teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...


Why on earth do you think it is ok to subject private individuals to such
government interference when no crime has been committed? For the life
of
me, I can't fathom why you think someone doing a "job" is better at
taking
care of the children than the parents of the children. Do you also think
there should be these social workers out inspecting the homes of married
parents? You seem to have a very deep-seated distrust of people--except
people who represent the government. There should be no interference at
all
unless one or both of the parents are operating outside of the law.
Period.


A civil action, like say a contested divorce, is basically an
individual asking for a court to decide whos rights have higher
priority in any given situation. The idea of a CASA pre-supposes the
fact that a civil action has already been filed. At that point someone
has already asked a judge to step in and make a decision, inside of the
adverseral, only the lawyers make out civil system that exists in this
country. Everyone is screaming that you want non-adverseral, informed
decisionmaking, and everyone including me agrees that the parents are
the first people that SHOULD be making those decisions. The court
system will almost always agree to any divorce/child support settlement
that the parents mutually agree on. The problem is that at least one
parent is asking for government intervention because the parents HAVE
NOT been able to reach a decision point.

The problem is that the current system is set up in such a way that WOMEN
WIN the majority of the time. They are almost guaranteed custody of the
children. So if they don't get exactly what they want from the men, they
can run to court and get it from the judge. Make the system equal for both
genders--no favoritism--and see how quickly the "fix it for me, judge"
attitude falls off. You'd see a lot more people working things out
themselves.


A lot of arguement as to why
that is revolve around the fact that the CP wants to milk and
unreasonable amount of money out of the NCP. The CASA is a method that
allows for informed decisionmaking without conflict of interest,
something that is absent in any contested custody or divorce situation
currently.

Making the playing field equal would do exactly the same thing, without the
need for a CASA.

The CASA simple replaces the judge in the majority of cases
very similar to the medical communities heavy use of nurses to assist
doctors. Selection of the CASA by elimination would allow for both
sides to be reasonably represented without the conflict of interest
that arises when a lawyer is payed to represent your interests while
the court is seeking the best interests of the child.

The fact that the children you come in contact with represent the segment
of
society that might need supervision does not in any way indicate that all
divorced/never-married couples need such superbvision. It is unfair to
tar
everyone with the brush of you negative experiences.

A constested situation exists with massive potential conflict of
interests, where at least one participant has REQUESTED government
intervention, the potential damage to society is large, exactly when
would you say intervention is necessary?

When the playing field is level, and they STILL can't agree.


You want the CP to be
constantly anwserable to the NCP on expendatures but I imagine that
your not so interested in giving the CP access to the NCP's
income/spending information. Conflicts of interests like that are the
reasons that the system is so damn cumbersome.

The CP already has that access. NCPs file income reports with the court
regularly. Plus the courts have total acxcess to employment and tax info.
Why don't you already know that? Besides which, I think that each parent
should be responsible for 50% of the child's basic needs. And anything they
want to do above and beyond that is a choice that each gets to make for
him/herself.


A level playing field, thats a little vague dont you think. Enforced
equality on a finanicial level would be extremely destructive given
that women with children almost always have lower earning potential.
Pre-supposing joint custody is a good idea, with lower child support to
reflect the quasi-rents that the father will provide. That has been
shown to lower divorce rates considerably.

The basic needs arguement is your strongest point, the problem that I
can see is that basic needs are a very loosely defined criteria. Paying
the CP enough so that if they work like mad they can afford a small
apartment, basic food, and the basic clothing needs of a child. Even if
they are never able to advance or prepare for retirement or all of the
other things that would have been possible inside of a married life.
That isnt anywhere near as bad as allowing the fathers to determine the
exact level of support they will pay. Even if Mom and child live in a
cheap apartment while Dad's new family lives in a large home, I dont
like the
inequality but inequality exists in reality. Certainly that is nowhere
near the situations that I face with foster kids birthfamilies.

And I can see that a equlibrium could exist between allowing a
reasonable ablity for the CP to improve their lifes with allowing the
NCP that same ability. Although given the return on investment society
sees for educated/experienced children I still tend to favor the CP in
that reguard, but nowhere near as strongly as for the basic needs
arguement. This is defineately a situation were joint custody would be
preferable.

A judge has almost no information when they are making the decisions,
thats the reason a CASA type system appeals to me. Informaiton and
common sense would solve most of the problems that currently exist. But
the harsh assumptions have to remain until more information becomes
available, the potential cost is simply too high.

I think however we may have reached a reasonable solution, at least in
my mind. A franken-system with liberal, populist, and libertarian
aspects

We both agree that law cannot be substituted for human judgment, and we
both agree that the parents are the best people to exercise that
judgement, but we disagree on the level of conflict of interest that
should be assumed in a NCP. As I understand your arguments you wish
the fundemental assumption to be that an average NCP will possess
little conflict of interest, so that even when the parents are unable
to agree the court should mandate a bare minimum of child support to
insure a child's basic needs and then allow the parents to work out any
remaining inequality. Its quite a reasonable solution and certainly
addresses my major concerns of child safety and family failure. Making
the minimum a hard and fast number would force a lot of people to sell
houses and/or declare bankrupcy but that doesnt really upset me half as
much as true impoverishing. Give the judge the power to freeze
collection of debts until the situation was decided. A hard number
would also give the sytem the ability to truly destroy the real
deadbeat dads.

Its a composite system by the way between populist and libertarian
solutions (there's a combination that doesnt happen often). I could
still very easily see the mild horror stories of mothers fighting to
pay the bills when dad lives in luxury but compared to the flip side
stories that happen today I can certainly live with that.

I would suggest a further composite to address those situations where
the conflict of interest is larger, add a liberal education requirement
that both parties attend classes/counciling where that inequality can
be worked out for their specific situation, including how the split
will change as incomes change or emergencies arise, place a strong
emphasis on allowing the parents to exercise judgment, but set up a
minimum framework. Take a portion of the NCP's pay and place it in
eschrow to be divided after the drafting of a binding agreement, thus
giving both parties a strong incentive to come to an agreement. Place
a CASA type as the teacher/counciler and give them the right to draft
the agreement if the parties cannot agree. And of course allow review
of the agreement at the request of either party. All collections of
payments would be by a private company, a bank most likley, that would
oversee any changes to the payment levels based on perodic review and
recommendation of the CASA, subject to the agreement.
..

Ghostwriter