Karl,
Harry knows he can not win any argument using his intellect, so he spends
his time finding out personal bits of wisdom to insult those who do not
agree with his political philosophy. I doubt if anyone really believes any
of the insults he likes to throw your way. Your position on child custody
is reasonable and is the direction we are going.


"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
news:gWbid.3812$ep3.209@lakeread02...

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

We all know of a few guys who seemingly have been screwed as a result of
support assignments. But there are thousands of times as many fathers
who just ignore even modest child support requirements. I haven't looked
at Karl's anti-support web pages for years, but he used to advocate that
even a really wealthy dad should not have to contribute more than a
token amount to his child's support.

The position I have had has not changed.

Harry, as usual, is lying.

My position is that no judge has a right to destroy the relationship
between
a child and parent, nor to substitute money for that relationship as a
matter of judicial force.

A judge may make that substitution only if a parent is either unwilling to
take said responsibility personally (e.g. abandonment) or is unfit to
discharge that responsibility personally.

Therefore, unless one of the parents is unfit(*), both parents have a
joint
and several responsibility to provide for the child(ren) directly, through
time in their home(s), without transfer payment(s) for same, and if they
are
unable to work out some agreement on this on their own then the authority
of
the court shall be limited to ordering a 50/50 custodial split and such
restrictions on residential location to make this possible (e.g. both
parents must remain in the same shcool district).

If either parent violates these provisions, then they lose their
presumption of joint custody and are ordered to pay support and all costs
of implementing their time with the kid(s) - irrespective of which parent
that might be.

To those who say that it is "unfair" that either parent should bear half
the cost of raising the kid(s) directly, I point out that such a
responsibility already exists when one creates children (irrespective of
which gender one might be) and as such this position represents no net
change.

To those who say that it is "unfair" to force someone to not move out of a
given district, I point out that the same restriction existed before you
filed for divorce - you certainly would not move without your
(happily-married) spouse absent their agreement.

To those who say this is "overly rigid", I point out that none of the
proposals that I have put forth prevent two parents from privately
negotiating ANY agreement that they wish for the care and raising of their
children in the event of divorce - they only present a default judgement
if the parties are unwilling or unable to agree. As such the only person
who runs up against the "rigidity" of the law is the one who is unwilling
to be reasonable on their own.

BTW, none of this has anything to do with spousal support. Those who have
made a decision that one partner will stay at home for the purpose of
raising children and take themselves out of the job market (irrespective
of
which gender chooses to do this) have every right to make a private
agreement
within their civil union (which can already be done) providing for
compensation for that choice - since it is made in joint, inures to
the benefit of both, and is indeed a sacrifice. The current "alimony"
laws are a reasonable default arrangement if no such agreement has been
made and I've not argued otherwise.

All of this is indeed on the web pages Harry references - and none of the
positions there have changed. As usual, Harry, is lying about the
positions
that have been taken.

(*) Unfit is defined as a conviction in a criminal court by the standard
of beyond a reasonable doubt of some offense that bears on the
ability to reasonably raise a child in a productive and safe
environment, or willful and intentional abandomment of the children.
Domestic violence, serious drug abuse, kidnapping, child abuse and
other
similar offenses are disqualifiers, but must be proven either by a
guilty
plea or conviction by a jury to count. Mere allegations are not
enough -
just as they're not enough to remove any of the other rights you have
as a citizen.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind