Columnist Sandy Thompson: Focus support debate on child’s needs

Sandy Thompson

Saturday, Jan. 13, 2001 | 10:40 a.m.

Sandy Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or e-mail at thompson@lasvegassun.com

QUESTION: What is the most important word in the phrase "child support payments"?

Answer: "child."

The child, however, often gets lost in the debate over child support.

Last week's column on a legislative proposal to raise the cap on monthly child support from $500 to $785 sparked a rash of responses. Most were detailed accounts of problems encountered by custodial (usually mothers) and noncustodial (usually fathers) parents.

"Much has been said of the deadbeat dads but nothing of the dads who almost kill themselves trying to keep up on payments. Laws have got to change," said one mother of a divorced son who works 50-60 hours a week to meet his obligations.

An exasperated single mother told of her frustrations with the police and District Attorney's Office, which refuse to enforce a child support order even though they know where her ex works. Another was trying to make ends meet because her ex-husband refuses to pay several thousands of dollars in back support.

A few said they face eviction from their apartments because they either have not received child support or the support they do pay leaves them no money for their own basic needs.

Some of these cases will be examined here in the coming weeks.

The Executive Council of the Family Law Section of the Nevada State Bar supports raising the child support cap. But that's not the only proposal before the Legislature.

Another bill draft has been submitted that seeks changes in child support and custody laws. Although it does not list specifics, it may contain another recommendation by the Family Law Section on how nonreimbursed health-care expenses are divided between divorced parents.

Under the current law, expenses "must be borne equally by both parents in the absence of extraordinary circumstances."

In a written report to the Legislature, Kathryn Stryker Wirth, chairwoman of the Executive Council of the Family Law Section, said "concern has been expressed that this statute may be read to preclude parents from allocating the responsibility for health-care expenses in a different manner, and that this statute inequitably requires parents with disparate incomes to share equally in health-care expenses."

The council proposes amending the law to provide that expenses be borne equally by both parents "unless agreed otherwise by them and ordered by the court, or unless determined otherwise by an order of the court, with consideration given to the factors enumerated" in the statute.

Both child support proposals make sense. Let's hope they don't get mired in an emotional debate based more on hurt feelings and vindictiveness than on sound logic and fairness.

Consider the following unsigned e-mail statements on child support:

"A man and his money should be a package deal. If a woman doesn't want the man around, then she doesn't get his money either. People who use their children to leach off the other parent are parasites who should be ashamed."

"Raising the amount of money that these parasite moms get will only encourage divorces and more broken families. We just had a divorced woman murdered a few weeks ago. How many more need to be murdered before people like you get the message?"

Sorry, having to pay child support does not justify murder. And while money may play a part in some breakups, infidelity, lack of commitment, stress and a host of other factors are the main reasons for divorce.

It's time to let go of the hostility and concentrate on the needs of the child.