HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hough@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Susan Hough)
Subject: Re: starting a family young.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.173416.5790@bsu-ucs.uucp> 00rggraham@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>Sorry about the cross-posting.
>I have a confession.
>My girlfriend is pregnant.

>It is difficult to be confident when parents are unsupportive.
>Remember that with your children.
 
>Does anyone object to this situation?
>If so, why?

I don't "object"--it's not my place to object.  But before you
condemn your parents for their lack of support, consider the fact
that they *are* parents and they know what you are in for.  There
are strong families and relationships that started with young
parenthood but don't kid yourself that it is going to be wine and
roses because you love each other.  Do you know any other very
young parents?  Talk to them.  Babysit for a colicky infant for
an evening and then imagine 3 or 6 months of that evening.

I'm not trying to talk you out of this.  Probably nobody at any
age is fully prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood--the
question isn't whether you go into it naive but whether you have
the maturity and the fortitude to grow into the position.  I can't
answer that and your parents can't answer that.

Sue
From: larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Ad Campaign
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:19:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance

Here's the latest and hopefully final version of the advertisement
letter. I've whittled the mailing list down to about 370 groups.
If anyone wants to help out, you are more than welcome.

___________________________________________________________________

Dear Father's Group,

We, the undersigned, have come up with an idea that you may be
interested in.

We propose that an ad be placed in newspapers all across the United
States.  This ad could appear in the sports section of newspapers. 
It would solicit funds for the hiring of a lobbyist to advocate the
cause of father's rights.  This ad would run on June 21, 1992 -
Father's Day.

We feel that this idea has great merit and has a strong possibility
of raising a significant amount of money.  This money would be used
to improve the image of father's and especially divorced fathers. 
It would also be used to get reasonable legislation passed in
regards to custody and child support.

A proposed advertisement is included with this letter.  You may
modify or change as you see fit.

As you can see the advertisement stresses the idea of equal
opportunity in getting custody of one's children.  This idea is
non-controversial enough that no-one can oppose it without laying
themselves open to the charge of bigotry.  In addition, we believe
that this is a corner stone of the father's movement.  Without
custody, a father has little power.  With enough fathers having
custody, the other laws on custody and support will have to change
to fairness for all.

We ask that you contact other father's groups to combine the money
that you raise with this ad. We think it essential that this
advertisement idea be not only a means of raising money, but also
a catalyst in forging father's groups across the country into a
cohesive unified whole.  United we stand, divided we fall.

Thank you for your time and God bless you.


Larry Landwehr - Jon Wood - ???


P.S. Every effort has been made to avoid sending this letter to
     more than one father's group in any one town so as not to have
     duplicate ads appearing in any newspaper.  You may or may not
     wish to contact other groups in your area to share the cost of
     the advertisement.
_______________________________________________________________

The advertisement:


           DO YOU WISH YOU COULD SEE YOUR KIDS TODAY?

                  Many divorced fathers cannot.

Are you a divorced father?  Are you the wife of a divorced father?
Do you believe that fathers deserve an equal opportunity in getting
custody of their children? We, INSERT YOUR NAME, are joining other
father's groups all across the nation on this Father's Day in an
attempt to raise money to promote fairness in child custody laws.
Please send any contribution you can make to INSERT YOUR ADDRESS.
--

________________________________
INET: landwehrl@med.ge.com
      larry@ducktales.med.ge.com
________________________________
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:652 alt.child-support:1061
From: thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Voluntary Impoverishment
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:35:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: memstvx1.1992Apr8.233501.1778
Distribution: usa
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr3.190537.20036@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mark@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Mark Horton) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.135929.4637@cs.cornell.edu> beck@cs.cornell.edu (Micah Beck) writes:
>>Does this work when the voluntarily underemployed person is the recipient of
>>support?  I'd guess not, since the intent is probably to increase the payments
>>of NCPs (men) rather than to decrease the amounts paid to CPs (women).
> 
>>Anyone have an opinion about whether I can get
>>the court to impute her old salary?
> 
> In theory, it should work both ways.  However, the child support tables tend
> to roughly award the CP with a certain percentage of the gross income of
> the NCP, where that percentage depends mostly on the number of children.
> Thus, the income of the CP has a minor effect.  I'd recommend you work it
> out both ways using your state guidelines (your lawyer should have the
> worksheet and tables, or be able to tell you where to get them) and see
> how much difference it makes.  It may not be worth the legal expense.
> 
> Also, the courts tend to be more sympathetic to the person with the lowest
> income earning capacity, so unless she tees off the court, they may
> refuse to impute the income.  Of course, being underemployed may tee
> off the court.

Also, the courts may see her time with the child as worth something, as
the original writer apparently does not.  He didn't mention how old
the child is - is he happy with the idea of the mother working full
time, leaving the child in day care or in a latch key situation? Or
is he only concerned with his own well-being?

> 
>>I will talk to my lawyer.
> 
> Always a good idea.
> 
> 	Mark
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr)
Subject: Help Out
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 02:46:10 GMT


Hey folks,

I've bit off more than I can chew.

Would you believe that there are at least *590* father's groups in this
country!? I had no idea there were that many. 

I'd like each one to get a copy of the advertisement letter. At 29 cents
a letter, it comes to around $170. I'll do as many as I can, but it *sure*
would be nice to have some volunteers.

What you can do is to volunteer to send out 10, 20, 50 letters or whatever
you can handle. I'll email you the names and addresses. You put an address
and a stamp on each letter and send them out.

If you volunteer, you will most certainly get your name on the letter as a
sponsor!

If you think the ad campaign is a worthwhile effort that deserves some
support, then please help out.

Thank you.
--

________________________________
INET: landwehrl@med.ge.com
      larry@ducktales.med.ge.com
________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr)
Subject: Advertisement
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 00:48:42 GMT


This post consists of two parts: a proposed letter to be sent out
to father's groups and a proposal for an ad that they could run.

I will mail out the two pieces on Wednesday April 8th. If anyone
has any ideas to contribute on improving them, please contact me
before then. If you would like your name included as a sponsor of
this idea, then please send email.

_______________________________________________________________
The letter:


Dear Father's Group,

My friend, Jon Wood and I have come up with an idea that you may
be interested in.

We propose that an ad be placed in newspapers all across the United
States.  This ad would appear in the sports section of newspapers. 
It would solicit funds for the hiring of a lobbyist to advocate the
cause of father's rights.  This ad would run on June 21, 1992 -
Father's Day.

We feel that this idea has great merit and has a strong possibility
of raising a significant amount of money.  This money would be used
to improve the image of father's and especially divorced fathers. 
It would also be used to get reasonable legislation passed in
regards to custody and child support.

A proposed advertisement is included with this letter.  You may
modify or change as you see fit.

As you can see the advertisement stresses the idea of equal
opportunity in getting custody of one's children.  This idea is
non-controversial enough that no-one can oppose it without laying
themselves open to the charge of bigotry.  In addition, we believe
that this is a corner stone of the father's movement.  Without
custody, a father has little power.  With enough fathers having
custody, the other laws on custody and support will have to change
to fairness for all.

We ask that you contact other father's groups to combine the money
that you raise with this ad. If you wish, you can receive a list
of addresses of other father's groups by sending us a self-
addressed stamped envelope.  We think it essential that this
advertisement idea be not only a means of raising money, but also
a catalyst in forging father's groups across the country into a
cohesive unified whole.  United we stand, divided we fall.

Thank you for your time and God bless you.

Larry Landwehr

_______________________________________________________________
The advertisement:



           DO YOU WISH YOU COULD SEE YOUR KIDS TODAY?

Are you a divorced father?  Are you the wife of a divorced father?
Do you believe that fathers deserve an equal opportunity in getting
custody of their children? We, INSERT YOUR NAME, are joining other
father's groups all across the nation on this Father's Day in an
attempt to raise money to promote fairness in child custody laws.
Please send any contribution you can make to INSERT YOUR ADDRESS.
--

________________________________
INET: landwehrl@med.ge.com
      larry@ducktales.med.ge.com
________________________________
From: ssmith@eoin.net.netcom.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Crosses
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:38:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: xocolatl.7yZyiB1w164w
Organization: Amethyst Systems

larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr) writes:

> 
> Did anyone watch ABC news on Saturday at 5:30?
> They had a story about an anti-abortion group that planted 2000 crosses
> near the Washington monument. There was one cross for each *female* fetus.
> Did anyone else see this broadcast? It caught me by surprise. I didn't
> have a vcr running. Does anyone know the name of the group?
> --

I didn't see it, but focusing on female fetuses is something these
groups have been up to lately.  As I understand it, they aren't
hinting that male fetuses are less important or valued than female
ones.  They are attempting to make their point that pro-choice
legislation is not protecting the rights of women--"look at the 2000
women you've killed with abortion right here."

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolotl.com
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: What's FAIR Child Support?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:03:35 CDT

In article <43570005@hpsad.sad.hp.com> bobw@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Bob Waltenspiel) writes:
>I am a bit surprised to see only on response to my question about fair 
>child support.  Thanks to Micah Beck.
>
>>>What is fair support for a Non-Custodial Parent to pay a Custodial Parent?
>
>> ... child support should reflect as closely as possible the
>>difference between the marginal cost of raising the child to the CP and NCP
>>combined and the amount which each can be reasonably expected to contribute.
>
>Are typical county recommendations different than this?  I don't believe they
>are where we live.
>
>-Bob
>

  Bob, you don't "believe" they are in your county? I used to have a
belief system based on 'fantasy' before I was divorced. Never trust
your beliefs....... trust your facts when it comes to LAW. If men
knew the law prior to getting married, studied it, there wouldn't be
another marriage in the feminazi states of Wisconsin and Minnesota,

Mn "Land of 10,000 Lakes" used to be the state slogan. Now, it is
   the "Land of 10,000 Women (i.e. victims) Organizations". 

Wisconsin - Madison still mourns the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Errata
Organization: Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:54:49 GMT

Oops..in my last post about parents paying for college, I apparently
wasn't clear, where I said something to the effect that parents don't
*have* to pay for college.  What I was addressing was in the general
scheme of things..it is true that in some states divorced parents may be
ordered to pay for college tuition.  I was not addressing legalities so
much as ethics/moralities in that post.


-- 
    LOOKING FOR: Michael Hobson, Alex Craven, David Runyon, & Lorna Taylor
I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, law student, shedevil@leland.stanford.edu or @vix.com
     	  founder of FREE, the Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange.
 The fathers' rights paper & FREE files available via ftp: gw.home.vix.com;/pub
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:648 misc.kids:12553
From: action@cbnewse.cb.att.com (timothy.d.acton)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.kids
Subject: Re: starting a family young.
Summary: EMAIL BOUNCES!!
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:35:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


Ross,

Email is bouncing to your sight. Could I please have 
an alternate path, or US Mail address. I
have some personal things I do not wish to
share with the net. This will not be a flame
attack on your situation.

Reguards,
Tim Acton
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: beck@cs.cornell.edu (Micah Beck)
Subject: Re: Voluntary Impoverishment
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:44:27 GMT

thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <1992Apr3.190537.20036@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mark@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Mark Horton) writes:

>Also, the courts may see her time with the child as worth something, as
>the original writer apparently does not.  He didn't mention how old
>the child is - is he happy with the idea of the mother working full
>time, leaving the child in day care or in a latch key situation? Or
>is he only concerned with his own well-being?

My son is three, and has been in full time daycare ever since my wife quit
her job to "start a business" (which seems to have meant "have an affair
with her supposed business partner").  When she worked full time, and I
was a student and worked also, he was only in part time daycare.  My wife
developed an interest in staying home with her child only after moving
out and becoming unemployed - and she told me at the time that she expected
me to pay her the difference between the cost of full time and part time
daycare, although I didn't.  He has a wonderful home daycare situation
where he can play with other children in an intimate situation.

It is interesting the the court, and this writer, sees that a woman who has
never spent even 1/2 time at home with her child (after the initial maternity
leave), has some kind of automatic option to quit work and give the child
the benefit of being with her, and live off child support.  I spent six months
at home with my son full time, another year at half time, and I am going to
have to fight for every day I get custody of him, as well as paying for my
wife's "career decisions."

It is intertesting to note that my wife (and others) are concerned that her son
needs to be with her only since her other life plans didn't work out.
To suggest that while she still *wanted* to work would have been considered
downright piggish.

Micah Beck
From: mark@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:09:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr9.163917.5777@smsc.sony.com> ken@smsc.sony.com (Ken Beck) writes:
>
>Suppose you have a household with $100k, with the $80k to $20k split you
>suggest.  The parent making $80k wants the children.  (Assuming both parents
>are normal, healthy folks that love the children, one could certainly argue
>that the parent earning 4x the others income is better able to provide a good
>environment for the children.) If this parent gets custody, the children
>benefit from this higher income.  In fact, even without child support, that is
>taking $0 from NCP, the children are living in a household with 80% of the
>original households income.

This argument makes sense to me, but it's a very dangerous one to
use in court, because of the great discretion judges have to award alimony.

I had similar proportions, and it was obvious that, even with the huge
child support check she was getting, she could not afford to remain in
the house - she'd be spending over half her net income on the mortgage.
I argued to my atty that only I could keep the children in the house.

His response: "Don't use that argument: They'll give her custody
and make you pay for the house."

The situation might be different in a post-divorce custody motion,
where alimony cannot be awarded.

	Mark
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:692 alt.child-support:1160
From: ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Voluntary Impoverishment
Keywords: golddigger
Date: 15 Apr 92 06:44:21 GMT
Organization: Amethyst Systems

root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>                     ... Yet the court said that "a child needs the love of
> the mother, and the mother may benefit and learn greater caring through the
> presence of the child."

You're kidding.  Since when is it the child' responsibility to help
an adult to learn to care more for him/her?

If that's what the court told you, no wonder you feel frustrated.

---
Shannon Smith                     ssmith@xocolatl.com
From: title@think.com (Richard Title)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Child Possibly Moving
Date: 6 Apr 1992 15:22:35 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation
Distribution: usa
   Rich
NNTP-Posting-Host: hespera.think.com


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: pro-choice == pro-(womens' only) choice?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 05:32:25 GMT

In article <VIXIE.92Apr7185705@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>Bingo.  Be my guest.  Present something to the net that enhances the lives
>>of all the parties:
>>
>>1. the children
>>2. the women who want children
>>3. the women who don't want children
>>4. the men who want children
>>5. the men who don't want children
>>6. the taxpayers at large
>
>1. courts try to keep you involved with both of your parents and make
>   sure you are happy and well.  (or, the court never gets involved
>   because you are already happy and well.)
>
>2. have them and be prepared to share the joy and the responsibility
>   equally with your co-parent.

What if the potential co-parent is unwilling? Suck him like a leech
financially? MAKE him pay for YOUR decision??? Yeah, right, sounds like
"justice" to me (NOT!).

>3. don't have sex, or get sterilized.

Or abort.

>4. same as #2
>
>5. same as #3

BZZZTTT! Not the same at all. A man can _easily_ become an unwilling father 
at the pregnant woman's option, but the converse is essentially impossible,
given the current setup.

>6. elect good judges for #1, and be prepared to spend some time studying
>   their records before reelecting them.

Even the best judge in the world can't always overcome the limitations of
STUPID, UNFAIR, OBSOLETE laws, Paul. Eventually, reform is necessary. Many
of us feel that the time has come for reform of the paternity child-support
laws. You may not agree with us, but please don't bother with the smug
polyanna-ish "Just Say No"/"Just Elect Good People"/"Get Sterilized" pablum.
That crap hasn't ever worked, and it probably never will. Wake up and smell
the coffee...

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:668 alt.child-support:1109
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Voluntary Impoverishment
Summary: gimme gimme gimme
Keywords: golddigger
Date: 11 Apr 92 07:10:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <1992Apr8.233501.1778@memstvx1.memst.edu> thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu writes (again afraid to post a name):
>
>Also, the courts may see her time with the child as worth something, as
>the original writer apparently does not.  He didn't mention how old
>the child is - is he happy with the idea of the mother working full
>time, leaving the child in day care or in a latch key situation? Or
>is he only concerned with his own well-being?

Well, speaking of turnabout, maybe the court should give some value to the
time the NCP gives to the child, and when the CP cannot give it --and must
put the child in daycare-- then maybe the court should give the child to the
NCP and make you pay.

My kids were getting abused (read that as HOSPITALIZED) by the treatment in
the loving mother's home. Yet the court said that "a child needs the love of
the mother, and the mother may benefit and learn greater caring through the
presence of the child."

Or were you talking about what YOU think is fair.

Never mind, we see you, and we know you.

-- 
Bob Kirkpatrick                      "Stone cold."
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA      ...and I thought I knew you so well."
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                                           
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights