To the Editors,
The kind of knee-jerk journalism
typical of feminism was clearly
exhibited by letter writer Veronica
Vahsen of Bow. In her haste
to castigate men, she made a number
of errors, ranging from the simple
and trivial to the philosophical
and statistically false. First,
Mr. Amicos' name is David, not Don.
He didn't present a bill to the
legislature, he testified about
it. The Health and Human Services
Dep't. isn't part of the legislature,
David spoke to the Child and Family
Law Committee. He can't be
very controlling, as she accused
him of being, if he has to tearfully
beg the committee for parenting
time with his children. Most
men don't leave their wives and
children, as Vahsen would have us
believe. 88% of all divorces
are filed by the woman. If
the fathers only visit two or three
times a year, it's because the courts
or the mothers, don't allow more.
Most fathers don't willingly pay
child support? That's not
what Mr. Amico said, and not what
federal studies have found.
When a father has equal custody,
he pays child support orders in
full and on time in 90% of cases.
Even with only typical court ordered
visitation of every other weekend,
fathers pay in full and on time
in 76% of cases. On the other
hand, Non Custodial Mothers only
pay the order in 51% of cases.
Child support not half the cost
of raising children? Tell
that to Mr. Amico, who testified
to payments of three to four thousand
dollars per month, more than most
fathers earn. Tell it to Peter
Sanschagrin, who was ordered to
pay $3,000 a month for each of three
children. Yes, many fathers
see child support as disguised alimony,
especially when they see their children
wearing rags, and them others sporting
fur coats, or showing off new breast
implants. She's wrong about
court calculations being designed
to insure that the father can survive.
In making support calculations,
the mother is given a self-support
offset of $15,000 to $20,000.
The father gets no selfsupport offset.To
accommodate the Communistic "Transfer
of Wealth" from fathers to
mothers, and avoid jail, it
is usually the father who is forced
to worktwo or three jobs, not the
mother. She describes Mr.
Amico as a man ofwealth, but the
reality she denies is that the larger
part of his incomegoes to the ex
wife, who enjoys a palatial home,
while he is relegated toa two bedroom
apartment, whose rent strains his
meager take homeearnings.
She suggests that mediation would
be a better course of actionfor
Mr. Amico to change the situation,
but she fails to mention the mostsalient
point of that argument. If
the wife refuses to mediate in goodfaith,
the case goes to the family court
where the decision will alwaysfavor
her lopsidedly. Why settle
for mediated equality when you can
winthe lions' share in court?
Finally, she admonished Mr. Amico
to consider the children as he triesto
change the system. She fails
to consider the effect of court
inducedfatherlessness on children
and society. Fatherless children
have a riskfactor of double or more
for drug and alcohol abuse, unwed
teen pregnancyand promiscuity, academic
failure, mental/emotional illness,
suicide,juvenile crime and incarceration,
and a lifetime of personalitydisorders.
Instead of promoting the feminist
anti-male agenda, Ms.Vahsen, along
with our family courts and feminist
legislators are theones who should
consider the effects of their actions
on children andsociety.Paul M. ClementsFounder:
DADD-NH3 Skyline Dr.Concord, NH
03303226-1904
