In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, fathers wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 00:13:35 -0800 (PST)
> From: Lou Ann Bassan 
> 
> To Martin Brock:
> 
> As for shifting the focus to those who avoid their "obligations", do you 
> refer to true deadbeats, or all those who are unable to meet their 
> "obligations"?
> 
> As for true deadbeats, the statistics are 8.5%.
> 
> Should all our energies be focused on a population of 8.5%?  I don't 
> think so, especially when the DAs are already (ostensibly) focused on 
> them, etc...

There is such a wide spectrum, even for defining a "true deadbeat".  In 
some states, you become a "true deadbeat" after missing 2 months payment 
or $2500, whichever is less.  With an umbrella like that, you can catch 
about 50%.  Then there is the "ex-post-facto" deadbeat.  This is when the
ex goes for an increase and the judge awards it retroactively.  This 
automatically puts you under the knuckles of DHSS.  I bet the state would
even offer to pay the mother's legal fees (how generous, considering they 
are going to get 30% of $250,000 ($1200/month for 21 years).

What are they doing in Arkansas these days?

> Lou Ann
> On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, fathers wrote:
> > Welcome aboard, Martin!  Your perspective is appreciated, as is your support.
> > 
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Martin Brock wrote:
> > 
> > > I'll sign.  The manifesto is vague, so I'll also elaborate.
> > > 
> > > Children need a presumption of genuine joint custody, but I oppose the
> > > terms of joint custody which have recently been incorporated into child 
> > > support guidelines in my state (Alabama).  Those terms continue to 
Joint custody isn't all it's cracked up to be.  I have it (default under 
Colorado law).

> > > require the assignment of a custodial parent and simply reduce the
> > > monthly payment from the noncustodial parent to the custodial parent.  
The payment is reduced based on the percentage of time the children spend 
with the Secondary Custodial Parent (SCP) vs the Primary Custodial Parent 
(PCP).  The SCP pays less if he sees the kids more.  If the kids stay 
with him for 2 days/week, he gets to pay 2/3 of the "magical number" the 
judge determines to be a "fair amount".  Mom uses day-care, school, and 
other exraordinary expenses to get the price back up to where it "should 
be".

If, after the decree is finalized, the father doesn't take the kids 
every single week-end (forget that business trip).  The mother can go 
back to court and get the support raised.  This provides a powerful 
incentive to make it as inconvenient and unpleasant as possible to 
get/have the kids.  Making dad wait 2-3 hours, in the hall of his own 
house can make him really squirm with pain.  Even better, she moves to a 
nicer place, or let's you sit across from her boyfriend, who only looks 
at you like you are the man who raped his sister.

> > > Obviously, that arrangement will only increase conflict between parents
> > > and lessens the protection of children, and the formula for computing
> > > the support obligation continues to one parent over another.  In
> > > principle, the parent burdened with the "noncustodial" label could keep
> > > his children 100% of the time and be owed no support from the
> > > "custodial" parent under the guidelines.

Again, this is the perfect incentive to drive dad out.  I have actually 
seen it go to the extreme that dad did get the kids 5 nights/week.  
Unfortunately, because he had to pay through the courts, he still had to 
pay the full amount.  Just as he filed for a reduction, the PCP wanted 
the kids back.  Do you feel like a Yo-Yo yet?

What ever happened to the "Golden Rule"?

> > > Genuine joint custody which protects children's interests requires
> > > that both parents contribute support, contributing to a trust-like
> > > instrument from which all the children's expenses are paid.

Actually, true joint custody is when nobody pays anybody.  Or better yet, 
the more the NCP/SCP sees the kids, the more he has to pay (up to 25% of 
after-tax income).  A father who really wants to see his kids, and raise 
them, would pay more.  The mother would be inviting daddy to dinner every 
night.  Who knows, they might even get to like each other again.

Men who are abusive, or don't care about their kids would pay almost 
nothing, maybe 5%.  Good-bye to bad rubbish.  If the mother hates him so 
much that she is willing to pay for everything herself, then, and only 
then, should the father lose ALL custody rights.

> > > Contributions could be based on each parent's ability to pay (as in the
> > > current formulas for computing the obligation of noncustodial parents),

The "pool" should be based on what the woman would receive if she were on 
welfare alone, or the value of the "Standard Deduction".  Anything beyond 
that should be considered a voluntary "gift".  Again, watch women quickly 
move to an "All or Nothing" mentality.  They will either want him over 
every night, or they will want him out so she can find a responsible man 
who will support the children.  True "Deadbeats" would be weeded out of 
raising children.  Parents who keep their children would be committed to
creating a supportive structure (remarriage, frequent visitation...).

> > > and both parents would be entitled to compensation for the actual
> > > expenses they incur to support their children, no preferences or
> > > exceptions from accountability for either parent.  Parents with the same
> > > rights and responsibilities are less likely to abuse those rights in
> > > adversarial struggles.  Children are obviously better protected when
> > > both parents are obligated to support them.

This is where things can get exciting.  If dad wants to take the kids 
shopping for clothes, he can help pick them out.  If mom wants to pick 
out the clothes, she gets to pay for them.  This has each parent able to 
take on specific areas, as opposed to "everything".

> > > I realize that some dads face crushing support obligations, but we need
Actually, any man who isn't burdened with crushing support obligations 
just has a wife who hasn't talked to her lawyer recently.  Eventually,
it will leave the father with a net income of 25%, or less, of his pay.
A little benign negotiation up-front pays off in the long-run.

> > > to take the moral high ground in the child support issue by accepting
> > > our obligation and shifting the focus to those parents who legally avoid
> > > a support obligation under existing law.

You can't force a woman to "make nice" with a man who is committed to 
killing her with drugs.  You don't want to put a responsible father in 
jail because his ex just wants more.

> > > The purpose of genuine joint
> > > custody is to remove children from the middle of a tug-of-war between
> > > their parents, not to relieve anyone of a financial obligation.  When

The true purpose of child-support is to tide a dependent parent over 
until alternative resources are available.  This might be a degree or 
going back to a career, it might mean marrying "Daddy Warbucks".

You want to get good parents back into families as soon as possible.  You 
want to get bad parents out of the families as quickly as possible.  
There are only two ways of distinguishing the two.  One is to have a 
lengthy and expensive hearing, the other is to let time take its course.
The father who isn't committed due to drugs or alcohol will either 
overdose or get sober.

The other thing to do is create an incentive for voluntary sterilization.
If a man can save money, get better visitation, or get remmaried because 
he has had a vasectomy, he might do so.  If a woman can get a better deal
by having her tube tied, then she might do so.  Reproductive rights are 
so contriversial it would be unwise to try to "Force" sterilization.

> > > the law requires both parents to provide financial support according
> > > to the same standards and entitles both parents to the same compensation
> > > for the cost of a relationship with their children, the crushing burdens
> > > which some parents bear will be relieved by the willingness of both
> > > parents to be reasonable.  Put both parents in the same boat, and
> > > they'll row it together cooperatively even if they don't like each
> > > other.

Children raised out of selfishness, will become selfish.  Children raised 
out of the love, generousity, and commitment of one or more parents will 
become loving, responsible, committed adults.  I love my kids, I pay my 
support.  If the mother wants to play "keep-away" and make those kids 
strangers, why should I have to pay support to children who will never 
know my values, morality, and life.  If all my children have of me is my 
genetics, my name, and my money, then are they really my children?

The acid test:
	When I'm 80 years old, can't do life on my own any more, and am not 
	yet ready for the nursing home, will my kids invite me to stay with them 
	for a year or two?  What about their mother?

Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Mar  4 10:51:34 1996