barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/20/85)
>Why don't people (couples) who can't support children >stop having so many of them. Granted, in a large number >of "woman head of household" cases the woman may have expected >the husband to "provide" and then he may have run off without >paying child support, but I hardly think this is the rule. Yup, it's the rule. When I was a welfare case worker (during the '70's) in family aid, solo female parents outnumbered solo male parents and couples, combined, by about 4:1. Welfare regulations make it much harder for a two-parent family to qualify, than a one-parent household. As for child support: non-payment of child support may be the fourth most common crime in America (after speeding, cheating on taxes and drug violations). While it's probably true that most men meet their obligation, a large minority don't. Many lack the money; others are out to "punish" their ex-wives; and some just don't care. I think the subject of child support is worth a bit of discussion. I wonder how many of you women out there have had the misfortune of finding out how ineffective the enforcement of a child support order is, when the man is unwilling to pay? Not many women in that situation can afford high-priced legal help. Based on my experience in welfare and child support, there is one big reform that would be a world of help: at some specific point (say, when child support falls 3 months behind), wage garnishment should be automatic. As of today, forced waged garnishment for child support is almost unheard of. Judges *can* order it (in every state I know of), but rarely do. We shouldn't depend on judges. We should have a law with teeth, one that ensures that absent parents who are able to pay will have a strong incentive to do so. I know this won't solve all the problems. Many of the men who don't pay don't *have* the money, or work irregularly, and change jobs too often to make garnishment work. But there are scofflaws out there, men who know how much they can get away with without getting into real trouble, and we could make a real dent in welfare expenditures if we took child support straight out of their paycheck. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (07/24/85)
Peter B writes on child support: >I suppose I am a bit sensitive on this issue as I do pay child support... >I much prefer to think of it >as a moral responsibility. I fathered the child and I should expect to >share in the support of that child. What the government decides in regard >to this issue is actually immaterial to me. As a mother who is NOT receiving child support, I would like to commend you on your feelings. Would that more people (and I include both men and women here) felt a moral responsibility to support those that they bring into the world. Unfortunately, it must often be made a legal issue because some do not consider it a moral one. -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your god may be dead, but mine aren't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/24/85)
><218@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck): >>Child support is money paid by the father for that >>support of the child which the child would normally (without the divorce) >>have reason to expect and was therefore legally due to the CHILD. This >>includes food, clothing, housing ,medical care and a reasonable >>amount of education up to the time the child is legally of age >>(This in most cases does not include college). > ><1086@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee): >I have troubles with the phrase <therefore legally due to the child>. I >suppose that technically this is correct but I much prefer to think of it >as a moral responsibility. I, too, wondered when I read the original posting regarding the legal duty of child support. Therefore, I have enlarged the scope of the discussion to include net.legal, and post this legal query: If there is a legal obligation on parents to support their children, this would apply whether or not these parents happen to be divorced. Could a child (or his/her legal representative [might even be the state *in loco parentis*, like in child abuse cases, right?]) take legal action against his/her parents to collect support that is being denied or withheld? For example, consider two siblings -- the parents dote on one and not the other (the second is not *abused*, per se, just not given the same favoritism as the other ["Mom always liked you best!" T. Smothers]). Could the second child here have a legal case on which to base a suit against the parents to force them to provide equal treatment and benefits to both children? Or is there some *absolute* standard of child care that is applicable here? That is, parents must provide some array of basic goods and services to each child? Or must spend X% of their family income up to some fixed $ level, on each child? I don't recall hearing of either of these sorts of things ever really happening. Does this mean that there really is *no* legal obligation to support your children, and the issue only ever gets treated by the law in cases of divorce, where it suddenly appears? That is, the children have no "right" to support when their parents are married, but *do* once they file for divorce? This seems to be a convenient legal fiction, if so, maybe for tax purposes to distinguish "alimony" from "child support". To those who will say that this is silly and there is no point in discussing a situation that would never happen: families are such seething pools of emotions that *nothing* is impossible in interpersonal familial relations. I would not find it surprising that some children would so dislike their parents that they would take advantage of such "child support" rights, if such exist. Considering the number of runaway children, this would be more common than at first supposed. Legal opinions welcomed! Regards, Will Martin UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (07/29/85)
In article <1047@ames.UUCP> barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: >While it's probably true that most men meet their >obligation, a large minority don't. For whatever it's worth, I saw some statistics on this about six months ago that said only 20% of men committed to pay child support actually paid up. If true, this suggests that the magnitude of the problem is far greater than anyone posting to this group has thought. Kenn is right about the need for stricter laws to enforce payment. Gail Bayley Hanrahan Calma Company, San Diego {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (07/31/85)
> > If there is a legal obligation on parents to support their children, > this would apply whether or not these parents happen to be divorced. > Could a child (or his/her legal representative [might even be the state > *in loco parentis*, like in child abuse cases, right?]) take legal > action against his/her parents to collect support that is being denied > or withheld? For example, consider two siblings -- the parents dote on > one and not the other (the second is not *abused*, per se, just not > given the same favoritism as the other ["Mom always liked you best!" T. > Smothers]). Could the second child here have a legal case on which to > base a suit against the parents to force them to provide equal > treatment and benefits to both children? > > Legal opinions welcomed! > > Regards, > Will Martin > > UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA I also wonder whether adults who were victims of child abuse could sue their parents for damages.