From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:02:42 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <C0Hn8t.KxF@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.152315.6445@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <C0FxJ8.5JM@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>> <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>
>>
>>NO, Beav,*YOU* brought this up as a part of the discussion about Lisa's
>>problem.  That is what I am saying, you kept trying to cloud the discussion
>>of Lisa's ex who refused to pay child support by bringing in this.
>>
>>This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
> 
> 
> If you can avoid your own style of "creative history writing,"
> take a look at the archives.  These comments were part of a discussion
> about whether luxuries should be billed under child support.
> 
> That discussion was a spin-off of Lisa's complaints, which for the
> most part I find justifiable (assuming the ex did not get mistreated)
> -- just not the part about the pony.
> 
>>> 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.
> 

Once again, creative editing.  I called his father a jerk (don't remember
using the word 'bastard', because he had abandoned his son, refused to
take custody when requested by the County, then started screaming  when
he had to pay child support.  

>>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.
> 
> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

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
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3170 lou.general:31 neworleans.general:22