HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:49:56 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Oct6.233030.17681@u.washington.edu>, zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
|> 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.

Thanks Michael. That's pretty much what I thought. It was always available
in the States for cause and that it was recently (60's & 70's) liberalized.
There seems to be some debate on whether or not that was a _good thing_
for society.

ps: I would have put this in email but I didn't get his post here yet.

-- 
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
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:14:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Pro Male Legislation
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

> California Senator Charles Calderone 
> and Mr. Kelly Jensen are drafting pro-
> male legislation. Kelly (and perhaps 
> Senator Calderone) will be in San Jose
> soon to meet with interested folks. 
> This is a chance to change the system.

  What pro-male legislation is being drafted?

> Here's what you can do to help:

>	1.) Bring interested women	
>	2.) Make or bring a mailing list
>	3.) Cooperate toward a consensus
>	4.) Prepare to legislate in January

  Just out of curiosity, why just women in 1.)?
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: jrc@IEDV4.acd.com ( Janis Clark )
Subject: Re: Summertime child care payments
Keywords: NCP child care payments
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:36:12 GMT

In article <BvoII5.8AH@fc.hp.com> rodean@fc.hp.com (Bruce Rodean) writes:
>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
>

In my case, my three children spent four weeks with me last summer
(I was the NCP at that time) and I continued to pay child support
to their father.  The thinking is that the support is averaged out
over the year and is not just for immediate expenses but what it
will cost long term for the CP to raise a child or children.  It
was a financial hardship to pay support AND have the expense of
the children actually living with me for a month, but that's the
way it was.  I didn't quite understand what you meant by the 
sentence:"at the same time the payments are not permitting the CP to 
work since the children aren't with that parent."

Janis Clark

-- 
	"Two roads diverged in the wood,
         and I,
	 I took the one less travelled by,
         and that has made all the difference."     - Robert Frost
From: westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu (Rick Westerman)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Looking for information
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:00:28 GMT
Reply-To: westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University AIDS Center

danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine) writes:
>[note: she is a non-custodial female]
>To those who will claim it's men who are the victims, check
>out the statistics on how non-custodial FEMALE parents are
>treated.  This is NOT a male-only problem, I assure you. 

I think that most of us agree -- female NCPs get treated as
badly as male NCPs.


>If this group is the
>right place to post this, great.  If not, could some kind
>soul please point me to an appropriate group?

It is the right group. The group is full of hate, flames, fear and
loathing with little factual information, but it exists specifically
to make one's ideas about child support known to the rest of the Net.


>I was hoping that the non-gender specific title of the 
>group, alt.child-support, meant that it wasn't another macho
>woman-bashing hate fest, but after reading quite a few articles
>I am not sure! 

I think that some men come out of divorce with intense dislike of
one woman in particular and a dislike of women in general (the same
is true of a woman's feelings towards men). These feelings subside in
time, but in the meanwhile these anti-female guys can create a lot of
noise thrashing around spewing "hate towards women" propaganda. 

If it is a well written article, I read them and shudder. Poorly
written gets assigned to the "read/next article" key.



-- Rick

Rick Westerman                System Manager of the AIDS Center Laboratory
westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu      for Computational Biochemistry (ACLCB), BCHM
Phone: (317) 494-0505         bldg., Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
  FAX: (317) 494-7897
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: another shooting
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:55:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.193530.26489@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <f+3z!rl@rpi.edu> liberk@rpi.edu writes:
>>	Just heard on the radio that a man shot and killed 5 people in the
>>Watkins Cty Social Services Office. This is located in upper New York state.
>>	The reporter said the man was distressed at the amount of child support
>>he had to pay. He was quoted as saying he was " Paying too much for too long"
>>	This is what Jacobe and Meyers should show on their commercials in-
>>stead of the crap I just saw on T.V showing this guy dressed to the teeth
>>complaining that this law firm keeps bugging him for more $. What a poor
>>representation of fathers ( IMHO)
>>	I hope that firm's lawyers forget their bullet proof vests someday!
>
>	What happens to these guys?  Do they get locked up and
>	throw away the key (so they can't pay anymore) or do
>	they get some kind of temporary insanity thing going?

(Were you referring to the lawyers or the shooters?  :-)

I suspect they get sent for prison labor in China, so that they
can pay both their child support and their debt to society.  :-(

Would it be surprising if someone proposes a law requiring
prison labor from criminalized "deadbeat parents"?  After all, 
the "best interests of the children" seem to be a compelling reason 
to suspend constitutional rights.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:37:37 GMT

In article <2613@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>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.
>
Actually, the legality of divorce has varied enormously over the past
several centuries. In England, for instance, until passage of the
Divorce Act in the middle of last century, the only way to obtain a
divorce was to get a special Act of Parliament passed.  I leave it to
your imagination as to how many and what class of people availed
themselves of this option! In the US divorce laws varied enormously both
in time and across states.

There's a nice book out recently which covers all this: Roderick
Phillips, "Untying the knot: a short history of divorce" (Cambridge UP,
1991).
-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:52:39 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>But isn't that what feminism is all about: "make war, not love!"?

Nope.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:28:55 GMT

In article <Bw2Aqs.3ns@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
>Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
>Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:28:03 GMT

>In article <riaedwards.1.718953878@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.230603.6257@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>>But isn't that what feminism is all about: "make war, not love!"?
>>
>>>As was said earlier, divorce itself isn't the problem, it's only a poor 
>>>solution to a messy problem. The real solution requires a cease-fire in
>>>the war against men.

>>I could not resist this! No, Mr Sheaffer, feminism is not about war 
>>against men. Rather, it is the campaign for *equality of opportunity* and 
>>the recognition of the equal status of men and women by all in society. 
>>
>>If, as you appear (by your various postings) to believe, all (or at least 
>>most) of the social ills of the world derive from feminism, then why is that 
>>the U.K. (my own country) where (generally speaking).... 
>>* we have not got a PC movement (except personal computers!), 
>>* we don't know who McKinnen or Dworkin are, 
>>* we have fault based divorce, but 'clean-break' financial settlements,  
>>* politically, we have had conservative leadership for some time,


>With such "*equality of opportunity*" in the UK, what is the
>rate of child custody awards between men and women?

Don't know off-hand but I can probably find the stats if you're REALLY 
interested. BTW, the point I was making to Mr Shaeffer is despite the 
absense in the UK of a lot of the elements he condemns, we *don't* have 
equality of opportunity (though in many other ways, it's a brilliant place!).


>We have no-fault divorce and alimony is less common, but we also
>have child support that replaces alimony -- no clean breaks there.
>What is child support like in the UK?

I'm not a matramonial lawyer, so my comments can only be the second-hand 
views of former colleagues. The system seems to be haphazard, with court-
awarded maintenence payments (as opposed to the out-of-court agreement of 
the parties) being very low (on average 10-20 pounds per week per child) 
(though this can sometimes reflects the poverty of the family generally). 
Thus many one-parent families rely on state benefits. Non-payment of child-
maintenence is common, and the Dept. of Social Security now has the right to 
pursue non-paying spouses.
 

Regards,

Audrey.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:24:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.230603.6257@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:


>But isn't that what feminism is all about: "make war, not love!"?

>As was said earlier, divorce itself isn't the problem, it's only a poor 
>solution to a messy problem. The real solution requires a cease-fire in
>the war against men.

>  
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
> 

I could not resist this! No, Mr Sheaffer, feminism is not about war 
against men. Rather, it is the campaign for *equality of opportunity* and 
the recognition of the equal status of men and women by all in society. 

If, as you appear (by your various postings) to believe, all (or at least 
most) of the social ills of the world derive from feminism, then why is that 
the U.K. (my own country) where (generally speaking).... 
* we have not got a PC movement (except personal computers!), 
* we don't know who McKinnen or Dworkin are, 
* we have fault based divorce, but 'clean-break' financial settlements,  
* politically, we have had conservative leadership for some time,

....is not the haven of peace and tranquility that your theories would 
suggest. We still have inequality in pay (see my posting in alt. 
feminism as an example), continued inequality of opportunity (such as 
exclusion from business marketing functions at male-only venues) and 
widespread harrassment at work. Could it be that a *more* vocal feminist 
movement in the U.K. is required? 

Regards,

Audrey. 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:01:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.200539.4591@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <BvnxIy.89B@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> 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?
>> 
>
>You parent your way, I'll parent mine!  

Fine with me, as long as you spend your own money on it.

But there's no reason for a NCP to have to pay for vacations to Florida.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:05:49 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:05:38 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <BvnxIy.89B@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> 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?
> 

You parent your way, I'll parent mine!  

> 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



Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:30:31 GMT

In article <20840035@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:
>               Please answer these 9 questions and return.

 Why?

 What's the survey for?  Are you making any attempt to obtain a sample 
 that's representative of anything at all?  Are you testing any
 hypotheses?  What are they?

> 
> 3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
> Yes                  [ ]
> Sometimes            [ ]
> No                   [ ]
> Haven't heard enough [ ]
> Other                [ ]

I can't make any kind of sense out of this question.  Most people believe it
best if children are raised by their natural parents, but sometimes this
isn't possible.  Adoption is, therefore, supported by many as the best that
can be done: few would see adoption as ideal; it's a "make-do".

Are their people who would outlaw adoption in all cases?  What are you
trying to get at here?
> 
> 4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
> rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
> Yes                  [ ]
> Sometimes            [ ]
> No                   [ ]
> Haven't heard enough [ ]
> Other                [ ]

Is this the question you really want answered?  Are you going to calculate
coefficients of corellation between this question and other questions?

> 
> 7.) What religion are you?
> Protestant         [ ]
> Catholic           [ ]
> Jewish             [ ]
> Other              [ ]

Didn't you forget, "none" ?  Some people don't have a religion, y'know.
Not having a religion isn't just another religion any more than 
"I have no car" means my car is a brand "no". 

9.) How many years of education have you completed?

Enough to recognize a meaningless survey.

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3434 alt.dads-rights:2424 soc.men:17415 alt.missing-kids:400
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.missing-kids
Subject: October Bay Area FREE Meeting
Date: 7 Oct 1992 08:56:35 -0700
Organization: Knapp & Viola, Attys., San Mateo, CA
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com


The October meeting of the Bay Area FREE will be held on Wednesday,
October 14, at 7p.m. at our Santa Clara location [please email for
directions].

Our guest speaker will be Trish Williams, director of Child Quest.
Child Quest is a non-profit agency dedicated to working with the
parents of, and helping to find, missing, exploited, and abused children.

Ms. Williams will be addressing, among other things, the issue of
kidnapping by non-custodial parents.  This is a very important and
timely topic.  Often the last resort of a person who has lost custody,
particularly if it is the mother, is to snatch the child/ren and to go
underground.

I hope to see a large turnout for Ms. Williams, who has agreed to take
time away from a very busy schedule in order to spend the evening with
us.

As always, second mates are welcome, and please feel free to bring
munchies.

-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  David Widdicombe, Hobson Woodward, Lorna Taylor & JJ Lancey
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
		     TIBI GRATIAS AGIMUS QUOD NIHIL FUMAS
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 12:33:02 GMT

In article <judi.718491392@glia> judi@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Jude) writes:
>
>I have been reading a lot of the postings on this newsgroup lately.  I don't
7really know the true intent of the group, whether it is a support group for
>people who are being screwed on having to pay child support or if it's just
>a ragfest about how you are being reemed by the woman you married, and how
>you'll never be free.
>
>What I'm seeing is a lot of frustration that seems to end up being vented
>towards the kids, and I don't understand it.  I came from a divorced family
>and vividly remember all the fights and arguments.  I don't wish it on anyone.
>My question is:  Do you or did you ever love your children?  Are all the 
>children whom are being supported by members of this network so horrific?
>Why would you begrudge your child--your flesh and blood--the money that it
>takes to support them (Not so they can have every Nintendo game, etc, but so
>they have food, appropriate clothes and shelter), which you would have to 
>provide if you were still married or the CP?  Or is it because it's
>your paying for the kid, and never get to see the kid or participate in the
>kid's life?  I'm trying to understand and not misinterpret.
>
>I would appreciate it if someone could set me straigt about this newsgroup so
>that I could contribute in a positive and significant manner.
>
>I honestly didn't think that the world was as terrible as some of the 
>perceptions I've read here.
>
>Do any of your children read in this newsgroup?  How would they feel?


	Well in my case, if I wind up paying $200/week or something,
	does that sound fair?  Am I begrudging support?

-- 
	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