From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Right Not to Support
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 12:59:52 GMT

In article <2RkFPB2w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>Ok Alan. Here's some real live info for your next fugue.
>
>I'm a Guardian ad Litem. The court appoints me to represent the interests
>of the child AGAINST CPS and the other agencies which have intervened. Yes,
>that's right. I'm the heinous bastard who actually gets those kids back to
>dad and/or mom when the state gets overzealous.
>
>How did I do it? Why, I volunteered my time, Alan. Then I took law classes
>for three years, took specialized training in developmental psychology, and
>took the training for the Guardian Program. It was easy. I just worked and
>studied and worked. Of course, that requires a person to comprehend a real
>committment to their beliefs --so if you don't get it, we'll understand.

	Well, good for you!  You finally put your cards on the table.
	Now I understand.  I've only been asking these questions for
	a few months.  See how easy it is to just answer?

>
>> 	I'd also like to know how either the "defendants" or the
>> 	court wind up accepting his "interferance".  In other words
>> 	how does he get into all these people's business.
>
>You accused the last one of being on acid.  Why don't you ask the man
>who was recently accused of abuse, had his custody thwarted, and went to
>court in a dependency action? A long story shortened, father and child 
>are a family again. If you want more info, maybe he'll tell you. But I
>wouldn't hold my breath. Yesterday, he asked me "Who is that asshole
>Yasutovitch?"
>

	Tell him he's a guy who, up to now, has criticized people
	who claim expertise in "family law", but never give evidence
	of *why*!

	BTW, I have no idea what you're talking about in the above
	paragraph.  It *is* interesting to me, however, how 
	geographically concentrated people on this net seem to be.

>Yes, you certainly do beat it to death. You keep looking for a free 
>handout. You want legal representation for nothing. Gimmee, Gimmee, 
>Gimmee. Not only that, but you want these people to risk their bar
>membership on the whim of a conversation. C'mon, Alan. Please. Get
>back on your medication.

	Well people like you (and most others) don't *have* a bar 
	membership to risk.  But that seems to make no difference.
	The old, "be carefull or you might get sued", is always the
	operator.

	As to "gimme gimme", I've seldom if ever asked any questions
	here which pertain specifically to any problem I might have
	or have had.  And I can prove this!  I *HAVE* no problems.
	I coast.  But I read and participate in this group to
	enhance my overall knowledge base about child support issues.
	It's supposed to be a *CONVERSATION* arena.  And when I
	ask general questions, or see other people ask (maybe more
	specific) questions and get read "the riot act", I consider
	the whole thing a waste of time.

	If you (admittedly) have so much experience and interest
	in these matters, why aren't you or people like you willing
	to relate different scenarios or answers to questions and
	situations that come up?

	I liken it to the man who dies at an accident scene where
	a doctor is present, because he isn't physically capable
	of signing a release form.


	Keep your legaleze in the courtroom, and keep this arena
	a place for friendly, informantive conversation.

-- 
	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