HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gott@astro.ufl.edu (Steve Gottesman)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Urgent help is needed
Date: 12 Apr 92 14:40:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, Univ. of Florida
Originator: gott@astro

Perhaps this does not belong here and I apologize for posting
it but I am posting hoping someone might have had similar
experience.  Here is our problem:



My daughter a graduate student overseas was just served
divorce papers.  The marriage had faultered not so much on
her part but mainly on his.  His mother has been a destructive
force behind this scenes.

He is siding as reasons for the divorce, irreconsilable
differences I reckon.  I have not got a copy of the papers
yet.

Although my daughter was aware of the difficulties in the
marriage and his immaturity, nevertheless she is in a state
shock.  With exams around the corner and a preparation of
her Thesis she is hardly in a state of mind to handle a
divorce from overseas .  They are having no assets.  She has
student loans to complete her degree.  He is a student but his
parents have money and apparently have employed this lawyer
who serveced my daughter the papers.

I must help her by finding an attorney in Texas.
The British law is different besides as I said she has
no money. I do not have either but   
I must pay the bills In a form of loan to her..  They have no much
to make it worthwhile to employ lawyers but they are trying
to force her to the divorce while she is in the middle of
her schooling.  They could have waited.  Aparently because
of his difficulties at graduate school he had turned to
easing his pains with alcohol and golf.

Can we just postpone all this divorce until she returns
to this country in September?  Has anyone any ideas?

With many thanks and appreciation for any help anyone
can give us.

SG.
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: aaron
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:34:52 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr10.132941.25133@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>
>	Yes, try being a man and receiving *any* kind of state aid.
>
I don't have to try, Alan, I am a man. Before my re-marriage, I got benefits
from the JTPA, Social Services (Food Stamps, medical assistance), and through
the Legal Aid people (Pro Bono program). After I got married, my benefits
were increased a bit, but not by much. The state paid for the lion's share of
my recent degree, and paid for portions of daycare and school supplies
expenses. Not only that, but after I graduated, I was given a voucher for
$300 bucks to go buy a suit to job hunt in. 

Sweeping statements of how awful men have it and how great women have it
isn't the answer here. We're asking society to take a measured view of the
inequities which exist, and it seems to me that we should be equally willing
to do the same.

Let me step out of character here for a second or two ---

I picked this because we hover in the area of system inequities in our
discussions. It seems to me that everyone is going to be a lot better off if
we look to the problems with the system on all counts, and move to have it
corrected. Inability to collect awarded support is just as frustrating as
being assessed support that can't be paid. 

A woman who isn't receiving AFDC has a hell of a time collecting child
support from ex husbands who won't pay. Those who do receive benefits from
AFDC get help, not for themselves, but for the various states to replensish
their coffers --who quite often (on a single case basis) make a profit doing
it. For men to laugh and say "well, there's one bitch who isn't getting her
claws into a guy" is pretty self-defeating. Wny? Because of that little
profit statement I made up there. The state's assess charges and fees on back
support, and elevate support beyond their own payout to a particular family so
they have more money to give to other needy families. So what those who laugh
at women without recourse are laughing at is the many men who are paying
support for children that aren't even theirs. Think about it.

Our problems are incredibly entwined. To try to seek positive change to one
set of problems while ignoring the others isn't going to work.

It hasn't so far.

We need to determine the errors of the system, and work to change it. Not
from a Men Need or from a Women Need basis, but from a We Need basis.
-- 
Bob Kirkpatrick  bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us   Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
"If we don't succeed, we risk failure..."  --dan quayle
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1142 alt.dads-rights:680
From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:40:14 GMT
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems

Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
>says:
>>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  Of course, I haven't
>>addressed the issues of voluntary impoverishment, and a host of other
>>issues, for those readers who have been keeping up.

>Well....I, the devil's advocate, for at least today, say:
>Not immediately.  If the child is still part of the NCP's *family*,
>then sure, the child should get some of the money.  After all, I
>assume the child is still a part of the NCP's life even after the
>separation, where the CP got custody. (Isn't the last phrase redundant?)
>But if the child isn't a part of the NCP's family now, the CP
>obviously knows this because they ARE the CP, and the CP wouldn't
>be the CP unless the CP wanted custody in the first place, AND
>the NCP doesn't want the child as a part of their family, THEN
>no, I don't think the child should "reap the benefits of the
>NCP's earnings".  Plain and simple.

I might have gotten into the middle of the discussion.  My point of view
is that this entire thread was from the standpoint of divorce.  If a 
couple is married/common law, and they bring a child into the world, then
the NCP should provide for the child to the extent that they are able.
Why should the child have to exist at a reduced standard of living?  So
what if the NCP wants to go off and have another family.  Let that person
factor into his plans the children he already has.  I think that anything
less is abandonment, pure and simple, especially if this fact is shoved 
in the child's face.  As I mentioned above, there are a ton of other issues
that have to be addressed, such as, is the CP using the child-support truly
for the good of the child, and not for his car or her wardrobe, etc, etc.

>family = love of child & parent  (in CP or NCP)

Has nothing to do with the argument, IMHO.  All the NCP has to do is say,
"I don't love my child." or "My child doesn't love me." and they are off
the hook?  Doesn't wash.  I prefer holding people responsible for their
actions.  You bring a child into the world, you are responsible for it.
Again, there are a whole host of issues to be dealt with.  Again, I am
speaking from the point of view of divorce.  There are a whole host of
issues to be dealt with outside this realm, and still more within it.

>If no one wanted the child anyways (which isn't the case thought),
>the child would have been put up for adoption, and this question
>wouldn't be arising in alt.child-support.

>-Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Deciding paternity
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:02:32 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <92102.112015JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
...

>At least in CA, any child born unto a married couple IS their child. Period.
>
>Besides, if there is no doubt that a biological father is NOT the husband
>of the couple, yet they say the husband IS the father, what's to keep them
>from saying that "the vasectomy must have been a failure".
>

Blood tests (and now DNA testing) can provide some pretty effective evidence
as to paternity. Also, sperm counts can provide persuasive evidence as to
whether the man is capable of fathering.

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                "If you travelled at the speed of light,
Bob Kirkpatrick                       and started to scream, like AAARRGGHHH!
Dog Ear'd Systems                     ...Would your head explode?"      --uhf
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: rprimmer@home.webo.dg.com (Bob Primmer)
Subject: Re: Parents
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:21:43
Distribution: alt.child-supprt
Organization: NSDD/OSIP, Data General Corp.

cz> I posted to this group a couple of weeks ago and boy did I ever get a
cz> response. I touched a lot of peoples emotions from my post. I didn't intend
cz> to be callous or uncaring as some people thought. 
cz> [remainder of touching post deleted for bandwidth]

Dear Cory,

Since I flamed in public, let me apologize in pulic.  My response was
viscerally motivated.  I should know better by my age (30), but I'm a
slow learner.

I wish you the very best.

- rj
--
Bob Primmer  (rprimmer@home.webo.dg.com)    Phone:  (508) 870-8255
Data General Corporation -- NSDD/OSIP       Fax:    (508) 898-4212
Westboro, MA 01580-0002
From: laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:03:02 GMT
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

> >From: bobw@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Bob Waltenspiel)
> >Subject: What's FAIR Child Support?
> >
> >What is fair support for a Non-Custodial Parent to pay a Custodial Parent?
> 
> What is "fair" depends on one's point of view.  As a non-parent and
> a taxpayer, to me a fair level of support is one that (1) eliminates
> any AFDC or other welfare-type handout; 

You seem to be forgetting that in many cases this is just not possible.
There just isn't enough money to go around.  So, it sounds like you're
saying that regardless of how little someone makes, there is a minimum
level of suppport that should be paid.
                       
                                          (2) allows for the child
> to be fed, clothed, provided with healthcare, and in school; and 

Yes, I believe this is a MUST.

> (3) is satisfactory enough to both parties that they don't further 
> burden the system with legal process, etc.

As long as both parties agree on how the support amount is allocated
between them, this would be great.

I think you forgot one:

   4) Is set at an amount that requires BOTH parties to contribute to the
      financial support of the children, without the cp PROFITING from
      child support.

> 
> So long as the above is satisfied the cost to society of the 
> CP/NCP dispute is minimized, which is to me the most fair outcome.  

So, the "most fair" outcome is one which minimizes the cost to society?
How about one that provides for the needs of the children, and no more?

> Beyond that I couldn't care less how expenses are split between CP 
> and NCP.  In my view, laws governing support levels should be

I suppose you wouldn't care, from your point of view.  I suppose that's
why we have the absurd laws we do.....since those that are making the laws
"don't care" who pays, as long as the "cost to society" is minimized.

> aimed at achieving the above criteria, as opposed to achiveing any 
> subjective notion of "fairness" from the perspective of either parent.
> 
> All IMHO of course.
>
Mine too,

Laszlo
 
> -- Steve
From: paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
Subject: Re: Deciding paternity
Organization: Ohmeda Monitoring Systems
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:48:52 GMT

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:


>	OK.  Here's on I've never hear discussed.  Since I've been
>	discussing the chopping block lately, here's a question.


>	The law says that a baby born to a married couple is assumed
>	to be of that marriage.  This, of course, is significant
>	where the wife is suspected of cheating and/or if the
>	realtionship breaks up, and the woman turns up pregnant in
>	the immediate future.  In an in-tact marriage it probably
>	wouldn't reach a public forum.  In a split up, the
>	husband is assumed to be the father.

>	What if the man has had a vasectomy?

I believe that I have read in alt.sex(.wizards ?) that vasectomies are not
100% effective.  Maybe it was tubal ligations.  Anyway, I remember thinking
that now there wasn't *any* "safe" means of preventing a pregnancy other than
the Ann Landers idea of not spreading the legs...( remember her famous line
about the best way to use the pill was to put it between your legs and not
let it fall? :):) ).


>-- 
>	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......


Paul E. Ourada

paulo@ohmeda.com

From: ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:04:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Joint Custody (was Re: When the father is out of a job.)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 11:20:15 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Deciding paternity

I think that it was said, when the CA case about a father wanting rights
to his child was denied them, even though it was beyond a reasonable doubt
that he was the biological father.

At least in CA, any child born unto a married couple IS their child. Period.

Besides, if there is no doubt that a biological father is NOT the husband
of the couple, yet they say the husband IS the father, what's to keep them
from saying that "the vasectomy must have been a failure".

-Jennifer

PS.  STUPID, STUPID LAWS, IMHO.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 11 Apr 1992 09:33:55 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: This is not a flame.

Before I read today's postings, has anyone thought that the woman
(thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu) was trying to taunt us?  Getting us
to reply, reply, reply.  It is just a thought.  It seemed strange
for someone to post to so many things with such anger, from basically
out of the blue, when her divorce had occured so long ago.
-Jennifer
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 13 Apr 1992 18:05:20 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: What babies need.

I came home today, turned on the tv, and started watching Geraldo.
(Hey, that was what happened to be on tv!  =-)
The one woman has an 8 month old baby girl.  She couldn't reveal
how much she got the father (some big sports star, didn't catch
who) for child support, for some reason or another...
Geraldo said, as an interrupt, that he had heard that she was
getting $2600 per month, but the guy had only made two payments
thus far.  What, might I ask, what does an 8 month old baby girl
need with $2600 a month??  Must I assume that the child is using
all of it, or could I assume that the mother is using a lot of
that money on herself??   GAWD!
-Jennifer
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: 19 yr olds
Date: 7 Apr 92 10:42:58 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:

] Alan Yasutovich writes:
] >	hope of their kids turning 18 to get the shackles off,
] >	and all we keep hearing about is how 19 and 20 year olds
] >	still want money.
] 
] This is what amazes me.  When I was 19, I was LONG gone.
] I came from an intact (on paper, anyway) family.  & it would've
] been wonderful if I could've taken their money to go to school;
] I had tried it.  But there weren't just strings attached; they
] were more like heavy iron shackles.  It would be very hard to
] convince me that a person that age cannot provide for him or herself.
] Sorry, no sympathy from me in this case.

If there is one thing that the 'cousins' all agree upon,
its that the hampe attitude "Its My house, they are my rules."
Has helped motivate more than one young hampe to seek wealth
fame and prosperity any where else in the world.

I can understand the twin edges of this, though, as I know
my father has been concerned with my travels, and I with his.

But I must agree with Michael, there is a lot to be said 
about getting out and getting on with one's own life.


ciao
drieux


ps: by the time I was 19 I was even considering going and
doing the USA, at least there the police could not deport me,
I had a bonifide passport what said they had to keep me....


what was that about 'family....'



-- 
EOT 
No More Written InPut 
Why are you Looking Here?
From: rodean@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bruce Rodean)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:18:26 GMT
Subject: Re: tax question - head of household
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Ft. Collins, CO.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In article <1992Apr7.141026.17198@walter.bellcore.com> sse@breeze.bellcore.com (Samuel S Epstein) writes:
> Under what circumstances can a separated parent with two children
> that he is largely supporting, neither of whom lives with him full
> time, file a return as head of household? As I interpret IRS
> publication 504(?), the answer is "not possible under any
> circumstances," but I'm not sure.

I think you've interpreted things correctly.  Paying taxes as an
individual instead of being married is one of the biggest changes when
you get divorced.  I ended up owing $1100 the first year, but there was
no penalty since I had withheld more than the previous year.  Lately
things have been more reasonable (a refund instead of owing).  My ex and
I actually cooperate pretty good on tax exemptions.  Our agreement
stated that once she began work, we would split tax exemptions for our
two kids.  I said that wasn't fair this year when she did begin work in
September of 1991 because I had been footing the bill for nine months
out of 12.  We agreed that I'd take both exemptions (which meant a
difference in tax liability of about $600 to me), then pay her what she
loses by not having the exemption, and I pocket the rest.  That way, the
government takes in less overall, and both of us come out ahead.

Bruce Rodean
rodean@fc.hp.com
From: ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:22:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Voluntary Impoverishment
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

> ...the child support tables tend to roughly award the CP with a certain
> percentage of the gross income of the NCP...

Maybe we do have it good (or at least better) in Colorado.  The tables
are based on the combined adjusted gross incomes (CAGI) of both parents,
then divided in proportion to AGI of each party.

Of course the marginal effect of a change in the other parent's income
is negligable:

	CSO = CAGI * Percent * (AGI_NCP / CAGI)

Since the CAGI terms cancel, (CSO ~= Percent * ACI_NCP) as you said.  If
the CP's AGI increases by delta:

	CSOnew = (CAGI + delta) * Percent * (AGI_NCP / (CAGI + delta))

Again the net result is (CSO ~= Percent * ACI_NCP).

The catch is that Percent is itself variable depending on CAGI.  In
Colorado for one child it peaks around 22% for a CAGI of $700/month, and
levels at 10% at $8400/month.  Which means if my ex makes more, I end up
paying less, until Percent drops to 10%, then it levels out.

Now, I do get to impute my ex's income at minimum wage because she
voluntarily doesn't work at all.  It does help some to reduce my CSO.

More recently, HB1230 apparently just cleared the Senate.  It contains
an increase of up to 15% in the tables for incomes in the range of about
$4200-12000/month CAGI (if I remember right).  Aarrggghh!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beck@cs.cornell.edu (Micah Beck)
Subject: Joint Custody and Child Support
Keywords: joint custody, child support
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:45:47 GMT

I am in the process of neogtiating joing custody of my 3 yr. old son,
and I was interested to hear of anyone's experience with how child
support is awarded.  In the joint custody agreement, my wife has been
named the "primary custodial parent" but my lawyer says this doesn't
mean much, other than that she will have custody more of the year.
I am going to have custody 6-12 wks in the Summer (still negotiating how
many weeks) plus a month at Christmas, a week or two each at Thanksgiving
and Easter and I can have him for one five-day period each month.  I am
moving out of town, so travel is a problem.

Adding all this up, I could be spending almost half the year with my son.
My wife is claiming that she can get a full support payment (as if she had
been awarded sole custody) because I make so much more than her and she
is the "primary custodial parent."

Doesn't the time I spend with my son, even the 5-day periods spread over the
year, reduce the amount she is likely to be awarded?  The standard sole custody
payment (in NY state it's 17% of income after SS plus daycare and medical
contributions) is soooo much more than the cost of raising a three year old
that it is defacto alimony, and perhaps the court would be loathe to take it
away - my wife chooses not to work more than 1/2 time.

Has anyone out there dealt with a situation where joint custody is agreed to
and then child support is petitioned for in court?  What do judges end up
awarding (I'm afraid to ask).  Do judges ever tell mothers that they just
have to earn more money?

Micah Beck
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Wills
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:19:43 GMT
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange

In a recent missive Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> tells us:

*Under what circumstances can a man's (or woman's I suppose)
*biological or adopted children contest his/her will?

It's pretty easy to contest a will...not necessarily easy to *win*,
but easy to contest.  The circumstances are many, and really varied.

*Specifically, a will where the children were not mentioned
*because they were no longer a part of the man/woman's
*family before the death.  ie.  Disowned.

Actually most likely the child WILL need to be mentioned, in that it
will have to say something referring to the fact that the person was
specifically left out of the will, to show that the person wasn't just
accidentally left out.  

If there is this situation, the person whose will it is should get to
a lawyer and make sure it's as they want it.


-- 
    LOOKING FOR: Michael Hobson, Alex Craven, David Runyon, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, law student, shedevil@leland.stanford.edu or @vix.com
     	  founder of FREE, the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange.
 The fathers' rights paper & FREE files available via ftp: gw.home.vix.com;/pub
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.kids