HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Custody
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:11:17 GMT

<1993Jan9.142207.6506@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

['creative' deletions]

>However, when they were little it would have been ridiculous to give him
>primary custody, after all, he wasn't equiped to feed them.  

What -- he has no hands?  Can't screw a lid on a bottle?  After your
"shoot-in-the-dark" rude personal attacks against me, and your style of 
altruistic concern for others, I'm tempted to say it's no wonder you still 
love him after twenty years, but we can save it for alt.flame, since I'm 
afraid of more threats from gunslinging (yet loving and stable) SO's.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3267 alt.child-support:4314 soc.men:22477
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 10:36:33 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu wrote:

> : Ohio's support seems quite reasonable to me.  It's based on both parents'
> : income, does not exceed 20% of the total of both.  So if each is 50% of
> : the entire total, each only contribute 10%.
> : 
> : Sue
> -----------------------

> Suppose one parent gets a $1,000 a year raise. CS goes up by $200 per year
> with each side kicking in $100 each. (It may be more like 98/102 due to
> the effect of the raise). Is it fair to charge one parent more money simply
> because the other one got a raise?
> 
> John,

Ideally, I should hope that the same standard of living that was realized
DURING THE MARRIAGE would be the one, when possible, that should be strived
for wrt court orders.

If, during the marriage, the standard of living was
very low, due to economic factors, and after the divorce either parent
realizes an increase in income that would help elevate the standard of living
for the children to a less impoverished state, then I think it would be quite
reasonable that that parent (be they the CP or the NCP) be expected to contribute
a larger share of the children's support.  First though, consideration would
have to be given to that particular parent's  own living expenses vs. income.
For example, if the NCP got a $1000 per annum raise, but had a very poor income
to begin with, while the CP was financially in a better position, then I feel
the NCP should not have to pay an increase in support.  However, if the CP did
not have adequate income to maintain a decent standard of living for themself and
the children, while the NCP was managing fine on their pre-raise income, then
the increased support would seem reasonable.

If, on the other hand, the standard of living for the children was on a par
with what they had enjoyed prior to the divorce of their parents, then I feel
the increase to the NCP's income should be the NCP's to spend as they choose.
If the NCP then chose to further elevate the standard of living for their
children, that would be nice, but at their discretion.

Lisa

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Subject: Re: child support over-payments
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:39:51 GMT

In article <1iimdpINNi8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci542@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scott L. Underwood) writes:
>     My question is two-fold: has anyone else (non-custodial parent,
>male or female) out there been doing this? and, are there any dis-
>advantages or legal problems that I might run into in the future
>if I continue to make overpayments? 

Yes. If the custodial parent decides to become mean and nasty, you
could be hauled into court to make your extra payments mandatory.
The logic goes like "he can obviously afford it, as he made those
extra payments willingly". Even worse, the custodial parent may say
"it will *hurt the children*" (those magic words) "if the non-custodial
parent takes away this extra money". To be cynical, you haven't a chance
in hell of stopping something like this. Now, your relationship with the
CP may be great, and this may never come up, but if not...
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3300 alt.child-support:4367 soc.men:22566
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:31:14 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <C0Jo7D.8Ly@vcd.hp.com>, johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:

>Suppose one parent gets a $1,000 a year raise. CS goes up by $200 per year
>with each side kicking in $100 each. (It may be more like 98/102 due to
>the effect of the raise). Is it fair to charge one parent more money simply
>because the other one got a raise?

A better question would be: "Is it fair to charge one parent more because
they got a raise?"

If you get a raise, does your cost of groceries go up? Does your rent or
mortgage go up? Do your child's clothes get more expensive?

If the cost of raising a child doesn't go up, why should support?
-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:23:32 GMT

<1993Jan6.093642.6439@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><1993Jan5.174701.17496@linus.mitre.org>, cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>>article <1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu> 
>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>> Besides, the point that was
>>> actually under discussion was whether child support should provide more
>>> than a minimal amount of support.

[inflammatory summary deleted; available on demand (satisfied, Sue?)]

>THEN the Beav had the *nerve* to say *I* was the one who brought up the
>Florida vacation.  I wasn't.


"Plus out of the $300 we provide
 him an allowance, transportation to all his sporting events, food, shelter,
 entertainment, a really nice vacation every year....... (this Christmas
 we will spend a week at a condo in the Florida Keys)....  And his dad 
 accuses us of 'profiting!'."
    Sue Bishop, 10/3/92, <1992Oct3.204455.4515@desire.wright.edu>

"I mentioned Florida because Sue and I had a debate about whether
 taking a condo in the Florida Keys for a week is a luxury or a
 billable necessity."
    Don Beaver, 12/3/92, <ByosH2.B1D@cs.psu.edu>

Just for the record, Sue.  This followed your tirade about
"jerks" and "bastards," including calling your foster son's 
father a jerk after he complained about paying.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: PHONE TO ADDRESS
Date: 5 Jan 1993 21:45:08 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <646.423.uupcb@ehbbs.gwinnett.com> dan.baer@ehbbs.gwinnett.com (Dan Baer) writes:

> Okay. I am trying to find the address for an unlisted phone number.
>I would also like to find out about the background of the person that
>lives there.

[..stuff deleted..]

Are you, by any chance, a stalker?  This seems like a very strange 
request.  Apparently the person who has the number does not want you
to have her(?) address, or else you could just call and ask for it.
A person would have to be crazy to help you without knowing just what
it is that you're trying to do...

- db

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:37:08 GMT

<1993Jan7.182244.22313@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>><1993Jan6.152315.6445@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>>>Ah, yes.  And you consider the payments outrageous.  Funny, I guess you
>>>think the father shouldn't pay any support at all. 
>
>>He should pay support.  Even if he got a raw deal.  Two wrongs don't
>>make a right.  But they often make a revolution.  If he got a raw deal 
>>due to a colossally sexist system and has reacted by resisting entirely, 
>>he has my sympathies, and my sympathies for complaints against him are
>>tempered.  Perhaps if the system treated men and NCP's better, we wouldn't 
>>hear such stories.
>
>Just for my own clarification, didn't men make up the present set of laws
>(boy, do I use *THAT* term [laws] loosely!)?  How did we men do this to
>ourselves?

Which men made up the laws?  What portion of the laws reflect
attitudes that may have been more equitable half a century ago
but which are sexist and out of date now -- yet continue to be
supported by conservatives and feminist groups?  How many men are
influenced by sentiments of protectiveness toward women and children, 
and how many feel our society requires socialistic efforts on behalf 
of the "underprivileged"?  How many would be willing to give up their
jobs to show that family is more important than work?  Do legislators
represent men simply because they are themselves predominantly men?
Or do they reflect the votes of their female constituents?  How many
male judges were born in another era?  Do any female judges have 
feminist agendas?  How many judges are young and apolitical?  How many
people without families want to pay for people with families?  How many
men paying child support can afford the time to be politically active?

Just some topics to suggest that there may not be a "we" that did 
this to "ourselves."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: dbristow@novell.com (David Bristow)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: I Think I Need A Lawyer
Keywords: Child Support, Divorce
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:22:26 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.

I have a beautiful 9 1/2 month old baby girl with my X-girlfirend and have 
been having a lot of trouble spending any time with her.  My X-girlfriend 
uses our daughter to get at me, keeping her from me when she is mad, etc.  
This has been going on for 6 months now and I can't take it any longer.  I 
can't stand the thought of not seeing my little girl.  What I think I need 
to do is get a lawyer.  I don't know if I stand a chance of getting custody 
because I am a man.  Even so, I need something legal to keep my X from 
keeping my baby from me.  By default I think that she has costody, is that 
right?  Does anyone know of a good lawyer in the San Francisco Bay area that 
could help me out?  Please respond to me via email or voicemail at the 
number below.  Thank You

dbristow@sjf.novell.com
(408)4783-8297
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3198 alt.child-support:4203 soc.men:22299
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: College is not a "right".
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 13:11:14 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin) writes:

> In article <C0EID4.2uB@vcd.hp.com> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Joh
> >goldstein,marvin (mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:
> >: 
> >: I would like to point out that, at least in NJ, if the parents of child ca
> >: afford to send their child to Rutgers (it forms a cost cap), and the child
> >: has the grades for college, the child can SUE the parents to go to college
> >: Thus, courts in this land can make them pay.
> >: 
> >: Marv
> >-------------------------------
 Some deleted.

> >What happens if a kid is awarded enough money to go to school but then
> >decides to spend it on fast cars and drugs instead of an education?
> >
> >John Eaton
> ----------------
> According to my attorney, it has been successfully done in relation to gradua
> school as well as undergraduate.  WRT fast cars, the money never goes directl
> to the individual (notice I did not say "child") but to the school.
> 
> I have another quirk of the law, at least in New Jersey:  The courts just
> refused to reduce my alimony to my former wife who now makes $60,000 plus per
> year.  Trust me, I don't make a whole lot more and we do not have any minor
> children (kids are 25 and 22). 
> 
WHAT???  I hope you're actively rallying that such laws be changed ASAP!
An outrage, indeed!

Lisa


               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3216 alt.child-support:4227 soc.men:22351 misc.legal:22158
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: College is not a "right".
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:07:54 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1993Jan6.154808.8381@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin) writes:

>I have another quirk of the law, at least in New Jersey:  The courts just
>refused to reduce my alimony to my former wife who now makes $60,000 plus per
>year.  Trust me, I don't make a whole lot more and we do not have any minor
>children (kids are 25 and 22). 
>
Is there a chance that your situation could become a test case for the High
Courts?  I would think that alimony should be a thing of the past and that
women today should be able to ( or made to ) take care of themselves.  If
your ex-wife makes 60,000 dollars a year that sounds to me like she has 
found the gravy train not to mention a weak character.  r

It is quite obvious that the courts in N.J. are very biased.  
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3270 alt.child-support:4319 soc.men:22484
From: STAN@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Stan Horwitz)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: College is not a "right".
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:54:42 GMT
Organization: Temple University

In article <C0EID4.2uB@vcd.hp.com>
johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
 
>
>goldstein,marvin (mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:
>:
>: I would like to point out that, at least in NJ, if the parents of child can
>: afford to send their child to Rutgers (it forms a cost cap), and the child
>: has the grades for college, the child can SUE the parents to go to college.
>: Thus, courts in this land can make them pay.
>:
>: Marv
>-------------------------------
>Has anyone successfully done this? It seems like all you would have to do
>is move to the next State over and the case would be thrown out of court.
>What happens if a kid is awarded enough money to go to school but then
>decides to spend it on fast cars and drugs instead of an education?
 
My parents voluntarily paid for both my sister and me to go through college.
The choice, however, was not between using the money for college or something
like a sports car. My parents would have spent their money on their retirement
had my sister and/or I decided not to go to college. Neither of us was forced
to go to college, but there was no choice as to what to do with our tuition
had we not gone. Some parents may give their kids such a choice, but I would
mark those kids off as spoiled rotten. Such parental policies are not normal.
From: jdoskow@ichinen.Tymnet.COM (Jonathan Doskow)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Request for reference for lawyer in S.F.
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:46:07 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)



A good friend of mine needs to find a good lawyer in the S.F. area who
is experienced in palimony cases or cases involving pre-nuptuial
agreements.   

To make a long story short, her ex-fiancee is attempting to dun her for
debts which she allegedly incurred while they were engaged to be married
and living together.  (For what its worth, I tend to believe her
assertion that he is full of beans.)

Please reply to me via this newsgroup, via e-mail, or telephone at
(408) 922-6325.

Thanks in advance.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
She can marry a taxi driver.  I don't care.

Opinions expressed are those of the author.  jdoskow@Tymnet.COM
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3169 alt.child-support:4169 soc.men:22250
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:36:42 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1993Jan5.174701.17496@linus.mitre.org>, cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu> 
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> Besides, the point that was
>> actually under discussion was whether child support should provide more
>> than a minimal amount of support.
> 
> I picked up the thread without being able to see the start, and gathered 
> from the title that it had something to do with accountability -- making 
> sure support money went to feed and care for the child (children), and not 
> to fund mommys drug and bingo habits.   The actual amount of support 
> starts to be irrelevant when mom blows most of it on herself and leaves 
> the child in need of shoes and a winter coat.   
> 

Alan and The Beav are the ones who kept dragging in side issues, claiming
I was 'wasting' my foster son's support by Florida vacations (ridiculous!)
and that Lisa was being foolish by trying to keep her home so that her 
daughter wouldn't lose her pony.  They also kept bringing up and BRINGING
UP the pony, as if it were the most incredible expense in the world to 
support.  Obviously a ploy on their part to cloud the issue of Lisa's 
husband refusing to pay any child support while living a luxurious life
style that included renting private planes for transportation and country
club memberships.  
THEN the Beav had the *nerve* to say *I* was the one who brought up the
Florida vacation.  I wasn't.

Sue
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3140 alt.child-support:4106 soc.men:22142
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:10:51 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ

>>>Sorry, but you really blew this one.  The MAIN reason for child support is
>>>to try to approximate that the child does not suffer a huge change (for the
>>>worse) in lifestyle due to the divorce.  THis means if the child was 
>>>provided a certain standard of living before the divorce, it should not
>>>then be dumped into total poverty after the divorce.  Evidently you really
>>>don't understand the logic behind child-support payments.

You are both very short sighted in your views!  Man was made for God.  Women
was made for man.  Children were made for their parents.  Jesus knew of the
greed amoung men and women when he was asked about how to treat each other
under the law.

Matthew 22 36-40
36) Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
37) Jesus said unto him.  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38) This is the first and great commandmdnt.
39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I have read and I am very familiar with all of the new covenant of the
New Testament between God and his people.  He never said children are
more important than either of their parents.  He told us to treat our
neighbors as ourselves.  We pushed God out of our live and now families
don't even think they are all equal.  How can I treat my nieghbour as myself,
if can not believe every member of my own family is equally imprtant.

Your wrong because you see the child's welfare as being a money issue and not
a matter of having two parents that remain whole.  You people a so greedy it
is sick!!!  Man's system would have a child live in $350,000 home  and his
father in a shack, rather than have them both live in two real nice $150,000
town houses where both parent can maintain an equal lifestyle for the child
not matter where he/she is.

Just a little tickle.  If you can through the man out to the dogs for the good
of the child.  Don't be surprised when our children can through homeless to
the dogs, parents to old age homes, and prisoners to rape and other cruel
treatment.

When you take this selfish attiude amoung your own family and one day the
lord asks you "Did you feed my hungry, visit my prisoners, honor thy father
and mother??"  Don't be surprised if the next sentence from him is:

Matthew 7, 23

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me,
ye that work iniquity.

Men and women should support their children.  I do not see money as the
most important resource.  Man's law has made it the only focus and hate has
resulted from greed.  Those that are willing to take part in it loose sight
of the long term game call "Eternal Life".

Tell me.  Can anyone of you see the war between God and Satan and the part
you are playing in it???  It should be real obvious.

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:24:13 GMT

>Just for my own clarification, didn't men make up the present set of laws
>(boy, do I use *THAT* term [laws] loosely!)?  How did we men do this to
>ourselves?
>
>allen

Men do not help each other, that is why.  We call the past generation of
divorced dads loosers and then wonder why we fight this battle by ourselves.
There are plenty of men who have recovered after their children have become
of age.  But, the men of there time did not treat them well or with 
understanding and neither do we.  Actually, until men treat each other 
better and with more understanding, this will not change.  How many of you
men have called your own fathers and forgiven them now that you know what
happened to them.  I was 37 before I did.  He was reall happy to hear it too.
He never thought that I would understand what he went through.  Now I do.
Give him a call today, if it applys to you.  Your own dad needs to hear the
words of forgiveness and understanding.

Second, we ignore our greatest resource to organize.  Men who have financially 
recovered and are out of the system.  Men who can make a lot of noice with
the money to back it.  Women are kicking men's butts because they have the 
money and control to do it.  Just watch the TV every women who was ellected
knew the top issues of women all accross the country.  Even men politicians
know about dead beat dads.  But none of them know that most of us pay a lot
of child support plus what ever expenses we have with the child also.

I think we need to do many things differently.

Pray for God's help.
Pick land mark cases and fund them so that the NCP does not run out of money.
Get lawyers like Thurgood Marshall to represent men and NCPs and stay with it.
Stop thinking that this has anything to do with the best interest of the child.
Stop thinking that anyone deserves less than their own independence not matter
if they are right or wrong.

Smile,

Dave 

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men