home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.child-support
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!staff.tc.umn.edu!gslars
- From: gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson)
- Subject: Re: Something for nothing
- Message-ID: <C18uv0.28F@news2.cis.umn.edu>
- Keywords: child-support, visitation
- Sender: news@news2.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: staff.tc.umn.edu
- Organization: University of Minnesota
- References: <1993Jan20.171948.514@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:16:09 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In article <1993Jan20.171948.514@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
- >
- > Inaugural Address: "We must stop expecting something for
- >nothing." W. Clinton.
- >
- > Why is it appropriate then, Mr President, to demand child
- >support from thousands of men, without enforcing the rights
- >of the fathers to see their children?
-
- Where does he state his policy in this regard (you seem pretty
- good with quotes)?
-
- > There is a quid pro quo. A father that has joint custody and
- >gets to see his children pays child support in full and on time
- >over 90% of the time.
- >If society is not prepared to enforce a father`s rights to see his
- >children, society has no right to demand one dime of financial
- >contribution from him. There is a quid pro quo.
-
- I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
- cause-and-effect relationships. I'll stand corrected if you can
- show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.
- Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
- their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
- or eliminated alltogether. (And please don't infer that I suspect
- you to be a violent sort of person.)
-
- Greg.
-
-
-
-