HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iturn@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Indra Turn)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Overtime in Support Awards
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:14:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

Just thought I'd post something I read in the LA Times that might interest you
all.

"The state Supreme Court held Thursday that a divorced husband cannot be
forced to work "continuous, substantial overtime" to pay spousal and child
support to his former wife.
  The justices, setting new support guidelines for divorcing spouses, ruled
unanimously that such payments must be based on an "objectively reasonable
work regimen."  While support orders based on overtime are not flatly barred,
the regular 40-hour week should ordinarily be the standard, the justices held.
  "An award of support following dissolution of marriage generally should not
penalize... a supporting spouse who voluntarily has undertaken an
extraordinary rigorous work regimen during the marriage by locking that spouse
into an excessively onerous work schedule," Justice Ronald M. George wrote for
the court.
   The court ordered a Los Angeles trial judge to recalculate the support
obligations imposed on Richard O. Simpson, a theater and television stagehand
who had worked up to 70 hours a week to help pay the expenses of his wife,
Barbara J. Simpson, so she could obtain a teaching credential.
   When the couple divorced in 1989, the husband went back to a 40-hour week,
earning about $26,000.00 annually compared to the $60,000.00 or more he made
annually for three years working overtime.  Simpson said he was suffering from
stress working nights and weekends and wanted to spend more time with the
couple's 10-year-old daughter.  But Superior Court Judge H. George Taylor
ruled that Simpson had deliberately reduced his pay to avoid family
obligations.  Taylor said Simpson should make support payments based on his
earning capacity - not his current actual earnings.  The judge fixed Simpson's
capacity at $60,000.00 a year and ordered him to begin paying $1650.00 a month
in support to be reduced later to $1050.00 a month.  A state Court of Appeal
upheld the order in a 2-1 decision.
   The high court held Thursday that the judge was entitled to consider
Simpson's earning capacity but should have based the support order on what
Simpson could earn working reasonable hours.  Michael J. Rand, Simpson's
attorney, said the justices' new guidelines would protect divorcing spouses
against "involuntary servitude".  "This means supporting spouses, normally
husbands, are not going to be compelled to work excessive hours simply because
they had before for some specific family purposes," Rand said.
   George, in his opinion, said that state statutes had not detailed how
earning capacity should be considered in support awards.  In determining what
was a resaonable standard in future cases, consideration should be given to
the choice of job availability within a particular occupation, the working
hours, and working conditions, he said."
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Pony Support (was Re: child support problem
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:47:01 CST

In article 1gg0cgINNfis@gw.home.vix.com, shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

 Excellent "clearing the air" stuff deleted....


>Child-support is not for the purpose of covering such discretionary
>items as ballet, ponies, karate, etc.  In CA, support is determined by
>income, not need/items, so it's kind of irrelevant.  But I'd be
>shocked if any of the judges I've been before would ever order
>additional support to pay for any discretionary items such as a pony.
>This is the legal issue of what is support supposed to be fore.
>
  Ann, I thought that the child support guidelines as shoved down the
throats by our federal govt. included the 'entertainment' costs and
really reflected the needs of a missing parent who was dead. i.e. 
doesn't provide nuttin'.


>The father, assuming he really is in a position to provide for these
>extras, is probably a coldhearted jerk.  That's a moral/emotional
>issue.

Based on the current guidelines, fathers can't possibly provide MORE!!!!

>
>Should the father have to pay for the discretionary things which Lisa
>chooses to provide for the child she has custody of?  Not in my
>opinion, generally speaking.  Would it be a morally nice thing if he
>did pay?  Of course it would, but that's between him and his maker.

Damn straight it is. In fact, all the bleepin' feministas want government
out of their womb, but they want the hang man for men who miss child
support payments and for those men whose girlfriends scream rape 24
hours later. Wanting and Eating cake made and payed for by men.


>
>
>-- 
>   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
>   CUM CATAPULTAE PROSCRIPTAE ERUNT TUM SOLI PROSCRIPTI CATAPULTAS HABEBUNT
From: dirbze@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Pony Support (was Re: child support problems)
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:24:02 MST

In article <1gg0cgINNfis@gw.home.vix.com>, shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
> 
> May I suggest that, at least in part, what is going on here is a
> confusion of the issues, compounded by emotional clouding?

[much good analysis deleted]

> I think that the problem has been that some of these are legal issues
> [is a pony something covered by child support?], some of them are
> moral issues [should a pony be something the non-custodial parent
> should have to pay for when it is clear how important it is to his
> child], and some of them are emotional [is this guy a coldhearted
> s.o.b.?].
> 
> As these issues get all muddied up and clouded, people are running
> high on emotions, and mixing the issues, resulting in anger,
> frustration, flaming, etc.
> 
> Perhaps if the issues can be separated out, and addressed separately,
> we'll get some where.

clap clap clap.... thank you, Annie!

... and my $.02 worth...

I've stayed out of this for a number of reasons, and I think Annie summed up
the situation quite well... for me, the bottom line [and what I believe this
group should recognize] is that there are a lot of disparities... and while
it's *not* up to any of us to try this case [or any other]... we NEED to
recognize the issues involved and work toward a reasonable, practical, and
*workable* solution... 

> 
> For the record, my take on these issues:
> 
> Child-support is not for the purpose of covering such discretionary
> items as ballet, ponies, karate, etc.  In CA, support is determined by
> income, not need/items, so it's kind of irrelevant.  But I'd be
> shocked if any of the judges I've been before would ever order
> additional support to pay for any discretionary items such as a pony.
> This is the legal issue of what is support supposed to be fore.

And this is the case here in Utah... support is based on respective incomes,
the number of children, and their ages... I doubt [I've never heard of a case]
that any judge would award additional support for discretionary items... but
it's never stopped some from trying...

> 
> The father, assuming he really is in a position to provide for these
> extras, is probably a coldhearted jerk.  That's a moral/emotional
> issue.

.... could be, but then again, it's not only NOT for us to decide, it's
irrelevant...

> 
> Should the father have to pay for the discretionary things which Lisa
> chooses to provide for the child she has custody of?  Not in my
> opinion, generally speaking.  Would it be a morally nice thing if he
> did pay?  Of course it would, but that's between him and his maker.
> 

Should he HAVE to...? Nope! Whether he chooses to or not is really between him
and his daughter!  I know, I know... allowing the NCP to have a role in their
children's lives is a pretty radical concept.... [grin]


Rick Sorensen
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Baby sitter versus Foster parent
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:43:03 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Dec15.151125.6366@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.182239.6215@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>
>>Here we go, having to define terms for the mentally challenged....
>>
>>Baby sitter -  a person who is hired to take occasional care of a child.
>>Someone who either comes to your home or keeps the child at their home,
>>usually while you work or while you are out for the evening.
>>
>>Foster parent -  Someone who, while not being the actual parent, is paid
>>a set sum by the county to take the child into their home and treat them
>>as if they were their own child.  
>>
>>NOW do you see the difference?
>>
>>Sue
> 
> 	My previous "P.S." which was misdirected, and for which I
> 	was taken to task, was actually meant for you.
> 
> 	your ignorance about various subjects coupled with your
> 	bleeding heart attitudes is reflected in the anal retentive
> 	posture of your posts.
> 

Anal retentive?  Bleeding heart?  Seems that you have no heart at all
from the direction of your posts.  As for anal retentive, any one who
refuses to see his son when the child asks, because he is 'afraid' his
ex- will use the child to spy on him, has no room to talk.

> 	Had you been a "netter" long enough, you'd realize that
> 	splitting hairs over word definitions gets everyone
> 	nowhere.  This is not an english class, and if people
> 	cannot expect their posts to be read with a little
> 	"poetic license" (andother phrase for you to tear
> 	apart) then we'd all have to write books to convey
> 	simple thoughts.
> 
> 	furthurmore, people who have nothing to say wind up
> 	wasting peoples time with word games.
> 
> 	Lastly, I can prommise that your above definitions are
> 	not from the dictionary.  And just because there may be
> 	slight differences, the function of each is similar.
> 	They get paid to watch someone elses kids.

If the difference is so slight, then how come it's easy to find a teenager
to baby sit kids, and so extremely difficult to find someone who is willing
to function as a foster parent?  Foster parents are regulated by a list of
laws as thick as a small book, we have to pass a police and medical check,
provide more references than a job applicant and are subject to regular 
inspections by the case workers.

Baby sitters are the teenager down the street, no regulations, no checks.

For some reason you seem unable to understand that there are differences.

But then, considereing the quality of your posts and the extreme hostility
you project over all, it's not surprising.
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: CP, NCP, FP
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:43:15 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <Bz6HBA.IBp@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Dec12.114818.6197@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>As for profiting from the $300 a month that my husband and I receive,
>>I challenge either Alan OR the Beav to provide a home, allowance, clothing,
>>transportation, food, etc. for a teenaged boy and have anything left over
>>out of that amount.
> 
> Ms. Bishop, BA, FP (and whatever else):
> 
> Please take the chip off your shoulder long enough to remember 
> that it was *you* who claimed that *you* use part of the $300 
> from the [what? "NFP", now?] to pay for a vacation in Florida.
> 
> Don

Sheesh!  Get a grip.  If you think that there is anything left over
to pay for the trip to Florida after everything I've said, then
you are even more stupid than I thought.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR STUPID HEAD!  

My family and I always go to Florida.  This year Mike is going too.

Sue
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
						and mentally challenged
						
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:26:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.184510.15385@infonode.ingr.com> morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>>Yes, I can see this at times with Mike.  But I have encouraged him to
>>visit his mother, I have developed a good relationship with her and that
>>end of the whole situation is working well.
>>I would have liked to have done the same with Mike's father, but that
>>was impossible.
>
>Why is Mike's mother not required to share the responsiblity of making
>support payments?
>
>(Please excuse me if I missed something previously which would explain
>this.  The thread has been quite long....)
>
>--angela


	P.S.  You know, it's seeming to me more & more that you really
	have no  clue about any of this.  You are just as ignorant
	as the majority of the population, filled with idealistic
	notions that are unsupported.

	Again & again.

-- 
	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: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: CP, NCP, FP
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:48:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


Both Alan and 'the Beav' have accused me of profiting by taking in a 
foster child.  They also have referred to me as a CP.  It looks like
it is time to define some terms.

CP - the person who ends up with custody of a child or children when
a divorce takes place.  Most often the mother, but I am more in favor
of totally joint custody, which is often difficult to implement when
there is strong lingering hostility after a nasty divorce.  The CP can
file in court for child support, can go back to court to get the support
increased.

NCP - the person who does not end up with custody.  The person who 
ends up paying child support.

FP - Foster parent.  A person so designated by the court to take care
of a child who either cannot live with parents due to some problem or
else has no parents.  The foster parent cannot go to court to ask for
increase of support, that is the role of the County which is actually
acting in as CP.  As for what the foster parent receives as support for
the child, that is determined by the County which has a pre-determined
set amount for the entire county and all children who are wards of the
County.  

As for 'letting my foster son's father off the hook', I have absolutely
no say in that.  It was the Juvenile Court in our county that took him
to court and assessed the child support.  

As for profiting from the $300 a month that my husband and I receive,
I challenge either Alan OR the Beav to provide a home, allowance, clothing,
transportation, food, etc. for a teenaged boy and have anything left over
out of that amount.  Please take in consideration we live in the country,
nearest town is eight miles away, Mike is heavily active in sports and
school activities.

Oh, yes, don't forget to calculate at least $10 a week for lunch money, 
which is what school lunches cost nowadays.


Sue
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan)
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:45:10 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>Yes, I can see this at times with Mike.  But I have encouraged him to
>visit his mother, I have developed a good relationship with her and that
>end of the whole situation is working well.
>I would have liked to have done the same with Mike's father, but that
>was impossible.

Why is Mike's mother not required to share the responsiblity of making
support payments?

(Please excuse me if I missed something previously which would explain
this.  The thread has been quite long....)

--angela
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Pony Support (was Re: child support problems)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:35:20 GMT

lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>He doesn't send the required payments, nor a fraction thereof, and he 
>certainly
>has the means to do so.  He does profess to care very deeply for our girls,
>which, in his own pathetic way, I believe to be true. He simply seems unable
>to grasp the concept that refusing to provide child support hurts our 
>children,
>though I think his intent is to hurt ME.  He just doesn't "get it".

Lisa, 

The reason I posted to this thread was that I saw what looked like a
precedent for requiring NC-fathers to pay for things like ponies, etc.
That'll teach me to speak up about a thread I'm not familiar with. ;)

I agree that the most likely circumstance is that he doesn't "get it."
I've had a few friends whose NCP refused to pay child support in order
to hurt to the CP, and they never seem to understand what it does to
their children both emotionally and financially.

I apologize if I made it sound like I was supporting his position.
That's not what I intended.  

I hope things work out for you and your children.

--Greg
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: CP, NCP, FP
Date: 14 Dec 92 08:43:40 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <Bz6HBA.IBp@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Dec12.114818.6197@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>As for profiting from the $300 a month that my husband and I receive,
>>I challenge either Alan OR the Beav to provide a home, allowance, clothing,
>>transportation, food, etc. for a teenaged boy and have anything left over
>>out of that amount.
> 
> Ms. Bishop, BA, FP (and whatever else):
> 
> Please take the chip off your shoulder long enough to remember 
> that it was *you* who claimed that *you* use part of the $300 
> from the [what? "NFP", now?] to pay for a vacation in Florida.
> 

And you refused to answer my challenge.  Well?  Can YOU provide a home
for an active and growing teenaged boy for that amount?
Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Sue

> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men
From: idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Dr. Garrod's research on support collection
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:24:11 GMT
X-Posted-From: indyvax.iupui.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

Posting from Dr. Garrod.  Posting by Dale Marmaduke 
                                     idqm400@indycms.iupui.edu



 
COLLECTION STATISTICS
 
by David K. Garrod. Ph.D.
 
September 25, 1992
 
     An often quoted statistic is that collection has doubled.
(Of course, at the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars in
collection costs nation-wide.)
     In fact collection really has not changed very much on a per
case basis, despite the fact that the dollar amount of individual
support orders has almost doubled in 5 years in Indiana.
 
     Here is what you will get as information if you ask the State of
Indiana about collection:
 
Year          Total collected
 
1992          $126,769,521
1991           114,828,062
1990           100,101,377
1989            88,362,623
1988            58,006,521
(1992 is a projection, based on 6 months actual collection)
 
Looks pretty good doesn`t it?
 
Not if you dig a little deeper!
 
 
Here is the full breakdown:
 
Non-AFDC collection:
Year       Collected       collect/case
1992      $73,917,196       $779.74   (projected)
1991      $61,205,034       $833.73
1990       54,699,537        792.92
1989       48,477,951        802.10
1988       34,840,582        776.81
 
 
AFDC collection:
Year       Collected       collect/case
1992      $52,852,325       $229.36   (projected)
1991       53,623,028        246.84
1990       45,401,840        217.45
1989       39,884,672        203.68
1988       34,303,815        179.75
 
 
 
Despite significantly increased efforts in collection the dollars
collected per case has not changed very much.
 
     So why is not more being collected per case?
 
I do not know the answer.....I suspect that what is limiting the
dollars/case collected is the financial resource of the noncustodial
parent.  Many, if not most, dead-beat dads would not be dead-beat
dads if they were financially able to pay all the support.
 

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3994 alt.flame:16931
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.flame
Subject: Re: child support problems
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 19:06:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <Bz6Foy.Gr9@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>That's what started this thread.  Apparently, there are no ponies 
>because your daughter moved with two children into a trailer to keep
>a pony but couldn't, because her child support money wasn't paid.

Someone recently suggested that this discussion would be more productive if
I simply saved all your material and fed it back to you, so you could argue
with yourself. I am beginning to appreciate the advice.

>(You might check with your sysop -- you seem to have an editor problem.)

I am the system administrator, and my editor works just fine, thank you.

>Thus, your position is indeed that if he has been ordered to
>pay for luxuries, he "_is_" responsible for luxuries.

Sorry, that's not correct. First, B.C. courts utilize a reasonable formula
to determine what's required of each parent wrt child support - luxuries are
not, repeat, not, a part of the program. Second, my "position" is simple -
the ncp should pay what the courts have ordered him to pay, or get the order
changed - something this particular ex has failed repeatedly to accomplish.

Followups to alt.flame, which I don't read.

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
 Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Just south of Tupperware Central...  
                 Information is power - get connected
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:40:29 GMT

<1992Dec09.233204.22982@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
><Bz0E2o.BAA@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>He has no right to complain that she did not pay for his plane --
>>nor did he!  The only complaints I hear are that he didn't pay for a pony.
>
>Might I suggest a remedial reading course?

Certainly!  Which ones are you taking?

(But I'll have to dodge the bullets from your new "son-in-law" 
to get there...)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:4001 alt.dads-rights:3005