HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:56:34 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
>(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
>in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
>under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
>emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
>awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
>domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
>sexual discrimination?

Not necessarily.  Equal opportunity does not equal equal outcome.
I see no evidence that parental litigants are, on average, similarly 
situated so that one would expect a 50/50 split.  Furthermore, family
law I have seen, whenever there is disparate treatment, benefits men
at the expense of women.  For all I know, women should be receiving
custody 92% of the time instead of 85% of the time.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:28:01 GMT

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>Or, we can do something major, something dramatic, something that would
>have immediate and far-reaching consequences.  When the Supreme Court
>ruled, as it did all those years ago, that abortion should be
>legalized, the effects were immediate and profound.  

If you guys are serious about going about this, the abortion reference
reminded me of something.  You might try reading Sarah Weddington's
_A Question of Choice_.  In the early chapters of the book, she describes
how a small group of angry women (one a very recent law school graduate)
put together what they thought was a small court case, which quite shocked
them all by eventually reaching the Supreme Court.  She talks about how
they decided to make it a class action suit, which turned out to be a 
fortuitous move.

Though doubtless this book will not tell you what you need legally to
put the suit together, it might serve as an inspiring story for you
Don Quixotes out there.

          -rocker
           feminist
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3534 soc.men:23360 soc.women:23122 misc.legal:23421
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 27 Jan 1993 07:43:24 EST
 ago.edu><1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com><1993Jan26.185700.29755@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-
-I just noticed that you're comparing apples and oranges.  Not all
-divorces are litigated before judges and referees.  It could very
-well be the case that in 75% of divorces, the parents agree to grant
-the mother custody, in 5% of divorces, the parents agree to grant the
-father custody, and the other 20% goes before a judge for a 50/50
-split.  It's certainly the case that custody battles are the exception,
-and not the rule.
-
-Aaron's solution, apparentally, would be to require parents to go to
-court and have a judge flip a coin to get his desired 50% quota.
---
-ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
-standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
-the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

  I am afraid that we have in ted frank's case an example of the `gallant,
male-bashing' male.  I do not know about other states, but in Massachusetts,
women got custody in 90% of CONTESTED cases.  I am sure that there are
others who know the statistics better, and the same pattern  probably
holds in other states too.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:51:42 GMT

thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>Ted, one question....
>>
>>Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
>>(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
>>in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
>>under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
>>emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
>>awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
>>domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
>>sexual discrimination?
>
>I just noticed that you're comparing apples and oranges.  Not all
>divorces are litigated before judges and referees.  It could very
>well be the case that in 75% of divorces, the parents agree to grant
>the mother custody, in 5% of divorces, the parents agree to grant the
>father custody, and the other 20% goes before a judge for a 50/50
>split.  It's certainly the case that custody battles are the exception,
>and not the rule.

That's like saying that women had no desire to be company president
in the 1950's because they didn't apply.  Perhaps there were a few
exceptions:  those cases where an exceptionally talented woman pushed
her way through.  Only the truly exceptional women would even pursue 
it; the others wouldn't waste the time, effort, and money, because
the sexism was a pure and clear obstacle.

If 70% of women who applied for company president were accepted
under such circumstances, I, for one, would not conclude that women
were treated equally or better than men.


But this seems to be your conclusion for the custody case.
A small number of men dare to face the clear obstacles: these are
the exceptional men, who by definition and by artificial selection,
stand a better than average chance of winning.  Hence, even a 50/50 split 
*under such circumstances* would reflect sexism against men.


>Aaron's solution, apparentally, would be to require parents to go to
>court and have a judge flip a coin to get his desired 50% quota.

I didn't see that from Aaron at all.

It should certainly be the case that every man knows he will stand
on equal footing if he goes to court.  Equating that with forced
court battles is a strawman.  My personal guess is that the "20%"
(or whatever it is) would rise if men felt equally empowered.

The burden should be on the system to demonstrate that a statistically
significant gap in decisions does not reflect sexism.  I don't find
your "20% gets 50/50" to be a significant measure.  If there's a 
statistician/pollster available, perhaps we can even get a more 
trained opinion of such data.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3551 soc.men:23412 soc.women:23163 misc.legal:23467
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Wednesday, 27 Jan 1993 18:59:57 EST
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
-
----peter
-
-PS --   Look, I've had years of debating experience so maybe this
-  colors my views, but really -- Usenet is basically a debating forum
-  and there are right and wrong ways to construct compelling
-  arguments or support a point.  If you're going to use things like
-  analogies, learn to set them up correctly!  If you're going
-  to employ statistics learn something about that topic.  If
-  you're going to create a logical chain of reasoning, learn
-  how to do that correctly (this last point is not directed at
-  this poster, it's just a general one that I find I have to
-  explain frequently).
-
-  Reasonable men may disagree, a given set of data may not
-  always have a clear explanation, and I'm just as capable
-  of being wrong as anyone else.  But it is dismaying how
-  poor the quality of the THINKING often is on Usenet.
-  One of the most important functions of a college education
-  is not to teach *facts* in history, science, or whatever.
-  But rather it is to teach people HOW TO THINK, that is,
-  how to take a body of information or a problem and analyze
-  it to draw inferences, conclusions, or questions from it.
-
-
-
   :) ,  :)

   I have not only learned about Logic and Statistics, but I have also
TAUGHT both subjects and have written papers on both.  Next week will see
the sixth Ph.D. awarded to a student of mine.  So please do not be
patronizing and STICK to the point.  Your arrogance does not do you credit.
And I ask again, do you know anything about non-monotonic reasoning?
Do you know enough Latin to know what Prima Facie means?  PLEASE look it
up in a dictionary.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Thanks fo Help!  Wife left state...
From: jimbo@csusb
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:27:00 PST
Organization: California State University, San Bernardino
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadr045

For those of you who responded, thank you.  A special thanks to
Anne Mitchell for some sound advice.  I just got back from Reno
with some of this solved.  My ex agreed in writing to an extended
visitation during the summer where I can have custody for 10 weeks
here in California.  A victory for me I believe.  My oldest wishes
to move back to California under my custody.  The ex and I are
discussing options short of emancipation.  She is against the idea
but she is willing to listen.  I have assured her I will continue to
pay child support and that eased some tensions.  She assured me in
return that I still have immediate access whenever I'm in Reno.  All
I need do is call in advance and tell her I will be there.  Not that
I can just drop everything here in Calif. and jet set out to Reno on
a moments notice.  At least I know I can still see my kids, time
permitting.  Though not as often as I used to . )-:           

Anyway, I feel a lot better about this than I have for a long
while.  If nothing else, there is still the telephone and post
office.  

And to David Garrod, if possible please post that information you
mentioned.  I'm sure it would be of interest to a lot of us.


Tony Ardelean
Cal State University San Bernardino
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:57:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.035102.3766@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.011724.27341@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>Hummmmmm.......  Half-empty.  No, half-full--half-empty--half-full.  Did
>>not.  Did too.  Did not.  Did too.  diidddd notttt......
>
>I see that Aaron has honed his debating skills to the finest nuggets of
>monosyllabic words.

Rest, rest, perturbed spirit!

Ah, you over-looked "empty."  

Ted, one question....

Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
sexual discrimination?

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:24:04 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

> >>The answer is no, the numbers by themselves are not dispositive.  As I
> >>wrote in a related context last month:
> >
> >I took his question to be "Is this statistic EVIDENCE that men are 
> >denied equal protection?"  The answer to that question is undeniably YES.
> 
> The answer is not necessarily, for reasons already described.  As Michal
> posted, men win 78% of all contested custody cases.

I'm not sure where that figure came from. Here in our area, we've found that
the only way that figure would hold true is IF the father moved for custody,
and the mother stipulated to the motion. Our records seem to reflect that its
more like 18%+ of dads who fight for custody who get it, and that's often a
temporary condition. (By often, I mean that in 8 out of 10 cases, custody
will be changed to the mother after she has participated in court ordered
services.)

California stats were posted last year, and they refelcted a worse circum-
stance, and we saw information from other states that indicated similar
circumstances.

> At any rate, current laws are both legal and fair, so much of this
> discussion is moot.

In your opinion.

The Dred Scott decision was legal and fair when it was rendered. We've all
seen that wasn't exactly the case. Far better to believe that there is a
problem, and seek to make our laws reflect the equity our country claims
that we have, than to turn away from any criticism and critique because
the critical eye might challenge our profession or our situational comfort.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3520 soc.men:23312 soc.women:23092 misc.legal:23363
From: MJFORRES@SUVM.SYR.EDU (maurice)
Subject: looking for legal help
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:40:21 EST

A friend of mine is in a tight spot.  After repeatedly denying
him his legally mandated visitation rights, his ex-wife is now
taking him to court seeking both more child support and an end to
his visitation rights.  He has, I think, a strong case.  However,
he is also unemployed and broke.  He spent all the money he had
on a lawyer who took him as far as the scheduling of the trial
date and then today demanded more money -- money which he doesn't
have.
 
Does anyone have any suggestions as to where he might turn for
legal help?  He is in the Syracuse, NY area.  Any useful
suggestions should perhaps be sent by email so I can pass them on
as quickly as possible.
 
thanks,
maurice
                                                 Maurice Forrester
                                                 mjforres@suvm.syr.edu
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3554 soc.men:23424 soc.women:23174 misc.legal:23480 alt.feminism:7719
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:09:01 GMT
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

i am very curious to know how all of you think child custody
cases should be decided.  you are constantly complaining 
about how men don't get custody frequently enough, and 
claiming that it is because of sexual discrimination.  

what should be the factors in making this decision?  what
are judges/mediators/lawyers not doing/doing now that should
be changed?  

peg
-who also wants to know if you are a legal scholar or not, 
and have ever been through a custody "battle" (they all 
aren't, you know) either as a child or parent...
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Help!  Wife left state with the kids
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:17:48 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:

> If you cannot reach an agreement with your ex regarding visitation
> and know you have to go back to court, post again and I will give
> details of literature and comments re: fighting moves out of state.

David, given the number of times we've seen "My ex is moving out of
state..." posts, could we get you to post the information now anyway?

Thanks.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-suppport,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: Sandy Keith
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:20:10 GMT

January 21, 1993

Minnesota's Supreme Court Chief Justice Sandy Keith spoke tonight  
about "What Should We Be Doing About Family Law?" when he visited  
the Southern Minnesota chapter of the Institute of Management  
Accountants in Rochester.

As an attorney, he practiced family law for over 20 years.  He is  
the first Minnesotan to serve in each of the three branches of  
government.  He was elected a state senator in 1962?, was elected  
Lieutenant Governor in 1968?, and was appointed to the state  
Supreme Court in 1989.

Chief Justice Keith spoke of the importance of both parents in  
children's lives, of the need for trained mediation instead of  
adversarial litigation, and alternative forms of judicial  
involvement.

He dislikes the term "custody" and believes parents should just  
raise their kids.  He talked about shared parenting being something  
other than every other weekend, something like 60/40 splits of  
time.

In his practice, he used mediation with great success.  He is  
encouraging district court judges to use mediation and settlement  
schedules (plans of action with due dates) to complete the divorce  
process in a timely fashion, without a court hearing, and  
sometimes, with a fixed-cost-per-case supporting attorney.  His  
experience with cases treated in this way is that 90% never need a  
court hearing.  The difficulty with consistent progress is that no  
judge is beholden to him:  they are elected officials.  He can only  
encourage, offer guidance, and assist; something he is actively  
doing.

He lamented the violence in our society today and recognizes a link  
between it and family law.  What is rampant today was unthinkable  
25 years ago.

He has not seen significant improvement through the legislature.   
As soon as change is proposed, groups react with charges of  
unfairness thereby locking up the system.  He encouraged contact  
with members of the legislative branch to instigate change.

This correspondent was very pleased.

Bruce Kaskubar
kaskubar@mayo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:26:31 GMT

In article <C1Fow0.F2t@austin.ibm.com>, karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes:
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from a different angle.  Is there an
> incentive for a woman that doesn't want the child, to notify the father?
> No.  Plain and simply, none.  This is why I think that in most cases
> allegations of potential abuse is a self-serving excuse rather than a
> bona-fide concern for the child.  
> 
I agree.  Not notifying the father and claiming potential abuse can
hide, for example:
i.  mother turning to hate the father because he chose not to marry her.
    (The father could be a real jerk, but it`s also possible he may
    have discovered the mother is real bitch in time to stop the
    marriage, but not to stop the creation of a child.  It has been
    known for a woman to get pregnant in order to try to make a man
    marry her!)
ii. unwillingness of the mother to pay child support, because there is
    a strong possibility that might happen if the father got custody.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Some Rulings
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:24:32 GMT


     In response to an e-mail request I am posting some rulings I
know off with regard to ncp rights.
(I haven`t looked up in this are in 4 years or so, so they are a bit
dated.)

Franz v. United States  707 F. 2d. 582 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
   Court held that ncp visitation rights were constitutionally
protected.

Ruffalo v. United States  590 F. Supp. 706, 709 (W.D. Mo. 1984)
   Court help tht an ncp could bring a specific cause of action for
tortious interference with visitation.  In order to sustain such a
claim he had to establish the defendent`s interference was intentional
and that he suffered compensable damages.

Johannes v. Sloan  (Cir. Ct. Kankakee City Ill, No. 79L0169, 1981)
   An ncp was awarded $150,000 in damages for emotional distress he
suffered as a result of being denied visitation with his daughter.

Quillon v. Walcott  434 U.S. 251, 255 (1976)
   U.S. Supreme Court held that the law should not differentiate
between cp and ncp rights when deciding which rights are constitutionally
protected.

David Garrod
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3530 soc.men:23350 soc.women:23112 misc.legal:23409
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 26 Jan 1993 13:31:55 EST
 tt.com><1993Jan26.145634.21622@midway.uchicago.edu> <C1H2xx.4ry@apollo.hp.com>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

-From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
-
- noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) posts:
->Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
->(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
->in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
->under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
->emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
->awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
->domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
->sexual discrimination?
-
-  You would have a good case if you can show that, for your
-  sample, the same percentage of men and women demanded custody
-  and they were equally suited to have custody awarded (by
-  whatever reasonable metric for this you care to use).
-
-  Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the courts
-  have an unfair bias toward awarding custody to the mother, based
-  on anecdotal evidence.  But on the face of it the data you've
-  presented here doesn't really add up to anything.
-
-
----peter
-
-
    I think you are overstating your case to say that the data do not
(data is plural of datum) add up to anything.  You really should say that
the data are not decisive.  But then decisive data are almost never avaiable.
The data presented are a prima facie case that discrimination exists and
the burden of proof should really be on the legal system if the claim is
made that awards ARE somehow fair after all.

Rohit Parikh
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3536 misc.legal:23432 alt.child-support:4714 soc.women:23131