From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:06:36 CDT

In article <2454@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.195138.3944@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>	[in regards to child support payments]
>
>|> The money is not coming to the woman for her use, it's to help support
>|> the child.   You seem to have ignored this in your post.
>
>I am a CP. My ex has submerged. Were I able to to force here into court and 
>actually receive child support, it would enhance the life of BOTH my son
>and I.
>
>I can't buy a better car with which to give him more mobility without helping 
>my quality of life. I can't rent a better place for him without renting the 
>same better place for me.
>
>-- 
>d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com
>

 Duane, I'll presume your ex does not pay child support. This is unfortunate.
I am an NCP who believes in supporting my two children, however, I am
completely baffled by the Mn statute 518.61 which implies that child
support must maintain the children's standard of living as if the
parents had not divorced. 

  "Quality of life" as defined by man haters, pussy whipped men and
naive fairness goofs who think that quality of life is determined
by the type of car they drive. I pray for you're son that you were
only kidding.

 Democrat/liberal: i.e. Clinton, Hillary, Rep. Sykorski, Childrens Defense 
                   Fund, ACES, Mn State Rep./Sen. Berglin .......


  All these individuals and groups generally believe "quality of life" is
to be determined by the state. This is compassionate and shows concern
for children. Anybody who apposes them is not compassionate and does
not care for children. "Quality of life" for children as defined by
the state overrides the parents own wishes and aspirations for THEIR
children. ACES represent CPs and generally spout about how little
they are receiving. Their premise is, men leave women and children 
to die on their own. Even when women can be faulted, the children's
needs come first, therefore, pass legistlation that presumes ALL NCPs
are evil and therefore they should reap outlandish benefits.

1. They ALL appose accountability. 
2. They ALL appose reasonable child support tables that facter the 
   true cost of raising a child. The presume that NCPs like myself
   got married to have children so I could dump them on the street,
3. They ALL want and supported automatic cost of living increases,
   irregardless of salary changes NCPs and have recently
   passed legistlation to restrain the court deviating from the
   guidelines. 
4. They all believe that gender fairness in family court is still slanted
   toward men. 
5. They also believe that fathers wouldn't buy their children Christmas
   gifts, because fathers leave their family to die. Therefore, 
   the child support guidelines are written as if the NCP ran off.
6. They appose shared parenting. Their excuses, supported by the 
   unbelievably idiotic social worker system, for not allowing 
   shared custody are about as intelligent as the excuses I hear
   from my seven yr. old. i.e. "If they didn't get along in their
   marriage... " 
7. They appose considering the income of the CP when determining
   child support. As far as I'm concerned, a lawsuit by children
   against the state is in order here. Don't the children
   have a right to know what HER income is also. 
8. They ALL believe that visitation (reasonable visitation) is
   every other weekend and they feel no need to prosecute CPs
   if they deny visitation. 
9. The law states that a hearing must be held to determine if
   it is in the best of interest the children to allow the CP
   to move out of state. The court rarely denies the CP the
   motion and rarely reduces child support more than 5%. 
   See:  Jack Jackox (MPLS attorney rated one of the best by
         his peers)
 
Republicans quality of life idea certainly has it's 'moralistic' 
bent, but it generally believes in less government, unless of course
it costs them any money. 

I like their idea of less government. I do not like their NCP band
wagon, but it is changing.

FACT:  As these hideous, dangerous and idiotic laws affect more
and more men, (automatic child support garnishment based on 
outrageous amounts) the laws will change dramatically. These
laws have only recently passed (within the last 5 years). Men
who were divorced before 87' do not have this ill feeling.
They have been left out of the "system", a system of Democratic
do gooders who believe they know what is in the best interest
of children.

I believe the current guidelines should be enforced on ALL divorced
MEN, going back as far as records can. What would happen.  

1. Every major city court house and state house would be on fire.
2. Emergency sessions of congress would straighten' things out
   for THE BEST INTEREST of CHILDREN!




 




Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.rape,alt.child-support