HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin)
Subject: Re: College is not a "right".
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 21:46:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.202113.27195@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>
>	Question.  If kids can sue parents for this, then
>
>	1) In the case of generic college money, is it the kid suing
>	as an adult, or is it still the mother suing for the kid?

	It can be either.
>
>	2)  Consider the following scenarios.
>
>		a) NCP father dies.
>		b) CP mother dies, thus NCP dad gets custody.
>
>	For a, does the state make the mother pay for college? (Or
>	does/can the kid sue her?)

	Remember, the state is not suing, the child is.  Thus, if the
	suit is successful, the mother will pay.
>
>	for b, doe "big brother" step out now that there is no longer
>	a "divorce situation"?

	Again, the suit is between the child and the parent.  In no instance
	will the state institute an action on its own.  (At least I would hope
	not.)
>
>	I guess my biggest question is if big brother loses interest
>	when only one principle party exists, and if it is really
>	the kid suing, or the CP parent.
>
	It's the kid in this scenario.
>-- 
Marv
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3247 alt.child-support:4274 soc.men:22420
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 16:05:05 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1993Jan8.172019.5454@linus.mitre.org>, cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.065337.6472@desire.wright.edu> 
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> Also, do I figure in the time I spent at home afterward, checking Mike's
>> sore throat and administering medicine?
> 
> Imagine if you would, a reverse situation.  You are providing a support 
> check every week as non-custodial parent, and you notice that the 
> custodial parent seems to be able to afford an expensive lifestyle for 
> himself, yet the child goes to school without mittens and a warm coat.  So 
> you propose that every month he give you a copy of the receipts that cover 
> living expenses,  as attempt to demonstrate that the money is going to the 
> child s wellfare. And then he wants to know whether he should include wear 
> and tear on his BMW, and whether he should bill his time at his consulting 
> fee rate or his regular rate.  The issue involves cases of out and out 
> fraud, where the custodial parent is skimming a major part of the support 
> money for him/her self.  Do you have any suggestions for people in that 
> situation????

I don't consider myself as being the reverse situation, my kids dress better
than I do!   :-)

I would talk to the teachers at school, taking a tape recorder along to record
their comments about the child being sent to school without the warm coat.

I would also tape phone conversations with the CP.

Here in Ohio, it's legal to tape a conversation as long as one person in the
conversation knows it's being taped.  This works great to get evidence on some
one who is threatening you, or harrassing you.  In fact, a female student got
a professor fired when she taped his conversation with her.  He was very
explicit in telling her exactly what type of sexual act she had to do for
an 'A'.   What is REALLY funny about it, he was a Law Professor!

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:20:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.065337.6472@desire.wright.edu> 
sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> Also, do I figure in the time I spent at home afterward, checking Mike's
> sore throat and administering medicine?

Imagine if you would, a reverse situation.  You are providing a support 
check every week as non-custodial parent, and you notice that the 
custodial parent seems to be able to afford an expensive lifestyle for 
himself, yet the child goes to school without mittens and a warm coat.  So 
you propose that every month he give you a copy of the receipts that cover 
living expenses,  as attempt to demonstrate that the money is going to the 
child s wellfare. And then he wants to know whether he should include wear 
and tear on his BMW, and whether he should bill his time at his consulting 
fee rate or his regular rate.  The issue involves cases of out and out 
fraud, where the custodial parent is skimming a major part of the support 
money for him/her self.  Do you have any suggestions for people in that 
situation????


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:28:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.122354.6441@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> I would have no problem with doing itemized accounting
> for my foster son, it would certainly be worthwhile if it would make his
> father shut up.

Sorry, Sue, but this to me indicates an attitude problem.  The kid's father may
well be a class-A jerk but I really don't think it should be your business, as
the kid's foster parent, to be the one to say so.  The fact is, jerk or not,
he's still the kid's father and the kid may well have some hopes about him.
Perhaps they will be realized some day.

>  Hmmmm, how much am I supposed to allot a mile for 
> transportation?  I routinely put about 100+ miles a week during the
> summer, just taking Mike to and fro to softball practice and games.  
> 

I'd say it's your choice whether or not to take him to softball games.
If that's something you want to do for him then do it; otherwise don't.
Since this is not something anyone requires you to do, I'd say you 
should pay for it if you want him to have it.

> Do I just average in his share of the food or put down cost per meal?  

I figured the cost of 'our' foster son's food by comparing food-store 
bills before and after he came to live with us.  To be sure, that was
easy to do because all checks were in Quicken, and could be summed using
the 'grocery' category.  Perhaps not 100 percent accurate, but accurate
enough.  And very little effort.
> 
> As for laundry, do I charge by the item or by the load?  How about wear
> and tear on the house?  

Laundry costs are mostly for soap and hot water; the former would be in
the grocery bills, the latter under utilities.

I guess I'd not expect to be compensated for general 'wear and tear'
caused by a kid I'd invited into my home.  A particular damage (e.g.
a broken window) could be paid for by the teen himself, by earning the
money or by doing an equivalent in extra chores.
> 
> As you can see, this can get silly very quickly.
> 

It can, but it doesn't have to.  Particularly in those cases where ordered
child support is well above any reasonable minimum that might be required.

> >>Smile,
> > If I do that, people will think I am joking.
> > 
> 
> A sincere smile is one thing, putting the word at the end of a really
> nasty post is totally another.
> 
> Sue


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3268 alt.child-support:4317 soc.men:22481
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:19:52 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1993Jan9.200721.1643@css1>, reljr@css1.unetkx.com (Robert Lee) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
> |> Sigh, would you PLEASE get off the pony.  Once again, supporting a pony
> |> is no more expensive than supporting a dog.  Actually it's usually less;
> |> hay is much cheaper in many areas than dog food.  
> 
> As a meaningless aside, I think your bit of trivia belongs in
> alt.I.HAVE.NEVER.RAISED.ANY.SUCH.ANIMALS.SO.I.THINK.I.SHOULD.SAY.SOMETHING.
> IGNORANT.CONCERNING.THEM

Sorry to so seriously disappoint you.... But I grew up on a farm, live
on a farm now, have three horses currently in my corral, have a dog, a
cat, a parakeet and a rabbit.
I know LOTS about how much it costs to keep animals, raise animals, maintain
them.  Dogs cost about the same as horses.
I have a neighbor who has three German shepherds, she spends about fifty
dollars per dog per month on dog food.  Big dogs eat big amounts of food.
I have three horses, I spend about forty to fifty a month on hay.  As for
veterinary care, I give them their shots and wormer myself.  The vet 
only comes if I have an emergency situation I can't handle myself.  
I've only had the vet out for an emergency once in the last two years.  

> 
> As a contrast I would like to point out that the dog food, vet care, etc.
> for a small dog, say a toy poodle is nothing compared to the price of land,
> food, housing, vet care, training, maintenance required to humanely keep 
> a pony, horse, etc.

The whole discussion over the pony included that Lisa had a place to keep
the pony, there was already food bought to feed the pony, she lost her 
home because her husband refused to pay any of the child support.  
The pony was already trained.

And as for training, I've seen people dump big bucks on dog training.  
All things are relative, it just depends on where you put the money. 


> 

> I think you thought pony was Cantonese for dust mite, so we forgive you. :-)
> 

I think you just don't know what YOU are talking about.

> -- reljr

Sue
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3278 alt.child-support:4329
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:36:56 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>I would have no problem with doing itemized accounting
>for my foster son, it would certainly be worthwhile if it would make his
>father shut up.  Hmmmm, how much am I supposed to allot a mile for 
>transportation?  I routinely put about 100+ miles a week during the
>summer, just taking Mike to and fro to softball practice and games.  

>Do I just average in his share of the food or put down cost per meal?  

>As for laundry, do I charge by the item or by the load?  How about wear
>and tear on the house?  

>As you can see, this can get silly very quickly.


Sue, 

I *think* the issue is accountability of funds the NCP is providing for
care of the child(ren).  For those NCP's who do pay child support, they
really have no way of knowing how all of their money is spent.  In nasty
divorce cases, I would *assume* that the prejudice on the part of the NCP
is that the money given to the ex-spouse/CP is being squandered.  Not
actually knowing where the money is going breeds the doubts and bad
tempers.  Also, there really should be some accountability of where
child support money is really going.

Why do I think that?  If the child support money is not all going towards
the child(ren), then this is more a disservice to the child than the NCP.
Also, accounting for where the money is actually spent and how frequently
could help in both reducing and raising the support dollars.

It's not an exact science.  Still, I think that more NCP's would feel
better and *maybe* less bitter if they knew their dollars were really
being spent where it was intended to be spent.

allen
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:29:16 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

> >Ideally, I should hope that the same standard of living that was realized
> >DURING THE MARRIAGE would be the one, when possible, that should be strived
> >for wrt court orders.
> 
> Lisa, you wish for the impossible.

I do too, on many occasions. (-:

> When two people divorce, it is NOT POSSIBLE for the same standard of living
> to be obtained.  There are now two domiciles to be maintained.  That, in and
> of itself, doubles fixed costs.

Undisputable.

> [...]
> So let's, through AA, make women the NCPs 80-90% of the time as happens
> today with men, and then see if women like being impoverished by these
> support orders.
> 
> If, indeed, your intention is "for the good of the children" then you should
> not mind this change.  

Karl, I hope that you're playing devil's advocate with that. In case you
aren't, I'll disagree. Affirmative Action is renowned for skewing inequity
in the reverse direction. I'm not a fan. My personal wish would be that
each case start getting evaluated on its own credits and debits, and not
try some turn-around stuff that just seeks to screw someone else.

Inequities which happened to you or I should not be repaired by screwing
over other parties which had nothing to do with our circumstances. I'd
hazard to say that an approach like that wouldn't be 'fixing' anything.
:-(

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 13:33:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.122354.6441@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I would have no problem with doing itemized accounting
>for my foster son, it would certainly be worthwhile if it would make his
>father shut up.  Hmmmm, how much am I supposed to allot a mile for 
>transportation?  I routinely put about 100+ miles a week during the
>summer, just taking Mike to and fro to softball practice and games.  
>
>Do I just average in his share of the food or put down cost per meal?  
>
>As for laundry, do I charge by the item or by the load?  How about wear
>and tear on the house?  
>
>As you can see, this can get silly very quickly.


	I don't think so.  It is not very hard (with a small effort)
	to make a call and get annual monthly utility figures.
	And a look at the checkbook can give you some grocery
	figures.  Transportation?  Well I'm sorry to get into this
	again, but allowing a kid to participate in something
	is a decision an adult makes.  Yes, it *is* discrecionary.
	But it's kind of grey.

	Anyway, there are standard milage figures used. Yes.  I think
	it's around 25 cents per mile or so, to answer your question.

	But all these things seem obvious to me.  AM I particularly
	smart, or are you stupid?

	Of course Iv'e seen people like you before who claim to 
	"be able to do something", but never do when their bluff
	is called.  And maybe you feel reluctant to persue a little
	personal thumbnail math because you are afraid of putting
	ponies and trips to Florida on the list.  Or even 100+ miles
	for softball.  Shit, I only drive 150 miles total to get
	to work every week;  a necessity.



	Anyway, other posters have not found it silly or difficult
	to come up with figures of monthly cost for these things.

	It's not rocket science,, just approximation.

-- 
	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: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:47:32 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper) writes:

> A better question would be: "Is it fair to charge one parent more because
> they got a raise?"
> 
> If you get a raise, does your cost of groceries go up? Does your rent or
> mortgage go up? Do your child's clothes get more expensive?

An excellent point, Michael. Add to that the basis of the use of income
shares which is "to maintain the standard of living which existed prior
to divorce." Since the raise came afterwards, it could hardly be accur-
ately viewed as part of the pre-divorce circumstances.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous)
Subject: Advice sought on Guardian ad-litum (sp?)
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:59:34 GMT

My divorce/custody case is entering the phase where the court has ordered
that a Guardian ad-litum (sp?) be appointed to investigate and provide 
to the court a written recommendation as to the best interests of the children.

I am seeking custody. Currently my ex2b has temporary custody.

I'd greatly appreciate any input on how I can best serve my interests in this, 
whether it be personal anecdotal stuff or references to information.

I reside in Massachusetts. 

Thanks

Mark Charalambous
mc@vicorp.com

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3179 alt.child-support:4181 soc.men:22262
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 08:19:42 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:

> In article <gmTywB2w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes
> >I'm curious, you stated in an earlier post that "divorce had ruined your
> >relationship with your daughters" and that you prayed "to God to keep them
> >safe." How is it that you apparently respect and communicate well with your
> >ex, yet you say your divorce ruined your relationship with your daughters?
> >It seems to me that *divorce* in itself doesn't ruin relationships with our
> >children, we do.
> >Children have got to be the most forgiving group of people on the face of th
> >earth, when it comes right down to it.  So please explain how it is that you
> >and your ex are apparently so mature and respectful and tolerant in your
> >relationship with each other, yet your relationship with your daughters is
> >"ruined".
> 
> sometimes i feel that with the divorce, i went from being a father, to
> being a Big Brother.
> 
> My son was taken out of my life, and now i see him every other weekend.
> 
> i, too, respect my ex, and we have a very calm relationship.
> we do not fight, we discuss things calmly and setlle any differences.
> 
> this does not change the fact, that since i do not have day-to-day interactio
> with my son, the relationship i have with my son, is nowhere close to the
> relationship i expected to have with him.
> 
> i try hard to make sure i'm there for him, i think about him daily.  but
> it is not the same as i had expected.  i don't think that our relationship
> is "ruined", but i can certainly accept that others in the same boat might
> think so.
> 
Jim,

Thank you for the insightful response.  I was responding, however, to a post
that had quite a different flavour than your own, but your point is taken.

Nice to hear from yet another Canuck on this net:-) BTW, you had suggested to
me (via can.general, Nov. '92) that I check out alt.dads-rights...rarely have
time, but do get FREE news now.

Lisa



Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: College is not a "right".
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:58:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

goldstein,marvin (mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:
: 
: I would like to point out that, at least in NJ, if the parents of child can
: afford to send their child to Rutgers (it forms a cost cap), and the child
: has the grades for college, the child can SUE the parents to go to college.
: Thus, courts in this land can make them pay.
: 
: Marv
-------------------------------
Has anyone successfully done this? It seems like all you would have to do
is move to the next State over and the case would be thrown out of court.
What happens if a kid is awarded enough money to go to school but then
decides to spend it on fast cars and drugs instead of an education?

John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3241 alt.child-support:4270 soc.men:22411
From: mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Ohio support
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:19:36 GMT
Reply-To: mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of Ceridian

In article <1993Jan8.070242.6474@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>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%.

A minor problem with the math here. Assume that CP and NCP each make
$2000/month. Then, the total is $4000/month. 20% of $4000 is $800.
Since the incomes are equal, each parent is paying $400. This is indeed
only 10% of the total. However, it is still 20% of each parent's
income.

The mechanics of these transactions are:
   NCP pays  $400 to CP
   CP "pays" $400 to CP

Now, as an NCP, I have occasionally had fantasies of becoming a CP. I
calculated what would happen to my monthly expenditures if somehow,
my son got to live with me. They would go up in the neighborhood of
$400/month. So the second transaction is actually irrelevant.

Actually, I'm jealous. In Minnesota, it's 25%, not 20%.
--
#include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
Michael F. Stemper
Power Systems Consultant
mstemper@ems.cdc.com
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:07:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.003820.9181@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> 
smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l) writes:
> What you really want is your child raised right. 
Right.
> If you can determine
> quality, the winter coat will come on it's own.
True enough.
> Accounting is not the real 
> problem, it is bad parenting.
Yes, indeed. And I am suggesting that accounting is not the *problem*, but 
an attempted *solution* to the problem of bad parenting -- and a rather 
ineffective and desperate solution at that. We are really talking about 
equal treatment under the law here.  The daddy making the payments is held 
to strict accountability to *pay* the support, but mommy can then spend 
that money with no accountability to anyone.  Why is it you never read 
about the deadbeat moms who blow the support money on luxuries for 
themselves to the negelect of the kid?  Either way, the kids are the ones 
that suffer.  Itemized accounting is an attempt to make sure the kids get 
what the law intended that they get.
>Smile,
If I do that, people will think I am joking.

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men