HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Assistance needed
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 16:18:26 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

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

> In article oNP9wB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca, lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca () writ
> >sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson) writes:
> >> I am also considering asking for child support.  What holds me back is a c
> >> stating that she can't ask for more alimony unless I ask for child support
> >> Considering the past decisions on alimony from this referee, I'm a lot ner
> >> 
> >What is the point of her being able to get MORE alimony (from what I know, i
> >seems ridiculous that she should be considered entitled to ANY!), if you get
> >an order for child support?  That makes no sense whatsoever!  I just don't
> >understand how that could be.  What a load of crap.

> Because she's a poor defenseless female that is being vicitimized by this
> overbearing male :-).  My wife thinks we shouldn't risk it.  I think we need 
> ask just to prove a point.  There are other things, like we would never see a
> and if she pays she may want more control than she has desired in the past.  
> decide when it comes closer.
> 
> Should have a court date by end of today.  Somehow I feel like I'm about to
> walk off a cliff into an unknown void.
>
"Come to the cliff", he said.
"No," they said, "We are afraid."
"Come to the cliff", he said.
"No," they said, "We are afraid."

"Come to the cliff", he said.
They came.  They jumped.
They flew.

(unknown French poet, 1700's)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Scriptures are the sexiest.(was RE: Evil
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 00:19:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.152725.980@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu> jabolliger@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu writes:
>	Wow! The hate in this group is tedious.  About every time
>I read through alt.childsupport I feel like I'm wading through
>a group of angry men.  men who are specifically  angry with their
>exwives and this spills over to women in general.  Why do I read
>it then?  Good question.
>				JA

JA

You are so right.  Very little constructive work going on.  A lot of price 
tags for love.

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: PLEASE NOTE!!!
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:01:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.085702.6437@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Just for the record, Beav, would you stop editing my posts and changing
>the meaning?  IF you do edit, please insert a note saying so.  Changing
>the meaning of a person's posts is entirely dishonest.

Ms. Bishop,

What are you raving about now?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: FEMINISTS ARE UGLY!
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:58:12 CST

In article 1386@blue.cis.pitt.edu, sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.155702.17044@hemlock.cray.com> sga@cray.com writes:
>#Sue:
>#
>#What Jon is saying is that child-support has become de facto alimony. 
>
>[rest deleted]
>
>I think what Jon is saying is that he hates women.  (Since he also hates
>gay men, it makes me wonder if his incoherent posts are caused by
>sexual frustration, but that's neither here nor there.)
>
No, what Jon is saying is that he hates being descriminated against by women
and the courts because he is a man.  We are coming full circle to where the
oppressed are becoming the oppressors.  Women want, and deserve, equal rights
everywhere, but they are refusing to give men equal rights when it comes to
their children.  Why?  Because it's to the woman's advantage to not give up
this vestige of an older society, and it can be used to oppress men.

>I have a great deal of sympathy for NCP's who are asked to pay
>support while being denied visitation, and for NCP's who are
>being asked to pay amounts they cannot afford.  I have no sympathy
>for those who want their children to grow up in poverty because
>they're angry at their exes.  People who argue against support
>because they fear that their ex will be in any way better off
>because of it fit into the latter category.
>
You missed the point.  The argument is that child support has become de facto
alimony.  You can quote "equal standard of living for the child", but if that
were the real concern, then why are women (with a generally lower earning potential)
being given custody of the kids?  Why was I given custody and my ex was given
half of my income?  Where was the concern for the standard of living of my son?
My ex can afford to go buy a $2000+ PC while I have to slave away on a C128.  Last
Summer was the first real vacation we had had in 6 years.  Initially I couldn't even
afford to buy Christmas presents or clothes for my son because 75% of my pay went
to maintaining my home and the other 25% went for food.  What was my ex doing with
the other half of my income?  Taking a 2 month vacation in the Western US and defrauding Social Security on a disability claim.  Her total income was 60% higher
than mine and she didn't have to get off her butt to do anything.  Where was the
concern for the standard of living of my son?

>Btw, NCP's did not start refusing to pay child support in the '80's
>because of the recession.  It's been going on a lot longer than
>that.  
Divorce became much more prevelant in the mid to late 70's.  Prior to that most
men who were divorced did pay their alimony; however begrudgingly.  Child support
was basically a part of the alimony.  It was only with the move to 5 year maximum
spousal maintenance that child support really became a separate item.

Steve Anderson			146 more days of indentured servitude.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Canada's FAMILY RELATIONS ACT
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 18:58:34 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

As promised, I'm posting some excerpts from Canada's Family Relations Act, for
your info', comments and/or consideration. As my time is limited at the moment,
I will just start with those articles listed below, and post further articles
from the ACT later.

Lisa:-)

Part 2
Child Custody, Access and Guardianship

Best interests of child are paramount

24.  (1) Where making, varying or rescinding an order under this Part, a court
         shall give paramount consideration to the best interests of the child
         and, in assessing these interests, shall consider these factors:
            (a) the health and emotional well-being of the child, including any
                special needs for care and treatment;
            (b) where appropriate, the views of the child;
            (c) the love, affection, and similar ties that exist between the
                child and other persons;
            (d) education and training for the child; and
            (e) the capacity of each person to whom guardianship, custody or
                access rights and duties may be granted to exercise these rights
                and duties adequately; and give emphasis to each factor
                according to the child's needs and circumstances.

      (3) Where the conduct of a person does not substantially affect a factor
          set out in subsection (1) or (2), the court shall not consider that
          conduct in a proceeding respecting an order under this Part.
      (4) Where under subsection (3) the conduct of a person may be considered
          by a court, the court shall consider the conduct only to the extent
          that the conduct affects a factor set out in subsection (1) or (2).



               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Custody
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:16:24 CST

In article 6506@desire.wright.edu, sbishop@desire.wright.edu () writes:
>
>However, when they were little it would have been ridiculous to give him
>primary custody, after all, he wasn't equiped to feed them.

Ever heard of formula?  It was I who stayed up until midnight to feed my son.
It was I who was up at 4AM to feed him again.  It was I who was up at 7AM to feed
him again and stayed home until his morning nap.  It was I who tried to get home
before he woke up from his afternoon nap to feed him again.  My wife fed him once
a day, and that was formula.  It was I who stayed home from work with the flu
and a 103 degree temp and cared for my son while my wife disappeared for a week.
Biology has nothing to do with it.

Also you never have answered my question about where was the concern for the
standard of living of my son?  Cat got your tongue, or fingers?

Steve Anderson
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: itemizing child-support
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 23:25:43 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine) writes:

> "Eddie Kovelan" <wk00191@worldlink.com> writes:
> 
> >I just have one comment to make on the subject.  If an ex-spouse should 
> >have to itemize the allotted child-support payments to show proof that he/sh
> >is actually using that money for the child(ren) and not to support his/her 
> >lifestyle, then would it also be a good idea that the non-custodial 
> >parent who asks for more than standard visitation rights be required to 
> >account for the extra time?   
> deletions
> 
> Hmmm, an interesting idea, but an unfair one I think.  The fact is that,
> although I sincerely sympathize with your concerns, you DO have legal
> recourse to change the visitation schedule for just the reasons you
> stated.  You can easily document the amount of time your son spends
> at the sitter and, assuming that your ex is NOT working during this
> time, ask the court to change the schedule so your son is not in 
> daycare unnecessarily.  If what you are saying is accurate, it is a
> shame that your ex values his play time more than his time with his
> child, but you can't control that.  Focus instead on what you _can_
> control.  I encourage you to seek legal advise about this. 
> 
> The toughest thing for me to accept in my divorce was that I could not
> control my ex's relationship with our kids.  I saw selfishness and
> and neglect that made me want to scream.  My daughter had only one
> pair of canvas shoes with holes the size of quarters in them during
> a snowy winter.  All my "discretionary" income went to child support
> so I couldn't even afford to buy her better shoes.  When I bitterly
> complained to my ex his response was: " If she needs new shoes it's
> her responsibility to let me know.  She hasn't said anything to me."
> She was 8 years old and quite renowned for her "spaciness" and she
> had always had a parent that actually looked after her (me)....

(Rest deleted)

With all due and sincere respect Danielle, I'm curious as to why you are
not the CP in this case?

Lisa


Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
From: karen@dogear.spk.wa.us (Karen Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Right on BobK!
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:58:36 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

zzz@byron.u.washington.edu writes:

> BobK was right about how to prepare for the divorce-custody thing.
> I wish he wasn't -- but he is.

Hey! That wasn't Bob. That was me and I wasn't serious.

---
Karen Kirkpatrick
karen@dogear.spk.wa.us
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: New Indiana support guidelines, quick overv
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Jan 93 09:32:16 CST

In article B2s@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu (Rick Westerman) writes
>10) Additional flexibility will be given to judges, lawyers, and litigants
>    in ares of irregular income, potential income and tax exceptions,
>    when support levels are set.
Throw out the other 9.  This one is carte blanche for the lawyers and judges to
do whatever they please.

Steve Anderson			143 more days of indentured servitude.





Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: itemizing child-support
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 02:48:56 GMT

deletions
>and neglect that made me want to scream.  My daughter had only one
>pair of canvas shoes with holes the size of quarters in them during
>a snowy winter.  All my "discretionary" income went to child support
>so I couldn't even afford to buy her better shoes.  When I bitterly
>complained to my ex his response was: " If she needs new shoes it's
>her responsibility to let me know.  She hasn't said anything to me."
>She was 8 years old and quite renowned for her "spaciness" and she
>had always had a parent that actually looked after her (me)....
>What I learned was that her relationship with her Dad was just that -
>theirs, not mine.  I could go crazy trying to force him to be the
>way I thought was best or I could learn to let go.  It is damned
>hard when it's your child, but it's what NCPs deal with every single
>day. Wanting financial accountability is just our way of asking
>for a _little_ control in an area of vital concern where we have
>no say.
>
>Danielle
>
I really do understand the frustration of having to let go.  But my question
is this for those who favor accounting logs for CPs.  If the man or women
is so out of touch that they think an 8 year old needs to know how to
raise herself, do you think that the CP will change with writing it down.
If you cann't afford to by the shes yourself, you sure cann't afford to
pay a lawyer $1,000 to take it back to court.  I think what you are going 
through is horrible.  It is also the reason that I think each parent should
have their own disposable income.  

But, if you actually did get the courts to honor an accounting system, then
it would give good arguement for the NCP to say that they would pay their
part of the child-support by taking over clothing and other expenses with the
appropriate reciepts to prove the child got money and benefit.  It would 
also let you be what you really wanted to be for your 8 year old.  "Her mom 
that also takes care of her".

The court system really doesn't have to award the CP all of the money, they
made the rules that way for their own self gain.  You cann't claim the child
on your tax form.

I really don't think the system cares about your child or mine at all!  I would
like to hear of just one case where the court system really wanted what
was best for everyone.  I really see CPs and non-divorced people being
very comfortable with the routhlessness of the system.

Smile,

Dave
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: OK girls!  It's that time of the month again!!!!
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:12:44 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory



	The eastern Mass. fathers meeting was last night.  I did not
	se any "familiar" faces (if you know what I mean).

	I brought my wife (and daughter because we didn't have a
	sitter.  No "home alone" for this guy).  The meeting seemed
	much different than last time.  Not quite as many people.

	A lot more discussion.

	The big focus seems to be on uniting to become "politically
	significant".  Seems George Kelly has been told things like
	this point blank.  The next step is to communicate with
	local officials and media.

	None of this was new.  But it raised a question in my mind
	about focus.  I guess the group is quite helpfull when it
	comes to individual council about what to expect in court,
	and how to deal with things.  This tends to make one clearer
	headed on the occasion by knowing what to expect.

	Trouble is that a) this does not solve the problem and
	b) it does not occur at monthly meetings.

	One of the points hammered was about that meeting not being
	a bitch session.  It is true that random people show up
	looking for quick answers to immediate problems.  It is
	also true that the groups emphasis on membership involves
	a necessary financial committment for the groups continuance,
	and a "registration" of sorts for records.  It has happened
	that an x2b sent a spy to one of the local rap sessions
	to gain harmfull information about a member.

	But I was trying to re-focus this point by stating that
	the monthly meetings *should* have more substance than just
	summarizing stuff and signing new members.  And in that sense
	it *should* be a bitch session about larger issues.

	George Kelly was late and didn't have his woman side-kick
	who seemed to have larger organization in mind last month.

	But it seems to me that it is important to create some kind
	of communication network that is well known where men can
	be kept track of for purposes of hsear numbers.  It is not
	necessary for every man to be policically active, any more
	than your average voter needs to be a polititian.  But
	voters still know they can vote. And the public knows how
	to contact the public.  Men should in some way be registered
	with a group.  That way we have the clout of numbers.

	60% of marriages end in divorce.  1/2 of those people
	are men.  So roughly 25% of the total population is affected
	by all this directly.

	What I would like to know is where a data-base of information
	like this would be kept.

	Anyway, a large state document was presented summarizing
	a whole slew of new ways to legally rape men.  It's
	long.  I'm making copies.  But contacts need to be made
	to legislators speaking against this stuff.

-- 
	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,soc.men
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Assistance needed
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:49:15 CST

Unless a miracle happens, I will be filing to reduce visitation for my ex wife with
our son.  All I want to do is reduce his Summer visit from 8 weeks to 4 weeks so
he can go to Scout and Church camp, and to give our son some say about his
visitation as he gets older.  (He'll be 13 this Summer.)  She refuses to agree
so I am giving it one last try, but my attorney will also be setting a court date
tomorrow for the end of February.  Unfortunately it must be with the same
referee that gave me custody and that insane alimony payment.  If my ex does
not agree we will be motioning the court for immediate termination of alimony
as compensation for her violation of the decree in late 1991 and early 1992.
I am also considering asking for child support.  What holds me back is a clause
stating that she can't ask for more alimony unless I ask for child support.
Considering the past decisions on alimony from this referee, I'm a lot nervous.

The best thing I can do is to prove to the court that she is working.  To anyone
in the San Mateo, Burlingame, Belmont area of California, I need your help.  My
ex has her own business called "Cleanly Canadian" or something close to that.  If
you see any ad for this firm, please contact me immediately.  I want any ads which
have a phone number, the paper it was in, and the date.  So basically the page
containing the ad should suffice.  I also strongly suspect that she has no business
license and is working for cash under the table.  After all she has no qualms about
lying to the government about money, so why should she bother with technicalities
like a license or taxes?  I sincerely hope I am wrong about the license and taxes.

Steve Anderson			140 more days of indentured servitude
Cray Research, Inc
Eagan, MN
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: PLEASE NOTE!!!
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:57:02 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

Just for the record, Beav, would you stop editing my posts and changing
the meaning?  IF you do edit, please insert a note saying so.  Changing
the meaning of a person's posts is entirely dishonest.

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Justice?
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:29:05 GMT

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

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

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


GREAT!  (HUGE amounts of sarcasm intended)  =(

My biological mom died when I was 2.  As a result, her dieing provided for me in
the way of Social Security funds which my dear father (bless his still-beating heart)
socked away for me to use when I eventually went to college.  Since I also worked
while I attended college, I ended up having enough money to get my degree, although
I did end up (unbeknowst to me) making more money in one year than I was allowed to
under the Social Security guidelines.  When Social Security informed me of this, I
had two choices:  pay it all at once or pay it off in monthly installments (no
interest charges).  So, I payed monthly payments for 6 years and paid it all off.
Then I read of *people* like your ex who actually and knowingly steal from the
system and get away scott-free.  Your ex is a (pardon my anger) pariah!

allen
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Scriptures are the sexiest.(was RE: Evil
From: jabolliger@miavx3.mid.muohio.edu
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:27:25 EST

	Wow! The hate in this group is tedious.  About every time
I read through alt.childsupport I feel like I'm wading through
a group of angry men.  men who are specifically  angry with their
exwives and this spills over to women in general.  Why do I read
it then?  Good question.
				JA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,talk.abortion