HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Advising Fathers Against Seeking Custody
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:51:31 GMT

The rumored statistic that fathers who fight for custody
are awarded custody more than mothers has been bothering
me a bit, for the following reason:

 Fathers are discouraged from seeking custody, by their lawyers,
 by social attitudes, by fears of hurting the children, and by 
 statistics showing mothers are awarded support in the vast majority
 of cases.

If true, this means that the cases in which fathers seek custody
are precisely those where they have a compelling reason to believe
they will succeed despite these factors.  Thus the "success rate"
of fathers is very misleading.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across some support for this in Weitzman and Dixon, 
"Child Custody Awards" (1979), in Foote, Levy, Sander,
"Cases and Materials on Family Law," 3d ed. (1985), 865ff:

"... 98% of these domestic relations specialists [attorneys interviewed
in LA in 1975] said that they perceived most judges as acting 
as though there were still a presumption in favor of the mother 
in making decisions about the custody of preschool children."

"81% of the Los Angeles judges we interviewed said they thought
that there was still a presumption in favor of the mother for
preschool children, although most of them qualified their responses
by noting that the presumption was an attitudinal predisposition
rather than 'the law.' "

"46% [of lawyers who tried to dissuade clients] did so when
they thought the client's legal chances were poor."

"It seems likely that more husbands have not contested custody 
because their lawyers share traditional values about father custody.
... Thus, one Minneapolis attorney informs his male clients that
he is willing to contest custody --- if he is provided with a
$5000 retainer."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


My questions:  Does anyone know of any more recent studies?

Secondly, has anyone ever seen the +radical+ suggestion that
affirmative action (in favor of paternal custody) could be
used to correct the situation?  (I might think some feminist
writing would argue such a thing, to force redistribution of
home labor.)

I'm looking for scholarly/legal references, primarily.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:31:03 GMT

I wrote:
  "I live in America but I AVOID it's government."

Don McMillan replied:
  "And just how, pray tell, do you manage that?!"


    By DOING IT.

    The government is slow and predictable
    -- it CAN be avoided.
    The key is in the SSN (Social Security Number).
    The government only knows what your SSN reveals.
From: dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Dependent deductions
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:46:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Inc, Santa Clara, CA

In article <89597@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50) writes:
>Can anyone tell me (via e-mail) if there is any way that an NCP can take
>federal tax decuctions for his children?  The rules as I understand them
>appear grossly unfair when it can be conclusively demonstrated that the
>NCP provided more than 50% of the child raising costs.  Also, is there any
>provision for splitting a deduction (i.e., she takes 40% and I take 60%)?
>
You should be able to take the deduction if you are paying child support.
This is, however, entirely negotiable with the CP. In my case, I take the 
deduction for the child while she gets the child care tax credit. The only
thing to watch out for is a sure audit if *both* of you claim the child.
--dennisp@kpc.com
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:43:14 GMT

I wrote:
     "It's my choice and I'll thank you and
      your government to not financially rape me."

Judy Leedom Tyrer wrote:
     "But I have little sympathy for the "walking wallet" 
      complaint when you choose to allow your child to 
      live in the street and beg for his supper!!!"

  So you want to financially gang rape me because
  "my children are dying"?

  There are beter sources of help then me.
  If you care so much then I'll give you
  their address and you can send them money.

  "My children" (as you are wont to call them) 
  live in a home that makes about $70,000 per year 
  -- I make about $4,000 per year.
From: larryf@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Larry Ferreira)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:18:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Shooting in the Courthouse: Why?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights

I maybe opening a can-of-worms but here it goes:

I also saw the ABC 20/20 spot on violence in the court room.  And living
in California I can understand how things like this happen, although
I don't agree with them.

It was interesting to see how the issues raise were almost totally 
concerned with better security in the court rooms.  And how the
reasons why men go off the deep end was ignored; Paralle that with
the strong media push right now with the issue of women in prison for
shooting their abusive husbands.  That perhaps the shootings were
justified, and the women should be set free.  

Of course self-defense is one thing, -- but do we draw a line between 
physical self-defense and mental self-defense?   Is mental abuse reason
to kill someone?  If a woman has a right to kill a man because he beats
her, does a man have a right to kill a woman who is contentious toward
him?

Just some thoughts for discussion.

Larry Ferreira
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: NO SUBJECT           (1)
X-To: ROSS RIDGE
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:29:00 GMT

richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) writes...

RD> How about having a march on Washington on Labor Day. The irony is sublime
RD> But it has the advantage of being a time when people can make it.

Good idea...but how many thousand people will you be able to organise?

And *what* will you be marching about?  Pro Male-Choice, dad's rights, or...?

If you can get this thing working, then by jove, *I* will come, and I'm a
few thousand kilometres away in Toronto...  I can bring a respectable
complement of individuals with me, but I don't think that you've given
enough notice...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Toto, I don't think this is Kansas anymore!
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:45:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173448.8904@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
)In article <1992Aug25.230720.19685@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
)
)>   We need able parents not "remote wallets".
)
)We need both.  If the mother isn't financially independent, and the
)father isn't going to be held responsible for the money to raise the
)children, who is?  The government (translation:  you, me, and every
)other taxpayer)?  No thanks.  If a dad isn't going to be a "real" dad,
)for whatever reason, he still has responsibilities.  I refuse to take
)them over for him because he doesn't want to be a "remote wallet".

It's logical that you don't want the taxpayer to be a remote wallet
either, IMO.

However, there are some other choices.  You can give the father custody
rather than insisting that the mother without resources raise the child
and be paid by the father, for example.


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2168 alt.child-support:3008 soc.men:15784 misc.legal:16785
From: johne@vcd.hp.com (John Eaton)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: How a Judge is Born in America
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:25:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: vcd.Btwo5v.JLv
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

aaron.l.hoffmeyer (noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com) wrote:
:  His wife didn't have to work, because as an attorney, he
: grossed $100,000 annually, and as a judge, his salary was $85,000. 
------------------
So if a judge gets divorced do they base his support payments on what
he earns as a judge or on what he could have earned as a lawyer? It would
seem that judges of all people would understand that some career paths
may involve taking a drop in income. They seem to think that the only
reason you took a cut in pay was to decrease your support payments.

John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2184 alt.child-support:3034 soc.men:15889 soc.women:16113 misc.kids:22523
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:20:02 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>I wrote:
>> > [The taxpayer only pay] if the larger population of
>> > taxpayers choose to pay the Child Support!
>
>Katie replied:
>> Then why do you refuse to support the child you brought into 
>> the world, a child who DID NOT ask to be brought into the 
>> world, thereby financially raping *ME*, a taxpayer who did 
>> not ask to support your child?  
>
>   It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>   your government to not financially rape me.

And you wonder why DADS have a bad name?  

This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that makes society determine that absent
fathers are dead-beat fathers.  You cannot have it both ways.  "Hey I want
to be a totally irresponsible jerk, but you have to repsect me."  

Well, I do NOT respect you.  Nor do I blame ALL absent fathers for your 
attitude.  But I have little sympathy for the "walking wallet" complaint
when you choose to allow your child to live in the street and beg for his
supper!!!
-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:34:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.230720.19685@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:

>   We need able parents not "remote wallets".

We need both.  If the mother isn't financially independent, and the
father isn't going to be held responsible for the money to raise the
children, who is?  The government (translation:  you, me, and every
other taxpayer)?  No thanks.  If a dad isn't going to be a "real" dad,
for whatever reason, he still has responsibilities.  I refuse to take
them over for him because he doesn't want to be a "remote wallet".

>>You see, to Mr. Mott, children don't need fathers - they need rich,
>>well-educated mothers.  How do we get such things?  Lots and lots of
>>child-support to pay for lots of Fisher-Price stuff and alimony to pay
>>for moms' getting educations, perhaps?
>
>    Don't force people (men) to be "remote wallets".

If he's fathered children, he has taken on that responsibility.  It is
a reasonable function of government to force him to make good on it.
It is NOT a reasonable function of government to take money away from
other people to cover HIS familial debt.

>    Don't financially rape the "non-maid parents".

Money doesn't come from nowhere.  Someone's got to pay the bills.  It's
either the father, or someone who had nothing to do with the child, but
is forced to pay for it anyway (via taxes).  Which seems fairer to
you?

>    But rather empower the single parent (women).

That is the family's job; it is not an appropriate use of tax money.
The government will go broke (correction: HAS GONE broke) trying to
compensate everyone for the failures of families.  I don't buy into
the religious right's narrow definition of "family values", but I
do think that parental responsibility has to fit into any reasonable
definition of that term.

=====================================================================
Reid Kneeland
reid@ttidca.tti.com  (that's MISTER reid@ttidca.tti.com to you!)
{philabs,psivax,pyramid,quad1,rdlvax,retix,rutgers}!ttidca!reid
Transaction Technology Inc., Santa Monica, CA, USA (310) 450-9111 x2499
The opinions expressed above do not necessarily etc etc...

Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: nelson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Nelson)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:58:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep03.224317.10654@uumeme.chi.il.us> drac@uumeme.chi.il.us (Bruce Maynard) writes:
>>
>>However, there are some other choices.  You can give the father custody
>>rather than insisting that the mother without resources raise the child
>>and be paid by the father, for example.
>
>Hear, hear. It constantly amazes me that so many take it as reasonable that
>the father "just naturally" must pay for the kid(s) upkeep, often seemingly
>with no rational basis. I fail to understand why it seems to be carved in 
>granite that the mother always has custody of the kid(s), even if the 
>separation involved and her own lack of salable skills (FAR from being always
>the case, BTW... much kudos to those females who can handle themselves in the
>real world!) would make her reliant on child-support and/or welfare...
>

It shouldn't amaze you. It's the evolution of our society. Not that
long ago mothers did not work outside the home.
Fathers were not expected to be nurturing. It was taken as fact
that fathers could not be the "mother" of the children.
Courts might even remove children from the father should the
mother die.
As our society changes so do the roles of mothers and fathers. It
follows that the courts will reflect these changes (often much later)

BTW what's this real world stuff. With one statement you insult
all persons who are unemployed or stay at home parents, regardless
of their personal situations. Work is
Work. Family is Family. It's all the real world. For me most of the
challenges at home are tougher than at work.

I'd rather see more cases of joint custody. The child would live
primarily with the mother (or 50-50). The father is then not
so removed from the situation. He doesn't then support the
child, he is being one of the childs parents. 

Mike N.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Visitation Arrangements
Keywords: visitation
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:55:37 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

davej@sp31.csrd.uiuc.edu (David J. Jablonowski) writes:

> 
> 
>    Here it is in a nutshell. Any advice or opinions are appreciated.
> I have been divorced for three years and have joint custody of a now
> 6 year old boy. Since my ex has, up util now, lived nearby, the
> visitation arrangements were not down in writing. We were able to
> flexibly cooperate on weekend, holiday, and travel arrangements.
> 
>    But now my ex is planning to move about 100 miles away, and does not
> want to formalize the visitation arrangements. I want to formalize everthing,
> because I know otherwise I will get the short end of the stick. What are
> my options for getting the visitation stuff down in writing. Can I file
> something and have it legally binding ? Can I force her to agree to
> formalize ?
> 
>    Thanks for any advice.

It's usually a good idea to post the state you're from, because all
states don't have the same procedures. :-)

You can file for a Modification of Visitation. Any such filing will
require your ex to become involved. If she is resistant to the idea
of such a formal arrangement, chances are it's going to get expensive,
and it is likely not to happen quickly.

If you were able to both stipulate (agree) to a parenting plan, one 
that laid out how it was all going to work, who transports, which of
the holidays who has whom --all of it, then courts most often rubber
stamp it and you're done.

If she contests, it's possible that the both of you are going to have
some sizable attorney fees, and that this will get haggled to death.
It is also possible that you may find that your child-support, tax
deductions, and extraneous expenses get modified too. It is difficult
to go into a court circumstance without risk of most of the elements
of your divorce changing. That's why it's better for the two of you
to get an agreement set up between you, and then have an attorney
present it to the court (unless your state is like Washington, where
it's fast and no attorney is *required* --just a filing fee, the
both of you stand in front of the judge/commissioner and say yes when
he asks if you both agree.)

Good luck. :-)

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.legal
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 13:57:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.034455.24878@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Source: USA Today, August 24, 1992
>
>By Marilyn Elias
>
>Murphy Brown's baby is likely to be as well-behaved and academically
>successful in elementary school as traditionally reared kids, suggests a
>study out Sunday.
>
>"A very strong case could be made that in many respects the Brown kid is
>perfectly well off," says sociologist Frank L. Mott of Ohio State
>University, Columbus.
>
>Mott followed 1,714 children for three years to see how living without a
>biological dad affected behavior and academic skills.
>
>At the start, 73% of the youngsters, ages 2 to 5, had dad at home; three
>years later, 60% were still intact families.  He presented findings to
>the American Sociological Association meeting in Pittsburgh.
>
>Highlights of the study:


	Etc., etc..


	Very good Post, Aaron.

	In addition to everything you said, and the things that people
	examine, are things that are "inside" a person.

	I have a certain world view.  My parents got married, stayed
	married, and are still alive.  When I think of my childhood,
	my emotional being is formed based on the presence of both
	parents.  I had both parents.  And no, I'm not a rocket
	scientist.  And yes, I *did* have "behavior" problems.

	And you know what?  My fatehr was in the navy.  He was gone
	for months at a time some times, out to sea.  And I remember
	those times.  I remember how he was gone so often (for work)
	that when he *did* come home, and ultimately when he retired,
	he seemed like an intruder.

	So the presence (or relative presence) of a father *does*
	affect a persons psychie.  Their "innards".

	But this effect is not something you can measure by verbal
	or scholastic skills.  It is an impression about life that
	only the individual can know.


-- 
	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.dads-rights
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:51:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.184600.3347@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.083826.23555@colorado.edu>, fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick) writes:
>> In article <VIXIE.92Aug9100008@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>>In that more-common instance, the out-of-control principle does NOT
>>>apply, and if a child is ultimately born of this activity I consider the two
>>>parents equally responsible.
>> 
>>  But Paul, in support of a womans right to decide to create a child or
>>  not (after fertilization) you have *repeatedly* told us that 'nature is
>>  not equal so the laws cant be equal' and soforth. Presumably what you
>>  meant by this was that the woman bears the greater burdon (responsibility)
>>  for bringing the child in the world so that entitles her to decide on
>>  issues like abortion.
>> 
>
>Sigh, let's try this one more time.  The woman bears the greater burdon of
>physical responsibility.  This will no change until men can get pregnant
>or else artificial wombs are invented.
>
>>  Now you are trying to tell us that both the man and woman *are* equally
>>  responsible. You cant have it both ways.
>
>Financial responsibility should be equal, the same as the amount of genetic
>contribution.  

Why? What's the rational link between "genetic contribution" and child-
support? If someone were to actually STEAL my sperm, is that a "contribution"
on my part, creating a child-support liability? What if they obtained my 
sperm through fraud? Am I liable? What if they assured me that their 
pregnancy, if any, would be terminated, and then they reneged? Still liable?
What if I had an implicit, reasonable expectation of the above, and they
reneged? Still liable? If you draw the line anywhere, where do you draw it?
Do you think there is room for compromise, e.g. mitigation of award as opposed
to a boolean "liable or not liable" determination?

The law makes no fine distinctions in any of the above. All it looks at is 
genetic similarity. I denounce these deprivations of property as arbitrary 
and violative of Due Process. Do you wish to defend the indefensible?

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2101 alt.child-support:2906
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: RFC: Clinton's Family Values
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:44:42 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <25AUG199213093999@arecibo.aero.org> terwill@arecibo.aero.org writes:
>In article <BtJM7y.D30@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>>Some excerpts from a Clinton speech on Family Values, 21 May 1992.  
>>(The selection is mine.)  Comments?
>> 
>
>Why is this in this news group? Cross-posted by someone? Only applicable quote
>was the one that addressed Bill and Hillary passing a state law that notified
>every credit agency in Arkansas when a "deadbeat, lowlife, scum-sucking parent"
>(do you think the word "male" is infered?) was behind by more than $1000. in
>his support payments. 
>
>Well, in California, and I am sure this is true is most states (except
>maybe Arkansas,) if the support check doesn't arrive by the first day of the
>month, most every male paying support would break this law and be entitled
>to be "thrown under the financial bus."

Because it has to do with fathers rights and child support.

>The outcome of November is already clear, we are all going to lose.

Why was this posted here? Was it cross posted from a political group? :-)

I happened to find the article informative, and I thank Aaron for taking
the time to write it in for us. I responded to it at the address given
for compuserve.

If you don't like what it says, why don't you tell Clinton about it?

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2181 alt.child-support:3032 soc.men:15870 soc.women:16098 misc.kids:22480