HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Canada's FAMILY RELATIONS ACT
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 22:11:08 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

More excerpts from Canada's FAMILY RELATIONS ACT:

PART 3
MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY

Equality of entitlement to family assets on marriage breakup

43.  (1) Subject to this Part, each spouse is entitled to an interest in each family
         asset on ot after March 31, 1979 when
         (a) a separation agreement;
         (b) a declaratory judgement under section 44;
         (c) an order for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation; or
         (d) an order declaring the marriage null and void
      respecting the marriage is first made.
     (2) The interest under subsection (1) is an undivided half interest in the
         family asset as a tenant in common.

     (4) This section applies to a marriage entered into before or after this
         section comes into force.

Excluded business assets

46. (1) Where property is owned by one spouse to the exclusion of the other and
        is used primarily for business purposes and where the spouse who does
        not own the property made no direct or indirect contribution to the
        acquisition of the property by the other spouse or to the operation of
        the business, the property is not a family asset.
    (2) In section 45 (3) (e) or subsection (1), an indirect contribution
        includes savings through effective management of household or child
        rearing responsibilities by the spouse who holds no interest in the
        property.

Enough for now.  Please note that where I have omitted subsections (ie. 43 (3)),
I have simply skipped those that do not seem especially necessary to quote
here...for example, 43. (3) states, "An interest under subsection (1) is
 subject to
 (a) an order under this Part; or
 (b) a marriage agreement or a separation agreement."

Also, Jon, thank you for your post wrt Mn. practices in support, access,
custody and other related issues...I'm still digesting (trying to) the
ramifications of such apparently  draconian practices.

Lisa



Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:4266 sci.psychology:4936
From: petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,sci.psychology
Subject: Effects on children of divorced parents ?
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:02:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1993Jan8.180249.7764
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.


What studies have been done on the effects of children of divorced
parents. What I'm curious about is what does it do to kids that are
shuttled back and forth, weekend with dad, summer with mon, 3.6543
hours a week with dad (sorry but it just seems to be that way).

-pete
Pete Lancashire
petel@sequent.com
From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: none
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:56:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In Message-ID: <kLH2wB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>
bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) says:

>It's true that BOTH incomes drop. I pay little attention to the 
>statistics which show that men have more money after divorce. That's 
>obvious. 

   Could you clarify exactly what you mean here, Bob?  You say it's 
obvious that '...men have more money after divorce.' and I'm curious,
more money than whom?  A kind interpretation would be that you mean
that men on average 'have more money after divorce' than women do
after divorce.  I won't assume an unkinder interpretation since you
allow that, 'It's true that BOTH incomes drop.', but your conclusion
is neither obvious nor necessarily demonstrable to me since we're
ignoring statistics.  And in my case it happens to be false.

>Just look at the workplaces --there is a disproportionate amount of 
>employed men compared to women. Yes, many factors enter into WHY there 
>are more men and why men make more money than their female counterparts. 
>But, to try to include that generality with the specifics of divorce is 
>apples and oranges.  Women don't have the marketplace recognition that men 
>do --equal pay for equal work --or, for that matter, equal opportunity. 
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Bottom line, Bob, do YOU really believe both of these statements?

>I keep saying this, and I keep getting ignored. But I'll try one more 
>time.  The system screws EVERYBODY one way or another. 

   Your last sentence may be trivially true but it seems to suggest that
everybody's getting about the same screwing.  Surely you can't believe
that?  Let's just have a poll and see what percentage of male NCP's
would swap their situation for that of their CP former spouse.  Then ask
the same question for the CP women.


                                       Gerry Murphy
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Right on BobK!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 09:42:39 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: byron.u.washington.edu

BobK was right about how to prepare for the divorce-custody thing.
I wish he wasn't -- but he is.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: an180@anon.penet.fi (upyours)
Subject: No Subject
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.child-support
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:03:03 GMT

X-Anon-To: alt.child-support

I have seen the following statement copied and shot back and forth 
through several articles.

> Secondly, the mans payments are quite proportionate to the level of
> his choice involved. Let us suppose that the mother spends 40 hours a
> week raising her child. Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for
> such work,20 dollars an hour. She will spend several thousand dollars
> a year on material items for the child. All told, perhaps $40,000 worth
> of goods and labor each year go into raising the child. At a few hundred
> a month, the fathers burden can hardly be called disproportionate.
 
However, since the man's choice ends when the woman makes the sole decision 
to either keep or abort the baby, only the first sentence of the above 
paragraph applies.  Everything concerning how much time the mother spends 
raising the child is AFTER her sole decision.  If the original author 
(or any subsequent quoting author) really believed what they were saying, 
then the determination of the man's payments would look like this: 
 
Maximum time between conception and latest abortion:    3 months (.25 years) 
Age where parents no longer responsible:                18 years 
Cost of raising a child:                                $ 200,000 
 
                        .25 * $200,000 
Father's obligation:    -------------- = $ 2667, or $ 12.35 per month  
                        18.75 years                   for 18 years., 
 
Doesn't seem like much does it?  That's because that's the percentage 
of the decision that the man gets to make.  Anything more amounts to 
making the man pay a disproportionate cost relative to his decision. 
 
Now you can massage the numbers some; is 3 months the latest an abortion 
can occur?  Is $200,000 what it really takes to raise a child?  But the 
man gets about 1.3% of the decision (upto the latest possible abortion
date), and the woman gets the rest.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: itemizing child-support
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 23:39:28 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:
> deletions

> I really see CPs and non-divorced people being
> very comfortable with the routhlessness of the system.

Please stop with the blanket statements!  I see a lot of NCPs, in Canada
anyway, being "very comfortable" with the ineffectiveness of the system.  It
can, and does sometimes, work both ways.

Lisa


Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Justice?
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:44:48 CST

In article 5955@sei.cmu.edu, tas@sei.cmu.edu (Terry Ireland) writes:
>> 
>
>I just got word from SS that my own children have been on SS for some time.
>The ex has been collecting for years. SS would not say if that was because I
>was dead or just disabled. They denied disability shortly before the ex took
>off in 1984. Some records say DEAD some say DISABLED. How did you find out
>about your ex?
True to form, she told me in a round-about way.  I March, 1991 I got a call from
my attoney stating that her attorney had called saying she was really being pressured
by my ex to file for permanent alimony.  The reason was that she was getting $600/month
in disability through SSI.  I was literally shaking after the call and called my wife
who used to be a work coordinator for handicapped kids (not to be confused with my
ex-spouse).  Her comment was that the amount was way too high and that her alimony
should have come off first.  I should note that we had been very suspicious for
about 9 months that something was going on, but couldn't prove it.  I then called
SS and asked about alimony being figured into the payment.  After telling them
the amount at the time ($800/month), they asked how much SSI she was getting.  So
I told them.  At that point I identified myself and who she was.  After a few seconds
to type in her SS number, the gal asked me to hold.  A few minutes later she got back
on the line and had a ton of questions.  One of which was if my son was getting his
benefits.  To which I responded, HUH!?  They then said they would be getting back to
me.  About 2 days later I got a call from the Berkeley SS office asking a lot more
questions and starting to look for proof.  My employer wrote a letter stating what
they had been withholding and I sent a copy of the divorce decree to prove that I
was indeed the custodial parent.  In late July, 1991 I got a call from the Inspector
General's Office looking for even more information.  That was the last I had heard
from them until I wrote just after New Years.  I got the response in less than a
week.

Steve Anderson		139 more days of indentured servitude
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: FEMINISTS ARE UGLY!
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 21:14:32 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson) writes:

> In article 1386@blue.cis.pitt.edu, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan4.155702.17044@hemlock.cray.com> sga@cray.com writes:
> >#Sue:
> >#What Jon is saying is that child-support has become de facto alimony.
> >
> >[rest deleted]
> >
> >I have a great deal of sympathy for NCP's who are asked to pay
> >support while being denied visitation, and for NCP's who are
> >being asked to pay amounts they cannot afford.  I have no sympathy
> >for those who want their children to grow up in poverty because
> >they're angry at their exes.  People who argue against support
> >because they fear that their ex will be in any way better off
> >because of it fit into the latter category.
> >
Me, too.

More deleted...

> Why was I given custody and my ex was given
> half of my income?  Where was the concern for the standard of living of my
> son?
>
  More deleted.

Steven,

You have my sincerest sympathies.  I also feel a great deal of empathy wrt your
personal situation.

Please explain  how such an incredibly unfair order could have been made, that
you have to pay spousal support of any amount, nevermind HALF of your income,
to your non-custodial ex?  Why isn't she paying YOU (for child support)?

Lisa:-)

               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: FEMINISTS ARE UGLY!
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:18:05 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1993Jan4.155702.17044@hemlock.cray.com> sga@cray.com writes:
>of living argument only applies to the woman, it doesn't apply to the kids.
>
>Over the weekend my wife, totally on her own, calculated what she thought 
>the maximum child support support should be for one child.  She came up 
>with $400/month and that was assuming that the noncustodial parent paid 
>all of the child's basic expenses.  It did not include daycare costs 
>for younger children.  I was surprised, because that is
>the same amount I have been saying should be the cap on child support 
>for a long time now.  Why was she figuring this?  Because we wanted to 
>know what we should ask for if we go back to court to reduce visitation 
>and terminate alimony early.


	Well Steve I think you hit the nail on the head.  I've voiced this
	opinion/figure many times with no response.  I used the example
	of foster care.  $12-$14 per day.  That's $360-$420 per month.

	and if the mother bears half that, it's $50 per week.  That's
	why I've always at least though my payment of $40-$60 per
	week fair.


>Steve Anderson			147 more days of indentured servitude!
>Cray Research, Inc
>Eagan MN

	Love your sig.  My problem is I don't know my "due date".


-- 
	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,alt.dads-rights
From: sle@cray.com (Stan L. Eads)
Subject: Re: Custody
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:41:13 CST

In article <1993Jan9.142207.6506@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>After the child reaches an age to be able to decide, then the court 
>should take their wishes into consideration, also should assess whether
>the potential custodian is really a fit parent and isn't just using
>
>sue


An argument against this is the emotional turmoil it may cause the
child if he feels he is being asked to choose between two parents he
loves.  This has been a source of great pain to my teenaged daughter,
and made her mother play the guilt game with her.  Because I refuse to
play those mind games on my child, I may lose her.

Stan

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Accounting of support expenditure
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:00:20 GMT

I have studied various methods for accounting of child support,
but ultimately they all come down to asking the question is this
expenditure reasonable?
Since no state has any guidelines with respect to reasonable ranges
of expenditure for housing, food, transportation, health care, utilities,
clothing, entertainment, education, child care, there are no 
reasonable criteria by which one can judge the reasonability or not
of any expenditure.
Please do not tell me leave it to the discretion of the judge!

David Garrod,
member of the Indiana Child Support Advisory Committee.

sh: ^: not found
sh: ^^^^^^: not found
.
!!!!
!.
Cannot exec binary file.
sh: 1.mbox.Z: cannot execute
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Assistance needed
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:37:20 CST

In article oNP9wB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca, lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca () writes:
>sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson) writes:
>> I am also considering asking for child support.  What holds me back is a clau
>> stating that she can't ask for more alimony unless I ask for child support.
>> Considering the past decisions on alimony from this referee, I'm a lot nervou
>> 
>What is the point of her being able to get MORE alimony (from what I know, it
>seems ridiculous that she should be considered entitled to ANY!), if you get
>an order for child support?  That makes no sense whatsoever!  I just don't
>understand how that could be.  What a load of crap.
Because she's a poor defenseless female that is being vicitimized by this
overbearing male :-).  My wife thinks we shouldn't risk it.  I think we need to
ask just to prove a point.  There are other things, like we would never see a dime
and if she pays she may want more control than she has desired in the past.  I'll
decide when it comes closer.

Should have a court date by end of today.  Somehow I feel like I'm about to
walk off a cliff into an unknown void.

Steve Anderson		139 more days of indentured servitude.




Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Justice?
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:26:56 CST

I got word on Friday that my ex had plea bargained her way out of social security
fraud charges.  She basically pleaded guilty, and is on a years probation.  The
maddening part is that they only made her pay back $60 of the $10,800 she received.

I am guessing that she played the "poor, broke, mistreated" woman role.  And
lied to them again about her employment.


Steve Anderson		140 more days of indentured servitude
From: wandas@wander.Eng.Sun.COM (Wanda Schroeder)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Lawyer Referral
Date: 8 Jan 1993 00:49:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: wander

I would like to get some information for a Lawyer Referral in the Silicon
Valley of California. I currently have Joint Legal Custody/Full Physical
Custody of my son who is 2 years old and has been with me since birth.
The father gets everyother weekend and 1 night a week plus vacations.
He currently doesn't use all of the time available to him but has decided
to sue me for custody anyway. He has retained a high priced lawyer to try 
to win because he has now decided he wants to be a dad and to cause more
problems then he's already caused (violence, child abandonment during
visitation of a 3 month old, harassment, etc.)

Any recommendations for good lawyer's in this area would be appreciated or
services to call.

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: FEMINISTS ARE UGLY!
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:31:03 CST

In article XewXwB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca, lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca () writes:
>Steven,
>
>You have my sincerest sympathies.  I also feel a great deal of empathy wrt your
>personal situation.
>
>Please explain  how such an incredibly unfair order could have been made, that
>you have to pay spousal support of any amount, nevermind HALF of your income,
>to your non-custodial ex?  Why isn't she paying YOU (for child support)?

Because the judge that the initial referee works for hates men and was "biasing
the decision to correct past wrongs against all women".  My ex also has a serious
drug (prescription) and alcohol problem.  I think the courts felt she needed
the time to "get her life together".   I strongly believe that if the sexes had
been reversed, the decision would have been entirely different.  They would have
told the bum to get his act together and start paying child support.

BTW the amount is down to about 10% of my take-home pay now, plus I have
remarried (to a wonderful women who is totally unlike my first wife) and with
two incomes we are doing fairly well.  I still have a $3000 visa bill from those
early days however.  It was the only way I could survive and provide clothes and
other things for my son.  Hopefully that will be gone before 1993 is over as well.

Steve Anderson			145 more days of indentured servitude.


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Standard of Living Farce
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 02:25:41 GMT

>low at the least.  Au contraire!  Since WA, like most states,
>uses an income table, everytime his income goes up, so does
>my support!  It is true that my % of our total income goes
>down slightly, but it is not enough to offset his large
>income increases.  The result has been my impoverishment
>and his enrichment.  I know I am not alone in this!  My
>
>My $.03 worth,
>
>Danielle
>
I think this is the wildest piece of law I have ever seen.  Yes,
it happens to everyone.  One thing I will say for the old days
at least after they distroyed you life, they left you alone to 
heal yourself.  Now, they can keep coming back and making things
worse and impossible to get ahead.  

Good luck.  Go after the political machine and the women's groups
who are supporting them.  You should also go after the companies that
help the process.


Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Standard of Living Farce
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 23:30:03 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:

> >low at the least.  Au contraire!  Since WA, like most states,
> >uses an income table, everytime his income goes up, so does
> >my support!  It is true that my % of our total income goes
> >down slightly, but it is not enough to offset his large
> >income increases.  The result has been my impoverishment
> >and his enrichment.  I know I am not alone in this!  My
> >
> >My $.03 worth,
> >
> >Danielle
> >
> I think this is the wildest piece of law I have ever seen.  Yes,
> it happens to everyone.  One thing I will say for the old days
> at least after they distroyed you life, they left you alone to 
> heal yourself.  Now, they can keep coming back and making things
> worse and impossible to get ahead.  

Rest deleted...

Once again, sometimes its the NCP who "get's ahead" and the CP who is left,
along with the children, impoverished.  Sometimes, vice versa.  My ex has
Share Purchase Plans and other investments (which I understand, cannot be
attached, in Canada anyway), while I far too frequently must rely on family
and friends for basic necessities like gas $ and cash for milk n' bread, putting
myself ever deeper in debt.

Sounds like Danielle is getting a raw deal, but I must ask you again to keep
a perspective that is based on individual situations, and not blanket
stereotyping.

Lisa

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Q-Edit
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 11:19:51 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

Could someone please help me figure out why my posts have turned up looking
like
this one
lat
ely?

It seems to be a new problem, and not one I remenber having before...

Thanks:-)

Lisa

               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Lawyer Referral
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 02:51:20 GMT

In article <lkpjthINNenq@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> wandas@wander.Eng.Sun.COM (Wanda Schroeder) writes:
>I would like to get some information for a Lawyer Referral in the Silicon
>Valley of California. I currently have Joint Legal Custody/Full Physical
>

Did you try the FREE organization in California?  Annie runs it and really
seems to have it together.

Smile,

Dave