HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Garrod - Primogeniture concerns with reguards to child support
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:16:07 CDT

In article <1992Sep28.154716.8025@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.164234.1@indyvax.iupui.edu> idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
>> 
>> 
>
>	The problem is that everything is percentage based.  What
>	about an intact family where the father makes 15-20k,
>	and had 2 kids. Will those kids go to college? Certainly
>	not of the fathers doing. But the almighty divorce changes
>	all the variables completely.
>
>-- 
>	Alan Yasutovich
>	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
>	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
>	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......



 Interesting and informative articles by Mr. Garrod. My ignorance
does not allow me to figure out how my ex's income was determined.
Mn law is quite straight forward. It is strictly based on a percentage
of income (NET; taxes, fica, health ins.) based on the number of
children. Basically, anybody earning over minimum wage pays 30 %
of his net income to the ex to be used anyway she chooses. Whether
she moves out of state, remarries, or quits her job, the percentage
for the NCP does not change.

 A recent and very rare telephone conversation with my ex wife about
our son's hernia operation made me think about child support again.
She mentioned that she was planning to remarry and quit working. 
I'm happy to hear she is remarrying, now she can blame life on him
for a change. 

 Child support levels won't change for this Mn divorced S.O.B. More
than likely, she'll pursue increases in child support. Her income
can fluctuate (quit working even), and it has NO AFFECT on MY
obligation. 

 Should I pursue a change in custody? Does someone who remarries and
quits her job risk a problem with the state?  FUCK NO to both questions.

Men pay an outrageous percentage of income to support their exwives.
The data presented on MN is bullshit. X percent of mans pay after
taxes is the child support obligation. Her income has nothing
to do with a god damm thing. Bullshit from feminist legistlatures
and femi apologists is just plain lies.

From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 01:00:07 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Executive Summary
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.child-support


                            Executive Summary of
                             Forced Fatherhood


	It seems that Fatherhood is forced upon thousands of U. S. men 
	each year. These men typically don't like to talk about it, 
	disagreed with their lovers about abortion and adoption, and
	were sued for child support. The U. S. courts aren't protecting
	men from birth control fraud.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Garrod - support $ by state
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:25:11 CDT



What does income shares mean? 

Mn does not consider or factor a CPs income. 

I would tend to think it is not an income shares. 

If it is income shares, then it would reason that my obligation
would go up when the ex quits working. 

Income shares, BULLSHIT!

What it really means:

  It takes a 4.7 million dollars to raise a child. Hence, man
pays through the ass to support his measly percentage of 30%.
Her obligation is assumed. Her life style improves.

INCOME SHARES
Bullshit 



  
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: CS for College
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 14:50:51 GMT

In article <3353@carroll1.cc.edu> jmellen@carroll1.cc.edu (John Mellen) writes:
>the child on thier tax return is eligible to apply. 
>Consequently, in situations of divorce, this will ALWAYS result
>in eliminating one parent from eligibility from the program.
>Guess who that usually means???  
>
>Similarly, faculty and staff of many insitutions of higher
>education are provided tuition remission or wiavers by their
>employer.  I am aware of a number of institutions in the Council
>of Independent Colleges Tuition Exchange Program, which deny NCP
>employees this benefit on the basis that the children do not
>appear as dependents on the employees tax forms.  
>

	I wonder how many CP's would give the tax deduction to the
	NCP for those benefits?


-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: rodean@fc.hp.com (Bruce Rodean)
Subject: Summertime child care payments
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:49:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Keywords: NCP child care payments

I am interested in knowing how others handle child care payments when
children are with the NCP during the summer for an extended visit.  A
NCP is not usually allowed to deduct child care payments for income tax
purposes so it doesn't make sense for them to pay; at the same time the
payments are not permitting the CP to work since the children aren't
with that parent.

Of course the NCP/CP roles are somewhat blurred when the children are
with the NCP for a long uninterrupted visit.

--
Bruce Rodean                          Hewlett-Packard Company
rodean@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Another Irate Dad Kills
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:50:43 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <878@zx11.UUCP>, joe@zx11.cactus.org (Joe Senner) writes:
> allanc@cluster.cs.su.oz (Restless Wanderer) writes:
> ]I do not post often
> 
> and it shows.
> 
> ]Why in christs'name do you guys WANT to procreate?
> ]Guys claim they get dumped on.
> ]Women claim they get dumped on.
> ]Why not just do the right thing and stop this stupid reproduction nonsense.
> ]Economically ,we'd all be better off.
> ]Standards of living would rise  and crimes of child abuse/custody would be
> ]solved .
> 
> it has nothing to do with wanting to or not wanting to have kids. tell me
> about something in your life that is your driving force, your reason for
> living and I'll then be able to put it in terms you'll understand.
> 
> ]I do NOT understand why anyone would want kids.
> 
> and you probably never will.
> 
> -- 
> Joe Senner -- joe@zx11.Cactus.Org                                   Austin, TX
>       "Nuclear weapons can wipe out life on earth, if used properly"
>                                    -- Talking Heads

I don't understand why so many of these men are NOT getting vasectomies.  
After all, they don't want children, they NEVER want children.  So why
not fix themselves so they don't have to worry?

In Allan's case, perhaps HIS parents shouldn't have had children.....

But at least he is being honest about his feelings.

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.couples,soc.men,soc.women
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:08:29 CDT

In article <1992Sep30.182458.25762@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <BvE97K.BI9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> seeker@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karen Lynn White) writes:
>>I doubt it.  
>>
>>I live in Indiana and recently got divorced.  My lawyer said although
>>one can still ask, judges almost never ask the father to pay for college
>>anymore.  (NO, I didn't try, sheesh.)  He also said such older agreements
>>were rarely if ever enforced and that he expects a law to go into effect
>>in the next year or so to overrule any such judgments made in the past.  
>>
>
>	Boy won't that be a breath of fresh air.
>
>-- 
>	Alan Yasutovich
>	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
>	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
>	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......


 Can't say I've heard of too many laws that overrule or are retro-
active. Once a divorce is "final", it's usually FINAL. No judge
is going to go back and MODIFY a decree. 

Sorry Karen, you're lawyer is just trying to make you feel good. It
will save him a lot of B.S. when negotiating the final decree. He
doesn't want to haggle about tiddly shit. Also, your attorney knows
that you are probably going to receive a substantial amount of
support, presuming you're both, WOOPS, HE is a professional. The
trick is to remarry to a schlep with MORE DOE. That way the ex 
can take the kids for the summer and you don't have to give any
child support back, but instead, you can use the child support
to pay for your semi-annual european vacation OR pay for the
lake home. 


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Garrod - Primogeniture concerns with reguards to child support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:47:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164234.1@indyvax.iupui.edu> idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
> 
> 
>PRIMOGENITURE CONCERNS with regard to child support.
> 
>by David K. Garrod Ph.D.
> 
>July 1992.
> 
>garrod@ecn.purdue.edu
> 
>R.R. 2, Box 345 D,
>Monticello, IN 47960
> 
> 
>     There is a problem that most guidelines provide that they shall apply
>to the benefit of the children of the first family to get a support order.
>There is an inherent inequality in the treatment of children depending
>on birth order.
> 

	Don't think that people here don't know this already.  But
	Thus far you have posted the most conherant information
	seen here in months.

	How did you coalate it?


>     Just when I thought this might go towards solving the problem,
> 
>I heard the following story.
>Couple has one child, mother dies. Father remarries has two more
>children, then divorce after marriage of 18 years or so.  First child
>is now in university with father helping him financially.  Second
>wife got custody of the two children of the second marriage, and the
>elder of those two is now about to start university.  Child support
>order plus education order runs at about 65% of father`s net income.
>Father can barely now support himself, let alone the first born son
>who lives with him, and there is no hope of father helping son to
>continue with university education, even though he is being forced
>to pay 80% of the cost of education of the second born child!
> 
>Just another example of the stupidity of judges and the blindness
>of the system!
> 
>There may be some intelligent judges out there, but ........!

	The problem is that everything is percentage based.  What
	about an intact family where the father makes 15-20k,
	and had 2 kids. Will those kids go to college? Certainly
	not of the fathers doing. But the almighty divorce changes
	all the variables completely.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3427 soc.men:17394 soc.women:17428
From: zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:30:30 GMT
Reply-To: zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington

Duane Hentrich wrote:
   "Where and when was divorce illegal in the western world?"

Michael Helm replied:
> It's still illegal in Ireland.  Wasn't that long ago it was
> illegal in Italy.
> 
> Divorce has been "legal" in most or all states in the US for as long
> as I can remember, but it wasn't practical for most people until the
> late '60's or early '70's when the laws were changed & no-fault
> divorce came into fashion.  Before then, you [typically?] had to go thru a
> court trial, you had to prove the other party was unfaithful or beat
> you or whatever was legal grounds for divorce -- grounds for divorce,
> can you dig it? In fact the divorcing couple sometimes staged these
> events so this evidence could be brot to court.
> 
> Except in that bastion of family values, Nevada.  I'm foggy on the
> details but I think Nevada had easy divorce laws & no waiting periods
> for either marriage or divorce, so you could fly out, get split, & get
> rehitched, & get on with your life, if you had the doremi.  These
> last 2 paragraphs are strictly from memory, I can't cite you a
> source for the info.

I shudder to admit this . . . but I think that Neveda
is blazing the trail toward our =better= futures.

I think Bush`s "family values" are (justly)
having their last gasps.

Everyone knows that you cannot legislate morality.

And when the dog eats the rabbit -- the dog, the rabbit,
and the observer each have unique "moralities" -- each
has his own version of "good" and "bad".

Prohibition is no way to stop abuse, be it: alcohol, food
or dad-kid-divorce.

The real way to stop drug abuse is to bring it above ground
-- MAKE IT LEGAL -- and advertise against drug  =ABUSE= (NOT use).

The real way to stop dad-kid-divorce abuse is to bring it above ground
-- MAKE IT LEGAL -- and advertise against dad-kid-divorce  =ABUSE= (NOT use).

We love our wars against Russia.  We love our wars against drugs.
And we love our war against forced-fathers.

But sooner or later we must stop picking fights.
We must find other -- less obtrusive -- ways to enjoy ourselves.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:03:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.065837.7784@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> wcaceres@lonestar.utsa.edu (Wendy K. Caceres) writes:
>>Some argue that men win 50-75 percent of their custody battles,
>>however, what is not often mentioned is that 75% of custody is
>>uncontested and the children go to the mother, hence men only wind
>>up custodial parents in about 12% of the cases, and often only after a
>>fight.
>>
>
>and what is your theory about why 75% of the cases are uncontested?  i
>think i know why MY dad didn't fight for custody -- i am just interested
>in hearing your explanation of this phenomenon.

I'm not the original author, but I'll take a stab at your question.

First, I have *no* idea about your father.

But I would explain the phenomenon as follows:

. the Tender Years Doctrine places small children automatically
  with the mother, no fight necessary

. where the Tender Years Doctrine no longer legally holds, judges are still
  biased, and all family lawyers know this

. lawyers for the woman will explicitly use this bias as a bargaining
  chip in pre-trial mediation, and lawyers for the man recognize its weight

. lawyers for the man will tell the man he'll have to invest $10,000-$30,000,
  and even then will not have a very good chance

. lawyers for the man may require large retainers

. women resort to false accusations of child abuse to win cases that
  they might otherwise lose

. a new trend in the few states where homosexuality is legally relevant
  is for women to make false accusations of homosexuality (easier route,
  and requires no coached stories from children)

. with statistics that show men have little chance, and knowing that
  custody battles can put children through hell, the best-qualified
  (sensitive and caring) fathers may back off

. some fathers believe what their mothers (and fathers) told them,
  that children belong with the mothers (and even that men who want 
  their children are somehow suspect)

. poor men may not be able to afford legal defense (just as poor
  women may not be able to afford abortions)

. middle-class men may not be able to afford legal defense because they
  have already been hit with child-support and/or spousal-support
  (and do not qualify for free legal defense despite this)

. the quality of legal defense makes all the difference (ie. many
  lawyers would laugh at the chances of a father with a public defender)

(Disclaimer: no universal quantifiers implied.)

I am continually amazed that there are *any* fathers who fight for custody.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.couples
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:59:10 CDT

In article <1687276BB.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.043039.26375@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> 
>> In article <73740054@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) wries:
>> [Long piece whining about it not being "fair" that divorced couples
>>  are "forced" to support their children through college, while intact
>>  couples apparently aren't.]
>>
>> Vicky, is there any law which "forces" you to pay for your children's
>> college expenses?
> 
>Seems to me I've read of court decisions (not laws, decisions) that DID
>indeed force intact couples to pay for their offspring's college educations.
> 
>The reasoning was that the child was raised in an affluent household, with
>every expectation of attending college, therefore it was the duty of the
>parents to make an effort to complete their children's education.  The
>offspring won their suits, forcing their parents to pay.
> 
>Most of us parents reading the net, coupled or uncoupled, would be considered
>affluent by a court -- at least by the time our children are of college age.
> 
>**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616  [Spouse of a CP]

  Hugh, are you married to someone who is a custodial parent? Does
this spouse receive child support? How much of the child support
is being saved for the child's future? If this child decides upon
graduation from H.S. to drop out, tune in, turn on or whatever, 
will you volutarily hand over the savings for him/her to invest
in the 'turn on' part of his/her future. Do you think it should 
be mandatory that X savings for the child's future be handed to
the "turned on" one automatically? Should there be a law that
states parents who earn X dollars be required to save Y dollars
for brat(s), oops, sincere caring loving allperfect wonderful
child? 

It floors me to think that the courts could mandate a father's
obligation to support his child by requiring the father to pay
the child's college education. Do-gooders think otherwise.

My mandate to my ex is, "you better be saving a chunk of that
child support, I'm not saving a damn thing. I've got no 
retirement, I sure as hell have no bleepin' college savings
account. You will have to explain to the spoiled kids when they
are 18 what YOU did with the $150,000.00 in child support you 
received. You will have to account for it, not me." 

Once again for the feminist hearing impaired, Child support isn't
to help children, it is alimony. 
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 00:29:30 GMT
Subject: Forced Fatherhood Original Survey
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

This is the original pilot survey on "Forced fatherhood".
=============================================================================


Do you feel comfortable discussing your 'forced fatherhood'?

Were you and the mother married?

Did you live together?

Did you want to have a child?

Did she?

Did you want an abortion?

Did she?

Did you want to put the child up for adoption?

Did she?

Did she sue you for child support?

Do you know anyone else who has been forced to be a father?

Any other thoughts?
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3420 soc.men:17379 soc.women:17412
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:11:24 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Oct6.022744.6438@u.washington.edu>, zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
|> Why should dad-kid divorce (abandonment) be HUGELY illegal??
|> Years ago, husband-wife divorce was illegal
|> -- now we know better -- now we can do it.

Where and when was divorce illegal in the western world? I was under the
impression that divorce for cause was always an option at least on some
of the States.

And, Jeff, why do you continually hide behind aliases? Blinded by the light?

	[more of his sloganizing deleted]

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3350 soc.men:16931 soc.women:17040 misc.kids:24446 alt.dads-rights:2378
Newsgroups: alt.child-support


                            Forced Fatherhood
                                The Law


	U.S. court precedents force men to be fathers. The N.Y. case of
	Frank S. v. Pamela is such a case. Pamela admitted to lying
	to Frank about using birth control. The Appeals court still made
	him pay child support. Even when he pointed out that fraud was
	committed, the court made him pay.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:16:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.204455.4515@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.144840.14716@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct2.221630.6791@kpc.com> dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston) writes:
>>>(42% physical custody). I do agree that child support is _outrageous_ to
>>>the tune of $800.00 per month for one child. I would never let that be
>> 
>Wow, my foster son's father thinks it is absolutely highway robbery that
>he has to pay $368 a month.  Mike gets the $68 to put away for college
>and some of his expenses, we get the $300.  

Why should the father pay for Mike's expenses after age 18?  
(Arguably: children "ought" to have some sort of allowance, and they 
might "choose" to save something, as an exercise.  But there's no need
for the father to finance college for this reason.)

>Plus out of the $300 we provide
>him an allowance, transportation to all his sporting events, food, shelter,
>entertainment, a really nice vacation every year....... (this Christmas
>we will spend a week at a condo in the Florida Keys)....  And his dad 
>accuses us of 'profiting!'.

Both my parents worked, but we never spent a week a year in a
condo in the Florida Keys.  Is this necessary for parenting?

If you're saying you spend extra, above the $300, that's fine
and nice and admirable.

Otherwise, investing in college savings or investing in a mortgage 
or spending money on a vacation is a misuse of the father's money -- 
because it goes beyond what the child needs while he's a minor.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged