Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I'm not sure about Massachusetts laws, but in California, I have
    seen similar happenings.  I've known of many men shafted in a divorce.
    Funny part, I'm a woman.  I can't believe what women get away with!
    It's women like those.....that give us a bad name.
    
    Good for you who are doing something about it.  I believe the courts
    have become more aware in recent years, but they've a long way to
    go!

         It's everywhere.  I have more than one friend who took it in the
    shorts.  All of them are willing to support their kids, but the courts 
    felt they should give a LOT more.
    
                                    Greg

    My opinion is the parent that is most suitable to raise the child in a
    proper enviroment and give the child all they can offer to make the
    childs life fulfilling is the parent that should get the custody.
    
    
    just my 2 cents.
    
    Lynne

.4>    My opinion is the parent that is most suitable to raise the child in a
.4>    proper enviroment and give the child all they can offer to make the
.4>    childs life fulfilling is the parent that should get the custody.
    

    	That may work in the case where one parent is obviously "the
    most suitable".  But what of the cases where *both* parents are
    equally fit to raise the child(ren) and both want to?  It's not
    quite so cut and dry.  Joint custody is not always an option, and
    sometimes the courts don't want to go for that anyway.

    	amy

re:.4

   And just HOW is it to be determined which parent is most capable
of raising the child.  Indeed, what if both are and have been equally
capable of child-rearing.  And what if YOU as the father were that
capable, responsible and loving parent and a judge determines that in
ALL cases only the mother holds those attributes and arbitrailary awards
custody to her and "visitation rights" to you?

   No court even considers the abilities or value of fatherhood.  And to 
back up that statement, I now have nearly 100 (too deluged with replies
to give exact count, responses still coming in) from noters whom support my
contentions in the base note.  

   Consider this noter .4   - over 50% of the respondents to my plea are
WOMEN!  That was never anticipated by me and I am stunned right down to my 
shoes.  The issue of the base note is not that of men only, it is a PEOPLE
problem.  In retrospect, I should have made that more clear.  I will now.

   My deepest thanks goes to all of those women out there. I cannot find 
enough words to say so.  I've secretly wished an end to this wasteful,
hurting and downright silly-assed Gender War that has been going on in this
nation.  We must, with mutual respect and admiration, work together to 
solve ALL the social ills that beset our country.

   Keep those cards and letters coming in people!

    I went to a lawyer to get the ins and outs of divorce. My lawyer
    told me that if I would get physical custody unless my husband could
    prove me unfit. (abusive or negligent) We would get joint legal
    custody unless I could prove him unfit.
    
    The law is bias in Mass. How do we change it? Should we tax our
    legal system in this way? I feel for parents who get the shaft.
    I heard somewhere that 50% of non-custodial parents pay NO child
    support. Non custodial MOTHERS are the worse offenders!!
    
    Kate
    

    I do agree with you, the court is not fair when it comes to granting
    custody.  I guess it is easier when one parent is unfit and the other
    is not, the choice of the court is easier.  I did not think of the fact
    that when both parents are suitable, that the decision is very painful
    for the parent that does not get custody whether it is the father or
    the mother. It is hard to be determined when both parents love the
    children.  I definately can see your point.
    
    best of luck,
    
    Lynne

    Why, Mike, are men supposed to be blind to bias against men?
    Your sarcasm is cute but you apparently know precious little about 
    feminist theory if this is what you think.  Gender discrimination is
    wrong and no real feminist supports it.
    
    In giving all to women, the courts are continuing the old stereotypes
    that women are needy and incapable and men are cold hearted beasts
    who will take advantage of poor women every chance they get.  I can't
    see where it's PC to accept this or where it does anyone, man, woman or
    child, any good to view the power balance between men and women as
    always skewed in this way.  Judges, (those old male relics of another 
    time), must be stopped from using group stereotypes and must start 
    looking at cases as consisting of individuals with strengths and 
    weaknesses distributed randomly among them and not set in stone
    by sexist reasoning.
    
    What does it take to become a judge, anyway?  How do these old coots
    get away with foisting their outdated ideas about their mommies onto 
    modern couples who may sincerely want the most equitable dissolution
    possible?  How come there is no accountability there?  More
    significant, if couples are indeed interested in being equitable, why
    can't they hammer out their own terms and use a judge as simply an
    "official stamp"?  Maybe because each side wants to tip the scales in
    their favor and turn the gray areas to personal benefit.  In that case, 
    don't blame the judge when/if you fail.  I just can't imagine letting
    some old man I've never met meddle in my love life.  I'm an adult and
    presumably the men I take up with are, too.  When people start acting
    like children, I guess they need a big daddy to straighten things out.
    How embarassing.

    
    
 
    
    .7
    
    Right on Kate!!!!   Watching that war right now as an observer,
    my husband and his exwife make "exactly" the same salary.  When
    she had custody he paid $100. p/w in Child Support, now he has
    custody and we get $0.  
    
    And the worst part is that she has convinced my stepson that
    if my husband asks for money from her that he's hurting her
    soooooo much!!!!
    
    Our note was sent off to Marie Yesterday!!!
    
    
      

    Let's take a minute to play a little word association game.  What's the
    first thing you think of when I say
    
    
                     Non-custodial mother?
                                         
    
                     Non-custodial father?
    
    
    
    
    If you're like 99% of the people I've met since I became the former,
    your first reaction to "non-custodial mother" is negative.  I've seen
    it in the eyes and questioning looks even some of the most enlightened
    of you have given me when we met and the subject came up.  Obviously
    I'm an unfit mother.  Otherwise my children would live with me.
    
    On the other hand, a non-custodial father is either shrugged off
    (neutral reaction) or consoled (positive reaction), depending on his
    attitude toward the situation.
    
    Perhaps those mean old judges who default to the mother in cases that
    aren't clear-cut one way or the other are only reflecting the attitudes
    the rest of you have.  (My apologies to the 1% who are truly objective
    in your assessment.)  Why paint an otherwise good mother with the
    tarred brush of granting custody to the father?
    
    Society -- and that means all of us -- had better take a long, hard
    look at our own attitudes before we expect judges to do any better.
    
    Karen
    
    P.S.  Rhetorical question, not intended to open a rat hole:  How many
    of you non-custodial fathers have ever been required to explain WHY you
    don't have custody?

    Did you know that according to the Annotated Laws of Massachusetts that
    a father CANNOT have custody.  Only when a mother is shown to be unfit
    can the father get custody.  Even a prostitute can have custody of her
    child as long as she doesn't bring her "customers" to the home.
    
    I have done extensive research on this at the Worcester Public Library.
    There's a lot to read in those Massachusetts Annotated Laws.  (By the
    way, you are not permitted to take those books out of the library - so
    you've got to sit there for several hours - and make copies of all of
    the information that you want - in order to get the information you
    need.)
    
    Furthermore, in response to #12, the judges are not old and male
    anymore.  Nope nope nope......  There's a judge in Worcester Probate
    Court that's probably in her fifties and VERY ANTI-MALE.  Her
    "appointment" to the bench is questionable (at best) - she was Kitty
    Dukakis' roommate from college!  She had a horid reputation as an atty
    regarding her anti-male attitude, and she continues to "enjoy"(?) that
    same reputation now as a judge (pompous you-know-what).
    
    Regarding my opinion (for what it's worth) as to who gets custody of
    the child ---- I do tend to be gender bias in that regard.  I strongly
    feel that a son should be living with the father, and a daughter should
    be living with the mother.  Especially when you're talking about
    pre-adolescence (about age 10-12) and adolescence itself.  If the child
    is younger than 10 - then the most "suitable" parent should have
    custody.  Please notice that I said MOST "suitable".  On a scale of
    1-10, which parent rates closer to 10 (if both are deemed suitable).
    But then you've got another problem - who is going to decide which
    parent is more suitable?  Perhaps there should be a court appointed
    psychologist and a court appointed social worker (one of each) to meet
    with both parents and the children involved.  Write up a report and
    give a rating to both parents.  One psychologist may rate one parent a
    94% and the other parent a 90%, while the social worker may rate one
    parent a 93% and the other a 97%.  Take the average and make a
    determination based on that.  In case of a tie, let the judge decide
    (that really makes me nervous based on the judges presently on the
    bench).  Anyway, it's an idea.  It's a hell of a lot more "fair" and
    less gender biased than the present system (or lack thereof).
    
    Barb
    

    re: .12

    Karen's right -- noncustodial mothers are looked down on.  And in
    a lot of situations it's not so clear who's in the wrong.
    
    I'm usually a reasonable, calm person, but this is blowing all my
    hot buttons.  Please bear with me.  I don't claim that every
    divorce situation is analogous to the one I'm most familiar with,
    but it happens a hell of a lot more than most of us are willing to
    admit.  

    I've got a good friend who's just lost custody of her teenage
    daughter, who decided she wanted to live with her rich father
    instead of her flaky mother.  My friend dropped out of college to
    get married, got pregnant early, and spent a number of years
    tending house while her husband built his career.  He bought a
    home in the country and then expected her to tend a large garden
    (she's a city girl, can't tell carrots from beets), wouldn't let
    her have a car, and otherwise abused her emotionally.  When she
    finally got tired of being treated like a child, she left.  

    She has no marketable skills, no practice handling money (he did
    all that, woudln't even let her look at the checkbook), not much
    of anything going for her.  So he's got custody because he's got
    the income, the steady home (while she's moving from apartment to
    apartment trying to learn how to live on her income, a skill most
    of us learned in college), the better environment, and is by any
    objective standard the 'better parent.'

    And maybe it is better for the daughter.  I don't think so.  She's
    already gone from talking about becoming a Harvard lawyer to
    talking about studying to be a teacher.  Her grades have dropped,
    too.  Her father doesn't want her studying so much, he wants her
    to socialize more and 'have fun' -- implying she needs to meet
    boys.  And she doesn't get to sign up for driver's ed this year. 
    He says there's no rush.  He's happy to drive her wherever she
    needs to go.  Don't worry about your clothing budget, dear, I'll
    let you know if you're running out of money.  (That's a quote -- I
    was there.) And she doesn't see how dependent she's becoming, how
    she's learning the same lack of skills that make her regard her
    mother with contempt.  

    But I'm the one who gets to comfort my friend when a clerk in the
    store accuses her of being a child abuser -- why else would they
    take away your baby?  That's another quote I witnessed.  And the
    one who has to shrug and answer I don't know when she asks me why
    he can deprive her of everything, her education, her youth, her
    money (she had some before they got married), and now her child,
    and leave her with nothing.  

    I'm sure if my friend had custody of her daughter, the father
    would consider it a case of severe sexual bias, and maybe if you
    just look at the numbers, he is.  But it looks to me like my
    friend was socialized to think her husband was everything, that
    she should sacrifice her own interests and rely on his judgements. 
    She was systematically deprived of the skills she needs to
    function as an adult, so she could be a good wife instead.  And
    her reward for all these years of sacrificing herself is being
    told she's not a good mother and that having custody of her
    daughter would be an example of sexism.

    All right, I'll say it -- I'd been trying to talk around it and be
    gentle, but I'm getting madder and madder.  The arrogance of men
    like this makes me sick. They get the benefit of every social
    structure and every institution, and then they run into ONE LITTLE
    AREA where WOMEN automatically have preference and they start
    crying in their coffee about discrimination and unfair treatment.

    Well, welcome to the club, guys.  Now you know what it feels like. 
    Women live with this kind of unfair arbitrary deprivation just
    about every damn day of their lives.  Raises they don't get,
    schooling they're told isn't feminine, roles they can't fill and
    activities they're laughed at for trying.  We get shifted to the
    lower paying jobs, and if we do get into the same profession, we
    make sixty cents to your dollar, we hit the glass ceiling earlier,
    and we get stuck in the mommy track.  And now you want to take the
    kids, too.

    --bonnie

    
    re .13 Your idea in the last paragraph is basically what is used by one
    of the "old-timer" male judges in the Worcester Court in cases where
    both parents are going for custody.
    
    The parents are required to find a counselor/physiciastrist (sp?) that
    is acceptable to both.  Then, there are sessions for both parents
    individually, the child/children individually, the child with
    individual parent.  After all this, a recommendation is forwarded to
    the court with copies to the parents.  The judge still has the final
    say in the matter, though.  However, this does give him a supposed
    unbiased opinion on the matter.
    
    Now, to add another part to this equation.  What about those parents
    (father or mother) who profess to love their children, want to see them
    and contribute to their growing up but are never around for whatever
    reason, can't seem to remember to send gifts at birthdays and
    Christmas, etc yet expect that when they do show up they will be
    welcomed.
    
    The only reason I currently receive my full child support is because my
    ex joined the Navy.  He has no choice, the support comes directly to me
    from the U.S. Treasury.  If it didn't, I probably wouldn't get it
    without going to court and having his pay attached!
    
    Yet, if he were to have custody of the boys he would take wonderful
    care of them because he does really love them.
    

    RE: .3
    
         Sad to say it, but I guess you were right.
    
                                         Greg

>    All right, I'll say it -- I'd been trying to talk around it and be
>    gentle, but I'm getting madder and madder.  The arrogance of men
>    like this makes me sick.
    
     I agree.
    
> They get the benefit of every social
>    structure and every institution, and then they run into ONE LITTLE
>    AREA where WOMEN automatically have preference and they start
>    crying in their coffee about discrimination and unfair treatment.
    
     It doesn't sound like he's crying; he's got the kid. However, alot of
    men here are complaining about the very real injustice which occurs
    daily wrt children, support, and custody. I hope you don't mean it to
    sound this way, but that sentence sounds more like a slap against men
    in general than it does men like "him."
    
>    Well, welcome to the club, guys.  Now you know what it feels like. 
    
     You aren't trying to justify it, are you? "Well, we get screwed, so
    you can get screwed too." I hope that's not what you're saying.
    
     The Doctah

Excuse me - I take major exception to statments in this note:


>Note 966.14                  Gender Bias in Divorce                    14 of 17
>TLE::RANDALL "living on another planet"             79 lines  22-FEB-1990 14:32
>                            -< oh, give us a break >-

>    My friend dropped out of college to
>    get married, got pregnant early, and spent a number of years
>    tending house while her husband built his career.  He bought a
>    home in the country and then expected her to tend a large garden
>    (she's a city girl, can't tell carrots from beets), wouldn't let
>    her have a car, and otherwise abused her emotionally.  When she
>    finally got tired of being treated like a child, she left.  

>    She has no marketable skills, no practice handling money (he did
>    all that, woudln't even let her look at the checkbook), not much
>    of anything going for her.

>    And the
>    one who has to shrug and answer I don't know when she asks me why
>    he can deprive her of everything, her education, her youth, her
>    money (she had some before they got married), and now her child,
>    and leave her with nothing.  

>    But it looks to me like my
>    friend was socialized to think her husband was everything, that
>    she should sacrifice her own interests and rely on his judgements. 
>    She was systematically deprived of the skills she needs to
>    function as an adult, so she could be a good wife instead.

The statments above paint this woman as the victim of her husband.

Baloney - big time!

She had choices from day one.  It was her choice to stay home, forgo 
schooling, surrender control of the finances, put up with abuse. He 
deprived her of nothing!  She chose to let it go!

It's sad that she has some tough lessons to learn this late in life, but 
that's life.  We all have hard rows to hoe....

Bob

    
    re-1
    
    I agree with your reply.  This woman did have the choice to leave
    and after much time took that option.  But you can not blame this
    solely on the woman.  The age of the daughter would tend to make
    me think that the mother was raised along with previous generations
    of women to be a house wife plain and simple.  She was probably 
    told that she had to conform to societies accepted norms.  And it
    would have been MUCH harder for her to break those rules and step
    out of the norm.
    
    My generation of women and a few generations before and hopefully all
    generations after have been or will be raised to be self-sufficient.
    I get so angry when I see women who have allowed themselves to get
    into these situations.  It angers me that society norms were as
    the way they were.  It angers me that this woman's lack of skills
    is directly blamed on her inability to get away from this man.
    Yes is does have alot to do with it, but it is really society to blame
    for not letting her break the chain.  
    
    Also, where does the role the father played in this come into play?
    It appears that he is doing the same thing with his child as he
    did with his wife.  He seems to be under the outdated impression that
    women are to be controlled.  Hopefully his daughter will realize this
    before it is too late for her to make any changes.
    
    I see the attitudes of many women have changed more so due to economic
    survival.  I also see many men who agree that women do not need
    men for support.  However, I also see that in that group of men
    there seems to be an element of fear of losing control.  Mind you
    this is merely an observation on my part and in no way is meant
    to be a generalization on either sex.
    
     re base note
    
    It really is too bad that in this day and age the courts are still
    so backwards and outdated.  The child's welfare is usually the last
    thing to be looked at and that is terribly wrong.  I beleive that
    a child has a right to each parent regardless of the situation.
    Mind you as long as neither of those parents are in any way hurting
    the child.  Yet that is where the problem comes , who defines 
    hurting the child?  Unfortunately it is the courts.
    
    As a woman who has witness this court garbage with my boyfriend I
    empathize with the parents who are denied their children merely
    because the legal folks want to make as much money as they possibley
    can without any recourse for the children.  I have watched a father
    have his child taken away from him because the mother of that child
    did not like him anymore. She tired of him and was allowed to 
    remove the child from the father.  She still is trying to get
    the child removed completely from the father's life.  Why is
    she allowed to do this?  Because the courts allow this! (BULL)  
    
    Michele 

<She had choices from day one.  It was her choice to stay home, forgo 
<schooling, surrender control of the finances, put up with abuse. He 
<deprived her of nothing!  She chose to let it go!
<
<It's sad that she has some tough lessons to learn this late in life, but 
<that's life.  We all have hard rows to hoe....
    
    Your reply is just as much baloney. Sure she had all the same
    opportunities her husband had, she could have gone to college and
    gotten a job, but her husband probably didn't want her to. Of course
    she could have left, and lived in poverty. I don't have the study
    here in front of me and hope someone reading does, but I read
    recently that women usually have their standard of living cut in
    half after a divorce while the men have theirs raised.

    And for all of you who are fighting for your kids, there are more
    who just leave and NEVER pay child support or care to see thier
    kids. I know of one case in particular, my own father. liesl

    >     <<< Note 966.20 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>
    >              -< for every nice guy there are 10 creeps >-
    
         Do you really believe this?  What is your opinion on the ratio of
    nice women to creeps?
    
                                         Greg

                           <<< Note 966.21 by DEC25::BRUNO >>>

    >     <<< Note 966.20 by TINCUP::KOLBE "The dilettante debutante" >>>
    >              -< for every nice guy there are 10 creeps >-
    
         Do you really believe this?  What is your opinion on the ratio of
    nice women to creeps?
    
                                         Greg

    I have heard and seen more women crushed financially by divorce than
    men. I chose to leave with nothing rather than fight someone I had
    loved but I know many women who were just flat deserted regardless
    of what the divorce decree stated they would get. 

    I also have experienced first hand being left for someone "younger
    and fresher" after helping my husband through years of school. I was
    told at the time that my turn was next. I wonder how many women have
    bought that lie? In all the cases I know personally the man's
    education came first.

    And finally, say what you will about women abusing men, the facts
    are still that many more women are abused and killed by the men in
    their lives than the other way around.

    What ratio of women creeps might there be? I don't know. Most all
    the crushing pain and heartbreak in my life has been caused by men I
    loved. Most all the discrimination I've felt has been at the hands
    of men not women. I don't hate men as a group but I'm real damn
    careful about which ones I trust. And that's maybe 1 in 10. And I'm
    broken beyond repair in being able to trust a man enough to defer my
    needs for his. In my personal world that's only led to betrayal and
    desertion when I wasn't needed anymore. The sad part is that I'm
    still stupid enough to hope things might be different. liesl

         You have obviously been hurt.  Perhaps it was all 'his' fault - I
    can't say.  You know lots of women who have been hurt - perhaps it was
    all the male's fault in their cases, too.  I can't say that for sure,
    either.  However, one thing that is clear is that you are making a
    grand conclusion after hearing only half of the testimony and seeing
    only half of the evidence.  I have heard enough from the male side to 
    reasonably guess that your ratio would change a lot if you listened to 
    their side of the story.  
    
         The possibility exists that the same support payments that
    financially crippled some of my friends is not enough for their wives
    to live comfortably with.  In such a case, the wife bemoans her
    restricted finances just like the husband.
    
         The possibility exists that two people have gone through attack
    and revenge so much that they don't recall who fired the first shot.
    In such a case, each would feel that they are only retaliating for a
    perceived offense.
    
         I believe that your ratio is blurred by your own personal pain and
    that of your emotional peers, but is nevertheless very wrong and very
    damaging.  I feel for your pain, but object to your generalizations.
    
                                       Greg
                           

    Greg, I do not believe liesl thoughts are blurred by her experience.
    
    I believe that this discussion which pops up from time to time in
    Digital conferences is blurred by several factors.  The non-custodial
    parents have a better than average income.  The company does not punish
    its employees for attachments.  And the type of person that works for
    our company tends to be one which would accept responsibility.
    
    It may very well be that the folks that read this conference have had 
    little exposure to the non-custodial parents who have the ability to hide 
    their true income and who do not chose to parent their children.
    
    But I do feel that the courts currently are biased to the maternal
    parent.  I think it is a real issue.  I strongly feel that a custodial
    parent should not receive money carte blanche.  They should have to
    account with receipts and expense statements the cost of care of the
    children. 
    hide their true income

    
    re 24
    
    I know of more fathers who are non-custodial parents whose standard
    of living has gone below the poverty level while the custodial
    mother's has increased two-fold.  So I guess it really is a
    matter of experience and who you know who has been through this.
    
    I personally do not know of any custodial mothers whose standard
    of living has dropped.  The ones that I do know have had their
    standard of living rise consistently.  One of them that I know
    goes into court as often as she can to get increases in support.
    She does this knowing full well that the non-custodial father
    is living below the poverty level.  Her motive is to force him
    out of her life and subsequently the children's lives.  
    
    So it really does go both ways.  The tradgedy of this all is that
    the children are the ones who suffer either way.  If mom is living
    below poverty level they suffer when at mom's.  If the father is
    living below poverty level they suffer when at dad's.  Noone wins.
    
    Michele

    The results of statistical sampling shows that the standard of
    living for the custodial parent (usually the woman) drops
    significantly, while that of the non-custodial parent (usually the
    man) rises significantly.
    
    There is another factor to consider.  Say the non-custodial ex-husband
    is forced to pay one-half of his after tax income to pay for his
    two children.  That sounds outrageous, right?  But consider.  He
    is paying *half* his income to support *two-thirds* of his family.
    Now it sounds like he's getting away with something, doesn't it?
    
    But the truth, whatever it turns out to be, must include the
    acceptance that KIDS ARE EXPENSIVE.
    
    							Ann B.

>    There is another factor to consider.  Say the non-custodial ex-husband
>    is forced to pay one-half of his after tax income to pay for his
>    two children.  That sounds outrageous, right?  But consider.  He
>    is paying *half* his income to support *two-thirds* of his family.
>    Now it sounds like he's getting away with something, doesn't it?
    
     That's real creative Ann. 
    
     The Doctah

I am rather disappointed in the way this topic is going.  Rather than folks
supporting a group who is trying to correct an injustice, they are being
told to just keep quiet and not complain.

The irony of this is that this is a case of men learning from the example
of women that they don't just have to quietly accept injustice - that it is
ok to form support groups, to speak out, and to work to get the
injustice corrected.  I think it hypocritical for women to say that just because
men have fewer things to complain about than women, that they should keep
quiet.  Tell me, what injustices should women just quietly accept?

I also don't understand the thought process that some people seem to have that
equates men gaining fair treatment in divorce settlements with women losing.
If anything, I see women winning big by this.  If men are treated fairly, they
will be much more likely to share equitably in child support.  The current
situation encourages men to walk away, given that they are typically shut
off from their children, and still obligated to pay child support with no
accountability from the mother.

Yes, there are fathers who will still just walk away; in some cases, our
society conditions them to do so.  But there are many more loving and caring
fathers, who want to share in their children's lives if only allowed the
opportunity to do so.  Why punish the loving fathers?  All you do is make
the problem worse for the children.

I am "lucky" in that, even though I am divorced, I share my son and his
support equally with his mother.  Few divorced fathers are even given the
opportunity to continue being a father as I was - instead, their children are
used as a weapon against them.  No wonder some fathers can't cope!

Let's stop thinking of this as a win-lose situation, and start realizing
that having fathers want to continue being parents to their children is a
"win" for the children - and for everyone.

					Steve

    re .27, do you still think this is fair when the mother earns more
    money than the father, then gets 1/2 of his take-home pay, tax free,
    on top of that?  Also, is it really still "his family" when he is
    hardly ever allowed to *see* them?  This is so unfair it sickens
    me.  I know of a non-custodial father who can barely afford the
    basic necessities of life, while his ex-wife thinks nothing of buying
    herself $500. "toys" at a whim.  
    
    I find it strange, also, that non-custodial fathers even have to
    pay child-support to the mother, when the father has the kids. 
    He gives the money to his ex-wife to support the kids that week,
    and then *he* has the kids and he's supposed to support them on
    what he has left.  I know someone who can't afford to take his kids
    on a regular basis because of this unfair arrangement.
    
    Lorna
    

    In response to Ann, here's some more "interesting" data:
    
    	Example:  In Massachusetts, if a man makes $800/week, and
    		  has 2 children, he must pay one-third of his
    		  gross pay ($800 x 1/3 = $266.40) to his ex-
    		  wife (custodial parent), 25% (? a guess) to Uncle
    		  Sam = $200, maybe another $50 to the "Duke", and
    		  then there's $61.20 to social security.  Well,
    		  gang, we're now up to $577.60 from $800 which leaves
    		  this ("rising significantly non-custodial parent")
    		  about $222.40 per week to live on.  Oh, but we're
    		  not done yet!  Don't forget about the medical insurance
    		  that he must pay (John Hancock is $17.50/week) and the
    		  20% that isn't covered by insurance, and the numerous
    		  times that he ex-wife brings him back to court crying
    	    	  poverty when she's the only one that it seems can afford
    		  an attorney all these times!  So, if we figure $1200/yr.
    		  to go into court because ex-wife wants more money, etc.,
    		  and, by the way, that $1200 figure is a bit on the
    		  conservative side - then here's what he gets to keep
    		  (besides the "shaft"):
    
    				$220/week
    			        - 17.50/week John Hancock Ins. on kids
    				- 25.00/week for back to court crapola
    				- 20.00/week (estimated) for what insurance
    					     doesn't cover (A LOT)
    				-------------
    				$157.50/week left for his shelter, food,
    					     clothing, visits w/kids
    					     (entertainment).....
    
    	Oh, yeah, this guy is really reeling in the Big Bucks!  I wouldn't
    	trade places with him on a bet (and I'm just a secretary)!
    
    	How in the hell can he pay for an apt., utilities (is he allowed
    	to keep himself warm), food (is he supposed to/allowed to eat),
    	and last but not least clothes (how unreasonable - he wants to
    	buy clothes to wear to work!).
    
    	But that's Ann's example of "rising significantly" for the
    	man.
    
    	I've seen both sides of the coin.  I've been a divorced mother
    	who in 10 years did not see one year's worth of support.  I've
    	also been (and still am) the second wife who sees what happens
    	when the ex-wife doesn't "feel like working - poor baby".  My
    	husband only has 2 more years to go, and then "the party's over
    	for lazy bones".  Can't wait to see what she'll pull then!
    
    	Ann, no offense, but YOU ARE ALL WET!  Try polling some guys from
    	the wonderful Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and find out (in the
    	words of Paul Harvey) THE REST OF THE STORY.
    
    	Barb
    

    But then again, there are some mothers who REFUSE to take the total
    child support that is due to them, because they make a decent salary,
    and don't want to drain the EX dry...
    
    so... there are both sides to the last reply also...
    
    Why is it that {most} EVERYONE jumps to the poor fathers defense ALL the
    time?... sheesh!

    Thank you all for so carefully reading my answer, so that you were
    able to ascertain that the studies on relative worth were done
    nationwide, using standard metrics, and covering all classes of
    society and not just those who work for Digital and read Notes,
    and were not specific to the Commonwealth [sic] of Massachusetts,
    and that my discussion of fractions was a hypothetical case,
    designed to show that figures change if you look at them crosseyed.
    (Try reading that paragraph in .27 back to front.)
    
    							Ann B.

         What I'd like to read is the source of the statistics and the
    nature in which the data was collected.
    
                                        Greg

    There is gender bias in divorce around child support and custody/and
    or visitation rights.
    
    The issue isn't the statistics around income and/or standard of living.
    
    I would like to see several things change.
    
    The custodial arrangement should be negotiated based on who can provide
    the best home.  That is a difficult decision to ask a judge to make but
    we do know that the decision has not been made fairly in the past.
    
    Each parent should be responsible for half of the child's financial 
    responsibility.  Again this is difficult.  
    
    Each parent should be given credits on their financial responsibility
    for the time spent with the children.
    
    And last but not least the parent receiving monies from the
    non-custodial parent owes an accounting of the money they have spent on 
    the children.
    
    There are circumstances that could color the picture.  But there are
    not enough  to justify the fact that the maternal parent receives the
    custody most of the time.
    
    And their is no justification to the fact that a custodial parent does
    not have a responsibility to acknowledge the expenditures after the
    initial financial statement.
    
    If 1/2 of the childrens support does in fact impoverish the
    non-custodial parent and the custodial parent contributes an equal
    amount then it is just the penalty of divorce.
    
    Because I suffered financially as a custodial parent does not mean that
    I want retribution.  I support the issues around non-custodial
    parenting.  
    
    But I do not support a defense that says that a non-custodial parent
    pays only what he can afford.  The custodial parent cannot go to the
    grocery store and pay 'what they can afford'.
    
    

    
    re: .36  This is an interesting reply.  I do have one question on one
    part of it:
    
    >Each parent should be given credits on their financial responsibility
    >for the time spent with the children.
    
    In my particular case, I would end up owing nothing.  In the past three
    years my ex has seen our two boys for a total of 11 days....10 of those
    were in January of 1988.  Now, I can make allowances here...he is in
    the service and stationed in Hawaii and I am in Mass.  However, he is
    entitled to leave yet has not been home since he got stationed in
    Hawaii three years ago except for a 1 day jaunt here.
    
    If we went with .36's recommendation, would I be entitled to more money
    from him based on time spent with the children?  Or would I simply not
    owe anything?
    
    It's an interesting idea.  What I gave above is actual and I'd be
    curious how .36's recommendations would work in this case.
    

>    If 1/2 of the childrens support does in fact impoverish the
>    non-custodial parent and the custodial parent contributes an equal
>    amount then it is just the penalty of divorce.
    
     It all depends on the level of support. I have seen cases where the
    divorced children we "rewarded" by the judge for no longer having a
    father- he was required to provide for them better than when he was
    there.
    
>    But I do not support a defense that says that a non-custodial parent
>    pays only what he can afford.  The custodial parent cannot go to the
>    grocery store and pay 'what they can afford'.
    
     That's the problem with geese and golden eggs. Too many would rather
    just kill the goose than let it lay eggs at its own rate.
    
     The Doctah

    re. 37  I honestly feel that non-custodial parents that spend time with
    their children and help in their care deserve and should pay less in
    child support.  It costs money to take the children for the weekend. 
    And this is exactly what the author of the base note is talking about.
    The courts and the custodial parent have made it virtually impossible for 
    non custodial parent to have the resources to make a weekend home for
    their children.  The base noter probably recognizes that there are non-
    custodial parents that do not take advantage of their vistation rights
    but that is not his problem.  His problem is that he does not have enough
    money left to provide the groceries for their lunch let alone an
    apartment for them to visit.
    
    re. 38  Of course the brief outline that I presented could pose many 
    abuses.  Obviously the courts would not be in business if we as human 
    beings settled our differences equitably.  I would think that it is
    implied that the standard of living would remain the same in my
    suggestion.  In DEC it is difficult for a non-custodial parent to 
    lie about his income.  But this happens all the time in the professions
    where people are self employed.  That is why I think that the
    discussions around whose standard of living is improved becomes a
    rathole.  Granted you can't get blood out of a stone, and if a person 
    cannot pay 1/2 of the children's support the courts need to think of 
    alternatives.  One of which might be to establish a liability that can
    be repaid when the individual is in a better financial position.  I
    suspect we might find a lot of non-custodial parents coming up with 
    their share if they knew that they would have to pay it eventually.
    
    I want a system that is fair...now.  I don't want to make up for past 
    injustices...we can't do this to our children.  I know a little girl
    that is three years old who cries when she has to leave her Dad because
    she knows her Mom doesn't want her to be with him.  And that same man
    waits each weekend and prays that there won't be some stunt that will 
    prevent him from seeing her.  But as he says what difference does it
    make because after the child support and the bills are paid he has
    $1.20 left.  Can't go far on that!
    
    
    
    But that is not this note....a non-custodial parent has the right to
    their visitation rights and some sort of recognition for the level of
    support that they provide to the custodial parent.  But even more than
    that they deserve an accounting of the money they have contributed. 
    Child support is not taxable for one thing...I would think the IRS 
    would have gotten into this by now....if the custodial parent is not
    spending the child support money on that they should have the residue
    taxed as income. 

    {If .39 appears to have it's paragraphs mixed up it is because there 
    is static on the line and I kept doing Cntr W's....my thoughts are 
    there even if it is disjointed.

    re: .27
    Baloney;  expenses went up significantly for the total family.
    
    re: .32  
    Fortunately is MA it's only 1/3 to the exwife...in CA I'm doing over
    1/2.
    

I read this note with great interest. Having been through a divorce
3.5 years ago, I can relate to what men are feeling around the bias
of the courts. Also though, I can relate to what women are feeling. 
I have several women friend that have experience great difficulty in getting any
support for their children. Face it folks, the system is broke
and we need to fix it.

Several suggestions:

First and foremost, we have to stop making the courts the first
resort in divorce cases involving children. States need to mandate
that before a divorce case involving children can go to court,
the parent must have first submitted to mediation. I saw a show
on PBS that stated that about 15 states now have laws on the books
requiring this. I was lucky. My lawyer said to me " Look it Mark,
you and your ex can determine what you are going to do with your daughter
though the lawyers and judges, make me a lots of money and not 
necessarily do what is right for your child or you as the parents can decide 
through a mediator. We chose the mediator. It was hard some times because
of the hostile feeling, but in the end we worked out the best
possible solution.

Secondly, we have to be careful of using statistics and studies
as a means to justify our actions. (My brother use to have a book
titled " How to lie with statistics"). Each situation is different
and requires a different solution. Again the point here is that, 
usually the parents are in the best position to make the right
choices, not the judges, lawyers, doctors or friends.

Third, we have to stop this gender war. It does nothing constructive
in helping us determining what is best for our children in these situations.
Remember, our children learn from our action. Is this a war we want them to
participate in? 

I often used a process as I was going through my divorce (and still do),
for helping me make decisions concerning my daughter. I would
say to myself, if my daughter was in this position and making the same
decision, what would I want her to do. Somehow, this help me remove
the emotions and help me make the right decision for her.

Mark
    
    

    In my case I am a coustodial father of two boys from my second marrage
    and was coustodial father of two girls from my first marrage. One of my
    girls is now married the other still lives with me. In the case of my 
    first marrage I made better then average income I was coustodial parent
    and my standard of living rose after the divorce. My first ex paid no
    child support and her standard of living dropped. In the case of my
    second divorce I am coustodial father making above average income
    I recieve no child support and my standard of living rose considerably
    after the divorce. My second wife also makes better then average income
    Her standard of living rose after the divorce after some initial
    difficulties. My sitution is different from a lot of those discribed
    here but I do not feel I was Treated fairly in the matter of child
    support even though I don't need any. The opinion of the court was
    that evan as coustodial parent If I didn't need the child support
    then it shouldn't be mandintory. But if the sitution had been reversed
    with my ex wives having coustody I would have been nailed to the wall
    for child support weather or not my ex's "needed" it .  

    Can anyone tell me what is the "formula" for child support in Mass?
    Is it 25% of gross income for the non-custodial parent? Is there
    a cap (like at 50 K)? Where does the custodial parent's income come in?
    
    re. .0  I can sympathize with both sides. It seems to be a very
    individual thing.  as said before, it's usually the kids that lose
    out in these battles.  I know of dads in your situation, and recently
    I met a woman with 2 babies whose ex took a big cut in pay
    (?voluntarily) and now pays her only $700 a month, and the rent is
    $800. What is she supposed to do?
    
    I am one of those single moms who does NOT take the entire 25% or
    whatever would be legally allowed. BUT an interesting scenario is
    that my child's father recently quit his almost 6-figure salaried
    position in order to "find himself" or at least evaluate his career
    options.  I don't feel that I have that option.
    
    He is paying the agreed-upon child support for now, but what happens
    when his $ runs out, if he hasn't "found himself" yet? Should I
    have taken the full 25% and banked it for this possibility?
    
    So there are both sides, but traditionally the custodial parent,
    usually the mom, gets the bulk of the responsibility AND the mommy
    track, etc, etc. But my heart goes out to those fathers who do
    want to share in the parenting and can't for whatever reason.
    
    Good luck in making it work for what's best for the kids.
    
    Beth

    Some random thoughts from one who has been there:
    
    First, one of the difficulties around child support is that EVERY case
    is different, but "rules" like 25% of gross income from the
    non-custodial parent get applied across the board, whether that
    parent's income is in the $20K or $200K range.  Impoverishment of the
    non-custodial parent (who may not have even wanted the divorce to begin
    with) is just not morally supportable.  We give them the choice: starve
    or become a criminal.
    
    Second, if we as a society REALLY cared about the children, we'd make
    it easier to meet child support obligations.  Alimony is deductible;
    why not child support.  As pointed out elsewhere here X% of gross is
    actually (X+N)% of net, where N=tax rate percentage.  I'm advocating
    here that child support received by the custodial parent NOT be taxable
    (alimony is).
    
    Third, the custodial parent should have to give a reasonable accounting
    of where the support monies are going.  This is hard to do because
    there are things like "quality of life" (where one lives, etc) that
    come into play here.  Certainly, if child care is required so the
    custodial parent can work, then that is a reasonable cost of support. 
    But, the NEITHER parent should be allowed the luxury of not working or
    voluntarily "down-sizing" their salaries "to find themselves" or
    whatever.  Parents have an obligation to their children, which includes
    working to give them the best support they can.
    
    It must be recognized by everyone that children have TWO parents, for
    better or worse, and that these parents BOTH have child-rearing
    obligations (sorry, but obligation comes with the territory; if you
    don't like it, don't have children!).  This includes time commitments
    (and the financial commitment to meet them), which means that the
    non-custodial parent needs to be able to maintain a minimum standard of
    living which allows them to participate in the process (an apartment
    big enough to allow for visits, for instance).
    
    I would also add that I think that annual reviews of support by both
    parents would be in order.  Most divorce settlements that I've heard of
    assume that the status quo at the time of the divorce will ALWAYS hold. 
    When I got my divorce, my wife was working, but because she had just
    started her career and I was 8 years into mine, she was making half of
    what I was.  Within five years, she was making MORE than I was, but the
    support agreement didn't change!  In fact, within three years of the
    divorce she moved out of the country in pursuit of her career.  I got
    to see the children two months every summer, but I had to pay for their
    air fare (all of it) to see them, and they always arrived with a
    "shopping list" for clothes for the coming year (and hardly enough
    clothes to wear for the summer!).  I had no problem with buying the
    clothes (they were living in a "third world" country where much was not
    available), but I got holy hell when I deducted the cost of the clothes
    from the support payments!  And then had to fight like crazy to get the
    children to understand that their father wasn't "abandoning" them
    because he wasn't paying the "full support".
    
    I hadn't intended to go on so much, but I think that the current
    "system" works to create lose-lose-lose situations, and it needs a lot
    of reforming to even improve the odds of making it close to break even.
    
    Bill

    RE: .47, the problem with rent figures being tossed around is that
    child support should be for the CHILD and not the mother to live off
    of. She would require a place to live, regardless if there was a child
    or not, so her total apartment cost is not a fair number to use. What
    is fair is the ADDITIONAL cost for the child (i.e. from 1 bedroom to 2
    bedrooms, etc). There is a certain basis for what she would require to
    live alone. Child support should only involve that amount ABOVE that
    base.
    
    Eric
    

    Granted what .49 is a VERY hot button for me, so I'll try to be nice 

.49>    RE: .47, the problem with rent figures being tossed around is that
.49>        child support should be for the CHILD and not the mother to live off
.49>        of. She would require a place to live, regardless if there was a child
.49>        or not, so her total apartment cost is not a fair number to use. What
.49>        is fair is the ADDITIONAL cost for the child (i.e. from 1 bedroom to 2
.49>        bedrooms, etc). There is a certain basis for what she would require to
.49>        live alone. Child support should only involve that amount ABOVE that
.49>        base.


    EXCUSE ME??????

    I have kids that not only do I require them having a bedroom to sleep
    with - and the cost of the extra bedroom is a GREAT expense..  Ever
    look at what the difference between a studio and a two bedroom apt is?
    Ever look at what the cost difference between a one bedroom house to
    purchase and a three bedroom house is to purchase?

    Not only that, but I can't have a single roommate(s) move in, to share 
    half (thirds?) of all the utilities.  

    PLUS...  my kids are in school..  I can't (READ THAT D*MN WELL WON'T!)
    put them in a town that has low rents and HORRIBLE rankings for
    schooling. Ever notice that the towns with the better school districts
    have the highest rents, and the towns with the slum school have the
    slum rates for rents???
    
    So, my total apartment cost darn too is the MAJOR consideration of what
    I required for child support. In fact it was the ONLY consideration. 
    If I didn't have kids, I could live anywhere I please, and cut my
    monthly expenses by about $X00.00 a month.  It was the $x00.00 that 
    I requested (and received) by way of court ordered garnishment per
    month.

    I didn't do X% of salary - if I had I've be living on easy street, I'd
    love to add another 1200.00 per month to my child support - which BTW
    is what the judge WANTED to add to the amount I was requesting!!! But I
    also wanted my Ex to live....  its nice that he can afford any darn
    thing he pleases.... he works for it... why not?

    Also...  deducting child support payments from income tax...  and why
    should you be so special...  every 2 family married family doesn't get
    to deduct the money they spend buy the kids shoes, braces, camps, why
    should you be so special????

    RE: .49
    
         That's an important point.  In the case I'm most familiar with, 
    the fact that no alimony was involved was used to increase the child
    support payments.  When the ex-wife complained that she could not 
    maintain her standard of living on such 'low' child support, both she 
    and the judge had to be reminded that she wasn't SUPPOSED to maintain HER
    standard of living on the payments.  The judge did finally agree, but
    still allowed a bit more than was initially decided.
    
         The husband just grimaced and took it.  He said his greatest worry
    is that the child would certainly not get the benefit of most of the 
    payments.
    
                                          Greg 

    RE: .50, from the back to the front.....
    
    My comments didn't even mention deductability for child support
    payments, so please credit the correct author.
    
    As far as apartment costs, I doubt that you'd choose to live in a
    "slum", even if you were alone, so that's really a red herring, and not 
    an actual issue. There are differences in schools from town to town,
    but not that radical difference that your paint for rents unless you go
    to extremes. Also, considering that a 1 bedroom apt. for most places is
    the norm for a single person (except in mega-rent areas), the real
    difference would then be in the number of bedrooms (depending on the
    number of children). In Nashua, NH, the difference between a one
    bedroom and a two bedroom apt (assuming 1 child for the moment) was
    $100/mo. in a NICE apartment complex (I lived in one while my house was
    being built)-again not mega-dollars. Unless you drive a 2 passenger
    car, you would need the car in either case (kids or not), so that's not
    a factor. Food and clothing would be a factor, as would medical
    insurance (but again, in many cases, the dependant coverage would still
    cover the kids) but when added up, they do not total some of the huge 
    numbers thrown around here. The majority of living costs are those
    required for the mother herself, and support should reflect this.
    
    Eric
    

    
    re "her standard of living"
    
    It was my understanding that the child support was supposed to
    be the amount that the custodial parent would require to maintain
    the standard of living which was present before the divorce.
    It did not matter whether it was his standard of living or
    her standard of living.  It was supposed to allow for the least
    amount of change required for the children.  Clearly if the
    situation for the custodial parent had changed significantly
    as far as the financial aspect, then the child's standard
    of living would also change.
    
    Michele

    
    re 52
    
    Eric
    
    "The majority of costs are those required by the mother"
    
    Could you lists these costs?  Just curious as to how you
    arrived at your conclusion.
    
    Michele

    It does not seem to be quite fair that the custodial parent is allowed
    (unless the divorce decree states differently) to use the dependent
    deduction of their tax returns and does not have to declare the child
    support as income.  That is a little different then a married couple.
    
    Around housing.  If there are three people living in a dwelling then
    the expenses should be divided by three.  I don't buy the fact that
    the custodial parent has to have housing.  I doubt that anyone who has
    a housemate or roommate charges just the cost of the extra room to that
    person.  
    
    All rooms in the dwelling are shared.  If the custodial parent were
    living alone in a one bath home they might have a chance to use that
    room uninterupted.  They do not have the same living conditions as they
    would if they were alone and dividing the total rent and utilities by
    the number of occupants compensates.

    re:966.47 by Beth  - 
    
    Here are the numbers for Child Support Guidelines in Mass. 
    This is the same form any judge uses and it's all pretty much
    cut and dry. (Depends on who's doing the cutting - plug your
    numbers in below.......
    
    Child Support Formulas
    
    A.	Gross Weekly Income	Number of Kids
    				1		2		3
    	$0 - 200 	Discretion of coourt BUT not less than $50 /month
    
    	201- 500		25% (+2%)	28% (+2%)	31% (+2%)
    
	501- max		27%  (+2%)	30% (+2%)	33% (+2%)
    
                        The 2% is at the discretion of the judge
    			BTW: Judges usually round UP.
    
    B. Age Differential
    
    	The above are to be increased to reflect the costs of raising
    	older children.
    
    	Age of oldest child			Percentage Increase
    		0 - 6				Basic Order Applies
    		7 - 12				Basic Order + 10% of BO
    	       13 - 18				Basic Order + 15% of BO
    
    These guidelines apply (absent a prior agreement acceptable to both
    parties) in cases where the combined gross income of both parties
    does not exceed $100,000 and where the income of the non-custodial
    parent does not exceed $75,000.
    
    1. Basic Order  (BO)
    	a) Non-custodial gross weekly income        __________
    
    	b) % of gross per # of kids from above         _______%
    
    	c) Basic Order (BO) (a)x(b)                           A.________
    
    2. Adjustment for Age of Children
    	a) Age of oldest child                      __________
    
    	b) % increase for age from B above               _____%
    
    	c) Age add on (2b)x(A)                      __________
    
    	d) Adjusted order (A) + 2c                            B._________
    
    3. Custodial Parent Income Adjustment
    	a) Custodial parent gross income            __________
    
    	b) Less $ 15,000			    - 15,000
    
    	c) Less annual day care cost                -_________
    
    	d) Custodial adjusted income                 _________
    
    	e) Non-custodial annual gross income 1ax52   _________
    
    	f) Total available gross (d + e)             _________
    
    	g) Line 3d ____________  Line 3f__________
    
    	h) 3d divided by 3f ________ per cent
    
    	i) Adjustment for custodial income
    	   Line (3h %) x (B)                                  C.________
    
    4. Calculation of FINAL ORDER
    	a) Adjusted order (Line Big B above)    _______
    
    	b) Less adjustment for income (Big C) - _______
    
    	c) Less weekly cost of family group
    	   health insurance                   - _______
    
    	WEEKLY SUPPORT ORDER (B)-(C)-4c                   $$$$$$_________
    
    
    That's it.
    
    Gary
                

    RE: .54, in a different notesfile, I did a specific breakdown for a
    SPECIFIC example, if I can find it again, I'll post it here.
    
    RE: .55, we're not talking about a roomate situation where the house is
    shared by two independent individuals here. Child support is supposed
    to cover the additional costs of the CHILD, period, not the mother's
    living expenses. If no children were involved, she would need a place
    to live (i.e. 1 bedroom apt.), food to eat, a car to drive with its
    associated costs, etc. The ADDITIONAL child costs could be additional
    room (another bedroom for 1 child, etc), additional food and clothing
    expenses, perhaps some child care costs, medical costs (if the child is
    not under the father's dependent coverage, or his coverage is poor),
    etc. This latter group ALONE should be what child support involves, and
    these expenses should be shared between the parents.
    
    Eric

    RE: .54, here is the piece I was talking about. It assumes that child
    support is split 50/50 and talks about the mother's own living costs,
    and those required by the child:
    
    
    *On the dolllar figures you presented, I see some problems. Looking at
    my personal case, my son is almost 9, so he is in school till about
    3PM (my previous comments specifically addressed cases where the mother
    needs to stay home. This would also apply to pre-school children). He
    attends an after school program which runs about $100/month, which
    covers him till 6 PM. This would easily cover a normal 9-5 job (he
    leaves for school around 8 AM. So the $120/week figure may not apply in
    many cases, especially with older children (12+). In many cases, the
    father would maintain dependent health care insurance (assuming he's
    the professional), so that is not an expense the mother would have
    either. For my numbers (using your figure of $175/week minus the child
    care of $120, plus my after school pgrm of $100/month) the amount would
    come out to $338/month, not $758.
    
    As far as an apartment, when I moved up to Nashua, NH very recently, I
    had a 1200 sq. ft., 2 bedroom apartment for $650/month. My utilities
    ran me (inc heat costs for a middle unit in the winter) about $50/month
    for gas and electric. So our monthly costs are now up to $1038/month.
    
    My car insurance costs me about $133/month for THREE CARS, two with
    collision (an 88 and an 86), so one car would run a lot less (my own
    figures are about $50/month). Now as far as a car loan, why is a new
    car a requirement? What is required is reliable transportation, not
    luxury, so again, your $200/month figure is high. I'd lower that by
    half, so we're up to $1138/month, which would equal $13656/year.
    Now only a portion of that is directly for the child, so using half of
    the $338 figure ($169) plus the extra cost of the apartment for the
    extra bedroom ($100/month divided by two=$50), and assuming the health
    insurance circumstance I described above, the mother's child costs
    based on 50/50 would be $219/month above what she would require if no
    child was involved. Removing $219/month from the total figure of $1138 
    leaves us with $919/month which equals $11,028/year after taxes.
    Assuming a 25% tax bracket (which is probably high, but should cover
    social security contributions) would add about $2800/year to the
    figure, bringing the total to $13,828/year. This is the cost that the
    mother would have to bear. If your remove the $219/month portion of
    child support, then the costs for her to live alone would be $11,200
    per year. Even correcting for her food bills, etc. would have the
    numbers below $13K for HER ALONE. She would have to pay this to live,
    even if she had never been married due to fixed costs and this she
    should be totally responsible for herself (excluding the prev.
    mentioned circumstances). You are assuming that the ex-husband should
    also pay half of HER living expenses which is bull!
    
    What this comes out to is that with a 50/50 on child support, each
    would contribute about $219/month or $2628/year. Using the figures
    in the base note of 18% on (assuming) takehome, that would mean that
    the ex-husband would pay (assuming a $40K income and a 30% tax rate,
    which would equal $28K) $5,040, which is DOUBLE of a half share!!!
    Something is rotten in Denmark.*
    
    Eric                                                        
    

    
    re -1  
    
    Eric that was kind of confusing as I have no idea of the note you
    were talking from the other conference.  I guess I was looking
    for a line item by line item type of thing.
    
    Just as an example
                      one month
    Mother Expense               Child Expense
    Rent 1brm    500             I bedroom extra  $100
    Food         200             1 person extra   $100
    Utilities    150             1 person extra   $25
    Transportaion 200            1 person extra   $10 (this is a guess)
    (note: with trans the added money for child would be if a car was not
    owend and other forms of trans were used ie cabs, public trans)
    Medical       75             1 person extra   $25 (misc)
                                 Daycare          $300 
    Clothes      40              Clothes          $40
    Misc         40              Misc             $25
    
    Total       1205                             $625
    
    
    Ok so now assume that the support is to cover just on half of
    the costs the child incurs.  So support would be $312.5/month
    which would work out to be 78.13/week.  
    Add in more children and the costs differ significantly. 
    
    I agree that the majority of support payments are way to high
    and are a result of a greedy lawyer trying to get as much
    money out of the exspouse as possible.  This is terribly
    unfair.  Each case is different and each case should be
    treated differently.  However the 50/50 split rarely occurs
    simply due to the guidelines set forth and followed by
    the law.              
    
    

    RE: .59, the previous reply had some general dollar figures, which
    looked way off, so I did a breakdown in specific areas, which plug-
    ged the numbers that I personally have had, including those involving
    my son. These numbers were limited to the situation where there is 1
    child who is in school, with no unusual problems, and a father who had
    dependent coverage (i.e. like DEC's) for the child's medical bills.
    The circumstances (especially the age of the child), will greatly
    influence the costs of daycare.
    
    Eric

      
    The custodial parent is not always the mother.  Referencing a custodial
    parent as the mother or female only supports the gender bias that is
    the subject of the base note.
    
    It sounds like NSSG::FEINSMITH wants a 50/50 agreement on the
    disbursements he considers child related.  But in terms of parental
    support, physical work and child rearing it is okay if it is skewed
    toward the custodial parent.
    
    What I see in .0 is something entirely different.  I see two men that
    want the opportunity to father their children.  In order to do that
    they need equitable child support agreements and adequate visitation
    rights.
    

    
    This is interesting.  Following the replies here regarding costs vs
    support has been an eye-opener.  No matter whose formula I use, I think
    I got shafted!  For two boys (now ages 9 and 13) I get a grand total of
    $400 a month.  Their stepfather pays for the health insurance.  I do
    claim both of them for income purposes.  Using the formula provided by
    the IRS, legally and monetarily I was entitled to claim both of them.
    
    Oh, yes, there is a formula that the IRS has to determine who should be
    allowed to claim the children.  If I can locate it again, I'll post it. 
    It's been 8 years since I had occasion to use the formula.
    
    Guys, not all of you get shafted.  I agree a lot of you do.  My ex
    didn't get shafted because we both only wanted what was best for the
    boys.  We worked hard a developing a friendship after the divorce so
    that neither of the boys would suffer.  The $400 figure a month was
    arrived at because at the time of the divorce, that was what I needed a
    month to pay for child care.  That was all I wanted, child care covered
    so I could continue to work.  I provided all the rest of the support. 
    That was our joint decision.  
    
    However, doing it that way left me the option of if I ran into trouble
    being able to ask my ex for help.  I think I asked once, and it was for
    emotional support and babysitting.
    
    Faith
    
    P.S.  For an aside, my ex passed approval on my boyfriends.  It was
    like having the big brother I never had.  It can work....it just
    requires work from BOTH sides.
    

    
    Thanks Joyce for pointing out that there is some payvalue in
    physical work as well as day to day emotional support of the child
    and child-related activities.
                                         
    My ex pays 33% of our childrens support based on our two salaries.
    I make more than he does and am the custodial parent.  None of my
    custodial daily activity is taken into consideration.  The way it
    was explained to me is that "Its rare for a mother to make this
    much more than the father."  So, I lose on that account.  The
    way the guidelines were set up is based on the assumption that
    men make more than women and most women have custody.  Trying to
    figure out equitable support agreemnts is a tough area.
    
    My ex also has liberal visitation and doesn't exercise it.  I
    think each support/visitation scenario is different and should be
    viewed on a case by case basis and guidelines should keep assumptions
    and genders out of it.   Unfortunately, thats far from the case.
    I see gender bias towards both sides in the court.  I was frowned
    at by some older judges for making so much more than my husband
    and they seemed out to "show me".  I went to college, I paid for
    my education and now I'm penalized every week for it when the 
    child support check comes in.  Like Faith said, I don't think
    I do very well when I read the other replies.  I get $360/month
    for 3 kids and he gets to claim one for taxes.  
    
    Gender bias is not confined to males but there is gender bias in
    the system and *that* I'd like to see changed for guidelines and
    settlements.
    
    /s
        

re: .27  [broomhead]

>>>The results of statistical sampling shows that the standard of living for
the custodial parent (usually the woman) drops significantly, while that of the
non-custodial parent (usually the man) rises significantly.

What sampling?  By whom??
    
>>>There is another factor to consider.  Say the non-custodial ex-husband is
forced to pay one-half of his after tax income to pay for his two children. 
That sounds outrageous, right?  But consider.  He is paying *half* his income
to support *two-thirds* of his family. Now it sounds like he's getting away
with something, doesn't it?

If a man pays half, after taxes, that is criminal!  By your reasoning, a couple
more kids would have justified his total income.
    
>>>But the truth, whatever it turns out to be, must include the acceptance that
KIDS ARE EXPENSIVE.

Everything is expensive.  But that's no excuse to rob anyone.  
    
-dwight

re:  .31

Lorna, how true!
    
>>>>>I find it strange, also, that non-custodial fathers even have to pay
child-support to the mother, when the father has the kids.  He gives the money
to his ex-wife to support the kids that week, and then *he* has the kids and
he's supposed to support them on what he has left.  I know someone who can't
afford to take his kids on a regular basis because of this unfair arrangement.

Amen.  This happens all to often.  When I have my son for summer vacation, I
still pay the full amount to his mother.  Where is the logic in that???

So I'm out extra money during that time.  I like to fly home.  I like to take
him with me.  So plane tickets and such, have to be planned for and financed by
me, on top of my full support check.  Last year I borrowed the money from a
friend to fly home.  I've almost paid it off.  Perhaps this year I can't afford
to fly my son back to be with me and his grandparents.  I don't know at this
point where the money will come from.

-dwight

re: .55 [jlamotte]
    
>>>>I doubt that anyone who has a housemate or roommate charges just the cost
of the extra room to that person.  

And I doubt that most parents charge their children to live with them.

-dwight    

We all know of stories which reflect injustice for both sides, but now's my
time to flame.... This one gets my emotions going, so fill free to hit the next
note.  But I'll climb in the ring with ANYONE on this one!



With my "X", the owning a fancy home in a popular area of town meant
everything.  She could live more modestly and provide greatly for my son with
her salary any my child support.  But no.

She showed the court on paper, that with her salary, with the house payment and
her expenses, that she was $400 in the RED each month, if nothing went sour.  I
was pushing to sell the house as I knew it would be a burden, and hoped to
clear my VA loan.  I lost out.  I asked the court to have her show how she was
going to make it.... the court ignored me.  She brought home $1000 per month. 
The house payment is $900, with $100 more for utilities.  Do you think my
support only supports my son???  Hell no.

The judge said the routine lines... how that it was in the best interest of the
child to remain in his present home, how he needed to be with the mother,
attend the same schools, as it was important not to disrupt his home life.  The
judge wasn't living in reality.  What he did, in fact, was put my "X" and my
son under a hardship by having them stay in a dwelling that my "X" couldn't
afford.  The judges do live in the past.  I wanted custody but my lawyers told
me that I'd spend a couple thousand dollars to find out that the court, in
Colorado, would back the woman in a civil case and I had no chance in Hell
unless I could prove her unstable.  So there is was.

I also split medical expenses with her.  He is on her medical plan.  My son had
a rash.  She thought it was ringworm, (but it wasn't), and I had to talk her
into taking him to the doctor. She finally agreed.  I had to fork out the money
for that bill as she didn't have the $30 for the office visit.  BUT... on the
way out of the office, she said to my son, "Well Bob, now I can cancel Cloy's
appointment with the vet." That's her St. Bernard.  She had the money for the
dog to see the doctor when she thought Bob may have given it ringworm!!!  It's
a show dog, of course. And then, she can afford to spend hundreds of dollars on
another show dog and have it flown in from Canada!!!  But I bought that dog,
didn't I???  She has money for expensive dogs, trainers, traveling expenses,
(she has gone as far as Texas to a show... we're in Colorado), but I have to
talk her into taking my son to the doctor.  Another time, I noticed his broken
arm didn't seem to be healing right.  I begged her to take him back to the
doctor.  She said, "Oh, I think it's healing OK."  She had let him take off the
removable cast much to early. Finally she agreed and guess what.... it had
healed incorrectly.  But hey, the court said that the child is better off with
his mother!

Here's what pisses me off....

I keep running tabs on the total amount I have paid her since January of 1986.
It's in the thousands, of course.  And the sad thing is, when my son gets older
and needs a car, needs money for college, etc., he won't have sh*t to show for
it.  I know what it takes to feed and clothe him.  I can do it for half of what
I'm paying her now.  The rest of that money could being going into an account
for him.  But, I'm feeding and clothing both of them as well as taking care of
her show dogs!  Wouldn't this make a person want to throw in the towel?

Like many people, greed has her.  She'll take every penny for herself that is
possible and do whatever she can to maintain the home, (which was featured in
the parade of homes in 1986).  Status.  A lawyers daughter.  She wants him to
take art, foreign languages, and fencing, but not play baseball or football
like other boys.  He is in public school, but she keeps telling me that public
school is not good enough... that he belongs in private school.  Sorry, I'm
rambling....

It's a struggle for me.  Sometimes I want to just give up.  I get so depressed
when I think of how much longer I have to go.  Sometimes I think about quitting
my job and moving on, but then there's my son....  I can see why some daddies
refuse to pay and move around.  It can be tempting.  The love for my son has
kept me going, but for how much longer.... that's an unknown.

OK.  Go ahead and flame back at me for spilling my guts on the subject!  I've
said it.  I had to.  There's more I could tell, but I'll stop for now.

-dwight

>     <<< Note 966.67 by BLITZN::BERRY "Send me to a McCartney concert." >>>


	 The more I hear stories like this, the more I assure myself
	 that I'm glad that I fully support myself, that I've made the
	 decision to never have children, and that when I marry, if
	 ever, it will be a situation where we both can support
	 ourselves separately.

	 It's hard seeing someone taken for a ride.  And I see people
	 all the time shafting the child and using the money for their
	 own benefit and it makes me sick.  How can people be so
	 senselessly cruel??

	 Why aren't there laws that make the custodial parent account
	 for where the money goes in situations like these?


	 kath

    Je Me Souviens  ===> Keine Freien Proben !
    

     RE: .67

     Dwight,

     Can I trade my current ex in and you be my current ex??

     All kidding aside - I do "feel" for the Fathers who do get shafted.  
     The one thing that we all have to remember is EACH CASE IS DIFFERENT!

     My ex was paying $300 a month for 3 children from the time the divorce 
     papers were filed until the divorce was final (8 years ago).  The court 
     set up the monthly payments to be the same $300 per month.  He suddenly 
     decided he wasn't going to give "that bitch" (me) anything!  Nobody 
     could convince him that he wasn't giving me the money but it was his
     part of the responsibility of supporting his children.

     He never applied for custody and wouldn't even consider joint custody.  
     He was given reasonable visitation rights but the only time he would 
     see them was when his girlfriend would suggest it.  She'd call me, we'd 
     make the arrangements and SHE would pick them up AND SHE would bring 
     them home.  When he and she split up, he didn't bother about the kids.

     This all happened in Arizona.  Then I received a job transfer offer to 
     Colorado Springs and my ex raised holy hell about not being able to see 
     the kids, etc.  The court gave the go ahead for me to accept the transfer.

     When I decided to go back to court to enforce Child Support payments, 
     his mother panicked.  SHE asked me to consider this alternative, SHE 
     would pay half of the support payment each month if I didn't take him 
     back to court.  I accepted her offer mainly because I decided that 
     $150 a month for sure was better for helping support the children 
     than 0 (which is what I would have gotten if he was in jail) and I
     really didn't want the kids father in jail because of me.

     Brenda (13) and Philip (15) are still living with me.  I still only 
     receive the $150 from their father's mother.  The unfortunate part is 
     that they know who really pays the Child Support. (Yes, I told them 
     the truth when asked the specific straight out question.)  They have 
     been back to Arizona on several occasions and each time they have spent 
     time with their father (he lives with his mother).  The only actual 
     money he has ever spent on them, besides late Birthday and Christmas 
     gifts, was 2 years ago he paid their airfare for a Christmas visit ($280).

     This last year all 3 of us drove down to Arizona for Christmas.  We 
     stayed with my oldest daughter who is 19 and lives down there.  I 
     finally convinced the other 2 to go spend a day with their father.  
     Upon returning from the visit, Brenda says that she refuses to go back
     to see him and "you can't make me."

     So financial support is not all my children are lacking!  I make 
     just enough money to get by but not without the Child Support (maybe
     someday).  The problem is that I don't usually have the money for
     the little extra things, like my son turns 16 in November and there
     is no way I can afford the insurance rate let alone a car.  As for
     college, sorry but if you want to go you'll have to get a scholarship.

     Yes there are times that this kind of having to do without makes
     me very bitter against ANY custodial parent who isn't making their
     support payments, male or female.  I do believe that who ever has
     custody has the right to FAIR support payments from the non-custodial
     parent.  The children are the responsibility of BOTH parents.  As
     a custodial parent I have no problem at all with showing the court
     or my ex just exactly where the Child Support really goes, in fact,
     I would like to see it made a requirement to be sent back through
     the court the way the non-custodial parent sends Child Support payments 
     throught the court.

     Maybe someday I'll win the Lottery! (ha ha!)  Until then, I will 
     just keep doing the best I can.  

     Connie

    Connie - 
    
    Boy can I relate!
    
    There are two sides to every story.  In my case my ex got this weird
    notion that the only thing child support should pay for is half of the
    day care bill.  So when my daughter goes to school full time next year
    he expects his $150 a month payment to go DOWN!  No matter how many
    times I explain to him that she has to eat, wear clothes, have heat and
    shelter, he keeps coming back to this day care thing.  This has been
    going on since I left him over 4 years ago.  
    
    I congratulate those men who really want to make a difference in
    their children's lives and who willingly accept the responsibility of
    parenting both financially and emotionally.
    
    In my opinion Colorado has a pretty good system in place now.  They
    figure the child's expenses based on a cost of living survey, add the
    parents' incomes together, figure out who provides what percentage of
    the combined income and then each parent conrtributes that percentage
    of the child's expenses (including travel expenses to the non-custodial
    parent).  Unfortunately my divorce was final in Oregon where there
    seemed to be no rules at all.  
    
    Nanci

    I can sympathize with you Connie, but if a 16 year old wants to get a
    car, let him get a part time job to pay for it. The same thing for
    college if the money isn't there. If you were still married, there is
    no law that would make you and your husband pay for such things, why
    should it be expected if you're divorced (and I'm not flaming you in
    particular, just making a general point). If children want some of the
    "nicer" things that come with the approach of adulthood, let them work
    for it.
     
    Eric (and your ex is a &^&$%&^* for ignoring his own children)

    Nanci-
    
>    So when my daughter goes to school full time next year
>    he expects his $150 a month payment to go DOWN!
    
     Let me get this straight. Will your costs be going down? If they will,
    why shouldn't his costs go down? Would you ask him for more if your
    costs went up?
    
     I'm serious. (No rathole, argument etc intended).
    
     The Doctah

    The costs overall will not go down - the daycare costs will. 
    Unfortunately as kids get older they eat more, need clothes more
    frequently and the clothes cost more money.  The point is that he
    thinks the ONLY expense that should be taken into consideration is
    daycare!
    
    Nanci

    
    Nanci,
    
    	I'll back you on the cost going up.  Especially on clothes.  Plus,
    when kids go to school you have a variety of new expenses...lunch money
    every week, school affairs, etc.  It seems like every week there is
    something coming home from school that ask for $.  Granted, you don't
    have to respond to all of them.
    
    	Regarding clothes.....just the difference in price for a pair of
    jeans for my 12 year old boy and for my 9 year old is between $5 - $10
    and compared to when they were smaller, the increase is proportional. 
    When they were pre-school age, grandparents bought them more clothes. 
    You see, younger kids clothes are "cuter" so grandparents are more
    inclined to pick up something because it is "cute".  That saves on the
    clothing expense then.  However, when they get older, this disappears
    and therefore your clothing expense for children goes up.
    
    	Shoes are another area.  The older a child gets, the shorter the
    time shoes last.  Pre-school kids who usually have an adult outside
    with them don't tend to wear through shoes as quickly as a child who
    can go outside unsupervised on a full-time basis.
    
    	The expenses don't go down.  They simply change.  What I have been
    seeing is since my children started school, my expenses have gone up. 
    The older they get, the expenses have also gone up.
    
    	I can see the expenses possibly going down when the children take a
    part time job.  However, if the child has taken that part-time job to
    save to buy him/her a car (or whatever), then the expenses would
    probably not go down.  If the child was using part of his/her income
    from the part-time job to buy clothes, etc., then the expenses could
    conceivably drop.
    
    	Oh, and food, especially with boys.  I have a 12 year old who
    literally has a hollow leg.  My food bill has gone up trying to keep
    his legs filled.  I don't see that dropping.  The amount of food my 9
    year old eats compared to my 12 year old and compared to when they were
    pre-school is quite different.  Pre-school, I could have cooked for two
    and fed all three of us.  Now, I would have to cook for four to feed
    all three of us.
    
    	There really are all sorts of variables in this.
    
    Faith
    

>    The costs overall will not go down - the daycare costs will. 
    
     Oh yeah, another question I should have asked last time was "Is he
    currently paying a fair amount?" If he's not currently paying his fair
    share, then just because the total cost goes down, his share shouldn't
    necesarily go down.
    
>    Unfortunately as kids get older they eat more, need clothes more
>    frequently and the clothes cost more money.  
    
     Tell me about it. As one with two teenagers and a 1 yr old, I know all
    about it. :-(
    
>    The point is that he
>    thinks the ONLY expense that should be taken into consideration is
>    daycare!
    
     That's clearly absurd. I was just thinking if you were paying
    $100/week for daycare, and that bill completely disappeared, it seems
    like it would more than compensate for the increased costs of raising a
    school age child. There's no reason to not have his support increase
    when the costs increase, and there's no reason to have his support
    decrease, when the costs decrease. That's my key point. I don't know
    where you live, but around here, it costs over $5,000 per year for
    daycare. That's an awful lot more than ALL clothes and food for a year
    (unless you <generic_you> _want_ to spend much more than is necessary).
    
     The Doctah

    
    	To me, the only thing that bothered me during the years
    	I paid support, is when I had the kids for the summer.
    	I had to pay for their flights, PLUS still pay the support
    	even while I had the kids.  I did bring this up to my
    	lawyer and was told not to rock the boat. I didn't want
    	any support from her during this time, only to keep the
    	money so I could do more with/for the kids while they were
    	with me. The reply I got was that she still had to keep the
    	house going while they were away with me, so in the courts
    	eyes, she was still suppling them support and I was expected
    	to pay support.
    
    	BTW, Still had support even after I had full-time custody of
    	one of the kids (we had two), reduced by only 1/3. (?? how
    	1 of 2 equals 1/3 I'll never figure) Funny thing was, her
    	income was (still is) close to double that of mine.
    
    	

>	BTW, Still had support even after I had full-time custody of
>    	one of the kids (we had two), reduced by only 1/3. (?? how
>    	1 of 2 equals 1/3 I'll never figure) Funny thing was, her
>    	income was (still is) close to double that of mine.
 
The only word that comes to mine is my teenager's favorite: GROSS.

Maybe we should just throw the whole system out and start over from 
scratch trying to design something fair?  Naw, too radical . . .

But it does confirm what I've always suspected:  In any legal proceeding,
the decent honest person gets screwed . . . 

--bonnie   
    	

My son is 10 yrs old.  Since he was 8, he has been a "latch key" child.  She
can't afford daycare as she has dogs to support.

-dwight

PS:  I can't believe how some guys only pay $100 or $150!  I'd think I was
     if that's all I paid!

    
    And Dwight,
    
    	that $100 a week is for 2 boys!
    

    Well, try $25.00 a week for a now 17 year old boy.  That doesn't even
    buy his milk every week and certainly didn't pay for his daycare when
    he was in daycare.
    
    Marie
    

    Marie, I dont think ANYONE here is denying that women SOMETIMES get the
    shot end.  I think the people here are merely stating that MOST of the
    time, the father gets reamed.  Wouldn't you agree?
    
    Al

PLEASE - no more putting ex-spouses on trial in this conference!  Certainly
there are many cases on all sides of the issue, but nothing will get settled
by turning this into a kangaroo court.

Personally, I consider many of the replies so far rather insensitive to the
feelings of fathers who WANT to be a part of their childrens' lives and are
willing to support their children, but who are systematically excluded from
doing so.  These men should not suffer because others do not live up to 
their obligations.

				Steve

    Sure, I agree.  I was just responding to the few support notes in here
    that not every woman is out to bankrupt her ex.  From my experiences 
    (I've been divorced twice) where the problem comes in that I've seen 
    is with the lawyers.  My first husband and I went to a lawyer together.
    We had worked everything out ahead of time.  We both wanted the divorce 
    so no problem, right?  Well, every time that lawyer got me alone he 
    tried to pressure me into telling my ex to get his own lawyer and we'd 
    take him to the cleaners.  I didn't.
    I also agree men who live up to there responsibilities and actually
    want to spend time with their children shouldn't suffer because of the
    others.  I know too many men who when they divorce the wife, they
    divorce their children also.  My own brother is one.  I applaud you
    guys out there who do care!
    

    RE: .84
    
    I also agree... There are FAR too many notes in this conference
    (and others!!!), that are poor pitiful me, I'm a father, I have to pay
    child support, I can't afford a corvette because of it, etc... and
    when mothers show the other side that most have not taken what we
    deserve, and didn't bankrupt their ex, we are told to shut up...
    
    It really upsets me to see the imbalance... 

    re:  .81
    
    Marie, I'd love to sell you milk!  :^)
    
    -dwight

    re:  .85
    
    Please read .83
    
    

    RE: .86
    
    dwight,
    
    I guess you don't know what it's like having a teenager with two hollow
    legs. ;^) 
    
    Marie
              

>    I also agree... There are FAR too many notes in this conference
>    (and others!!!), that are poor pitiful me, I'm a father, I have to pay
>    child support,
    
    and
    
>    when mothers show the other side that most have not taken what we
>    deserve, and didn't bankrupt their ex, we are told to shut up...
    
     What is it that you think you're doing here? You are badmouthing men
    who complain that they have gotten ill treatment, while ALSO
    complaining about the badmouthing women have gotten when they complain
    of their ill treatment. Let's be consistent here! If you don't want
    women to be referred to as being bellyachers, don't label men thusly!
    
     The Doctah

    Doctah,
    
    I don't see it as bad mouthing women, I see it as several women in this
    conference who have said they they are getting far less in child suport
    than the courts would grant them, and are surviving, and haven't gone
    back to court to get the extra dollars, because they didn't want to
    bankrupt their ex. they have the ability to do just that, but have
    chosen not to.
    
    When it was pointed out again, a moderator then stepped in and told the
    women here to shutup (my words, not his, but para-prased)...
    
    But, he didn't tell the fathers to also shutup in their complaining
    that they can't buy X, Y, or Z...
    
    It just didn't strike me as being fair to both sides is all...

     Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appeared to me that the moderator was
    not telling the women to shut up, rather, he was telling both men and
    women to stop attacking their ex-spouses here. I saw nothing to
    indicate that he was talking to only one gender.
    
     The Doctah

Re: .85

Gale, I haven't seen any notes of the sort you mention.  Can you point even
one example out to us?   I imagine that there are as many of them as from
mothers who say "poor pitiful me, I don't get enough child support and
can't pay for my flying lessons..."

				Steve

Re: .90, .91

Mark is correct.  I want an end to finger pointing here from both sides.
It accomplishes nothing.

					Steve

    Geezz.. Steve, even *I* can afford flying lessons... they really aren't that
    expensive :-)...

    I return you back to your regularly scheduled topic....

I think the evidence presented here is fairly overwhelming that the
present system of divorce and child support is unfair to *everyone* except
the deadbeat spouses of both sexes who want to either take revenge on 
the ex at all costs or else decamp from all responsiblity.  Oh, and also
to the lawyers who specialize in this kind of thing.

Everybody else, male and female, adult and kids, gets reamed.  Grandparents
who lose contact with their beloved grandchildren 'cause the parents
can't agree, cousins separated from each other because one parent told 
his/her sister he wouldn't speak to her if she continued to be friends
with the ex (just happened in my extended family), kids who grow up without
one or the other parent's love and support, parents who don't get a chance
to become involved in their children's lives, parents who can't put their
lives back together because the ex took them to the cleaners, who have their
subsequent relationships jeopardized because the ex can't stand to lose 
control of the person's life. 

Saying the system is unfair to one sex or the other is only half the 
truth, it's only looking at one half of the problem.  If we're going to 
do anything about the problem, we have to quit yelling at each other and
try to figure out how to rework the system in a fair and equitable manner.

I happen to think that if we rework the underlying social and economic
inequities, many of the problems will be greatly reduced -- if women are
participating fully equally in the economic structure, and men are allowed
to fully express their emotional depth, then neither divorcing parent
will have to worry about getting child support because they'll be able to 
take care of the kids themselves if need be, and custody can be decided 
based on who will be the better parent, not on the sex of that parent.

But what can we do in the short term?

--bonnie

    re .96
    
    BRAVO!
    
    Thank you for putting things in perspective, Bonnie.  
    
    Judi
    

I also support what Bonnie said.  I tried to say something like this in
.30 but it didn't come across as well.

				Steve

    
    Bonnie (.96) -
    
       I'm usually around 95% agreement with you, but here we're down to
    maybe 71.8%.  Yes, lawyers are venal, and the courts often generate
    third rate solutions.  But I think blaming things on "the system" is
    somewhat of a cop-out.
    
       Most of the divorce-wars we read and hear about are tantrums. 
    Expectable tantrums, even understandable tantrums; I've experienced
    them myself.  But tantrums.  Now, when it's two dependentless people (I
    won't say "adults") who chose to squander their resources on indulgance
    of tantrums, I suppose it's "their right."  And should lawyers have
    less right to turn a profit than, say, florists, or funeral directors?
    
       But most of the tantrums you see described in notes (I'm afraid I'm
    poorly informed about the Trump case, or the like) are ones which rope
    in innocent children, and use them for ammunition.  That seems to me
    quite unforgivable, and in no way the fault of "the system."  Of course
    the courts are imperfect, but it's not their fault that parents throw
    out mail, or prevent phone calls, or slander each other.
    
       Almost any parent learns in the first week (if not the 9 preceeding
    months) that you've got to defer your short term needs in favor of the
    kid's.  When divorcing parents throw such thoughts out the window, the
    fault doesn't lie with "the system," but with themselves.
    
    		- Bruce
    
    p.s. Yes, of course the tragedy is when one parent roughly agrees with
    this, and the other doesn't.