HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: liberk@jacob.its.rpi.edu (Katherine Libertucci)
Subject: what's fair
Reply-To: liberk@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:49:03 GMT

>  4) Is set at an amount that requires BOTH parties to contribute to the
>      financial support of the children, without the cp PROFITING from
>      child support.
	That is a very important point. I live with someone that has a child
from a previous marriage. I have had to watch these unbelievable events
	1) child taken out of state without permission or knowlegde of NCP
	2) 100% of all maitial debts dumped on husband ( wife goes bankrupt)
	3) Wife takes all property in house including personel items of
	   husband
	4) Wife refuses to give divorce forcing (to date) $3000 in legal fees
	5) Wife now taking husband to court for more child support
(ps thru this all husband was making voluntary supoprt payments)
	Now this person (wife) lives way beyond her means. She is always com-
plaing that she does not have enough $ to raise child properly. She WILL get
more $ because of the law and she will NOT have to explain where/when it gets
spent. I feel that the CP should have to submit a financial type of report on
where all the support goes. The husband does not have a problem with paying
but he does have a BIG problem with the fact that his child will not see even
50% of that money.

Katherine Libertucci - Speaking for herself NOT her company
Keywords:
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: 
From: mark@cbmark.att.com (Mark Horton)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:38:26 GMT
Distribution: bl
Organization: AT&T

thrushea (who are you?),  writes:
> And you, Aaron, probably think it's fair that women still make, on the
> average, about $.70 for every dollar a man makes, that the standard
> of living goes down 74% for the mother and children and up substantially
> for the father after divorce, that in 75% of the cases where the father
> contests custody, he wins (figures used in that California case you
> mentioned). 

I've heard numbers like this kicked around, and I'd like to understand
them better.  Can you provide more detailed information and references?

What is the $.70 due to?  Does that mean women tend to hold jobs in
lower paying fields than men, or are at lower levels of management,
or that they are paid less for the same job?

Can you back up the "down 74%/up substantially" claim?  Seems to me
it goes down for both of them, at least until somebody gets a raise.
(Personally, my income and living standard went way down while my ex
had temporary custody.  I understand this is typical.)

I've never seen a claim that 75% of contested custody cases are won
by men, and I find such a claim very hard to believe.  I have heard
that in Franklin County, Ohio (Columbus, a somewhat progressive
county compared to the rural surrounding counties with neanderthal
judges) that contested cases that are not settled in advance are
about 50/50, but that 90% of the cases are settled before trial,
and in most of those, custody goes to the mother.

Please back up your numbers and explain how they fit into the big picture.

Thanks,

	Mark
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1154 alt.dads-rights:688
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Deciding paternity
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:41:11 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr10.190513.132@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>
>	The law says that a baby born to a married couple is assumed
>	to be of that marriage.  This, of course, is significant
>	where the wife is suspected of cheating and/or if the
>	realtionship breaks up, and the woman turns up pregnant in
>	the immediate future.  In an in-tact marriage it probably
>	wouldn't reach a public forum.  In a split up, the
>	husband is assumed to be the father.
>
>	What if the man has had a vasectomy?

This is nothing new Alan. I've seen it quite a few times. The husband
produces a sperm count from his physician and is exonerated from any
responsibility. End of story. At least, that's the way it goes here
in eastern Washington.

There are things which can affect this, however. If his count is > 0
then there are tests which are a bit more invasive, but paternity is
provable to a 98% certainty. So is a lack of it.

I've heard stories, none of which I've ever been able to substantiate,
that some husband has been made responsible for a child which wasn't
his. If they are true, and I say if, then there must be more than meets
the eye, and if he didn't appeal, he was an idiot. An appeal is an
expensive thing, but not next to 18 years of child support. :-O

Anyway, is this really a topic for alt.child-support?

-- 
Bob Kirkpatrick                      "Stone cold."
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA      ...and I thought I knew you so well."
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                                           
From: laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:49:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Making a change
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

> In article <92102.112540JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
> >
> >Anyone know if the "financial responsibility" thing would truly
> >hold up in court?
> >
> 
> In Washington, the view is that the CP should continue to get the support
> payments in order to "maintain the permanent residence of the child/ren."
> It's actually in the laws, but I can't cite the specific entry. I just 
> know I've seen it.

This is the common argument against allowing credit for visitation.
However, what they don't seem to understand is that a significant amount
of the "cost" of raising the children follows them.  For example, food,
transportation, and entertainment costs come with them when I have
visitation.  I would venture to guess that this represents nearly HALF of 
the cost.  What about the residence I maintain for them?  Shouldn't I get
some sort of credit for that cost? This doesn't even take ito account that
the guideline amounts are already greatly inflated.

Laszlo
> 
> -- 
> root@dogear.spk.wa.us                 "We come in search of the Holy Grail...
> Bob Kirkpatrick                        --have you got any?"    --monty python
> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

There is but one solution...............Kill Him!!!


Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1158 alt.dads-rights:691
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Deciding paternity
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 10:32:21 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Amethyst Systems

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> 	OK.  Here's on I've never hear discussed.  Since I've been
> 	discussing the chopping block lately, here's a question.
> 
> 
> 	The law says that a baby born to a married couple is assumed
> 	to be of that marriage.  This, of course, is significant
> 	where the wife is suspected of cheating and/or if the
> 	realtionship breaks up, and the woman turns up pregnant in
> 	the immediate future.  In an in-tact marriage it probably
> 	wouldn't reach a public forum.  In a split up, the
> 	husband is assumed to be the father.
> 
> 	What if the man has had a vasectomy?
> 

Paternity can be challenged with a simple blood test, or DNA if the
blood test is inconclusive.  One it has been established that the
husband is not the father of the child, his name can be stricken from
the child's birth certificate.  The mother can then name the
biological father for the child, and if she can prove it (blood
test/getting the father to sign a Statement of Paternity) then *his*
name goes on the birth certificate.

Regardless, once your name is off the certificate, you will have no
further legal obligation to the child. 

Vasectomy in and of itself is meaningless, since even they aren't one
hundred percent effective.  But the vasectomy would sure give you
cause to wonder.  It did for the father of *my* children, for child
#2....

Note: I am not an attorney--this is how it was played out in Colorado
with a friend of mine.

> -- 
> 	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......
    ^^^^^^^^^

After reading your story, and of your desire to remain estranged from
your son (or might it really be, punish your son for what you see
your ex-wife as having wrought), your .sig saddens me every time I
see it.  I wonder if that son of yours will ever have Net access,
will ever see that .sig, and know "my Dad never wanted me."

What a charming legacy.

Sorry.  Others have put similar sentiments gently.  I have tried, and
failed.  Maybe it's because I know what it's like to have
disappointed a father by one's mere existence, though not to the same
degree that your son has.  My sin was merely in not having been born
a boy.  It's only a teeeeny tiny disppointment to a father who
otherwise was delighted in me.  But I could still feel it.  I cannot
imagine how your son might feel, if he were ever to see what you have
posted about him on the Net.

Your son has NO obligation to attempt to please you, by changing the
name he's always known himself by, or in any other fashion.  He may
well *wish* to please you.  I hope you can someday appreciate him for
what he *can* be to and with you, instead of finding things to
condemn about him.

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com
From: JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Paul Vixie
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:53:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.92099.155317JLB155
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Apr8.150523.24260@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
says:
>        1) I can understand fully how a person would NEVER forsake a
>        kid they are bonded to.
>        2) I can understand fully how a person would forsake a
>        kid they never knew.
>        3) I have lived both sides and can understand why someone
>        would not understand the side they haven't lived, based on
>        my actual life experience and feeling that I described.

Ditto Number (1)
Ditto Number (2)

I actually had it told to me, "Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the
persons paying child support *knew* the persons receiving it.
Then it wouldn't seem like their money is going into a pit;
as it would if they didn't know the receiving persons or even
hated them."

Ick!  This actually makes sense to me.

-Jennifer
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sse@breeze.bellcore.com (Samuel S Epstein)
Subject: tax question - head of household
Reply-To: sse@breeze.bellcore.com (Samuel S Epstein)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 14:10:26 GMT



Under what circumstances can a separated parent with two children
that he is largely supporting, neither of whom lives with him full
time, file a return as head of household? As I interpret IRS
publication 504(?), the answer is "not possible under any
circumstances," but I'm not sure.

From: ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:34:20 GMT
Subject: Re: tax question - head of household
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

Yeah, I haven't read the H of H rules, but I suspect you can't file that
way unless you have physical residence more than 6 months of the year
and provide >50% of their support.  That's how exemptions work anyway,
if I remember right.

As for filing "married, joint" versus "single":  Ouch!  I took a big hit
on that.  But it's not factored into the child support obligation
guidelines.  In fact the up-to-15% increase now headed for the governor
(of Colorado's) desk is based largely on tax rates having gone down
since 1986!  With no appreciation of the ~30% or more increase in net
taxes paid as a single person versus married.
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Re More legislation against deadbeat dads
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:47:04 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Return-Path: <tau-ceti!ll.mit.edu!yasu>
Return-Path: <yasu@ll.mit.edu>
To: acs@dogear.spk.wa.us


	I notice that you are from Mass..  Do you know what the
	"emancipation" age is here?

	Are you familiar with the states posture on college expense?

	Was the thing about raising the "maximum age" a federal thing?

-- 
	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......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1079 alt.dads-rights:655
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:46:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s1sciINN1gr
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

In response to my post Paul Ourada writes:

>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>In my view, laws governing support levels should be aimed at 
>>achieving the above criteria [which provide for the child's support], 
>>as opposed to achiveing any subjective notion of "fairness" from 
>>the perspective of either parent.
>
>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  

There are no laws requiring parents to share their wealth 
with their children.  I don't see why NCP's should be singled
out for such a requirement, when it doesn't apply to parents
in general.

Am I missing something here?

>paulo@ohmeda.com

-- Steve
From: thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:02:17 -0600
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <VIXIE.92Apr4130837@cognition.pa.dec.com>, vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
> 	<1992Apr4.002508.25760@SSD.intel.com>
> Date: 4 Apr 92 13:08:37
> Lines: 54
> 
> joel wr 
> Joel, times are changing.  We are nearing the end of nearly 50 years of the
> so-called "tender years doctrine", and various judges are starting to believe
> that joint custody is best for the children, other things being equal.  I am
> terribly sorry to hear that you had to give up all decisions in the first and
> last name of your child, the training and schooling, their residence location,
> and visitation.  I can't make any recommendations to you since I do not know
> your situation.  But I can say that I am fighting to see that other parents
> (including myself!) are not given "NO chance for a win-win."  If one parent
> arranges every detail such that the other parent can't find a win-win, then
> the first parent is guilty of child endangerment -- because they have endan-
> gered their children's relationship with the other parent.  That cannot be
> allowed to happen.
> 
Sorry - at one time I would have agreed that joint custody was the best
solution, but not any more.  I've seen too many of my daughter's friends
shuttled back and forth between parents - constantly having to form
and reform relationships with friends, constantly readjusting to different
household rules, not being able to plan the same activites as the other
kids - can't go to summer camp cause that's dad's time and can't go
on weekend trips with a school group cause that's mom's time - most of
these kids seem miserable most of the time.  

That doesn't mean that I don't think both parents should play an 
important part in the child's life - just that the child needs a
consistent home.

My problem is the opposite - my ex chose to move to the other side of
the country and has only seen his daughter a few times in the last
10 years - his choice, not mine. And, despite the fact that I know
this is emotionally damaging to her, there is NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT
IT!!!! There is NO law I can invoke to make him spend more time with
her. At least you CAN fight for what you want for your child -- I
can't.
> --
> Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
> Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Ready, Fire, Aim"
> <vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie
> <paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul
From: lance@wnss (Lance Spangler )
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 07:40:22 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: We Never Stop Searching, Austin, Texas

ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein) writes:

> I learned that the roots of anger are hurt (past), frustration
> (present), fear (future), and inadequacy (self).  I learned that you can
> dump anger destructively, or you can hold it in and get depressed, or
> you can do "anger exercises" -- they really work, but I won't do them
> injustice by trying to summarize them here.

What an excellent definition of anger Alan.  I realize it would be 
difficult to summarize the coursework on the net, but on the other 
hand, I suspect many of us could benefit greatly from any suggestions 
regarding the anger excercises.  I for one would.  And if those feelings
were directed in a dignified and healthy manner, so much the better! 

Lance Spangler 

	[...] cs.utexas.edu!dogface!wnss!las	Lance Spangler
		PARENTAL KIDNAPPING IS A CRIME	Senior Producer
		 WITH NO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE!   KVUE Television	
		  Support its prosecution !	Austin, Texas 
		       All appropriate disclaimers apply.
From: ajs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 23:37:36 GMT
Subject: Re: father out of a job.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

> ...I co-operate (Like I just did with a little extra $$$) to keep
> peace...  I bought a lot of good will.

Precisely.  Money is just one factor in the decision of how much and in
what way to cooperate.  Ref:  The Evolution of Cooperation, by Axelrod,
an especially neat book for those of us caught in the Iterated
Prisoner's Dilemma called co-parenting.

In particular he shows (with numbers, even) that:

* The other party doing well is almost a pre-requisite for you doing well.

* You don't have to like someone to cooperate with them for mutual gain.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1153 alt.dads-rights:687
From: westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu (Rick Westerman)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Deciding paternity
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:27:16 GMT
Reply-To: westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: Purdue University AIDS Center

I'm veering on the thread here, but 

>paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada) writes:
>I believe that I have read in alt.sex(.wizards ?) that vasectomies are not
>100% effective.  

Well, I suppose nothing is 100%. But vasectomies can be very effective as
long as you have them done right. As far as I know, the 3 methods are:

    -- clip   (cutting a piece of the tube out)
    -- sew    (folding back the ends of the tube and sewing them together)
    -- burn   (cautherizing, e.g., burning, the ends of the tube)

Each method is X% effective, where X is > 90%. Having all three done (like
I did) makes the vasectomy close to 99.999% effective. The down side is that
I could never have my vasectomy un-done.

So, like many things in life, have it done right the first time and you won't
regret it.



-- Rick

Rick Westerman                System Manager of the AIDS Center Laboratory
westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu      for Computational Biochemistry (ACLCB), BCHM
(317) 494-0505                bldg., Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
From: apetty@dsd.es.com (Annie Petty)
Subject:  Where do I send the CS check
Reply-To: apetty@dsd.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 14:54:56 GMT

	I have not seen anything that remotely resembles
	my husbands CS problem.

	Since September of 91 the child has not resided with
	her mother (CP) and is living with her boyfriend at
	her sisters.  The child will be 18 in Sept. 92 and is
	having a baby in August.  She'll be collecting her very
	own Welfare check beginning in June.

	The mother was collecting AFDC until December and then
	went on to Public Assistance just for herself.

	Through December we paid the CP directly to her.  In January
	she requested we pay Recovery Services, State of Utah.

	We made payment to ORS in January.  In February we paid
	directly to her (CP) and in March we paid ORS.  Both
	ORS checks were returned in April because her case was
	closed.

	She requested that we pay the child directly 3 weeks ago
	and delivered a notarized signed request and then 
	disappeared!

	We can't pay ORS (they'll return the checks) and our
	obligation is to the CP not the child.    

	We currently are supplying the medical insurance which
	will cover the 80% of the her pregnancy. 

 	We are concerned  that if we make payments to the child
	we could be considered for financial responsibilty for
	the remainder of the pregnancy costs.  Additionally, 
	the CP could claim we didn't pay CS for several months
	in 92 simply because legally we are to pay her.

	We can't send her the checks because she moved.  And 
	also she said she didn't want them because it would
	cut her Welfare benefits.

	Currently, we are just putting the payments into a 
	savings account and waiting to see what happens.

	Does anyone have any thoughts on our dilemna?


	Annie
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: college money
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:39:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.22654
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

I basically support what CT Hart says, & I was there myself.  But--
CT Hart writes:
>  the table.)  Then I was emancipated.  Once I was on my own, with the
> usual going-to-college-job, it wasn't much trouble getting grants and

In all fairness, it looks to me like it is much harder to do this
nowadays than it was even a few years ago.  I got NDSL 3% loans (& I'm
app'tly one of the few fools who actually paid it off).  I had
no-brainer but ok-paying factory jobs at times (all gone now).  Book
expenses were reasonable.  Cost of living in metro areas was bearable
& not as dangerous.  & school fees hadn't gone into 5 digits per year.
Locally, the University of California system has gone from essentially
free a generation ago to as expensive as the eastern state-supported
schools.  It's pretty easy to spend $100-$200+ per *class* on books &
other fees especially in a techie or art-related course.  This isn't
news to the present-day students but those of us who've been out in
the world for a while should ask themselves how much it would cost
to re-acquire the same education they got.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: wills
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 12:27:50 GMT

>From: JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown)
>Newsgroups: alt.child-support
>Subject: Wills
>
>Alan's post made me remember that I wanted to ask this:
>
>Under what circumstances can a man's (or woman's I suppose)
>biological or adopted children contest his/her will?
>Specifically, a will where the children were not mentioned
>because they were no longer a part of the man/woman's
>family before the death.  ie.  Disowned.
>Also, does one have to "disown" a person with some legal
>process or can it just be a verbal "Get out of my life!"?
>
>-Jennifer

	In case you don't know, we *each* have a will  (probably obvious).
	The spouse is the beneficiary in the event of the death of the
	other.  But in the event of the death of *both*, the wording
	is, "children of this marriage".


	In addition to owning our house,  I am covered by almost $200,000 
	of life ins.  We didn't want grave robbers to come and get,
	"their share".
 
-- 
	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......