HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: FYI: California Mandates CS Increase
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:30:46 GMT

In article <92211.105731IDSAW@ASUACAD.BITNET> <IDSAW@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>This was published in the Arizona Republic:
>              CALIFORNIA MANDATES CHILD-SUPPORT INCREASE
>   After two long years, the battle to increase child-support payments in
>California is finally over.
>   Starting this month, custodial parents will be able to go to court and seek
>an increase in child support.  Absent parents will have to pay, on average,
>25 percent more.  In many cases, payments could rise as much as 60 percent.
>   Child-support levels in California, among the lowest in the country, soon
>may be among the highest.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Shirley Woods
>Arizona State University

	What are the levels  (old AND new)?

-- 
	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:2143 misc.legal:14608
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:43:34 -0400 
From: Wesley Cohen <wc02+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: wanted:  childcare

 
Wanted: Mature, responsible individual to provide care for a six
month old child; part-time (approx. 25 hours per week); Must have own
transportation beginning August or September; References required;
For details, contact Wes Cohen [WC02@Andrew], Phone: Off: 268-3226;
Home: 422-3074.
 

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
	<1992Jul27.161033.5257@walter.cray.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:18:45 GMT

Jon> == Jon S. Wood <jsw@cray.com> 
Helen> == Helen Trillian Rose <hrose@eff.org>

 Jon> In article <HROSE.92Jul21125553@rocza.eff.org> hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:

 Helen> It doesn't say "All 12 year olds ....". There *is* a basic level of
 Helen> competency that the court must decide whether or not it exists in the
 Helen> person.

 Jon>  Helen, come to my house. I want you to meet a young teenager (15
 Jon> years).  who has serious emotional problems. Maybe you'll see that
 Jon> the world isn't so fucking black and white. Maybe there are things
 Jon> that happen in this world that have no explanation. Just maybe the
 Jon> world you fairness seekers wish for WILL NEVER EXIST. I fear
 Jon> clinton and his values because he lives in a fantasy world.

I didn't say that *all* teenagers could make decisions for themselves.
Like I said above "It doesn't say 'All 12 year olds ....'". The *court*
must decide if the basic level of competency required exists in the
person requesting freedom from their parents. 

If the young teenager at your house can't make decisions at 15 years, it
does NOT mean that other teenagers who are that age, older, or *younger*
can't make decisions themselves. I could. I lived on my own for a while,
taking care of my younger sister, when I was 14. That doesn't mean
*everyone* can do it. But it doesn't mean that people who have the
ability to take care of themselves and have uncaring parents shouldn't
have a right to get away from those parents. *If they can do it*.

--Helen

--
Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
<hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: woycke@smiley.mitre.org (Daniel Woycke)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:11:30 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.070214.5505@PacBell.COM> jsellars@sf180.PacBell.COM (James E. Sellars) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.011734.12085@spool.cs.wisc.edu> rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>>In <1992Jul22.143442.3541@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com> dan@cae.prds.cdx.mot.com (Dan Breslau) writes:
>>>We should never assume that every parent always has their child's
>>>best interest at heart, and/or knows what to do to act on that interest.
>>>I'd much rather empower teens to have some say in their life, than empower
>>>the state to meddle even more in family affairs via the social service
>>>agencies.
>>
>>My take on this is that, unless provided with evidence to the contrary, it
>>might be best to assume that parents first and foremost have their *own*
>>interests at heart.
>>
>>-- 
>>Michael Rawdon
>
>I hope this response is in jest!!
>
>I feel that it should be always assumed that the parents have the best
>interest of their childern at heart.  If not why have parents at all? 
>Why not let the government raise all children.
>
>The dividing line between the family and the government
>MUST be maintained.  I feel we need to protect the children that
>are abused, but we don't have to sacrifice all the other children is
>the process!!!
>
>-- 
>-------
>James E. Sellars  Rm. 602, 180 New Montgomery St., San Francisco, CA 94105
>(415) 542-5822 ||  jsellars@pbseps.sf180.pacbell.com

Umm, I hate to say it but there is a whole culture of people out there
(crack mothers, etc.) who don't give all that much thought to their
children. In an ideal world parents have the best interests of their
children in mind. If a person has some other problem in life and their
needs are not being met, how do they put their children first. Healthy
people raise healthy kids, otherwise you pass on your problems to
them. If all parents had the best interest of their kids in mind we
wouldn't have any truancy or juvinile deliquents.

Thank You,

Daniel W. Woycke             |"I went out drinking with Thomas 
The MITRE Corporation	     |Paine..." -- Billy Bragg
7525 Colshire Drive (MS Z213)|"But I am still thirsty..."
McLean, VA   22102           |-- Arrested Development
woycke@mitre.org, woycke@smiley.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:10:32 CDT

In article <HROSE.92Jul21125553@rocza.eff.org> hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
>Anne> == Anne P. Mitchell JD <shedevil@vix.com> 
>
> Anne> Give me a break!...is there a person among us who would have and
> Anne> could have made informed and reasoned decisions with such far
> Anne> reaching and permanent ramifications, when they were *12* years
> Anne> old?  Or even 13, or 14!
>
>Yes, there are people like that, and that is what the Court is supposed
>to decide. Whether or not the person in question is one of those people.

 Court is supposed to decide....  I am personally sick of Clinton types
presuming they can decide for me what is best for me. SICK of it. It
sure beats the heck out of me how so many women want freedom (to abort)
and then wishes government to interfere in every other aspect in thei
life. Is it inferiority that makes Hillary appear so phony.


>
>It doesn't say "All 12 year olds ....". There *is* a basic level of
>competency that the court must decide whether or not it exists in the
>person.

 Helen, come to my house. I want you to meet a young teenager (15 years).
who has serious emotional problems. Maybe you'll see that the world
isn't so fucking black and white. Maybe there are things that happen
in this world that have no explanation. Just maybe the world you fairness
seekers wish for WILL NEVER EXIST. I fear clinton and his values because
he lives in a fantasy world. 

>
>--Helen
>
>--
>Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
>Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
>Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
><hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org

 
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2206 alt.dads-rights:1551 alt.parents-teens:1079 misc.kids:19510
From: M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Class-action suits
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:19:09 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Jul21.152521.28556@ll.mit.edu>
yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
 
>
>In article <1682B7E5D.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard) writes:
>>How can a suit be brought against an entire CLASS of people?
>
>	Good question.  That's what I've been asking "the experts".
 
That was a RHETORICAL question.  The answer should be obvious:  It can't.
 
A class can sue specific entities; but a class can't be sued itself.  One
must go to the source of the laws, and get the laws changed, to affect an
entire class of people.
 
When a class-action suit is brought against entities, those entities are
served notice, each and every one.  No court will entertain a suit against
someone who hasn't been legally served notice.  Can you imagine a horde of
process servers combing the land for evil CPs?  Can you imagine trying to
name every single evil CP in a suit?
 
**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2223 misc.legal:14771
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:28:53 GMT
Organization: Prime Time Productions, Aurora Il.

:=} In article <1682AF34C.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Prit
:=} >In article <1992Jul20.192246.14634@ll.mit.edu>
:=} >yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) whines:
:=} > 
:=} >Your bets and opinions are worthless.  I'm quoting you just so I can
:=} >correct your spelling and usage.
:=} > 
:=} 
:=} 	Well then you're wasting your time.  I think faster than I
:=} 	type, and I type so fast and so much, it's not worth
:=} 	reviewing.  If that's the only thing you've got to do with
:=} 	you're time, then join Annie, or the guy with the fire radio.
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you don't mean me!!! Say it ain't so!!

____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: h2n5451@rigel.tamu.edu (NOBOA, HOMERO L.)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 14:19:00 GMT

In article <92203.191552JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>, Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes...
>FIRST, I couldn't post to all groups at once (don't know why not).
>Broken up into alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,
>misc.kids  AND  soc.women,soc.men.  So if you're gonna followup, you
>may as well add either set to the list, if you can, so that the others
>get to see your response.
> 
>In article <1992Jul21.182938.7985@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
>(Terrance Heath) says:
>>
>>          For example, a child who is sexually or otherwise abused
>>might exercise her right to divorce her parents. At least this way the
>>child has a say in her own life.
> 
>So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
>children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
>own life.
> 
>-Jennifer
> 
>PS.  Child(ren) means after birth.  No abortion.
> 
If not writen, that kind of people allways have had that 'right'. 
Abusing and neglecting the child has been always a scape for those 
irresponsibles that did not get the child wanting him/her and later 
did not know how to rise her/him. I'm sorry for those that don't know 
the wonder of parenthood.

First, we have to accept that we like it or not, the child did not ask 
for commig to this world and it is a responsability acquired during 
the sexual intercourse, to rise the child product of that action.


Homero.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2155 alt.dads-rights:1501 alt.parents-teens:1050 misc.kids:19375 soc.men:13488 soc.women:13859
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:13:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
>
>	"I prefer that [court] intervention into an ongoing
>	family be limited to decisions that could have long-term
>	and possible irreparable effects if they are not resolved.
>	Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic
>	surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment,
>	and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly
>	affect the child's future should not be made unilaterally
>	by parents.  Children should have a right to be permitted to
>	decide their own future if they are competent."

If I were 12 or 14 and my parents were trying to force me to carry an
unwanted child to term *or* have an abortion against my will, If my
parents would not allow me to recieve information regarding a
venereal disease I thought I might have contracted, If my parents were
forcing me to work long hours ilegally, if my parents would not allow
corrective surgery for a severe difigurement, I would be very happy to
have Hilary in my camp.

I think many families experience this type of thing. Children ought to
have a sane,thoughtful adult who can intervene when their parents have
agendas that are not in the child's best long-term interest. It is too
bad it has to be a court, but I believe judges are certainly
preferable to no outside intervention.

I believe children deserve to have their viewpoints considered.
Unfortunately not all parents consider their children's needs as equal
to their own.

rf
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2221 alt.dads-rights:1567 alt.parents-teens:1089 misc.kids:19588
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:48:50 EDT
From: Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Distribution: usa

>> FIRST, I couldn't post to all groups at once (don't know why not).
>> Broken up into alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,
>> misc.kids  AND  soc.women,soc.men.  So if you're gonna followup, you
>> may as well add either set to the list, if you can, so that the others
>> get to see your response.
>
>Why do you think that Usenet has newsgroups?
>
>If you're going to post to every possible group you can think of, then
>you defeat the whole purpose of individual newsgroups.
>

God, can't I even let people know what I did??  EVERYONE else seems to
think it's okay to cross-post...to SIMILAR groups.  I would've, but could
not.  If I was able to, I never would have mentioned anything about
"groups" in my post, and no one would have cared.  But because I told
people that I was having a problem, I get yelled at??

If I'm going to be treated like a child, I may as well "do what I want".
She's dead!

-Jennifer

PS.  The last sentence is to those of you who know what I'm talking about.
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:2295 alt.dads-rights:1648 misc.kids:20006 soc.men:13857 soc.women:14296
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 29 Jul 92 21:19:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <HROSE.92Jul29161843@rocza.eff.org>, hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose) writes:
|> taking care of my younger sister, when I was 14. That doesn't mean
|> *everyone* can do it. But it doesn't mean that people who have the
|> ability to take care of themselves and have uncaring parents shouldn't
|> have a right to get away from those parents. *If they can do it*.

In what way are the current emancipated minor laws deficient in this area?
If a child is well rid of their parents they should be well rid of them.
Sueing a parent for damages is the start of a snowball. My son sues me
since I did not provide/nurture/whathaveyou well enough. This is because 
my parents never taught me to care effectively for children, let alone
teach me how to be a single parent. I sue them. They sue my grandparents,
etc..

I'll consider this new expansion of legal liability when each and every child
is issued with a operator's/maintenance manual describing parental 
responsibility/duty. Until then, each child born is given the same
guarantee, _You get to live until you die. No other warranties, expressed
or implied, will be recognized_.

What criteria should the court used to determine competency of litigants?
It is my experience that they currently are as  nebulous as "the best
interest of the child". I don't know how to formulate it into a policy.
Until this happens we can't determine who should sue and who shouldn't.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Is it...Jacobian Meyers?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 23:08:44 GMT

In article <2110@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>You ask constantly for those you feel should help you to give you advice
>and explain things to you and give critique to your thoughts.
>
>
>You are not attacked because of the root article. It was a question that 
>actually got an answer in another news group.  It is your reaction to a 
>percieved slighting of you. Tens of thousands read USENET. And each of us 
>has the right to ignore any post we wish to. Singling out one or two 
>people to rag on because you feel ignored is behavior suited to junior
>high school.
>
>The people of the net owe you nothing, so your anger at the quiet is, I feel,
>very misplaced. And anyway, do you really think berating people and insulting
>them in a network bulletin board is going to get them to give you what 
>you want?
>
>The answer to a person who is irresponsible is not to remove all their
>responsibilities. The answer is to help them to grow into their
>responsibilities.

	I agree with you.  But if a certain few are both regular
	posters as opposed to lurkers, and profess a certain amount
	of concern and knowledge, shouldn't I expect a reaction?

	I mean, my wife usually greets me when I come home.  That is
	because after courtship and 10 years of marriage, it is apparent
	that we are of like mind or concern.  There is a parallel to this
	on these groups.

	And when certain people post issues which are run up the plagpole,
	and mine simply fall on the floor, what am I to think?

	Everyone keep harping, "nobody owes you anything".  Well,
	what are these groups for?  IMHO, they are a simple distraction
	and a waste of time.

	The "insults" come from their inconsiderate behavior.  And my
	protest is turned around to make *me* the bad guy.

-- 
	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:2176 alt.dads-rights:1521 alt.parents-teens:1060 misc.kids:19433 soc.men:13547 soc.women:13921
From: kehres@ima.com (Tim Kehres)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 22 Jul 92 04:32:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.child-support
Organization: International Messaging Associates, Menlo Park, California

In article <=3dmpm+.rfelix@netcom.com> rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix) writes:
: In article <14g94kINN6am@gw.home.vix.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
: >
: >	"I prefer that [court] intervention into an ongoing
: >	family be limited to decisions that could have long-term
: >	and possible irreparable effects if they are not resolved.
: >	Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic
: >	surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment,
: >	and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly
: >	affect the child's future should not be made unilaterally
: >	by parents.  Children should have a right to be permitted to
: >	decide their own future if they are competent."
: 
: If I were 12 or 14 and my parents were trying to force me to carry an
: unwanted child to term *or* have an abortion against my will, If my
: parents would not allow me to recieve information regarding a
: venereal disease I thought I might have contracted, If my parents were
: forcing me to work long hours ilegally, if my parents would not allow
: corrective surgery for a severe difigurement, I would be very happy to
: have Hilary in my camp.

This does not sound like a situation that is likely to have an ideal solution
for all possible combinations.  Sure, there are parents out there that are in
no position to offer guidance to their children (they themselves are in dire
need of it many times).  The problem I see with this is that it establishes a 
dangerous precedence.  At a time where one of my main concerns in this country 
(USA) is the trend of the government to get more involved rather than less 
involved in peoples personal and business lives, this type of situation scares 
me.  Sure there are problems with some families in these area, but opening the 
door for the government to come in and take control (based on criteria it 
establishes), does not sound like the act of a truly free society.

Regards,

Tim Kehres
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard)
Subject: Re: Reply to Alan Yasutovich
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:21:59 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.142630.16309@ll.mit.edu>
yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) scribbles:
 
>In article <1992Jul21.215418.24804@leland.Stanford.EDU> garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
>> ...  But then again, I'm not an NCP.
>>
>	So why are you here.
 
So, Alan, is it your understanding that participation in alt.child-support
should be limited to NCPs only?
 
Maybe you should go through the steps to start an alt.child-support.NCP
newsgroup.
 
Perhaps Bob Kirkpatrick was right; alt.child-support needs to be a bit more
business-like.  We need fewer cranky people.
 
I, for one, am a spouse of a CP.  Child support is very much a daily topic
of conversation.  I've found some posts on alt.child-support very valuable.
 
**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616
Newsgroups: alt.child-support