home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!srvr1.engin.umich.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!isc-br!tau-ceti!dogear!bobk
- From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
- Newsgroups: alt.child-support
- Subject: Re: Something for nothing
- Keywords: child-support, visitation
- Message-ID: <1yFsXB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>
- Date: 22 Jan 93 17:04:59 GMT
- References: <C18uv0.28F@news2.cis.umn.edu>
- Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
- Lines: 30
-
- gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:
-
- David Garrod:
- > > 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.)
-
- Mr. Clinton has, on every occasion he has addressed family law, always
- gone straight to the issues of unpaid support, and how he fully supports
- even more draconian methods of enforcement. David points out the stats
- that demonstrate that draconianism is simply the wrong way to go. If he
- (Clinton) would concern himself with ensuring that fathers maintain a
- close relationship with their kids, he would have only a small number of
- NCPs that needed coercion. In other words, he's riding a bandwagon of
- popular stereotype, and ignoring the long term studies.
-
- ---
- Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
-