HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:39:24 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <Bz6FAn.G8D@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Dec09.233204.22982@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>>In article <Bz0E2o.BAA@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>
>>>I've said repeatedly that what he was "OBLIGATED TO PAY" may well
>>>go beyond what is fair, especially if it includes paying for ponies
>>>and trips to Florida.
>>
>>Please do us a favour. Either show us where Lisa Graham has indicated she
>>wanted child support for a "trip to Florida," or quit raising the issue with
>>regard to her ongoing problem.
>>
>>Hint: You will discover that she has not mentioned going to Florida, so you
>>may find it prudent to simply stop accusing her of behavior not in evidence.
> 
> Why don't you do "us" a favor, and follow the thread?  I haven't once
> said that Lisa Graham has wanted a trip to Florida.
> 
> If you had prudently followed your own advice and read before posting, 
> you would have noted I said that it was wrong for Sue Bishop to have 
> used (or justified) any part of the support payments for her foster son 
> to finance a trip to Florida.
> 

Don, you are really crazy.  I can't seem to get it through your head that
I have always gone to Florida, I've been going to Florida for YEARS!  
And, Mike's money has nothing to do with it. 

You keep harping on this.  Exactly what is your problem?  It must be
some kind of brain damage since you can't seem to understand simple
facts.

> These are two examples of a systematic problem that is, I have no doubt,
> in part to blame for "deadbeat dads" in the first place: forcing men to
> pay not just for basic support but for luxuries and indirect alimony.
> 
> 
> Whether Lisa Graham and Sue Bishop are getting luxuries paid is not so
> much the point as the following:  complaining about having a hard time
> paying for luxuries because there isn't enough child support coming in
> just isn't justifiable.
> 

Once again!  I am NOT COMPLAINING about having a hard time doing anything
except coping with Mike's dad who keeps whining.  And also I am having
a hard time with you since you insist on harping on something that is
totally untrue.

Get a life, for pete's sake, you have a real problem.

> And it makes it all the more difficult to believe that what a court
> orders does in fact reflect what is necessary to support a child.
> 
> Don  The dead beat dad
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

Evidently you really don't want to pay anything at all.  That's why you
are so hostile to both Lisa and me.  

Sue
From: kaskubar@kirby.mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: December FACE Newsletter
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:23:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

Whoa, Aaron.  :-)  "We" think you do a fine job and very much  
appreciate your effort and your product.  Maybe you didn't know  
that.

I'm a fledgling chair of a Minnesota organization's Legislative  
committee.  Your newsletter and many postings found here in the  
last month will be used as cannon shot in the next legislative  
session.  As a result, our position will be stronger than would  
otherwise be possible.

Thanks to all!  (I just need to stay "connected" after my loaner  
Unix box disappears!) 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:12:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.233924.6201@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Don, you are really crazy.  I can't seem to get it through your head that
>I have always gone to Florida, I've been going to Florida for YEARS!  
>And, Mike's money has nothing to do with it. 
>
>You keep harping on this.  Exactly what is your problem?  It must be
>some kind of brain damage since you can't seem to understand simple
>facts.
>
>Sue

	I have to side with Sue here.  I can't imagine $300/month being enough
	money to be looked upon as "travel" money.

	But maybe it's the bottom line attitude that's the problem.

	I mean Sue's words are telling us that, "$300 is not enough to
	travel on, but if circumstances were different and I got a big fat
	support award, I'd have no problem looking at the support as comtributing
	to that".

-- 
	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
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:37:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec09.233204.22982@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <Bz0E2o.BAA@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>I've said repeatedly that what he was "OBLIGATED TO PAY" may well
>>go beyond what is fair, especially if it includes paying for ponies
>>and trips to Florida.
>
>Please do us a favour. Either show us where Lisa Graham has indicated she
>wanted child support for a "trip to Florida," or quit raising the issue with
>regard to her ongoing problem.
>
>Hint: You will discover that she has not mentioned going to Florida, so you
>may find it prudent to simply stop accusing her of behavior not in evidence.

Why don't you do "us" a favor, and follow the thread?  I haven't once
said that Lisa Graham has wanted a trip to Florida.

If you had prudently followed your own advice and read before posting, 
you would have noted I said that it was wrong for Sue Bishop to have 
used (or justified) any part of the support payments for her foster son 
to finance a trip to Florida.

These are two examples of a systematic problem that is, I have no doubt,
in part to blame for "deadbeat dads" in the first place: forcing men to
pay not just for basic support but for luxuries and indirect alimony.


Whether Lisa Graham and Sue Bishop are getting luxuries paid is not so
much the point as the following:  complaining about having a hard time
paying for luxuries because there isn't enough child support coming in
just isn't justifiable.

And it makes it all the more difficult to believe that what a court
orders does in fact reflect what is necessary to support a child.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support probs
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:32:30 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

grease@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

> Hey dickheads (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)...with regards to Lisa and her
> little girl`s pony (which was the last remaining outpost of a normal
> life for her [child]) you might think that you`re all poor and
> deprived (depraved), my heart bleeds.

        [lots of stuff deleted]

> So quit pining for your lost loves and get a job...
> ...miserable, sorry, pathetic excuses for parents.
> Bye the way kids, may I suggest something a little stronger than lithium.
> How about a bullet?

        Ya know It's funny when someone has no idea what they're 
        talking about it sticks out like a sore thumb, eh!!
        Dickhead, oh that's intelligent, deprived (depraved)!!
        Listen you, I know what it's like you obviously don't and 
        obviously you're not a NCP, so shut the fu*k up!!
        I pine not for any lost love!  I am a great parent, ask 
        my kids. I would like to suggest you for 3 months without 
        warning, put 60% of your net away after you get your check!  
        Live on what's left, sure you might have to sacrifice but 
        that's not the point, remember what happens to the man is 
        unimportant!  Even if it means bankruptcy you don't matter, 
        Then 3 months down the road recieve a bill for horse boarding, 
        which you can't pay!!  Try all this on 30,000 dollars a year!!  
        Then maybe you'll have walked in someone elses moccasins. Til 
        then keep your hypothetical crap off the net dweeb!
        Oh, BTW if the pony can be supported on the CS that is recieved
        I'd say that's good if not, then the CP might need to get a 
        better paying job, imagine that taking responsibility for ones
        own life, I'd like to go to france for a week, don't have the
        money so I don't go!  Not that I'm deprived it just isn't in
        the budget.  CP's on the other hand feel they have an unlimited
        wallet, so they complain about not being able to do what they
        once could do, poor babys!!


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3997 alt.flame:16932
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.flame
Subject: Re: child support problems
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:13:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <Bz6GMB.HpJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1992Dec10.000558.23975@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>>The father's "choice" was simple - pay his child support. He elected not to.

>In your clearly biased opinion.  Perhaps the choice was more complicated:
>pay for luxuries beyond the basic upkeep of a child without having
>any say in the matter (other than what your daughter "grants" him).

Once again (surprise!) you are completely wrong. The choice was, and is, as
simple as I suggested: pay the ordered support or don't pay the ordered
support. No bias is involved - I'm completely familiar with his record in
this regard, including his earnings for the past several years, the amount
paid into trust funds, and the amounts paid for child support. 

I have also read all the related court orders and affidavits, and seen the
financial data from both parties. 

In short, you're out to lunch yet again.

>>The pony was a small, financially insignifcant, part of the story, and I
>>suspect you've again missed the whole point of her discussing the pony in
>>the first place.

>No, you've missed the point of objecting to the pony.

Hardly - the only relevance wrt the pony is that you have locked onto it
because you feel a need to attack CP's for reasons of your own, and, lacking
any basis whatsoever for doing so, you continue to ride the pony.

>If 10% of what she said is true, then she has a sympathetic and
>compelling story.  There's no need to claim that the ex should pay
>for luxuries, though, and it really detracts from her situation
>for anyone to say that he should.

100% of what she has related is true, period. The ex has failed to pay
ordered support, with or without "luxuries," like food, rent, clothing, etc.

>>Lisa has _never_ done that - she has sacrificed quite literally everything
>>she ever owned to provide for her daughters - everything. "Luxuries" never
>>entered into the equation.

>With a categorical "never," you imply that you think a pony is
>not a luxury.  When you include the pony in the equation, you get
>a story that seems more like, "Lisa sacrificed everything -- including
>money she didn't earn -- and in part, to pay for luxuries for her daughters."
>Back to square one.

Only in your mind.

followups to alt.flame.
-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:46:10 GMT

<1992Dec09.233204.22982@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
><Bz0E2o.BAA@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>I've said repeatedly that what he was "OBLIGATED TO PAY" may well
>>go beyond what is fair, especially if it includes paying for ponies
>>and trips to Florida.

>>Even if he's a millionare (from his Canadian $25/hour job!) or if 
>>he married a millionaire, this should not affect the basic necessities 
>>of his children.  He's responsible for those, not for ponies.
>
>There are no ponies. There are no ponies. There are no ponies. There are no
>ponies. There are no ponies. There are no ponies. There are no ponies.....

That's what started this thread.  Apparently, there are no ponies 
because your daughter moved with two children into a trailer to keep
a pony but couldn't, because her child support money wasn't paid.

(You might check with your sysop -- you seem to have an editor problem.)

>And yes, he _is_ responsible for not the "basic necessities" of his
>children, but for the amount of support he's been ordered to provide.

Thus, your position is indeed that if he has been ordered to
pay for luxuries, he "_is_" responsible for luxuries.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: child support probs
X-To: GREASE@ONEB2.ALMANAC.BC.C
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 17:03:00 GMT

From: grease@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes...
GR> Hey dickheads (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)...with regards to Lisa and her
GR> little girl`s pony (which was the last remaining outpost of a normal
GR> life for her [child]) you might think that you`re all poor and
GR> deprived (depraved), my heart bleeds.The NCP decided not only to stop
GR> making regular support payments but also the children`s trust fund
GR> payments ($150.00 per month). I can well imagine you poor misguided
GR> ill-equipped fools feeling outraged at this twisted justice (Sarcasm).
GR> I THINK SOME OF YOU MAY BE MISSING THE POINT...the children. Give them
GR> what they deserve, anything you have. Lisa has done a most remarkable
GR> job with her kids (you may have , in fact, already had conversations
GR> on the net with the ten year old). They are the most well adjusted
GR> kids I have ever met and are probably smarter than a lot of you.
GR> The question of Lisa`s parenting skills are not the issue here.
GR> The pony, by the way, was sold. As was virtually everything else.
GR> She has done, and will do, anything in her power to keep the kids
GR> happy and healthy (including getting out of a shitty marriage)
GR> So quit pining for your lost loves and get a job...
GR> ...miserable, sorry, pathetic excuses for parents.
GR> Bye the way kids, may I suggest something a little stronger than lithium.
GR> How about a bullet?
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Flame Bait...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Press Hyperspace to continue.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:39:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.070101.6187@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.184510.15385@infonode.ingr.com>, morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes:
>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>>>Yes, I can see this at times with Mike.  But I have encouraged him to
>>>visit his mother, I have developed a good relationship with her and that
>>>end of the whole situation is working well.
>>>I would have liked to have done the same with Mike's father, but that
>>>was impossible.
>> 
>> Why is Mike's mother not required to share the responsiblity of making
>> support payments?
>> 
>> (Please excuse me if I missed something previously which would explain
>> this.  The thread has been quite long....)
>
>Mike's mother is mentally ill and on welfare.  His father had custody until
>he was 14, Mike never met his mother until then.  THEN his father remarried,
>very concedentally (Yeah, right) took Mike to his mother and turned custody
>over to her.  So Mike was more or less dumped on his mentally ill welfare
>stranger of a mother.  Mike got into juvenile trouble, eventually ended up
>in the County Home.  His father refused return of custody, then got
>taken to court and assessed for child support (which he had NOT been paying
>all the time Mike was with his mother).   When he found out he had to pay
>child support and couldn't just dump the kid on the county, he started 
>yelling that his son had been stolen from him.  
>
>Sue
>
>> 
>> --angela

	Well I guess now that everyone knows who and where the mother is,
	it's time to start putting the sqeeze on her.


	Like you *said* the state does.

-- 
	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
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: CP, NCP, FP
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:54:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.114818.6197@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Both Alan and 'the Beav' have accused me of profiting by taking in a 
>foster child.  They also have referred to me as a CP.  It looks like
>it is time to define some terms.
>


	I never accused you of making a profit.  As to your definitions,
	it was *you* who kept saying that , "he's a member of your
	family, and you takt care of your family, blah blah blah".


>CP - the person who ends up with custody of a child or children when
>a divorce takes place.  Most often the mother, but I am more in favor
>of totally joint custody, which is often difficult to implement when
>there is strong lingering hostility after a nasty divorce.  The CP can
>file in court for child support, can go back to court to get the support
>increased.
>
>NCP - the person who does not end up with custody.  The person who 
>ends up paying child support.
>
>FP - Foster parent.  A person so designated by the court to take care
>of a child who either cannot live with parents due to some problem or
>else has no parents.  The foster parent cannot go to court to ask for
>increase of support, that is the role of the County which is actually
>acting in as CP.  As for what the foster parent receives as support for
>the child, that is determined by the County which has a pre-determined
>set amount for the entire county and all children who are wards of the
>County.  
>
>As for 'letting my foster son's father off the hook', I have absolutely
>no say in that.  It was the Juvenile Court in our county that took him
>to court and assessed the child support.  


	Ahhh!  So you too know what it's like to have, "responsibility
	without authority".




	As for you "profiting", hardly.  Just look at the above statement
	and don't try to change roles as it's convenient for you.

	If he's "a proud member of your family", then pay for him
	proudly, like you with his father would.  Otherwise, accept
	the title that you yourself describe;  that of babysitter.

	That's the only gripe with $$$$$.

	Heck.  It's mighty nice of you to give him a roof, and administer
	his $$$$ from the state.  Just don't make more of it than it
	is.

-- 
	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
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.141240.11479@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.233924.6201@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Don, you are really crazy.  I can't seem to get it through your head that
>>I have always gone to Florida, I've been going to Florida for YEARS!  
>>And, Mike's money has nothing to do with it. 
>>
>>You keep harping on this.  Exactly what is your problem?  It must be
>>some kind of brain damage since you can't seem to understand simple
>>facts.
>>
>>Sue
>
>	I have to side with Sue here.  I can't imagine $300/month being enough
>	money to be looked upon as "travel" money.

I can't either, if it is to be used for all the bills.

It was Sue herself (not I) who said she used part of it to finance
a yearly trip to Florida.  

If she wants to continue having trips to Florida *and* to take her 
foster son -- AND she wants to show how generous she is by taking 
on a duty that nobody else will bear -- then I don't see why she 
can't "do without" a trip to Florida, OR bear the bill for the luxury 
and stop complaining.

She should have calculated, before taking on responsibilities, 
that having a foster son would hamper her luxuries, and not rail 
against the father [the mother is notably "excused," despite the 
apparent family-wide problems] for complaining about contributing 
to trips to Florida [especially when *she* herself says she used part
of the money for that purpose].

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:25:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.184510.15385@infonode.ingr.com> morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>>Yes, I can see this at times with Mike.  But I have encouraged him to
>>visit his mother, I have developed a good relationship with her and that
>>end of the whole situation is working well.
>>I would have liked to have done the same with Mike's father, but that
>>was impossible.
>
>Why is Mike's mother not required to share the responsiblity of making
>support payments?
>
>(Please excuse me if I missed something previously which would explain
>this.  The thread has been quite long....)
>
>--angela


	Probably an EXCELLANT case in point of what I just said about
	"absent mothers".  How is your state enforceing this?

	Or was I right about what I just said.????????

-- 
	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