Conference quark::mennotes

    
    When things get bad enough, then maybe men will finally organize into
    a political force to do something about it.
    
    fred();

.1  When things get bad enough, then maybe men will finally organize into
.1  a political force to do something about it.

	I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.   Would you please
clarify ??

	The case apparently has a man who owed 14 years in back support.
He was a deadbeat for a long, long time.   And while he was shirking his
responsibilities he was saving money.   The story suggests that when Gray
went to court, he claimed he had no assets.  (i.e. he lied)   When DOR
found hidden assets, they took them.
	If the court knew about the IRA and declined to take it, then I
would think the DOR was out of line.   And if this is true, it is very
scary.
	Taking the $100 from the bank account was stupid ... the message
is keep everything in cash.   And BTW that's not what the DOR wants.

	RE: .2

	I understand that Yes, he was a "DEADBEAT" for so long and they
	should have taken all of his monie$ that he said he "didn't" have.

	But the question I am faced with is, should there  be a time limit/
	dollar amount and other variables that equate to be a DEADBEAT..??

	I ask this question only because 

	1) I am considered a DEADBEAT DAD even thought I "personally" have
	   NEVER been late with a child support payment. (The courts took
	   away my PRIVELEDGE" to make my own payments and when my EX quit
	   her job, lied about my whereabouts, got AFDC , it took them 
	   3 months to "find" me. So I had some arrearages)

				AND

	2) Although after the Judge took my %50 custody and gave me %20,
	   they did not increase my child support payments to include
	   my new child support amount. They did increase my arrearages
	   though and I ASSuME to reflect the fact I no longer had the kids

	And although I could have made this payment on my own. I did not
	because when I HAD CUSTODY, my EX went to the DA's office and 
	told them that she had custody, at which point they began to
	garnish my wages. It took me 2 months to convince them that I
	did in fact have custody. Even though I had a COURT ORDER stating
	that I had custody. Only after threatening with a lawsuit did it
	get resolved.

	I mean should you be considered a DEADBEAT DAD when:

	1) You are 0 payments behind and have arrearages from $0 - ????
	2) You are 1 payment behind and have no arrearages
	3) You are 1 payment behind and have less then 1 payments 
	   arrearages
	4) etc....


	I don't know, Just a question.....???

brett

    
    	re .2
    
    	This is not only about the deadbeat dad mentioned in .0.
    
    	It's about the eroding of non-custodial parent's (usually men)
    	rights in general.
    
    	It's about confiscation of property.
    
    	It's about the custodial parent (usually the mother) not having to
    	account for the child support the NCP (usually the father) pays.
    
    	It's about her buying gifts for her boyfriend,taking vacations,
    	etc. with the child support the father pays.
    
    	It's about her choice to not ever work again as long as she has the
    	father on the hook financially.
    
    	It's about the outrageous amounts that the state of Mass orders
    	for child support.
    
    	It's about forced garnishment of wages.
    
    	It's about our legal system constantly putting all fathers through
    	wringer  even though the vast majority of them are loving, caring
    	providers, because of the actions of a few bad apples.
    
    	It's about the courts not putting equal emphasis on visitation
    	rights and denying bogus, vengeful restraining orders when that
    	is the right thing to do.
    
    	It's about all of that and more.
    
    
    	John
    

I had mixed reactions to the story in .0.

As usual, the news story does not tell us enough to be sure who's right and
who's wrong.

I would feel that Mr. Gray was in the right if

	he was unaware of or honestly disputing the paternity claim for 14 years

	he reported his assets honestly to the court

	he arrived at a payment schedule based on his best effort to pay

I would feel that DOR and the Supreme Judicial Court were right if

	he had been evading his responsibility for 14 years

	he concealed assets from the court

	the court used his financial statements to set a payment schedule


I support men's fight for parental rights, but I don't include any right to
avoid payment of child support.

    
    
    	I don't see this as applying to Mr. Gray only. I see it as setting
    	a precedent to allow for confiscation of property even though there
    	may be an agreed-to payment schedule already approved by probate
    	court.
    
    	John
    
         
    	

    
>    	I don't see this as applying to Mr. Gray only. I see it as setting
>    	a precedent to allow for confiscation of property even though there
>    	may be an agreed-to payment schedule already approved by probate
>    	court.

    The context of Mr. Gray's case matters a lot to me.  Is this a general
    precedent or one used in the case of a NCP who tried to hide assets? 

    If Mr. Gray was hiding assets I think the treatment of his financial
    assets should have been different (tougher) than  if he had been
    honest.  Every NCP who hides income, hides assets, or doesn't make
    their payments is making life worse for the scores of NCPs who have
    legitement complaints about payment plans.

    If Mr. Gray was above board the whole time the whole thing stinks.

    IMO,
    Greg

    

    
    
    	re -1
    
    	Possibly. I don't know all the details of Gray's case..it sounds
    	like proving paternity was one of the original issues.
    
    	As for hiding assets, I don't believe that every asset of the
    	father (NCP) should have to be revealed in every case. Too often
    	the man is taken to the cleaners in the name of 'child support'
    	when it is in fact, disguised alimony and extortion on the part of
    	the ex-wife.
    
    	I believe in a fair and equitable settlement when it comes to child
    	support. I believe that both parents are equally responsible. I
    	don't believe that 'fair' means finding out about every nickel the
    	man has and making him share it with the ex. I don't believe that
    	a woman should be able to be under-employed because of choice, and
    	still be able to collect child support.
    
    	John 
                         

.8>    	As for hiding assets, I don't believe that every asset of the
>    	father (NCP) should have to be revealed in every case. Too often
>...
>    	I believe in a fair and equitable settlement when it comes to child
>    	support. I believe that both parents are equally responsible. I

If an NCP (or any debtor) signs a paper saying "this is all the assets I have"
they will get little sympathy from me when additional assets are discovered. 
And I don't think the courts will be able to arrive at fair and equitable
settlements if they are habitually lied to.  Yes, this applies to false grounds
for restraining orders.

As has been said several times here, those who abuse the system make life harder
for the rest of us.



.3>	But the question I am faced with is, should there  be a time limit/
>	dollar amount and other variables that equate to be a DEADBEAT..??

The rational solution would be to drop terms like DEADBEAT, but I'm not holding
my breath.  I'd like the courts to treat separately NCPs who

	do their best to provide financial and other support to their children,
	even though circumstances and bureaucracy make it difficult

	hide assets, hide income, delay payments and disappear

It sounds like Mr. Avery belongs in the first category.  I still don't know
where Mr. Gray belongs.

    
    I'm astonished that anyone here believes your assets are the
    courts or the governments business. Anyone that doesn't try
    to keep what is theirs deserves to be robbed by the government.
    If you really believe that the courts/government know best how
    to give away what you have, then we a have a big problem.
    
    Mike
    

.10 I'm astonished that anyone here believes your assets are the
.10 courts or the governments business.


	If I take what you said literally, I could infer that if someone
stole your car, that you wouldn't want the police to get involved.   Well,
if you were right there at the time, I suppose you could pull out your
six gun and blast away.   Of course if the bad guy had a bigger gun
you might lose not only your automobile, but your life as well.   Or what
if you didn't see it happen ??   If you want to deny the power of the
courts over property ownership, then all I need to do to take your
house from you is to hire a couple of Hell's angels and take it.
Is this what you want ??

	So I'm confused about what you are saying.   Are you saying
that in divorce and support cases the courts shouldn't get involved ?
If the courts shouldn't handle divorce and support cases who should ?
Hired guns ??   DOR ??   Local churches ??

	I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on what you meant.

	Or are you just going to move to Montana ?

            re .11

>If I take what you said literally, I could infer that if someone
>stole your car, that you wouldn't want the police to get involved.  

    You're comparing that which is taken illegally to that which is earned. 
    The correct comparison is the court/police getting back what is legally
    yours vs. the court/police confiscating what is legally yours. 
    Actually, when you equate the courts confiscating your assets to a thug
    at gunpoint confiscating your assets, your comparison more proves he
    point that .10 is making than not.  

    Actually even if you are being _killed_ all the police are going
    to do is scrape up what is left and file a report.

>If the courts shouldn't handle divorce and support cases who should ?
>Hired guns ??       

    Might be preferable.  All a hired gun can do is kill you.  Murders,
    rapists, and child molester have more rights in our court system
    than do fathers.  I'm not exaggerating.  Think about it.

    Would be interesting to see a comparison on how much the State spends
    on tracking down "deadbeat dads" to how much the State spends on 
    tracking down, say, rapists or child molesters.
    
    fred();

    Usually you get the slant of what a rasputian man from the Glub. There
    isn't any side of the dad who might have been denied visation. There
    isn't the heart burn of that might have been with trying to see his
    son. Like being told to come get his son and waiting for two or more
    hours in the car outside the house on Christmas day as my cousin was in
    the custodial wars he had with his ex. Sit there rasputian, wait, cause
    the ex is in a power trip mode and wants to make your life as rotten as
    hell as possible. 
    
     

.10>    I'm astonished that anyone here believes your assets are the
>    courts or the governments business. Anyone that doesn't try
>    to keep what is theirs deserves to be robbed by the government.

I think there may be a little confusion about "your assets" and "what is theirs."

I believe that parents owe support to their children.  A parent who is not
supporting their child can't take the position that the property they control is
entirely their own.  They are in the position of any debtor who is not paying a
debt.  Courts have been used to collect debts for thousands of years, and the
assets of debtors have been the business of the courts for that long. 
Anglo-Saxon common law has recognized this for a thousand years.  If you want to
change this, you need to explain how and why.

Of course, even those of us who recognize the responsibility of courts to
enforce rights can question the justice of the decision reported in .0, or the
many other injustices raised in .4 and elsewhere.

    I think what is sad about it all is the way an ncp is treated. The
    court system cares not if there is visatation. But care only if there
    is money in the pockets.
    
    

    
    The thing that really rips me about the whole thing is that if women
    were being forcibly separated from their children then being forced 
    to finance the situation at the rate men are being forcibly separated 
    from their children, there'd be rioting in the streets.  Just look what 
    happens when even one mother loses custody.

    "Evil" men?  Not that I'm advocating it, but sometimes I wonder how
    it is so _few_ men go over the edge and cut loose with a machine gun.

    fred();

    MEN = BEAST OF BURDEN
    
    Unfortunatly, thats the way it is...  Alot of women get away with this
    and its not going to change anytime soon.  We know it, they denie it
    and thats the way it is, PERIOD.

    Hummm.... Sounds like the making of a song from the Stones, I'll never
    be your beast of burden'...:)
    

    re .14 and others
    
    I'm currently paying $300/week for one normal, healthy child. Even
    though I totally support my son who lives with me. The ex gets to keep
    allher income, btw.
    
    Just recently I was paying $500/week for one child, not because I made
    six figures or anything, but because I had a few good months as a
    contractor. I constantly buy clothes, etc., for my daughter because
    mommy has 'no money'. Bulls*it she doesn't.
    
    I'm sinking deeperinto debt each week. I'm about to take a part-time
    job shagging pizzas or whatever just to make the rent. I know that if I
    do this, my ex will march back into court demanding a share of my part
    time job. And she'll win, here in Mass.
    
    Should there be a limit on how much I should have to pay for child
    support? Would I be justified in hiding my part-time income?
    
    The questions shouldn't be "You make X so pay amount Y" but instead
    "How much does it cost to raise a child, and are both parents doing
    everything possible to share the costs 50-50?".
    
    John
    

.19> I constantly buy clothes, etc., for my daughter because
>    mommy has 'no money'. Bulls*it she doesn't.

Of course, I don't understand the whole situation, but it occurs to me that this
might be something to change.  Maybe you could make it clear to daughter and
mother that your $300/week is already being given for clothes.

>    Should there be a limit on how much I should have to pay for child
>    support? 

Everything I read here tells me that the formulas are unfair, and unfairly
applied.

That said, it makes sense to me that child support should depend on NCP's
income.  If it was a flat rate per child, then low income NCPs would get hit
much harder than high income NCPs.  And the children of high income NCPs would
be the big losers.

Maybe the formula should take more account of the CPs income, and should not
automatically increase in exact proportion to the NCP's income.

>Would I be justified in hiding my part-time income?

I can certainly understand how you would be tempted.

Whether you would be justified is an ethical question, and the ethical answer is
no.  Of course, I've done unethical things now and then, so I would not be too
quick to throw stones.

The risk of this may be more relevant.  How likely is the CP to learn about the
extra income?  What will this look like in court?

    This level of NCP support is bringing this person, John, to the edge of
    bankrupcty. What is a fair scale of child support if on the other hand
    the lower income child would be short changed? There is a point of
    reason and logic that is not being aheard too. Its blatient. John
    doesn't make a 6 digit income as he said. But, handsome as it maybe, it
    is considering taking up a second job? Whats wrong with this picture?
    

    
    re .20
    
    I scrimp to buy whatever my daughter needs because she is my daughter
    and I love her dearly. She is very good at cross-country, track and
    field, and she needed new sneakers this spring. The two pairs I bought
    her last fall are worn out and don't quite fit anymore. I want her to
    be able to compete and enjoy the things she enjoys doing. I cannot find
    it in my heart to say no to necessities for her. (This is only one very
    small example).
    
    When I brought it up in court, the ex's lawyer said this was voluntary
    and tough beans. The judge agreed. Still, my ex does not have to
    account for one single penny of what I pay for child support.
    
    What would it look like should I not reveal income from a part-time
    job? Like I'm a sleazebag deadbeat trying to hide whatfairly belongs to
    my ex, that's what.
    
    Why should I, in my mid 40's, after working hard all my adult life to
    get to a semi-comfortable point, be forced to even have to consider
    taking a job like this and hide the fact that I'm doing it? I feel like
    an illegal immigrant without a green card. I didn't ask for this; I'm
    not a criminal. Why should my ex be allowed to take the summers off and
    not be required to kick in more for support? She has excellent skills
    and can get higher paying jobs in several fields, but she likes her
    summers off. Why should all the burden of earning and providing fall on
    the NCP?
    
    The fact that the ex simply decided to cruise the bars and cause the
    divorce means *NOTHING* to the courts. Even though this resulted in the
    breakup of our family and financial ruin. Family values mean nothing.
    What is right and wrong mean nothing. You don't have to account for
    your actions anymore. After all, this is the nineties, isn't it? Too
    bad, dad, leave the home, get out, you'll be relegated back to being a
    renter instead of a homeowner for the rest of your life. And oh, by the
    way, you'll have to finance the new boyfriends' lifestyle. And he gets
    to keep the power tools and all the rest of your 'toys' that gave you
    simple pleasure. Hell, that sounds fair!
    
    Income percentages can be used as a guideline for child support, but
    they should not be the only guideline. A fairer system would use income
    but have limits.
    
    What I say is true. It can and does happen like this every day here in
    Mass. The adoption of NO-Fault divorce has been one of the worst things
    to happen to our society.
    
    John
    

    
    
    One more thing, Wally. Your opinion is that it would be unethical to
    hide income from a part-time job. I disagree. It may be illegal under
    the current probate laws, but not necessarily unethical. Laws and
    ethics rarely coincide in probate court.
    
    Courts do not deal with ethics because to do so would require a system
    of values and morals. It would require somebody to think. And to decide
    what is right. It is much easier to just have a number figure to do the
    math against.
    
    If courts were concerned with ethics, they would address the unfair
    system that allows the woman to choose not to work at all while at the
    same time forcing the man to work to support her. And all the rest of
    the issues such as illegal confiscation of property and violation of
    the rights guaranteed by our constitution.
    
    Kowtowing to the law simply because it is the law is not morally or
    ethically right.
    
    John
    

    re .22

    John,
    
    The only thing I can think of at this time is to tell your daughter
    the truth.  That the courts and "child support" have bled you dry 
    and you just don't have the money, and her mother is just going to
    have to cough up some of the $$$$ you have to give her.

    Yes, the daughter may then have to do without a few things, but
    _that's_  _life_, and you may not be doing her any favors by taking
    all the burden on yourself and shielding her from it.

    fred();

    What is very very sad is that John becomes the bad guy. Either way.
    Where is justice? Asleep with the wolves?
    

    re .25
    The justice depends on the daughter's ability to understand that John
    has _already_ given the mother money that is supposed to cover such
    items.  It is up to the daughter to deal with the mother (up to now
    it's been easier to just double-dip dad than to deal with mom).
    If the daughter is too shallow to understand that, then it's high
    time she be introduced to a bit of life, and again, to not do so
    is probably not doing her any favors (yea, I know I used a double 
    negative).

    Not to say that that is how John's daughter will end up, but the
    nations streets, jails and drug clinics are full of spoiled shallow
    bubbleheads whose parents found it easier to just give give give than
    to have to face the  kids wrath by doing what is right.  That's why it
    is called "tough love".

    fred();

re: SOBECKY

	First let me say I am sorry you feel the system has abused you.
But, I'm not sure if it's the system, or if it's really your ex who has
abused you.
	It sounds like your case is a little complicated because
you have custody of your son.  	It wasn't clear to me if his mother is
your ex, or another ex.   Have you asked your lawyer about getting support
for your son ??   The guidelines state a minimum amount you should receive,
even if the NCP is unemployed.   If the son was the result of a previous
marriage and he lived with his mother and there had been a prior support
order for him, you would have been allowed to deduct that from your income
when figuring support.   Based on this logic I would think what you provide
as support for the son could be deducted from your income when figuring
support for your daughter.

.22 Income percentages can be used as a guideline for child support, but
.22 they should not be the only guideline. A fairer system would use income
.22 but have limits.
	There are limits to the Massachusetts guidelines.   The following
is taken from the guidelines:
  "These guidelines are not meant to apply where the combined gross
   income of the parties exceeds $100,000 or where the gross income
   of the non-custodial parent exceeds $75,000. In cases where income
   exceeds these limits, the court should consider the award of support
   at the $75,000/$100,000 level as a minimum presumptive level of
   support to be awarded. Additional amounts of child support may
   be awarded at the judge's discretion."

.19 I'm sinking deeperinto debt each week. I'm about to take a part-time
.19 job shagging pizzas or whatever just to make the rent. I know that if I
.19 do this, my ex will march back into court demanding a share of my part
.19 time job. And she'll win, here in Mass.
	I don't think she would win.  Let me quote again from the
guidelines:
  "In individual cases, the court may choose to disregard overtime
   income or income derived from a second job. However,
   consideration of such income may be appropriate in certain
   instances such as those where such income constituted a regular
   source of income when the family was intact."

.22 What would it look like should I not reveal income from a part-time
.22 job?
	If the job is covered by withholding, the government knows what
you are being paid.  Trying to hide this from the court would be plain
stupid.  As noted above, if you take a second job just to make the rent it
shouldn't change the support amount.


	I am kind of interested in child support in Massachusetts, so I
took what I believe are the guidelines in Massachusetts and generated
a table of amounts.   I think the following is the table which would
be appropriate for you.
		Tables assuming 1 child with a max age 13-18
   CP wages		weekly support order
      0k        55   110   178   238   297   357   416   476   535
     10k        55   110   178   238   297   357   416   476   535
     20k        36    88   153   211   270   329   388   448   507
     30k        22    62   119   173   228   285   343   400   459
     40k        15    48    97   146   198   252   306   362   419
     50k        12    40    82   126   175   225   277   331   385
     60k        10    33    71   112   156   204   253   304   357
     70k         8    29    63   100   141   186   233   282   332
     80k         7    25    56    90   129   171   215   262   310
     90k         6    23    51    82   119   158   201   245   292
NCP wages =>   10k   20k   30k   40k   50k   60k   70k   80k   90k

	So if you are paying 300/week (224.19) the table suggests you are
earning at least 50k/year.   If you aren't, then the guidelines weren't
followed, and it sounds like you got a bad deal (or the court thinks
you are voluntarily under employed).   So the question is, are you paying
about what the guidelines say, or a lot more or a lot less ??

	Most of us, whether married or divorced find money doesn't
go as far as we want.   If we assume that when you were married
you were the sole wage earner, and grossed 50k then you became
accustomed to that style of life.   Now that you have to support
two households, money doesn't go as far.  I'm sure that hurts.
I also suspect that unless her new boy friend contributes money
that her standard of living (as measured by how much money her
family can spend in a year) is lower than it was before.

.23>    One more thing, Wally. Your opinion is that it would be unethical to
>    hide income from a part-time job. I disagree. It may be illegal under

That's OK, I just gave my opinion.  Reasonable people can disagree about a lot
of ethical questions.

>    Kowtowing to the law simply because it is the law is not morally or
>    ethically right.

I agree, and if I say we should obey the law, I'd better have stronger reasons
than that.  

One place to start is to ask who would be hurt by the action.  Perhaps the
child, who will get less because a NCP conceals income.  This could be avoided
if the NCP gives at least as much directly to the child, but this depends on
good intentions and the ability to carry them out.

If the concealment is discovered, other NCPs will be hurt, because it will
reinforce the stereotype of NCPs as cheating deadbeats.  This will make it even
harder for NCPs to get a fair hearing in the courts, and even harder for laws to
get changed.  The concealing NCP will also be hurt, as agreed in .22.

If the concealment is not discovered, the NCP will be hurt by the corroding
effect of the dishonesty involved.  It is very hard to be dishonest in one area
of life and remain honest in others.  Since the child is involved in the NCPs
life, the child may become aware or even involved in the dishonesty.

Another place to start is the benefits I get from the legal system.  It may not
be perfectly fair or just, but I do pretty well under it, much better than I
would do under some alternatives.  Because I accept these benefits every day, I
feel a duty to accept the legal system even when it is unfair to me.

That duty can be overcome when the legal system strays too far from justice. 
Then I have three ethical alternatives.  I can work to reform it, as many people
here have advocated.  I can publicly refuse to cooperate with it, partly as an
ethical stand and partly to help reform it.  I can deny its legitimacy and work
to destroy it, hoping that the outcome will be worth all the blood and pain of a
revolution.

These are some of my reasons.  Some people may not find them persuasive.  Some
NCPs may take them seriously, but still feel compelled by circumstance to act
unethically.  I think that is one more indication of the injustice of the
current system.

    re: .19
    
    John,
    
    	You have gotten and are really getting screwed. Hide any
    income or assets you may have. It is not unethical to protect
    what is yours from government thugs and thieves. One should not
    care about legality, a more important issue is self respect. Do
    anything you can to oppose a system that is destroying you, you
    are honor bound to fight against tyranny, death before dishonor.
    
    	As for myself, I'm selling my house, I'll take a 50K loss so
    their can be no chance of government siezure. And the money I walk
    away with is going out of the country. I plan on quiting my job so
    I can get my pension money and leave the state. This money will also
    be hidden. I am going to get the DOR out of my paycheck and I'm not
    concerned about the law. I do plan on paying child support but this
    will be based on what I can afford, not a government formular. I'm
    aware of the consequences and prepared to pay the price, I'm also
    prepared to fight. I expect the government to steal my social security
    money. I won't be able to recover the money but it will be a very
    costly government theft. 
    If you are divorced and paying child support your assets can be your
    ball and chain. Consider if you lose your job and can't make the
    extortion payments, the state can sieze your property. I choose not
    to and will not be subjected to this tyranny. I expect other acts
    of war against me by the government, but hell, war is war and you do
    what you gotta do.
    
    
    Mike 

    
    With all these stories by fathers it's a wonder there isn't more 
    violence by men/Fathers considering how powerless we are to simply see
    our own children or prevent ourselves from being impoverished by the 
    unfair laws.
    
    You ladies who do this to men should crawl back into the hole you
    crawled out of or resign from the human race!
    
                                                      Bill

    Bill,
    
    Its unfortunate that you see this all as a war between women and men.
    
    Violence by the physically stronger against the physically weaker is
    never a justifiable means of settling difference.
    
    The fair demand for equality would be much better supported by women
    and men if veiled threats of violence and disdain were omitted.
    
    
                                       Patricia

    Patricia, 
    
    I did not read in Bills note that he had suggested violence against
    women. Perhaps you should re-read his note.
    
    

    
    Patricia,
    
    No veiled threat, simply a statement!  Violence comes in many forms.
    It's too bad that your arrogance blinds you to the anguish and
    suffering of fathers and their children.  A common problem with 
    many women today as they promote laws that hurt men/fathers and their
    children.     
                                               Bill

    
>    No veiled threat, simply a statement!  Violence comes in many forms.
>    It's too bad that your arrogance blinds you to the anguish and
>    suffering of fathers and their children.  A common problem with 
>    many women today as they promote laws that hurt men/fathers and their
>    children.     
    
    Bill,
    
    I guess you need to count me as arrogant also.  
    
    I found your first note troubling ... "it's a wonder there isn't more
    violence by men/father's".  For me personally it's a wonder there is
    ANY violence by men/father's other than that in direct response to
    serious physical actions or threats.  The frustration, anger, and hurt
    often described is VERY understandable but the violence is totally
    unacceptable.                
    
    I also found Patricia's original response to be quite reasonable and
    far from arrogant.
    
    GReg
    
    

        re .34

    >    I guess you need to count me as arrogant also.  

    Consider yourself counted.  As I said before, considering what
    happens when even _one_ woman loses custody of her kids, there
    would likely be rioting in the streets if women were forcibly
    separated from their children at the rate men are.

>The frustration, anger, and hurt
>    often described is VERY understandable but the violence is totally
>    unacceptable.                

    Acceptable? Not in our society.  Understandable?  Unless you've been to
    the depths of despair, hurt, and anger, that this situation brings,
    probably not. However, violence is often the end of such things.  As
    I've said before, not that I advocate violence in any way, shape, or
    form, but I find it more amazing that so many men have the control to
    not  be violent under such circumstance than the number of men who go
    off the deep end.

    fred();

    the common blaitent statement when we do not agree with the party line
    is that violence is not acceptable? Come to the fathers meetings and I
    can show you a couple of men whom were beaten by their ex wives, the
    boy friends of the ex wives and etc. 

    
    I stand corrected!  
    My apologies to all.  It is difficult to discuss these issues when
    some of us have been so deeply affected by them.
    
    Let it end here!
                                Bill 

        re .34

>The frustration, anger, and hurt
>    often described is VERY understandable but the violence is totally
>    unacceptable.                

    Actually from a more philosophical point than from any recommendation
    to do so, violence _is_ an acceptable way to solve problems in
    our society.  It just depends on who is doing the violence.  Heck,
    Barbara Boxer et. al. wanted to give the L.A. rioters a gazillion
    bucks for burning down half the city.

    Is that the level that mens/father's hurt, desperation, and anger must
    rise before something is done?

    fred();

At http://www.parentsplace.com/readroom/frc/index.html is the homepage
of The Fathers' Resource Center:

"The Fathers' Resource Center is a nonprofit family service agency
located in Minneapolis and serving the Twin City metropolitan area. The
Center takes a moderate stance which is pro-father but which is not at
the expense of women.

Our philosophy is that by helping fathers become more capable and
involved parents that fathers, mothers, children and subsequently, all
society will benefit. Our mission is to provide men with the inner
resources to be the kind of father their children need."

A number of articles in the "Father Times" newsletters available there
address male violence. Interesting reading.

-stephen

    
    re a few past
    
    .26, Fred Haddock
    
    My daughter is not 'shallow'. I'll put her up against any two boys her
    own age..she can tune a motorcycle, play piano, cook a meal, catch
    fish, whatever. She's a great kid..one any parent would be wicked proud
    to have.
    
    Also I don't agree with bringing her into the fray between me and the
    ex. She has enough to handle with the divorce anyway. And 'tough love'
    at least where I come from, is reserved for kids who have done
    something wrong and are on the wrong track.  NOt the case here. But I
    do appreciate your comments.
    
    .27 MCClure
    
    Did you take into account the 'uplifts' of %15 for kids between 12-15
    and %25 for kids between 15-18?. That's part of the Mass. guidelines,
    too. At any rate, my support payment has already been 'adjusted' to
    take into account the fact that I'm totally supporting my 16 year old
    son, whose college education (yes, college at 16) I'm totally paying
    for. 
    
    Anyway, you had some very good points. Thanks.
    
    .28 Wally...you're just too full of reason ;)
    
    .29 Mike Menne...good luck, pal. I hope thinks work out the way you
    want them to.
    
    My main objection is not the amount I pay for child support. I don't
    like the fact that the ex does not have to account for it. Or that she
    does not have to work if she does not want to. But *I* do have to work.
    Double standard at work here.
    
    And to whomever said that my ex's standard of living has also gone
    down, I say so what? Not my problem. Maybe she should look to the
    boyfriends to make up the slack. This isn't spousal support, it's about
    child support.
    
    John
    

.41 Did you take into account the 'uplifts' of %15 for kids between 12-15
.41 and %25 for kids between 15-18?. That's part of the Mass. guidelines,
.41 too.

	The copy of the guidelines I have states:
                                                    "The support
order where the oldest child is six or under should be the basic
support order according to the schedule. Where the oldest child is
7-12, the order should be increased by 10 percent of the basic
order amount. Where the oldest child is between the ages of 13
and 18, the order should be increased by 15 percent of the basic
order amount. For cases involving children over the age of 18, to
the extent permitted by the General Laws, the amount of the
order, if any, will be left to the court's discretion."

.39>    Actually from a more philosophical point than from any recommendation
>    to do so, violence _is_ an acceptable way to solve problems in
>    our society.  It just depends on who is doing the violence.  Heck,

Another example or two.  It is widely believed in our society that murder is an
acceptable response to an abusive husband.  Two juries had trouble deciding
whether murder was an accptable response to abusive parents.

They key here seems to be that violence is acceptable if it is done by members
of officially recognized oppressed groups, and directed against members of
officially recognized oppressor groups.

>    Is that the level that mens/father's hurt, desperation, and anger must
>    rise before something is done?

As long as (white) men/fathers are seen as oppressors, violence by (white) men
will only make the situation worse.  See above.

If we can get society to accept men as human beings, with a legitimate
(non-oppressor) role in the family, then we can go forward.  At the risk of
again being accused of optimism, I think society is moving in this direction.

    RE .43   well said
    
    Many cheer the Elaina Bobbitt verdict yet condem OJ one. It is the same 
    thing! Elaina attempted murder and got away with it and OJ is suspected of 
    having got a away with it.
    
    Steve

.44  Many cheer the Elaina Bobbitt verdict yet condem OJ one. It is the same 
.44  thing! Elaina attempted murder and got away with it and OJ is suspected of 
.44  having got a away with it.

	I thought Lorena Bobbitt was charged with amputation while
OJ was charged with murder.  Do you consider amputation of any body part
the same as murder, or only certain body parts ?

	Wasn't the story that Lorena had been brutalized and raped for
years before finally resorting to violence ??   Wasn't there a history
of OJ beating up Nicole ??   So in one case a victim of violence finally
struck back.   In the other case a violent person finally killed his
victim.   Seems different to me.

	Both cases were violent, but unless you equate a penis to a life,
or unless you see all violence as equivalent, they are not the same thing.

    Mr Bobbitt lost 1/3 of his blood. Had he gone a little while longer he
    would have been dead! I would call that attempted murder. What do you
    call it? If he had cut off her breast would you call it amputation?
    
    Many women say he got what he deserved, pay back for all the
    abused/killed domestically women over the years. Many Blacks said that
    OJ got off because many blacks had been falsely convicted over the
    years. IN both cases, the laws be damned, it is payback time.
    
    Steve

    
>	Both cases were violent, but unless you equate a penis to a life,
>or unless you see all violence as equivalent, they are not the same thing.

    The argument here is that whether or not violence is an acceptable 
    method in our society of solving problems.  I'm sure that Ms. Bobbit 
    could have found some other non-violent method of solving her problem.  
    My contention, which you bare out, is that it depends on who is doing 
    the violence.

    fred();

   > Another example or two.  It is widely believed in our society that
   > murder is an acceptable response to an abusive husband.  Two juries
   > had trouble deciding whether murder was an accptable response to
   > abusive parents.
   >
   > They key here seems to be that violence is acceptable if it is done
   > by members of officially recognized oppressed groups, and directed
   > against members of officially recognized oppressor groups.
    
   Widely believed?  huh?  
   
   A far more accurate description of the process that juries seem to
   *me* to be using is whether or not the violence was done in the
   belief that it was self-defense- even if that belief was misguided.
   There is no carte-blanche on abusive husbands or other "officially
   recognized oppressor groups".  Wally, you usually make much more
   sense than this.
   
   DougO

        re .49
    
    >   There is no carte-blanche on abusive husbands or other "officially
    >   recognized oppressor groups".  Wally, you usually make much more
    
        And yet the guys who beat (I think it was) truck-driver Reginold
        Denny(sp) to near death were found not guilty in spite of the
        whole thing being video-taped because they were "caught up in the
        mob mentality".
    
        fred();
    

>>        And yet the guys who beat (I think it was) truck-driver Reginold
>>        Denny(sp) to near death were found not guilty in spite of the
>>        whole thing being video-taped because they were "caught up in the
>>        mob mentality".
  

    This is not quite true - they were not found guilty of murder but were
found guilty of lesser crimes (like misdemeanor assault).  Yes, the trial
was a sham because they were afraid of inciting more riots - but, some of
the people did go to jail (albeit for a small amount of time)    

.49>   A far more accurate description of the process that juries seem to

I'll leave it to readers to judge the relative accuracy of our views.

>   *me* to be using is whether or not the violence was done in the
>   belief that it was self-defense- even if that belief was misguided.

I don't see much difference here, since the member of an oppressed group can
always claim a belief in self-defence, and both juries and public opinion seem
willing to take it seriously.

>   There is no carte-blanche on abusive husbands or other "officially
>   recognized oppressor groups".  

I have read experts telling juries and the public that any violence against an
abusive man is self-defence.

>Wally, you usually make much more sense than this.

We have agreed and disagreed in the past; I expect we will do so in the future. 
I guess that when I agree with you, you will think I am making sense.