More of Those Second Wives’ Tales

The idea of a man or woman not automatically supporting their child financially and emotionally is beyond comprehension (“Not With My Husband’s Money You Don’t!” by Sonia Nazario, Dec. 3). And parents who are paying child support should, in subsequent marriages, stop populating the world with more children than they have resources to take care of.

Jennifer Marie Erickson

Laguna Niguel

*

It’s sad to see woman pitted against woman when both are victims of an irresponsible man. On the brighter side, it’s good to hear some women refer to their present husband as the one they have to do their dirty laundry for and sleep with. That shows that Wife No. 2 finally has an objective, unromanticized vision of what’s it’s like to live with a two-time loser. Too bad, though, that this realization didn’t occur before the birth of more children.

Berta Graciano

Beverly Hills

*

Minor children should be protected by child support, but if the second wife has to work to make ends meet in order to help meet child-support decrees, then the first wife ought to be required to do the same. It’s a luxury to stay home with one’s children, and nowadays, when most couples have to work to pay all the bills, why should a first wife be awarded a stay-at-home entitlement?

Family law needs a real housecleaning. District attorneys should represent out-of-work or underemployed divorced fathers in the same manner as they represent divorced mothers seeking child support. No one should pay more than half of their income for child, family or spousal support. And the concept of lifetime support should be reexamined with an honest eye focused on (1) the age of the former spouse at the time of separation, (2) the length of the marriage and (3) the education and rehabilitation of the previously non-wage-earning ex. To do less perpetuates both the dependency and poor self-esteem of a person with an inability to be self-sufficient.

R. G. Redmon

Tujunga