HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: was:Ohio Choices; now:Mass Fathers group (CSAM?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:06:25 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov10.174503.3528@vicorp.com> mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>Well it seems like there's a need for a Father's rights group in
>Massachusetts. I live in Mass. I've never done anything like this
>before, but then again I've never before been in the situation
>I am now.
>
>The name Child SupportERS Father's Rights was suggested. Sounds good
>to me.
>
>I'm willing to do something to get this going. Who else is in?
>
>Mark Charalambous
>mc@vicorp.com


	I am

-- 
	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......
From: daw+@pitt.edu (Deborah A Wirth)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Fight for sole custody or joint
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:50:47 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


I'm writting this for my husband, not myself.

In 1982 he had to start paying child support, by way of a wage attachment.   
He/we live in Pittsburgh, Pa. The order came from Warren Ohio, where she lived.
The courts set the arrears at $4,529. From 1982 until 1987, every time he  
would go into court the arrears would change. Btw, he was paying $50 a month
on the arrears, from 1982 until 1990. The arrears would never go down, for 
some reason they would either go up a few hundred dollars to a couple of 
thousands.

In 1987, the mother and child moved to Kissimmee, Flordia. At that time the
arrears were set at $5,682. It seems like every time she went to court, she
would tell the court that he owes her xx amount of dollars. Taking her word
for it, but the whole time they have been divorce, she has been on welfare, 
that's from 1976 until 2 years ago, the child is now 17yr old.

We don't understand why Flordia is involed in the arrears, because Ohio is 
owed the arrears, not Flordia. In 1987 we found out that Pittsburgh had been
sending her the full amount, and not putting any money to the arrears. What 
we can't find out is how long that was going on. Then in 1988 we got this 
letter from Kissimmee FL, that he owes $2,647 (the amount went down). In 1989
the IRS seized our tax returned, I had to file and "Injured Spouse" return to get my portion of our tax return. Then in November of 1989, the state of Flordia
send a check for the amount seized from our tax return. Wouldn't that make you
think they are telling you that you don't owe them any money. We never got a 
full explation as to why they were sending us the money. So we didn't press the
issue.

We have been in court 3 times this year trying to resolves this problem. Our 
lastested battle they told my husband he has to prove he has made these 
payments. We just received a letter from Kissimmee, FL, that he now owes
$6,574 in arrears. Well, his ex hasn't lived in Flordia since 1990. Flordia 
now has the arrears owed on our credit report. My husband called them and they
said it was a mistake. We do have a lawyer who is helping us, but we all know
how expensive they can be, so if we can do any leg work ourselves, we are going
to do it. If anyone has any information that could help us, or any ideas, please feel free to email me.

Thanks.

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:29:13 GMT


Good grief. I started this "It's just a TV SHOW!" subject line all the
way back in alt.fan.dan-quayle, and it's gotten all the way over
here...

In article <1992Oct29.091421.13906@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>
> Currently, the courts in family law encourage and enable vindictive
>custodial parent harassment. Most custodial parents are women and 
>many refuse to be vindictive. Many chose divorce for a reason and see
>no purpose to harass. Many women choose to be vindictive and use the
>system to their advantage by denying visitation, make false charges
>of all kinds, move great distances, cut off phone calls and file 
>multiple child support reviews. The tender years syndrome encourages
>this abhorant behavior. Women who seek peace will give up her overwhelming
>legal power to reach her goal for her and the children's future.
>Many women don't. They are the victims of feminist dogma that claim
>they were born victims. I tend to call these types of depressed young
>mothers victims of the "Dallas Syndrome".    

I would hate to be involved in a divorce with kids.
In California, the woman would have to be certified crazy with 3 drug
convictions, not to get custody outright. Either full custody or
majority custody. 

The California Woman, aka the Boxer-ite species, is known for pulling
the exact thing you mentioned above: denying visitation and then
filing multiple child support reviews, not to mention abuse claims and
putting the kid up to telling the court that Daddy yelled at him, etc.

Yeah, thanks to incoming First Lady Hillary, we're gonna be in for a
dandy 4 more years. 

In Street English: Don't NO man get divorced 'till 1996 or your
		   hide is cooked.



=============================================================================
        Now I'll wait for arrest by the net.sensitivity-police...
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Retroactive Increase in CS
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:13:29 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

edjcb@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Brown) writes:

> 
> My question:  Is a retroactive increase in support possible even though
> the ordered support was paid in full?
> 

It's my understanding --at least for Washington state and perhaps others,
that back support may only be assessed where there was no support order
previously, or where support hasn't been paid that was ordered.

Your milage may vary. Speak to your attorney on the specifics of the law
in your area.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: RESULT: misc.legal.family fails 126:28
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:56:03 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:

> In article <PP5ZTB2w165w@xocolatl.com>, ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) w
> > bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
> > 
> > -> misc.legal.family (moderated) fails. 126 to 28
> > 
> > 
> > Damn.  Sooooooo close!
> > 
> > Bob, please consider going through the process again.  Maybe next
> > time...
> 
> Please don't, unless you keep a better count of the votes... my NO vote
> was counted as a yes, and I'll bet I'm not the only one... ;(
> 

No it wasn't. The counts were dead on and verified. I sent the fail
notice into uunet a week and a half before it was posted. Since it was
a fail, and all votes were acknowledged individually from the account
they were mailed to, there was no need to attach an ack to the fail
notice.  A week and a half after the notice was sent to uunet, they
suggested (not required) that I send along the accounts of the voters
who participated. Since they'd been discarded, I had to try and sort
them manually from the mail logs. I may have routed one or more to
the wrong list. Since it was a fail, what's the difference? If there
was a problem with your vote, why didn't you say so when it was ind-
ividually acknowledged? The vote itself was quoted back.

The slur you attach at the end is somewhat meaningless. It could also
be that your address is as bogus as your posting-handle. Votes whose
acknowledgements bounced were removed from the tally sheets as not
valid. Since my mail logs can't tell me whether or not a received
vote was good or not, yours may have been included totally by error
when it should have been a discard. Over 10 votes (most yesses) were
dropped because they failed to carry a valid domain or uucp address,
or their names were unknown to the system they claimed to be from.

Given the closeness of the vote, if I had wanted to, I could have
easily cheated. I didn't. I honored the vote procedure to the end of
rejecting a few votes that came in a few hours after midnight when
the poll closed. You (or anyone) may confirm this with David Lawrence,
tale@uunet.uu.net, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups.

I'm not surprised at your post. Given the nature of many of the posts
we see here, some people just can't help but argue, even when they get
what they want.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Ohio Choices
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:34:45 GMT

In article <RPRIMMER.92Oct29151453@home.webo.dg.com> rprimmer@home.webo.dg.com (Bob Primmer) writes:
>Kevin, the form I have lists the following (I cannot attest to this
>document being *the* form used in all instances).
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>							   Massachusetts
>                       CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION SCHEDULE
> 
>A. BASIC ORDER
> 
>The basic child support obligation, based on the income of the non-custodial
>parent is as follows. The percentages are intended only as a guide to the court.



	Well "intent" and "practice" are two different things.



> 
> 
>GROSS WEEKLY INCOME             NUMBER OF CHILDREN
>                        1               2                   3
>$0-200          Discretion of the Court, but no less than $50.00 per month
>$201-$500           25% (+/- 2%)    28% (+/- 2%)        31% (+/- 2%)
>$501-$max           27% (+/- 2%)    30% (+/- 2%)        33% (+/- 2%)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Here's what it says on the Age Differential:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>B. AGE DIFFERENTIAL
> 
>The above orders are to be increased to reflect the costs of raising older
>children.
> 
>AGE OF OLDEST CHILD         PERCENTAGE INCREASE
>0-6                         Basic Order Applies.
>7-12                        Basic Order + 10% of Basic Order
>13-18                       Basic Order + 15% of Basic Order
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	Interesting that the percentage goes up if income is high.


	How can we get things changed?

-- 
	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,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:29:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.223728.8602@borland.com> garnet@borland.com (Garnet Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.173852.22333@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>
>>	One additional remark.  You know, when I see my ex 
>>	I've commented on how "ugly" she's gotten.  Uglier
>>	than "years" would allow.  And the supposition by some
>>	is that the "pressure of the years" or whatever you would
>>	call it, has "aged" her into hag-dome.  And her continued
>>	bitchiness is just a manifestation of life wearing hard
>>	on her.
>
>I've noticed the same thing in my ex, and I have only been divorced
>for a few years. Neither of us is even in our 30's yet..... I think
>the main uglifier is the lack of familiarness with the other person,
>and constant exposure to the other person to gradualize the changes
>that do occur. 


	No, but I disagree.  I see a "worn out-ness".


>I only see my ex once or twice a year a most now, and I wonder what it
>was that I could have "seen in her". But, if I go back to our wedding 
>pictures, I remember what it was...... 
>
>On a slightly different topic, how many have retained old pictures,
>greeting cards, etc. from the days of dating and marriage to the 
>exspouse?  What percentage has been kept, and for how long? Does
>remarriage significantly decrease the percentage kept? What about
>preserving things, from those happy starting days with the exspouse,
>for the benefit of children who might later have questions about what 
>the early days were like for the mother and father? 

	When I married my wife, she asked me to get rid of all pictures,
	etc., of previous people.  I did.  And I'm not sorry.  However,
	it was my previous girl friend that I had pictures of.  My
	ex kept whatever old pictures *we* had.  (Or I gues they
	"went with her".  You know how a move goes.  And how much
	men might care about such things)

-- 
	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: mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous)
Subject: thanks for all the input
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:25:09 GMT


Just wanted to thank all the people who responded to my posts. I'm not
able to respond personally to all, so here it is:

Thanks!

Based on the input, I've pretty much decided to fight for sole custody.
I'm still unsure on whether or not I should pursue the criminal charges.

My lawyer has not been straightforward with me. He's been trying to convince
me that we should "fight" for joint legal custody, which I've come to realize
(thanks to virtually everyone's input) is a crock of %$#^. 

If I'm going to go down, I'm going to go down swinging...

Mark
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Ohio Choices
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:25:16 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov6.223343.13045@vicorp.com> mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>smiles@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Kevin Ruddy) writes:
>
>>The point is: child support is not a tax, and should not be viewed as such.
>
>>>	How can we get things changed?
>
>>I don't know, but if you find out, please tell us!  Gee, can you look up
>>lobbying organizations under "Lobby" in the Yellow Pages?  Maybe we should
>>make one.  CSAM, Child Support Alliance of Massachusetts.
>>-- 
>>Kevin.Ruddy@NMC.ED.RAY.COM
>
>Hey, let's go for it! I live in Massachussetts (unfortunately), and I also
>(again, unfortunately) be here for quite a while now...
>
>But seriously, I'm willing to do some work. I like the name you came up with,
>did you notice how if you switch the first two letters of the acronym you
>get "SCAM"?
>
>Man, I'd love to show up with a group of like-minded screwed-over divorced
>fathers at one of thos %&^$#&#((## rallys the women's support groups are
>*constantly* having here in W. Mass (feminazi heaven. Ouch! Did I say that?).
>
>---Mark
>
	Well as I just indicated, I'd be willing to go round the block
	with it, too.  So can/should we at least "network" with each other
	and genrate a list of local people?



-- 
	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: edjcb@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Brown)
Subject: Retroactive Increase in CS
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date:  6 Nov 1992 09:17 EST  

Along with some gnashing of teeth over various child support issues,
my ex has threatened to attempt collection of what she calls "back
child support".  We were divorced in 1983 and our decree has not been
modified since then.  Our order called for $200/mo initially and a
yearly index for inflation, plus I pay insurance and all uncovered med
and dental.  I have paid every cent ordered on time and without question.

When the support guidelines changed in 1986 to the income shares BS,
she could have requested a modification of the order for increased
support, but she didn't.  She claims now that she did not know she
could have done this, and that she never got a letter supposedly sent
by her lawyer advising her of her rights.  She feels now that she has
grounds to request a retroactive increase in the order.  My lawyer says
no way.  There don't seem to be any clear precedents, however.

We are now negotiating new support along the guidelines and she'll
get that starting next month.

My question:  Is a retroactive increase in support possible even though
the ordered support was paid in full?

E-mail or post.  I'm usually lurking...

Jeff Brown
edjcb@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: support in Fla.
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:14:56 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

Given that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice...

In article <p6g1lj@rpi.edu> liberk@rpi.edu writes:
>
>	Can someone tell me what age child support is no longer legally required
> in Florida. Is it 18,21,23?

Support can be required up to age 21, but it depends on the decree.  18 is 
most common.  I have not yet heard of a case going beyond 21.

>	Also what does it take to get the courts out of the whole matter if both
>parties agree to it in the divorce?. At present it is court ordered support ;-(

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?  (I know $64,000 is low-balling it.)

The courts can get involved whenever they feel like it to the extent they feel
like it.  Child support is presumed to be owed to the child, so no agreement
between the two parent can be binding on the child.  Of course, children cannot
enter into contracts either, so in effect, there is no possible way of 
coming to an agreement.

There are two things that you might consider doing.

1) Accept the decree and abide by it, but do what you like anyway.  E.g. if
   the decree says "NCP pays CP $600 every month" and you think that $400 is
   a better figure, the NCP writes a $600 check to the CP and the CP writes
   a $200 check to the NCP.  Don't tell anybody in the courts that you are
   doing this, or else they might fine or imprison you for contempt of court.  
   Again, they can do this whenever they feel like it for whatever reason
   they want to.  Also, of course, if there is any dispute, there is no option
   to settle it in court.

2) Don't vote for anybody who doesn't comprehend the need for both fathers and
   mothers.  Now that we will have a President who doesn't comprehend the
   concept of a father, write your representatives early and often to convince
   them not to pass Draconian legislation but rather pass legislation with 
   some sense of fairness.

(I have used the second person pronoun not because you have indicated that it
is you in the situation, but because it makes the prose style easier.)

-EMP
From: ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:22:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Ohio Choices
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

> How can we get things changed?

Here in Colorado at least, the child support tables are built into the
state statutes.  So to get them changed you either lobby your state
legislators or you start a citizen initiative to put the change on the
state ballot.

Lobbying your legislators is largely ineffective because they are busy
and tend to accept whatever comes out of committees.  So you really need
to lobby the committee members in particular.  But they tend to listen to
"the experts" like Robert Williams and the (female) head of Child Support
Enforcement and the folks from Social Services.  Good luck!
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:49:42 EST
From: The Dreamer <ASG102@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.pub.dragons-inn
Subject: [L] Luthor Turns Janitor

After the recent demon-incident, Luthor felt a little guilty about creating
such a mess in his favorite inn.  He set to work helping Littlefair clean
up the place, sweeping and picking up pieces of a broken table.  All the
time, Littlefair kept scowling at him...well at least until Listener began
playing a cheerful working song to lighten the mood.

After the mess was cleared away, Luthor helped Littlefair move in some extra
tables and then he paid for the damages apologising profusely for the mess.
Finally, with the inn looking as it had before, Luthor sat at a table near
the merman's tank and talked with Moria Runecaster.  While doing so, he
noticed that the usually prompt barmaid (he had heard people call her Serene)
was unusually distracted...

ADMIN: This is a set-up for something that Serene and I have been working on.
       I will not give away any of the details, but don't miss it :-)!

     Love and Peace and Cooperative Work,
               -The Dreamer-
From: fannicm@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.pub.dragons-inn
Subject: Re: [TW] Moria:  Very Surprised!
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:55:45 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <silk.721028484@mcl>, silk@mcl.ucsb.edu (ken mencher) writes:
> Kotaro walks silently up behind Moria.  (Surprising in that armor)
> "Lady, Small Warrior, I have heard of your quest.  I possess no magic, no
> fancy spells, but I have a stout heart, and power enough to back it.  I
> also possess technology beyond most people's ken...
> 
> "Allow me to join you in your quest.  I don't ask for money or gold or
> magic, but the honor of serving a righteous cause."
> 
> "I vow to stay with you as long as I am able, this I swear, by my honor.
   
   Moria looked rather surprised to hear this new voice from behind her
that she had not expected.  Her first reaction was too strengthen her
personal shields and throw this person through the roof, but just as
quickly, she realized that she barely had the strength to stand, let alone
defend herself, and she did not wish to cause more damage to Littlefair's
fine Inn.  By his second sentence she knew that he meant no harm and
gestured him to a seat.
   "I beleive that joining this quest is up to this valient little warrior,
here..."

-----
Master Hawk
Leader of the Night Parade

   "And it shall come to pass that what men made shall be shattered, and
the Shadow shall lie across the Pattern of the Age, and the Dark One shall
once more lay his hand upon the world of man."
                              -from The Karaethon Cycle:
                               The Prophecies of the Dragon.