regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/16/85)
>> I note a major contradiction here. 1) Divorced fathers were not given >> custody. This implies that divorced *mothers* were. We now have a single >> (divorced) woman with children to take care of, which conflicts with 2) a >> single woman would not have kids to support. Explain, please? > >ALIMONY! > SJB > As one of the single women with kids, I waived alimony (support of spouse) because I didn't want the jerk's money for myself. Our child-support payment was agreed upon by my ex and myself, "amicably" supposedly, which to him apparently meant that he didn't have to pay. I've never received a penny, and I never will. Gloria Allred in Los Angeles made it her business to spend years and years trying to get legislation passed for back-child- support (NOT alimony) to be declared a bad-debt, and therefore be collectable under California State Law by garnishment of wages (not possible before without a lenghthy and costly court battle, which was only enforceable within this state). She found that literally THOUSANDS of women in California did not regularly receive child-support (NOT alimony). From this woman's personal experience, and limited research, the contradic- tion stands. I need my job a hell of a lot more than he needs his. The only reason I don't sue him is because I can't stand the prospect of dither- ing about it with him, and he's too embarassed by my rage to try to visit the kid, which suits me fine. My SO will be adopting her shortly after our next child is born, and we can be rid of my past mistakes as far as humanly possible, which is a silver lining I can enjoy that many other women can't. For the women, just _try_ to collect child support. For the men, it's a piece of cake to avoid it, regardless of how much more your salary is than your ex's.