HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Conspiracy behind this "Men's Choice" thing...
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Jan 93 11:04:11 CST

In article <1993Jan4.184613.10504@tellab5.tellabs.com> chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
>> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes ...
>> Secondly, the mans payments are quite proportionate to the level of 
>> his choice involved. Let us suppose that the mother spends 40 hours a 
>> week raising her child. Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for 
>> such work,20 dollars an hour. 
>
>You forget that the woman chose to raise the child; she could have aborted
>or placed the child for adoption.
>
>Most people don't get paid for raising their own children; rather, people
>choose to have children knowing that it will require a great deal of
>effort (and perhaps luck) to raise the child.  People have children
>because they expect the rewards of parenthood to be worth it, don't they?

My ex-wife demanded $400/wk for parenting our kids, 1 ours, 1 hers
I explained that we spend that supporting the family in mortgage, utilities
etc. And I was giving her a $50/wk allowance at the time.

Ironically, she got $350/wk in support with a court order and I have to
survive on $150/wk. The only reward she wanted was the money. She was even
able to quit her job and doesn't plan on working again.

>
>Indeed, some couples pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt or for
>fertility services; should they, too, be paid for raising the children
>they have chosen to raise?
>
>Why should people be paid for a burden they have voluntarily chosen?

I paid $50,000 to try to protect my parental rights to raise my son.

>
>> Let us suppose she deserves a decent salary for such work,20 dollars an hour. 
>
>I'm sure we all "deserve" a decent salary, but mostly we settle for
>what we can get.  Is a welfare mommy, whose untrained labor might be worth
>minimum wage in the labor market, suddenly worth $20. an hour after she
>gives birth?  Is child support now to be dependent on the qualifications
>of the custodial parent?
>

Now she makes $25/hr and I get $5/hr. I with the college degree and
10 years teaching computers and her a high drop out that only knows
how to spend my salery not on my son but herself.


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Custody
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:24:33 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1993Jan11.101625.10243@hemlock.cray.com>, sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson) writes:
> 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.
> 

Biology has everything to do with it.  I breastfed both of my children until
age one year.  I have severe problems with asthma, am currently steroid
dependent due to the acuteness of my attacks.  By breastfeeding I was able
to give my sons immunities against many things, by restricting their diet
to breast milk for the first several months I quite likely was able to keep
them from the severe allergy problems I have to everything that grows.  
Formula is (at best) a poor chemical substitute for what best supplies an
infant's nutritional needs.

> 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?
> 

Have you taken a LOOK at the volume of this group?  If I miss a day or two
there are about 50 postings.  I don't have time to reply to all of them
that are addressed to me and frankly I am losing interest.  The level of
hostility that was addressed to Lisa, just because she lamented not receiving
child support, and the amount of hostility that was addressed to me becasue
I defended her has been pretty obnoxious.  
As for what you are talking about, I have lost track of the problem with your
son in the enormous volume of the group.

Sue
> Steve Anderson
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:57:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.094517.15984@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>
>
> How can anybody justify Child Support Laws of in many states that claim
>"the children's standard of living should not suffer after a divorce"?
> 
> This is a desire of most parents and adults, or at least it should be. 
>Reality suggests otherwise. A house divided is income dividing. I would
>presume that the economic well being of divorced couples drops. 
> Feminists argue that only CPs (women usually) income drops. 
>
Figures don't lie but liers figure.  The system has convinced the country
that a child with more money and one parent is better than a child with
equal money devided between two parents. MONEY, MONEY, PLEASURE.

The real issue is getting to keep the child is every parents dream.  It is also
very nice to have a lot of money to do it with.  I think it is very wrong.
But I also know men and women can get pretty greedy and want to keep all
of the pleasure of parenting and wealth for themselve.  The government does
not support women in this effort because the care for children.  They do 
it because they make millions in the process, it attrackes public sysmpathy
and it buys votes.  I think it is just that simple.

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD)
Subject: Re: Effects on children of divorced parents ?
Reply-To: shedevil@gw.home.vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.)
Organization: Fathers Rights & Equality Exchange
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:40:19 GMT

In a recent missive petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) tells us:
>
>What studies have been done on the effects of children of divorced
>parents. What I'm curious about is what does it do to kids that are
>shuttled back and forth, weekend with dad, summer with mon, 3.6543
>hours a week with dad (sorry but it just seems to be that way).


Unfortunately, one of the most cited studies is Wallerstein's study
which helped to blast the joint custody presumption out of California.
It essentially says that when parents are in conflict joint custody is
bad, and that parents are usually in conflict, hence joint custody is
bad, etc...

I say unfortunately because what few people know is that the entire
study was based on a survey of only about *60* divorcing couples [not a
very big population], in *Marin* county [not a community terribly
representative of the general populice], and with *NO* control group [I
assume no comment is necessary here].  Furthermore, the couples were
self-selecting in the most prejudicial of ways...they got their
participants by running an ad in a local publication, offering *free*
couples counselling to couples in divorce situations who would
participate in the study.  Now, what sorts of couples are likely to
avail themselves of counselling in a divorce situation?  You got
it..couples in conflict.

Yet, this study is cited over and over, and, as I mentioned, played a
large part in California diminishing the joint custody presumption.


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Anti-Male Defenders
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:45:16 CST



 How can anybody justify Child Support Laws of in many states that claim
"the children's standard of living should not suffer after a divorce"?
 
 This is a desire of most parents and adults, or at least it should be. 
Reality suggests otherwise. A house divided is income dividing. I would
presume that the economic well being of divorced couples drops. 
 Feminists argue that only CPs (women usually) income drops. 

 If women seek divorce for no other reason than unreconciable differences,
why are they intitled to receive a disproportionate benefit of a doubt in
receiving custody, child support and property? 

 Current child support guidelines presume all NCPs (usually men) as jerks?

 Why is that, unless of course this practice of claiming CPs (usually women)
as victims and NCPs as evil is the agenda of the Women's Movement 
in order to retain a disportionate amount of unearned wealth?



 Excerpt from the Gender Fairness task force of Mn, 1988. Sponsored
  by the State Supreme Court of Mn.
**
  Family law practitioners also expressed concern about the value of
joint custody orders. They say them being used more as a means of 
placating the parent who would not otherwise have obtained custody, 
usually the father, than as a way to advance the best interests of
children:
    The most predominant and overriding example (of gender bias]
    is the ordering of joint legal custody where the parties get
    along like oil and water. (female attorney, Twin Cities)

    I do not encourage joint legal custody (although it ultimately is
    almost always settled on) as I find a great deal of post-decree
    litigation. Husbands tend to use this as a means of punishing
    their ex-wives. (Male attorney, Twin Cities).

**

  The female attorney's response apposing joint LEGAL custody, (not
to be confused with physical custody). She says a man should NOT 
receive legal custody (right to school records, health records etc)
because the estranged couple do not get along? Where is the logic in
that statement? 
 The male attorney's respomse is equally stupid, in that much of the 
decree can be written to negate future differences. Attorney's who
consistantly fail to include the most simple questions (visitation
for one) are only looking for future business.

**

 Only a minority of NCPs are financially capable of harrassing the
former spouse in court over school choice etc. 


 Next question:

    I visit my children as often as legally possible.

  If the CP chooses to move to California, thus ending contact really,
why am I obligated to give 35% of my income to support them?

 Aren't CPs (usually women) required to live by the descisions they 
choose? Or does large amounts of discresionary income allow them
choices that affect the children's visitation with their father?
In my opinion, if she remarries and moves out of state, Child support
should move "out" with 'em.


Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:25:16 CST


I too keep finances on a Mac with McMoney. I have since 1986.
Acoountability is being used against me while she doesn't even
have to provide her budget or income. Here is my 92 numbers

Income 1992

Payroll         52,963
Bonus            4,270
                ______
Total Income    57,233

Expense  1992

Taxes           19,685
Support         14,652
Lawyer          13,169
                        ___________   47,506 off the top
Rent             6,300
Food             2,607
Son's Expenses   2,251
Car Main         1,558
Cash             1,555
Car Gas          1,250
Misc             1,138
Lunch              760
Medical            714
Service Fees       698
Clothes            644
Util               456
Recreation         277
                ______
Total Expense   67,714

net income     -10,481

From this I can determine that my son being with me 3 1/2 days a week is:

2251 for clothes, books, daycare, toys, entertainment
 600 of the rent is the cost of a bedroom for him
 100 of the utilities 1/2 week = 50%, two of us = 25% 

Now what is hers

Income

	 8,632	her workmans comp
	14,652  my support money
	 3,960  child support from other father
	______
	27,244

Expense

		No taxes
		no lawyer fees(i got them), no support money, no daycare
	9,600   Morgage
	5,052	Utilities/Insurance etc
	3,000   Groceries
	2,000	car
	1,200	health club
	6,392   Misc   unknown where she spends it
			clothes/cash/recreation

And my son hasn't had new clothes, etc in 3 years. She did get him mittens
recently.

Dave W
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:4280 sci.psychology:4944
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Effects on children of divorced parents ?
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:54:26 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD) writes:

> Unfortunately, one of the most cited studies is Wallerstein's study
> which helped to blast the joint custody presumption out of California.
> It essentially says that when parents are in conflict joint custody is
> bad, and that parents are usually in conflict, hence joint custody is
> bad, etc...
 
May I add to Anne's post that this study is in conflict with a great
number of studies, all of which were empiracal in nature, where the
Wallerstien devoted a great deal of it's conclusions to personal op-
ines and value judgements.

Which see:

> I say unfortunately because what few people know is that the entire
> study was based on a survey of only about *60* divorcing couples [not a
> very big population], in *Marin* county [not a community terribly
> representative of the general populice], and with *NO* control group [I
> assume no comment is necessary here].  Furthermore, the couples were
> self-selecting in the most prejudicial of ways...they got their
> participants by running an ad in a local publication, offering *free*
> couples counselling to couples in divorce situations who would
> participate in the study.  Now, what sorts of couples are likely to
> avail themselves of counselling in a divorce situation?  You got
> it..couples in conflict.

You should see where Hillary Clinton got her info. :-(

> Yet, this study is cited over and over, and, as I mentioned, played a
> large part in California diminishing the joint custody presumption.

Fortunately, Washington state discarded it. We're pressing towards a
default shared parenting circumstance. (RCW Title 29 states clearly 
that a refusal to join in shared parenting, absent clear and undeniable
proof of potential or ongoing harm to the child/ren, shall on it's face
be evidence for that individual's disqualification as a custodial parent.)
Not everyone is bought into Wallerstein. Fortunately.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Canada's FAMILY RELATIONS ACT
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 22:51:43 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster) writes:

> In article <0oTZwB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes
> >46. (1) Where property is owned by one spouse to the exclusion of the other 
> >        is used primarily for business purposes and where the spouse who doe
> >        not own the property made no direct or indirect contribution to the
> >        acquisition of the property by the other spouse or to the operation 
> >        the business, the property is not a family asset.
> >    (2) In section 45 (3) (e) or subsection (1), an indirect contribution
> >        includes savings through effective management of household or child
> >        rearing responsibilities by the spouse who holds no interest in the
> >        property.
> 
> What a useless bulls**t clause. Unless you could show that a spouse has
> *no* child rearing or household management responsibilities whatsoever,
> which I believe to be virtually impossible, that spouse will always
> have a 1/2 interest in the property in question. By this definition, I
> don't see how any spouse could avoid having an indirect contribution
> to the business.
> -- 
 James,

Agreed.  I wondered at that one myself, as I was reading/posting it.

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.child-support
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: FEMINISTS ARE UGLY!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:43:00 GMT

>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.

You are very right about both issues.  Men and women equally want their 
children.  Being a parent is a gift to be treasured.  Women have been very
effective at keeping men out.  The second issue is also right.  Children
are very effectively used to support greed.
>
>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

Again, perfect point.  The women and the government both make money on this
one.  If alimony is disguised as child-support there are high tax rates
obtained by the government.  This will be the hardest part of the overall
greed and feeding frenzy to stop.  The government is in charge of making
the rules and they directly profit from their own discrimination.

Smile,

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

> 
> Well, I am sincerely in favor of the child being provided a reasonable
> lifestyle.  I DID go on record for saying that I thought the lifestyle
> provided by the millionaire father was absolutely ridiculous, and I think
> that children should not be given such ridiculous amounts of money.  
> However, the court did so state that the child should not have to have
> a tremendous life style change just because the parents got divorced and
> the (very rich) father did not want to continue to provide the life the
> child was used to.  

And this is the whole  point of  accountability.  I am  supposed  to provide a
certain  amount of money that is supposed  to  maintain  the  lifestyle  of my
children as it was when I was  married.  So, I am required to pay $X for their
"lifestyle  maintenance".  However, *nobody* is ever interested in making sure
that my ex actually  *does*  provide that  lifestyle  *for the kids*.  It only
matters that she gets the money, not how she uses it.  If there is any "extra"
money  after  providing  for  their  basic  needs,  what's to keep the cp from
stashing  it away for  him/herself  or  spending it on  him/herself?  Nothing.

Child support payments *should* only provide for basic  neccessities, with any
discretionary   expenses   being  the   responsibility   of   *both*   parents
independently.

Laszlo
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:15:10 GMT

jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:


>It is much wiser to stay single
>than it is to get married today. 

This is your opinion, Jon, and you are welcome to express it, but, 
I have to disagree.  Maybe it's because I'm one of the lucky ones
who is still in a great marriage.  I didn't get married until I
was 30, and both my wife and I had been through rather difficult
lives, with hers probably being worse (previously married to a 
drug addicted, cheating husband . . . having a mother who is a
manic depressive and has been mentally ill since her (mother) husband
cheated on her over 25 years ago, etc.).  Our marriage isn't perfect,
but it definitely is great, but then, we talk about everything and 
are lucky to be best friends as well as spouses.  I guess we were
lucky to go through separate hell's before we met.


>It is the wise man who gets a vasectomy
>as a single young man today. These truths are illustrated by our 
>law practices in the good ol' USofA.

I'm sorry you feel this way, although I can well understand where
your statements come from.  (sigh)

allen

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:4358 alt.dads-rights:3297 soc.men:22561
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: Re: Assistance needed
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:22:11 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

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

> Unless a miracle happens, I will be filing to reduce visitation for my ex wif
> our son.  All I want to do is reduce his Summer visit from 8 weeks to 4 weeks
> he can go to Scout and Church camp,

(some deleted)

> 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 clau
> 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 nervou
> 
What is the point of her being able to get MORE alimony (from what I know, it
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.

Good luck to you, Steven:-)

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.child-support