On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, David Honig wrote:
The motivation for this is that the legals have decided that supporting the children is more important than fairness. Its that simple; some legals will even admit it.
"Fairness" is such a slippery word. Is it fair for a child to have no support available? Remember, it's not because of anything the child did. I think the criterion here is that the adult is more capable of coping with the unfairness than the child, hence in a situation where you have to be unfair to one or the other, you favor the child's interests over the adult's.
There are similarly motivated restrictions on how much you can deny your spouse when you die.
This one I don't hang with. Your spouse is presumably an adult, and ought to be able to cope with not getting the estate. But that certainly doesn't stop it from being a serious shitheel type maneuver to leave your spouse in the lurch when you go, and since you're dead at that point you don't really have that much of a compelling interest in the estate any more... But anyway, this has little to do with crypto... Bear