[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Title:	ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE
Notice:	V1 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:	REGENT::BROOMHEAD

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	873
Total number of notes:	22329

471.0. "'''Family Security Act'''" by YODA::BARANSKI (If I were a realist, I'd be dead.) Tue Sep 08 1987 14:08

                  MOYNIHAN BILL ATTACKS AMERICAN FATHERHOOD

Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, Democratic New York, introduced Senate Bill 1511,
the "Family Security Act", FSA, on the floor of the Senate on July 21st.  The
bill amounts to the most profound and global attack on American fatherhood to
date.

The bill provides that child support will be automatically deducted from
fathers' wages and turned over to the state, who will then pass it on to the
mother.   Children of divorce, in effect, will be dependent upon various state
agencies according to the bill, which is designed to bail out a faltering
welfare system by expanding their influence to virtually every child of divorce
in America.

The bill also provides that states set child support formulas which are
"binding upon judges" and that child support awards "be reviewed and adjusted
at least once every two years."  In other words, the matter of child support
will be substantially taken out of the courts and placed into the welfare
system.  The state will decide how much should be paid, give the father 30 days
to hire an attorney and fight their decision which is "binding upon judges,"
and notify the employer to take it out of the father's pay and give it to the
state.  At least once every two years they will review and change the amount
the employee deducts. 

Other provisions of the bill provide for an absurd national effort to establish
paternity by the reporting of social security numbers at the time of a child's
birth, the placing of unemployed fathers on welfare work programs, and in
effect, the exclusion of illegal aliens, who compromise a substantial
proportion of the welfare roles and child support defaults, from most of the
provisions of the bill.  The bill also includes a full array of pork-barrel
demonstration projects designed to bail out the welfare system on the back of
American fatherhood. 


                                   HISTORY

What started out as a well intentioned effort of the National Governor's
Association, NGA, to reform an extremely expensive and ineffective welfare
system known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, was converted
into a feminist manifesto by Senator Moynihan.  Governor Castle (R, DE), the
chairman of the Welfare Prevention Task Force of the NGA, presented a proposal
designed to:  improve the parental child support obligations of *both* parents;
permit flexible state designed employment programs and training;  and create a
"social contract" that requires the state to provide opportunities for welfare
recipient to work or risk losing benefits.

Central to this plan were several startling statistics which document the
national problems encountered with welfare mothers:  In America, 72% of all
mothers with children between 6-18 years of age work and over half of all
mothers with children under three years of age work.  Among welfare mothers,
less then 5% work.  The original NGA proposal would have helped the mothers to
get work with daycare, training and extension of medical benefits as they enter
the work force.  It also provided sanctions against mothers refusing to keep
their work contracts. 

This proposal remained substantially intact when introduced in the House by
Representative Ford, (D, TN).  The Senate version, however, portrays American
fatherhood as irresponsible and shifts the focus off the welfare abusers in
favor of attacking divorced fathers.

                               WAGE DEDUCTIONS

Through a shameful manipulation of statistics, Senator Moynihan has presented
this bill as being likely to increase the amount of child support payments
made.  While 58% of all single mothers have court orders for child support, 42%
do not.  Of the 42% who do not:  60% had children out of wedlock, 19% are
separated rather then divorced, and 12% of their husbands are dead.

While the problem of nonsupport falls squarely on the shoulders of fathers of
children born out of wedlock, who may or may not know they are fathers,
Moynihan prefers to attack American fatherhood:  "If you are man enough to
father a child, you had best be man enough to provide for that child for at
least the next 18 years," said Moynihan  on the Senate floor, asserting himself
as a much less than eloquent feminist proponent.

                                  PATERNITY

The Moynihan bill provides, in very *unclear* terms, for a system by which
parents will give social security numbers at birth, thereby establishing
"presumptive paternity".  In other words, if a man's social security is given
at a hospital at the time of birth, he is PRESUMED TO BE THE FATHER. This is
the Moynihan solution to the massive national problem of out of wedlock births.

Moynihan explains that some states, such as New York, are currently collecting
social security numbers.  He goes on to explain that while "NEW YORK CITY IS
EXEMPT FROM THIS REGULATION," in 1986, "84% of all fathers' numbers were
successfully collected."

What Senator Moynihan does not explain, is *why* "New York City is exempt from
this regulation."  Could it be because if New York City were not exempt it
might have problems with its half million illegal aliens and welfare frauds who
burden both the state and federal government?  Could it be because Moynihan has
a much higher standard for responsible fathers across America then he does for
criminals on the dole in his own backyard?  Could it be because he expects
responsible fathers across America to support big city welfare follies? 

                               STATE GUIDELINES

The Moynihan bill provides for the establishment of state guidelines for child
support which are "rebuttable" and "binding on judges."  In other words, the
state will decide by formula how much child support will be paid, judges will
rubberstamp the paperwork, and fathers can hire lawyers to change the minds of
judges in an environment in which guidelines are "binding on judges."

These provisions, in effect, take the setting of child support out of the realm
of the discretion of judges and into the realm of bureaucracy.  In all
likelihood, mothers will be effective in litigating to *raise* levels of
support for "special" circumstances, while fathers will be bound to
"guidelines."  But the federalization of divorce doesn't end here, fathers will
also be assured of "automatic" increases in child support. 

                               AUTOMATIC REVIEW

The Moynihan bill provides that child support awards will be reviewed, by a
state agency, "at least once every two years."  Following the review, the
father and his employer will be notified of the new child support award. The
father will be given 30 days to hire a lawyer and argue against guidelines
which are "binding on judges."

This, in effect, will do away with the "change of circumstances" requirement
for the modification of a divorce decree.  Divorced fathers will have as much
control under the Moynihan welfare as taxpayers now have over how much of their
tax dollars go into the endless welfare pit.  Sadly, divorced mothers and
children are likely to be treated with the same dignity and respect as welfare
recipients. 

                               WELFARE BAILOUT

Under the Moynihan bill responsible fathers, divorced mothers and children will
all be economic losers.  But faltering departments of welfare will be
revitalized, especially in places such as New York City, known as a bastion of
welfare abuse.  This bill will mean full employment for social workers.

The interest on the billions of dollars turned over to states will be used to
accomplish welfare goals not likely to be achieved through the use of normal tax
revenue.  Money will flow through the welfare coffers as a kind of "float",
much as banks use money in clearing checks.  Moreover, millions of private
citizens and businesses will be involved in an economic relationship with the
state; the most major expansion of the welfare state in our lifetime. 

                              BUSINESS OUTRAGED

American business will be involved in a very intimate part of many employee's
lives, and will have to foot the bill for millions of payroll deductions.
Additionally, business will now have to deal with yet another government
bureaucracy.  As mistakes are made, children of divorce will not receive their
support.  The cost involved in these deductions amount to a tax on American
business.

Since every state currently has provisions for the deduction of child support
from the wages of irresponsible parents, the bill will, in effect, only make
automatic deductions from the wages of responsible parents.  Parents working in
the "informal economy," welfare frauds and illegal aliens will be unaffected by
the Moynihan bill.

Moreover, the privacy of employees will be violated as confidential
information is now disclosed to employers.  Bank presidents will now have their
personal, family business reviewed by payroll clerks.  How long will it be
before credit bureaus begin denying credit on the basis of a father making high
child support payments?  What effect will these disclosures have on the hiring
of employees?  And what kind of disputes will employers become party to as
employees, courts and the state have different opinions of what should be
deducted?  Will businesses have to start hiring social workers to be in
compliance with the law?  Will business, in effect, become an extension of the
welfare state? 

                               SENATOR MOYNIHAN

It's hard to understand how such a bill made its way to the Senate until you
understand its author, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Born in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1927, the Moynihan family move to New York City and
suffered under a father described as an "indebted hard drinking, deserter" who
left his wife and children to live in a succession of coldwater flats in
Manhattan slum neighborhoods, on welfare. 

Being a survivor to the core, Senator Moynihan received a Catholic school
education and went on to City College, which at the time did not charge
tuition.  He enlisted in the Navy which sent him to Middlebury College in
Vermont and Tufts University in Massachusetts.  Thus, the New York City
welfare child emerged as a Navy Officer, complete with  New England accent and
a burning desire to leave his mark on society.

With a Salamander like ability to survive in a variety of settings, Moynihan
served under Presidents Kennedy and Nixon and in the U.N. under President Ford.
A prolific author in the area of social reform, he has managed to rally support
for many to his efforts while alienating even civil rights leaders with his
creative use of research and statistics and acid remarks.

The current bill is no exception.  Moynihan has rallied the support of 26
cosponsors, including six Republications. 

                              CHANCES OF PASSAGE

By all estimates, the Moynihan welfare bill has a very good chance of becoming
law.  Well organized, broad based opposition to the bill could result in the
deletion of provisions, such as the automatic wage deductions.

F.A.I.R. has received calls and letters from across the nation in opposition to
the bill.  David L. Levy, President of the National Council For Children's
Rights, has recently given his organization's support to F.A.I.R. in our
attempt to defeat the bill. 

In the event that this bill becomes law, there are several constitutional
issues to be challenged such as:  privacy violations, unreasonable seizure of
property, due process and infringement of state's rights.  F.A.I.R. is
currently mounting organized opposition to the bill and has contacted every
member of the Senate.

                              YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

We have listed the cosponsors of the bill, and the names of *all* U.S.
Senators.  Write them.  Tell them how you feel and tell them that you would
like F.A.I.R. to testify at hearings.

There is much more that you can do:  This bill is going to cost you a fortune.
It is also going to harm children and take away many of your current rights.

Since the bill will affect virtually all businesses in its efforts to
federalize divorce, speak to others and urge them to support our efforts.
F.A.I.R. can not defeat this bill *without your* support.


                                U.S. SENATORS

                               Mailing address:
                                      

                           The Honorable __________
                                  The Senate
                             Washington, DC 20510

*Senators are cosponsors of the Moynihan "Family Security Act", Senate Bill
1511.

Alabama:    Howell T. Heflin D., Richard Shelby, D.

Alaska:     Ted Stevens, R., Frank H. Murkowski, R.

Arizona:    Dennis DeConcini, D., John McCain, R.

Arkansas:   *Dale Bumpers, D., *David H. Pryor D.

California: Alan Cranston, D., Pete Wilson, R.

Colorado:  William L. Armstrong, R., *Timothy F. Wirth, D.

Connecticut:  Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., R., Christopher J. Dodd, D.

Delaware:  William V. Roth, R., *Joseph R. Biden, Jr. D.

Florida:  Lawton Chiles, D., Bob Graham, D.

Georgia:  Sam Nunn, D., *Wyche Fowler, Jr., D.

Hawaii:  Daniel K. Inouye, D., *Spark M. Matsunaga, D.

Idaho:  James A. McClure, R., Steven D. Symms, R.

Illinois:  Alan J. Dixon, D., *Paul Simon, D.

Indiana:  Richard G. Lugar, R., Dan Quayle, r.

Iowa:  Charles E. Grassley, R., Tom Harkin, D.

Kansas:  Robert J. Dole, R., Nancy Landon Kassebaum, R.

Kentucky:  Wendell H. Ford, D., Mitch McConnell, R.

Louisiana:  J. Bennett Johnson, D., John B. Breaux, D.

Maine:  William S. Cohen, R., George J. Mitchell, D.

Maryland:  Paul S. Sarbanes, D., Barbara A. Mikulski, D.

Massachusetts: *Edward M. Kennedy, D., *John F. Kerry, D.

Michigan:  *Donald W. Riegle, Jr., D., Carl Levin, D.

Minnesota:  *David F. Durenberger, R., Rudy Boschwitz, R.

Mississippi:  John C. Stennis, D., *Thad Cochran, R.

Missouri:  *John C. Danforth, R., Christopher S. Bond, R.

Montana:  John Melcher, D., Max Baucus, D.

Nebraska:  Edward Zorinsky, D., J. James Exon., D.

Nevada:  Chic Hecht, R., Harry M. Reid, D.

New Hampshire:  Gordon J. Humphrey, R., Warren B. Rudman, R.

New Jersey:  *Bill Bradley, D., Frank R. Lautenberg, D.

New Mexico:  Pete V. Domenici, R., *Jeff Bingaman, D.

New York:  *Daniel P. Moynihan, D., Alfonso M. D'amato, R.

North Carolina:  Jesse Helms, R., *Terry Sanford, D.

North Dakota:  Quentin N. Burdick, D., Kent Conrad, D.

Ohio:  John H. Glenn Jr., D., Howard M. Metzenbaum, D.

Oklahoma: David L. Boren, D., Don Nickles., R.

Oregon:  Mark O. Hatfield, R., Bob Packwood, R.

Pennsylvania:  John Heinz, R., Arlen Specter, R.

Rhode Island:  *Claiborne Pell, D., *John H. Chafee, R.

South Carolina:  Strom Thurmond, R., Ernest F. Hollings, D.

South Dakota:  Larry Pressler, R., *Thomas A. Daschle, D.

Tennessee:  James R. Sasser, D., *albert Gore, Jr., D.

Texas:  Lloyd M. Bentson, D., Phil Gramm, R.

Utah:  E. Jake Garn, R., Orrin G. Hatch, R.

Vermont:  Robert T. Stafford, R., Patrick J. Leahy, D.

Washington: *Daniel L. Evans, R., Brock Adams, D.

West Virginia:  Robert C. Byrd, D., John D. Rockefeller IV, D.

Wisconsin:  William Proxmire, D., Robert W. Kasten, Jr., R.

Wyoming:  Malcom Wallop, R., Alan K. Simpson, R.



My thanks to those who managed to read all this.  My apoligies for multiple
postings.

Jim Baranski

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
471.1	Yawn	ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Tue Sep 08 1987 14:31`	3
	Please excuse me if I don't share your outrage. -Ellen
471.2		COLORS::TARBET	Margaret Mairhi	`Tue Sep 08 1987 15:09`	3
	That certainly must have taken you a long time to type in, Jim. =maggie
471.3	It's about time	PNEUMA::SULLIVAN		`Tue Sep 08 1987 15:45`	17
	I think the bill sounds like a pretty good idea, though I imagine some of the details will need to be ironed out. I assume that the wording will need to be changed to include cases where the mother is the non-custodial parent who defaults on child support payments. If fathers/non-custodial parents are making their child support payments, then a new law like this needn't worry them. I think something needs to be done to address the fact that many women and children are living in poverty while the husband/father simply moves to another state and continues living in style. I doubt this bill will become law without any modification, but I hope this means that the problem is going to be taken more seriously by our law-makers. Justine
471.4	Just fathers?	BUBBLY::LEIGH	Boxes, boxes everywhere!	`Tue Sep 08 1987 16:21`	7
	It seems to me that .0 implies that this bill would only affect fathers. Does anyone know if this is true, or if it applies to non-custodial parents in general? I reserve judgement about this bill until I know more about it from sources other than .0. It's difficult for me to sort out the facts from the opinions in .0.
471.5		HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Tue Sep 08 1987 16:55`	23
	re .1 and .2 Thank you both for your thoughtful contributions. =========================================== I fail to see the benefit of adding yet another layer of government interference. There are already laws to deal with delinquent parents in regards to child support payments. Further, by placing such demands upon an already strained and ineffective welfare system, it could lead to only more abuse, more callousness, and less regard for individuals who both petiton the system and those charged with administering the system. The added cost to private enterprise would be astounding, forcing private enterprise into the position of being the government "collector" of both monies and private information. I should like to hear the reasoning of those that support this bill.
471.6	It's so simple a child could understand it!	ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Tue Sep 08 1987 17:12`	10
	re -1: >I should like to hear the reasoning of those that support this bill. How about the very simple, "old-fashioned" notion that able-bodied parents should support their children and not the state support them? Or doesn't that make sense to you? -Ellen
471.7	questions, questions	LEZAH::BOBBITT	face piles of trials with smiles	`Tue Sep 08 1987 17:34`	27
	What if the non-custodial parent keeps up with payments willingly? What about alimony payments? What if the wages of the parents are equal, or the non-custodial parent's wages are higher? What if the mother in the hospital gives a fictitious or premeditatedly incorrect (ooh, vengeance with a capital V this would be) social security number at the hospital when giving birth? What about adopted children whose parents divorce? What if the mother doesn't know who the father is? In the case of educational loans that go unpaid, particularly by doctors who declare bankruptcy and freeloaders who just don't want to pay back the state so they can use the funds for other students, I can see it as acceptable that a portion of their tax refunds is retained as partial payment every year until they finish paying.... but here it is so radical, so generalized, so across-the-board....I approve the gesture of bringing men who do not support their children to pay the child support - but the method seems to me like sheer madness. Can anyone think of some less radical way? -Jody
471.8		PLDVAX::BUSHEE	George Bushee	`Tue Sep 08 1987 17:52`	15
	What about the parents who decide between themself to have custody of the children change? My ex and I have done this between ourself, what happens in this case? Do you have to ask the state, goverment, welfare if you can get your own children? While my ex had the kids I made my payments, ON TIME, EVERY TIME AND IT'S NO ONE ELSE DAMN BUSINESS!!!!! But the real question in my mind is once you get welfare and the state in the picture, will all the money really go to your children. Or, will it turn into a mess like everything else the system comes in contact with? Who is going to pay for the additional personnel needed to oversee this? Does a percentage of the money taken go into adminstrative??
471.9	sometimes a child can't understand	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Tue Sep 08 1987 18:18`	22
	> -< It's so simple a child could understand it! >- > How about the very simple, "old-fashioned" notion that able-bodied > parents should support their children and not the state support them? > Or doesn't that make sense to you? Please revisit your own statements. If you insist that the State set up a mechanism to extract payments from non supportive parents, who do you expect will pick up the bill for maintaining such a bureacracy? All of us. Who do you expect the added costs to business (in support of such a bureacracy) to be passed on to? All of us. Simple? I think so. richard
471.11	Again, it's elementary	ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Tue Sep 08 1987 20:51`	21
	re .9: >Please revisit your own statements. If you insist that the State >set up a mechanism to extract payments from non supportive parents, >who do you expect will pick up the bill for maintaining such a >bureacracy? >All of us. >Who do you expect the added costs to business (in support of such >a bureacracy) to be passed on to? >All of us. >Simple? I think so. Yes, but much cheaper than paying welfare for all of the unsupported kids, wouldn't you agree? -Ellen
471.13	!&#& MONEY !@#%	SHIRE::BIZE		`Wed Sep 09 1987 06:15`	33
	Even though I understand the concerns of those who are against this bill, i.e.: - Cost to the tax-payer - Money goes to the State first - I am a good guy/lady, why should I be treated as a bad one? There are still clear advantages to that bill and they have been outlined in this note, and in previous ones. There's one thing which would be nice with that reform and it's that it should eliminate a big part of the bickering between ex-es, as, from my experience (my parents are divorced, my husband is a divorcee with a child from his first marriage), MONEY, MONEY, MONEY is a big bone of contention between ex-spouses. At least future conversations regarding the welfare of the child could center around more interesting topics, like education, sports, medical problems, holydays, etc. and not just:"Did you pay? When did you pay? Why can't you pay? Can I get more?" and so on and so forth. Neither my husband nor my father have ever refused to pay the child support but it probably wouldn't bother them to have it deducted directly from their pay, as there is already so much that is deducted, and, to me, for less valid reasons. Protecting the children is always a good idea. I have no tears to waste on adults, be they male or female: they have unmade their bed, and now must lie out of it! Joana
471.14	I ask politely once again...	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Wed Sep 09 1987 09:23`	27
	re.11 > Yes, but much cheaper than paying welfare for all of the unsupported > kids, wouldn't you agree? Again I fail to see the reasoning behind your economics. I have asked you how you expect the increased costs of such a state mechanism to be financed. You evade the question. In fact, no, I cannot agree that this plan would be "cheaper than paying welfare". There is still a matter of state funding for the program. The state takes the money out of all of us. Whether that all of us consists of: 1> a non supportive parent 2> a parent paying support regularly (i.e. on time, without arrears) 3> a single taxpayers without children, 4> a couple in a successful marriage... Get the idea? Also, I am not surprised that you seem to equate child support with a public assistance program (welfare). There is a world of difference. You have not answered my question, Ms Gugel, by posing another question. Please address this. richard
471.15	Why do the righteous worry?	PNEUMA::SULLIVAN		`Wed Sep 09 1987 10:27`	36
	RE. HARRY::HIGGINS "Citizen of Atlantis" 27 lines 9-SEP-1987 08:23 -< I ask politely once again... >- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In fact, no, I cannot agree that this plan would be "cheaper than > paying welfare". Why Not? How can it possibly cost more to have parents pay their fair share of child support than it costs to have the state pay? > There is still a matter of state funding for > the program. The state takes the money out of all of us. Whether > that all of us consists of: 1> a non supportive parent 2> a parent > paying support regularly (i.e. on time, without arrears) 3> a single > taxpayers without children, 4> a couple in a successful marriage... This is true of welfare, too. I would much rather pay the state to collect from parents who abandon their responsibilities for their children than pay to clean up after them. We not only pay for welfare, but we pay when neglected children suffer developmental delays (this often happpens) and cannot ever contribute (to society) to their full potential. We pay when people go to jail. A high percentage of the people in our jails were negelected as children, and many of those children were negelected because Daddy skipped town and left Mommy to fend for herself and her children. ... Often with inadequate food, clothing, shelter. She can't afford daycare, so she doesn't get a job, so she tries to live on welfare... and the children suffer. I suspect it is these kinds of situations that this law would hope to address. To those of you who are paying your child support payments fully and on time: what are you worried about? Perplexed, Justine
471.16	draconian	TFH::MARSHALL	hunting the snark	`Wed Sep 09 1987 10:42`	38
	re .1: > If fathers/non-custodial parents are making their child support > payments, then a new law like this needn't worry them. Not so. For one thing the state is taking more control of a person's paycheck. A responsible person who can manage his finances loses big from government payroll deductions. The government not only collects the bucks but also the interest that one would have gained. Hey, why not just let the State collect our entire paycheck and then let it dole out food stamps, gas stamps, rent stamps, etc. After all, we know that people are not responsible enough to pay their bills. > I think something needs to be done to address the fact that many women > and children are living in poverty while the husband/father simply > moves to another state and continues living in style. Did not .0 say that EVERY state has provisions to deduct child support from the parent who defaults on his court ordered payments? Isn't it also illegal to evade the law by moving to another state? All that is needed is enforcement of existing laws. re .6: > How about the very simple, "old-fashioned" notion that able-bodied > parents should support their children and not the state support them? But how does this notion support the bill in question? There are already laws that require payment, there are already laws that will let the state deduct payment from delinquent parent's paycheck. / ( ___ ) /// /
471.17	paraphrased	TFH::MARSHALL	hunting the snark	`Wed Sep 09 1987 10:48`	22
	re .15: > Why do the righteous worry? First they came for the Communists, But I was not a Communist so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Jews, But I was not a Jew so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Gypsies, But I was not a Gypsy so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Catholics, But I was not a Catholic so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me, But there was no one left to speak up for me. / ( ___ ) /// /
471.18	it's still outrageous!	YODA::BARANSKI	If I were a realist, I'd be dead.	`Wed Sep 09 1987 10:55`	61
	RE: .1 You don't find at least the "presumed paternity" outragous??? RE: .4 You should, of course, take the source into account. The article certainly has a propaganda slant, but if it is at all factual it is outrageous. RE: .6 "How about the very simple, "old-fashioned" notion that able-bodied parents should support their children and not the state support them? Or doesn't that make sense to you?" How do you suppose that this bill is going to accomplish this? I doubt that it will. Instead, it will drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator; democracy and bureaucracy at it's finest. RE: .13 "MONEY, MONEY, MONEY is a big bone of contention between ex-spouses." That's because it hurts to have 50% of your 'take home' pay stolen from you, not giving you the pleasure of spending it on your children, not leaving you with enough money to survive. Etc, Etc, Etc... See other notes... "At least future conversations regarding the welfare of the child could center around more interesting topics, like education, sports, medical problems, holydays, etc." Not likely... Custodial parents can still efffectively do whatever they damned well want on any of these issues against the wishes of the other parent. "I have no tears to waste on adults, be they male or female: they have unmade their bed, and now must lie out of it!" Could you please explain that comment a bit more? RE: .15 "Why Not? How can it possibly cost more to have parents pay their fair share of child support than it costs to have the state pay?" For your information, 2$ extra may be deducted each week for the overhead of child support deductions. Thats 104$ a year, which will change from being applied to deadbeat noncustodial parents, to being applied to *all* noncustodial parents. Quite a gold mine for the state, eh? "To those of you who are paying your child support payments fully and on time: what are you worried about?" See previous note. "We not only pay for welfare,..." These other costs will not change whether the children are supported by welfare, or by child support. Jim.
471.19		PIWACT::KLEINBERGER	MAXCIMize your efforts	`Wed Sep 09 1987 10:56`	10
	ERRR!!! I really don't plan on stating an opinion of .0, but I am really getting irked to see this repsonse in SO many conferences (I can count at least 5), and each one has replies to it.... Maybe the moderators can band together and put the many {same} basenote in one {or two} conferences, so I don't have to be subjectd to the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over???? Have pity on the poor comma on my keypad???? Gale
471.20		APEHUB::STHILAIRE	remembrance of things past	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:08`	14
	I don't like the idea of money being deducted from people's paychecks. The state takes this money and then what do they do with it? How do we know this money will really wind up helping kids. As an adult living in a supposedly free country I'd like to have the chance to handle my own finances before the state steps in. My ex-husband and I came to a mutual agreement with regard to support of our child, and it's working out fine. We don't need anybody from the state to step in and tell us what to do. Basically, I just don't trust the plan in .0. Lorna
471.21	No blank checks	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:15`	45
	re.15 > Why Not? How can it possibly cost more to have parents pay > their fair share of child support than it costs to have > the state pay? You have inverted the uestion. The assumptive was that the Hayakawa plan would be "cheaper than paying welfare", not that the parent paying (privately) his/her obligation would be less expensive than a state apparatus charged with making such collection. Please do not use such methods. > We pay when people go to jail. This is a proper function of government empowered by citizens to apply objective force. > To those of you > who are paying your child support payments fully and on time: what are > you worried about? You do not address why people who are NOT responsible for those deliquent in their ordered payments should pay a penalty in the form of further taxation. Please answer this. I will state once again and without ambiguity that there are presently laws on the books to enforce collection of ordered alimony and/or child support payments from deliquent parents. Why do you insist that the State further interfer? Why do you insist that the State further weave itself into private family business? Why do you insist that I pay for yet another function that results in, at best a duplication of effort, and at worst State control over an individuals financial life? Also, as an aside, Ms Sullivan, your assertions as to why people are incarcerated are pure conjecture on your part. richard
471.22	When unfairness hits only your paycheck?	ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:20`	42
	re .18: SERIOUS FLAME-AWAY! Hey, Jim, do you get so riled up about all unfairness in the world or just when it hits your paycheck? I find your selfishness in this matter (your children) abominable. I am sick and tired of your gd whining! We said that before! Why don't you crawl back over to mennotes and make an issue out of it where you might be able to get real sympathy? You must be a glutton for punishment. You're certainly not convincing any of the women of this file on this matter. You didn't before. Why do you think it will be different this time? If it comes to your children or you, I'm with children over selfish adults anyday. Complaining about unfairness is valid if you complain about ALL unfairness. In this file, it's only one issue with you and that's MONEY, how your ex-wife is a louse, whine, gripe, sniffle, pooooooor me. When is MONEY more important than a child's welfare and future? NEVER, in my opinion. I'll calm down now. As for the question posed to me earlier, I still wonder just HOW you can think that paying for this system is MORE EXPENSIVE than paying for the child support of unsupported children. The money, of course, saved from welfare payments of children would MORE than make up for the cost of the program. At first, it may cost a bit more, but it will save money in the long run. Remember the new welfare plan implemented in Mass. a few years back that gave women with children on welfare a chance to go to school or pick the job they wanted to train for and provided child care? Yes, it cost more at first. The result? Fewer folks on welfare the next year. Net result: money saved. Why do YOU think this wouldn't be the same way? YOU have not given me any GOOD reasons why. -Ellen
471.23	Tangent without a clue alert	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:31`	11
	re.19 Well, Ms Kleinberger, if there are responses to the same basenote in several different conferences, then perhaps that indicates an interest in the subject? As for your suggestion about what perhaps the moderaters can do...why don't the moderaters just leave it alone? NOTES gives you the option of passing by the notes/replys of things you dont wish to read.
471.24	more flames	ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:34`	69
	re.21 >You have inverted the uestion. The assumptive was that the Hayakawa >plan would be "cheaper than paying welfare", not that the parent >paying (privately) his/her obligation would be less expensive than >a state apparatus charged with making such collection. >Please do not use such methods. Give us a break. We're trying to discuss this issue with you. We're not using any unfair methods. We're stating opinions about a very emotional topic. And I see that you are not above a little touch of emotionalism as well. Okay, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, but let me try to rephrase it so that I can. Are you saying that trying to keep track of all parents' payments, even those who are making them on time will be greater than the gain collected from delinquent parents? How do you know this would be true? You can ask me the same question in reverse, but we won't get anywhere on it. We need real figures and neither of us have them. >> To those of you >> who are paying your child support payments fully and on time: what are >> you worried about? >You do not address why people who are NOT responsible for those >deliquent in their ordered payments should pay a penalty in the >form of further taxation. Please answer this. Well, I admit that this does seem to be the only potential problem I find with the plan. I hope that those parents who have come to a mutually agreeable plan will not be part of the plan. If that were the case, then there would be no cost to the state for "keeping track of them", so to speak. That would make the plan cost less, and takes away your biggest argument against it (the one above). >I will state once again and without ambiguity that there are presently >laws on the books to enforce collection of ordered alimony and/or >child support payments from deliquent parents. Why do you insist >that the State further interfer? NO, not every state has laws like Massachusetts. Have you ever tried to get a court or a judge to enforce anything? It's EXTREMELY difficult and expensive. >Why do you insist that the State further weave itself into private >family business? Because it's not doing the job of collecting delinquent payments. Children on welfare IS the state's business. If it can get them off of welfare and get an able-bodied to support them, then that IS the state's business - saving taxpayer money. Ask some of the ex-spouses of delinquent payers in this file (Joyce?). Ask some of the children of delinquent parents in this file. IT'S NOT WORKING. The plan in .0 is addressing this. How would YOU address it? Sounds suspiciously like rotten apples on your part. >Why do you insist that I pay for yet another function that results >in, at best a duplication of effort, and at worst State control >over an individuals financial life? >Also, as an aside, Ms Sullivan, your assertions as to why people >are incarcerated are pure conjecture on your part. And yours aren't? -Ellen
471.25		VIKING::TARBET	Margaret Mairhi	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:42`	6
	<--(.21) "The Hayakawa plan"???? I think you have your conferences and topics confused, Richard. =maggie
471.26	A dangerous risk to privacy and freedom	YAZOO::B_REINKE	where the sidewalk ends	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:50`	12
	Personally, unless it can be guaranteed that this plan would still allow individual couples to come to their own agreements, and that it would never be used arbitrarily against a noncustodial parent, I would be against it. We do not need to further empower the government to interfere in our private lives. Far too much personal privacy has been lost as it is. Rather than all of us throwing away more of our rights and freedoms let us look for other solutions or look to making the existing solutions work. If the current solutions do not work, then why don't they work? and how can we guarantee that the new system will? Bonnie
471.27	What a dolt!	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Wed Sep 09 1987 11:59`	7
	re .25 It is a rather unique way to spell "Moynihan" isn't it? <insert sheepish grin>
471.28		CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Wed Sep 09 1987 14:14`	65
	To those of you who have replied in favor of this new proposed law, sorry, but I strongly disagree. Theres very little if anything good about it. As far as I'm concerned, the reason you have dead beats in the first place is because the divorce laws are so outrageously unfair in the first place. They have yet to join the 19th century, let alone the 20th century. How is it fair that when a women wants out of a marriage (barring any abuse etc.) and files for divorce from her husband, the court says, ok little lady, you want out, fine and dandy, you got it. Oh, and by the way, don't worry about any responsibility for insurance, bills, the house, or any of that stuff, we'll just castrate your husband for that stuff. We won't tell anybody that YOUR the one that wants out, not him. We wouldn't want you to be bothered with any responsibility for ending this marriage. Oh, and then there's the question of custody. Before a man can get custody of a child, he practically has to proove that his soon to be ex is a drunken, drug addicted whore. Other wise, judges STILL say that the best place for the child is with the mother. After all, the man has to go to work every day and what kind of a life would that be for a child. Doesn't the X wife have to go to work??? Hum, guess nobody ever thought of that. And then there's child support. Believe me, I'm all for supporting the child, but fair is fair, and it isn't fair when the judge says he's taking half the mans income for support, not leaving the man enough money to live a decent existance, and just says, "I'm not worried about it, I'm sure you'll manage." So, the man works a second job. One of the points of the new proposed law that is obviously no good is the point that they don't just go after the non payers, they lump every divorced husband in the same boat and attach their pay. Not only that, but "at least" every two years, the payment will be reviewed. For those of you who can't read between the lines, what that means is that AT LEAST (could be more) every two years, the amount paid will be reviewed with the only dicision being made is HOW MUCH MORE will the payments go up. Now take my case for example. At this very time, my X is threatening to take me back into court to get more money. NOT because she needs it, rather because it's something she knows she can hold over my head as a constant threat. The sad part is, and I've already spoken to a lawyer about this, is that if she does take me back in, she'll get it. Now here's a woman who is remarried, lives in LAS VAGAS, lives in a $250,000 house, both her and her husband drive Mercedes, and they have a boat on lake Mead that sleeps six. She needs more money like she needs a whole in the head. But, you see, she doesn't work. It doesn't matter that she's fortunate enough not to have to work, the fact is, she can claim NO INCOME and take me to the cleaners. Would someone care to explain to me what part of that situation is FAIR??????? Don't kid yourselvs either, there's plenty more men out there in the same boat I'm in. The system just plain isn't fair, and when a system isn't fair to both parties, it doens't work. Now we have this new proposed law. If it passes, my pay will be attached even though I make my payments. AND, every two years, the government will assure that my X will get a raise. Sorry, but there's a whole lot wrong with the law, both proposed, and present, and it shouldn't be passed.
471.29		MORRIS::BUSHEE	George Bushee	`Wed Sep 09 1987 14:14`	57
	A few have asked why those of us parents that do pay their child support payments on time without fault are upset about this. I will give some concerns that are just off the top of my head. I'm not sure is these are addressed by the bill or not, but it's worth thinking about. 1. Welfare currently has a payment structure based on the number of dependents. This system is taxed just to keep track of what is there now. How are they going to keep track of which family gets what amount from which source? 2. The way the bill is presented in .0 sounds as if the parents will no longer have any say as the an agreeable amount of support. Is it right to have two people each with say two children pay the same amount? How about if one of the men (or woman) is making $17K vs. the other making $65K? How about if one of the custodial parents is making more than the non-custodial parent? What is one custodial parent is working and the other isn't? 3. If i'm ordered to pay and now I get custody for say two or three weeks, months, whatever, who/what is going to insure the payments are not deducted from me and is deducted from the other parent for this period? If there isn't any provisions for this, then I ask how is going to suffer? (hint: not the adults.) 4. How is business going to pay for the extra work required of them in keeping the records to insure the proper amounts are deducted and sent to the proper state? (Don't forget, not all divorced parents live in the same state.) 5. Who is going to watch dog this operation to insure it doesn't go the way most other goverment programs do, or do we just take big brothers word everyone is getting just what the other parents is paying nothing more or less? These should do as starters. As a side note, I have my 16 year old son with me and have had him for the past two years. My divorce gave custody to my ex, but we agreed to have my son come live with me. We did not go back into court to have the papers changed to reflect this, under the bill proposed I'd have to hire a laywer to first change the agreement(if the courts decided to grant it), then to deal with the welfare and Digital, courts to stop the support payments. Would it also mean I wouldn't have a say if I got support or not? I don't soak her anything as it is now, but if this bill passed she could start getting a hunk of my pay just because she has the papers saying she has custody. I also don't trust goverment to insure the payments would stop once the child reached age. Would I have to go to court (hire another laywer) just to insure payments stopped when they should?
471.30	in responce to .24	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Wed Sep 09 1987 14:17`	109
	> We're not using any unfair methods. Inverting or significantly changing the question to serve your ends is a form of intellectual dishonesty. I have not engaged in emotionalism, I have simply requested you not employ such methods when responding. >Okay, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, but let me >try to rephrase it so that I can. Are you saying that trying >to keep track of all parents' payments, even those who are making >them on time will be greater than the gain collected from delinquent >parents? There is no need to rephrase what I have said. It is public record. My objections include another layer of government, further government intrusion into the personal lives of citizens, and further economic burden on the taxpayers who have nothing to do with a private family and their marital problems. I have further stated that such laws are already in effect and that I oppose more legislation to this end. > How do you know this would be true? You can ask me the >same question in reverse, but we won't get anywhere on it. We need >real figures and neither of us have them. Because this is only proposed legislation, of course there is no economic history that deals directly with said legislation. However, the sheer magnitude of administering such a program (as opposed to the court costs of handling individual difficulties as the court is petitioned) leads me to conclude that such a program would not be cost effective. The current welfare system, btw, is not cost effective. From an economic point of view, you should keep in mind that government are consumers, never producers. > I hope that those parents who have come to > a mutually agreeable plan will not be part of the plan. If that > were the case, then there would be no cost to the state for "keeping > track of them", so to speak. That would make the plan cost less, > and takes away your biggest argument against it (the one above). It is not clear to me from .0 that such agreements will be excluded from this legislation. <in fairness, the presentation of facts about this legislation by an interest group have a high probability of being slanted. I would prefer to read the senate bill myself> My biggest objection is further government interference in private affairs. This is not what government is chartered for. >NO, not every state has laws like Massachusetts. Have you ever >tried to get a court or a judge to enforce anything? It's EXTREMELY >difficult and expensive. I was not referring strictly to those statutes of the Commonwealth. I have used the court system to redress greivences. I was dealt with fairly. It was neither difficult nor expensive, though I grant that in can be. You can get help from groups like legal aid if you qualify, else you may get assistance from organizations such as the ACLU or others, depending on the nature of your difficulties. >Because it's not doing the job of collecting delinquent payments. >Children on welfare IS the state's business. If it can get them >off of welfare and get an able-bodied to support them, then that >IS the state's business - saving taxpayer money. This mechanism, again, is already in place. I fail to see how further legislation will change this and "save" taxpayer monies. > Ask some of the ex-spouses of delinquent payers in this file (Joyce?). > Ask some of the children of delinquent parents in this file. IT'S > NOT WORKING. The plan in .0 is addressing this. How would YOU > address it? I would address it on a case by case basis, not as a catch-all that penalizes all players. For those in this file that can offer testimony that the system has not worked for them, I am sure there are others that can show satisfaction of greivance when they found it prudent to petition the court. > Sounds suspiciously like rotten apples on your part. This is an incredible inference from someone who has never met me. Please document from my REPLYs the basis of the above statement. Or apologize. >Why do you insist that I pay for yet another function that results >in, at best a duplication of effort, and at worst State control >over an individuals financial life? You have yet to answer. >Also, as an aside, Ms Sullivan, your assertions as to why people >are incarcerated are pure conjecture on your part. \|And yours aren't? I made no assertions as to the reason of incarceration. I object to the generalities Ms Sullivan used in support of her argument. richard
471.31	Here's what I think	PNEUMA::SULLIVAN		`Wed Sep 09 1987 15:15`	37
	Mr. Higgins, please feel free to call me Justine. May I call you Richard? I think this issue may be one on which we disagree, though I suspect there may be greater concensus than we imagine. Rather than attack your ideas, I would like to present mine. I think there is a huge problem of children not receiving the child support payments that the courts have said they deserve. The issue of how child support amounts are determined may also need to be addressed, but I see it as a separate issue from how payments are collected. Secondly, I would support legislation which either creates new methods of ensuring payment of child support, or increases enforcement of existing laws. Clearly, there are loop holes in the existing laws. Thirdly, I think the proposed legislation (as it has been described) does need to be modified. For example, I see no need to involve the govt. when an amicable settlement has already been reached. But I think it should be a lot easier than it is for custodial parents (usually mothers) to "track down" non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who are delinquent in their payments. (Rathole) With regard to the "conjecture" on my part about why people go to jail.. It was not my intention to suggest that if you (collectively) don't pay your child support, your kid will end up in jail. I merely wanted to point out that children who are neglected are over represented in the prison population. Much of the documented neglect in this country is due not to malice but to lack of resources. This was not really conjecture on my part but a rough paraphrase of some sociological articles on the causes and ramifications of child neglect. It was my intention to call out the ways in which we all pay for children who are neglected. Justine
471.32	.28 sure got the shaft!	RAINBO::MODICA		`Wed Sep 09 1987 15:22`	8
	RE: .28 You mean you (or someone in a simliar situation) has no recourse when your wife has remarried and is living a very comfortable lifestyle? I believe what you say. I know of others in the same boat. Can't it be brought up in court that she remarried? Or are alimony and child support suppose to continue no matter how well off she becomes?
471.33	Unfortunately, it's true	CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Wed Sep 09 1987 15:47`	13
	RE: .32 The situation is thusly.......I pay child support, not alimony. Unless they adopt, her new husband has NO financial obligations to the child. Hence, she can claim NO INCOME and get away with it. The other problem is that we were divorced 8 years ago, and the child support payments are low compared to todays standards. Plus, there are new laws in place that weren't in place then that specify guide lines as to the amount of child support paid. Generally it's like 25% of GROSS income. Like I said, just like taxes, if the divorce laws were more fair, there wouldn't be as many deadbeats, or tax cheats.
471.34	Your Child is "Your" Child...not someone elses!	DISSRV::SCHREINER	Go ahead, make me PURRR...	`Wed Sep 09 1987 15:58`	19
	RE: .28 AND .32 If a woman were to remarry into a more comfortable lifestyle, does her new husband automatically have to assume responsibility for her ex husbands child or children??? Does the real father no longer have support responsibilities just because the mother remarried?? What if she had married someone without money?? I personally feel that no matter what financial situation a mother marries into, the father is still responsible for supporting his children. cin cin
471.35		VIKING::TARBET	Margaret Mairhi	`Wed Sep 09 1987 16:07`	12
	<--(.28, .33) Sounds like another of the many inequities we'll be plagued by until an ERA is passed and the paradigm changed. Right now we all seem to be in a miserable transitional state where things mostly don't work correctly or well. I wonder if this proposed bill would address your situation? It should. (By, e.g., compelling your ex-spouse to obtain paid employment so that she would be able to contribute her financial share.) =maggie
471.36	Fathers and children	YAZOO::B_REINKE	where the sidewalk ends	`Wed Sep 09 1987 16:08`	7
	Shouldn't the father also be able to have his kids with him for more than a few weeks when he is supporting them? I think some of the men here are upset that they have to pay no matter what, but have very little time with or influence over these children, who they once enjoyed and loved. Bonnie
471.37		YODA::HOPKINS		`Wed Sep 09 1987 16:13`	10
	Re .34 AMEN!!! I must commend the men out there who have said they do pay child support and on time but....there are some scum bags out there who don't pay without a fight and who don't care if their child lives in poverty or if they're alive at all. All they care about is having to give up some money. If a new husband has to take the responsibility of supporting his wife children from a previous marriage, then he should be allowed to adopt them.
471.38		CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Wed Sep 09 1987 16:27`	23
	RE: .34 I agree. A father should always be responsible for his child or children. However when does it reach a point of inequity where income is concerned. When does the court finally tell the woman, sorry, but you don't need it, instead of continually telling the man, your obligated even if it puts you on skid row. You talk about the fact that a wife's new husband shoudn't have to take on the responsibility of another man's child. How about MY new wife that has to deal with, either directly or indirectly with another MOTHERS child. Do you have any idea how much we CAN'T plan on because you never know when I might end up back in court and come out paying more????? RE: .35 As it was presented, I saw no indication where there was ANYTHING pertaining to the X wife. Only the support paying fathers. Steve
471.39	It's still YOUR responsibility!	DISSRV::SCHREINER	Go ahead, make me PURRR...	`Wed Sep 09 1987 17:45`	15
	re: .38 Maybe you should have married a rich woman!!! :-) The point I'm trying to make is that your the father of the child....the child is your responsibility. If your ex had married a poor man and you had married a rich woman, would that mean that you should pay her more??? NO, of course not, so why should you have to pay less because she married someone better off. You knew of your financial obligation to your child before you remarried. Remarrying does not mean that you do not have the same obligation to your child. cin
471.40	no apology from me	ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Wed Sep 09 1987 17:49`	11
	re .30: Richard Higgins: An apology? When h freezees over! Why don't you show a little compassion for some of the folks in this conference who have been on the other end? I think YOU are the one who owes US an apology. I have yet to hear a better plan from you. I'm willing to listen. -Ellen
471.41		TFH::MARSHALL	hunting the snark	`Wed Sep 09 1987 18:20`	36
	re .40: .40> I have yet to hear a better plan from you [Richard]. I'm willing to .40> listen. Then try reading instead of listening (or do you have a Dectalk?) .21> I will state once again and without ambiguity that there are presently .21> laws on the books to enforce collection of ordered alimony and/or .21> child support payments from deliquent parents. .30> I would address it on a case by case basis, not as a catch-all that .30> penalizes all players. For those in this file that can offer .30> testimony that the system has not worked for them, I am sure .30> there are others that can show satisfaction of greivance when .30> they found it prudent to petition the court. ===== > Why don't you show a little compassion for some of the folks in this > conference who have been on the other end? "showing a little compassion" entails supporting yet another totalitarian control over citizens? What does support of this bill have to do with compassion? What of compassion for those who will be victimized by this legislation? This bill is not compassion, it is revenge. > I think YOU [Richard] are the one who owes US an apology. Why? / ( ___ ) /// /
471.42	Please stay with the facts	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Wed Sep 09 1987 18:21`	18
	re.40 I have not been dispassionate to the problems of those parents who have custody and are not recieving their ordered support. You will find no evidence to contradict this. It is a smokescreen to accuse me of not having such compassion. You have no basis for this. I have stayed with the issue throught this note. Further, I have answered, in .30, how I would address the problem. Please address the issues. You made an unqualified remark about my motivations. You had no basis for such a remark. Substantiate your remark or retract it. Fairness dictactes such an action. richard
471.43	Various problems	SSDEVO::YOUNGER	This statement is false	`Wed Sep 09 1987 18:56`	60
	A few points: I personally find it insulting to all self-supporting women (esp mothers) with this law that suggests that all unmarried (divorced, never married) women are welfare cases. I would support this, except for several things. Who is going to pay for it? The custodial parent (say, 5-10% collection fee for brokering the transaction?), the non-custodial parent (see above), or the tax payers who didn't have children irresponsibly. Another thing is, that it says that "a man who is man enough to father a child better be responsible enough to support that child." I agree. But, don't women have any responsibilities to support their children? I feel that if the couple can determine a satisfactory arrangement, accounting for any special circumstances, this should not apply. Suppose the father is in school. Does he have to quit school in order to get a "workfare" job, to make the payments? The presumed parentage. If a woman becomes pregnant, and is unsure of parentage, the sensible (though, not ethical) thing for her to do is go for the richest possible father. I believe that most judges are reasonable people capable of making decisions. Why have this set of rigid guidelines that he needs to go by? He should be able to take everything into consideration and make a decision. If it is just a rubber stamp, why have the farce of the judicial system? What about the man who is not making his child support payments because the ex-wife has taken the children to parts unknown, and he doesn't even know where to send the check? Shouldn't there be something about fairness of visitation, and complying with court orders with that too? Shouldn't there be some consideration as to who is best able to provide for the children's physical, financial, emotional needs best, or always the mother. A mother who is unable to provide for herself may not be the best parent. Some consideration should be given to giving the father custody if he is better able to provide. Without the children she may not need welfare, and he may not need it either with the children. Certainly, we need ERA here. The current system has made things unfair to both sides, something needs to be changed, but not on the backs of the people who are acting responsibly, as well as business. What about rights to privacy, and to handle one's own finances unless proven irresposible? What about innocent until proven guilty? Why not just assume that all parents are irresponsible and take all children away from their parents when very young (or birth) and give them a good, safe, wholesome, state education like they do in the USSR and Isreal? Tax everyone for providing for our most valuable resource (children). Elizabeth
471.45	frustrated!	STUBBI::B_REINKE	where the sidewalk ends	`Wed Sep 09 1987 22:42`	2
	Ellen, why must you always assume that the men who write in this conference are the enemy?
471.46	The flames are melting my terminal...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Wed Sep 09 1987 23:35`	53
	RE: .45 Bonnie, let's not be too hasty to criticize Ellen for the fight that has developed in this note. She has multiple people attacking her as if SHE is the one who proposed the bill in the first place and is busy in Washington lobbying for it as we speak. I'm seeing words to her like "Why do YOU INSIST that..." [Emphasis mine.] This is not Soapbox nor is it the Senate floor. Ellen can't pass this bill all by herself. While I can sympathize with the men in this world who are faithfully paying for their child's support and resent being treated like criminals and/or errant debtors (with the gov't acting as judge/jury/collection_agency) -- the point is that the nice men who pay and pay and pay for their children are the exception rather than the rule (so something has to be done to make it easier to get the not-so-nice men to live up to their parental responsibilities.) It's a tough situation for everyone. Many of us in this conference are the Mothers of children who did *NOT* get support from their Fathers, so we may not have an over-abundance of sympathy for guys who do the "right thing" and will get caught up in the net that's being thrown out for the HUGE NUMBER of guys who don't pay. Myself -- I did not get child support, but the only divorced_ with_kids kind of guys that I ever meet/date are the kind that are paying big bucks for child support and are badly drained from it. Somewhere there are a bunch of guys who are living it up and no one knows where they are while their kids do without. It seems like there should be some sort of answer for a problem like that. I personally think that the Moynihan bill is too cumbersome to work (and would require so much money to run/manage/search_ for_fathers/collect_and_distribute_funds that it would never get off the ground properly.) I'd like to see them do something that would be effective in getting errant fathers to pay child support (without making ALL men feel like criminals/cheaters/etc.) There has to be a better way. Suzanne...
471.47	Strategic Divorce Initiative?	STAR::BECK	Paul Beck	`Wed Sep 09 1987 23:38`	21
	The problem with the bill is that it's far too broad-brushed an approach to the problem. It's often pointed out that to ensure freedom in this country, we must sometimes let criminals go free. (See Miranda decision etc.) While some will suggest that this attitude has swung too far to the lenient-to-criminals side, few will disagree with it on principal. This bill proposed the opposite tack. Everybody is presumed guilty until proven innocent. It deals not only with those children of broken marriages who would end up on welfare, but also those who would never end up on welfare. It penalizes not only with those non-custodial parents who fail to pay child support, but also those who do. It imposes impediments to individualized, per-case agreements between those parents themselves who are capable of arriving at an amicable arrangement (and despite the experiences of some who have written here, these are not that unusual, despite the best efforts of the legal profession). In some ways it reminds me of SDI ("Star Wars" to you mediaphiles): nobody denies that the problem being addressed cries out for a solution, but at what cost, and with what probability of success?
471.49	????	PSYCHE::SULLIVAN		`Thu Sep 10 1987 10:34`	26
	Bonnie, Where on earth did that come from?!!!! As long as there are men and women in this file talking about "issues of interest to women," there will be disagreements between men and women. There are disagreements between women and between men as well, but the arguments that men and women have with each other seem to get more heated precisely because we do often (whether rightly or wrongly) see each other as the oppressor. I don't think it's always or even often a direct blaming, but I think we (men and women) look at each other and see something that we want but don't have. I get angry when it feels to me that men in this file can't (and sometimes in my anger I translate that to mean won't) hear what we are saying. I imagine they often feel the same way about women. But to hear one woman deny another's anger really makes me sad. I don't think Ellen has painted the men in this file as "the enemy" at all; she has simply not given in. She has continued to argue her perceptions and opinions of a very emotionally loaded issue. Women who refuse to back down are often accused of being paranoid or too emotional or confrontational... in other words, not nice enough. It's a very effective tactic; undermine the opponent's own sense of worth. I hope that we won't see those kinds of attacks in Womannotes. Justine
471.50		CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Thu Sep 10 1987 10:38`	56
	RE: .39 I havn't been able to figure out yet wether your not reading, not understanding, or just don't care. I suspect the latter. Allow me to repeat my very first sentence of reply .38 (caps are for emphasis, not shouting) "I AGREE. A FATHER SHOULD ALWAYS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CHILD OR CHILDREN." >Why should you have to pay less because she married someone better >off. I never said anything about paying less. I'm trying to point out the ambiguity in the current laws which allow the custodial parent to request, and in most cases get more money when neither she NOR the child need it. The proposed new ligislation would make this fact AUTOMATIC with apparently no recourse on the part of the non custodial parent. It only serves to make a bad situation worse. I'm quite sure that there are many many divorced people out there that have a very amicable agreement between them that goes something like this "As long as things are comfortable and there are no special needs, then I (the custodial parent) will not ask for more money. If things change, or there are special needs, then we will discuss the need for more money." AGAIN, the proposed new ligislation takes this ability away from intelligent adults, capable of working things like this out between themselves, and leaves the Govt. telling the non custodial parent HOW MUCH they will pay, WHEN they will pay it, WHEN they will pay more, and HOW MUCH MORE they will pay. So, for about the tenth time, it is NOT equitable, and should not be passed. You have also very nicely lumped me in with all those who DO NOT pay child support. I sited very specific examples of my particular situation, and resent your generalization. I do a hell of a lot for my son and do a lot of things that I could fight, but choose not too. >You knew of your financial obligation to your child before you >remarried. Remarrying does not mean that you do not have the same >obligation to your child. If you can point out to me in any of the replies I've made here ANYWHERE where I have said ANYTHING about remarrying having anything to do with any less of an obligation to my son, I wish you would show me. The only thing obvious to me from your reply is that you think that men are responsible for all divorces, and they should pay through the nose and never be allowed to live a normal life again. After all, they certainly don't deserve it right? Steve
471.51		NEXUS::CONLON		`Thu Sep 10 1987 10:44`	22
	RE: .49 I agree. Obviously, some of the men came here to discuss this issue (rather than go to MENNOTES to talk about it) because they were angry/frustrated and wanted to fight about it. They came here LOOKING for the arguments that they've gotten (can't you see how much they love it?) :-) Seriously, there is no reason why we should back down in an argument if we feel strongly about it. Take a look at the first notes from the angry men in this note and you'll notice how they were FURIOUS before they ever even GOT here. Some of the opening lines are what might be called "Fightin' words" in the Old West. Let's see this particular argument for what it is. Suzanne...
471.52	Glad we could be of help in this issue...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Thu Sep 10 1987 11:00`	10
	Just checked out the SOAPBOX version of this note, and one could use it to lull the little ones to sleep at night. Several MEN in that note seemed to agree with the bill (or at least didn't object to it as strenuously as other men did.) No good fighting potential at all there, though. No wonder they came here to fight. Suzanne...
471.53		SUPER::HENDRICKS	Not another learning experience!	`Thu Sep 10 1987 11:02`	14
	How would people feel about the "honor system" of making child support payments as long as it works for both parties, and a back up measure much like the proposed bill when it is not working according to either party? "Not working" would have to include situations like Jim's where he feels deprived of the right to spend time with his children. People should also be entitled to a speedy hearing, or even mediation. The children suffer when these issues drag on and on in court.
471.54	just imagine...and weep	LEZAH::BOBBITT	face piles of trials with smiles	`Thu Sep 10 1987 12:14`	22
	I just had a horrifying thought. Suppose, just for the sake of scaring yourself, that Bork IS some of the negative that the media and propagandists say he is...and suppose he is nominated...and instated...and the Roe V. Wade decision which legalized abortion is overturned...and perhaps even birth control is regulated or somehow made difficult/illegal to use or whatever. What will happen to all the unwanted pregnancies that NEITHER parent wants to keep...be they married or living together...young or old...poor or rich (although the rich could probably always find what they want if they're willing to pay). Will this result in an incredible increase in the birth rate, and perhaps a reflected growth in adoption because the children are unwanted? Will the phrase "you play - you pay" come in and make us all miserable? Will we all bear the financial burden caused by this possibility? Boy - sterilization IS starting to look like an alternative... (shaking head sadly) -Jody
471.55	but they are....	BUFFER::LEEDBERG	Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth	`Thu Sep 10 1987 13:12`	32
	As one of the mothers of children whose father did not pay (or paid very little on a when ever he felt like it basis) I have a hard time even reading the response by the most of the men in this note. Last week my son entered college - which his father for 10 years told him he would never do. His father is a very well paid consultant for DEC (he may even be a real employee soon). His father is not paying a dime for his son's education or support and hasn't for the past year. My daughter is living on her own - she left school because of problems. When she came to live with me 2 1/2 years ago it was because her father treated her like shit. I have had to buy her glasses and contacts get her to the dentist and doctor, even when she was living with her father. I paid her medical bills, I carry insurance for both kids and provide clothes when I can afford to. I have not had my kids with me for most of the past 7 years because I could not but food and clothes and pay medical bills for them, and provide a roof over their heads. Their father would not give me money to care for HIS children he was to busy by COKE for him and his wife. _peggy (-) \| Thank the Goddess I have a son now I can't be a manhater
471.56	WRONG!!!!!	CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Thu Sep 10 1987 13:21`	33
	RE: .51 .52 Sorry Suzanne, but I didn't come here looking for a fight. The issue I've been debating is over proposed new ligislation and wether it is good or bad. The only additional anger I've shown is with replies from people who want to insist that all men are bums and need to be "kept in line." What's so supprising about the fact that the SOAPBOX version contains little debate on the issue. The issue of divorce involves MEN and WOMEN. Where else would you go to debate both sides of the issue? WOMANNOTES???????? My, what a strange place. Was I angry to begin with, you bet. There's no doubt in my mind though that you see no reason for that anger, but that's no supprise either. Wether you choose to acknowledge it or not, I've made many valid points here. There are PROBLEMS with the current system which only add to the problems women are having. This new legislation is NOT a fix for those problems. It is only a much more rigid extension of the existing problems. Yes, I'm angry, and I and a lot of other divorced fathers have a right to be. The divorce laws as they stand now border on descrimination. The woman can do no wrong, and the men are automatically bums. There's a whole lot of topics in this conference dealing with the women being on the short end of the stick. Was there anger there??? Only enough to start my terminal smoking. But, then again, thats different isn't it................... Steve
471.57	Lose/lose	DSSDEV::BURROWS	Jim Burrows	`Thu Sep 10 1987 13:38`	12
	I repeat. There is no win. There is no fair solution. Both men and women and their children, if any, are victimized by divorce. The divorced men here have their litany of descrimination and unfair treatment. The women have theirs. Most ex-spouses are painted in pretty terrible lights. And none of it is surprising. A family is split in half. One household becomes two households with half the resources at most of the original. At least one parent is deprived of their child half the time. The children have half their home, half their family. Of course everyone suffers. There is no win here. There is no fair solution. JimB.
471.58	Shall we call it a draw?	PSYCHE::SULLIVAN		`Thu Sep 10 1987 13:52`	27
	So where do we go from here? Some of us are angry about this proposed legislation, and others of us are angry about the current child support (non)payment issue and think that a bill like this one (I don't think anyone in this conference has suggested that it ought to become law without modification) ought to be passed.. if it will help. If the purpose of raising this topic here was to find out what the folks in Womannotes think about it, then I think you've gotten a fair number of responses. If the purpose was to let off steam about it (a valid thing to do, certainly), then maybe Mennotes would provide a more sympathetic audience. Perhaps there are just too many women in this file who have had to raise children without adequate financial assistance from their ex-spouse for you to get the kind of support you seem to want. It doesn't feel like anyone is going to change her or his mind on this issue, and I hate to see us poking at each other about sinister motives for believing as we do. It's lousy to have to worry about not having enough money for food, clothing and shelter for your children, and it's also lousy to feel that you are not being allowed to fully participate in your child's life. What else is there to say about this? Justine
471.59	Are you trying to compliment us ????	NEXUS::CONLON		`Thu Sep 10 1987 14:02`	32
	RE: .56 Steve, please don't try to read my mind (believe me, at the moment, all you would see in it right now are 800 block diagrams for the Review Board that I am appearing before in two weeks.) You don't know for a fact that I don't understand your anger as a divorced father. True, I don't know what it's like to get a child support check (and since my son is going on 17, it is doubtful that his Dad will have a change of heart and start helping us at this point.) Am I angry about it? Not particularly. I've had a long time to get used to being on my own. A few hundred dollars per month at THIS point would barely make a dent in my son's FOOD bill, anyway, so I might as well pay for everything myself. When WOMEN get angry, why is it that we prefer to talk to each other about it (in WOMANNOTES) rather than go stir up trouble in MENNOTES -- yet, when MEN get angry, they'd rather talk to WOMEN (in WOMANNOTES) rather than go stir up trouble in MENNOTES. Are we really THAT interesting (or is it that you guys find it that difficult to talk to each other about things that matter.) If we ARE that interesting, why don't you show a little more appreciation for the hard work it takes to "discuss" everything with you guys all the time. Suzanne...
471.60		CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Thu Sep 10 1987 14:13`	10
	RE: .57 .58 Your right, and Jim's right. It's a shame, that's about all that can be said of any divorce (abused women excepted). We're certainly not going to get the bill changed, or passed, or whatever here. My appologies to Suzanne also. Steve
471.61		NEXUS::CONLON		`Thu Sep 10 1987 14:28`	11
	RE: .60 No apology necessary (not for me, anyway.) I've been known to let off a bit of steam myself here (and a few other places.) :-) Want to see a picture of CI packet transmission phase encoding? Let me know. :-) :-) Suzanne...
471.62	not answered	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Thu Sep 10 1987 15:17`	20
	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note 471.42 '''Family Security Act''' 42 of 61 HARRY::HIGGINS "Citizen of Atlantis" 18 lines 9-SEP-1987 17:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re.40 Please address the issues. You made an unqualified remark about my motivations. You had no basis for such a remark. Substantiate your remark or retract it. Fairness dictactes such an action. richard
471.63		VIKING::TARBET	Margaret Mairhi	`Thu Sep 10 1987 15:47`	5
	For a whole new perspective on the potential future for non-custodial parents, please read 417.41. That's scary. =maggie
471.64		ULTRA::GUGEL	Don't read this.	`Fri Sep 11 1987 19:37`	8
	re .62: As I SAID very plainly before - you're not getting one. Can't you read or something? Have a nice weekend :-) -Ellen
471.65	My final statement on your conduct here	HARRY::HIGGINS	Citizen of Atlantis	`Sat Sep 12 1987 12:45`	15
	Yes, I can read. I will say again you have not been able to substantiate your assertions regarding my motivations. I have asked you to either substantiate them or retract them. You cannot do one and will not do the other. I conclude that your remarks about me are a lie and a smear. richard
471.66	please let us bring this to a halt	STUBBI::B_REINKE	where the sidewalk ends	`Sat Sep 12 1987 13:16`	9
	The current exchange would be better taken off line by mail... I don't think that this kind of exchange serves a useful purpose to the subject of the note, nor to the conference as a whole. thankyou Bonnie J moderator
471.67	I sense hatred in your notes...	DONNER::BERRY	Well, what would YOU say?	`Sun Sep 13 1987 10:22`	22
	Ellen.....I believe Richard was addressing his points to YOU, not US, or WE !!! Why do you try to surround the rabbit with a pack of hounds ???!!! Are you just upset with Richard, or have you declared "war" on all men ??? Your re: .22 to Jim.... >Hey, Jim, do you get so riled up about all unfairness in the >world or just when it hits your paycheck? >Complaining about unfairness is valid if you complain about ALL >unfairness. In this file, it's only one issue with you and that's >MONEY, how your ex-wife is a louse, whine, gripe, sniffle, pooooooor >me. What comments !!! Seems you are saying that a person MUST discuss the entire world's problems, and not take them on as a "one on one" issue. Hummmmmmm... interesting...... Regards, Dwight
471.68	Let's try to get some perspective here...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Sun Sep 13 1987 17:36`	28
	RE: .67 I've been back through this whole note trying to figure out what HORRENDOUS thing Ellen said to Richard that would cause him to CALL HER A LIAR (which he did) a couple of notes back. He keeps repeatedly asking her to prove "something" (and I had to dig and dig to find out what he was talking about.) The best I can determine is that she said (about him): "It sounds suspiciously like rotten apples on your part." Now, give me a break here. Do you consider a statement like that a sign of hatred (and HORRENDOUS enough for Richard to still be chasing Ellen down 40 notes later with demands for an apology and claiming that she is a LIAR since she has refused to PROVE her theory?) C'mon -- we still have multiple people attacking Ellen. Not to mention the fact that some of the most HOSTILE notes in this topic have come from the very people who are ATTACKING Ellen. We already achieved a measure of peace on this topic -- let's leave well enough alone and decide that we are NOT, in fact, on the Senate floor and cannot hope to solve this thing in this forum. Suzanne...
471.69	Come on already!!	NEWVAX::BOBB	I brake for Wombats!	`Mon Sep 14 1987 12:20`	32
	<flame > Well....this has certainly downgraded into a, shall I say, "interesting" topic.... I don't get a chance to read this notesfile very often, usually once every 3 - 4 weeks. And when I see that I have 3000 unread notes and then find out that a lot of them (nomatter what the topic, this file seems to have a tendency to downgrade into name-calling) are at the point of a "did not...." "did to....." "did not....." type of subject, I'm tempted to delete the whole entry. <end of flame> I like the idea of some type of "family security act", but as a way to get those that aren't doing their fair share. What I would like to see is something like this to be used when the parties can't (or won't) work something out. Let the divorcing couple figure out the finances and if it works, then there would be no need to enforce this bill. But, if one of them skips out, then there is a national law that would help the spouse left with the kids and bills. And it does need to be a national law, otherwise the "move to the next state" syndrome would continue. But, I wouldn't want to see a law that would automatically decide what is going to happen without either of the parties having any say in it. Laws like that only sound good on paper, usually in real-life they are a complete nightmare! janet b.
471.70	catchin' up...	YODA::BARANSKI	Law?!? Hell! Give me Justice!	`Sat Sep 19 1987 16:55`	343
	RE: .22 Tit for Tat, Ms. Gugel. Why is it that you only seem to be concerned with women's issues? I at least acknowledge many of the problems women face, even if I differ on the solutions, and I don't berate at you for not subscribing to men's newsletters, and typing in D00 line articles which are important to people other then in the class which they belong to. For your information, this will not "hit only your[my] paycheck". It will effect countless people's paycheck. To a large extent, that is why I go to the trouble. If it effected only my paycheck, I would take a much more personal way of resolving it. You may be sick of it... Well, I am sick of it too. But still nothing has been done about it. Every person I talk to from the mother on up, claims that their hands are tied. I don't believe it. I will continue my my efforts, untill something is done about it. I take Luke 18, the parable of the persistant widow to heart. Why do I post this in Womennotes? Obviously, you forgot the explaination I gave in my last note. I do it because women deserve to know what is being done in their name. I am not here for sympathy, although the sympathy that I have recieved is very dear to me. I am here for education, because other people need to hear of this for something to be done. It will do no good to hide it in a corner in Mennotes, or in a DIVORCE file. Oddly enough, I also placed the article in Mennotes, and it has gotten very little response. It is not contraversial there; it will change no minds there. Yes, I am often a glutton for punishment, especially when it is for something which I feel is important. "You're certainly not convincing any of the women of this file on this matter. You didn't before." I certainly did change some women's minds; mothers who had been deserted by the fathers, no less. Do you insist that I name them? "When is MONEY more important than a child's welfare and future? NEVER, in my opinion." The tradeoff is not between money, and the children's welfare. As every child who has only one parent has told me, 'I'd rather have the parent then the money.' You are right, money is not important. By that same sweeping generalization: 'money is not important', it should not matter if any child support is ever paid. Obviously a fallacy. The best course is moderation. If I were only concerned with money, then why do I keep insisting on my right to spend equal time with my children as well? Whether I have the children, and support them, or pay child support, I would still have to spend that money on them, wouldn't I? Actually, I would be better off merely paying the child support, which is supposed to be some fraction of the costs of the children, rather then supporting them myself which entails all of theier costs. Worse yet, I am currently paying outrageous child support, and supporting them as close to half time as I can get them three days a week. '''Obviously I'm only concerned about money!''' 'Which will cost more? Welfare, or the FSA?' Well, It should cost about the same to support an equal number of children. The difference is that the overhead for FSA would be double for an equal number of children. But, FSA is not limited to an equal number of children, FSA applies to all children of divorce, at least another doubling, and I would estimate more on the order of a tenfold increase compared to a more rational plan where it is encouraged for both parents to continue parenting. True, such a plan would have other costs, but it would also gain innumerable benifits in the children still having both parents. Of course the other difference is who is paying. Currently all taxpayers are paying for the 50%-10% half of the support not being paid. The cost would supposedly be shifted to all of the divorced parents. Yet, FSA doesn't make it any harder to duck payments then the current laws. What's the point? "At first, it may cost a bit more, but it will save money in the long run." There are no such declining costs in the FSA. It's double overhead, all the time, for all divorced parents. All I can say, is that cost, to me, is not a factor in whether or not to "Do The Right Thing". RE: .24 "NO, not every state has laws like Massachusetts. Have you ever tried to get a court or a judge to enforce anything? It's EXTREMELY difficult and expensive." I will repeat: Every state has laws with similiar laws to enforce child support payments by Attachment of wages. Yes, I have tried to get a court to enforce; it is extremely difficult and expensive. This law only makes the situation default to the worst situation. The current effort to get child support attached to wages is by a couple of orders of magnetude easier then enforcing noncustodian parents rights; what little they legally have. Try doing something about that, instead of merely making the worst, the default. You are strangely silent on the topic of "Presumed Paternity", despite being asked of it several times... That is the worst part of the FSA, not that FSA should appliy to all divorced parents. Why? "IT'S NOT WORKING. The plan in .0 is addressing this. How would YOU address it?" But the FSA perposes to nothing better then apply the worst situaion which 'DOES NOT WORK' to everybody. How do you think it will work any better? I have continually stated how I would address it; foster the involvement of both parents in the lives of the children. I would estimate that is all fathers were given the wherewithal to be invovled with their children, only about 10% of the parents would choose to disappear. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think that I am considerably closer to the subject then you. I know because I could easily be one of those parents who disappears... "Sounds suspiciously like rotten apples on your part." No rotten apples here... I will not deign to reciprocate in your fashion. RE: .29 point 3 That's no change... In the recent MA system, if a father gets custody of their children for the summer, they must *still* have to make those child support payments to the mother. How many fathers are going to be able to do that? The results, the child doesn't get to spend the summer with the father! RE: .31 "I think there is a huge problem of children not receiving the child support payments that the courts have said they deserve. The issue of how child support amounts are determined may also need to be addressed, but I see it as a separate issue from how payments are collected." I will assuredly agree with the former. The latter is included in the FSA which is one of the things I am upset about. And again, the FSA does not improve collection. RE: .34 I have to agree that married custodial parents spouses should not have to pay the noncustodial parents support. Yet, surely at least the mother should be considered to have some income. Women working at home are worth money, right? I think that every parent should be considered to be working. In addition, when a custodial parent remarried, the arrangement is made more efficient in that the overhead of a household is split three ways instead of only two. This should be taken into account. Especially when there is not enough money to go around between the custodial and noncustodial parents household. RE: .35 "By, e.g., compelling your ex-spouse to obtain paid employment so that she would be able to contribute her financial share." No mention of any such arrangement is in the FSA. RE: .36 You got that right. Plus the fact that you still have to pay support for the time you have them. RE: .37 "If a new husband has to take the responsibility of supporting his wife children from a previous marriage, then he should be allowed to adopt them." Yes, or course, which is the current state of affairs, although the process is complicated if the noncustodial parent cannot be located. Yet, oddly enough, the noncustodial parents located for adpotion permission seem to not want to give up that right, even though that would release them from demands of money. This doesn't square with the statements of some that all that these people care about is having to not pay child support. RE: .38 Good point. Spouses who do marry noncustodial parents do end up paying part of the bill for child support by subsidizing their spouses. RE: .39 "Maybe you should have married a rich woman!!!" I don't see how that would lessen the inequity. "If your ex had married a poor man and you had married a rich woman, would that mean that you should pay her more???" The point where a woman would need more money because she married a poor man is quite below the pay the man could get at least slinging burgers. Three cannot live as cheaply as three, but it's pretty close; adding a spouse does not cost much, but you should at least be able to count on your spouse carrying their own weight, which many noncustodial parents/fathers could not do becasue of outrageous proposed/recent child support payments. My advice to a custodial parents who marries a deadbeat who will not pull his own weight, or get a job; KICK 'EM OUT! "Remarrying does not mean that you do not have the same obligation to your child." Yes, but whether that obligation is necessary or just is in question. And the necessary obligation necessary drops even without the custodial couple having to pay more; the overhead is divided betwen more people. This should be taken into account, especially when the noncustodial parent does not have enough pay left to live on (at some point below the custodial families standard of living. RE: .43 "What about the man who is not making his child support payments because the ex-wife has taken the children to parts unknown, and he doesn't even know where to send the check?" That's a good question... Where will such child support deductions go? To the State, along with the ~100$ a year per custodial case overhead charge? What A gold mine... I wish I could do what the State does... RE: .46 I have seen no attacks made on Ellen similiar to Ellen's comments: "Yawn Please excuse me if I don't share your outrage." "Hey, Jim, do you get so riled up about all unfairness in the world or just when it hits your paycheck? I find your selfishness in this matter (your children) abominable. I am sick and tired of your gd whining! We said that before! Why don't you crawl back over to mennotes and make an issue out of it where you might be able to get real sympathy? You must be a glutton for punishment. You're certainly not convincing any of the women of this file on this matter. You didn't before. Why do you think it will be different this time? In this file, it's only one issue with you and that's MONEY, how your ex-wife is a louse, whine, gripe, sniffle, pooooooor me." This topic is not about my situation, so I have not brought it up. The Topic of child support was about my situation, amoung others, so I brought up my situation, amoung others. "Sounds suspiciously like rotten apples on your part." "An apology? When h freezees over! Why don't you show a little compassion for some of the folks in this conference who have been on the other end? I think YOU are the one who owes US an apology." "Can't you read or something?" Finally, I will not go into Ellen's, what appears to me to be, illogic. "the point is that the nice men who pay and pay and pay for their children are the exception rather than the rule." The worst estimate is 50%. I claim that under a fair system the number would be ~10%. and FSA will not help over and above current legislation. "Many of us in this conference are the Mothers of children who did *NOT* get support from their Fathers," I truely beg your pardon, but If I recall some of what you have said, you did not give your children father much of a chance to continue being his father, did you? And if he had changed his mind, and wanted to see, or have him that would be quite difficult, and you would not make it easy, IE live in the same locale. This is the worst of all, where a father has had zero rights to his child from square one and would not have any idea how to go about claiming his rights, knows nothing about their children. This includes many abortion, and possibly adoption cases! RE: .53 "How would people feel about the "honor system" of making child support payments as long as it works for both parties, and a back up measure much like the proposed bill when it is not working according to either party?" That would be better, but as has been pointed out before, any system which is grossly inequitable, such as the present system, will not work well. Since you bring up my case, I will use it to illustrate the point. The Court could care less that I feel deprived of the right to spend time with my children. As far as they are concerned, I should only get to spend half of every other weekend with them, and I should not have them overnight at all. Yet I do claim I deserve equal rights and responsibilities to my children. RE: .55 Thank you very much for your story Peggy. I mean that... RE: .57 "There is no win here. There is no fair solution." That there is no win in the divorce, I will agree with. That there are not some people whom make out like bandits after the divorce, I disagree with that. That there can be no fair equitable solution where everybody loses equally and fairly, that I deny strongly. Quite a few people have had stories where an equitable solution was found, or at least both parties thought so, and isn't that all that matters? I also claim that the children can have more than half... RE: .58 "I don't think anyone in this conference has suggested that it ought to become law without modification." Several of the beginning notes indicated that they could care less if it was modified. "Perhaps there are just too many women in this file who have had to raise children without adequate financial assistance from their ex-spouse for you to get the kind of support you seem to want." Several such women have given me the support which I felt I deserved. One very special woman gives me the support which I do not deserve! "What else is there to say about this?" Well, I might suggest that we hammer out what we think is the best compromise, use it to form a petition, and start getting signitures, and send it to every government critter and their brother... RE: .59 "A few hundred dollars per month at THIS point would barely make a dent in my son's FOOD bill," It seems like ~700$+ a month should make a substantial dent in a food bill. "When WOMEN get angry, why is it that we prefer to talk to each other about it (in WOMANNOTES) rather than go stir up trouble in MENNOTES -- yet, when MEN get angry, they'd rather talk to WOMEN (in WOMANNOTES) rather than go stir up trouble in MENNOTES." Hmmm, using Ellen's idea, that would lead me to believe that you all women just want sympathy, while us all men want to thrash the problem out... Or could it be that Men actually do want to learn from/about women, but women could care less? Not a parting shot, but there's no more notes to reply to, finally. Thank God. Jim.
471.71	Breath before length	BUFFER::LEEDBERG	Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth	`Sat Sep 19 1987 21:52`	21
	re. 70 Sorry, I only read 50 lines of long notes. If you had anything with noting after that I missed it. As far as Ms. Gugel being concerned with women's issues - Huh! THIS IS WOMENNOTES isn't it? For topics concerning women. Just what do you expect to see in this conference? Personally I am tired of taking on all of the worlds problems en masse and have opted for dealing with what most effects my life which happen to be "women's issues". _peggy (-) \| There are WOMEN and then there are other people.
471.72		NEXUS::CONLON		`Sat Sep 19 1987 23:48`	66
	RE: .71 Well, I actually DID make it to the end of your novel, Jim, and I'd like to address the comments you made to me. I truly beg your pardon, too, Jim, but you are totally wrong about my situation. You claimed that I did not give my son's father "much of a chance" to "be a father" to him (or made it quite difficult, or whatever.) My son's father (who paid ZERO in child support) had unlimited visitation priv's with Ryan. HE (the Dad) was the one who moved away from us. He hadn't seen Ryan in two years when we then moved farthur away. As for your comments about why women write in this file (versus why MEN write) -- I'm sure that the reasons are similar (that both men and women turn to this file for discussion and some measure of support and/or sharing of experiences.) However, expecting us to feel the same sort of outrage that YOU feel about the gov't's programs to collect child support money is a bit unrealistic (when so many of us have been on the OTHER SIDE of the coin and have gotten poor or NO support from the fathers of our children.) That doesn't mean we are necessarily cold to your plight -- many of us (including Ellen) said that we didn't like the idea of using this new program on the fathers who DO faithfully pay child support. Myself, I said that I dislike the idea of treating paying fathers like criminals. That would include most of the concerned Dads who are writing in this note, I would think. Your concerns about your children (the concerns that you write about in notes) seem to mostly center around dollars and cents. Since the kids don't live with you, then you should get a discount on their expenses. If the kids visit you, then it isn't fair that the child support for THAT DAY still goes to the Mom. It sounds to me like you have fairness and divorced fatherhood down to pennies per hour (and that losing money when the kids are with you is a major concern in your life.) Sorry if that doesn't sound totally healthy to me. I've paid 100% of Ryan's expenses for 16 and a half years and it is something that I rarely even think about. He is my child and I'm just glad that I have been able to keep a roof over his head all these years and give him a reasonable life. If not for him, I probably wouldn't have worked as hard as I have (and wouldn't be this far in my career.) He has been my main inspiration since the day I started 4 years of college (when he was one year old.) I owe most of what I have to my love for him. I never think about what it has cost me to raise him all these years. If his Dad had supported us and would have severely bitched about dollars and cents to me, I'd have told him to take his money and stuff it. No amount of support money would have been enough to be worth spending 21 years listening to someone gripe about money for my child. (In that light, I'm probably lucky that I have been able to raise Ryan by myself without having to answer to his Dad about anything/everything.) If that new law passes, you can bet that Ryan's Dad is safe from having the gov't take money out of HIS check. No way will I ask for his money or allow the gov't to take it from him. We are fine on our own and we like it that way. Suzanne...
471.73	Tell us about the GOOD parts of Daddyhood, too, sometime...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Sat Sep 19 1987 23:56`	19
	P.S. Jim, I realize that my view of your notes is somewhat slanted cuz I don't read PARENTS or other files that you write in about your children. Congrats on the second little boy -- I'm sure that your little guys give you a lot of love and fatherly happiness (and I'd really be interested to hear about the HAPPY, SATISFYING part of Fatherhood with your boys.) I've seen other incredibly loving Fathers in this conference (divorced ones, too) and that is something that nearly ALL of us can relate to in some way (and would probably love hearing about.) Best wishes to you the little guys, Suzanne...
471.74	Correction of typo...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Sun Sep 20 1987 00:50`	10
	<------------------------------------ that was supposed to be: Best wishes to you AND the little guys, Suzanne... :-)
471.75	I ENVY YOU!	YODA::BARANSKI	Law?!? Hell! Give me Justice!	`Sun Sep 20 1987 16:37`	124
	RE: .71 Too bad you didn't read the whole thing... There were even comments directed specifally to you. Does that mean that you never read more then 50 lines of .0, as well??? "As far as Ms. Gugel being concerned with women's issues - Huh! THIS IS WOMENNOTES isn't it? For topics concerning women." My point is that although Ellen does not seem to be concerned with the other side of the coin, I do not go out of my way to lambast her about it. I do not give her the priveledge to do it to me. In any case I feel that it is unwarrented; I do care about people other then myself, and the people in my class, and work actively to help other people whom I come in contact with in my life. You bring up another point for me bringing this topic into WOMANNOTES. FSA is a WOMAN topic! "Just what do you expect to see in this conference?" If you had bothered to read any further, you would have found out. Really, people do have the right to skip notes which they are uninterested in, but it does not make much sense to REPLY without reading... "Personally I am tired of taking on all of the worlds problems en masse and have opted for dealing with what most effects my life which happen to be "women's issues"." Perhaps that is best, that people work on those issues which they are best aquinted with. Yet, when it costs me little or nothing to agree or give a little support of some kind, I feel that it is to DTRT to cooperate with those causes a can support. RE: .72 Suzanne, I really didn't remember all the details of the personal mail we've exchanged, but I went and looked them up. I won't go into details. I feel quite a bit awkward even bringing it up, as it was personal mail, and not NOTES. But the impression I had from you mail was that you really were quite happy to be without the father. In such cases, I feel that it is quite unfair in such a case to bitch about not recieving child support. I personally know of women who have never told the fathers of their children that they were indeed the father, and other women who have not acknowledged the fathers. Again, I feel that it is quite unfair in such a case to bitch about not recieving child support. Yet, all these cases are being used in the statistics as 'poor helpless women and children those fathers have cruelly abandoned them'. In a Pig's Eye. "Your concerns about your children (the concerns that you write about in notes) seem to mostly center around dollars and cents." Not true. I have had to write quite a bit to 'justify' (as if I should have to) that I should have them at all. It has been quite a bit of struggle to get them to be able to stay with me overnight at all. But thankfully, one which I have been moderately successfull at. It is true "Since the kids don't live with you, then you should get a discount on their expenses." When have I ever said anything, except that I should have equal rights and responsibilities with my children? "Sorry if that doesn't sound totally healthy to me." Alright, you telll me what would be healthy? Should I get a second so that I do not have the time to spend with my children, and my life consists of sleeping, eating, and working? Should I just give up, and be frustrated for the rest of my life? Should I just disappear as I feel that many fathers have been emotionally, and financially forced to? Sorry, none of those alternatives sound very healthy to me. "It sounds to me like you have fairness and divorced fatherhood down to pennies per hour (and that losing money when the kids are with you is a major concern in your life.)" I don't like to bring this up, since certain noters are tired of hearing of my story, but... It is a major concern for me, because despite everything that I can do, I go a couple hundred more in debt each month. I expect that when this business has reached the end to declare bankruptcy, being about 30K$ in debt, and having no assets. In the mean time, I am surviving by going in debt; I am sure not living high on the hog! I don't know what will happen after that, when I no longer have credit... Is this right? Is this fair? Is this of my own doing because of poor financial planning, or spending? No. It is not. "I've paid 100% of Ryan's expenses for 16 and a half years and it is something that I rarely even think about." Yes, you have, and from what I know, your expenses have been quite low; you have lived quite modestly, and have worked quite hard. But, and this is very important; you have had your son with you all these years. As I have pointed out again, and again, if my only concern as for money, I would have been gone, long ago. I want to be able to have my sons with me, and I want to be able to support them. I would many times over rather have the situation that you have had, in having your son, and supporting him, then the situation that I have, not having my sons, and still supporting them, or having them, and supporting them, and still having to pay their mother child support. You are right, it sucks having to argue about money, and having to beg and plead for your own money. At the start of my divorce their mother repeatedly told me to take off, and told me that I would never have to pay any child support as long as I got lost. I would not leave my children! She tried to leave the state with them herself, and I had to get a court order to stop her. I would not let her take my children from me. Since I have insisted on continuing to be their father, she is intent on sucking me for everything I have. I ENVY YOU! If I don't get any bitching from noters, you may hear more about my personal situation. Otherwise, you'll just have to read WORDS::PARENTING and VADER::PARENTING_V1. Jim.
471.76	One Thing at a Time	PNEUMA::SULLIVAN		`Sun Sep 20 1987 18:04`	55
	It seems like there are 2 distinct issues here, and we get into trouble when we try to talk about both at once. The first issue is: How should the issues of child custody and child support be resolved? It strikes me that before the majority of women entered the fulltime-working-for-dollars workforce and before the majority of men acknowledged (in a public way) their need for a more direct role in raising children, custody and $$ issues followed a fairly standard course-- Mother stays home with kids, father pays %(salary) and sees kids %(time). The problems we're now facing have a lot to do with the fact that the times have changed, but the way judges make decisions haven't. The old custody and $$ formulae don't work very well. In the case of a friendly divorce, sometimes the parents can work out creative solutions that best meet their needs. But if there is anger and bitterness (fairly common elements in some divorces, I should think), then the bad situation gets worse, as children and money get viewed as bargaining chips by both "sides." A tough thing that probably won't get better until there is more affordable day care and until judges start receiving training in child psychology and social psychlogy as a prereq. to hearing "family" cases. The second issue is: Once the court determines the amount of child support to be paid (and the terms of visitation, if the 2 are linked), how do these decisions get enforced? What can/should a mother do if the father does not pay? What can/should the father do if his visitation rights are being violated? In the case of the latter infraction, the courts seem fairly willing to prosecute. How about the case in the courts right now where a mother "kidnapped" her daughter to keep her from seeing her father because he abused her? A social worker has seen the child and has concluded that the abuse did happen... but who is in jail? The mother. So it sounds like violations of visitation orders can and will be prosecuted. But in the case of non-payment.. the custodial parent has little recourse. Child support payments are handled on a state level, so if the father moves out of state, he can (and often does) avoid payment. I would like to see both issues addressed by the family court system. I think that judges should always try to make the custody arrangement that is best for the child, and that parents should share in the cost of raising that child. I would also like to see some changes in the collection policy so that children get the support to which they are entitled.. consistently and on time. Unless we can separate these two issues in our discussion here, I don't see how we can resolve anything. Jim Baranski, if you have been treated unfairly, I feel for you, and I wish you luck as you try to fight this battle over spending time with your child. But that does not mean that I feel any less for the many women who are unable to afford raising children alone, and who are not receiving the payments that their ex-husband has been ordered to pay. Justine
471.78	How can we enforce child support	YODA::BARANSKI	Law?!? Hell! Give me Justice!	`Sun Sep 20 1987 20:00`	66
	RE: enforcing child support I've been thinking about this since my second note.. Trying to think of ways to enforce child support. Granted that the current laws mandate attachment of wages for noncustodial parents who consistantly do not pay child support, what more could possibly be done? Currently, if you don't pay child support, you are in contempt of court, and can be put in jail, untill you pay the child support. But if the man has no money, and no wages to attach, how are you going to force him to pay that child support? Put him in jail? How is that going to force him to pay the child support? Merely form fear of going to jail? Admittedly, for some people this will work. Other people will simply disappear. Can we keep parents from disappearing? I can't imagine how we can do that, except, again by fear of jail. Yet it's awfully difficult to track down someone who disappears; it's pretty easy to hide. Should we raise the ante? Let's make it a manditory sentence of at least a year for none payment of child support. That won't work either! Now, not only do we have to support one parent and children, we have to support and guard the other parent as well. How about making it a capital offense? I seriously doubt that would work either; you'd still end up having to support one parent and the children. The only conclusion that I can reach is that we need positive reenforcement for both parents to continue to parent their children, not negative enforcement of child support laws. RE: Judges deciding One important problem with having someone other than the parents decide a custody and support case as that to give a just hearing of the facts takes quite a bit of time and effort. I'd estimate at least a day for each case. The current system which may shove a case through the courtroom in 5 minutes does not work. If someone other then the parents are going to make an informed decision, more time must be alloted for the decision. RE: -.1 "In the case of the latter infraction, the courts seem fairly willing to prosecute." It is fairly well documented that support cases are enforced quite a bit more easily then 'visitation' cases. But both cases should be enforced. "But in the case of non-payment.. the custodial parent has little recourse. Child support payments are handled on a state level, so if the father moves out of state, he can (and often does) avoid payment." There are currently laws to have child support deducted from a parents wages even if they are move out of state. "I think that judges should always try to make the custody arrangement that is best for the child," The problem is that the majority of the time, "what is best for the child" is decided on a very narrowsighted basis; IE, 'children should stay with their mother, the mother should stay home and take care of them, and the father should support them entirely.' Such narrowminded concern is grossly unjust. Both parents should be able to share equally in the care, and support of the children. Thanks for the well wishes... :-\| Jim.
471.79	That's nothing CLOSE to the statistics that I've seen...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Sun Sep 20 1987 23:54`	19
	RE: .78 Jim, you said: >The problem is that the majority of the time, "what is best for the child" is >decided on a very narrowsighted basis; IE, 'children should stay with their mother, the mother should stay home and take care of them, and the father should >support them entirely.' Every statistic I've seen on divorce directly contradicts the idea that divorced women and kids are getting anything remotely CLOSE to the deal that you are suggesting happens in the MAJORITY of cases. Do you have figures to back this statement up, or was that meant to be an exxaggeration? Suzanne....
471.80		GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF	Lee T	`Mon Sep 21 1987 01:10`	24
	Jim, Whether or not it matters, I am sorry you have been treated so callously at times in this issue in this file. When we finally get it through our heads that the reason you "grind this ax" so often and at such length is because you are being separated from a child you want to help raise, maybe we'll all be a bit more considerate of your feelings while debating/discussing in this note. As I have mentioned my father got custody, and I am very happy about it. I cannot say I would have been able to cope with living with my mother (no matter how much I love her), and I cannot say that at the time I would have had the courage/strength/general_guts to leave her. I see your words and wnder what my dad would have done if Mom had gotten custody. I am sure he would be fighting as hard as you are now. But consider this: when he remarried, he moved out of state so that for us to see our mother we had to drive ~5 hours. Is this fair? Would it have been fair to require him to remain in Maine at the expense of his career (and his new wife's) so that his children could see their mother? Both of my parents were quite poor at the time, Mom on Welfare, and Dad scraping the line. Lee
471.81		APEHUB::STHILAIRE	Quit jammin' me	`Mon Sep 21 1987 13:47`	11
	Re .80, Yeah, as the mother of a child who lives with her father it would have been fair, in my opinion, to make your father stay in Maine at the expense of his career, so your mother could see her children. A mother being able to see her children (or a father being able to see his children) is not something to be taken lightly. I'm not sure anyone who hasn't been in (or been close enough to be afraid of it happening) this situation can really understand. Maybe sometimes "all politics are personal". Lorna
471.82		CYBORG::MALLETT		`Mon Sep 21 1987 16:55`	12
	Jim, in .78 you indicated that we need positive reinforcement for both parents, not negative. In general that sounds like a pretty good idea and I'd be interested in hearing what some of that reinforcement might look like. But on the other side of the coin, I think there needs to be some sort of "or else". My experiences tell me that some people (and, in the case of child support, many) simply won't pay. Certainly the statistics mentioned here show that many men don't/won't pay; I'm wondering what positive thing might induce them to change their minds? Steve
471.83		CADSE::HARDING		`Mon Sep 21 1987 17:39`	8
	Just one more little ditti to add. I didn't see it in here, but I may have missed it. I just happened to be listening to a radio talk show, and they said that not only will the exhusbands wages be used, but if he remarries any wages his new wife makes can also be used in the child support payment calculation. dave
471.84	rock and a hard place...	YODA::BARANSKI	Law?!? Hell! Give me Justice!	`Mon Sep 21 1987 19:13`	36
	RE: .79 I'm sorry, that was meant to be a gross exageration. :-) I should have made it explict. RE: careers vs. locale I have to agree that having both parents in the same place, if both parents are otherwise involved in the children's lives, is more important then a career. Which is just the situation if the parents were still married. On the other hand, if both parents can move, or both parents can agree, all well and good. Since both adults of a family often work, it's sometimes possible to get a company to find good positions for both people. Interesting that you should bring this up right now... Late breaking news is that their mother's been offered a 24K$ job in White River Junction, Vt. and wants to move there... Needless to say, I'm not thrilled. But she says if I let her move, she may reduce the child support. Great choice, eh? I've heard of lots of fathers being offered this deal. RE: .82 'positive support' Well, to start with, I would like to see time and money spent with on the children considered in the child support or child expenses. Currently they are not. RE: .83 I've heard rumors to that effect as well, but nothing substantiated. Can you tell any more about where this is spelled out? I have someone who's sending me a copy of FSA, all 140 unreadable pages of it. I'll ask him about it. Jim.
471.85		CHUCKL::SSMITH		`Tue Sep 22 1987 14:11`	52
	Finally, someone has taken the daring step to put the shoe on the other foot and say "WHAT IF????" I'd like to see more of that. RE: .80 Lee, you say "But consider this: When he remarried, he moved out of state so that for us to see our mother we had to drive 5 hours. Is this fair? Ofcourse, it isn't. But to my knowledge, it's just as common for a women to move as it is for a man. My X moved out of state too. Only I don't have a 5 hour drive to be able to see my son. I have a 6 hour FLIGHT. She moved to California. Some visitation rights I have. AND, guess who pays for his visits along with child support. So, my COURT ORDERED visitation rights are costing me over $1,000 per year on top of child support. RE: .83 "Not only will the X husbands wages be used, but if he remarries, any wages his new wife makes can also be used in the child support payment calculation." Here we go again. A women with custody can remarry and barring adoption her new husband has NO monitary responsibility for the child, yet if the hudband remarries.......... It all goes back to things I said way back in the very beginning of this topic. The entire system needs to be overhauled. It is outdated, and just plain doesn't work. And, as .83 points out, FSA only serves to further an already bad system, and intensify the prejudice's contained in it. I STILL say that a great many non custodial fathers don't pay and take off because of the SYSTEM, not because their ducking responsibility. You will always have the dead beats, no matter how good the system is, there's no getting away from that. But I firmly believe that things would improve tremendously if the custodial and child support guide lines, as well as judges attitudes were brought up to date. To use an example I used before, when you take that little deduction on your taxes your not entitled too, or you make that legit deduction just a teeny bit bigger, your "cheating" on your taxes. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if asked why, you'd say because the tax structure is UNFAIR. Know what I mean ??????? Steve
471.86		ANGORA::BUSHEE	George Bushee	`Wed Sep 23 1987 13:34`	9
	I think I just figured out what bothered me so much about FSA. It's the fact that if this gets passed into law, my kids will then be "welfare" kids. Both my ex and I work and we don't have anything to do with welfare. I guess it just burns me for the government/state to tep in and now say we don't have the choice to bring the kids up ourelf, they are wards of the "welfare" ystem and we are to do as they tell us.
471.87		ANGORA::BUSHEE	George Bushee	`Wed Sep 23 1987 13:35`	3
	Sorry about the previous reply, I have a sticking keyboard.. :^}
471.89	It was a personal decision I made as head of the family...	NEXUS::CONLON		`Fri Sep 25 1987 18:52`	48
	RE: .88 Although I understand what you are saying, it was precisely FOR Ryan's benefit that I adopted the attitude that I would not force his Dad to help us. At the time that I made this decision, I had not gone to college yet and had no job skills. We were living well below the poverty line in one-room apts. with very few possessions. I felt that attempting to argue about support with the father would be counter-productive and would ultimately affect Ryan's emotional health. Babies are often extremely perceptive (on a subconscious level) of their parents' feelings. I can recall a time when a person that caused me great stress came to visit us soon after Ryan was born. When the person picked Ryan up (he was less than two months old), he immediately burst into furious tears for no apparent reason and cried until the person left. The behavior was so unlike Ryan's normal temperment that I felt he had sensed my own tension. I chose to raise Ryan in an atmosphere of hope about the future (with the idea that we would be able to survive on our own and would do well.) My parents have been putting money aside for Ryan for years (money that he will get when he turns 21.) He will end up with a nice amount that will help him get a good start on his adult life. My parents tried to give us the money directly and I requested that they set it aside for him to have as an adult. This doesn't mean that I am against having the law enforce child support agreements for anyone who fails to live up to parental responsibilities. It was a personal decision (that we would be better off if we used our energy to be self-sufficient rather than use it to fight for support that we may or may not have ever been able to enforce.) If the man had given us support and then brought considerable stress into our lives along with it, it STILL would have been more productive for us to just make it on our own. It was a personal decision that I made for us as a family, and it helped to shape everything else that has happened to us in the past 16+ years. I have very few regrets about any of it. Suzanne...
471.90		NEXUS::CONLON		`Fri Sep 25 1987 19:07`	12
	By the way, the money from my parents was a tiny weekly amount that would not have changed the quality of our lives to any degree at all. But that tiny weekly amount, when set aside month after month, year after year (with interest in a bank) will amount to a nice amount for Ryan as an adult. It's amazing how much a few dollars a week can add up to if someone sets the same amount aside year after year. It'll make a nice present for him when the time comes. Suzanne...

Conference turris::womannotes-v1

471.0. "'''Family Security Act'''" by YODA::BARANSKI (If I were a realist, I&#039;d be dead.) Tue Sep 08 1987 14:08

471.0. "'''Family Security Act'''" by YODA::BARANSKI (If I were a realist, I'd be dead.) Tue Sep 08 1987 14:08