one up.  If your
only mistake was to choose the wrong partner that was where you failed."

Wrong, it only takes one person to break it up.

Does choosing the wrong partner have to ruin the rest of your life?  I don't
believe it *has* to be that way, even though I know that there are a lot of
people making it so.

RE: .73

Actually I count myself, very fortunate that I *do* have quite a bit of love
left.  Ask anyone who has seen me with my children...  I have love for them. And
I do Thank God, that I do have love remaining for their mother.  I tried to make
the best of a bad situation, but I could not.  I tried remaining friends, but I
could not.

The bad part is that she still has love for me, and even though she would/could
not be the wife I needed, it tears her up to lose me, and makes her crazy to see
me happy without her.  At times she is agreeable, or sorrowfull, but never
consistant, and standing by her promises.

The anger that I have, is not for her, but for what is being done to me, by her,
by the lawyers, by the courts, by the family ''''services'''' people, etc.

RE: .74, et al.

As I said, there should be nobody who needs more then a couple of years to get
back on their feet. 

RE: .76

"The children should go to the BEST PARENT, not the RICHEST PARENT."

That is one of the most crippling remarks in child custody.  The child should
have the *most* of *both* parents! 

And yes, *why* should not financial ability be *one* of the factors in deciding
custody?  Just because it is easily *taken* from one, and *awarded* to another,
Eh?  No Way!  It's *my* money, and I'll spend it how *I* feel on *my* children!

Financial ability shows some measure of success, financial, personal, and
otherwise, it can give clues as to how able a person is.

"If I had to choose between a child in poverty and a father in poverty, I'd
choose the father (or mother) to be in poverty,"

How about choosing between a father and child making it, and a mother making it,
vs. a mother and child in poverty, and a father in poverty?  That is the
difference between the father, or the mother having custody without child
support when the parents are equally capable of being good parents.

.77 (this seems like a guerilla note)

The problem is not joint custody, it's the parties who can't stand each other
(not necessarily both parties), that is the problem which needs to be solved. 
Joint Custody, with counseling should be the course in this case...

It's too easy for one party to say 'I hate his guts', and get the children.

"If men are soaked excessively, and yet are subjected to the presence of their
kids, the kids will get quite a helping of bitterness which ill-suits a child
growing up."

And why shouldn't the children know that bitterness?  If no one knows of that
bitterness, it will keep happening, again, and again.  My children will know how
I feel, and perhaps in their day they will be able to do something about it
happening to other people in their day. 

One of the reasons that these issues are being addressed, and other alternatives
are being found, are because more people grew up with, or have been touched by
divorce.  They *know* it sucks, and that there has to be a better way...

Jim.

    Bob,
    You like Jim are writing out of a great deal of personal pain
    and I have compassion for both of you. 
    
    The kind of woman that you are writing about is very foreign
    to my experience. Most of the divorced women that I have known
    have been ones who struggled to raise kids with low paying
    jobs and little or no help from the father so I am not qualified
    to judge on the situation that you discribe. I supose that you
    think I am naive but I really don't think that any but a minority
    of women are as you describe....just as I also believe that most
    men want to fairly support their children and continue as active
    fathers. 
    
    I would like to ask all those writing on this subject... to try
    and see beyond their own pain if possible and not color all individuals
    with the same brush. 
    
    There was nothing that I could see on a careful rereading of Ellen's
    note that in *anyway* even implied that she was out to destroy men. 
    I read her note as being primarily aimed at fairness to children,
    and also as an objection to useing money as a major determinant
    in deciding custody.
    
    The most tragic thing about this whole situation is - as others
    have said before - that the children are the ones who suffer.
    
    pax
    
    Bonnie
    

    It is amazing what a one-sided conversation will do for a discussion.
    
    If anyone were to hear my ex-husbands story you would *never* read
    my notes or send me mail.  I was horrid...among many things I did
    not manage money well, I was a terrible mother, and there was a
    question of the children's paternity.  In addition I was a horrible
    housekeeper.  These were geniune feelings he had because he could
    not face the fact that he had some responsibility in the breakup
    of our marriage.  And I have my story which, I admit, is my perception
    and might not be reality.
    
    I do not tend to be sympathetic to the divorced person who cannot
    accept some responsibilities for the breakup of their marriage.
    
    For me maturity came when I stopped blaming other people for my
    misfortune.  
    
    And the love for my children surpassed any need for revenge.
    
                             

    Yu know, what's strange about this whole debate is that it seems
    my family and my first lover's family were total anomalies: my mom
    was dirt poor and unemployable and my Dad was employed, poor, and
    knew little about parenting so my DAD got custody of us all.  The
    courts in Maine did NOT listen to my mom when she thought they were
    going for joint custody and dad changed his mind, so DAD got custody.
    Mom got NO alimony or support when SHE was learning another career
    [yes I'm proud of my mom, the first female to get a Master Electrician
    liscense in Maine...] but she went on welfare and did it.  She was
    so pissed off at "losing" us that she moved across the street from
    us -- we saw her when we felt like it.  She missed us [I didn't
    visit enough, tho my bros did] so she got herself preggo, and I
    have a half-sister on that side (one on the other side, too).  That
    my parents came to hate each other and be bitter towards each other
    was clear to ALL THREE of us, so we would never talk about one in
    front of the other, nor allow (imagine if you will, my youngest
    brother at 6 years old telling my dad to quit it) them to badmouth
    each other in our presence.
    
    My DAD told me nasty stories about my mom, some of which she denies,
    some she confirms.  BIG DEAL!!!  I went through a period of hating
    my non-custodial parent.  So did my brothers.  I went through a
    period of hating my custodal parent(s: dad remarried).  So did my
    brothers.  My brothers and I did this at different times: Nick hated
    dad & loved mom at divorce time.  I did the opposite.  Tim was
    confused.  Later, I "discovered" how cool she was despite her faults,
    around the same time as I decided my dad was a rat.  Nick just decided
    Mom isn't a rat, although its not a final concluson yet; he thinks
    dad &wife are super.  Tim loves and hates everybody all at once
    (as I said, he's confused.  He was that way long before the divorce,
    tho, for reasons I'd rather not get into--they are not
    divorce-related).  Each of us figured out our parents had faults,
    and some of what each parent said about the other was both true
    and entirely human.
    
    Moral: divorced parents may or may not badmouth each other, regardless
    of their gender and which gender-representative is "awarded" custody.
    
    Moral: kids go through hating their parents and recover from it.
     Send them letters, tell them they are wanted, loved, and missed;
    they'll remember that part.
    
    Moral: even tho my non-custodial parent had infinite visitation
    rights and opportunities, _I_ did not see her very much at first.
     Had there been joint custody, I would have asked to have it changed
    so I could stay with my dad and in what was my home before and after
    the divorce.
    
    Moral: while the divorce made my parents miserable, and shocked
    the sh** out of me when it happened, I adjusted quickly, and was
    totally accustomed to it before the mandatory separation period
    was over and the divorce final.  It mattered a lot more to them
    than it did to me or my brothers.
    
    My first lover's parents had joint custody for a while, then traded
    off on ~3-5 year periods when he was in school.  He loves both his
    parents despite their badmouthing each other, but wishes he had
    had a stable home: it was a real drag at his age to be moving all
    the time and having to make a new set of friennds every few years.
    
    Moral: joint custody may be fairer to the parents, but is lousy
    for the kid who is never really sure what is _home_.
    
    Gad, enough preaching.  Just realize, please, that while this is
    very traumatic now, it is probably less so for your kids, and all
    of you will feel a lot better after some time passes.  Yes, Jim,
    it's suck-o that you have to pay so much money.  I have not heard
    any stories from the kids' side on alimony/childsupport battles,
    so I'm afraid I can't help you there.  I wish there were some way
    you could avoid being soaked and still be able to have contact with
    your kids.
    
    Both Ellen and Jim cite frightful stats.  I'm glad that didn't happen
    in _my_ family.  Maybe y'all should have been divorced in Maine??
    
    Lee

        RE: 24.84
        
        No wonder I'm so fond of you, Joyce. You have an extremely
        rational view on divorce and your own divorce. I truly believe
        that your experience of maturity--that it came when you stopped
        blaming other people for your misfortune--is the essence of
        maturity and success in life. 
        
        JimB. 

    Jim Baranski,   About those statistics...
    You stated that:
    
    >"The data was collected by professional social workers from 2228
    >fathers calling FAIR's [the father's advocacy group's] number ..."
    
    Be aware that since the sample was not a RANDOM sample but a
    self-determined sample, the statistics are effectively meaningless.
    ***IRONY ALERT***  
    I can probably prove in a similar way that all Americans are racists--
    if I ask only Klu Klux Klan members to respond to my survey.
    ***END IRONY ALERT***                         
    
    Tamar

    ps  For anyone wondering "WHAT STATISTICS?"  take a look at 24.65.

    Re: .54
    
    Thanks Ellen.  Your message was clear, concise, and highly valued.
    
    Melanie

	.re 86:
    
        >RE: 24.84
        
        >No wonder I'm so fond of you, Joyce. You have an extremely
        >rational view on divorce and your own divorce. I truly believe
        >that your experience of maturity--that it came when you stopped
        >blaming other people for your misfortune--is the essence of
        >maturity and success in life. 
        
    I agree with you.  Joyce is a *neat* lady.  But what if Joyce
    (sorry to use you an example here) had fought for her and her
    children's fair share?  Would you think her such a neat lady then?
    She's told us her situation and it *stunk* on her end, as far as
    I can tell.  She *deserved* more, she had *earned* better treatment.
    What if she had fought?
    
    A lot of the men and some of the women in =womannotes have been
    telling women in here to "quit complaining" and *GO AFTER WHAT YOU
    WANT*.  If Joyce had done that, then she'd have been labelled a bitch
    or "out to destroy men", at least by some people.  Am I right?
    
    As an aside here, it is a common technique to suggest that the person
    that you disagree with has some major character flaw ("you're just
    arguing because you're a bitch", "you're out to destroy men"). 
    Some men (the ones who can't effectively argue the ISSUES) sometimes
    use it on women to keep them in "their place".  It's an age-old
    manipulative technique and one that I recognize for what it is.
    It deflects us from the REAL ISSUES - Jim Baranski asked in .81 why
    no one was discussing the facts.  The reason is because we were
    sidetracked by name-calling.  It deflected us from the FACTS.
    
    	-Ellen
    

    Normally I'm willing to tolerate seeing a lot of verbal missiles
    flying back and forth, even on ad hominem and ad feminem trajectories
    if they're not *big* missiles.
    
    But.
    
    As Bonnie and others have pointed out, this topic is one that generates
    major heat because of the inequities involved.  We have a tendency to
    forget that what we get in a court is law, not justice.  If it also
    happens to be justice, so much the better, because that's what it's
    "spozed" to be, but a just outcome isn't guaranteed.   Hell, even
    a *legal* outcome isn't guaranteed, for some groups of people.
    
    So there is a lot of pain around this issue for many of us, men
    or women.  And pain causes us to say things that do us no credit.
    
    Therefore, I *strongly* request that everyone avoid uncomplimentary
    personal remarks, even if disguised (maybe *especially* if disguised)
    as general statements.  If you consider that someone is reasoning
    badly, say just that.  Don't escalate it with some remark about what
    you presume their motives to be, or attribute personality traits to
    them.   Please remember that we're all in this together; if one
    of us loses, we all lose; we can only win if we *all* win. 
    
    Please. 
                                                              
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

RE: .82

"No, it was not a guerrilla note. I meant *every* word."

Yes, I'm sure you meant every word, telling us how you feel, but objectively,
you didn't tell us anything.  Your notes generates more heat then light, because
we don't know *why* you feel that way, *what* happened.  We don't know enough to
understand what you are saying.  Please tell us more...

RE: .84

"I do not tend to be sympathetic to the divorced person who cannot accept some
responsibilities for the breakup of their marriage." 
    
"For me maturity came when I stopped blaming other people for my misfortune."

Hoorah!  That's a big step toward maturity that a lot of people never make...

I do accept responsibility for the breakup of my marriage...  But I think
that's getting pretty far off topic...

RE: .87

"Be aware that since the sample was not a RANDOM sample but a self-determined
sample, the statistics are effectively meaningless." 

I is *not* true that anything other then a random sample is meaningless. On one
end of the spectrum of randomness you have random sample surveys, on the other
end you have controlled laboratory experiments.  *ALL* of the results are
meaningfull; they just have to be analyzed appropriately according to the
methods used to correct them.

I allowed for the 'controlled' aspect in the gathering of the statistics, and
the answers were not any better.  I did *not*, and neither did the survey, say
that N% of *all* fathers were ....  That is a generalization *you* make in
*your* example. 

At least we know *how* these statistics were gathered.  We *don't* know
*anything* about how Ellen's original statistics were gathered; we are too far
removed from the original data.  That data may have been gathered asking only
mothers with children on welfare.  In my mind, that makes *my* statistics more
solid, because I do know how they were gathered.

RE: .90

"But what if Joyce (sorry to use you an example here) had fought for her and her
children's fair share?"

"A lot of the men and some of the women in =womannotes have been telling women
in here to "quit complaining" and *GO AFTER WHAT YOU WANT*."

There's a big difference between 'fair share', and 'what you want'.

I would not have, and do not classify the women fighting to get a fair amount of
child support that I know as 'bitches'.  I simply try to point out to them how
the father is probably feeling so that maybe they will understand a bit better,
and be able to improve the situation for *all* involved.

RE: .91

"We have a tendency to forget that what we get in a court is law, not justice." 

Screw the Law and the Court!  I want *Justice*!  Judges are supposed to
*listen*, and dispense *Justice*.  I have nothing but 'Contempt' for a Court
without Justice!

Jim.

    Thank you JimB for the kind words.
    
    Ellen, I should have fought for what was right for the children.
    
    The subject of Child Support is complex.  We have discussed a basic
    static.  Children are not being supported adequately in single parent
    homes.  Child Support means two things emotional support and financial
    support.  
    
    There are two ways that child support can be determined.  The parents
    of the child(ren) can make an agreement for custody and support,
    and live up to the agreement.  Or the parents can bring their case
    to the courts and ask the court to determine custody and support.
    
    Now you have some side issues...the court system rots.  The judges
    are insensitive to family issues.  To this accountant sitting in
    front of a terminal determination of financial support should be
    and could be done with figures that are readily available.  30%
    of the non-custodial parents income.  Nonsense.  The issue is what
    does it cost to maintain one child for one week.  Alimony is arbitrary
    child support is simple.  Each parent is responsible for 1/2 the
    cost to main the child.  Things like private schools, dancing lessons
    are other issues are similar to alimony.  But child support is simple
    and I cannot understand why the courts have difficulty with that
    concept.  Decide child support first.  I agree with Jim if there
    are going to be extras and he is responsible for those extras he
    shouldn't have to give that money to the custodial parent.
    
    To those of you that are going through this trauma now I apologize.
    I should have fought for myself and I should have fought for you.
    But I didn't have time.  I was like an unguided missile.  I *had*
    to pay the rent, I *had* to go to college, I *had* to go to the
    second job, and I had to deal with so many issues I literally did
    not have the strength or money to fight.  
    
    In spite of everything this note says a lot.  There is a lot to
    consider.  Maybe part of the answer is in this note...awareness
    that the problem has not gone away is important for me.  Doing
    something constructive about the problem is the next step.

    re -1:
    
    Joyce, I hope you did not mean that I was saying that you should
    have done anything else than you did!  You did the best!  Best is
    best!  I was just wondering "what if..." and you were the closest
    example.  As I said, I wasn't trying to single you out ;-).
    
    To everyone who has shared their own pain and personal experiences,
    I know that is a hard thing to do and I think Jim Baranski, JimB,
    and Joyce and the other voices of personal experience and pain that
    were presented here are courageous souls.  My heart goes out to
    you all.  Thank you for sharing your stories with me.
    
    Especially Jim Baranski has opened my eyes to some things.  I think
    it's a scandal that he cannot be with his children more!
    
    The reason for posting the statistics that I did was to show the
    *realness* of a problem of poverty-stricken mothers and children
    after divorce.  Some people don't believe it exists.  There were
    no "hidden" motives behind posting it.  That's the only reason it
    was put there.  It was not meant to anger or incite.

    	-Ellen

    Gee.  This sure is a long note!  In the midst of all 
    this shouting, can I add a 'positive' story?
    
    When my husband and I divorced, we agreed very easily
    on the child custody and support issue. (we had a real
    problem splitting up the dogs, however!)
    
    He agreed to very generous child support payments.  The
    judge tried to dissuade my ex-husband, saying the payments
    were much higher than normal.  My husband was insistent.
    
    We each have our son 50% of the time.  We are very flexible.
    There is rarely a problem with changing visitation (right now,
    we each have him 2 weeks of the month, alternating).  It works
    out very well.
    
    Recently I have become more financially stable, and have asked
    him to lower the child support payments.  He does not want to
    pay less, but has agreed to put a percentage into savings for
    our son.  About the only disagreement we've had is that he won't
    agree to pay less, and he insists on buying clothes for our little
    boy, when I feel it's my responsibility!!
    
    Additionally, we each have a new partner.  My new husband takes
    as much responsibility for my son as the 'natural' parents.  He
    tries very hard not to usurp the role of the natural father.  My
    ex-husbands new friend (are you all thoroughly confused now?) also
    provides a parent-type person for my son.  
    
    Now the clincher.  My ex-husbands partner has a daughter near my
    son's age.  Occasionally we let the daughter stay with us, as she
    and my son are very close...and sometimes I feel that my ex-husband
    and his friend need some 'time off' from kids, so my current husband
    and I volunteer to keep her kids.  (I know, I know, this is hard
    to follow)
    
    There really is no 'point' to this, it's just a nice resolution
    to what seems to be a real problem for some.  
    
    The divorce itself was painful and messy.  Thankfully, we had enough
    love for each other to remain close friends.  And we had enough
    room n our hearts to be positive with each other's new love.  And
    to take responsibility for each other, and for the children involved.
    
    Oh, we also worked out the custody of the dogs!  
    
    I wish more people had such success.  From reading this NOTE,
    we must be in the minority.
    
    

	RE: 24.90
        
        Would I think that Joyce was such a neat lady if she had fought
        for her children's fair share? Yes, assuming that we all
        acknowledge that when you break up a family and try to get the
        money that once supported one household to support two everyone
        is going to suffer. "fair share" may be well below what they
        would have gotten had the family stayed together.
        
        I am, as I have pointed out, a fiercely independant person and I
        admire independence and strength in others. It has been my habit
        in this file to urge women to stand up for their rights, to take
        responsibility for their own lives and to not put up with abuse.
        I have said very little in this debate about fighting for
        fairness, because as I have said before, I think that it is a
        lose/lose situation. All you can possibly hope for is an
        equitable sharing of the hardship. There can be no winner, only
        someone whose losses are minimal.
        
        My own reaction is that the problem is divorce. Actually the
        problem is bad, failed, and abandoned marriage. I think we will
        do much more for the betterment onf mankind (inclusive of
        womankind and childkind), if we work at promoting wise marriage,
        and dedication to marriage, and early recognition of
        difficulties, and solutions of problems, and sharing of lives,
        than fighting over the bones of dead marriages.
        
        I have a very hard time imagining Joyce doing anything that
        would cause me to label her as a "bitch" or "out to destroy
        men". I have known women whom I respect less than a dog, but
        very few. I have known women who used children, child support,
        property settlements, and alimony as tools of revenge, to
        express their hate not of men but of a man. I've seen the
        reverse, too. I can't picture Joyce that way.
        
        
        RE: 24.94
        
        I had a feeling that although 24.90 was addressed to me that it
        didn't quite apply to what I have said. This note makes me feel
        that I may be being confused with another. Specifically the
        passage
        
            "Jim Baranski, JimB, and Joyce and the other voices of
            personal experience" 
        
        makes me wonder. I have never been divorced nor do I come from a
        broken home. I do often speak from my experience, trying to
        convey the hard-learned lessons that it has taught me, but if
        this passage refers to something more, to an impression that I
        have spoken first hand on *this* subject, then I am afraid I
        have been mistaken for another. 
        
        JimB.

Anyone think my idea of what is fair is unfair?

The worst part about it is that there is *no* way that the MA court will
agree to it. (so says several lawyers)  The courts *demand* that I have a
financial ball and chain for the next twenty years...

I'd *much* rather have both of us financially independant.

Jim.

    I am not sure I am clear with what you consider fair.  Do you feel
    that your proposal insures that you will have contributed one half
    of your children's support for 20 years?  Are you suggesting that
    you give their mother an advance on the child support so that she
    can complete college, thereby being able to increase her salary
    and she would then 'pay you back' by assuming your half of the
    children's support.
    
    In theory this sounds fair and equitable but it doesn't take into
    account many things.
    
    One needs to account for increases in cost of living.
    
    One needs to account for potential illnesses.
    
    When you say the courts *demand* that you have a financial ball
    and chain for the next twenty years...aren't you saying you do 
    not want to have to pay your ex for twenty years.  I don't think
    you assume because you are not married any more that you should
    not have the responsibility of supporting your children.
    
    It sounds like you might be more comfortable if the judge allowed
    you some flexibility in the dispensing of the support.  Maybe you
    could come to some sort of agreement around giving your ex a certain
    amount of cash and you could pay medical bills, buy clothing or
    whatever.  
    
    I know some ex's would have a problem with the buying of the clothing
    and it probably could be a means of 'getting even'.  Non-custodial
    parent could buy inexpensive clothing and then say custodial parent
    did not care for it properly....
    
    I can truly understand the non-custodial parent having a problem
    with supporting his children and not agreeing with how the monies
    are spent.  I have a friend who pays a lot of child support.  His
    daughter slept in the same bed with her mother for 5 years so that
    the mother could buy a house.  That man had a right to insist that
    his daughter have her own bed and even her own bedroom.
    
    I do not think your idea is unfair, but I do think it may not be
    equitable.

RE: .98

What's the object of child support?  To provide for the children.

My share of support for the children is ~6K$ a year.  If the mother goes back to
school she can easily make ~10K$ more a year.  This would more then provide for
the children.  And since she bitched about not being able to finish school, I
would have assumed that finishing a degree would give her a sense of
accomplishment, and a better fullfilling job.

Now, I *still* want the children at least half of the time, and I will be
supporting them myself while they are with me. 

"One needs to account for increases in cost of living."

If the cost of living goes up, she pay is just as likely to go up as mine.

"One needs to account for potential illnesses."

Whose illness are you speaking of?

I assume that either she could get Long Term Disability Insurance, and Medical
benifits appropriate to her position, which would take care of her.  If she is
sick such that she can't take care of them, I will take care of them untill she
can. 

If you're talking about the children, they have Medical insurance, and I would
certainly split any uninsured catastrophic expsense.

"aren't you saying you do not want to have to pay your ex for twenty years.  I
don't think you assume because you are not married any more that you should not
have the responsibility of supporting your children."

Yes, I am saying that I do not want any finincial obligations to the children's
*mother*.  I am not saying that I do not want to support them; as I've said I
will be supporting them when they are with me.

Yes, I *would* like more control over how *my* money is spent on my children.
Even better, though, would be if there were no finincial ties between me and
their mother. 

"I do not think your idea is unfair, but I do think it may not be equitable."

Why do you feel that it would be inequitable?  At best, both parents would have
the children half of the time, and both parents would be supporting the children
equally.

Come on!  Here is one good solution to the 'everyone in poverty' situation
because you can't run two households on the money from one household.
    
The children are provided for...  What's the problem?

Jim.

    Ellen Goodman's column from this morning's Globe
    
    'Ira Jackson has the happy heart of a social reformer and the merciless
    soul of a tax collector.  As reigning head of the Mass Revenue Dept,
    this engaging and hard-driving man has - let us be honest here -
    gotten his kicks seizing a Rolls-Royce, putting a lien or two on
    a yacht, and scaring up some $268 million last year in delinquent
    taxes'.
    
    'So the fact that child-support payments in this state have just
    come under the wing (or eye, or claw) of his tax department is of
    more than casual note.  As of July 1, any parent who is late, or
    lax or outright recalcitrant in making payments is inviting the
    scrutiny of this agency and, eventually, its computers.  Computers
    that, he likes to recall, never sleep.'
    
    '"I don't want to sound menacing," says Jackson, who looks more
    the cherub than avenging angel, "but we intend to make some very
    visible actions."  There is a "make my day" gleam in his eyes, as
    if he were just waiting for a sports superstar of corporate biggie
    to miss a payment.'
    
    'Mass. stands out as the only major state using its tax department
    for child-support enforcement.  But Jackson's zeal is not unique.
    It's indicative of a change in attitude - a change that may not
    be exactly sweeping the country, but is chugging across it at a
    decent rate of speed.  There is a reemerging get-tough approach
    toward parents who walk out of their kids' lives, letting them slide
    down the economic chute.'
    
    'These days, virtually every plan to help kids out of poverty, every
    plan to overhaul welfare, is geared toward the new old-fashioned
    notion that parents are responsible for their kids.  Plans like
    the one Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan introduced in Congress Tuesday
    have the same two crucial components: job and education programs
    for single parents on welfare, and streamlined progrrams to enforce
    child-support payments.'
    
    '"For a long time," says Jackson, "society simply went brain-dead"
    on the subject of getting dads to pay.  "It was like drunk driving
    or tax evasion," he says, returning to his favorite analogy.  "We
    condoned it, we wrung our hands over it, we allowed it.  Only 3
    							     ^^^^^^
    out of 10 fathers were doing what they were supposed to be doing,
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    paying an average of $2300 a year, the cost of putting up one dog
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    at a kennel."  A man was more likely to get arrested for a traffic
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    violation thanb for a child-support violation.'
    
    'Child support suffered from its place in the messy wrangling between
    adults.  It was just money to be argued over.  But during the 1970s,
    the rate of divorce and single parenthood rose and with it the
    child-ization of poverty.  Welfare critics noted that 87 percent
    of recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children were on
    the dole because of inadequate child support.  And many were once
    middle-class.'
    
    'One study in Colorado found that two-thirds of fathers paid more
    in payments for their cars than for their kids.  California research
    found that, in the year after divorce, the standard of living of
    the mother and children had gone down 73%, while the father's had
    gone up 42%.  Still another study proved, not surprisingly, that
    the stricter the enforcement of child-support payments, the higher
    the rate of compliance.'
    
    '"We're now saying the issue is not parents, it's kids'" says Jackson,
    reflecting a view built into the 1984 federal law requiring state
    child-support guidelines.  "We're not the government intervening
    between husband and wife but protecting kids."'
    
    'Few states have set up as aggressive a posture as Mass., but a standard
    is emerging that says children should not live measurably worse
    than their parents.  This policy has its opponents, especially among
    men who resent transferring money to their ex-wife's household.
    There is resistance by men who feel that support checks are their
    only leverage in the power struggle for visitation rights.'
    
    'Public policy makers have trouble staying above this fray.  But
    a pro-kids, law-and-order coalition has made enforcement a popular
    position for politicians of all stripes.  Not the least of them
    is the head taxman of Mass, whose close friend and governor, Michael
    Dukakis, is running for president as a tough-minded liberal.'
    
    '"A thousand years of common-law tradition says you are liable to
    support your kids," says Jackson.  "We lost perspective and we're
    going to turn that around."  It will take time and some help from
    the Legislature to get the program up to megachip speed.  But anybody
    who doubts Jackson's ability to "persuade" people to pay what they
    owe ought to chat with some recent converts to the overweening joys
    of paying taxes, right on time.'
    
    Reprinted without permission from Boston Globe, 7/23/87
    
    	-Ellen    

    A law that I would like to see enacted would sound something like
    this.
    
    Each parent is liable for one half of their children's support.
    If for whatever reason they cannot provide one half of their children's
    support the liability will remain and at such time that they can
    satisfy the debt they will be required by law to reimburse the agency
    and/or individual that contributed their share.
    
    Each time the judge said to me...that is all your husband can afford
    or I heard the words you cannot get blood from a stone...I wanted
    to scream..."BUT I CAN'T TELL THE LANDLORD THAT".  
    
    Oh how I wish for that law and that is was retroactive...

    As Jim Baranski has said, the courts are woefully inflexable when
    it comes to what *they* think is right.
    
    My auto mechanic told me that he just got divorced after being
    separated for 10 years.  They had two children.  During that 10
    year separation, he and his former wife had decided what a fair
    amount of child support should be.  He paid it, and had what they
    considered fair visitation.
    
    Now, he wants to remarry, and divorce his first wife.  The courts
    decide that that is not enough for him to be paying in child support
    - even though they both told the court that what was happening was
    fair to both of them.  They finally gave up, let the court put whatever
    they wanted to on their paper, and they would do what they pleased.
    
    However, this kind of thing does not usually happen in a divorce
    settlement.  After all this time, her remarriage, his new remarriage,
    neither of them really have a need to *get* the other one.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Every time I hear or read things like 70% of father are not paying
    what they're supposed to I wonder if that's because only 30% are
    being accessed fairly or if 70% of divorced men are bad. The
    consensus of women in this topic appears to be the latter.
    
    
    			Alfred

RE: .100

Some questions for Ellen Goodman...

"gotten his kicks seizing a Rolls-Royce, putting a lien or two on a yacht, and
scaring up some $268 million last year in delinquent taxes'. "

I'll bet he gets just as many kicks seizing modest homes...  There are a story
just a while ago about how UnConstitutional the procedures the IRS use are. How
some people are ruined by over-zealous seizures, without a *chance* to pay
overlooked taxes, or were found innocent in the long run, but were already
financially ruined by the IRS.

"There is a reemerging get-tough approach toward parents who walk out of their
kids' lives, letting them slide down the economic chute.'"

Again, they are assuming that the reason that parebnts are leaving is for their
own *gain*.

"'These days, virtually every plan to help kids out of poverty, every plan to
overhaul welfare, is geared toward the new old-fashioned notion that parents are
responsible for their kids."

Both parents???  Bull. Only fathers are being persued...

"job and education programs for single parents on welfare, and streamlined
progrrams to enforce child-support payments.' "

Job and Education programs are a good idea, but I still maintain that the
results of encouraging, and helping to foster *both* parents relationship with
the children would be a more postive improvement.

"Only 3 out of 10 fathers were doing what they were supposed to be doing, paying
an average of $2300 a year, the cost of putting up one dog at a kennel."

This is a *very* dated statistic... at least five years... note that it is
spoken past tense...

"Welfare critics noted that 87 percent of recipients of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children were on the dole because of inadequate child support.  And
many were once middle-class.' "

This is a misleading statistic.  It says that 87% of a welfare program for
*children* were on welfare because of inadequate *child* support.  This does not
mean that 87% of fathers were giving inadequate child support, or that 87% of
the children not recieving adequate child support were forced to go on child
support.  What it is saying is that *most* children that have two parents can
make it; 13% can't.  I'm not surprised that they are no longer middle class; you
can't run two households from the money from one household.

"'One study in Colorado found that two-thirds of fathers paid more in payments
for their cars than for their kids."

Again, what is the whole distribution?  I pay three times my car payment in
child support, the court wants *five* times my car payment.  What affect on
these statistics does a father paying child support that has no car payment
have?  Is it excluded from the sample?  If so, that then is misleading, because
these fathers are most likely to be able to pay more child support. 

"Still another study proved, not surprisingly, that the stricter the enforcement
of child-support payments, the higher the rate of compliance.'"

How much?  At what financial, and emotional cost?  It could be a trivial
improvement at great cost. 

"but a standard is emerging that says children should not live measurably worse
than their parents."

What about the other way around?  When one of the parents is living
substantially worse then the children *and* the custodial parent? 

"This policy has its opponents, especially among men who resent transferring
money to their ex-wife's household. There is resistance by men who feel that
support checks are their only leverage in the power struggle for visitation
rights.'"

And of course, these needs are ignored, once again...  The article does not even
address what solutions there could be for these needs. 

"But a pro-kids, law-and-order coalition has made enforcement a popular position
for politicians of all stripes."

Of course, all they have to do is ignore the needs of a minority, and they can
make everyone else happy;  a politician's dream come true... 

"But anybody who doubts Jackson's ability to "persuade" people to pay what they
owe ought to chat with some recent converts to the overweening joys of paying
taxes, right on time.'"

Somehow, I don't believe that these people are 'overjoyed' about paying taxes,
and I'll even bet that they feel even more bitter;  just as people paying
child support will feel, and this will have a greater effect on the children,
then the money would.

I don't view this as a positive step...  It just digs another moat between the
child and parent.

RE: .101

I agree with your idea whole heartedly.  This would even be to the noncustodial
parents benifit if the custodial parent cannot, for whatever reason, provide
their share of the child support.  Then I could insure that my children are
provided for, without subsidizing their mother's shortcomings.

RE: .103

I know that that is what I used to think; that fathers who abandoned their
children were slimeballs...  Now, I understand what it is like.  I don't think
that it is right, but then I do not think that the situation that they would
have to put up with is right either.

Jim.

    It sounds to me as many women should choose the father
    of their child more carefully.  It sounds also as if
    many men should be more careful in their choice of women
    to be a mother to their children.
    
    Why are all of these women having children by men who are
    irresponsible?  Why are all of these men have babies with
    women who are vindictive and hateful?  Are people REALLY
    thinking carefully when they choose to have offspring?
    
    As crass as it may sound, before I became pregnant, I looked
    at the long term benefits and possible problems.  I made sure
    that I could afford to support the child.  I also had complete
    confidence in the man who fathered my son-that he wanted this
    child as much as I did and that he was willing to care for this
    child until it was an adult.  If I had had any doubt about this
    man's ability or willingness to be responsible, I would have
    either made sure I could support a child by myself, or not had
    one at all.
    
    Are women really such poor judges of charactor?
    
    

    Jim:
    
    	Your problems aside, the tax collector is not making law, simply
    enforcing the law.  I trust you aren't asking the tax collector
    to make value judgements.  Don't shoot the messenger or the soldier
    who is following legal orders.
    
    Douglas

    24.105 stated:
    >"Why are all of these women having children by men who are
    >irresponsible? ... Are these women really such poor judges of
    >character?"
    
    Do not make the mistake of blaming the victim.   People do change
    as years pass.
    
    My parents were married for twenty seven years before they were
    divorced, and my father was one of the 50% who walked away from
    footing any bills.    My eldest brother was thirteen when my father
    and mother got divorced.   My mother encouraged all of us kids (my two
    brothers and myself) to keep in touch with my father and go visit him
    and so forth, even as she cried over figuring out how she could
    possibly afford to pay the fuel bill.    It wasn't that mom was
    NOT furious with him, but that she considered it more important
    for us to have some sort of father figure.  And, no, my father was/is
    not poor.    And, yes, he said (and still says) that he loves us
    kids.    There is a certainly a paradox here.
                
    Go figure it, because I certainly can't...
    Tamar

    I would not call this a case of blaming the victim.  From many of
    the previous replies you could assert that the men are the victims
    of vendictive wives, victims of the court, etc.  You could say that
    the women are victims of their former husbands, their biology, the
    court system, their children, and their employer.  You could say
    the children are the victims of the court system, their mother,
    their father, and their parents failure to keep commitments.  You
    could say we are all victims of those of these people who eventually
    end up on welfare roles.
    
    I re-iterate my previous comment that people should not have children
    in new or failing relationships.
                                    
    Elizabeth

RE: .105

Yes, Parents should choose their opposites more carefully...

That, however, does not help people who did not *choose* to be parents much.
Especially people who had *depended* on their partners use of Birth Control
by their partner's choice.

"Why are all of these women having children by men who are irresponsible?  Why
are all of these men have babies with women who are vindictive and hateful?  Are
people REALLY thinking carefully when they choose to have offspring?"

Actually, some people do, I suppose, and have better luck in marriage, or at
least divorce then the people here.  Other people just don't have what it takes
to rock the boat...

"Are women really such poor judges of charactor?"

Men are really such poor judges of character.

Actually some of each, I suppose...

RE: .106

I'm not planning on shooting any tax collectors.  The fact remains that the
system is wrong, and the proposed solution is no solution.  The system requires
the explicit or implicit cooperation of the people to work.  It will no
cooperation from me.

RE: .107

How and why did you father "walk away"?  It sounds like he is still there
partially.

Jim. 

    Jim, 
    	My father left because my parents stopped loving each other.
    I say that my father "walked away" because when he moved out of
    our house, he ceased to make certain that there was enough food
    on the table for his children.   
      And yet, both parents agree unequivacably that twenty five years of
    their marriage was very good... 
        How could he simply not pay?   Perhaps, in the heat of the divorce,
    he felt he could 'get' at my mother that way...  It's hard to imagine
    my father behaving in such a negative emotional matter, but then
    it is equally hard to understand why he didn't make an effort to
    pay child care.   When I confronted him with the question WHY? a
    couple of years ago (15 years after the fact), he agreed he'ld made a
    mistake.    
      
    I certainly believe (from my child's perspective on things) that
    both parents *must* be made to pay as much as they can possibly
    afford.   Children are expensive.   And, from unpleasant experience,
    I know that no matter what the courts say, unless one has a lot
    of money to begin with, it is *extremely* difficult to get money
    for child care.    
    
    Tamar       

< Note 24.112 by RANCHO::HOLT "At the Glass Palace.." >
    
 �  Still no noises on behalf of fairness... what is wrong with 
 �  both parents paying an equal reasonable amount? 
 �  ...                  
 �  You folks are so simplistic... just take it all... either you have
 �  a secret desire to break men financially in general, or you are
 �  naive beyond belief. 
                                                   
   
   Bob, I haven't heard anyone say "take it all".  What I have heard
   is the argument that the parents should contribute in proportion
   to their best means.  Such an arrangement would mean men paying
   more than women only in those cases where men earn more than women
   for the same level (e.g., full-time) of effort.
   
   I've also heard several people, JimB perhaps foremost among them,
   saying that in a divorce everybody loses financially and usually
   emotionally as well.  I haven't heard anyone say that men should
   lose more than women.
   
   If I've missed something, please quote it back to me?   Or if
   I've demonstrated particular naivete about some issue, please
   explain it to me in simple terms?  
   
   						=maggie

    re:  112
    
    Fairness can and should be determined and I agree that both parents
    have equal responsibility toward the children both financially and
    emotionally.  This is Child Support.
    
    The second financial issue is alimony.  This is trickier because
    we have to determine why one parent does not have the ability to
    earn an income equal to the other parent.  If a non custodial parent
    supplies the custodial parent with more than half of the childrens
    support it should be considered alimony.  Alimony should be determined
    based on the condition that contributes to the custodial parent's
    inability to contribute half of the children's support.  If a woman
    puts a man through college and maintains a home for the family while
    the husband/father expands his career she is entitled to alimony
    for that time period.  
    
    If a woman is not capable of earning enough money to supply one
    half of the support of the children, it would seem appropriate to
    find a means through alimony of giving her the education necessary,
    etc.
    
    As a woman my issue is I personally did not receive adequate child
    support and as a result it was necessary for me to supply more than
    my share of the children's financial support.  The method I used
    was to work two and three jobs.  Statistics prove that my circumstance
    is in the majority and many women have suffered a similar plight.
    
    But in no way have I suggested that we take it all.  I think Mr.
    Holt if you can read through the replies to this note and find one
    instance where someone suggests that men are totally responsible
    for their children I will be quite surprised.
    
    I acknowledge that there are other issues around child support and
    it is the responsibility of the individuals involved to work those
    issues.
    
    Although I made a choice to live apart from my children's father
    because that is what I needed to do I understood at the time that
    it would be difficult financially and emotionally.  
    
    Divorce is not fair and we can't have it all.  If we make a mistake
    in marriage we have to pay, our goal should be to pay as painlessly
    as possible.  
    
    Children are a special benefit of both a good and a bad marriage,
    and it seems to me that for the time necessary to raise a child
    that parents can come to an agreement that is equitable for all
    parties.
    
    

RE: .110

"Aren't children the main victims?"

I have to disagree with this...  I *don't* think that the children are the
*main* victims.  I think that it is a bad situation for everybody.

RE: .111

If you will pardon me...

"I say that my father "walked away" because when he moved out of our house, he
ceased to make certain that there was enough food on the table for his
children."

Exactly what do you mean by that?  Did he not pay anything for child support?
How much did he pay?  How much was that in relation to his income, the
children's expenses, the mother's income, etc?

"How could he simply not pay?"

I meant legally/mechanically, would did he get away without paying any child
support?

"I certainly believe (from my child's perspective on things) that both parents
*must* be made to pay as much as they can possibly afford."

*That* is a misconception!  More money, above a certain minimum, does *not*
automatically makes things better!  'You want the 500$ crib, not to 100$ crib
for your baby, right?  *surely* you want *the best* for *your* *children*?' In
fact, I am sure that if that extra money is going to embitter the father, then
it is *certainly* money ill spent, especially if it creates a real hardship.

RE: .112

Just as a retorical question...

Why give in and pay the money?  Do what I am doing.  Don't pay the money, but
stick around.  Refuse to cooperate no matter *what* legal, etc harrassment is
thrown at you.  Most importantly, take the time to be with your children. *Find
out* what it is that you will be missing *if* you leave.  You can always leave
later.  If you leave you will be hurting yourself and your children *too* much,
even if you will not discover it for years.  Even if you manage to hurt your
exwife, it is not worth it. 

Would you care to tell us more about your situation?

I guess the reason that a lot of father's don't fight it, is because they have
too much to lose... I guess in that respect I am lucky, I have very little to
lose...

RE: .113

"in a divorce everybody loses financially"

I don't think it *has* to be that way in a good number of cases.  At least in my
case, the mother *is* capable of making more, but declines to make the effort. 

"I haven't heard anyone say that men should lose more than women. "

But they are losing more...

RE: .114

I think that above equal child support, and alimony should fall under the
category of a liability, as someone mentioned before.

"If a woman puts a man through college and maintains a home for the family while
the husband/father expands his career she is entitled to alimony for that time
period. "

I have no qualms with that...  In my case, we were both working, and going to
college.

Let me ask you this...

When we ran out of money in college, and had a son, I, the one with a complete
degree, got a job with DEC to support her and my son, even though, I would have
liked to stay home with my son.  I feel that I deserve to have the chance that
she had to stay home for a year or so with the children, and be supported.
Don't I deserve this? :-}  Let's call this child-amony. :-} 

"give her the education necessary"

I have offered that, and it was refused...

Jim.

    I think Jim has some good points.  Everytime I hear about a man
    like Jim I am envious.  I had total responsibility for the children
    for fifteen years.  Their father did not support his children
    emotionally at all.  Those years are a blur...between trying to
    earn enough money to feed them, go to college to advance my career
    and deal with the emotional problems I functioned in some way but
    I am not sure how.       
    
    But I think Jim you should take this to Mennotes and work these
    issues that are specific to non-custodial parents (most often men).
    It is difficult for us to be sympathetic because so many of us have
    dealt with a reality that is supported by major surveys and government
    statistics.
    
    We have been poor, our ex-husbands have not supported their families
    and the courts have been expensive and unsympathetic to our plights.
    
    I would like us as people to work out our differences together.
    In divorce that is rare so we have to go to the courts and support
    laws that force non-custodial parents to contribute half of their
    children's support.  
    
    I will try to encourage my legislators to be cognizant of the fact
    that divorce is not a criminal action and we do should not punish
    anyone for anything.  But my main concern is that custodial parents
    receive adequate child support.
    
    Last but not least, Jim your case is somewhat unusual because your
    wife is capable of earning enough money so that the divorce would
    not have an impact financially.  This is not true in the majority
    of cases.  An expectation early on of some reduction in standard
    of living for both partners would be realistic.
    

re .115

>RE: .110

>>"Aren't children the main victims?"

>I have to disagree with this...  I *don't* think that the children are the
>*main* victims.  I think that it is a bad situation for everybody.
    
    But children *are* the main victims.  They cannot care for or fend
    for themselves.  They are *defenseless* and have no legal voice,
    very different from being an adult.
    
    Not only that, but they are at an age where things that happen to
    them now might very well affect them *very negatively* after they
    become adults.

>RE: .112

>Just as a retorical question...

>Why give in and pay the money?  Do what I am doing.  Don't pay the money, but
>stick around.  Refuse to cooperate no matter *what* legal, etc harrassment is
>thrown at you.  Most importantly, take the time to be with your children. *Find
>out* what it is that you will be missing *if* you leave.  You can always leave
>later.  If you leave you will be hurting yourself and your children *too* much,
>even if you will not discover it for years.  Even if you manage to hurt your
>exwife, it is not worth it. 
    
    Jim, I can't believe I heard you correctly.  Surely, you're not
    saying that you're not paying child support, or *are* you saying
    that?  If you are not and you are, as you say, "sticking around"
    for your children, aren't you doing the same thing that Tamar's
    father did to her?  That is, paying lip service.  If indeed, that's
    what happening, please tell us it's not true.

>>"I haven't heard anyone say that men should lose more than women. "

>But they are losing more...
    
    Historically, at least, this is false.  Maybe the judicial systems
    and courts are swinging too much the other way now (here in Mass,
    anyway).
    
    BTW, Jim, just because I seem to disagree with you, I don't really
    disagree with most of what you have been saying.  I just wanted
    to let you know that.
    
    	-Ellen

    I must be extremely naive.  When a couple chooses to have
    a child, a certain standard of living is established for
    that family.  When the family no longer 'exists', it is dif-
    ficult to maintain that standard of living while maintaining
    2 households.  However, each parent should contribute 50% to
    the emotional and physical support of the child(ren) THEY
    created.  That means that a dollar figure is established in
    order to support that in the manner that had been established
    (for example, if child care is involved, each parent should
     contribute 50% of the cost).  By the same token, each parent
    should contribute 50% of their time and energy to raising that
    child (for example, each parent has custody 50% of the time).
    
    Obviously this would have to be 'fine-tune' for each individual
    couple involved.  But it's basically a workable situation.  Isn't
    it?
    
    

RE: .116

"But I think Jim you should take this to Mennotes and work these issues that are
specific to non-custodial parents (most often men). It is difficult for us to be
sympathetic because so many of us have dealt with a reality that is supported by
major surveys and government statistics."

What *I hear* you saying (partially), is 'bury it, I don't want to hear it'.
Just as in the PARENTS Notesfile, people don't want to hear about divorce... The
thing is that the *other* side needs to be heard from, both in MEN and WOMAN
notes.  Women need to hear that men are being taken advantage of.  Men need to
hear that Women are being taken advantage of.  The problem is that "It is
difficult for us to be sympathetic because so many of us have dealt with a
reality that is supported by major surveys and government statistics.", and I
hope that by hearing of the other side, that you have a more balanced view.

"An expectation early on of some reduction in standard of living for both
partners would be realistic."

Even in cases where that is true, as it is to a degree in the short run even in
my case, the problem is the parent who is not holding up their end of the load.
That parent needs help to enable them to shoulder it.  Demanding that the other
parent carry more then their share permenantly is not a solution.

RE: .117

"But children *are* the main victims."

Being defenseless does not make one a victim.  In my case, the children are not
being victimized at all. They are pretty well isolated from the financial
aspect, and I know that Ric misses me terribly, but no more then I miss him.
Jacob is too young to show much.  And this will affect me for the rest of my
life as much as his.  I am the one being victimized financially, and legally. I
think I have some justification for feeling like *I* am the main victim.

"Jim, I can't believe I heard you correctly."

What I am saying is that I am paying equal child support.  I refuse to pay more,
regardless of what the court says.  However, if I am forced to quit working,
then I will not be responsible for paying the child support.  I will not
cooperate with this system.

"Historically, at least, this is false."

I have to disagree with this.  Traditionally the mother have gotten the
children.  Thank God that alimony is no longer granted as a matter of course.
Thank God that I have no Real Estate, that I would be forced to continue the
mortgage on. "Divorce is the screwing you get for the screwing you got." 

RE: .118

I wish you could explain that to all the divorced parents... :-(

Jim.
                

    RE .118
    
    If both parents are sharing the financial, emotional, and physical
    rearing, why does there need to be any special consideration for
    child care, if any?  Just that the person who has physical
    responsibility for the child at the time the care is needed (today,
    this week, etc.) has the responsibility for paying for it.
    
    BTW, I'm surprised that noone has yet brought up the possibility
    of sharing the children between the parents if there are multiple
    children (i.e., if there are 4 children, each parent gets 2, with
    fair visitation granted to everyone).  It's too bad that the children
    couldn't grow up with all of their siblings, but it's too bad that
    they can't grow up with one of their parents, either.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    I just read in this week's "Time" magazine:
    
    Women who are college graduates and men who are high-school
    dropouts have something in common -- they make about the same
    amount of money.  The women were making an average of $20K,
    and the men were making $19K.
    
    The average woman is making $.68 to the average man's $1.00.
    (This is good news; the gap is closing.  At the rate of a penny
    per year.)
    
    Let's try to apply this to child support, with (just for fun)
    some of the input Jim Baranski has given us.  He felt (if I
    remember correctly) that paying one-third of his before-tax
    salary for child support was too much.  Therefore, let's have
    our average-man divorc� pay one-quarter, or twenty-five cents
    of each dollar he earns.  Jim would like this amount to be matched
    dollar-for-dollar by the equally average wife.  Therefore, she
    would pay nearly thirty-seven percent of her earnings to match him.
    
    But now she is paying a percentage that Jim said was too much
    for him to pay!
    
    Further, we can see that if the perfectly average ex-husband is
    also "typical" and thereby pays NO child support (I'm not saying
    this is what happens, just that I'm looking at what *would* happen
    in such a case.), that the ex-wife, mother, and custodial parent
    would have to pay fifty of each sixty-eight cents she earned in
    order to produce "proper" child care, leaving her with one-quarter
    of her salary for taxes and for her own support -- and this on a
    salary of maybe $20,000!
    
    Now we see where that cited drop in standard of living of 73%
    could come from, and how the ex-husband's standard of living could
    go up a little.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann, what do you suppose those HS dropout men are doing ? A good
    many are working as construction workers, sheetrockers, electricians,
    carpenters,roofers. What are those college-degreed women doing ?
    
    It's an apples-oranges comparison. I think child support payment
    should weigh income on a case-by-case basis, with a factor for
    the amount of time each parent gets to spend with his children.

RE: .118

"but it's too bad that they can't grow up with one of their parents, either."

I'll assume you mean: 
                                                 
"but it's too bad that they can't grow up with *both* of their parents, either."

RE: .121

In my case, your general case falls through.  The mother is perfectly capable of
getting a job which pays more, yet chooses not to.  What do you think of that?
Perhaps the same is true in other cases.

"Further, we can see that if the perfectly average ex-husband is also "typical"
and thereby pays NO child support (I'm not saying this is what happens, just
that I'm looking at what *would* happen in such a case.), that the ex-wife,
mother, and custodial parent would have to pay fifty of each sixty-eight cents
she earned in order to produce "proper" child care, leaving her with one-quarter
of her salary for taxes and for her own support -- and this on a salary of maybe
$20,000!

Now we see where that cited drop in standard of living of 73% could come from,
and how the ex-husband's standard of living could go up a little." 

What is the point of this if this is not the case?  The only point that I can
see is to point out bogus support for a ?bogus? statistic. 
 
RE: .122

"What are those college-degreed women doing?"

A good question...  being secretaries maybe, and refusing to try for better
jobs.  If that's what they want, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. 

"Half the problems of women's liberation are women."

Jim.

    re .123, Jim Baranski:
    
    FLAME ON!
    
>RE: .121

>In my case, your general case falls through.  The mother is perfectly
>capable of getting a job which pays more, yet chooses not to.  What do
>you think of that?  Perhaps the same is true in other cases.
    
    I am quickly getting *very* tired of your dragging your case in as some
    sort of "proof" that the statistics I quoted way back when are bogus.
    Just because one woman is screwing *you* does *not* give you the right
    to trivial other mother's and children's REAL LIFE POVERTY CASES
    THAT RESULT FROM DIVORCE!
    
    I have yet to hear you admit that mothers and children in poverty
    has been a real problem, supported by statistics and *many* studies.
    If you look at the stats I posted, they were reached by *multiple*
    studies, not just one or two!  You have not offered any counter
    evidence that mothers and children in poverty *is not* a problem.
    Why don't you believe the statistics?  Because you don't *want*
    to!  You are faced with evidence (from *multiple* studies), but
    you *ignore* it and call it *bogus*, because it's CONVENIENT for you.
    It's CONVENIENT for you to think it's not a problem!

>What is the point of this if this is not the case?  The only point that I can
>see is to point out bogus support for a ?bogus? statistic. 
    
    Do you have proof that the statistics are bogus?  As I pointed out,
    *many different* studies have come to the same appalling conclusions.
 
>RE: .122

>>"What are those college-degreed women doing?"

>A good question...  being secretaries maybe, and refusing to try for better
>jobs.  If that's what they want, fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. 
    
    Just because your wife is acting like a jerk does not mean that
    *most* women act like jerks in this respect.  Get some perspective,
    please!
    
    -Ellen

RE: .124

Simmer down there...  

Was just saying that I didn't see the point of .121. 

I am not, and I never have said that "mother's and children's REAL LIFE POVERTY
CASES THAT RESULT FROM DIVORCE" are trivial, or are not real.  I have not said
that your statistics *are* bogus, but the fact is that you don't know alot about
how those statistics were gathered, which heavily influences the meaning of any
statistics.   I have never said that my particular case is *proof* that the
problem does not exist; however, it is proof that the problem is not universal,
and they are not the only ones with problems.  Why does my mention of my
situation automatically become *proof* opposing you? 

I am saying that shifting the poverty to the fathers is not a solution,
*regardless* of how you may think you should do *whatever* for the children. If
I wanted to do *the* best thing, I'd kill myself, and let them collect my life
insurance.  Now lay off!

"I have yet to hear you admit that mothers and children in poverty has been a
real problem,"

Not any more then you have admitted that visitational interference, of poverty
amoung noncustodial parents is a problem.  You've just said that it is not an
important problem! 

If the current Mass law holds out, it will no longer be a problem; instead the
problem will be the fathers being in poverty, most of whom will then be forced
to abandon their children to survive. 

Here is what I have said...

"The horrible shaft that fathers get when it comes to custody, or visitation
pretty well matches the horrible situation the mothers are in when it comes to
child support?" JB .57

"It's not that I don't think children in poverty are a problem. (It is that this
is not a solution)" JB .65

""I guess I'm trying to say that your situation is *bad*, I agree, you're
getting the shaft, but HOW does that make the statistics about mothers and
chidren in poverty any better?  HOW?" 

It doesn't make it any better.  But it let's people know that the 'fathers' have
as mixed a pot of spaghetti as the 'mothers'." JB .65
 
"Even in cases where that is true, as it is to a degree in the short run even in
my case, the problem is the parent who is not holding up their end of the load.
That parent needs help to enable them to shoulder it.  Demanding that the other
parent carry more then their share permenantly is not a solution." JB .119

Ok, maybe you have not heard it, if not see the beginning of this note. If that
is not good enough...  "Poverty of a family after a divorce, in America, is a
serious problem."  There, I said it.

"Get some perspective, please!"

Please read using a larger context.  It will help prevent you from
misunderstanding me.

Pardon me if I'm a bit testy, but I have a court date Wednesday, and I'm
not expecting to be around Noting much after that...

Jim. 

    Two interesting laws....
    
       Massachusetts law says that by law a parent is not required to
       support a child after eighteen.
    
       Massachusetts law states that you can not get a restraining order
       on a member of your family that has been living in your home
       unless that person has inflicted bodily harm or threatened such
       harm.  
    
    If a divorced parent has custody of an 19 year old son or daughter
    and that child is still in school the non-custodial parent does
    not have any responsibility.  If that son or daughter refuses to
    work and refuses to leave the home the courts will not intervene.
    
    My oldest son finished school at 19 and I did not receive any child
    support for him for that year.  My second son was not a good student
    that fact and anger at the lack of support that his father was willing
    to contribute was enough for him to quit school at 18.
    
    I did not have trouble with my sons but I did ask the courts what
    recourse I would have if they refused to leave.  I was told none.
    
    Not all laws are biased toward the non-custodial parent.

    Re .126:
    
    What do those laws about not being able to force a lazy child out
    of the house, to get a job, ect. have to do with custody after divorce?
    Don't they apply the same to two parent families with children that
    won't get a job?
    
    Re .125:
    
    Good luck to everyone.  I hope something fair to everyone comes
    out of it.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Jim Baranski,

    In reply .123, you wrote of my note .121: "In my case, your general
    case falls through.  ...." and later, "What is the point of this
    if this is not the case?  ...."

    Then, in reply .125, you wrote, "Was just saying that I didn't see
    the point of .121."

    MY POINT IS THE GENERAL CASE, NOT YOUR INDIVIDUAL CASE.

    LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS NOTE.  YOUR NAME IS NOT THERE.

    You objected to statistics because they were old.  I gave out
    new ones, and showed how the same numbers came out of them.  I
    used your opinions as those of the Reasonable Man, not as those
    of Jim Baranski.

    You hold that your ex-wife is a rotton, terrible person?  Okay,
    we've accepted that as a given.  You want to know if this is so
    common as to affect the statistics?  Okay.  IT IS NOT.  I have met
    thousands of people, and fewer than a dozen of them were rotten
    and terrible.

    The statistics I gave point out that the reason so many divorced
    women with children are in financially sad shape is that WOMEN ARE
    PAID LESS THAN MEN.

    Haven't you read enough in this conference to understand that yet?
    Haven't you read enough about women holding down two and three
    (low-paying) jobs to raise their children to realize that "laziness"
    is no more a reason that women earn less than it is for blacks?

    							Ann B.

    P.S.  Understand that your ex-wife will probably NEVER earn as much
    as you, if for no other reason than she is several years behind
    you in the job market.

    DEAR MR. BRANSKI!
    
      WHAT'S ALL THIS ABOUT SECRETARIES NOT TRYING TO GET A BETTER JOB.
    
    The secretarial ghetto is a separate note.  No woman/man I have
    know that is a secretary has been given the respect, and money that
    their job and their efforts in that job entitle them to.  Perhaps
    you are a classist, and don't feel wage class two employees work
    hard?
    
    MaggieT

< Note 24.123 by YODA::BARANSKI "Remember, this only a mask..." >
     -< If that's what they want, fine, but don't expect me to pay for i >-

 � ...
 � RE: .122

 � "What are those college-degreed women doing?"
    
 � good question...  being secretaries maybe, and refusing to try for
 � better jobs.  If that's what they want, fine, but don't expect me to
 � pay for it. 
   
   
   Jim, as have others, I sympathise with you in your situation as
   you've described it to us.  From your description, your ex-spouse (is
   she officially "ex" yet? I can't remember) is indeed behaving in a
   thoroughly irresponsible, immature, and hostile way toward you. I
   would hope that you can find some way to present evidence that will
   persuade the court to treat you more fairly; I'm not sure what that
   evidence might be, but I expect that a *good* attorney would be able
   to work that issue with you.  There is no reason I can think of why
   your spouse should not be required to shoulder a proportionate share
   of the children's expenses by working full-time at close to the
   best-paying job she can get.  Simple equity would seem to demand
   it.
   
   
   BUT your situation gives you no right to slander people by innuendo,
   as you have done in the passage quoted above. I myself know *many*
   women with university degrees who are "being secretaries" and
   *trying* *like* *hell* to get something better-paying.  One woman has
   an MBA!  Another woman with a masters, a member of this file, finally
   escaped into an exempt path...but at essentially the same salary
   level, *because* she had been a secretary.  Another member of this
   community is working at a secretary-level position despite a
   university degree and work experience elsewhere.  Why can't these
   women move up more readily?  Because they're women, for one thing.
   And because secretaries are paid and treated so poorly, compared to
   their contribution, that they're in damned short supply here and
   elsewhere. If you've got one, you don't let her [sic] escape. 
                                                                 
   It really torques my jaws.
   
   						=maggie

 � "Half the problems of women's liberation are women."

   I *very* much doubt you could support that contention, and would
   welcome seeing you attempt to do so. 

    We have in many of these 132 replies heard from one man based on
    his *interpretation* of his situation.  As I stated some time ago
    I have my story and my ex husband has his story.
    
    I think we are being extremely generous to accept the authors view
    of his situation as gospel.  Let us not forget that there is another
    side to this story.  
    
    The author *believes* his ex wife is capable of earning a certain
    amount, I have seen indications that there have been problems around
    child care in his notes and the children are very little.  The other
    issue that he has stated is his ex-wifes irresponsibility around
    birth control.  If it were birth control were that important then
    he should have assumed responsibility.
    
    I only wish to state again that we have one side of the story, and
    it appears to me that no matter what we say the author is adamant.
    He is the only person that is right in this situation.  I for one
    have tried very hard to see his side of the story but I am beginning
    to become very tired of his whining.
    
    I have often found when I have an attitude problem my attitude is
    realized.  I don't think our support has helped this person at all
    and in fact I am not even sure why he presented his case to us.
    He stated that he wanted to present another side a while back but
    at this point in time I know he has lost me and it sounds like he
    has lost a few others.
    
    Meanwhile the media continues to report the plight of displaced
    homemakers and children in poverty.  And I continue to observe the
    many women who are forced to work two and three jobs to support
    families that are often fatherless and without adequate emotional
    or financial child support.
    
    But I am not bitter because I know there are some men who have accepted
    their responsibility without a court order and other men who respect
    the court system and work within it to try and seek fairness.  These
    are the men that I want to work with.

RE: .129

"MY POINT IS THE GENERAL CASE, NOT YOUR INDIVIDUAL CASE."

The general case you were pushing was one where *no* father paid *any* child
support.  That is not, and never has been 'the general case'.  That is why I did
not, and do not understand why you brought it up.  The only thing you related it
to was one of Ellen's statistics.

"LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THIS NOTE.  YOUR NAME IS NOT THERE."

No, it is not.  This note is not limited to the discussion of my case.  However,
my case is one case in the general topic of Child Support, and so deserves to be
discussed here. 

"I gave out new (statistics), and showed how the same numbers came out of them."

You linked a rediculously hypothetical situation, where *no* father paid *any*
child support to Ellen's statistic, explaining Ellen's statistic in that way.
That is what I don't understand, or accept. 

"You hold that your ex-wife is a rotton, terrible person?"

*No*, I don't hold that.  I do not accept that.  I believe that she is a good
person, but one that has been bent by the divorce system into the 'take 'em for
everything (and then some more)' attitude.  Early on we were able to make
rational, reasonable agreements.  Then, as this dragged on, partly because we
both wanted recouncilation, she heard more and more about how she has a *right*
to everything I've got or will ever have, by lawyers etc, the more brainwashed
she became. 

I have heard similiar stories from other people.  I believe that it is fairly
common occurance; as a wild guess, 20%...

"The statistics I gave point out that the reason so many divorced women with
children are in financially sad shape is that WOMEN ARE PAID LESS THAN MEN."

"Haven't you read enough about women holding down two and three (low-paying)
jobs to raise their children to realize that "laziness" is no more a reason that
women earn less than it is for blacks?"

The 'lazyness' which I have refered to, is a 'lazyness' of *not* getting a
better job that you are certainly capable of, and I have clearly said that. 
    
Fine, I accept that, in the general case.  I have never disputed it.  But that
falls into the 'give me special treatement to make up for my downtrodden
position' note.  I don't ascribe to that method, and in any case, I have not got
what it takes (money) to give that special treatement.  How many other men
don't? 

"Understand that your ex-wife will probably NEVER earn as much as you, if for no
other reason than she is several years behind you in the job market."

Untrue, if she applied herself, she should easily catch up with me.  As she
says, I have no ambition...  In the second place, that has nothing to do with
fair or equal pay or child support...  Third, she does not *need* to make as
much as I do...  I would not *need* to make as much as I do, *if* I did not have
a sh!tload of debts, and child support on my back.  Fourth, she is several years
younger then I, she *should* be several years behind me.

RE: .131

"WHAT'S ALL THIS ABOUT SECRETARIES NOT TRYING TO GET A BETTER JOB."

I beg your pardon.  I apoligize.  I was speaking from my experience with my
son's mother.  I had no right to generalize it that far, nor did I mean to. 

"No woman/man I have know that is a secretary has been given the respect, and
money that their job and their efforts in that job entitle them to.  Perhaps you
are a classist, and don't feel wage class two employees work hard?"

Not so, I have a lot of respect for my group's secretary, which is the secretary
I have the most experience with.  I don't know how much she gets paid, but also,
I don't think she had to have a BS degree for her job.  I'm sure most of the
wage class two employees work *at least* as hard as I. 

I mean't no disrepect for secretaries, nor do I think I said that.  I have
disrepect for people who are capable of a better job who do not apply themselves
to *try* to get that better job.

RE: .132

"""""What are those college-degreed women doing?"""""

Another thought struck me....  Many women with college degrees have degrees in
fields which are not the highest paid fields:  History, Arts, Teaching, Medical
Care.  This is one reason why college women are paid less, and *not* out of any
discrimation.  As more and more women get into the technical fields this will
change.  Also, I personally feel that the Teaching and Medical Fields are
underpaid. 

"BUT your situation gives you no right to slander people by innuendo,"

See Above...  I did not mean to slander secretaries, I was speaking of people
who do not use their full potential, and I used secretaries as an example
because it is probably a common rut to get stuck in.  I did not say all
secretaries were lazy.

"I myself know *many* women with university degrees who are "being secretaries"
and *trying* *like* *hell* to get something better-paying."

Horaay!  I applaude them, that's 'my kind of woman', one that keeps on trying.

... is there a secretary rut Topic... I'll have to look...

"I *very* much doubt you could support that contention, and would welcome seeing
you attempt to do so."

I'm pretty sure I could, but as you can see, (I hope) I've got my hands full...
It's even a restatement of an old ?feminist?/* slogan "If you're not part of the
solution, you're part of the problem!"  And I believe in it.

RE: .133

"Let us not forget that there is another side to this story."

This is certainly true.  I have left out a great deal of facts which I felt had
no bearing on the topic of discussion, such as the why of the divorce.  If you
talked to the mother, you would certainly hear a different attitude/ motivation/
*, yet I think that the facts would be clear.  But in any case, both side *must*
be heard for a fair hearing.  This is one source of my anger, because my side,
in court, was not heard from at all! 

"I have seen indications that there have been problems around child care in his
notes"

What problem is that?

"If it were birth control were that important then he should have assumed
responsibility."

This really does not belong here, but...

There is no question about it! Birth Control ***is*** important.  And what are
you supposed to do when your partner says everything is fine?  Don't you trust
your partner.  Personal, I was all for having me take care of it, but she would
not hear of it.  So... what are you supposed to do? 

"He is the only person that is right in this situation."

No, I am not saying that.  I am not saying that the mother is, and allways has
been a low down scum.  I have not said that I should have full custody and
everything, and she should have nothing.  I have said that I share the blame
in my divorce. ...

"I for one have tried very hard to see his side of the story but I am beginning
to become very tired of his whining."

Yes, you are right... I can see that I've overstayed my welcome.  I think that I
have said my piece, and you have all heard, and accepted it quite fairly. But I
still have a lot of anger and frustration.  I'm still in the same rotten mess.
despite all this possibly educating a few people, and providing me with a much
needed place to let off some steam, my situation has not changed. I have no new
ideas about how to fix things, and in the meantime I learned how utterly
powerless I am in the situation.  My only option in the game, is not to play the
game.

"And I continue to observe the many women who are forced to work two and three
jobs to support families that are often fatherless and without adequate
emotional or financial child support." 

And I continue to observe that fathers are being forced to work two and three
jobs to support *more* then an equal share of the children's support, and
without adequate rights to their children.  It's not any better on this side,
and pushing it over to this side does not make it any the situation any better. 

"But I am not bitter because I know there are some men who have accepted their
responsibility without a court order and other men who respect the court system
and work within it to try and seek fairness.  These are the men that I want to
work with." 
    
I'm not sure... are you implying that I'm not in that group?

Sorry, my experience with the court system has taught me anything but respect
for it.  I do accept my responsibility, but I cannot accept more then that. And
I cannot implicitly, or explicitly support the court system by going along with
it. 

"He stated that he wanted to present another side a while back but at this point
in time I know he has lost me and it sounds like he has lost a few others."

Yes, I can see that...  Well, ... I've bitched in PARENTS (1 & 2), in
HUMAN_RELATIONS, and here in WOMANNOTES.  I felt that if I could put my thoughts
across to you here in WOMANNOTES, then surely I should be able to convince a
judge, right?  The problem is, I will quite likely not have a chance to speak at
all.

Well, I've still got a good head of steam that needs to get out...  perhaps I
should go elsewhere to 'educate' others, and maybe, just maybe, I hope, someone
will have an idea as to a way out of this mess.

Later, WOMANNOTES, it's been good, thanks for everything, but I wish it had been
better...

Jim. 

    
    How come the net never came up with a symbol for someone throwing
    a bucket of water?
    
    DFW

    Because they haven't incorporated Expert Systems into
    the Network?

    Agagagagaga.

    my child (nicole) lives with her father and step-mother by our
    choice,not a court order.
    i pay child support.
    i pay ten dollars evry two weeks. that is all i can afford right
    now.when i have more i give more,they know this and understand this.
    i would not feel right not paying something even if it is only a
    token amount.she is my child and i love her very much and i do want
    her to have the best that i/we have to give.
    
    kelly

    I was very pleased to see that the Boston Globe while reporting
    some current legislation being inacted to collect child support
    referred to the non-custodial parent in genderless terms.  This
    is a step in the right direction for fairness in determining
    responsibility for child support.

RE: Family Security Act

According to FAIR, the Executive Office has declared itself against the FSA.
Support against the FSA has been considerable, but needs to be continued.

Jim.

The thought occured to me that there is a certain similiarity between the
supposed right of a woman to contol her body in the abortion issue, and the
supposed right of a man to control his money/wages/paycheck in the child support
issue...

How do people on opposite sides of the 'rights' argument on different issues
reconcil the contradiction?

Jim.

    My friend,
    
    You have the right to control your body and in so doing your pocketbook
    remains intact!

    Jim, a man has the right to control his body also...which means
    that he does not become a father. Once children are in the world
    they must be cared for.
    in friendship
    Bonnie

    I would imagine one could argue that a woman usually has control over her
    body, too, and that if she didn't want to become a mother she should
    have avoided it from the start.  There are men who consider abortion to be
    one of the biggest sins, murder.  They shouldn't have a say in whether
    the mother of their child aborts it, under any circumstances?
    I think "a woman's body" takes on new dimensions after pregnancy.
                                                         
    Brenda

    re .143
    
    I think if a man feel that strongly about the issue, he ought to
    be able to abstain under any circumstances where he recognizes
    that he cannot control the outcome.  Let him consider his moral
    stand before risking conception.
    
    	bruce

    A woman's body is a woman's body, always, and no man or public agency
    can change that.  Not that some don't try.

I see a mother's body as something an unborn child needs to survive.  How is
that different from a father's paycheck, which a child also needs to survive?

Jim. 

    I see a woman's body as something she needs to survive.

    RE:146
    
    If a child needs a father's paycheck to survive, then there are
    a lot of miricles happenning every day.
    
    
    what about single mothers?  or divorced mothers who don't actually
    RECEIVE child-support or allimony?
    
    Or was that comment only meant to aggravate us?

.146> I see a mother's body as something an unborn child needs to
.146> survive.  How is that different from a father's paycheck, which a
.146> child also needs to survive?

.146> Jim. 
    
    Jim.... guess you are saying my three girls aren't surviving?????
    I guess I'll have to tell them that....
    
    Gale_who:
    
    Supports her three girls in the following (without the benefit
    of a fathers paycheck BTW):
    
    shelter
    food
    clothing
    love (luckily this is at no charge)
    and all the other junk they think they need but don't really :-)

    Yay, Gail!!!

    The raising of children requires tremendous amounts of time, money
    and emotion.  As I said many times over each parent should contribute
    one half of the support required to raise child.
    
    People give up a lot of control when they become parents.  A woman
    gives up control of her body for a full nine months often enduring
    much discomfit in the process.  If the parents choose not to marry
    or if they become divorced the non-custodial parent gives up the
    control over their wages.  The custodial parent gives up a lot of
    freedom.
    
    To suggest that a woman controls the paycheck of man via his children
    might be one attitude.  And I suspect that there are women who might
    use their children in this manner.  But this is not a blanket
    generalization and I personally feel that many single mothers tend
    to sacrifice a great deal for their children.
    
    For years women suffered much scorn when they had a child out of
    wedlock.  Anything is possible in this day and age.  I have known
    of men who have gone to the courts and been awarded custody of their
    children, who have prevented the adoption of their children and
    have assumed custody.
    
    It has been my observation that the parents who complain the loudest
    about their responsibilities and the unfairness of the system have
    unrealistic attitudes about the time and money required to be a
    good parent.  
    
    For many years the non-custodial parent was allowed to walk away...the
    tide is turning very slowly and not fast enough for some of us.
    
    It is my suggestion that anyone who loves their children and wants
    to be with them, to accept the responsibility of cooking three meals
    a day, tending to them in sickness, washing the tremendous laundry
    that the little darlings create, to be their discipliner, to be
    their taxi driver....etc. that they go for it and do whatever is
    necessary to see that they have this opportunity.
    
    But be extremely careful because you may get what you wish for!
    And I wonder how many non-custodial parents really wish for custody...
    or for what they think will be control of their paycheck!
                              

    I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS ENTIRE TOPIC AND I'VE ONLY SEEN ONE REPLY
    WITH THE CHILDS POINT OF VEIW.  WELL I AM ANOTHER CHILD IN THE CASE
    OF THE IRRESPONSIBLE FATHER.
    HERE'S THE SITUATION:
    
    I HAVE TWO SISTERS AND ONE BROTHER, THE OLDEST IS THREE YEARS OLDER
    THAN I AM.  MY MOTHER AND FATHER WERE SEPERATED WHEN I WAS THREE,
    BUT NOT DIVORCED UNTIL I WAS FIVE.  THE TWO YEARS IN BETWEEN WE
    STAYED NEAR MY FATHERS FAMILY BECAUSE MY MOTHER IS A R.N. AND SHE
    WAS TAKING CARE OF MY FATHERS FATHER.
    
    
    MY MOTHER NEVER TALKED MEAN OR NASTY ABOUT MY FATHER TO US AND
    "NEVER" TRIED TO TURN US AGAINST HIM IN ANY WAY.  WE KIND OF GOT
    THE PICTURE ON HIM ON OUR OWN.  MAINLY BECAUSE WHILE MY MOTHER WAS
    TAKING CARE OF HIS FATHER WE HARDLY EVER SAW HIM.  OH YEAH, THE
    ONLY TIME I DO REMEMBER SEEING HIM WAS WHEN MY MOTHER WENT TO TALK
    TO HIM AT HIS FATHERS' GAS STATION AND ALL HE DID WAS WALK AWAY
    FROM US AND GET IN ANOTHER CAR WITH ANOTHER WOMAN AND ALL HER KIDS,
    (LATER TO BECOME HIS WIFE AND STEPKIDS).  
    
    
    WELL ANY WAY TO GET BACK TO THE TOPIC.  WHEN THEY FINALLY DID GET
    DIVORCED MY MOTHER DIDN'T WANT ALIMONY ALL SHE WANTED WAS HELP WITH
    US KIDS.  SHE SURE GOT IT: $40.00 A MONTH FOR FOUR KIDS-MIND YOU
    NOT APIECE BUT ALL TOGETHER!  AND TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE HE NEVER
    PAID A DIME.  WE NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM HIM OR HIS FAMILY,  NOT
    EVEN WHEN HIS FATHER DIED.
    
    BUT GUESS WHAT HAPPENED THE YEAR MY YOUNGEST SISTER TURNED 18 GUESS
    WHO SHOWS UP?!  YOU GUESSED IT MY *FATHER*.  THAT WAS LAST YEAR
    AND NOW HE WANTS TO KNOW WHY NOBODY KEEPS IN TOUCH WITH HIM NOW
    THAT HE IS BACK (MY YOUNGER SISTER DOES).  WHEN HE SUDDENLY REAPPEARED
    AGAIN MY BROTHER WHO IS IN THE NAVY SENT HIM A LETTER ASKING WHAT
    WAS WRONG AND WHAT ORGAN HE NEEDED.  NO RESENTMENT TOWARDS HIM,
    HUH?
    
    NOW THE REASON IT'S SO HARD FOR US TO FORGIVE HIM.  WE WATCHED MY
    MOTHER TRY HER HARDEST TO GIVE US WHAT WE NEEDED, NOT TOYS, OR ANY
    KIND OF EXTRAS BUT EVERY DAY BASICS.  WE WATCHED HER GO WITHOUT
    SO WE COULD HAVE THESE BASICS.  WE WATCHED THE LIFE START TO GO
    OUT OF HER WHEN SHE WAS SO WORRIED ABOUT HOW SHE WOULD MANAGE TO
    FEED US, BUT STILL SHE WENT ON.  WE WATCHED HER GIVE UP RELATIONSHIPS
    BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T HANDLE THE PAIN OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH MY FATHER
    (HE CHEATED ON HER AGAIN AND AGAIN).  MOST OF ALL WE WATCHED HER
    WORK HER SELF SO HARD SHE LITERALLY HAS PROBLEMS JUST MOVING AROUND
    NOW (SHE'S ONLY 51), AND WE WATCHED THE AFFECT US HAVING TO GROW
    UP WONDERING WHY OUR FATHER DIDN'T LOVE US ENOUGH TO JUST WRITE
    AND TELL US HE DID LOVE US AFFECTED HER. 
    
    
    SHE DID TRY TO GET THE COURTS TO PAY BUT THEY NEVER DID ANYTHING
    TO HELP HER.  WELL THAT'S ENOUGH FOR THE MOMENT IT'S STARTING TO
    GET TO ME NOW.
    
    BY THE WAY I'M NOT YELLING I JUST GOT HALF WAY THROUGH BEFORE I
    NOTICED THAT THE CAPS LOCKED WAS DOWN.  SORRY 

RE: 24.144 Bruce ULTRA::LARU

"I think if a man feel that strongly about the issue, he ought to be able to
abstain under any circumstances where he recognizes that he cannot control the
outcome.  Let him consider his moral stand before risking conception."

That's all well and good, except can you name *any* situation where a man can
"control the outcome"???  Using your advice there would be no more children at
all. 

RE: 24.147 Lisa 3D::CHABOT

"I see a woman's body as something she needs to survive."

How does bearing a child, in and of itself make a woman no longer able to
survive?

RE: 24.148 CYRUS::DRISKELL

"If a child needs a father's paycheck to survive, then there are a lot of
miricles happenning every day." 

I've been told that such children do need the father's paycheck to survive.
Do you disagree?

"what about single mothers?  or divorced mothers who don't actually RECEIVE
child-support or allimony?"

What about them?  All Child Should be supported Equally by both parents. Both
Parents should have the opportunity to spend Equal time with thier children.
Both parents should should have equal say in whether their children are to be
aborted, adopted, and other decisions affecting their children's lives.

RE: Gale...

Yes Gale, I know...  And I don't think that that is how the situation should be.

RE: Joyce...

I'm all ears, got any constructive suggestions that I haven't already tried?

Jim.

    Yes, Jim I suggest two things for you.
    
    I suggest you spend some time studying the economical situation.
    I suggest you go to the grocery store and realistically figure out
    what it would cost to maintain a household for a month.
    
    Then I suggest you take your children for two weeks and care for
    them without any support from friends or an SO.
    
    Then decide if what you spend in child support is unrealistic. 

    Then decide if you are willing to provide the manual labor required
    to raise children.
    
    And my friend, if you decide certain things are unnecessary you
    must realize that there are norms and you aren't playing fair if
    you prescribe a life style that is not the norm.  The court system
    is based on the norm.
    
    Another opinion which I know you share is that the cost of a household
    should not be divided by the number of people in it.  If a custodial
    parent has two children the cost of running the household, including
    a portion of the car expenses should be divided by three.  Never
    mind with the philosophy that those expenses would be there whether
    or not the children live in the home.
    
    Without any figuring I would say the minimum required to support
    a child weekly is $200.  The minimum amount of manual labor around
    twenty hours a week and the on call time 24 hours a day.  Emotional
    support during the teen age years can be required by the minute.
    
    I think if every parent who decided to divorce their spouse addressed
    the issues of child support objectively their attitude would change
    therefore making the reality of limited incomes easier to bear.
    
    Divorce frees you from one thing...a relationship that is not working.
    It does not free up your finances if you have children and
    realistically when you decide to divorce or your spouse decides
    to divorce it is a lot easier to recognize this and change your
    lifestyle to accomodate the burden.
    
    I also suggest that non-custodial parents if they are feeling financial
    pressure find a part time job.  Working 20 hours a week for your
    children in a paying job would equate with the 20 hours the custodial
    parent spends on laundry, shopping and food preparation.

RE: 24.154 FSLPRD::JLAMOTTE 
    
"I suggest you spend some time studying the economical situation. I suggest you
go to the grocery store and realistically figure out what it would cost to
maintain a household for a month."

I have done this.  I have cared for them by myself for up to a month.
    
"Then I suggest you take your children for two weeks and care for them without
any support from friends or an SO."

See above.
    
"Then decide if what you spend in child support is unrealistic."

I have looked at it.  30% of a man's gross pay is unrealistic.

"Then decide if you are willing to provide the manual labor required to raise
children."

I have decided that I want to have them.
    
"And my friend, if you decide certain things are unnecessary you must realize
that there are norms and you aren't playing fair if you prescribe a life style
that is not the norm.  The court system is based on the norm."

I do not see what you are getting at.
    
"Another opinion which I know you share is that the cost of a household should
not be divided by the number of people in it.  If a custodial parent has two
children the cost of running the household, including a portion of the car
expenses should be divided by three.  Never mind with the philosophy that those
expenses would be there whether or not the children live in the home."

Then the father is paying to support the mother.
    
"Without any figuring I would say the minimum required to support a child weekly
is $200.  The minimum amount of manual labor around twenty hours a week and the
on call time 24 hours a day.  Emotional support during the teen age years can be
required by the minute."

I would call 200$ a week to support a child realistic, possibly low.  Of course
I feel that both parents should EQUALLY provide financial support for their
children. 
    
"I also suggest that non-custodial parents if they are feeling financial
pressure find a part time job.  Working 20 hours a week for your children in a
paying job would equate with the 20 hours the custodial parent spends on
laundry, shopping and food preparation." 

It may be equivelent in work, but it is in no way equivalent to the noncustodial
parent or the child that the noncustodial parent doesn't get to spend that time
caring for their child. 

RE: Gale

I think I've said this before, but I will repeat it.  Which would you have: Your
children and no money, or no children and no money?  That is the choice between
your position and my position, and I know which one I would choose.  I don't
think that this is the choice that should have to be made.  I think that both
parents should support their children equally, and children should be able to
spend equal time with both parents. 

JMB

    Your reply is full of inconsistencies, Jim and it frustrates the
    h*ll out of me that you have such an attitude about custody.
    
    Why don't you rent an apartment with one extra bedroom.  And then
    you let me and my daughter share the other bedroom and we will just
    share the cost of food because I don't want to subsidize your 
    living arrangement.
    
    And you are right 30% is unrealistic....it should be one half the
    childrens support and you admitted that $200 a week is on the low
    side.  So if it cost's $200 a week to support a child and you have
    two your share would be $200 a week.  A non-custodial parent has
    to make over $35000 a year for $200 to equate to 30% of their income.  
    So it seems that many non-custodial parents are not paying their fair
    share because the medium income is around $26000!
                                                    
    When I talked about norms....I meant that certain standards should
    be maintained for children.  One parent doesn't have the option
    of deciding that they will raise their children in a tent on Boston
    Common.  Or decide that because they only eat one meal a day the
    children can adjust to that schedule.
    
    If you were to come into this conference and talk one time about
    how you want to raise your children and not discuss your unhappiness
    with the financial arrangement then, I for one, would be sympathetic.
    I do not know your salary, nor the amount that you pay in child
    support, you continue to say 30% of a non-custodial parents salary
    is unrealistic.  Are you, Jim paying more than $200 a week for your
    two boys?
     
    Sorry Jim it sounds to me that your main concern is the money, and
    then and btw you would like custody of your children.
    

    Does anyone know the real statistics on what it truly costs to
    support a child?  Discussion here mentions $200 a week as a low
    base...
    
    But probably some government agency (Bureau of Labor and Statistics?)
    has accumulated average statistics.n  Before I try calling Washington
    bureaucracy, I thought I'd poll the net.
    
    Thanks.

    I don't know the real statistics on what it costs to support a
    child.  I think it would vary on your personal living standards
    and where you live.  I live in California and rent is outrageous.
    
    There seems to be alot of heated conversation in this note.  My
    opinions on parental responsiblity can go both ways.  Over the
    years, I've seen a change in attitude in the court systems to support
    my views.

    I used to be real sympathetic towards women, as in the past the
    man has tended to be the irresponsible one.  But in the last few
    years I've seen otherwise.  I've seen women who claim to be paying
    for daycare (and collecting from the father for) and then leaving
    the child with family to watch for free and then pocketing the money.
    I've seen women who take the children away (out of spite) to hurt
    the father, because supposedly he doesn't love her anymore and use
    the children as a weapon.  I have seen a woman collect large amounts
    of money for child support, and go shopping at the most expensive
    department stores for themselves and buy the kids clothing at a
    thrift store.
    
    But then I have a close girl_friend who earns less than $10 per
    hour, pays $550 a month for a one bedroom apartment, and collects
    only $200 a month for her six year old daughter.  Not to mention,
    the father is in service in another state, so she never gets a break,
    unlike other fathers who take their children every other weekend,
    or whatever.
    
    I am not saying all women do this.  THANK GOD!  But I have also
    heard alot of horror stories about men.  So, you see, generalizations
    are not so good.  There are bad people in both male and female.
    Additionally, I know alot of men who are divorced, pay alot of money,
    and have their children as often as possible.  Not all men are the
    same, as we don't want men to think all women are alike.
    
    I don't have any children myself, but I have dated and have been
    married once to a man/men who have children from previously
    relationships.   I have seen alot, and tend to be a little more
    sympathetic toward the men these days, than I have in the past.
    And, as a single female, I would like to add the following.  And
    women wonder why they can't get a guy to make a commitment?  Can
    you blame them?  It's all those OTHER women that have caused this.
    Guys that won't make a commitment have probably had a bad experience
    of this sort in a past relationship.
    
    In closing I would just like to say we have to be realistic in this
    day and age.  If you want to have a child/children.  Be prepared
    to do it on your own, (just in case), and be very very particular
    of the integrity of the person you choose to be the father of your
    baby.
    

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps the statistics on the cost
    of raising a child.  Their figures are broken down by 4 geographical
    regions, then by low/middle/high incomes, then by the age of child.
    
    The present cost (1987) of raising a child grom birth through 18
    is
    				$101,275.00
    
    For a 16 year old, in a middle income family ($20K to 50K), the
    annual cost is:		$6782.00
    
    This is broken down as:
    	
    		Food at home	$1755.
    		Food away from
    			home	  221.
    		Clothing	  650.
    		Housing		 1924.
    		Medical care	  343.
    		Education	  204.
    		Transportation	  846.
    		All other	  839.
    		______________________
    
    		total		$6782.
    
    These figures are based on what people tell them they spend on their
    children, not on any research.  The chart is available from them,
    detailing this information.  Call (301) 436-8461.

    We recently figured out what it cost us for our daughter's first
    year of life.  (She was born 12/86.)  The cost in baby furniture
    and accessories, toys, clothes, food, diapers, lost wages and day
    care was approximately $10,000.  On one hand, we could probably
    have gotten away with spending less than that if we had to.  On
    the other hand, that does not cover any of the costs of actually
    providing a home: mortgage/rent, heat, etc.
    
    --Tracy
    
    

Does one count the child's share of the home mortgage/rent & utilities, or
the incremental cost?  There is probably a big difference between 50% of the
mortgage on a 4-bedroom house [expensive], and the incremental increase over
the mortgage on a 2-bedroom house for a 4-bedroom house [cheaper; say 20%?].
Ditto for rent, I presume.

If one didn't have kids to support, one may find living in a cheaper town (with
"poorer" schools) just fine.  I didn't worry about the schools in Marlborough
(MA) when I was single, but as our daughter approaches school age, we have to
weigh the cost/benefit of sending her to the public schools where we live vs.
moving to a city/town with "better" public schools vs. sending her to private
schools.  It isn't going to be an easy choice to make, unless economics forces
a decision upon us.

Well, I'm not trying to start a school quality rathole.  We have not made up
our minds on this issue yet, as we have several years to go.  I'm just talking
about the difference in cost of living when you have children with you.

My apologies if this has already been discussed in the past 160-or-so replies!

    If you want more local information than the Department of Agriculture
    provides, the Office For Children might have some numbers. It's a
    (Mass) state agency, and there's an office in Acton. Their number is
    617/264-0314.

    RE: 24.162 and the Office of Children
    
    I called them at lunch today, and they just chuckled.  They do not
    have any statistics on costs of raising a child.  They suggested
    I call the local newspaper.  But thanks for the idea.
    
    The booklet that the Department of Agriculture sent is quite thorough
    and informative.