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



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


On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, fathers wrote:

> From: Jeff Bronte 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> Yes of course it makes sense for both divorced parents to share financial 
> responsibility.

This is the first "great myth".  First of all, the economic value of each 
parent is rarely actually measured.  The mother's contribution to the 
family is often not measured in dollars, not subject to any type of 
review, and there aren't even minimum standards.  Short of felony 
conviction, it is very hard to prove a mother unfit.

Take the two extremes.

In one case, the wife/mother provides immense value to her husband and
children.  She handles many of the personal tasks, take an active role in
caring for the kids, drives the car pools, volunteers for youth groups and
PTA events, and generally provides substantial support for both the father
and the children. 

In the case of such a divorce, the earning potential of the man may 
actually go DOWN.  He no longer has the support system that made his 
income possible in the first place.  The wife has chopped down the tree, 
but expects to harvest fruit for the next 20 years.  When the tree 
withers and dies, she wants it "punished" - throw him in jail.


In the second case, the wife/mother provides almost no value to her 
husband.  What little time she spends watching the children, is usually 
during a drunken stupor.  Whenever possible, she will drop the kids off 
with some "stud" who will babysit for sex, and go to the bars to pick up 
sex partners.  When the husband gets inconvenient, she files charges, 
gets a restraining order, and throws the man out into the street.  Then 
she has a lawyer (who will bill the father) seize the assets, garnish the 
father's income, and file a "grand prize in the lottery" settlement.  
When the father protests, he is threatened by her other boyfriends, and 
told that she will reveal his intimate secrets in the court-room if he 
doesn't comply.

In this case, the man may actually benefit, he may even thrive outside 
the abusive marriage.  But the court will harvest the "fruit" and chop as 
many branches as it possibly can.  Outside the context of marriage, this 
would be 6 felonies (blackmail, prostitution, fraud, extortion, 
kidnapping, and aggrivated assault).  In "family court", it's a good 
mother watching out for her children.

> But there is more than common sense at play here.

There is almost NO COMMON SENSE in dissolution of marriage laws.  The 
laws are based on morality and beliefs of men who don't ever plan to get 
divorced, have adult children, and women who believe that any man who 
would divorce his wife and withold any income for himself is "Slime" (a 
term coined in soc.women newsgroup 10 years ago).

> In CA,
> there is case law that says that since men make more then women in the
> workplace, that earning ability (i.e. financial responsibility) cannot

Why do men earn more?  Because they have to pay child support!  Trying to 
support two households and get back even a portion of what was available 
during the marriage is a powerful motivator.  Being forced to live in 
poverty after spending 30-40 years disciplining yourself to create 
affluence and abundance is the ultimate injustice.

Women rarely list the "Town Drunk" as #1 among the paternaty candidates.
The irony is that the "spoils" system of this type actually disempower 
women as a whole.  The tabloids and women's magazines are filled with 
accounts of the Fairy Tale divorces.  Princess DI will be getting a 
generous settlement from prince Charles, along with custody of the next 
King of England after Charly (if he lives that long).

Unfortunately, this myth seduces women into not ever taking 
responsibility for their own lives.  Why should she take hard courses, 
study hard, and go for an engineering degree if she can just marry an 
engineer, get pregnant, and collect child-support for the next 20 years.
If she works it right, she can even string up two or three and have each 
one paying their "standard 30%", all tax-free.

Unfortunately, the reality is much uglier than the fantasy.  First of 
all, the underprepared, undereducated woman often ends up with a man who 
is also poorly educated.  While he is physically able to carry bricks or 
do construction work, he makes a reasonable wage.  When he injures 
himself, his earning potential drops to nil.  Most of these women, 
especially in the lower income neighborhoods, eventually end up 
prostitutes.  If they are too fat, or too unnatractive, they end up on 
welfare.

Looks fade, children grow up, and young women become old women.  Men 
become wary as age causes their testosterone levels to drop.  Suddenly, 
40 and 50 year old women are struggling to survive.  They were encouraged 
to leave the marriage, they were discouraged from remarrying another 
reponsible man, and they were encouraged to find men who could babysit.  
They end up at 50 trying to survive on disability or they try and find an 
older gentleman to take care of them.

I wander what they will do with the "Baby Boomer Moms" have children who 
have flown the coop, and have never bothered to get what it takes to be 
fully self-supporting.  I suppose they'll live with their children and 
take care of the grandchildren.

> be a factor in custody awards. This opens yet another huge door for women
> to be supported by men through the guise of child-support. 

Legislators aren't stupid.  They know that there is a bonanza in NCP 
fathers.  If they give the kids to daddy, daddy will probably buy a 
house, deduct the interest payments, marry another woman, and rack up
$30,000 in tax deductions on a $70,000 income, which will be taxed at the 
lowest rate, with the top marginal rate being 28%.  The total taxes is 
only about $13,000.  If mom can't work, it costs the state $8,000 to take 
care of her (disability or welfare).  Net revenue $5,000/year.


If they give the kids to the mother, dad gets no dedictions, can't afford 
to get married, and gets taxed at the "Swinging Single" rate, on an 
income of $75,000 which he is highly motivated to increase to $80,000.  
The net tax bite - $35,000.  Mom isn't needing assistance, and can 
volunteer.  They can collect 1/3 of the child support for "enforcement 
costs".  Net gain - $45,000 to $65,000 in goods and services.  Over 20 
years is close to:

	ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

> A couple disturbing ironies here. First, in the CA Family Law Practice Guide
> the sentence just before the one paraphrased above says that economic
> well being does not equate to happiness. If that's the case, why are 
> huge economic awards given to moms when Dad is well-off? 

It all goes back to a fundamental principle.  The state believes that 
what is best for the children, is what is best for the state.  Behind the 
high and lofty words, is a politician looking for funding for his 
favorite "pork", and a beaurocracy which dwarves the power of the IRS,
run almost entirely by women.

> The other one, one that really urks me, is that this case law is specific
> to women, and says that custody awards based on economic benefits to the
> children are discriminatory. But in California the statutes make it very
> clear (as well as the wording of almost all family law legislation) that
> the best interests of the children are above all others. So why are
> mom's interests (custody awards / child support) above that of the children?

California Law also places a substantial number of other clever phrases, 
which boil down to "we are going to take as much of your income as we 
possibly can, primarily because you make the income".

> You can legislate all you want, but a well-backed feminazi in the court room can
> blow us out of the water any day.

Every time a man gets custody, the judge has to deal with politician who 
point out that that decision cost the various governments almost:

	ONE MILLION DOLLARS

> (Of course I haven't mentioned the studies that show that women who
> choose to have careers instead of children make 98% of what men make
> in similiar positions, thus the case is a distortion).

Women who have children AND have careers generally don't make the 18 
hour/day commitment that men often make to their careers.  I have a 
feeling that if Christy Heffner married a "boy-toy" who wanted to be a 
"mommy", the judge would look at:

	OVER ONE BILLION DOLLARS

And award the kids to "Mr Mom".

> Sure would be nice if the ACLU or some other entity could appeal this,
> because it gives mom's total freedom to be economically irresponsible, 
> and all our discussions, studies, and even legislation makes no difference
> until we get this over-turned.

Who gets MOST of the $1 Million?  Lawyers!  Would any self-respecting 
lawyer kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, when they can just 
garnishe' the production?

> Jeff Bronte 

	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sat Mar  9 00:24:25 1996