NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/childsu/4694

Text File | 1993-01-26 | 1.8 KB | 44 lines

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu!garrod
From: [e-mail] (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:06:52 GMT
Lines: 31

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Kaskubar) writes:
> David Garrod writes
> > There is a pleasure to be derived from having children, seeing
> them
> > grow etc.  (Nobody, in their right minds, would choose to spend
> > $100,000 - $200,000 to raise a child unless there was enjoyment
> and
> > pleasure to be derived therefrom.)  This this the quid pro quo in
> > having children.
> > However the government ignores the psychological benefit a parent
> > derives (the pleasure of seeing them grow) and concentrates only
> > on the monetary aspect.
>
> Hmmm.  In accident cases it has become quite common to seek (and
> receive) monetary compensation for loss of services, loss of
> happiness, loss of all kinds of things.  Maybe someone denied joint
> custody or visitation should use the same argument for loss of
> child raising pleasure.
>
> Bruce Kaskubar
> [e-mail]


Yes, indeed.  In several instances there have been successful torts
against a mother with sole custody who repeatedly interfered with
the father`s right to see his children.

To my knowledge there have been no actions seeking damages from a state
because of removal of a father`s rights to joint custody.

David Garrod