Divorce and $$$ -- Maybe We Should Work on Marriage?

Topic: When Is A Deal Not A Deal -- re: "Top court to hear kid-support appeal"

One of the divorced fathers involved in the appeal has never earned more than $23,000 a year, and yet he faces a retroactive child-support payment of $10,000, while another faces a payment of $100,000, which is more than half his annual income, Smith said.

[. . . . ] I'm all for people to pay their fair share in child maintenance, but when do you draw the line?

There is no answer that satisfies; I think both parents must sit down with a mediator who does not support either party, but who simply supports a fair process--no nastiness--and who tries to get a reasonable solution for both and the child. Parents shouldn't be on the hook for ridiculous support claims from adult children; neither should society step in and support children because a man is allowed to walk away from responsibilities.

By the way, where did our society ever get the idea that free love is sex free of responsibility? The chickens do come home to roost. Children occur as a result and deserve that the parents at least made a conscious decision to have them and to provide a two-parent home for them. How sad to find out one is the product of a one-night stand or the child of a "baby momma". Nor should society use courts to bleed men for vindictive women making outrageous demands, either.

Come to think of it; the idea of two divorcing adults sitting down to dispassionately discuss money sounds impossible and idealistic in the face of two people warring. It might be better to protect marriage until the kids are grown and there are just two people to fight it out and divide the spoils. By then, they may change their minds about a split. For example, when she knows what he likes and offers it--coffee and no talk over the morning paper or encourages his going out golfing with his buddies in preference to taking her out dancing, when he knows what she likes to read or watch and brings it home, even though he might have preferred something entirely different, then there is something to work with and it is worth trying to maintain it. Think about this; if we're realistic about what new partnerships will entail--as opposed to remaining starry-eyed naive or even stupid--then why trade in for a newer and untrained model?

Sometimes it comes down to little things like that, IMHO, something as simple as trying to please another in little ways. None of us offers perfection so why would we expect any real improvement with a trade-up or a trade-in? The particulars might change but the total package won't be perfect, no matter what. Parents might as well work to develop a civilized relationship in the marriage that exists, for the sake of the children at least. Likely, so much will be built up in trust and actions--small kindnesses one after another--that a change would be wrenching. We should all be so lucky as to grow old with someone who considers us and will check whether we breathe in the morning -- a person who is a habit in one's life, one whom it would be devastating to be without after so many years. It would help if we taught teens that the bloom may--and probably will--go off the romantic love rose (i.e. sex) after very few years but it will be replaced by something deeper if they work at it, something entirely more enduring. There is no free lunch; it all takes effort. NJC

---