HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:36:24 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: helper.systems.caltech.edu

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>In article <C0Jo7D.8Ly@vcd.hp.com>, johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
>> Suppose one parent gets a $1,000 a year raise. CS goes up by $200 per year
>> with each side kicking in $100 each. (It may be more like 98/102 due to
>> the effect of the raise). Is it fair to charge one parent more money simply
>> because the other one got a raise?
>> 
>> John Eaton
>> !hp-vcd!johne
>> 
>> 

>This does tend to be an inequity of the system.  However, our state also has
>a recommended cap on the total amount of child support.  Whether this guide
>line really means anything, I don't know.  But I do know in our county, it's
>usually around the same as the amount the county pays for foster care which
>is $300 a month.  Of course, this is just a guideline, which means the court
>can order more if the parents' income is more.  

>I really don't think it is fair to penalize one parent if the other gets a
>raise.  However, it would only be raised if the whole thing goes to court.

>And, in a case where both parents are supposedly kicking in X amount, which
>one is going to go to court?  Usually the CP.  And if the amount is only
>going to increase by $102 per year, it's not really worth going to court
>because of the legal expense.  Increases in support are not automatic, at 
>least not here in Ohio.

At least here in WA, support MUST be renegotiated *at least* every
two years, it's the law.  I was stupid enough to have our decree state
that ours would be renegotiated each year because my ex (the CP) makes
so much more and has such greater income potential than I that I thought
it would protect me from paying more than I should.  The gotcha was the
"the CP's income goes up, the NCP's support payment goes up".  We end
up in court every year.  I cannot afford the legal expense so I have
learned to defend myself.  Besides, though I have a great attorney,
when she represented me, I lost.  When I appealed the verdict on my
own, I won.  I highly recommend that anyone who has a detail-oriented
mind and the motivation to dig through law books, learn to defend
yourself.  It is the only recourse we have.  In my experience the
judges have treated me very well and my ex's attorney has treated me
like %$$#@, despite his reputation as an "expert" family law attorney.
Maybe he's just sore because he has lost twice against an amature?

Danielle 
>  
>My only experience in this matter is as the recepient of the support since
>I am Mike's legal guardian via the Juvenile Court system, not Childrens' 
>Services.  

>Sue

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:50:20 GMT

<1993Jan6.152315.6445@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><C0FxJ8.5JM@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[...]

>> Just for the record, Sue.  This followed your tirade about
>> "jerks" and "bastards," including calling your foster son's 
>> father a jerk after he complained about paying.

[... other comments covered elsewhere ...]

>Again, for the record, I called him a jerk because he had abandoned his son,
>refused custody when it was offered, told the County that he didn't want his
>son and to either keep him in the Home or else put him in a foster home.
>Then when they did take him to court for child support, he was suddenly the
>injured person and they had stolen his son and were impoverishing him by
>garnishing his wages.
>
>Once again, Don resorts to creative editing.


You can tell the story as much as you like.  I'll even reprint it
for you, right here.  But recall, you've called others "jerks" and 
"bastards" (nothing noticeable against women, however).  Your usual
threshold is simply a complaint by a man that court-ordered support
is too high.

In fact, it was your tirade against Alan that finally prompted me 
to say that I agreed that ponies are a luxury.

(Rather than remain one of the fearful "lurkers" who you so often 
claim are in support of your opinions.)


>Again, for the record, I called him a jerk because he had abandoned his son,
>refused custody when it was offered, told the County that he didn't want his
>son and to either keep him in the Home or else put him in a foster home.
>Then when they did take him to court for child support, he was suddenly the
>injured person and they had stolen his son and were impoverishing him by
>garnishing his wages.

DC al coda...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell)
Subject: Re: Enough on the itemizing
Originator: mba@sp1
Organization: Harris Controls
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:28:54 GMT


In article <kHZ3wB8w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
|> mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Are you saying that a parent should just wave goodbye to the money?

No, i'm not at all.  I'm saying that if my husband is going to send $1000 a 
month to his ex-wife for the children, she damned well better be spending it 
*on the children*, not on herself or fancy legal tricks trying to prevent him 
seeing them!

|> 
|> I'm not for accounting, because my state already has a requirement that
|> the CP has to furnish to the NCP, on _reasonable_ demand, a general look
|> at where the money went.

I wish our state would do that.  We have sufficient reason to suspect that 
she is misspending it, and would be grateful for any way of ensuring that the
kids at least feel the benefit of the award, as was meant.

|> 
|> The courts routinely accept things like this:
|> 
|> Support: 4000
|> 
|> Housing and related: 3000
|> Food: 1000
|> Total: 4000
|> 
|> Now, there's accounting for you. (-:
|> 
|> ---
|> Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
|> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA


Housing and related...(bitter laugh).  Amazing what they let them get away
with.....
-- 
=============================================================================
Belinda Asbell        +  System Administrator, Harris Controls Division
mba@ccd.harris.com    +      Any opinions presented are mine alone.
  Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: dwatson@cser.encore.com (Drew Watson)
Subject: HelpmeHelpme
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:46:46 GMT
Summary: This can't last


Hi, 

I'm in trouble with the IRS, and it is due to my ex...

She filed single-head-of-household prior to our divorce for
several years, and therefor stuck me with income tax way 
over what I expected...

I therefore request a lottery with myself the beneficieary.

PLEASE PLEASE send $1.00 or more to me at:

D. Watson
4713 Commons Dr. #104 
Annandale, VA 22003

This cannot be fraud because I promise nothing but a very sincere thanks.

Please send your email address if you receive this note. I would very much
like to compare receptions.

If you send $1.00, send your e-mail adress and a thankyou will follow!


I thank you...

Doc Watson

(Save yourself one loterry ticket and help someone in the hole. If I  get
out I'll promise to do the same for you!!!)

Honest!

(Sorry I have to beg... not my style, but life & times are not happy for all...)

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.singles
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Affirmative Action on Father Custody Cases
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:21:30 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] In article <1993Jan6.223214.399@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
] >beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
] >| >>>>1.  Presumption in favor of the father, until such time as fathers
] >| >>>>receive 49% of sole/primary custody awords.
] >
] > What if not enough fathers sought custody, would
] >the courts be required to recruit -- draft -- them?
] 
] In this case, the presumption in favor of the father would
] mean that, unless the mother gave reasons that the presumption
] should not hold, the presumption would take force. 
] ........  The presumption does 
] not override other concerns unilaterally; it acts as a kind of default.


I think that as a Matter of Course, in the tradition of AA,
that Don Beaver has an EXCELLENT Idea! I presume that this also
means that the NonCustodialParent, whom in this case would
default to being the NonMalePerson would also be liable to
Court Ordered Child Support Payments.

This, I believe, might modify some of the general presumptions
and behaviors in regards to 'sexual relationships' for heterosexuals.
On the one hand, having the default Custodial Parent be the
Male, they will take appropriate action to Not Parent, IF
they do not wish to be the Default Parent.

The other side of this will be a chance for females to reconsider
their fiscal liability in the matter of gestating. No Longer will
GestationallyAble be construed in itself to be a basis for making
a living. In certain cases this will make the idea of 'abortion'
suddenly a more 'reasonable solution' to the prospects of being
under court order garnishing of their wages for the next 23 years.

{Need I suggest the unthinkable? That suddenly the climate for
the 'pre_sex_contract' might be viewed in a totally different light?}


ciao
drieux

ps: in related areas - please to note:
A recent California Ruling, did grant the biological father
the right to adopt a newborn that the biological mother had
intended to put up for adoption, in lieu of merely having an abortion.



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3238 alt.child-support:4264 soc.men:22406
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 17:13:46 GMT

I really think that men want an itemized accounting because of bad parenting.
I think the fact that men have so much of their salaries taken by the CP
that if the job does not get done right the NCP cann't do it on their own.

If I were paying only the true cost of half my child's actual support, I 
make more than enough money to take care of things that I do not feel are
handled appropriately.  The system even egnores the fact that maybe I would
like to take my daughters shopping for close on a regular basis as part
of my parenting role.  What actually happens is they take all of my money
for raising my children up front and give it away.  Then I don't get to 
do those things.  Picking a place for the child to live does not mean that
all the money has to go there or that the other parent does not need child
support money for their part of the functions.  If the courts looked at the
best interest of the child, they would require both parents to have money and
to be involved in the childs life.

The biggest problem for the NCP is all of the eggs are put into one basket
of the CP.  If the CP does a poor job or one that does not meet the expectations
of the NCP, the NCP may not have the cash to pick up the slack.  A huge part
of having an influence on the living standards and training of your child
has to do with the disposible income that you have left.

Smile,

Dave

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: smile1@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (gray,david l)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 00:19:28 GMT

>This does tend to be an inequity of the system.  However, our state also has
>a recommended cap on the total amount of child support.  Whether this guide
>line really means anything, I don't know.  But I do know in our county, it's
>usually around the same as the amount the county pays for foster care which
>is $300 a month.  Of course, this is just a guideline, which means the court
>can order more if the parents' income is more.  
deletions
>Sue


Something that is extremely interesting.  Most states have very high
moral standards for children they are not supporting.  No amount of 
money is too high for a NCP.  This idea of making the guidlines closer
to what everyone willing to pay anyother child is new to me.  Massachusetts
should read this note.

Smile,

Dave

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3240 alt.child-support:4267 soc.men:22410
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:12:53 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


In article <C0JI1o.FCs@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> <1993Jan8.070242.6474@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>Ohio's support seems quite reasonable to me.  It's based on both parents'
>>income, does not exceed 20% of the total of both.  So if each is 50% of
>>the entire total, each only contribute 10%.
> 
> Now I see why you considered 1/3 of a million dollars ridiculously high.
> It's because it was more than 20% of a million dollars.
> 

Wasn't the father's income something around $5 million a year?  But he
didn't want to pay support since he thought the mother should provide
for the daughter out of her income of 1/2 a mill?  It's been a while
since I read the article and I didn't memorize the figures.
What ever the amount, it sounded like a ridiculous amount for a child
to have to spend.


> (By the way, the premise "if each is 50%" seems to presume that men 
> and women have equal opportunity to elect the "I'll stay at home" route.)
> 

Once again I have to explain.... "if each is 50%" means if their actual
income is equal.  In other words, if each parent makes 10,000 (or whatever).


> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

Sue
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Ohio support
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:59:14 EST
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <31504@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, mstemper@ems.cdc.com (Michael Stemper) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.070242.6474@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>>Ohio's support seems quite reasonable to me.  It's based on both parents'
>>income, does not exceed 20% of the total of both.  So if each is 50% of
>>the entire total, each only contribute 10%.
> 
> A minor problem with the math here. Assume that CP and NCP each make
> $2000/month. Then, the total is $4000/month. 20% of $4000 is $800.
> Since the incomes are equal, each parent is paying $400. This is indeed
> only 10% of the total. However, it is still 20% of each parent's
> income.

Looks like I will have to repost the entire formula.  It's more complicated
than that, since several things are taken into consideration, alimony paid
and received, child care expenses, other children, etc.  Also there is a
recommended cap amount.  

> 
> The mechanics of these transactions are:
>    NCP pays  $400 to CP
>    CP "pays" $400 to CP
> 
> Now, as an NCP, I have occasionally had fantasies of becoming a CP. I
> calculated what would happen to my monthly expenditures if somehow,
> my son got to live with me. They would go up in the neighborhood of
> $400/month. So the second transaction is actually irrelevant.
> 
> Actually, I'm jealous. In Minnesota, it's 25%, not 20%.
> --
> #include <Standard_Disclaimer.h>
> Michael F. Stemper
> Power Systems Consultant
> mstemper@ems.cdc.com

I thought I had saved the entire formula on disk, so far I haven't found
it in my directory.  But then, I've got so much stuff, I don't know what
half of it is.  Looks like I need to clean stuff out.  I'll re type it
when I get time.  Right now, I don't.  My house was broken into while we
were on vacation, I'm still coping with the incredible problems that caused,
with warrants out for the various people involved.  (My nephew (!) and
his buddies who partied in my house!!!!)  Also my very best friend's 
husband is in the hospital with terminal emphasyma.  BTW, all you smokers
out there, just spend a few minutes in the hospital room of someone who
is dying of emphasyma.  It's a very horrible way to die. 

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:04:21 GMT

I for one would like to see some accountability for the child support I
pay.  My ex has remarried and now boasts constantly about all the "new
things" they are acquiring, such as a boat, van, airplane (!) and more
mundane things such as VCRs, camcorders, trips to Disneyland, etc.
Meanwhile, I roll pennies to buy milk.

There's something wrong here, somewhere.

-- 
Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Harris Controls and Composition
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:27:00 GMT

>Isn't it strange that society insists on all of this belly hoooo when
>it comes to fathers who have left the home, but society will not
>ask for an accounting from still married couples?  How many children
>out there with both parents still together don't get enough to eat, wear
>or enough medical attention.......We should make all parents accountable
>for their children......

Point made.

If we do keep accurate records, can we use those figures instead of the
standard exemptions on our tax forms? :)
-- 
=============================================================================
Belinda Asbell        +  System Administrator, Harris Controls Division
mba@ccd.harris.com    +      Any opinions presented are mine alone.
  Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell)
Subject: Re: child support: FAQ (?)
Originator: mba@sp1
Organization: Harris Controls
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:43:06 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.183616.19915@news.vanderbilt.edu>, PLANCHAJ@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu (Tony Planchart) writes:
|> My
|> question is this, if I have my son during the summer for from six to eight
|> weeks, should I have to continue payment of child support for those apprx. two
|> months, or should I be given an exemption?  It seems to me fair that I should
|> not pay her for the two months that I have our son.  Furthermore, to be wholly
|> fair, shouldn't she pay me child support during this time?  All fairness aside
|> (and there seems to be very little fairness in our present family court
|> systems), I would be satisfied with not having to pay her for the right to keep
|> my son during the summer.  Any comments fro past experience, hearsay or
|> otherwise would be greatly appreciated.
|> 
|> Tony

I don't know what the laws in your state are, but in Florida, unless there is a
specific contingency in the divorce agreement, the courts will hold you
accountable for the money and will call you in arrears if you don't pay.

Now, you might be able to convince her to send back an equivalent amount, but get
something *in writing*, preferably notarized, from her stating that she will do
that when you have the children. 

We tried that once with my husband's ex.  When we were going to pick them up for
summer visitation, we got a certified letter stating that she would pay us back
*half* the child support for the month when *we* had the children.  She never
sent the money, giving various excuses.  Now she claims she never agreed to send
us anything.

Custody is disputed, adn we were given 6 months visitation until the kids start
regular school.  Fortunately for us, the judge specifically stated in the
temporary order that we would *not* have to pay child support when we had the
kids.


Check the laws in your state.  I know it may cost money, but try to get a court
order abating child support during your visitation.  8 weeks is a long time, and
i never could understand paying child support to someone who does not have the
children......

-- 
=============================================================================
Belinda Asbell        +  System Administrator, Harris Controls Division
mba@ccd.harris.com    +      Any opinions presented are mine alone.
  Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Originator: mba@sp1
Organization: Harris Controls
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:32:00 GMT


In article <m053wB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us 
(Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

|> One of my cheerful moments during the holidays happened at Fred Meyer, a
|> multifaceted variety store. I was in line behind two women who were talking
|> about their divorce cases. One made almost the exact comment you show here.
|> 
|> She started to write a check to the store, and I made an exaggerated gesture
|> to look at the check she was writing. She gave me a severe look, and asked
|> me what I was doing. I produced my ID (which shows me to be an officer of
|> Superior Court) and said that "Purposely deceiving the court is a felony,
|> and I wanted to make sure I had your name spelled correctly." I also asked
|> her who her attorney was, because I was sure that the Bar Association would
|> like to know about lawyers who give advice like that.
|> 
|> She literally got white as a sheet, said "Oh my God!" and RAN out of the
|> store in tears.
|> 
|> It felt good.
|> 
|> ---
|> Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
|> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA


That was great!  I'd have loved to have seen her face.....

Hopefully you also discouraged the other woman from doing the same thing.....

-- 
=============================================================================
Belinda Asbell        +  System Administrator, Harris Controls Division
mba@ccd.harris.com    +      Any opinions presented are mine alone.
  Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Custody
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:28:05 CST

In article IA0@cs.psu.edu, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
><1993Jan9.142207.6506@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>['creative' deletions]
>
>>However, when they were little it would have been ridiculous to give him
>>primary custody, after all, he wasn't equiped to feed them.  
>
>What -- he has no hands?  Can't screw a lid on a bottle?  After your
>"shoot-in-the-dark" rude personal attacks against me, and your style of 
>altruistic concern for others, I'm tempted to say it's no wonder you still 
>love him after twenty years, but we can save it for alt.flame, since I'm 
>afraid of more threats from gunslinging (yet loving and stable) SO's.
>
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


Can you imagine what kind of husband this broad has? 


I understand your argument. The fuckin' pony is 'extra'. I also 
think the ol' man should take the opportunity to keep the fleabag
if [IF] he could afford to. Hell, what man wouldn't do that for 
his daughter (continue to finance a sway-back if he could afford to).
But, goddamn it, how in fuckin' gods green acre can these women
claim victimhood for petty shit like this. Ya wanted the divorce. 
Shutup and move on!

Jon


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