Child Support -- what is REASONABLE?

[Cameron Stevens]

Hey Ron,

"Werebat" > wrote in message ...
> A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
> is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
> what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
> "ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
> current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
> something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
> much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
> thereof of our current system for that?
>
> If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> about the current system? Why?

There's no perfect system because someone will always feel wronged by the
situation. I know men are asking for a level of escape that the women have
avilable to them. Custodial Parents, women, are often put in a position of
sole custody, no financial assistance, they are also in a position of power
based on the bias and prejudice of the system and the stigma of fathers
being represented as deadbeat dads.

My opinions are found on http://forfairchildsupport.netfirms.com

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

Hey Ron,

"Werebat" > wrote in message ...
> A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
> is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
> what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
> "ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
> current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
> something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
> much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
> thereof of our current system for that?
>
> If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> about the current system? Why?

There's no perfect system because someone will always feel wronged by the
situation. I know men are asking for a level of escape that the women have
avilable to them. Custodial Parents, women, are often put in a position of
sole custody, no financial assistance, they are also in a position of power
based on the bias and prejudice of the system and the stigma of fathers
being represented as deadbeat dads.

My opinions are found on http://forfairchildsupport.netfirms.com

Cameron

[Werebat]

A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
"ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
thereof of our current system for that?

If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
about the current system? Why?

- Ron ^*^

[Gypsy0005]

>
>If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
>about the current system? Why?
>

I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY connected
to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would order
that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
they have been awarded.

Before anyone jumps down my throat let me qualify this statement. NCP's that
choose to ignore their visitation do not qualify for this. CP's that have a
VALID claim of abuse are excused from this rule. And before you argue that its
the kids that suffer lets speak frankly. After a week or 2 of no money most of
the offending CP's would see that their game isn't wokring and they would make
sure the kids got to spend time with the other parent.

After years of parental alienation by my husbands ex wife I always said that if
her big fat support check was directly connected to his visitation she would
have had the kids delivered Fed Ex if necessary. Fortunately the first thing
my husbands son did when he moved out of his mothers house was to call us.
We're hoping the other 2 will follow his example.

[Gypsy0005]

>
>If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
>about the current system? Why?
>

I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY connected
to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would order
that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
they have been awarded.

Before anyone jumps down my throat let me qualify this statement. NCP's that
choose to ignore their visitation do not qualify for this. CP's that have a
VALID claim of abuse are excused from this rule. And before you argue that its
the kids that suffer lets speak frankly. After a week or 2 of no money most of
the offending CP's would see that their game isn't wokring and they would make
sure the kids got to spend time with the other parent.

After years of parental alienation by my husbands ex wife I always said that if
her big fat support check was directly connected to his visitation she would
have had the kids delivered Fed Ex if necessary. Fortunately the first thing
my husbands son did when he moved out of his mothers house was to call us.
We're hoping the other 2 will follow his example.

[Chris]

"Werebat" > wrote in message ...
> A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
> is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
> what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
> "ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
> current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
> something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
> much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
> thereof of our current system for that?
>
> If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> about the current system? Why?

I would toss it in the garbage can where it belongs, because it is
discriminatory theft!

>
> - Ron ^*^

[Chris]

"Werebat" > wrote in message ...
> A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
> is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
> what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
> "ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
> current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
> something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
> much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
> thereof of our current system for that?
>
> If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> about the current system? Why?

I would toss it in the garbage can where it belongs, because it is
discriminatory theft!

>
> - Ron ^*^

[Moon Shyne]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> >about the current system? Why?
> >
>
> I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
connected
> to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would order
> that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
> they have been awarded.

And for the NCP's that ignore the visitation orders? Would you have them be
ordered to pay additional CS for each missed visit?

>
> Before anyone jumps down my throat let me qualify this statement. NCP's that
> choose to ignore their visitation do not qualify for this.

Why not? They ignore the needs of the children, causing emotional distress.
They leave the cost of the children for that weekend squarely in the CP's lap.
Why would you then reward them for ignoring the children?

CP's that have a
> VALID claim of abuse are excused from this rule. And before you argue that its
> the kids that suffer lets speak frankly. After a week or 2 of no money most
of
> the offending CP's would see that their game isn't wokring and they would make
> sure the kids got to spend time with the other parent.

And for the NCP's that don't see their children? When do they get to see that
the only result of THEIR game is children who want nothing to do with them?

>
> After years of parental alienation by my husbands ex wife I always said that
if
> her big fat support check was directly connected to his visitation she would
> have had the kids delivered Fed Ex if necessary. Fortunately the first thing
> my husbands son did when he moved out of his mothers house was to call us.
> We're hoping the other 2 will follow his example.

[Moon Shyne]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> >about the current system? Why?
> >
>
> I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
connected
> to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would order
> that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
> they have been awarded.

And for the NCP's that ignore the visitation orders? Would you have them be
ordered to pay additional CS for each missed visit?

>
> Before anyone jumps down my throat let me qualify this statement. NCP's that
> choose to ignore their visitation do not qualify for this.

Why not? They ignore the needs of the children, causing emotional distress.
They leave the cost of the children for that weekend squarely in the CP's lap.
Why would you then reward them for ignoring the children?

CP's that have a
> VALID claim of abuse are excused from this rule. And before you argue that its
> the kids that suffer lets speak frankly. After a week or 2 of no money most
of
> the offending CP's would see that their game isn't wokring and they would make
> sure the kids got to spend time with the other parent.

And for the NCP's that don't see their children? When do they get to see that
the only result of THEIR game is children who want nothing to do with them?

>
> After years of parental alienation by my husbands ex wife I always said that
if
> her big fat support check was directly connected to his visitation she would
> have had the kids delivered Fed Ex if necessary. Fortunately the first thing
> my husbands son did when he moved out of his mothers house was to call us.
> We're hoping the other 2 will follow his example.

[Kenneth S.]

Chris wrote:
>
> "Werebat" > wrote in message ...
> > A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
> > is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
> > what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
> > "ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
> > current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
> > something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
> > much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
> > thereof of our current system for that?
> >
> > If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> > about the current system? Why?
>
> I would toss it in the garbage can where it belongs, because it is
> discriminatory theft!
>
> >
> > - Ron ^*^

Child support should be structured so that it ceases to provide any
incentive for family breakups or for illegitimate births.

To start with illegitimate births, fathers should have the opportunity
to renounce formally their paternal rights and responsibilities before
the child is born. That would reflect the fact that (in the U.S.) women
have all the choices, having been given abortion rights, plus a range of
other post-conception choices through such provisions as newborn
drop-off laws and what amounts in practice to unilateral decisions about
adoption.

So far as married couples are concerned, child support cannot be
separated from custody. The continuing glass ceiling on paternal
custody has major consequences for child support. Mothers contemplating
ditching their husbands have a virtual guarantee of custody. As
indicated by research by Margaret Brinig and others, expectations of
custody are a major factor in decisions about whether or not to break up
a marriage. In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
children.

The current structure of child support guidelines reflects the fact
that the payments are a one-way flow of money from fathers to mothers,
and politicians invariably favor women when the interests of the two
sexes are in conflict. It would be perfectly possible to restructure
guidelines to make them more fair.

In particular, here are two things that could be done:
(1) The income shares principle should be embodied in all states'
guidelines. My understanding is that there are some states that
calculate child support by reference only to the income of the
"noncustodial parent" (read, "father"). This means that a low-income
father could be paying money to a wealthy mother.
(2) Child support should be apportioned according to the amount of time
the children pay with each parent. BOTH parents' fixed costs (e.g. on
housing) should be factored into the calculation of the numbers. Right
now, the general practice is to take no account of the father's
continuing expenses for the children until a relatively high threshold
for days per year spent with the father is reached. What this means is
that the mother's attorney will ensure that the amount of time the
father has with the children is one day less than the state's
threshold. The issue of definition of a "day" must also be addressed,
because it may be possible for a mother to arrange for the children to
spend days at the father's house (if, for example, he works from home),
but overnights at her house, so that she maximizes the amount of money
she gets.

Of course, if child support ceased to be money that fathers pay
mothers, the political pattern would change naturally. If mothers had
to pay this money to fathers, it is very likely that far greater efforts
would be made to make the system more fair.

[Kenneth S.]

Chris wrote:
>
> "Werebat" > wrote in message ...
> > A lot of talk goes back and forth about whether our current system of CS
> > is a travesty, or how MUCH of a travesty is it. I guess I'm wondering
> > what some of the regulars (and not-so-regulars) here feel would be an
> > "ideal" system of Child Support, at least here in America. Does the
> > current "Great Washington Formula" need to change? Should CS be based on
> > something *other* than equalizing the incomes of two households? How
> > much does custody factor into all this, and the fairness/justice or lack
> > thereof of our current system for that?
> >
> > If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> > about the current system? Why?
>
> I would toss it in the garbage can where it belongs, because it is
> discriminatory theft!
>
> >
> > - Ron ^*^

Child support should be structured so that it ceases to provide any
incentive for family breakups or for illegitimate births.

To start with illegitimate births, fathers should have the opportunity
to renounce formally their paternal rights and responsibilities before
the child is born. That would reflect the fact that (in the U.S.) women
have all the choices, having been given abortion rights, plus a range of
other post-conception choices through such provisions as newborn
drop-off laws and what amounts in practice to unilateral decisions about
adoption.

So far as married couples are concerned, child support cannot be
separated from custody. The continuing glass ceiling on paternal
custody has major consequences for child support. Mothers contemplating
ditching their husbands have a virtual guarantee of custody. As
indicated by research by Margaret Brinig and others, expectations of
custody are a major factor in decisions about whether or not to break up
a marriage. In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
children.

The current structure of child support guidelines reflects the fact
that the payments are a one-way flow of money from fathers to mothers,
and politicians invariably favor women when the interests of the two
sexes are in conflict. It would be perfectly possible to restructure
guidelines to make them more fair.

In particular, here are two things that could be done:
(1) The income shares principle should be embodied in all states'
guidelines. My understanding is that there are some states that
calculate child support by reference only to the income of the
"noncustodial parent" (read, "father"). This means that a low-income
father could be paying money to a wealthy mother.
(2) Child support should be apportioned according to the amount of time
the children pay with each parent. BOTH parents' fixed costs (e.g. on
housing) should be factored into the calculation of the numbers. Right
now, the general practice is to take no account of the father's
continuing expenses for the children until a relatively high threshold
for days per year spent with the father is reached. What this means is
that the mother's attorney will ensure that the amount of time the
father has with the children is one day less than the state's
threshold. The issue of definition of a "day" must also be addressed,
because it may be possible for a mother to arrange for the children to
spend days at the father's house (if, for example, he works from home),
but overnights at her house, so that she maximizes the amount of money
she gets.

Of course, if child support ceased to be money that fathers pay
mothers, the political pattern would change naturally. If mothers had
to pay this money to fathers, it is very likely that far greater efforts
would be made to make the system more fair.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> > >about the current system? Why?
> > >
> >
> > I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
> connected
> > to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would
order
> > that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the
support
> > they have been awarded.
>
> And for the NCP's that ignore the visitation orders? Would you have them
be
> ordered to pay additional CS for each missed visit?

Unless states allow for CS adjustments for parenting time done by the NCP,
the basic CS order is based on the cost to raise children in an intact
family. That means the basic CS order assumes the children to be in the
care of one parent 100% of the time. To charge the NCP more for not
exercising their visitation would be to force the NCP to pay CS for more
than the 100% time with the CP presumption in the CS guidelines.

>
> >
> > Before anyone jumps down my throat let me qualify this statement. NCP's
that
> > choose to ignore their visitation do not qualify for this.
>
> Why not? They ignore the needs of the children, causing emotional
distress.
> They leave the cost of the children for that weekend squarely in the CP's
lap.
> Why would you then reward them for ignoring the children?

Ditto. The way this works in states that use parenting plans is the CS is
REDUCED to compensate for NCP's parenting time with the children. If the
parenting plan is not being followed, either parent can file a motion with
the court to adjust the parenting plan and how it impacts the CS order.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
> > >about the current system? Why?
> > >
> >
> > I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
> connected
> > to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would
order
> > that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the
support
> > they have been awarded.
>
> And for the NCP's that ignore the visitation orders? Would you have them
be
> ordered to pay additional CS for each missed visit?

Unless states allow for CS adjustments for parenting time done by the NCP,
the basic CS order is based on the cost to raise children in an intact
family. That means the basic CS order assumes the children to be in the
care of one parent 100% of the time. To charge the NCP more for not
exercising their visitation would be to force the NCP to pay CS for more
than the 100% time with the CP presumption in the CS guidelines.

>
> >
> > Before anyone jumps down my throat let me qualify this statement. NCP's
that
> > choose to ignore their visitation do not qualify for this.
>
> Why not? They ignore the needs of the children, causing emotional
distress.
> They leave the cost of the children for that weekend squarely in the CP's
lap.
> Why would you then reward them for ignoring the children?

Ditto. The way this works in states that use parenting plans is the CS is
REDUCED to compensate for NCP's parenting time with the children. If the
parenting plan is not being followed, either parent can file a motion with
the court to adjust the parenting plan and how it impacts the CS order.

[The Dave©]

> Gypsy0005 wrote:
> > If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you
> > change about the current system? Why?
> >
>
> I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
> connected to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL
> abuse, I would order that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would
> not be collecting the support they have been awarded.

I agree with you 100%.

<remainder snipped for brevity>

[The Dave©]

> Gypsy0005 wrote:
> > If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you
> > change about the current system? Why?
> >
>
> I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
> connected to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL
> abuse, I would order that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would
> not be collecting the support they have been awarded.

I agree with you 100%.

<remainder snipped for brevity>

Gypsy0005 > wrote:
:>
:>If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
:>about the current system? Why?
:>

: I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY connected
: to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would order
: that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
: they have been awarded.

Good ideas.

I would elect (except in cases of the child being endangered) a mandatory
50/50 presumption of custody and calculate CS based on need (set up a
checking account for the Child's expenses) vs. lifestyle. Who oversees
the account? I'd propose clear guidelines on what is a child's expense
and what is not (similar to guidelines used by the IRS). If one parent
attempts to move against the wishes of the other, then there'd have to
be a disincentive to do so (for example, if mom moves away, Dad gets
full custody. Unresolved would be the "moving job market" issue but I've
seen too many cases where mom (in nearly all cases) moves to thwart joint
parenting time.

I don't have all of the answers but I believe the presumption of enforcing
whenever possible, equal parenting time with each parent would be most
beneficial to the child. If someone opposes that and there's no risk to
the child, then the one doing the opposing is not looking for the child's
interest and should be sanctioned.

b.

Gypsy0005 > wrote:
:>
:>If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
:>about the current system? Why?
:>

: I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY connected
: to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would order
: that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
: they have been awarded.

Good ideas.

I would elect (except in cases of the child being endangered) a mandatory
50/50 presumption of custody and calculate CS based on need (set up a
checking account for the Child's expenses) vs. lifestyle. Who oversees
the account? I'd propose clear guidelines on what is a child's expense
and what is not (similar to guidelines used by the IRS). If one parent
attempts to move against the wishes of the other, then there'd have to
be a disincentive to do so (for example, if mom moves away, Dad gets
full custody. Unresolved would be the "moving job market" issue but I've
seen too many cases where mom (in nearly all cases) moves to thwart joint
parenting time.

I don't have all of the answers but I believe the presumption of enforcing
whenever possible, equal parenting time with each parent would be most
beneficial to the child. If someone opposes that and there's no risk to
the child, then the one doing the opposing is not looking for the child's
interest and should be sanctioned.

b.

[B]

In article >, > wrote:
>Gypsy0005 > wrote:
>:>
>:>If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
>:>about the current system? Why?
>:>
>
>: I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
> connected
>: to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would
> order
>: that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
>: they have been awarded.
>
>Good ideas.
>
>I would elect (except in cases of the child being endangered) a mandatory
>50/50 presumption of custody and calculate CS based on need (set up a
>checking account for the Child's expenses) vs. lifestyle. Who oversees
>the account? I'd propose clear guidelines on what is a child's expense
>and what is not (similar to guidelines used by the IRS). If one parent
>attempts to move against the wishes of the other, then there'd have to
>be a disincentive to do so (for example, if mom moves away, Dad gets
>full custody. Unresolved would be the "moving job market" issue but I've
>seen too many cases where mom (in nearly all cases) moves to thwart joint
>parenting time.
>
>I don't have all of the answers but I believe the presumption of enforcing
>whenever possible, equal parenting time with each parent would be most
>beneficial to the child. If someone opposes that and there's no risk to
>the child, then the one doing the opposing is not looking for the child's
>interest and should be sanctioned.

I completely agree. I have seen many divorces where the parents decided 50/50
and little or no support (if there is support, only going to costs... not
lifestyle). These appear to me to be very successful (one person commented on
how she and her ex get along BETTER now and talk and have coffee and really
are looking after the best interests of the kids).....

.... now take me. I am in massive custody hell. Mounting lawyer fees. Huge
child and spousal support (which my ex knows is access related and thus us
blocking access) and more importantly what was basically the 'normal' stress
of a divorce has now turned into animosity and basically destroyed our
co-parenting relationship. And above all, the kids are hurting. And... the
laws all support this... not prevent it.

Money is very, very, very destructive in child access, custody and
co-parenting....

I would also like for there to be someone way to prevent the other parnet from
using the kids to hurt a co-parent. Example, in my parenting agreement it
states that normal family activities or events would be treated like as if we
were married. So if there was a wedding or funeral, the kids would be allowed
to come. Wow... was I wrong. I wanted to take my children for 4 days to a
special anniversary party and because of my ex's jealousy and bitterness,
would not allow the children to go (since some of the 4 days were on her
time). No amount of make-up time or other concession would satisfy her. In the
end, the children did not come. To me, that is abuse to the children. All
completely allowed by the 'law'.

Sheesh....

[B]

In article >, > wrote:
>Gypsy0005 > wrote:
>:>
>:>If you could be "king" (or "queen") for a day, what would you change
>:>about the current system? Why?
>:>
>
>: I think the first thing I would change is that visitation is DIRECTLY
> connected
>: to child support. By that I mean, in the absence of REAL abuse, I would
> order
>: that Cp's that ignore visitation orders would not be collecting the support
>: they have been awarded.
>
>Good ideas.
>
>I would elect (except in cases of the child being endangered) a mandatory
>50/50 presumption of custody and calculate CS based on need (set up a
>checking account for the Child's expenses) vs. lifestyle. Who oversees
>the account? I'd propose clear guidelines on what is a child's expense
>and what is not (similar to guidelines used by the IRS). If one parent
>attempts to move against the wishes of the other, then there'd have to
>be a disincentive to do so (for example, if mom moves away, Dad gets
>full custody. Unresolved would be the "moving job market" issue but I've
>seen too many cases where mom (in nearly all cases) moves to thwart joint
>parenting time.
>
>I don't have all of the answers but I believe the presumption of enforcing
>whenever possible, equal parenting time with each parent would be most
>beneficial to the child. If someone opposes that and there's no risk to
>the child, then the one doing the opposing is not looking for the child's
>interest and should be sanctioned.

I completely agree. I have seen many divorces where the parents decided 50/50
and little or no support (if there is support, only going to costs... not
lifestyle). These appear to me to be very successful (one person commented on
how she and her ex get along BETTER now and talk and have coffee and really
are looking after the best interests of the kids).....

.... now take me. I am in massive custody hell. Mounting lawyer fees. Huge
child and spousal support (which my ex knows is access related and thus us
blocking access) and more importantly what was basically the 'normal' stress
of a divorce has now turned into animosity and basically destroyed our
co-parenting relationship. And above all, the kids are hurting. And... the
laws all support this... not prevent it.

Money is very, very, very destructive in child access, custody and
co-parenting....

I would also like for there to be someone way to prevent the other parnet from
using the kids to hurt a co-parent. Example, in my parenting agreement it
states that normal family activities or events would be treated like as if we
were married. So if there was a wedding or funeral, the kids would be allowed
to come. Wow... was I wrong. I wanted to take my children for 4 days to a
special anniversary party and because of my ex's jealousy and bitterness,
would not allow the children to go (since some of the 4 days were on her
time). No amount of make-up time or other concession would satisfy her. In the
end, the children did not come. To me, that is abuse to the children. All
completely allowed by the 'law'.

Sheesh....

[angel235]

<snip>

In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
> that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> children.

And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
abuse that rule....

[angel235]

<snip>

In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
> that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> children.

And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
abuse that rule....

[Bob Whiteside]

"angel235" > wrote in message
om...
> <snip>
>
> In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> > make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> > their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
> > that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> > children.
>
> And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
> other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
> doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
> spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
> girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
> to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
> abuse that rule....

News Flash - Those things don't matter anymore. The current legal standard
for child custody is "the best interest of the child." However, courts
routinely give custody of children to women who have had affairs, abuse
drugs and alcohol, cannot support a child, have mental issues, verbally and
physically abuse men, etc. The courts turn their back on women's bad
behavior. Why shouldn't they do the same for men's bad behavior and
consider the party wanting to keep the marriage together the better parent?

[Bob Whiteside]

"angel235" > wrote in message
om...
> <snip>
>
> In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> > make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> > their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
> > that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> > children.
>
> And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
> other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
> doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
> spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
> girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
> to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
> abuse that rule....

News Flash - Those things don't matter anymore. The current legal standard
for child custody is "the best interest of the child." However, courts
routinely give custody of children to women who have had affairs, abuse
drugs and alcohol, cannot support a child, have mental issues, verbally and
physically abuse men, etc. The courts turn their back on women's bad
behavior. Why shouldn't they do the same for men's bad behavior and
consider the party wanting to keep the marriage together the better parent?

[B]

In article >, (angel235) wrote:
><snip>
>
> In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
>> make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
>> their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
>> that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
>> children.
>
>And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
>other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
>doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
>spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
>girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
>to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
>abuse that rule....

For me, I would rather have the presumption of innocence and fair
treatment than to be lumped in with everyone else. That's why. Fathers=bad...
mothers=good. That's the system. That's the rule.

I have seen it many time the standard response to any fair system - what about
the abuser. I think the original poster, or someone else, stated that cases of
abuse would be considered. Yes, it would be hard to prove (sometimes) and may
be abused by people (sometimes), but let's not paint everyone with the same
brush.

I believe, and I'll make up a complete factoid, that the majority of custody
battles are men trying to see their kids, and I'll make another factoid, the
the majority of these men are just normal people. I have no scientific proof
of this, just my own little study.

To have a law that states 50/50, no support unless costs warrant it and
special circustances where there is abuse would be a dream come true. To never
allow it since there might be 1 case in 100 of abuse is wrong. To say
otherwise would be like denying driver licences because some person somewhere
might run a red light.

B.

[B]

In article >, (angel235) wrote:
><snip>
>
> In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
>> make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
>> their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
>> that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
>> children.
>
>And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
>other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
>doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
>spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
>girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
>to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
>abuse that rule....

For me, I would rather have the presumption of innocence and fair
treatment than to be lumped in with everyone else. That's why. Fathers=bad...
mothers=good. That's the system. That's the rule.

I have seen it many time the standard response to any fair system - what about
the abuser. I think the original poster, or someone else, stated that cases of
abuse would be considered. Yes, it would be hard to prove (sometimes) and may
be abused by people (sometimes), but let's not paint everyone with the same
brush.

I believe, and I'll make up a complete factoid, that the majority of custody
battles are men trying to see their kids, and I'll make another factoid, the
the majority of these men are just normal people. I have no scientific proof
of this, just my own little study.

To have a law that states 50/50, no support unless costs warrant it and
special circustances where there is abuse would be a dream come true. To never
allow it since there might be 1 case in 100 of abuse is wrong. To say
otherwise would be like denying driver licences because some person somewhere
might run a red light.

B.

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "angel235" > wrote in message
> om...
> > <snip>
> >
> > In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> > > make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> > > their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a
presumption
> > > that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> > > children.
> >
> > And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
> > other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
> > doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
> > spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
> > girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
> > to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
> > abuse that rule....
>
> News Flash - Those things don't matter anymore. The current legal
standard
> for child custody is "the best interest of the child." However, courts
> routinely give custody of children to women who have had affairs, abuse
> drugs and alcohol, cannot support a child, have mental issues, verbally
and
> physically abuse men, etc. The courts turn their back on women's bad
> behavior. Why shouldn't they do the same for men's bad behavior and
> consider the party wanting to keep the marriage together the better
parent?


Abuse & cheating should not be rewarded. In my opinion, when a parent
abuses or cheats, they shouldn't be rewarded custody in the first place -
even in our current system. The system in place currently fails in this
area. It goes back to the thread on marriages. A cheating spouse is in
violation of their vows and shouldn't be rewarded. Likewise, marriage is
not a license to abuse someone else.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "angel235" > wrote in message
> om...
> > <snip>
> >
> > In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> > > make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> > > their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a
presumption
> > > that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> > > children.
> >
> > And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
> > other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
> > doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
> > spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
> > girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
> > to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
> > abuse that rule....
>
> News Flash - Those things don't matter anymore. The current legal
standard
> for child custody is "the best interest of the child." However, courts
> routinely give custody of children to women who have had affairs, abuse
> drugs and alcohol, cannot support a child, have mental issues, verbally
and
> physically abuse men, etc. The courts turn their back on women's bad
> behavior. Why shouldn't they do the same for men's bad behavior and
> consider the party wanting to keep the marriage together the better
parent?


Abuse & cheating should not be rewarded. In my opinion, when a parent
abuses or cheats, they shouldn't be rewarded custody in the first place -
even in our current system. The system in place currently fails in this
area. It goes back to the thread on marriages. A cheating spouse is in
violation of their vows and shouldn't be rewarded. Likewise, marriage is
not a license to abuse someone else.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Kenneth S.]

angel235 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> > make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> > their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
> > that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> > children.
>
> And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
> other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
> doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
> spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
> girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
> to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
> abuse that rule....

Prior to no-fault divorce, these situations WERE grounds for divorce.
The difference was that in those days some proof, not just unsupported
assertions, had to be offered.

There is a huge amount of exaggeration about the extent of these
problems. This exaggeration is an important part of the feminist
objective of portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators.

The comments above seem designed to do nothing more than defend the
status quo. No one -- least of all me -- argues that there is some
perfect solution that will eliminate ALL the problems. What I am saying
in that the present situation is so bad that it wouldn't be hard to
improve it. One way of improving it would be to remove the opportunity
for one spouse to decide, for any or no reason, to break up the family
and then (if it is the mother) be rewarded for the decision by getting
custody of the children and preserving a pipeline into the father's
wallet for periods of 18 years or more.

I think we must consciously reject the idea that the people arguing for
reforms must come up with a solution that has no potential problems
whatsoever. The question is: compared to what? The situation we have
at the moment is a disaster for children and for men -- and it isn't
even in the long term interests of women, who also suffer from the
effects of the social disintegration associated with family breakups.

[Kenneth S.]

angel235 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> In approximately 70-75 percent of cases in the U.S., wives
> > make the decision to break up their marriages, over the objections of
> > their husbands. The system must be restructured to embody a presumption
> > that the parent wishing to preserve the marriage gets custody of the
> > children.
>
> And what would be the answer in the case of one spouse abusing the
> other spouse? The abusee wants out (with the children), the abuser
> doesn't want to let go. What about a chronic cheater??? Angelic
> spouse stuck because he/she wants out but cheating spouse wants wife,
> girlfriends, children, etc. so all he/she has to do is say is, "I want
> to preserve the marriage." Too many shades of grey and chances to
> abuse that rule....

Prior to no-fault divorce, these situations WERE grounds for divorce.
The difference was that in those days some proof, not just unsupported
assertions, had to be offered.

There is a huge amount of exaggeration about the extent of these
problems. This exaggeration is an important part of the feminist
objective of portraying women as victims and men as perpetrators.

The comments above seem designed to do nothing more than defend the
status quo. No one -- least of all me -- argues that there is some
perfect solution that will eliminate ALL the problems. What I am saying
in that the present situation is so bad that it wouldn't be hard to
improve it. One way of improving it would be to remove the opportunity
for one spouse to decide, for any or no reason, to break up the family
and then (if it is the mother) be rewarded for the decision by getting
custody of the children and preserving a pipeline into the father's
wallet for periods of 18 years or more.

I think we must consciously reject the idea that the people arguing for
reforms must come up with a solution that has no potential problems
whatsoever. The question is: compared to what? The situation we have
at the moment is a disaster for children and for men -- and it isn't
even in the long term interests of women, who also suffer from the
effects of the social disintegration associated with family breakups.

[Lecher9000]

I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how much, if any,
money changes hands, and when. Get the government's nose out of it.

[Lecher9000]

I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how much, if any,
money changes hands, and when. Get the government's nose out of it.

[Patrick Lee]

Agreed. Anytime you let the government
get involved with forcing people to pay,
its just plan insanity! Liberals and conservatives both just don't get
it when
it comes to child support. Any time
you allow the government to get involved
in issues involving your money and privacy spells disaster!!

[Patrick Lee]

Agreed. Anytime you let the government
get involved with forcing people to pay,
its just plan insanity! Liberals and conservatives both just don't get
it when
it comes to child support. Any time
you allow the government to get involved
in issues involving your money and privacy spells disaster!!

[Kenneth S.]

Patrick Lee wrote:
>
> Agreed. Anytime you let the government
> get involved with forcing people to pay,
> its just plan insanity! Liberals and conservatives both just don't get
> it when
> it comes to child support. Any time
> you allow the government to get involved
> in issues involving your money and privacy spells disaster!!

To many people, the notion that government would stop interfering in
matters connected with individual families is completely revolutionary.
They cannot even conceive of such a situation. They imagine that an end
to government intervention would be disastrous. Fathers would be
ditching their families, right, left, and center, these people think,
and women and children would be thrown into poverty.

No one can predict with certainty what would happen in hypothetical
situations. However, it is very probable that, if government stopped
poking its ugly and inefficient nose into the business of individual
families, then things would be organized in an entirely different way.
However, they would still be organized. Responsibility for individual
families would be put back into the hands of parents, which is where it
should be. These issues would be worked out before marriage, in
individual prenuptial contracts. People would be forced to think in
advance about marriage, as they should be.

Some of the comments I hear about the possibility of government getting
out of the business of supervising individual families remind me of a
story I read in a newspaper several years ago. At the end of the Cold
War the Russian Government was privatizing their aircraft industry. A
group of Russian managers was visiting aircraft plants in the U.S., and
they were asking all kinds of elementary questions, like "Who in the
government tells you how many airplanes to manufacture each year?" They
couldn't even imagine that such decisions were made by managers in the
U.S. companies, and they had to carry the responsibility for their own
decisions.

The really astonishing thing is that governments are involved at all in
the matter of regulating the most intimate of arrangements, those of
marriages and families. If there's an argument for deregulating and
privatizing the air transportation business, then surely there's a far,
far stronger argument for privatizing marriage.

[Kenneth S.]

Patrick Lee wrote:
>
> Agreed. Anytime you let the government
> get involved with forcing people to pay,
> its just plan insanity! Liberals and conservatives both just don't get
> it when
> it comes to child support. Any time
> you allow the government to get involved
> in issues involving your money and privacy spells disaster!!

To many people, the notion that government would stop interfering in
matters connected with individual families is completely revolutionary.
They cannot even conceive of such a situation. They imagine that an end
to government intervention would be disastrous. Fathers would be
ditching their families, right, left, and center, these people think,
and women and children would be thrown into poverty.

No one can predict with certainty what would happen in hypothetical
situations. However, it is very probable that, if government stopped
poking its ugly and inefficient nose into the business of individual
families, then things would be organized in an entirely different way.
However, they would still be organized. Responsibility for individual
families would be put back into the hands of parents, which is where it
should be. These issues would be worked out before marriage, in
individual prenuptial contracts. People would be forced to think in
advance about marriage, as they should be.

Some of the comments I hear about the possibility of government getting
out of the business of supervising individual families remind me of a
story I read in a newspaper several years ago. At the end of the Cold
War the Russian Government was privatizing their aircraft industry. A
group of Russian managers was visiting aircraft plants in the U.S., and
they were asking all kinds of elementary questions, like "Who in the
government tells you how many airplanes to manufacture each year?" They
couldn't even imagine that such decisions were made by managers in the
U.S. companies, and they had to carry the responsibility for their own
decisions.

The really astonishing thing is that governments are involved at all in
the matter of regulating the most intimate of arrangements, those of
marriages and families. If there's an argument for deregulating and
privatizing the air transportation business, then surely there's a far,
far stronger argument for privatizing marriage.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how
> much, if any, money changes hands, and when. Get the government's
> nose out of it.

Sounds good... in theory. The reason we have civil courts to begin
with is because people cannot always be be rational and mature and
fair. Courts exist to solve disputes (again, in theory), and as long
as two people will have two different opinions on how something should
be done, the need for a way to solve those disputes will always exist.
It's human nature. In concept, I agree with your sentiment, but to say
that the government should be out of it "completely" is naive and
pollyanna-ish.

[The Dave©]

> Lecher9000 wrote:
> I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how
> much, if any, money changes hands, and when. Get the government's
> nose out of it.

Sounds good... in theory. The reason we have civil courts to begin
with is because people cannot always be be rational and mature and
fair. Courts exist to solve disputes (again, in theory), and as long
as two people will have two different opinions on how something should
be done, the need for a way to solve those disputes will always exist.
It's human nature. In concept, I agree with your sentiment, but to say
that the government should be out of it "completely" is naive and
pollyanna-ish.

[The Dave©]

> The Dave) wrote:
> > Lecher9000 wrote:
> > I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how
> > much, if any, money changes hands, and when. Get the government's
> > nose out of it.
>
> Sounds good... in theory. The reason we have civil courts to begin
> with is because people cannot always be be rational and mature and
> fair. Courts exist to solve disputes (again, in theory), and as long
> as two people will have two different opinions on how something should
> be done, the need for a way to solve those disputes will always exist.
> It's human nature. In concept, I agree with your sentiment, but to
> say that the government should be out of it "completely" is naive and
> pollyanna-ish.

I should modify what I just said. I mis-read your statement. I agree
that government should be out of the CS business. For some reason I
originally read that you were saying they should be out of all
disputes, etc. My bad.

[The Dave©]

> The Dave) wrote:
> > Lecher9000 wrote:
> > I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how
> > much, if any, money changes hands, and when. Get the government's
> > nose out of it.
>
> Sounds good... in theory. The reason we have civil courts to begin
> with is because people cannot always be be rational and mature and
> fair. Courts exist to solve disputes (again, in theory), and as long
> as two people will have two different opinions on how something should
> be done, the need for a way to solve those disputes will always exist.
> It's human nature. In concept, I agree with your sentiment, but to
> say that the government should be out of it "completely" is naive and
> pollyanna-ish.

I should modify what I just said. I mis-read your statement. I agree
that government should be out of the CS business. For some reason I
originally read that you were saying they should be out of all
disputes, etc. My bad.

[Kenneth S.]

The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Lecher9000 wrote:
> > I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how
> > much, if any, money changes hands, and when. Get the government's
> > nose out of it.
>
> Sounds good... in theory. The reason we have civil courts to begin
> with is because people cannot always be be rational and mature and
> fair. Courts exist to solve disputes (again, in theory), and as long
> as two people will have two different opinions on how something should
> be done, the need for a way to solve those disputes will always exist.
> It's human nature. In concept, I agree with your sentiment, but to say
> that the government should be out of it "completely" is naive and
> pollyanna-ish.

I don't agree with the last sentiment at all.

Yes, of course, courts are supposed to exist to solve disputes
(although in reality one of their major purposes has become to line the
pockets of lawyers). However, marriage is the only area I can think of
where government says that agreements between two people must conform to
one pattern, AND government reserves to itself the right to change this
pattern and apply the changes retroactively to existing agreements.

To say that this is wrong appears "naive and pollyanna-ish" only
because we are so accustomed to such a weird situation.

Imagine what would happen if every U.S. state established its own rules
allowing only one kind of business partnership, AND --
(1) applied its rules to every partnership doing business within its
boundaries, regardless of where the partnership agreement had originally
been made,
(2) under pressure from special interest groups, changed its partnership
rules frequently, applying the changes retroactively to all business
partnerships, regardless of when the partnership was established, or the
jurisdiction where it was established, and
(3) told all female business partners that, not only would they not be
penalized for breaking their partnership rules, they would actually be
rewarded for doing so by getting a higher proportion of the partnership
assets.

People would say business was impossible under such partnership rules.
And that's what has happened with marriage. It has become impossible on
any meaningful basis.

There's a ramshackle and inefficient government marriage monopoly in
operation. You can't even bypass the government monopoly by writing
your own rules. Judges will disregard prenuptial contracts covering the
really important issues like custody, on the phony basis that they are
"contrary to public policy."

[Kenneth S.]

The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Lecher9000 wrote:
> > I would get rid of CS completely, and let the parents decide how
> > much, if any, money changes hands, and when. Get the government's
> > nose out of it.
>
> Sounds good... in theory. The reason we have civil courts to begin
> with is because people cannot always be be rational and mature and
> fair. Courts exist to solve disputes (again, in theory), and as long
> as two people will have two different opinions on how something should
> be done, the need for a way to solve those disputes will always exist.
> It's human nature. In concept, I agree with your sentiment, but to say
> that the government should be out of it "completely" is naive and
> pollyanna-ish.

I don't agree with the last sentiment at all.

Yes, of course, courts are supposed to exist to solve disputes
(although in reality one of their major purposes has become to line the
pockets of lawyers). However, marriage is the only area I can think of
where government says that agreements between two people must conform to
one pattern, AND government reserves to itself the right to change this
pattern and apply the changes retroactively to existing agreements.

To say that this is wrong appears "naive and pollyanna-ish" only
because we are so accustomed to such a weird situation.

Imagine what would happen if every U.S. state established its own rules
allowing only one kind of business partnership, AND --
(1) applied its rules to every partnership doing business within its
boundaries, regardless of where the partnership agreement had originally
been made,
(2) under pressure from special interest groups, changed its partnership
rules frequently, applying the changes retroactively to all business
partnerships, regardless of when the partnership was established, or the
jurisdiction where it was established, and
(3) told all female business partners that, not only would they not be
penalized for breaking their partnership rules, they would actually be
rewarded for doing so by getting a higher proportion of the partnership
assets.

People would say business was impossible under such partnership rules.
And that's what has happened with marriage. It has become impossible on
any meaningful basis.

There's a ramshackle and inefficient government marriage monopoly in
operation. You can't even bypass the government monopoly by writing
your own rules. Judges will disregard prenuptial contracts covering the
really important issues like custody, on the phony basis that they are
"contrary to public policy."

[The Dave©]

> Kenneth S. wrote:
> I don't agree with the last sentiment at all.

You must've missed my follow-up disclaimer. I had mis-read what the
previous poster had said.

> Yes, of course, courts are supposed to exist to solve disputes
> (although in reality one of their major purposes has become to line
> the pockets of lawyers). However, marriage is the only area I can
> think of where government says that agreements between two people
> must conform to one pattern, AND government reserves to itself the
> right to change this pattern and apply the changes retroactively to
> existing agreements.

You are correct. What I am referring to is even if we had solid
marriage contract law as in business, there would still be a need for
dispute resolution. It's simply a flaw of human nature that we cannot
always get along and be agreeable even if we did agree to something
previously. I can easily see where the tide would shift to people
saying that their s2bx somehow violated the agreement, and then into
court we go. And the lawyers would lead us by the hand. All it takes
is a feeling of being wronged, or a dishonest person, and the results
would be the same as we have now, just the "reasons" or process would
be different. And what happens if the plaintiff is convincing? The
judge would probably overturn the prenuptual agreement.

Having said that, I am sympathetic to your points and proposals, and
would even like to try them. I'm just trying to keep myself from
believing that they would actually solve anything. They may make it a
degree better, and that would most certainly be worthwhile.

<remainder snipped for brevity purposes>

[The Dave©]

> Kenneth S. wrote:
> I don't agree with the last sentiment at all.

You must've missed my follow-up disclaimer. I had mis-read what the
previous poster had said.

> Yes, of course, courts are supposed to exist to solve disputes
> (although in reality one of their major purposes has become to line
> the pockets of lawyers). However, marriage is the only area I can
> think of where government says that agreements between two people
> must conform to one pattern, AND government reserves to itself the
> right to change this pattern and apply the changes retroactively to
> existing agreements.

You are correct. What I am referring to is even if we had solid
marriage contract law as in business, there would still be a need for
dispute resolution. It's simply a flaw of human nature that we cannot
always get along and be agreeable even if we did agree to something
previously. I can easily see where the tide would shift to people
saying that their s2bx somehow violated the agreement, and then into
court we go. And the lawyers would lead us by the hand. All it takes
is a feeling of being wronged, or a dishonest person, and the results
would be the same as we have now, just the "reasons" or process would
be different. And what happens if the plaintiff is convincing? The
judge would probably overturn the prenuptual agreement.

Having said that, I am sympathetic to your points and proposals, and
would even like to try them. I'm just trying to keep myself from
believing that they would actually solve anything. They may make it a
degree better, and that would most certainly be worthwhile.

<remainder snipped for brevity purposes>

[Kenneth S.]

Dave:

The overturning of prenuptial agreements by judges IS a problem now,
and could well be a problem if there were a privatized marriage system.

Unfortunately, we see repeatedly that one of the biggest categories of
blatant scofflaws in the U.S. is judges -- and notably judges in
domestic relations matters, where they apparently think they are dealing
with people, particularly on the male side, who are powerless.

At the highest levels of the judiciary in the U.S. (the Supreme Court)
judges disregard what is written in the U.S. constitution, in favor of
their gut feelings on various subjects. At the lower levels, including
family courts, judges do the same thing. From what I hear, in some
cases they are willing even to disregard the explicit provisions of
statutory law to get the "right" outcome -- in exactly the same way that
Supreme Court justices ignore the explicit provisions of the U.S.
constitution.

We are a long way off getting to a system of privatized marriage in the
U.S. So in one sense there isn't much point in debating how to control
judicial unlawfulness after we have this system. However, one would
hope that a change to privatized marriage, combined with the explicit
recognition of comprehensive prenuptial contracts, would represent such
a sea change in the politics of the situation that judges would have to
change their ways.

And, if I can pursue a little hobby horse of my own, we could have
MONITORING of the decisions of individual judges, and regular
publication of the statistics. In how many cases did Judge X or Judge Y
overturn the explicit provisions of prenuptial contracts? When judges
know their decisions are going to be scrutinized by the public, they
come up with different decisions.

(More generally, I wish fathers' groups could have monitoring
provisions written in to all kinds of statutes. In my own state, for
example, one of the rare victories for fathers a few years ago was a
provision that persistent interference with visitation would be grounds
for a change in custody. However, this provision appears hardly ever to
be used by judges. And think of what would happen if all judges knew
that someone would be looking at their custody awards every six months,
and seeing how many fathers got custody in their courts.)




The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > I don't agree with the last sentiment at all.
>
> You must've missed my follow-up disclaimer. I had mis-read what the
> previous poster had said.
>
> > Yes, of course, courts are supposed to exist to solve disputes
> > (although in reality one of their major purposes has become to line
> > the pockets of lawyers). However, marriage is the only area I can
> > think of where government says that agreements between two people
> > must conform to one pattern, AND government reserves to itself the
> > right to change this pattern and apply the changes retroactively to
> > existing agreements.
>
> You are correct. What I am referring to is even if we had solid
> marriage contract law as in business, there would still be a need for
> dispute resolution. It's simply a flaw of human nature that we cannot
> always get along and be agreeable even if we did agree to something
> previously. I can easily see where the tide would shift to people
> saying that their s2bx somehow violated the agreement, and then into
> court we go. And the lawyers would lead us by the hand. All it takes
> is a feeling of being wronged, or a dishonest person, and the results
> would be the same as we have now, just the "reasons" or process would
> be different. And what happens if the plaintiff is convincing? The
> judge would probably overturn the prenuptual agreement.
>
> Having said that, I am sympathetic to your points and proposals, and
> would even like to try them. I'm just trying to keep myself from
> believing that they would actually solve anything. They may make it a
> degree better, and that would most certainly be worthwhile.
>
> <remainder snipped for brevity purposes>

[Kenneth S.]

Dave:

The overturning of prenuptial agreements by judges IS a problem now,
and could well be a problem if there were a privatized marriage system.

Unfortunately, we see repeatedly that one of the biggest categories of
blatant scofflaws in the U.S. is judges -- and notably judges in
domestic relations matters, where they apparently think they are dealing
with people, particularly on the male side, who are powerless.

At the highest levels of the judiciary in the U.S. (the Supreme Court)
judges disregard what is written in the U.S. constitution, in favor of
their gut feelings on various subjects. At the lower levels, including
family courts, judges do the same thing. From what I hear, in some
cases they are willing even to disregard the explicit provisions of
statutory law to get the "right" outcome -- in exactly the same way that
Supreme Court justices ignore the explicit provisions of the U.S.
constitution.

We are a long way off getting to a system of privatized marriage in the
U.S. So in one sense there isn't much point in debating how to control
judicial unlawfulness after we have this system. However, one would
hope that a change to privatized marriage, combined with the explicit
recognition of comprehensive prenuptial contracts, would represent such
a sea change in the politics of the situation that judges would have to
change their ways.

And, if I can pursue a little hobby horse of my own, we could have
MONITORING of the decisions of individual judges, and regular
publication of the statistics. In how many cases did Judge X or Judge Y
overturn the explicit provisions of prenuptial contracts? When judges
know their decisions are going to be scrutinized by the public, they
come up with different decisions.

(More generally, I wish fathers' groups could have monitoring
provisions written in to all kinds of statutes. In my own state, for
example, one of the rare victories for fathers a few years ago was a
provision that persistent interference with visitation would be grounds
for a change in custody. However, this provision appears hardly ever to
be used by judges. And think of what would happen if all judges knew
that someone would be looking at their custody awards every six months,
and seeing how many fathers got custody in their courts.)




The Dave© wrote:
>
> > Kenneth S. wrote:
> > I don't agree with the last sentiment at all.
>
> You must've missed my follow-up disclaimer. I had mis-read what the
> previous poster had said.
>
> > Yes, of course, courts are supposed to exist to solve disputes
> > (although in reality one of their major purposes has become to line
> > the pockets of lawyers). However, marriage is the only area I can
> > think of where government says that agreements between two people
> > must conform to one pattern, AND government reserves to itself the
> > right to change this pattern and apply the changes retroactively to
> > existing agreements.
>
> You are correct. What I am referring to is even if we had solid
> marriage contract law as in business, there would still be a need for
> dispute resolution. It's simply a flaw of human nature that we cannot
> always get along and be agreeable even if we did agree to something
> previously. I can easily see where the tide would shift to people
> saying that their s2bx somehow violated the agreement, and then into
> court we go. And the lawyers would lead us by the hand. All it takes
> is a feeling of being wronged, or a dishonest person, and the results
> would be the same as we have now, just the "reasons" or process would
> be different. And what happens if the plaintiff is convincing? The
> judge would probably overturn the prenuptual agreement.
>
> Having said that, I am sympathetic to your points and proposals, and
> would even like to try them. I'm just trying to keep myself from
> believing that they would actually solve anything. They may make it a
> degree better, and that would most certainly be worthwhile.
>
> <remainder snipped for brevity purposes>