HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: claiming fed tax exemption
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:04:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <93026.155422IDSAW@ASUACAD.BITNET>, <IDSAW@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
> In article <93026.142600ICSCAB@ASUACAD.BITNET>, <ICSCAB@ASUACAD.BITNET> says:
> >
> >If, when calculating which party is responsible for what percentage of the
> >children's support (as one must do in Arizona to figure the amount of
> >support to be paid), the father is responsible for 70% of the children's
> >support, should he not be entitled to claim both children as exemptions
> >on his tax return?  The current form from IRS says he has to plead with

Of course, if any logic applied to state guidelines!

> >to claim the children on her own return?  She does not want to give him any
> >of the two exemptions because she does not want to lose any of the EIC
> >credit on her return ($1350 credit, which would be decreased by $50 if
> >she gives her ex one of the two exemptions).  If the father is able to
> >claim one child, his tax liability will be decreased by $1000.
> 
> This is the same reason why my fiance's ex would not let go of the exemption.
> However, now that she's re-married it's just plain 'ole greed at this point.
> 
> >
> >Any suggestions here?
> 
> This is the reality of many NCPs and SOs of NCPs.

In the case where there is a substantial cost effective difference
in who gets the exemption, I would suggest getting together and
discussing bribery.
If the exemption is worth $1000 to the NCP, but only $50 to the CP,
offer the CP say $200 cash for signing form 8332.
She gets an extra $150, the NCP gets an extra $800.
Uncle Sam gets less, but so what.
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Blame Tossing
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:49:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1jv2tnINN4b4
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.95.56.210

I'm always amused when people point fingers.
"They" (e.g. Pres. Clinton) say,

      "It's his fault!
      The child is a gang member because
      his dady is a deadbeat scofflaw who
      never gave child support."
      
Do these people feel better when they shift
the blame to this (often) absent person?

Shall we riot and burn the "Wallet Parent"
to solve all our problems?

Our nation feels better when it socks-it-to
these "oppressive" males to "empower" the women.
But the Blame tossing only helps to avoid the
real issues of personal responsibility.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:22:53 PST
Distribution: na
Organization: Lebenty-Screech's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA

johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:

> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca wrote:
> : 
> : In B.C., Social Assistance ("Welfare") standard rates (maximum) for one adu
> : $525/month.  I don't know what the maximum rate is for one parent with two
> : children is now, but in 1990 it was $974/mo., (maximum allowance).  That tw
> : year old figure is considerably more than Indiana's $580/mo. for a parent w
> : two children...$396 more!  I can assure you that even in 1990, $974/mo. did
> : go very far...
> : 
> : ---------------------------------------------------------------
> $974 Canadian at current exchange rates is about $761 US. If you also factor
> in the differences between Canadian GST and US Sales tax you will find the
> two amounts aren't all that far apart interms of buying power.
> 
> John Eaton

Thank you John, for pointing this out.  However, we pay sales tax here, too.
 B.C. provincial sales tax is 6% (plus GST of 7%). Alberta is the only Canadian
province that doesn't have a sales tax.

Also, $761 is still $179 less than welfare here was *2 years ago* for a parent
with two children.

Lisa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: IDSAW@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: claiming fed tax exemption
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:54:22 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

In article <93026.142600ICSCAB@ASUACAD.BITNET>, <ICSCAB@ASUACAD.BITNET> says:
>
>If, when calculating which party is responsible for what percentage of the
>children's support (as one must do in Arizona to figure the amount of
>support to be paid), the father is responsible for 70% of the children's
>support, should he not be entitled to claim both children as exemptions
>on his tax return?  The current form from IRS says he has to plead with

The amount of $$$$ support provided does not equate to an entitlement
to the tax exemption.  My fiance goes through this every year.  Every
year he asks for the exemption, and every year he is turned down.
We just hope for one of those born-again moments of hers where she just
might decide to generously surrender the exemption (you never know).
You might get some relief however, at the State level.  The latest
guidelines published by the State stipulates that the if you meet certain
conditions (primarily pay the major portion of financial support and have
have been on time with payments, etc. etc.) you are in fact allowed to
take the exemption every-other-year.  This law only applies to orders
or modifications made after March 1992.  The only problem here, for
those folks who would like the exemption, but have not had a modification
--- they must think very carefully as to whether a modification would be
worth the exemption, especially since it would most likely increase.
Also, a modification for someone who does not have wage garishment (or
whatever else you'd like to call it), a modification at this point would
definitely include those good 'ole payroll deductions.

>the ex to get her to give him a letter so he can claim them on his tax
>return.  His salary is $1500 per month while hers is $700.  Doesn't she
>has to prove that she not only spent all of his $5000 in support checks on
>the children, matched it with her own $5000 and exceeded that in order
>to claim the children on her own return?  She does not want to give him any

She doesn't have to prove anything.

>of the two exemptions because she does not want to lose any of the EIC
>credit on her return ($1350 credit, which would be decreased by $50 if
>she gives her ex one of the two exemptions).  If the father is able to
>claim one child, his tax liability will be decreased by $1000.

This is the same reason why my fiance's ex would not let go of the exemption.
However, now that she's re-married it's just plain 'ole greed at this point.

>
>Any suggestions here?

This is the reality of many NCPs and SOs of NCPs.

Shirley Woods
Arizona State University
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:06:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.141434.22507@bmw.mayo.edu>, kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar) writes:
> David Garrod writes
> > There is a pleasure to be derived from having children, seeing  
> them
> > grow etc.  (Nobody, in their right minds, would choose to spend
> > $100,000 - $200,000 to raise a child unless there was enjoyment  
> and
> > pleasure to be derived therefrom.)  This this the quid pro quo in
> > having children.
> > However the government ignores the psychological benefit a parent
> > derives (the pleasure of seeing them grow) and concentrates only
> > on the monetary aspect.
> 
> Hmmm.  In accident cases it has become quite common to seek (and  
> receive) monetary compensation for loss of services, loss of  
> happiness, loss of all kinds of things.  Maybe someone denied joint  
> custody or visitation should use the same argument for loss of  
> child raising pleasure.
> 
> Bruce Kaskubar
> kaskubar@mayo.edu


Yes, indeed.  In several instances there have been successful torts
against a mother with sole custody who repeatedly interfered with
the father`s right to see his children.

To my knowledge there have been no actions seeking damages from a state
because of removal of a father`s rights to joint custody.

David Garrod
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:51:33 CST

In article 28F@news2.cis.umn.edu, gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.171948.514@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>
>>     Inaugural Address: "We must stop expecting something for
>>nothing."  W. Clinton.
>>
>>     Why is it appropriate then, Mr President, to demand child
>>support from thousands of men, without enforcing the rights
>>of the fathers to see their children?
>
>Where does he state his policy in this regard (you seem pretty
>good with quotes)?

 His feminist wife once led (like a few of his other cabinet members
 and advisors) the Children's Defense Fund. This organization shrouds
 itself with statements about personal responsibility in the name
 of children. The goal of this ragtag band of idiots is to garnish
 as much money and government programs that directly assist women
 at the expense of men, all the while shielding their perch atop
 the Moral Highground (children).

>
>>     There is a quid pro quo.  A father that has joint custody and
>>gets to see his children pays child support in full and on time
>>over 90% of the time. 
>>If society is not prepared to enforce a father`s rights to see his
>>children, society has no right to demand one dime of financial 
>>contribution from him.  There is a quid pro quo.
>
>I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
>cause-and-effect relationships.  I'll stand corrected if you can
>show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.
>Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
>their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
>or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
>you to be a violent sort of person.)
>
>Greg.
>
>
>

 You sound just like your elvis impersonating president. The dimwitted
hillbilly couldn't see a problem with appointing a so-called up-standing
corporate lawyer who thinks she's qualified to be thee law enforement
king of this country after she admits to breaking a law. Christ almighty!
A law just about any assistant night shift McDonald's manager knows. 

 And then the broad has the audacity to claim she was acting like a mother, 
concerned about her poor innocent litto boooyyyy?

 Bye-bye honey. 

 Hello Willy, are you listening?

Jon



Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Summary: Oops!....
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:54:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.201929.25207@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.122709.7516@walter.cray.com>, jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
> > In article 6711@desire.wright.edu, sbishop@desire.wright.edu () writes:
> ......
> >  THere is no shared child support guideline in Mn. Statute 518.64 clearly
> > says if you make X amount 'buddy', you pay Y amount. They don't give
> > a diddly dam what SHE makes. 
> > 
> >  "just the facts sir, just the facts....."
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> Mn. Statute 518.64 is the modification of child support statute.
> The Mn. Statute which relates to $support v. $income is 518.551 
> (at least that`s where the table is)
> 
> In 518.551 Subd. 5, it also states  "....The court shall approve a
> child support agreement of the parties if each party is represented
> by independent counsel, unless the agreement is not in the interest
> of justice.  ...."
> 
I was in my office at Purdue when I wrote the above and have a copy there 
of only the 1991 child support guidelines and statutes....Alas, Mn
changed their statutory language in 1992.  The above paragraph now
reads:

"The court shall approve a child support stipulation of the parties
if each party is represented by independent counsel, unless the
stipulation does not meet the conditions of paragraph h."

"(h). The guidelines in this subdivision are a rebuttable presumption and 
shall be used in all cases when establishing or modifying child support.
.....(stuff about when not deviating)
If the court deviates from the guidelines, the court shall make written
findings giving the reasons for the deviation and shall specifically
address the criteria in paragraph (b) and how the deviation serves the
best interest of the child...."
(b) says stuff about income, taxation exemptions, but does not mention
amount of visitation as deviation grounds.

So now I`m not so sure about deviations....there aren`t many loopholes.
Shared custody is NEVER addressed.  It does seem a reasonable reason
for deviation, but the judge is technically not given explicit
discretion for a deviation.
> 
> David Garrod
> Thought for the day:
> "You have to know all the facts before you jump to conclusions."
> George Bush.


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Custody definitions
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:58:21 GMT



Since there seems to be some confusion between shared and split
custody, here are the conventional definitions of same.

Joint Legal Custody:
    Both parents share in the decisions for the child, especially
in the area of educational, medical and religious decisions.
(It does not implying anything with regard to where the child lives.)

Joint Physical Custody:
    The child spends a significant amount of time with each parent.
The split does not have to be exactly 50-50, but the smaller split
does have to be greater than for NCP visitation in sole custody
situations.

(My own use of joint custody is both joint legal and joint physical.)

Split Custody:
     This usually refers to the case where there is more than one
child and each parent has sole custody of at least one child.  It
could technically refer to a situation where one parent has sole
custody of one child and the custody of the other child is joint, but
this is rare.

David Garrod
 Thought for the day:
"You have to have all the facts, before you jump to conclusions"
G.H.W. Bush
From: alicen@cs.washington.edu (Alicen Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: CHILD support
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:18:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering Dept., Univ. of Washington, Seattle

Perhaps you too will find this interesting:

Tuesday, January 26, 1992
Seattle PI

Child support for one:  $6,000 a month

A state appeals court in Sanata Ana, Calif., upheld a lower court in
December by granting Sheryle Ulyate an increase in child support
payments from her ex-husband for their 15-year-old daughter.  The
court ordered payments to increase from $2,000 to $6,000 a month.
Ulyate said the girl's monthly expenses included $2,000 for clothing,
$300 for jewelry, and $1,600 for entertainment, and she asked for
$15,000 a month.  The ex-husband made a fortune selling mini-blinds.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Bishop Flames (Re: Indiana Welfare)
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:12:03 GMT
Distribution: na

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>> Lisa, it would help a lot if you'd avoid the tirades against NCP's
>> and against anyone who thinks that "child" support is too high.
>> 
>> Sometimes, you seem rational -- but then comes a post full of anger
>> and hate (here, you have five !'s, a couple of ???'s, plus a "God
>> forbid" and a "sure as hell" to lash out against people who have
>> different opinions).  The point being, regardless of whether you are
>> justified or not, you show little respect for people who don't share
>> your opinion.
>> 
>
>A complaint about hostility?  From the Beave?  Wow.....
>
>> I am one of those people, and I would like to discuss child support
>> rationally.  Unlike the lurkers that Sue Bishop mentioned, I'm not
>> afraid of your negativity, but I would still like to hear agreeing
>> and opposing views, without personal attacks.
>
>I just couldn't let this pass.  Don, you are suggesting that the lurkers
>were afraid of *Lisa's* hostility.  They weren't.  They were afraid of
>yours.

I realize you can't let anything pass.  Your interpretation is wrong.


>> I was starting to think that your support group's goals were
>> reasonably balanced -- but I'm a bit worried that it's like
>> gender-neutral laws:  the bias can be read between the lines.

>The vast amount of gender bias in this group has come from you and Alan.
>Once again, while Lisa is being a little extreme, you seem to be trying
>to rekindle the flame war.  Sigh, get a grip, will you?  Or are we going
>back to the alt.child-support.male-only again?


I prefixed my comments with "Lisa" -- but it is no surprise that
Sue Bishop returned to bat.

Sue, I disagree with you.  In my opinion, the vast amount of *gender*
bias has come from you, as well as the hostility.  Above, I made
some comments to Lisa about how her article sounded, and you respond
with name-calling and accusations.  I find it hypocritical of you
to condone Lisa's "being a little extreme."


I regard this group as a forum for all people, men and women, 
CP's and NCP's and parents and nonparents, to discuss their opinions 
of child support levels and enforcement-related issues.

If you would like to start alt.child-support.sue_and_lurkers_only,
be my guest.

But I hope people can state their opinions here, even when they disagree,
without escalating to name-calling and hostilities.  It is those 
escalations that scare off the unidentified lurkers you want to protect, 
Sue.  They also scare off the lurking NCP's who are used to tirades
about "deadbeat dad's."  Does your sympathy extend to them as well?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:02:32 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar) writes:

> Hmmm.  In accident cases it has become quite common to seek (and  
> receive) monetary compensation for loss of services, loss of  
> happiness, loss of all kinds of things.  Maybe someone denied joint  
> custody or visitation should use the same argument for loss of  
> child raising pleasure.

No, you can't sue someone for the outcome of a lawfully conducted and
concluded litigation. Otherwise, people and businesses would be sueing
those winners of suits against them for the monetary losses incurred
in the suit. (-:


---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: af5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Wendy Lin)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:46:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.171200.13092@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>  I've driven about 8500 miles this year just to visit my children. That is the
>estimated miles JUST to meet them. It does not include anything else, 
>like a trip to the movie, zoo or circus etc.
>
> My ex finally shut the hell up about costs of being a custodial mother.

My ex finally shut up about itemizing the child support expenses after I
sent him $500 for kids' 4-week visit with him last summer.  (He doesn't
pay support while kids are with him.)

He sent me a note after the visit was over saying that he was going to
itemize the expenses, but found it was too tedious and gave up.

Wendy Lin
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: ronerwin@carson.u.washington.edu (Ron Erwin)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: claiming fed tax exemption
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:56:10 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

<ICSCAB@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

>If, when calculating which party is responsible for what percentage of the
>children's support (as one must do in Arizona to figure the amount of
>support to be paid), the father is responsible for 70% of the children's
>support, should he not be entitled to claim both children as exemptions
>on his tax return?  The current form from IRS says he has to plead with
>the ex to get her to give him a letter so he can claim them on his tax
>return.  His salary is $1500 per month while hers is $700.  Doesn't she
>has to prove that she not only spent all of his $5000 in support checks on
>the children, matched it with her own $5000 and exceeded that in order

>to claim the children on her own return?  She does not want to give him any
>of the two exemptions because she does not want to lose any of the EIC
>credit on her return ($1350 credit, which would be decreased by $50 if
>she gives her ex one of the two exemptions).  If the father is able to
>claim one child, his tax liability will be decreased by $1000.

>Doesn't he legally have a right to claim at least one of the children?
>She lives in a $300 per month mortgaged home which she shares with her
>male lover and his two children, plus her own.  Would she not have a hard
>time proving she spent in excess of $10,000 on the support of her own

>two children?  She dresses them shabbily and with clothing picked up
>from outlet stores.

>Any suggestions here?

Yes, negotiate with their mother.  If you give her a financial reason to give
him the exemption.  We raised our child support offer on the condition that my
ex give me the exemption until she starts working full time.  The IRS rule gives
the custodial parent the choice unless their is another obligation.  If the
plan is already done, offer half of the proceeds to her or some such figure
you can justify, but be prepared to split the benefit with her.
From: woody@rock.concert.net (Woody Muller)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Bishop Flames (Re: Indiana Welfare)
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:54:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: CONCERT-CONNECT -- Public Access UNIX

Don Beaver writes:
> I regard this group as a forum for all people, men and women, 
> CP's and NCP's and parents and nonparents, to discuss their opinions 
> of child support levels and enforcement-related issues.
> 
> If you would like to start alt.child-support.sue_and_lurkers_only,
> be my guest.

Don,
     With all due respect, I think the recent "Pony Wars" have undermined
the credibility of this group's charter.  There have been some pretty
personal attacks on folks who *happen* to be in a position to spend
the child-support dads like us pay.  And it looks a lot like *happening*
to be a CP woman is what ticks you off toward a given poster.  

     Extreme positions are not always in the best interests of potential
parents who are trying to present themselves as "reasonable."  They
tend to make the holders of the extreme positions look like "kooks."
Newsgroups: alt.child-support