HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smiles@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Kevin Ruddy)
Subject: Massachusetts gets tough -- and CSAM
Organization: Equipment Division, Raytheon Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 17:22:37 GMT

On the 6AM morning news a few days ago, I groggily heard the anchor saying
that there is a vicious child support bill now headed through the
Massachusetts legislature?  Or soon?  (I said I was groggy ...)  Does anyone
know what this is or how I can find out, so I can get in contact with my
local rep and senator, and chairpeople of the right committees, etc.?

I hereby propose myself to perform activities on behalf of the Child Support
Alliance of Massachusetts.  I don't have a lot of time, but I can't stand
by idly any longer, wishing things would change.  I've got to do something.
Nothing is ever going to change unless I (and any other MA [un]fortunates)
get out there and start writing, calling, and speaking to the people who
are responsible for this stuff.

And I'd call it Child Support Alliance over Child Supporters Alliance solely
because it aides *our* side by obfuscating the fact that the group is for (I
assume) normal and realistic levels of support.  By calling it Child
Supporters Alliance it is clear where we sit -- on the side of the
supporters.  Never show your hand until you must, right?

Kevin

(Now for the really important question: is that pronounced s-zam, or just
 zam??)
-- 
Kevin.Ruddy@NMC.ED.RAY.COM
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3672 soc.men:19508 soc.women:19830
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Mr. EuStress is back!
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

>In article <1992Nov15.223913.23825@u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>>I propose the following child support legislation.
>>   1. The courts should continue to award primary 
>>      custody to only one parent.
>>   2. The courts should divorce the parent who did
>>      not receive the primary custody from his 
>>      children -- thereby terminating both his/her 
>>      rights (visitation) and duties (child support).

In article <1992Nov16.033416.22025@swbatl.sbc.com>, cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes:
>First of all, do you have children of your own?

He does, but he wants to sever all ties.

>                                                 And secondly
>what if the non-custodial parent does not want to be " divorced"
>from his non-custodial parent?

That's tough shit! Mr. EuStress wants to abandon his kids, and if he
doesn't care about the effect on them, why should he care about the
effect on those of us who enjoy being parents?

>                                And thirdly, why should the custodial
>parent bare the complete financial burden of raising the child?

Because Mr. EuStress doesn't want to do it.

>And finally, why should the child have to suffer financial hardship
>because on parent is " let off the hook" so to speak?

There are two kinds of people out there:
  Mr. EuStress
  people who don't count

Do you ever wonder what all the statistics on "deadbeat dads" are based
on? They interviewed EuStress 5,000,000 times and took the average!

It's people like him that make it nearly impossible for the rest of us
to be parents. If the whole draconian anti-NCP agenda gets enacted, I
sure hope that his number comes up first!

-- 
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Subject: Rights Inversely Proportionate to Duties
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:53:47 GMT

As communists, our motto is:

     "To each according to their needs.
     From each according to their abilities."
     
But what does this mean to the individual?
     It means that you get more rights (i.e. "stuff")
by being more needy (i.e. a kid, a geezer, or a 
women in distress).
     It also means that you get more "duties" (i.e.
debt, slavery) by being more capable (i.e. middle aged man).

This becomes very interesting when a women is
more capable (i.e. earns more) than her husband.
I met this man who is being divorced by his wife.
He makes $38,000 per year and she makes $80,000+.
She is going to get primary custody but the child
will sleep in each house 50% of the time -- on
alternating weeks.
     When you look their incomes up on the Washington
state child support tables SHE owes him child support
even thou she has primary custody.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3689 soc.men:19583 soc.women:19947
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposal for Child Support Legislation
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:31:59 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1992Nov19.062731.29897@u.washington.edu>, zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
> I wrote:
> 
>       "The courts should divorce the parent who did
>       not receive the primary custody. . ."
> 
> I was flamed by several, including Jim McNicholas who replied:   
> 
>        "Joint custody is preferable"
>    
> Even in "joint custody" ONLY one gets primary custody
>    -- because someone has to make the final decision.
> That person can refuse visitation and extort money with impunity
>    -- because forced visitation is a form of rape.

Yeah, right... when have you ever heard of any parent being "forced" to
visit their own kid?  

> Jim continues:
> 
>       "if anyone tried to terminate my children from 
>       me I'd kill that person . . ."
> 
> Mature people accept divorce -- even dad-kid divorce.

Well, you have been "divorced" from a chunk of your paycheck.  Be mature and
accept it.  

Incidentally, just about every man who has kids loses money on the deal,
divorced or not (unless your kid becomes a rock star or something).  I guess
most men would rather have the kids than the money, cause I sure don't see any
increase in the popularity of vasectomies.

- xenon
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3673 soc.men:19524 soc.women:19856 alt.dads-rights:2636
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Proposal for Child Support Legislation
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:41:33 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov17.131102.2591@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.223913.23825@u.washington.edu>, zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>> I propose the following child support legislation.
>>    1. The courts should continue to award primary 
>>       custody to only one parent.
>>    2. The courts should divorce the parent who did
>>       not receive the primary custody from his 
>>       children -- thereby terminating both his/her 
>>       rights (visitation) and duties (child support).
>
>What a load of moronic drivel!  What benefit would accrue from such
>legislation, other than that YOU would get out of paying child support?  For


	Maybe to get *YOU* out of it as well!!

-- 
	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......
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Someone please help answer questions about support
Keywords: child-support, spousal support
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:59:59 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <klewis.38.722534844@AFIT.AF.MIL> klewis@AFIT.AF.MIL (Keith A. Lewis) writes:
>To anyone out there,
>
>  I have a friend who's ex-husband recently past.  She would like to know if 
>she and her kids are entitled to, and how much, social security.  She has 
>been divorced from him less than two months.  Enquiring minds would like to 
>know.  We need a lot of feedback.  



	This would also certainly be good public info for the net.


	There was a radio talk show about this here a few weeks ago.
	About "protecting assets".  I couldn't listen to much of it.

-- 
	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: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: "Key children", children with parents at work.
Keywords: Children parents work
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:33:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.082238.27983@hsr.no>, karl@hsr.no (Karl Martin Lund) writes:
> Some friends of mine are working on a papir on what we in Norwegian call
> key-children. It's children in the age about five to twelve years who
> for some reason have no parents at home when they for instance arrive home
> after school. The reason may be that the parents are at work. 
> BTW, is there an English term for key-children? 

In the U.S.A we call 'em "latch-key children".  I'm not familiar with
scholarly literature that shows this to be harmful to the children,
although five seems MUCH to young to be home alone for any length
of time.

I've read of programs that match old, usually retired people with kids,
at least on a phone-up basis.  One of the things we've mostly lost is
the extended family; chances are the parents' parents don't live
close enough to provide attention for the kids.

Of course, not all old people *want* to do this, or are good with
kids, but I'm sure there are many who would enjoy having at least
limited contact with children again; not all old people (I hope to
become "old" someday, rather than a "senior citizen") want to live
in old-people's ghettos like Sun City, etc.

As a teen I rather enjoyed coming home to a parentless home ...

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: "Key children", children with parents at wo
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Nov 92 11:29:06 CST

Latch-Key Children



Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3695 soc.men:19632 soc.women:19992
From: 00brwoodson@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposal for Child Support Legislation
Date: 20 Nov 92 02:08:07 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

In article <1992Nov16.033416.22025@swbatl.sbc.com>, cp7927@oktext.sbc.com (Caryn S. Prater) writes:
> In article <1992Nov15.223913.23825@u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>>I propose the following child support legislation.
>>   1. The courts should continue to award primary 
>>      custody to only one parent.
>>   2. The courts should divorce the parent who did
>>      not receive the primary custody from his 
>>      children -- thereby terminating both his/her 
>>      rights (visitation) and duties (child support).
> 
> First of all, do you have children of your own?  And secondly
> what if the non-custodial parent does not want to be " divorced"
> from his non-custodial parent?  And thirdly, why should the custodial
> parent bare the complete financial burden of raising the child?
> And finally, why should the child have to suffer financial hardship
> because on parent is " let off the hook" so to speak?
> 
> Caryn

I agree with Caryn.  Why should the custodial parent be punished for being
granted the priviledge to take care of both parents' child?  What we should do
is crack down on these parents who shrugg off their responsibility as parents,
leaving the one providing care the financial hardship.  NO system is going to
take care of the problem entirely, but we can try.

> 
> --
> Nolite te bastardes carborunodorum
>        Author unknown :-)
From: waltoml@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: "Temporary" Temporary Custody
Date: 23 Nov 92 00:43:11 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

HI!

I was trying to get some advice and perhaps some confirmation.  

I am the NCP of three children, 8, 6 and 4.  I have been divorced from
their mother for almost a year.  I pay child support but no alimony
under Kentucky law. My child support is taken directly out of my
unemployment checks by personal request.

She has been living on campus with her new lover/finance since before
the divorce. The housing is based upon being a fulltime student at
the university and up until the past school year, they did not care if
you went to classes or not.  The policy was changed shoirtly after our
divorce, and she was told to take classes and attend them or lose the
very cheap housing (free utilities and a very low rent payment). 
I guess she did not do either, because of her new fulltime job and
because other than the finance, an alien student from Indonesia,
nobody else wanted to take care of the three while she went to class
at night.  He could not because he was working a job "off the books"
in town. 

I get monthly visitation rights, and this is where the issue comes
into play.  I called this evening to verify the arrangement to pick
them up for this month's visit with me, living two and one half hours
away from the campus. She tells me that she wants me to keep them
longer than the weekend, that she must find another place to live and
that if I had them, she could save up enought money to get someplace
to live. I tentatively agreed to this, because I miss my children very
much and because I can understand trying to find another place.  

She wants me to take them out of school and transfer them to the local
school system here.  What right do I have to do this being the NCP?? 
She also wants me to keep them longer than the weekend visitation that
is described in the divorce agreement. Can I do this risk-free??  I am
not doing well-off financially, I am still looking for a job here.
What are the ramifications of "temporary custody" without a temporary
custody document??

On one hand, I want to help her.  On the other hand, I cannot trust
her as far as I can throw her (and that's not far, believe me). I want
to have my children here, safe and secure, and I also want to do this
the right way.  Any thoughts on how I should do this??  

Please reply to WALTOML@WKUVX1.bitnet  since I don't frequently write
or read the postings here on the list. I do, however, read my mail
twice a day at work.

Thanks for your help!

Settummanque!

Mike Walton
Greenwood, Kentucky

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Finally, action (Re: Massachusetts gets tough--and CSAM)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:19:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.063307.20184@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <0HPguB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>>smiles@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Kevin Ruddy) writes:
>>> I hereby propose myself to perform activities on behalf of the Child Support
>>> Alliance of Massachusetts.  I don't have a lot of time, but I can't stand
>>> by idly any longer, wishing things would change.  I've got to do something.
>>> Nothing is ever going to change unless I (and any other MA [un]fortunates)
>>> get out there and start writing, calling, and speaking to the people who
>>> are responsible for this stuff.
>>
>>I'm wondering (not criticizing or flaming) if it might be a good idea for
>>you folks to start a newsgroup or a maillist for the Massachusettes group.
>>There's always plenty of room for discussion here in these groups, but it
>>might help y'all localize and consolodate the work you're setting out to
>>do. 
>>
>>The idea seems to have struck a positive note with quite a few people, and
>>even though I'm from Washington, your group plans sound really good to me.
>>I think local groups --able to deal with the specifics of a state-- are a 
>>much better alternative to national orgs who have to deal with a much more 
>>generalized agenda. A good 'for instance' is FACE in Ohio. I'm always im-
>>pressed with their work. As a matter of fact, you might ask Aaron Hoffmeyer 
>>for some tips on building your organization.
>>
>>Anyway, just a thought. Does anyone else think this might be a good idea?
>>--- 
>>Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
>>Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
>



	I appologize to Bob K. for only reading the first part of
	what he wrote and giving a somewhat curt response to his
	advice.

-- 
	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:3670 soc.men:19491 soc.women:19814
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Proposal for Child Support Legislation
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:55:51 GMT
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:

> I propose the following child support legislation.
>    1. The courts should continue to award primary 
>       custody to only one parent.
>    2. The courts should divorce the parent who did
>       not receive the primary custody from his 
>       children -- thereby terminating both his/her 
>       rights (visitation) and duties (child support).

        Whenever someone like this baits the net we should
        all excuse the post and ignore the flame-bait, eh?
        Joint custody is preferable and if anyone tried to
        terminate my children from me I'd kill that person
        dead!! I love my kids and they love me, so shut the
        F*^K UP A!@#$%E!!! as i said don't flame him he's a
        silly college kid anyway!!


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|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-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,ba.seminars
Subject: Re: December FREE/California Meeting
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:38:40 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1ep47uINN68n@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>
>
>Wow!  Our special guest speaker for our December Fathers' Rights &
>Equality Exchange (Bay Area Chapter) meeting is none other than 
>Peter Firpo, Esq., himself!
>
>As many of you know, Mr. Firpo is an attorney who specializes in 
>defending those falsely accused of abusing their children, both on a
>civil level, and the criminal level.
>
>Mr. Firpo has produced, in conjunction with his partner, Patrick Clancy, Esq.,
>a one hour informational video, which some of you have seen.
>
>We are *very* fortunate to have Mr. Firpo as our guest.  He will be
>making an approximately 1 hour trip in order to join us, so *please*,
>let's have a huge turn out for him.  This is a great meeting to bring
>friends and mates to, as it promises to be very informative.
>
>Also, the meeting will be held at our new meeting location, at
>441 First Avenue, San Mateo.  This is a much more central
>location, and *very* easy to get to.
>
>From 101 take 3rd Avenue West, make a right on Delaware, and a left
>on First Avenue.  From 92 take Delaware towards the North, make
>a left on First Avenue.
>
>After turning onto First Avenue from Delaware, 441 is on the 2nd block,
>on the right.  There is parking on the street, and in the rear.
>
>The meeting will be held, as always, on the 2nd Wednesday of the month, which
>is December 9th, at 7p.m.
>
>Again, please, let's have a HUGE turnout!
>-- 
>   LOOKING FOR:  Anyone from Greenfield MA, Putney VT, & Lorna Taylor
>I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
>Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
>			DE STELLA MARTIS VERE VENISTI


	Well just for *OUR* information, I called St. Paul's
	Episcopal Church in Brookline Mass just to verify that
	a meeting does take place there on the 1st Tuesday of the
	month.  It does.   But the Priest or whoever answered the
	phone had no idea what the turnout was.

-- 
	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:3707 alt.dads-rights:2687 ba.seminars:714
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,ba.seminars
Subject: December FREE/California Meeting
Date: 22 Nov 1992 15:14:06 -0800
Organization: Knapp & Viola, Attys. at Law, San Mateo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gw.home.vix.com



Wow!  Our special guest speaker for our December Fathers' Rights &
Equality Exchange (Bay Area Chapter) meeting is none other than 
Peter Firpo, Esq., himself!

As many of you know, Mr. Firpo is an attorney who specializes in 
defending those falsely accused of abusing their children, both on a
civil level, and the criminal level.

Mr. Firpo has produced, in conjunction with his partner, Patrick Clancy, Esq.,
a one hour informational video, which some of you have seen.

We are *very* fortunate to have Mr. Firpo as our guest.  He will be
making an approximately 1 hour trip in order to join us, so *please*,
let's have a huge turn out for him.  This is a great meeting to bring
friends and mates to, as it promises to be very informative.

Also, the meeting will be held at our new meeting location, at
441 First Avenue, San Mateo.  This is a much more central
location, and *very* easy to get to.

From 101 take 3rd Avenue West, make a right on Delaware, and a left
on First Avenue.  From 92 take Delaware towards the North, make
a left on First Avenue.

After turning onto First Avenue from Delaware, 441 is on the 2nd block,
on the right.  There is parking on the street, and in the rear.

The meeting will be held, as always, on the 2nd Wednesday of the month, which
is December 9th, at 7p.m.

Again, please, let's have a HUGE turnout!
-- 
   LOOKING FOR:  Anyone from Greenfield MA, Putney VT, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
			DE STELLA MARTIS VERE VENISTI
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3685 soc.men:19580 soc.women:19941 alt.dads-rights:2647
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Proposal for Child Support Legislation
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:13:47 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <1992Nov18.134133.10893@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.131102.2591@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.223913.23825@u.washington.edu>, zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>>> I propose the following child support legislation.
>>>    1. The courts should continue to award primary 
>>>       custody to only one parent.
>>>    2. The courts should divorce the parent who did
>>>       not receive the primary custody from his 
>>>       children -- thereby terminating both his/her 
>>>       rights (visitation) and duties (child support).
>>
>>What a load of moronic drivel!  What benefit would accrue from such
>>legislation, other than that YOU would get out of paying child support?  For
> 
> 
> 	Maybe to get *YOU* out of it as well!!
> 

I don't want to "get out of it", I just want it to be fair.  If I hadn't wanted
children in my life I would have gotten a vasectomy.  That's what Mr. EuSless
should have done.


- xenon

Newsgroups: alt.child-support