A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 22nd 03, 07:34 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...


Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the women
should be booted out of the house they were buying because the man's

earned
money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did their
share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the

marriage.

Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage arrangements.
The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and elsewhere
with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with each party
depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the pre-women's
movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a sound basis
for a marriage.

The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by the
family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent of each
other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate (fill in
the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and created a
dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline of
marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages they did
not have before in the dependent marriage model.

What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well) is the
thought process that couples should be able to choose between the dependent
or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the marriage fails
the women should get the full force of legal protections provided for in the
law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more traditional
dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women shouldn't have
it both ways when they exit a marriage.


  #2  
Old June 22nd 03, 10:37 PM
Max Burke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

Father Drew scribbled:
Wooaa there tiger. I would lighten up on TeacherMama a bit. I
consider her disagreement on alimony small potatoes when you consider
she carrys a viewpoint of equal rights in family court, which makes
her one of the good guys. The thread has gotten messy, so it's
possible she didn't get your question, not that she is ignoring it.
I know I missed it the 1st time around.


Ahh no, I find that when 'push comes to shove' many of the women that
post here claiming to be 'supportive' of men and against the way they
are treated by the system, disagree (often vehemently) on the key issues
that lead to men being treated the way they are....
Things like having sex is choosing to have a child for men; Men having
the right to determine by DNA testing, that their children ARE their
children; That men should still have to pay CS when they find that a
child they thought was theirs isn't theirs; The argument justifying
'alimony' for SAH's, etc, etc, etc.....

It's why I often include the quote about the ' abstract rights of
men.....'

Are you basically asking her, "If the SAH should get compensation for
the choice of SAH, shouldn't the working parent should also get
compensation?".


Yes.

If we must have alimony then there can be no argument for *NOT* having
financial compensation from the SAH to the working partner when the
divorce happens....

The working partner gave up the opportunity to spend *more* daily hands
on time with the children, and opted to work to provide for them. They
gave up that aspect of being a parent; it's the other side of the
argument that the SAH gives up their career; that they 'lose' having a
career and 'opportunities to fulfil themselves' outside of the SAH
lifestyle.

Both make their choices *together*, both know they have to have to
*sacrifice* something. I can see no justification that should a divorce
happen, the SAH gets to be 'compensated' by their ex for that which the
willingly and *KNOWINGLY* gave up to be an SAH just so they can get back
to where they were *before* they chose the SAH lifestyle.

After all the one who chose to work will have to make changes that would
have significant career and financial impact on their lives as well when
the divorce happens; They'll either have to give up their full time
career to provide the hands on care for the children while in their
custody 50% of the time, or pay childcare expenses to a third party so
they can continue to have a full time career; They will also have
housing, education, and health expenses, the same as the SAH would have.

They should NOT have to then pay on top of that 'compensation' to their
ex just because their ex needs to keep up or get back their 'marketable'
skills so the 'former' SAH can pay their bills.....

And anyway flipping burgers, answering a phone, changing towels in a
hotel bathroom, or 'checking out' the groceries in a supermarket doesn't
require years of training to obtain 'marketable skills' at all.

# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....
--

Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

  #3  
Old June 22nd 03, 10:57 PM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...


Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the women
should be booted out of the house they were buying because the man's

earned
money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did their
share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the

marriage.

Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage arrangements.
The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and elsewhere
with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with each

party
depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the pre-women's
movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a sound

basis
for a marriage.

The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by the
family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent of each
other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate (fill in
the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and created

a
dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline of
marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages they

did
not have before in the dependent marriage model.

What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well) is the
thought process that couples should be able to choose between the

dependent
or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the marriage

fails
the women should get the full force of legal protections provided for in

the
law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more traditional
dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women shouldn't

have
it both ways when they exit a marriage.


I agree with that. It's one or the other--and I'd just as soon get rid of
the other!! It's too easy to divorce with the "independent model." It's
like choosing a new favorite breakfast cereal--out with the old spouse, in
with the new.

But what I have been saying is, under Drew's model (see original post),
there has got to be some way for a spouse who has stayed at home and done
their end of the deal for all those years (and it has to be long term--not
just a couple of years) to not drop down to poverty level just because the
marriage breaks up. How many marriages would even fall into that category
these days?




  #4  
Old June 22nd 03, 11:29 PM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
Father Drew scribbled:
Wooaa there tiger. I would lighten up on TeacherMama a bit. I
consider her disagreement on alimony small potatoes when you consider
she carrys a viewpoint of equal rights in family court, which makes
her one of the good guys. The thread has gotten messy, so it's
possible she didn't get your question, not that she is ignoring it.
I know I missed it the 1st time around.


Ahh no, I find that when 'push comes to shove' many of the women that
post here claiming to be 'supportive' of men and against the way they
are treated by the system, disagree (often vehemently) on the key issues
that lead to men being treated the way they are....
Things like having sex is choosing to have a child for men; Men having
the right to determine by DNA testing, that their children ARE their
children; That men should still have to pay CS when they find that a
child they thought was theirs isn't theirs; The argument justifying
'alimony' for SAH's, etc, etc, etc....


Just to make sure things are absolutely clear, Max, I have NEVER said that
choosing to have sex is the same as choosing to have a child. I have ALWAYS
that DNA should be used to determine paternity whenever either party wants
it. IDO NOT believe that ANY person should pay child support for a child
that is not theirs. And I do not appreciate your above statement.

I DO believe that, in a long-term marriage where both adults have agreed on
their roles within the marriage, that there must be an equitable division of
what they have built TOGETHER, by each fulfilling their agreed-upon roles.
I truly don't give a rat's tush whether it is alimony or not. He has the
high-paying job--let her have the house. She can sell it and use the money
to get through those first few rough years as she begins her trek up the job
ladder. And this would only be in cases of long-term marriages with a SAH
parent. How many of those do you think there are. And, again, this was a
question for Drew under his Solution to the current corrupt system.



It's why I often include the quote about the ' abstract rights of
men.....'

Are you basically asking her, "If the SAH should get compensation for
the choice of SAH, shouldn't the working parent should also get
compensation?".


Yes.


I have never spoken of compensation. The SAH does not get "compensated" for
being a maid, gardener, cook, etc. Because the SAH wasn't any of those
things! The SAH fulfilled thier agreed-upon role, the breadwinner theirs.
They should come out of the deal in somewhat equal positions.


If we must have alimony then there can be no argument for *NOT* having
financial compensation from the SAH to the working partner when the
divorce happens....

The working partner gave up the opportunity to spend *more* daily hands
on time with the children, and opted to work to provide for them. They
gave up that aspect of being a parent; it's the other side of the
argument that the SAH gives up their career; that they 'lose' having a
career and 'opportunities to fulfil themselves' outside of the SAH
lifestyle.


Let's just take this wonderful little statement of yours, Max. The working
earned the money and moved up the career ladder--he gets to keep that. The
SAH raised the children--she gets to keep them. If he wants time with
them--since they are hers--how about if he pays her money (which her earned)
to have time with what she has by right of the work she did in raising them.
You like that one? He did the money stuff--money is his. She did the kid
stuff--kids are hers.





  #5  
Old June 22nd 03, 11:40 PM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:lW4Ja.161792$eJ2.124365@fed1read07...
Well said. That is a big part of the C$ problem. The gov doesn't

give
us the chance to honor our responsibilities. I'm paying C$ through DES as
if I were a deadbeat that needed to have my paychecks deducted and have

the
judge set the C$ amount. I paid before I split with my son's mom, and I
paid after we split, no court order necessary, cause I want my kids taken
care of. Of course I paid in cash, the ex denied I paid and I had to do

pay
it all over again, but that's not the point.
I think we agree that screwing people over is wrong. I think where we
may clash a little is when and where the courts should step in. There are
thiongs that are wrong on a moral level, and things that are wrong on a
legal level, and it's a blurry line. I do respect your position and your
comments.


Personally, Drew, I wish the courts were completely out of it. They should
not be in the position of making family and personal decisions. If the
courts could not just step in whenever they wanted, I don't believe we'd be
seeing all the down and dirty fights over custody, child support, etc, that
we are seeing today. Then my question to you would be irrelevant except in
very rare cases. And my question was only about how you would deal with SAH
parents in long term relationships in your system. In the system today,
they don't have a problem. They are already overprotected.

And I'll tell you another thing. Although children are mentioned quite
often as being the "reason" behind the system, they are way down at the
bottom of the list when it comes to who is actually benefitting form the
system today. If the courts were completely out of it, parents could
actually BE parents and work out what is best for THEIR children
together--because nobody else would be there to do it for them!


  #6  
Old June 23rd 03, 03:27 AM
The Dave©
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"TeacherMama" wrote
Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve
a child, therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not
abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the
other parent 50% of the time


I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage
where one parent stayed at home with the children for
15 years, while the other developed job skills and rose
through the ranks at work. Each did the job they had
agreed to do during the marriage--but now one is left
with no job skills and the other is sitting pretty, salary
wise. Sure, the working parent will have to learn the
housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that
while still having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former
stay-at-hme parent will have a nicely organized house,
with very little to pay the bills. How could it be ok for the
working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at home
parent in poverty?


I came into this thread late, so I missed alot.

I'm not that far off from Father Drew in concept, but I also agree with
TeacherMama that some consideration needs to be made for extremes in cases
of inequitable income. Some reasons for the inequity can be many and
varied, but they are there regardless. I also believe that both spouses
contribute and contribution does not always mean money. Many men complain
that they're only looked on as money machines, then say (imply?) that money
is not necessary to raise a kid in the other person's case. Seems
contradictory.

Maybe start with 50/50 (or some other percentage), then reduce it 10% a year
until nothing, giving the person receiving the money ample opportunity to
either learn a skill or educate themselves. Plus, I would think of it as
not leaving the kids (YOUR OWN kids) in poverty half the time rather than
focusing on the ex. Yet again, we're obsessed with the idea that the spouse
id somehow going to get over while forgetting about the kids.


  #7  
Old June 23rd 03, 04:34 AM
Father Drew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

Exactly what I was looking for too, although, I think I shot it down a long
time ago by stating that the income division falls under alimony laws, not
CS laws. There were some other arguments I was waiting to hear, but nobody
brought them up.

-Drew

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...


Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the

women
should be booted out of the house they were buying because the

man's
earned
money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did

their
share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the
marriage.

Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage

arrangements.
The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and

elsewhere
with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with

each
party
depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the

pre-women's
movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a

sound
basis
for a marriage.

The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by

the
family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent

of
each
other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate

(fill
in
the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and

created
a
dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline

of
marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages

they
did
not have before in the dependent marriage model.

What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well)

is
the
thought process that couples should be able to choose between the
dependent
or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the

marriage
fails
the women should get the full force of legal protections provided

for
in
the
law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more

traditional
dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women

shouldn't
have
it both ways when they exit a marriage.

I agree with that. It's one or the other--and I'd just as soon get

rid
of
the other!! It's too easy to divorce with the "independent model."

It's
like choosing a new favorite breakfast cereal--out with the old

spouse,
in
with the new.

But what I have been saying is, under Drew's model (see original

post),
there has got to be some way for a spouse who has stayed at home and

done
their end of the deal for all those years (and it has to be long

term--not
just a couple of years) to not drop down to poverty level just because

the
marriage breaks up. How many marriages would even fall into that

category
these days?


I have no idea. But I have to admit my personal situation during

divorce
has shaped my thinking on this topic. Divorce lawyers who represent

SAHM's
play games for their client's benefit. In my case it was portraying my

ex
as a devoted wife (she was having an affair), a caring mother (she

treated
me like I was her weekend babysitter), a woman supporting my career (she
resented the fact I had a glamorous job), and a woman out of the

workplace
with no current skills (pure BS, her problem was too much alcohol

induced
depression).

She came to the final hearing with her arm in a sling stating she was
injured and under doctor's orders not to work for three months. It

worked.
She got alimony for 3 years to allow her to become "retrained and

transition
into the work force." The only problem was 7 days after the hearing she

had
a job paying twice what the court assumed she could make in dividing the
assets and setting the CS and SS awards. And she was able to

miraculously
throw down her sling 2 days after the hearing because she had "healed".
Later she told me her attorney coached her not to become employed

full-time
until after the divorce was final and wearing the sling got her sympathy
from the judge.

So I have very little sympathy for the SAHM position being discussed

here
and I believe it is used as a legal ploy to get bigger settlements from

the
court.


And I know that happens. That is how the system we now use has taught
people to behave--to get as much as they possibly can from the person they
once promised to love forever. And I am sure that your ex considers

herself
to be a kind and honorable person--and when confronted by what she did,
would say "That's just the way things are done!" If the system is sick,
then the results of the system will be sick, too! But I was never really
talking about the system as it is today. I was asking Drew how he would
handle it in his brand new system. He said "Short, sweet, shoot it down.
I can counter argue just about anything you throw at it. I am looking for
holes, so suprise me."

I never really expected to engage in such a heated discussion with you,

nor
such a nasty argument with Max.






  #8  
Old June 23rd 03, 04:51 AM
dani
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Father Drew wrote:
| That's the thing, one shouldn't have to work on it, it should be the
default
| ruling.

Reminds me of what a Judge told me several years ago; "This Court has
nothing to do with Justice! Were you expecting justice? This is a Court
of Equity not justice."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+9nk/omV36/DpsJ4RAo63AJwK943hJCaOCLzaEUHDi3UmKdxMTwCeMXfY
4OY5eV282Fe1KL9B0xY1DDs=
=5EKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  #9  
Old June 23rd 03, 05:59 AM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:5sNIa.161285$eJ2.84088@fed1read07...
Short, sweet, shoot it down. I can counter argue just about anything

you
throw at it. I am looking for holes, so suprise me.
-Drew

Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve a child, therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the other parent 50% of

the
time


I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage where one parent
stayed at home with the children for 15 years, while the other developed

job
skills and rose through the ranks at work. Each did the job they had

agreed
to do during the marriage--but now one is left with no job skills and the
other is sitting pretty, salary wise. Sure, the working parent will have

to
learn the housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that while

still
having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former stay-at-hme parent will
have a nicely organized house, with very little to pay the bills. How

could
it be ok for the working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at home
parent in poverty?


-----------------------------
I think what you are talking about is more like alimony than child support
but here is an interesting article about it anyway.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P46800.asp??PS=8313
Some quotes:

What's a homemaker worth? The shocking truth
The value of a stay-at-home spouse is priceless in many ways, but don't kid
yourself: In economic terms, running a household is worth far less than
we've been told.

Obviously, there's far more to the decision to stay home than mere
economics. Stay-at-home parents provide invaluable services and benefits to
their families. Many women think the monetary and economic sacrifices are
well worth it, which is one reason why the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds
that 40% of mothers with children under 6 stay home. (Overall, 13% of the
nation's households include a stay-at-home spouse.)

You should understand just what you're giving up, though, in order to make a
rational decision about whether to stay at home and for how long. You also
should do what you can to make sure your finances, both short- and
long-term, remain sound:

~AZ~










  #10  
Old June 23rd 03, 06:55 AM
Virginia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept


All the jobs you listed below do not make a livable wage o raise
children on. Only a single person can truely work one of those jobs and
be able to pay the bills. However I have a job you didn't think of that
would make paying the bills workable. An off hours family daycare center
run by the SAHP, who is more than qualified to do such a job, during
nights and weekends which provides a societal ned for those who work
nights and have kids, allows the former SAHP to use a portion of their
home as a business tax expense deduction, and still leaves the day open
for the SAHP to go to school using grants and loans to increase their
earning potential. The only flaw here is most rented properties do not
allow you to run a daycare out of the rented home so the SAHP may have
to keep the house for a few years. But the 2 could just hold off selling
the house till 4-5 yrs after the divorce and then split the sale down
the middle 50-50.

Max Burke wrote:

And anyway flipping burgers, answering a phone, changing towels in a
hotel bathroom, or 'checking out' the groceries in a supermarket doesn't
require years of training to obtain 'marketable skills' at all.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dust Mite Allergies - A Solution That Works!! kazham Kids Health 0 March 9th 04 11:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.