HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Pony Support (was Re: child support problems)
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:06:14 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
> 
> [snip]
>
> [chop]
> 
Much stuff deleted...

> I am speaking generally because I don't know the details of this case.
> I'm also not a father, much less a divorced one.  My parents aren't
> even divorced.  In other words, you may have considered the following,
> but the problems I see here are:
>
More stuff deleted...

> 4) Does the father really want her to have a pony?  Maybe he thinks
> it's not safe for some reason.  Maybe he knows his daughter is just
> going through a pony "phase" and will eventually decide that she wants
> something else.  
> 
(Snip, Chop, Cut)

Well, the girls just got back from visiting their dad for the weekend, and
GUESS WHAT CHELSEA GOT FOR CHRISTMAS??? "A HORSE! A REAL LIVE ONE!!!"
The horse is a gift from my ex mother-in-law and is apparently the result
of discussions she had with my ex (naturally, no one spoke to me about it).
It is also a conditional gift, the horse must stay with Chelsea's uncle
(my ex brother-in-law), who lives, along with my ex and his mother, 2 ferry
rides away.  Chelsea may not have the horse here, which may be just as well
since we can't afford the boarding fees, etc..
I ought to be more happy for Chels', I guess, but what good is a horse she can
only see/ride very occasionally? I AM happy for her, but time will tell how this
will work out...


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: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reaso
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:10:33 CST

In article 6832@news.cs.indiana.edu, "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> () writes:
>In article <BzAB27.1uL@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>THIS kind of story is the exact reason that I feel that all men should get
>>their butts off their chairs and make certain that our legal system is
>>reformed in this area.  DO IT RIGHT NOW.
>>
>>If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
>>gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  
>
>And I knew a woman who was sexually, mentally, and physically abused
>by her husband.  If you are involved with a man, married or not, you
>could be the next woman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU,
>LADIES. 
>
>So, what's your point??? 
>
>amy

  The women who is sexually, mentally, and physically abused by her husband
should leave. Money and personal gain isn't on her list of priorities. 
No person needs to be abused.
Not all women are helpless.
It is also a crime to assault people.
Abuse awards no one, it punishes assualters for those who can prove it in court.
Assault is punishable.
Mental abuse ISN"T. 
Mental abuse is a made for t.v. movie that display's women like feminists' 
 wish them to be; victims who need MORE rights than others. Personally, 
 I think feminists are mistaken. Women are much smarter than that.

It is not a crime to claim large amounts of a husband's money because the 
boyfriends dick has more money (divorce awards women, punishes men all in
the name of children). The system isn't working Amy. 

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reaso
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 12:42:31 GMT

In article <4y44VB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>Whoa. Mental abuse (more commonly called Emotional Abuse) has a prevalence
>in America unrivaled in any other country. It is an actionable offense, as


	This is a VERY unsubstantiated conclusion.

-- 
	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: redman@plate.megatek.com (Tim Redfield)
Subject: Collection Alternatives
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:39:17 GMT

Here's an informal poll to gather people's opinions about collecting
past due child support payments.  Here are some options, feel
free to praise and/or bash these alternatives, as well as provide
others...

1) rely on the d.a.'s office to take some indeterminate period of time
   (possibly years) to provide the service, or

2) Hire a lawyer (retainer and % of monies), or 

3) Pay some minimal fee (< $100.00) to a private agency that specializes
   in collecting child support payments and pay a larger % of collected 
   monies to this agency.  Know a good one in Southern Calif.?


Thx mucho everyone.

-- 
Tim Redfield          UUCP: {uunet, ucsd, sun}!megatek!redman
                      INTERNET:            redman@megatek.com
Megatek Corporation  9645 Scranton Rd.  San Diego, Ca.  92121
From: nadegda@mplik.e-burg.su ()
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Young Ekaterinburg Singers
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 19:13:13 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: URAL RELCOM LIMITED
Reply-To: nadegda@mplik.e-burg.su


		The Ekaterinburg Municipal Choir of Boys and Youths
	  at the Urals Conservatoir appeals to managers and business
	  people both in this country and adroad to whom the ideas of
	  philanthropy and patronage of art are not alien .
	    The Choir is renewing and developing the Russian singing
	  traditions and its repertoir includes works of both home and
	  foreign classical and modern musical culture .
	    The Choir has won a high appraisal of its skill among the
	  professional musicians inspite of the fact that side by side
	  with the youths singing in the Choir there are quite young
	  boys aged only 8 or 9 . In the past year alone the Choir be-
	  came laureate of four significant music festivals.
	    Of late the Choir has established friendly relations with
	  the Chicago Municipal Children's Choir which is planning to
	  receive the boys from the Urals at home in Chicago and ar-
	  range joint concerts. Unfortunately,growing fares preclude
	  the opportunity to introduce the young Ekaterinburg singers
	  to the USA .
	    The Choir will appreciate any help and will be very much
	  obliged to the people realizing the necessity of strengthen-
	  ing international cultural ties as well as maintaining and
	  developing the wonderful Russian singing traditions .
-- 

	      Nadegda N. Garckusha
	      URAL RELCOM Ltd., phone 578-721,e-mail: nadegda@mplik.e-burg.su



Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Holiday Wishes
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:29:11 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA



  /\\,/\\,
 /| || ||
 || || ||  _-_  ,._-_ ,._-_ '\\/\\
 ||=|= || || \\  ||    ||    || ;'
~|| || || ||/    ||    ||    ||/
 |, \\,\\,\\,/   \\,   \\,   |/
_-                          (
                             -_-


  ,- _~. ,,                     ,
 (' /|   ||           '        ||             _
((  ||   ||/\\ ,._-_ \\  _-_, =||= \\/\\/\\  < \,  _-_,
((  ||   || ||  ||   || ||_.   ||  || || ||  /-|| ||_.
 ( / |   || ||  ||   ||  ~ ||  ||  || || || (( ||  ~ ||
  -____- \\ |/  \\,  \\ ,-_-   \\, \\ \\ \\  \/\\ ,-_-
           _/


Here's a wish for the best of Christmas' to all our net.friends!

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: View from a Step-Parent (was: child support probs)
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:10:13 GMT

In article <Z13VVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas) writes:
>
>> grease@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>> 
>> > Hey dickheads (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)...with regards to Lisa and her
>> > little girl`s pony

>> > So quit pining for your lost loves and get a job...
>> > ...miserable, sorry, pathetic excuses for parents.

>No question Gary's post was anything but intellectual. I don't believe
>it was intended as such. Personally, I felt he wasted a good opportunity
>to contribute a different perspective that we hear little of on this net, that
>of the "step-parent".  Oh well, it was his nickel, I guess.

>Gary was in animation for 10 years before he moved in with us. Its a very
>"on again, off again" business, and he could no longer afford to have an
>unstable, unpredictable income.
> ... Now he works 9 - 5,
>5 days a week and should realize an annual net of about $18,500.00, next year.

>Now, Gary has given all but his cigarette money to helping provide for children
>that he loves dearly, though they're not his.

>I'd be most interested in hearing from step-parents out there in situations
>like ours.


As one of the "dickheads" and "pathetic excuse for parents" that Gary
so lovingly addressed, here's a hard-earned nickel, too.


When we lived in New York, I paid $650/month for daycare for my stepson
(we couldn't afford 5-days/week, so I stayed home two days, too) (my
wife was in graduate school, with zero income) and we had four people 
in a one-bedroom apartment.

I had no complaints.  A hug from him was more than enough.

We received no money from his father -- nor should we have, IMO, because
he should not have been required to support our living in an expensive
city (now, Pennsylvania is a bit cheaper).  And I made sure my stepson 
kept as much contact with him as possible, because I love my stepson.


You know, I do have sympathy for your situation.  And I have very little
sympathy for someone who doesn't pay support, *provided* he was treated
fairly and equally by the court system.  (My stepson's father was 
emphatically *not*.)


But I have no sympathy for a foul-mouthed jerk who complains about
moving to a stable job to pay for stepchildren that he claims to love,
and has no clue about life, responsibility, or IMNSHO, fairness.

And I have little sympathy for opinions like those of Sue Bishop and 
others, who claim that NCP's should be LEGALLY (as opposed to "morally")
required to pay for luxuries -- of any size or importance.  Or that
what is LEGALLY ordered is what is just.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.flame
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Followup-To: alt.flame
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:19:59 GMT

<1992Dec17.190640.13240@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
><Bz6Foy.Gr9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>That's what started this thread.  Apparently, there are no ponies 
>>because your daughter moved with two children into a trailer to keep
>>a pony but couldn't, because her child support money wasn't paid.
>
>Someone recently suggested that this discussion would be more productive if
>I simply saved all your material and fed it back to you, so you could argue
>with yourself. I am beginning to appreciate the advice.

Do you also take the advice of your family members who suggest
bullets to solve their problems?

I suggest rather that this discussion with you isn't productive at all.


>>(You might check with your sysop -- you seem to have an editor problem.)
>
>I am the system administrator, and my editor works just fine, thank you.

That explains a lot.


>>Thus, your position is indeed that if he has been ordered to
>>pay for luxuries, he "_is_" responsible for luxuries.
>
>Sorry, that's not correct. First, B.C. courts utilize a reasonable formula
>to determine what's required of each parent wrt child support - luxuries are
>not, repeat, not, a part of the program. Second, my "position" is simple -
>the ncp should pay what the courts have ordered him to pay, or get the order
>changed - something this particular ex has failed repeatedly to accomplish.

I hardly call "get the order changed" a simple matter.

Enjoy alt.flame.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:29:57 -0500

In article <BzAB27.1uL@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>THIS kind of story is the exact reason that I feel that all men should get
>their butts off their chairs and make certain that our legal system is
>reformed in this area.  DO IT RIGHT NOW.
>
>If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
>gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  

And I knew a woman who was sexually, mentally, and physically abused
by her husband.  If you are involved with a man, married or not, you
could be the next woman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU,
LADIES. 

So, what's your point??? 

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support probs
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:29:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.192105.13558@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <VkBoVB1w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us> jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas) writes:
>
>>grease@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>>> ...miserable, sorry, pathetic excuses for parents.
>>> Bye the way kids, may I suggest something a little stronger than lithium.
>>> How about a bullet?
>
>>        Ya know It's funny when someone has no idea what they're 
>>        talking about it sticks out like a sore thumb, eh!!
>
>Sorry - Gary knows exactly what he is talking about - he's just angry enough
>to let it overflow into a public newsgroup.
>
>>        Dickhead, oh that's intelligent, deprived (depraved)!!
>>        Listen you, I know what it's like you obviously don't and 
>>        obviously you're not a NCP, so shut the fu*k up!!
>
>Right - he's a step-parent, left out in the cold when it comes to the
>situation his family is going through.

No, as a parent and step-parent, *I* say he's a selfish bastard who can 
barely hold a 9-5 job (how imposing!) and as a result, suggests shooting 
people to solve his problems.


>>        I'd say that's good if not, then the CP might need to get a 
>>        better paying job, imagine that taking responsibility for ones
>>        own life, I'd like to go to france for a week, don't have the
>>        money so I don't go!  Not that I'm deprived it just isn't in
>>        the budget.  CP's on the other hand feel they have an unlimited
>>        wallet, so they complain about not being able to do what they
>>        once could do, poor babys!!
>
>I doubt very much that CP's feel that way - Lisa certainly does not. Better
>paying job? Get real - they don't exist in this neck of the woods for most
>folks in Lisa's shoes.

Hmm, your hardline attitude toward the ex (pay or *simply* "get the order
changed") doesn't apply to your daughter (pay or *simply* move to where
she can get a better job?).

"Get real," yourself.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:42:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

> 
> >	Further, in those cases where it is impossible for split custody to
> >	work that the CP must provide an >itemized< accounting of all funds
> >	spent on supporting the child; those spent in excess of 50% of the 
> >	cost of support to be refunded to the NCP immediately under penalty
> >	of law.
> 
> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
> 

I would like to ask why you think child support *should* include money for
college.  In Colorado, the ncp and cp are required to pay for college
expenses in proportion to income *after* child support.  Why should the ncp
have to pay *extra* so the cp can save it for his/her contribution.  In
effect, this forces the ncp to pay his/her part, plus the cp part!!  Shouldn't
contributions for college be up to each parent individually?  Why are there
laws that require a divorced couple to provide for college expenses when
there aren't the same laws governing intact families?  This is
discrimination at it's worst!!

The income shares (bullsh*t) model used with the tables in Colorado assumes
that *all* the child's expenses are included.  This means that the tables
*already* include gifts, vacations, and all that other "extra" stuff that
the ncp still has to pay for. The only expenditures that aren't included
are health insurance, daycare, and "extraordinary" expenses.  These are
added on to the basic amount after proportioning by incomes.    In effect,
I pay for all my kids' birthday and christmas gifts, and vacations TWICE!!!!

Child support is not supposed to include savings.  If it were, who would
make sure that any of it really got saved, or whether the money saved was
really for the benefit of the child??

A RESOUNDING YES  FOR ACCOUNTABILITY!!!!

Laszlo



> -- 
> 
>                                                 --  Michal
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:4025 alt.dads-rights:3061 soc.men:21604 alt.abortion.inequity:6094
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reasons etc...
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:37:54 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#THIS kind of story is the exact reason that I feel that all men should get
#their butts off their chairs and make certain that our legal system is
#reformed in this area.  DO IT RIGHT NOW.
#
#If you are involved with any woman, married or not, you could be the next
#gentleman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU GENTS.  

In article <1992Dec21.103017.6832@news.cs.indiana.edu> 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith) writes:

>And I knew a woman who was sexually, mentally, and physically abused
>by her husband.  If you are involved with a man, married or not, you
>could be the next woman in this position.  IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU,
>LADIES. 

>So, what's your point??? 

Had you tried to "transform" the first paragraph as well, you had
gotten a pretty typical feminist speech ("change the laws to defend
the poor weak women!"), and then his point would be obvious -
he wants to change the legal system so it will not give
such raw deals to men.

Another point is that when the legal system is changed to protect women,
there is almost no resistance (aside from the ACLU that cares about
constitutional rights), but when the legal system is used to serve 
men a raw deal, and he says that every man is the in the danger then
most responses are along the lines of "that is the way it should be."

>amy

Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Were we the ones who called the shots, there would
be no institutional discrimination against us."  --  Clay Bond
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: View from a Step-Parent (was: child support probs)
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:33:12 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <BzMFt1.ILJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <Z13VVB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas) writes:
>>
>>> grease@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>> 
>>> > Hey dickheads (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)...with regards to Lisa and her
>>> > little girl`s pony
>
>>> > So quit pining for your lost loves and get a job...
>>> > ...miserable, sorry, pathetic excuses for parents.
>
>>No question Gary's post was anything but intellectual. I don't believe
>>it was intended as such. Personally, I felt he wasted a good opportunity
>>to contribute a different perspective that we hear little of on this net, that
>>of the "step-parent".  Oh well, it was his nickel, I guess.
>
>>Gary was in animation for 10 years before he moved in with us. Its a very



	Does this mean he was a cartoon character?

	Was he in, "Who framed Roger Rabbit"?....


	"The Simpsons"?....

-- 
	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: M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard)
Subject: Children as life insurance beneficiaries
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:07:19 GMT

In this morning's _Washington_Post_ Washington Business section, there
appeared an article concerning a Federal court decision concerning
whether children of a first marriage have rights to life insurance
proceeds that supersede the rights of the newly deceased's new wife.
 
This decision applies only to Federal employees -- but that includes
the military.
 
The court held that a Federal employee's right to change the beneficiary(ies)
of his life insurance at any time could not be diminished by child support
agreements specifying that the children be maintained as beneficiaries.
 
The Federal life insurance plan regs say that if no beneficiary is specified,
the proceeds go to the widow/widower.  Apparently, many Federal employees
leave the beneficiary unspecified, so that that will occur.
 
Now, my wife's CS agreement with her Federally-employed ex for her two
daughters does indeed contain such a life insurance provision (if he dies
before they reach 18, all his life insurance benefits go to them).  Our
lawyer has advised us that to be iron-clad, we should get a waiver from
his new wife; else she could claim the benefits anyway.
 
Thought:  Could this decision render such life insurance benefit                                                                            s
provisions in CS agreements with Federally-employed NCPs worthless?
 
**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616