As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but
physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious
problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had
serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she
agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter.

However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to
a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of
getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more
than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the
guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my
attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I
could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also
told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I
would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in
the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority.

On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this
ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that
70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their
husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering
the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates
that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the
traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead,
they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart."

There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as
this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in
the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to
break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually
guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child
support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50,
regardless of which spouse created the wealth.

You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your
marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my
observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband.

One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part,
men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating
the impression that they were innocent parties. So there's a one-sided
propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying
tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to
give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people
the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the
"see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument.




ME wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my
analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright
license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.)

For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have
four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if
someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child
support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not
undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a
custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not
only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS
order who is actually being paid by the mother.

As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years
to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years
now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For
one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my
daughter (I had custody of my son).

Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had
custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of
$ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't
have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system.
It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive
child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your
daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if
nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject.

For another, she could spend the
money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay
her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter
was with me.

I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's
particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases
in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish
a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and
family.

To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother
decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you
feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided
to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This
is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything
and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My
ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just
that I did leave.
Fair? Not in the least bit....

Phil #3 wrote:

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..
[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay
mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of
mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very
quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid
child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay
fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent
between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise
children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child
support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is
spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit
directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security
and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay
child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the
clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play
with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not
eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around
in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children
every
time
they send that check.

This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life
better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when
the CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her
own. As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached
(which is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or
even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the
majority of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.
If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives,
there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for
whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children
as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those
at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not
always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this.
Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent
a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B
gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc
while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of
the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every
case
does....

Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the
norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system
is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the
norm.
[snip]
Phil #3