Subject: Re: Responsibilities and Obligations when a state interferes (was Social Security...)

From: [email-masked] (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 09:23:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (David Garrod) writes:
>>Do not give me the standard knee-jerk reaction that visitation and
>>child support are not linked.  I am claiming that logic should imply
>>a link.  Refute the logic if you wish, but give reasons for so doing.
>
>	The refutation is trivial, David.  What you suggest only looks
>like equity when the conflict is viewed as parent vs. parent. Using this
>limited view, denial of child support is justified revenge for denial of
>visitation (or vice-versa). But as soon as you remember the children,
>the apparent equity disappears. The child gets hurt twice, by both
>denials, and no compensation.
>
>						Kayembee

Kenn, you wouldn't have so many detractors if you'd give the whole
spiel every time -- both sides.  Rather than always taking up for the
children who need support, even though every once in a while, out of
sense of logical objectivism, you acknowledge that visitation and
access should be enforced just as readily as the financial obligation a
non-custodial or non-residential parent has to their children, you
should state your "entire" stand on the topic.

When access is *enforced* and taken seriously, when noncustodial
parents and nonresidential parents are deemed equal parents to children
by the laws and the courts, then I doubt you'd find very many people,
except the true deadbeats who just don't care, who'd have any problem
with making sure that the financial obligations to children are met.
As things are now, you always seem to be opting for the second worst of
three scenarios, even though I know that is not what you believe.
Giving the perception that you are opting for this Win-Lose (enforce
support but not access), over a Lose-Lose (no support, no access),
belies the solution, the real solution.  It's called Win-Win (enforce
support AND access).

All most of us want is what is right, logically, morally.  Then, of
course, there's Jeff Relf.  But I wouldn't doubt for every Jeff Relf,
there's an Andrea Di Salvo, doing her damnedest to make some
post-divorce dad's life a living hell.  I'd even take Relf over
Andrea.  At least with him you're not having to live with the pain and
frustration every single day, day after day, week after week, month
after month. 

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer (Andrea's ex-)
[email-masked] 

P.S.  Today is the fifth week anniversary of the last time I saw my
children.  My children are less than three miles from where I sit right
now.  I dutifully pay $1350 per month in Child Support.  Believe it or
not, I have Shared Parenting.  Where's the enforcement of my children's
rights to have a relationship with their father?  What?  It's not
there?  Humm....  Could that be problematic?  Or is it optimal?  Does
Gloria Steinem care about my children's right to see their father?
Does Pat Schroeder?  Does Bob Dole?  Henry Hyde?  Al Gore?  Bill
Clinton?  Anyone?  What are they doing about it?  

Kenn, what have YOU done for us lately?

Want to do something?  Acknowledge the statistics that blatantly verify
that "fathers" who have access to their children dutifully pay their
child support (I've only posted them about five times in these
forums).  It is a virtually *FREE* method of ensuring that support is
paid.  Believe it or not, mothers WILL abide by visitation orders and
will NOT do jail time for not complying if they know that the
visitation orders will be diligently enforced.  The ONLY detractors of
ensuring that fathers are involved with their children after a divorce
are mothers who are pissed off at their former husbands and want to
hurt them.  Aren't they also hurting the children?  Aren't they wrong?
Shouldn't we fix this problem -- completely, not just bake up some
half-assed solution?

{Don't tread on me with some ol' "sexist" label, y'all just interchange
father/mother in the above.  It's true both ways.}