HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: EX TO MOVE OUT OF STATE
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Bruce :
   I think you might be able to make the case
From: lugeon@lsesun3.epfl.ch (Jean-Claude LUGEON)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: wanted aupair girl
Keywords: aupair girl
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:36:47 GMT
Organization: Laboratoire de Systemes d'Exploitation - E P F Lausanne, Switzerland


	URGENT ... 


	Wanted aupair girl for 3 children (girl 5, twin boys 4), driving 
	licence needed. 

		
	Please contact Mrs Kimber ++41-21.824.10.36
		       CH-1184 Luins (Switzerland)
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: RE: NEED ADVICE
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:58:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Don't think Federal guidelines allow State Judges to give 2nd & 3rd
children less weight.
   Dads do  get custody but it's not easy.
   More info @ Fathernet (718)494-1719
                                                                                    
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2317 alt.dads-rights:1669 alt.parents-teens:1113 misc.kids:20105
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:17:34 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <1992Jul22.143442.3541@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
>We should never assume that every parent always has their child's
>best interest at heart, and/or knows what to do to act on that interest.
>I'd much rather empower teens to have some say in their life, than empower
>the state to meddle even more in family affairs via the social service
>agencies.

My take on this is that, unless provided with evidence to the contrary, it
might be best to assume that parents first and foremost have their *own*
interests at heart.

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"I don't want to be a messiah, messiahs die young."
						- Men Without Hats
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: danlip@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel Adam Lipofsky)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:01:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.135904.3135@samba.oit.unc.edu> Mic.Oettinger@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mic Oettinger) writes:
>
>I must say Jennifer, that this was THE most short-sighted and IGNORANT
>article I have read thus far. YOU have never been pregnant, so do the
>world a favor and stick your generalized comments where they would serve
>more purpose. If what you're saying is true, there would be a hell of a
>lot more deformed babies out there. I didn't quit smoking for myself when
>I was pregnant, I did it for my baby. And believe me, even when he wasn't
>big enough to kick, I could feel him, and I did my best to start eating
>more and taking better care of myself for HIS benefit. I also quit
>drinking stuff with caffiene. So who do you really think the normal
>expectant mother is thinking of? Really, Jennifer, who do you think we
>care most about when we're pregnant? I could go on and on, because you
>really hit a nerve with your comments, but I'll stop.
>
>[ more rude and silly flames deleted]

Actually, Jennifer's post was accurate and showed much insight.  People
have children to satisfy biological/psychological urges (or by accident).
Maybe you can be insightful, Michelle, and tell us your reasons if they
are any different, as opposed to just making pointless flames.

The point Jennifer was trying to make (I believe) was that many parents
don't think about the commitment they have to make for the next 18 years
when they decide to have kids to satisfy their urges, and this is what is
responsible for much of the neglect and abuse of children that exists
today.  You claim you had more forethought than that.  I am willing to
believe you.  This does not negate the fact that a large number of parents
don't show this forethought, and that parents do not always have the
childrens best interests in heart, and therefore it is sometimes a proper
thing for the state to interfer.

Please, think before you flame.  And if you still wish to flame, I will
be happy to refer you to the appropriate group.  Let's preserve this group
for intellegent discussion.

--danlip

-- 
"The calender of the Theocracy of Muntab counts down, not up.  No-one knows
why, but it might not be a good idea to hang around and find out."
	--Terry Pratchett, _Wyrd_Sisters_
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 30 Jul 92 20:41:30 GMT
Reply-To: jcr@milton.u.washington.edu (Mr. EuStress)
Organization: University of Washington

Mic Oettinger writes
> I love it. For all you men complaining away about money, think of this:
> About 2/3 of my monthly earnings goes straight to my son's welfare, and I
> wouldn't have it any other way. Maybe some of you can tell me how you feel
> about your children, rather than griping about money all the time.

     Good for you!  But you missed one *SMALL* point.
     How would you feel if "2/3 of your earnings"
     went to "some child" who you honestly didn't
     feel was "yours" (regardless of its DNA)?
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:02:01 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Jul22.230844.26630@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
|> 	I agree with you.  But if a certain few are both regular
|> 	posters as opposed to lurkers, and profess a certain amount
|> 	of concern and knowledge, shouldn't I expect a reaction?

You may expect anything your little heart desires. You may not, with
impunity, allow your dashed expectations to bleed all over others on
the net. Not without being called on it.

Again, it was your violent reaction to your own perceptions that I am
upset about. Perceptions I do not share.

|> 	I mean, my wife usually greets me when I come home.  That is
|> 	because after courtship and 10 years of marriage, it is apparent
|> 	that we are of like mind or concern.  There is a parallel to this
|> 	on these groups.

Parallel? Maybe. But there is such a wide chasm between your relationship
to your wife and your relationship to anyone you don't personally know
on the net that it is of little consequence.

|> 	And when certain people post issues which are run up the plagpole,
|> 	and mine simply fall on the floor, what am I to think?

These news groups are sometimes analogous to cocktail parties. And, I
am sure that the same reasons for finding yourself standing alone
at a party would apply here.(except BO etc.) Especially the one that says, 
berating another is NOT a good way to get them to interact with you.

|> 	Everyone keep harping, "nobody owes you anything".  Well,
|> 	what are these groups for?  IMHO, they are a simple distraction
|> 	and a waste of time.

Ah, the beginnings of wisdom.

Another way of looking at it is that you get what you pay for.

Another way to look at it is as a sewer. You only get out of it what you
put into it. (thanx to T. Lehrer)

|> 	The "insults" come from their inconsiderate behavior.  And my
|> 	protest is turned around to make *me* the bad guy.

A matter of point of view. Those you protested and others on the net saw
your "protest" as an attack, personally and professionally.

And although the phrase, "9 million flies can't be wrong" is not applicable
in many instances, you may wish to rethink your position.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal
From: jpaul@locus.com (James Hensley)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:54:46 GMT


  M20614@mwvm.mitre.org may not be aware of this, but in the 
net.announce.newusers newsgroup, it is stated that corrections of grammar 
and spelling are in bad taste.  M20614 has done this 5 times in one article, 
just to make someone look bad.  Look, M20614, if you want to make someone look
bad, do it in a more creative way, willya?  Better yet, lighten up.


In article <1682AF34C.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu>
>yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) whines:
> 
1.
>[who lets ... get sued]
> 
>"Champion"?  I never saw anything like that in her postings.  She said she
>*supported* the cause of rights for non-custodial fathers.
I would consider someone who "founded" a father's rights organization 
to be a "champion" of that cause.  Wouldn't you?

>Your bets and opinions are worthless.  I'm quoting you just so I can
>correct your spelling and usage.
 ^^ belittle
2.
> 
>[... you're handing out.]
> 
3.
>[Hippocratic]
> 
4.
>[redundant "willingly"]
> 
5.  (redundant correction)
>[you're]

Give it a rest.

-- 

jpaul@locus.com  | ..ucsd!lccsd!jpaul   :  all views expressed are mine.
Clouds filled with blood rain on the water
While Nightime's fingers clench the light shut...
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: Anyone read Ann Landers on July 17th?
Reply-To: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 18:15:29 GMT

Thanks for the post - we "good" dads need all the press we can get.

Here's one for you.  After my divorce, my ex filed jointly with her (then)
fiance on their income taxes.  Unknown to both my ex and myself, there was 
a judgement out for a home improvement loan "we" had taken out years before
on a home we had sold.  When my ex and her fiance's tax return was garnished
for half of the amount due, they freaked.  They made threats, sought legal 
counsel, etc. 

They were aghast that the custodial parent should have to be responsible for 
any unspecified debts from the previous marriage (this after I paid over $4k 
for debts my ex ran up prior to the divorce).  I gladly paid the remainder of
the loan - knowing that for once justice had been done.

When I changed jobs about 2 years ago, I went to my payroll section and
told them that I needed a garnishment set up for child-support.  They 
gladly did this, and I thought I was set.  several weeks later I got a
*nasty* letter from the county c-s office that informed me that I did
no notify them *prior* to quiting my previous job and that I had better
setup that garnishment *right now* or they'd come right over and make
me do it.  At that time the first garnishment had allready been paid.

I have *never* missed a single c-s payment, and for this I'm treated like a 
criminal.

Sorry - just venting...

---
= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2151 alt.dads-rights:1498 alt.parents-teens:1047 misc.kids:19368 soc.men:13483 soc.women:13856
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:29:38 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

[stuff deleted on Ms. Clinton's view on the right of a child to
"divorce" its parents]

>
>As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
>we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
>just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
>
>Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
>could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
>and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
>13, or 14!

If a child is in a situation in which she has to make such a decision,
she will. For example, a child who is sexually or otherwise abused
might exercise her right to divorce her parents. At least this way the
child has a say in her own life. 

This measure might not be neccesary if the legal/social support
systems were kinder to kids who have problems with their families.
Getting into a foster home is difficult. And sooner or later the child
either goes back to the abusing parent or to another foster home, as
it is often difficult for foster parents to adopt children whose
parents are still alive. The child has little say in his/her
placement, but is bounced about at the whim of the system.

A child who divorces his/her parents will usually be put upon to prove
that he/she can support herself or will be living with and adult who
can do so. In this scenario, the child has a greater voice in deciding
where and with whom she/he will live, when it is no longer possible to
stay with parents.

>I've said it before [though maybe not here] and I'll say it
>again... the #1 reason why I would not even *consider* Bill Clinton
>for president, is Hillary Clinton.

Americans have never been quite comfortable with a self-possessed
woman who speaks her mind, rather than spending all of her time
smiling up at her husband.




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: NCP Mortgages/Step Parent issues
Reply-To: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:24:05 GMT

In article 215@doc.bmd.trw.com, mmord@doc.bmd.trw.com () writes:
>I am a NCP of my two daughters (8 & 5) that I love very much.  
>I suppose my divorce decree is fairly mainstream and uncontroversial
>compared to many that I read about hear. 
>
>I hope to generate some discussion about a few items:
>
>1. Mortgages - When I apply for a mortgage as a NCP I get to put
>down my child support payment as a debt.  Yet, as a married husband
>I wouldn't have included any analogous type of cost.  Even though I
>would have told the bank the number of my dependants, all the same
>qualification ratios would have applied in the same manner as they
>do to me as a NCP. Its as though the bank overlooks the cost of 
>raising children if you are married. Any thoughts as to why this is?

I just applied for re-financing of my existing home.  Mortgage companies
*do* view c-s payment as if it were a car loan.

>2. Step Parenting - I think there are not many other types of
>relationships that are more challenging to be productive and
>successful.  Any insights on this matter? Are there any particularly
>good books about this? Any good success/horror stories out there?
>My SO has never been married and I think she gets uncomfortable
>when I have my daughters...sorta becomes different somehow...more
>irritable, etc. Any thoughts on this?

Read "Living In Step" and "The Good Stepmother" - both very good books on 
step-parenting (Can't remember the Authors right now). My wife is very
close to my kids.  I have come to the conclusion that stepmother is the
hardest job on earth. 

>
>3. If my ex decides to move significantly far away does that at all
>improve my chances of winning custody if I attempted it? BTW, in Utah
>would I have to prove my ex "unfit" or would I be attempting to prove
>me "more fit" or what?

My two daughters (12 and 9) were moved out of state last year.  My lawyer 
told me It would cost $15-25K for a full blown custody battle, and that 
there would be no winners after the "family" court system was done with all 
of us.  I chose to get better visitation over the summer/hollidays instead.
A full 60 days in the summer sure helps maintain a close relationship with
them.

You *can* get the CP to pay for transport, phone calls, etc. I did.

>
>4. Does anyone know how Utah treats a NCP's spouse's income when
>calculating child support?

No, but my wife was very concerned about this in Texas. Turns out to be
a moot issue here.

---
= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =

Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2191 misc.legal:14685
From: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal
Subject: Re: This has nothing to do with... Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Summary: Don't you just hate nit-picking posts?
Date: 22 Jul 92 22:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: mike@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Organization: N.I.C.E.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.128.60

Gary Brainin writes:
#>who demands that we care what he says.  Second, I know that when I
#>make mistakes, I like to be told.  It keeps me from repeating them.

Ok, well, how about this:

#>about a sloppiness that shows complete uncaring, coming from a person

Logic error -- petitio principii
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: h2n5451@sigma.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO L.)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Followup-To: alt.child-support
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:01:00 GMT

In article <13448@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pburch@roc.mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Paula Burch) writes...
> 
>|> In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>|>  > As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
>|>  > we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
>|>  > just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
>|>  > 
>|>  > Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
>|>  > could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
>|>  > and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
>|>  > 13, or 14!
> 
>When I read Anne's intentionally distorting post, I thought about 
>my friend whose father raped her repeatedly throughout her childhood. 
>Sure, it's always better to keep the parents in charge. They know what's 
>best for their child! You can't trust a 12-year old to make a decision 
>for herself.
> 
>I'm not campaigning for the Clintons, but a post like Anne's makes me 
>think that I should be. How many out there consider misc.kids an appropriate forum for misleading statements attacking a political candidate? I don't!
> 
>Paula Burch
>pburch@bcm.tmc.edu
> 
>(p.s. My friend *tried* to get help from child protective services, but 
>they didn't believe her. Times have changed, though. Fortunately years 
>of therapy, at great expense and suffering, have made it possible for 
>her to lead a happy life.)
Your Point makes a lot of sense. Somebody must be out there protecting 
all those children from those animals that rape and brutilize 
thousands (millons??) of children. Thanks for your post.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Jul 92 10:29:58 CDT

In article 92Jul21102106@rotor.watson.ibm.com, lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
> > As the author of the article says, "In other words: 'Don't worry,
> > we'll still leave mundane decisions to the discretion of parents, it's
> > just the important ones they can't be trusted with.'"
> > 
> > Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
> > could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far reaching
> > and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years old?  Or even
> > 13, or 14!
>
>I don't think the point of Ms. Clinton's words was that 12-year-olds
>should start making their own major life decisions.  (I didn't read
>the article... just the paragraph quoted in the original post.)
>Certainly, parents should, in almost all cases, be the ones making
>these decisions for children at that age, though I'd expect the
>children *would* be capable of participating to some degree in the
>process.  But there are parents who make exceptionally bad life
>decisions for their teen-age (and earlier) children.

Annie:

Normally I agree with you, but you are way off base with this one.  I believe
there is a specific case involved here where a 12-year old boy wants to be
adopted by his foster parents.  His biological father concurs, but the biological
mother (whom he hasn't seen in years) refuses.  The foster father is a lawyer
and filed the suit for his foster son.  What we have is a severe case of neglect
on the part of the biological parents, and IMHO the State should terminate the
parental rights of the biological parents so the child can be adopted.

Steve Anderson




Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal
From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: This has nothing to do with... Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 03:18:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.235446.3049272@locus.com> jpaul@locus.com (James Hensley) writes:
>
>  M20614@mwvm.mitre.org may not be aware of this, but in the 
>net.announce.newusers newsgroup, it is stated that corrections of grammar 
>and spelling are in bad taste.  M20614 has done this 5 times in one article, 
>just to make someone look bad.  Look, M20614, if you want to make someone look
>bad, do it in a more creative way, willya?  Better yet, lighten up.

   I respectfully disagree, for at least two reasons.  First, in this
case we're not talking about a couple of minor errors, we're talking
about a sloppiness that shows complete uncaring, coming from a person
who demands that we care what he says.  Second, I know that when I
make mistakes, I like to be told.  It keeps me from repeating them.

			-Gary

-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal