HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: statar@cbnewse.cb.att.com (sherry.l.tatar)
Subject: Re: starting young
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:56:59 GMT

I can't comment directly on Ross's situation, but I can
comment on getting married young.  My husband and I
started going out when I was 16 and he was 21.  We got
married 2 months after I graduated from high school
(ages 18 and 23).  I went to college the first 3 years
of our marriage, getting a BS in Math cum laude,
much to the surprise of the many doomsayers that
thought I would never get a college education while
I was married.  We were married in '85.  Our
first child was born in '90, the second will be here
in about a month.  

Our marriage has worked wonderfully.  I don't know
that it would have if Jessica had been born in the
early part of the marriage, it takes quite a basis
of love and friendship to survive pregnancy and the
care of a child.  We had lots of fun going out for
years, and now we're happy to stay home with the
kids, and go out to dinner or a movie only a couple
times a year.  

We also have an above average income, and still have
trouble making ends meet.  I suppose we spend money
on things we shouldn't, but money is always a consideration
when there can be stress on a relationship.  First
time parents can be quite surprised by the cost
of diapers, formula, daycare, and other baby needs.
Also surprising is how infants can take up all of
your waking moments, and some of the sleeping ones too!

Sherry
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Subject: Re: Help on child support issues?
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:55:03

On March 11, Alan Silverstein wrote:

> However, nowadays the woman can have an abortion if desired.  (Leaving
> aside the ethical struggle happening over the issue.)  Also, she can
> give up the child for adoption.
>
> Considering these alternatives, and considering that visitation is not
> strongly linked to paying support, I still believe it is unfair to
> saddle a man with child support simply because of paternity.
> 
> Yes, it is also unfair to a child to bring it into the world without a
> father (and his support).  But the burden of that "sin" belongs with the
> woman who, like my ex-wife, decides to turn conception (planned or
> otherwise) into a kept child over the objections of the biological father.

I guess I'm willing to go along with you in believing that your ex-wife is
a rotten person, if she has done what you claim.  But even so, there's this
small human being who had no part of the "rottenness" and yet has a long
life ahead of them.

So go ahead and tell your ex-wife what a rotten person she is.  Fight her
for custody if she expects you to be nothing more than a wallet, or if her
rottenness carries over to her parenting skills and attitudes.

But please don't let your anger toward your ex-wife get in the way of your
relationship with between your child and your child's father.  If you weren't
ready, emotionally or financially, it's time to get ready.  If you had other
plans, change them to include the new small human.

If an injustice has been done to you and to your child by your ex-wife, the
best thing to do is put an end to injustice, not propagate it further.  I
keep asking myself, and others in this forum: what about the kids?  Would you
like them to feel guilty for having been born?  Would you like them to feel
that because of _what_ and _who_ they are, you automatically want to have
nothing to do with them?  How does that help?  And how could they possibly
deserve it?

Injustice ends when someone in a situation can look beyond their own hurt
and anger, and start working toward what is best for the innocents involved.
Otherwise it's a cycle that goes on and on, burning out of control.  I do
not mean "give up".  I mean "stop trying to get even, especially when you
may be hurting someone (your child) who cannot possibly deserve any pain."
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Ready, Fire, Aim"
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul          alt.pink.bunny.boom.boom.boom moderator
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1074 alt.dads-rights:653
From: thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:09:26 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <92099.145549JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>, Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
> says:
>>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  Of course, I haven't
>>addressed the issues of voluntary impoverishment, and a host of other
>>issues, for those readers who have been keeping up.
> 
> Well....I, the devil's advocate, for at least today, say:
> Not immediately.  If the child is still part of the NCP's *family*,
> then sure, the child should get some of the money.  After all, I
> assume the child is still a part of the NCP's life even after the
> separation, where the CP got custody. (Isn't the last phrase redundant?)
> But if the child isn't a part of the NCP's family now, the CP
> obviously knows this because they ARE the CP, and the CP wouldn't
> be the CP unless the CP wanted custody in the first place, AND
> the NCP doesn't want the child as a part of their family, THEN
> no, I don't think the child should "reap the benefits of the
> NCP's earnings".  Plain and simple.
> 
> family = love of child & parent  (in CP or NCP)

This is precisely the logic that has resulted in thousands of our
children being raised in poverty - which means, not necessarily
in this order - 1) a drain on the welfare system and the taxpayers
2) children who don't benefit from available educational resources
and consequently will never be as productive as they might have
been and 3) children who are faced with such hopelessness that they
turn to drugs and crime. If NCP's can just declare"I don't want
this kid anymore" and get out of support, then we ALL suffer -
the children and the rest of us as members of this society and
as taxpayers.  Remember, too, that women still make much less
than men and since they are still most likely to be the CP, that
means that unless the NCP contributes relative to salary, most kids
are destined to be raised in financial straits.

> 
> If no one wanted the child anyways (which isn't the case thought),
> the child would have been put up for adoption, and this question
> wouldn't be arising in alt.child-support.
> 
> -Jennifer
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1078 misc.kids:12661
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Making a change
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:03:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

In article <92102.112540JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennifer Brown) writes:
>
>Anyone know if the "financial responsibility" thing would truly
>hold up in court?
>

In Washington, the view is that the CP should continue to get the support
payments in order to "maintain the permanent residence of the child/ren."
It's actually in the laws, but I can't cite the specific entry. I just 
know I've seen it.

-- 
root@dogear.spk.wa.us                 "We come in search of the Holy Grail...
Bob Kirkpatrick                        --have you got any?"    --monty python
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Deciding paternity
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 19:05:13 GMT

	OK.  Here's on I've never hear discussed.  Since I've been
	discussing the chopping block lately, here's a question.


	The law says that a baby born to a married couple is assumed
	to be of that marriage.  This, of course, is significant
	where the wife is suspected of cheating and/or if the
	realtionship breaks up, and the woman turns up pregnant in
	the immediate future.  In an in-tact marriage it probably
	wouldn't reach a public forum.  In a split up, the
	husband is assumed to be the father.

	What if the man has had a vasectomy?

-- 
	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
From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Coren
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:01:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cognitio.VIXIE.92Apr7170104
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab

Alan,

I can't tell you what you should or shouldn't do with your son.  But I have
a son whom I've had to fight in court to stay in contact with, and I just
cannot imagine turning him away if I were to lose and not see him until he
was a teenager.

Teenagers in particular have a lot of "dad" stuff to work out, but that's
not what I mean.  The greatest mistake any of us Dads can make is to give
up.  I don't mean stop fighting; by "give up" I mean believe that we have
no place in our childrens' lives, or that the CP is within her rights to
restrict the time we spend with our kids.  By "give up" I mean "become
bitter" or "decide that it wasn't worth it" or "decide that it wasn't what
you wanted after all."

None of this is about the parents, including you or me.  Our kids need us.

That's a bit sermon-like, and I'm sorry.  But I believe it way down deep,
and I can't find any sympathy within myself for your position with respect
to your son.  I'm listening, and I hope you try (without flaming me) to
explain.  I'm currently operating under the assumption that your position
has more in it than I understand, and that that is why I can't imagine it
or feel sympathy for it.

--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Ready, Fire, Aim"
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul          alt.pink.bunny.boom.boom.boom moderator
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: joel@ssd.intel.com (Joel Clark)
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.061306.23492@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>
>Coren, I have another word of advice.  Marry a guy like Joel - they're
>easy.
>
>Joel, you wouldn't happen to have any chickens around your place, would
>you?
>
>Aaron (I just tell the truth and they think it's hell) Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
>
>"An NCP has NO chance for a win-win."
>	-- Joel (My Way is the Right Way) Clark
>Oh, and Joel, I think you just got chopped, bud.

I apoligize for my whining and complaining.  I meant to say:
	Nobody wins:
		the NCP misses the child
		the child misses the NCP
		the CP gets to raise a child by themselves, a situation
			that often leds to big problems.

While I may have time and energy to fight for my child, I don't need the
shit I get from these angry fathers.

BYE.

joel
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Date: 14 Apr 1992 22:42:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr14.003354.29902@ohmeda.com> paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada) writes:

> The point being is that the children 
> should not have to suffer a *decreased* living standard just 
> because their parents split up.

There's something fishy about this statement.  

> [we were always led to believe] that we had to live from paycheck 
> to paycheck...  All the while my father was giving away gifts to the 
> Catholic Church.  Some of them as large as $100K.  You see, his 
> attitude was that it was all his money.  

It was.  

> He didn't feel that he owed his family anything more than bare 
> subsistance.  

He didn't.

> He barely contributed to any of our educations.  He did send 
> us to a private Catholic High School, but there was nothing beyond 
> that to speak of.  

One of my biggest gripes is that people have to rely on their
parent's finances and willingness to pay to get to college in
this country.  In other words, whether you can get a higher
education depends on sheer chance. It is the responsibility of society, 
not your parents, to provide you with the means to obtain higher 
education if you are capable.  You are misplacing the blame here.

>He left a legacy of $1,000,000 to his second wife...

I sympathize, but look at it this way.  You're probably better off 
than the kids who reaped the full rewards of coming from the
moneyed class.  Most of those types end up remaining spoiled
brats well into adulthood.  Be glad you're not one of them.

-- Steve
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1050 alt.dads-rights:650
From: 154s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mona Hatfield)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: 10MOST WANTED
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:51:47 GMT
Reply-To: 154s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mona Hatfield)
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

I heard this on my son's radio last night as I was "checking on him".
(Too old to tuck him in he says) (12 yrs).

Somewhere (I forgot which state), they are in the process of taking
the top "ten most wanted" ***fathers***, publishing their names, pictures,
etc., just as in the T.V. show America's Most Wanted (or something like
that).  It *REALLY* burned me up that it will be the non-paying FATHERS,
what about the non-paying MOTHERS???!!!  #@!^(*(*&(*^%#  (Sorry for
the outburst).

I am a custodial mother, (receive no child-support because I dont want
it).  That really "chapps my hide".  If anyone out there has any more
information I would be interested so that a protesting could/would be
started.

I will also make the same request of the FREE (Father's Rights something
or other).

Mona Hatfield
From: cth@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (CT Hart)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:09:08 GMT
Subject: Re: When the father is out of a job.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

> What we're talking about here is a fundamental human loss. I've often found
> my pain so acute, so over-powering that I gave thought to blowing my own
> brains out. Time has passed, and for the moment, _the moment_, I have a grip.

 *If* I ever get serious about doing the above again, (yes, for the moment
 I too, am beyond it) I've decided to do it on the floor of a full legislature.

 But then, I realize, they wouldn't recognize that the child-support laws
 need to be re-examined...  Instead, they'd worry about how I got a handgun
 in there, and pass some new laws to cover that!

 Politicians!!!  Argh!

 CT (sorry, just blowing off steam instead of my head) Hart
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: attitudes
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 12:42:43 GMT

>			ATTITUDE
>
>"The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life.
>Attitude, to me, is more important than facts.  It is more important
>that the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than
>failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do.  It
>is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill.  It will make or
>break a company... a church... a home.  The remarkable thing is we have
>a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day.
>We cannot change the past, we cannot change the fact that people will
>act a certain way.  We cannot change the inevitable.  The only thing we
>can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude... I
>am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to
>it.  And so it is with everyone... we are in charge of our attitudes."
>		-- Charles Swindoll
>
>Now if that's not a great last name for an attorney, then I don't
>deserve to live.   Swindoll, Cheatum, and Howe.
>
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
>
	I saw a thing on TV last night about hobo's.  Apparently
	everyone is doing it these days.  Hopping on trains and
	riding around for the hell of it.  The difference between
	hobos and bums are that hobos work for what little they
	have.

	The above paragraph summarizes their "attitude" about
	attitudes.
-- 
	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......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:1051 alt.dads-rights:651
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 14:55:49 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: what's fair?
 <rgdeiINN5hv@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>

In article <1992Apr8.153114.9259@ohmeda.com>, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada)
says:
>Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
>of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
>$80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  Of course, I haven't
>addressed the issues of voluntary impoverishment, and a host of other
>issues, for those readers who have been keeping up.

Well....I, the devil's advocate, for at least today, say:
Not immediately.  If the child is still part of the NCP's *family*,
then sure, the child should get some of the money.  After all, I
assume the child is still a part of the NCP's life even after the
separation, where the CP got custody. (Isn't the last phrase redundant?)
But if the child isn't a part of the NCP's family now, the CP
obviously knows this because they ARE the CP, and the CP wouldn't
be the CP unless the CP wanted custody in the first place, AND
the NCP doesn't want the child as a part of their family, THEN
no, I don't think the child should "reap the benefits of the
NCP's earnings".  Plain and simple.

family = love of child & parent  (in CP or NCP)

If no one wanted the child anyways (which isn't the case thought),
the child would have been put up for adoption, and this question
wouldn't be arising in alt.child-support.

-Jennifer
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Knee-jerk reactions
Date: 7 Apr 92 21:27:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <757@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
#In article <1992Apr03.022845.171102@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
##
##I think that some of the folks here are so used to being
##wrongly accused that they forget some people are justly 
##accused.  
#
#
#Not quite Susan. It's more like the many of us in the plight are sick to
#death of being classed with the few who are justly accused. So we get
#reminded every single day about those who won't pay. Forget? No, we can't.


I understand.  I was just trying to point out that jumping to
the conclusion that all CP's are scum is just as offensive
as assuming that all NCP's are deadbeats.  (I wasn't directing
this to you, of course.  I think that you're well aware of
reality.)




#But I'll confess something. I'm a lot more angry with those who stereotype me
#with the flakes than the flakes themselves. The lot are, on the whole, band-
#wagon jumpers without a brain in their heads being pressed along their path
#by a very few embittered people that do have brains in their heads, and use
#them to manipulate the rest.

I have finally learned to tell who is who in this group.
I try not to respond to these folks, but sometimes my
fingers react before my brain does.

Susan
From: laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:03:28 GMT
Subject: Re: what's fair?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, paulo@ohmeda.com (Paul Ourada) writes:

> Well, Steve, what about what is fair to the child?  If the combined incomes
> of both parents is say, $100K/annum, but the NCP makes most of this, say
> $80K, should the child not share in this wealth?  Of course, I haven't
> addressed the issues of voluntary impoverishment, and a host of other
> issues, for those readers who have been keeping up.
> 
> Paul Ourada
> paulo@ohmeda.com

It should be up to *each* parent separately whether or not they choose to
let the child share in their wealth.  That's the way it is in an intact
family.  One should not have to share his wealth *through* the other
parent (since it probably won't get to the child anyway).

Laszlo
From: thrushea@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: knee-jerk reactions
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:31:59 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Apr3.173828.19464@unx.sas.com>, cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.123510.27308@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> |> >From: cates@cherokee.unx.sas.com (Claire Cates)
> |> >Subject: Re: Knee-jerk reactions
> |> >As I see it there are several kinds of people and situations:
> |> >
> |> >1.   The NCP who still loves the kids and tries to do what he/she can
> |> >     for them( pays the support or as much as his/her situation allows)
> |> >2.   The NCP who uses loosing his/her job as an excuse to get out of
> |> >     support payments.
> |> >3.   The NCP who lost his/her job because of drinking, drugs or simply
> |> >     work habits.   Now he/she is doing the pity me act to try to get
> |> >     out of child support, and he/she usually blame the job market or
> |> >     recession for their problems.
> |> >
> |>
> |>      What about #4.  He just lost his job because of the economy
> |>      or whatever.
> |>
> |>      How interesting that the only options for losing a job that
> |>      you can think of involve blaming the man!  The recession
> |>      *is* to blame in 1992.

If the logic is that when the NCP is unemployed, the child support
payments should be dropped or reduced, then it follows logically that
if the the custodial parent becomes unemployed, the payments should
be increased.  Also, consider that when one is unemployed, one is NOT
let off the hook for credit card payments, mortgage or rent payments,
car payments, etc.  Why should the child suffer first?  The rule is -
save at least 6 months salary so you can cover stuff - after that,
negotiate.
Yes, I have been unemployed - and no, the child support payments
were not increased.  In fact, they've never increased at the rate
specified in the agreement, and the one time I spoke to an Assistant
D.A. about it, he laughed at me - said I was lucky to be getting
anything!  So much for the law.

> 
>   1.  If you notice I used he/she everywhere so that I am not blaming
>       just the man.
> 
>   2.  Yes, I know that the recession is causing many people to loose
>       their job and I had that bunched in 1 and 2.   #1 and #2 was the
>       NCP who lost their job because of recession or other reasons beyond
>       their control.  But, there are many people who are also loosing
>       their job because of #3.   I have seen this personally with my
>       sister, but 2 years ago her ex did himself in with his drinking
>       (after loosing about 4 jobs in 1 year).  He drove head on into a
>       semi while intoxicated.
> 
>   3.  I posted this list only to try to tell people to look at all
>       angles of the situation before knee-jerking.  There are some
>       times when the NCP is in a bad situation and needs help ( ie.
>       the laws need to change), but there are also many times where
>       the NCP lost his/her job because of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Claire
Newsgroups: alt.child-support