From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:35:44 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Dec22.122810.9101@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> In article <BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>>> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
>>>> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
>>>> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
>>>> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
>>>
>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>of THEIR precious funds.
>>
>>Who's Bob?
>>
>>
>>>And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
>>>of their position.
>>
>>"Fairly accurate?"  Apart from your inability to distinguish
>>three-letter names...  Child-related emergencies can be covered 
>>by insurance (provided by the NCP!) -- or will you now say that
>>a CP might have to buy an emergency bicycle or pony or condo in Florida?
>>
>>
>>In Pennsylvania, a NCP is not obligated to pay for college.
>>Thus, even the *law*, which you so religiously like to invoke,
>>says that college is not a basic need.
>>
>>There should be no LEGAL obligation to pay for college or to
>>pay child support that includes money to be saved for college.
>>Married parents are not legally required to pay for college.
>>
>>Are you going to pay for your foster son's college education 
>>all by yourselves, Sue?
> 
> 
> 	Of couese not!  She only proudly raises kids that *other*
> 	people pay for.  That's why she argues the side she does;
> 	don't want to see those checks interrupted.`

I also proudly raise my OWN kids.  It seems that you never read any
thing I post, yet start yelling from an area of ignorance.  I have
two birth children besides Mike.  I don't see you taking in any extra
children in addition to your own.  Oh, yes, you don't even allow your
own kids to visit, even when they ask to see you....


> 
> 	But I don't see her chasing after the MOTHER, who she
> 	claims ALSO has support obligations.  And I don't see
> 	her answering MY question(s) about why it isn't time
> 	to start putting the "squeeze" on the MOTHER as well
> 	as this kids FATHER.
> 

I have answered this several times.   I have NO control over the process
of support obligations, this is handled through the court.  And I have
also (SEVERAL TIMES) told you that the mother is mentally ill, in and
out of mental hospitals and on welfare.  


> 	Funny how she spends all her time telling us that we don't
> 	answer her questions, and she ignores ours.
> 

Funny how you don't seem to be able to remember previous information, even
when it is posted several times.

> 
> 
> -- 
> 	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......

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support