HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Subject: Unfairness of divorce/support statutes for NCP
Reply-To: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:05:45 GMT


					Dec. 16, 1992

Hello:
	As a new reader of this netnews group and fellow (in some cases)
victim of what I consider enormously unfair divorce support statutes which
prevail apparently just about everywhere, I have the following questions.

Does anyone have a good summary statement by a supporter of the typical
statutes explaining why these statutes are fair and reasonable
and what is wrong with the complaints of the in my view abused non-custodial
parents?  It seems to me this would help to present our complaints better
in various situations.

Does anyone know an address for where to write to the commission for the
state of Colorado which, like apparently several states at least, is charged
with providing policy recommendations to the state legislature in divorce/
support matters?  I would like to make a few suggestions to them, namely.

Thanks very much, Bob Boeninger, e-mail boe@slac.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: mperron@abacus.bates.edu (Michael Perron)
Subject: Mother In Laws
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:58:58 GMT

Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Mother In Laws
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
Keywords: 

	Why is there such a problem between wives and mother in laws.
This is certainly a prevalent problem in todays and yesterdays society, or so
it seems.  I certainly have this problem and I am hoping to get some help
by posting to this newsgroup.  

	It makes it awful hard for a (husband) especially with kids,  to
lead a normal life when the two women are always fighting.  
	
	Is this a dysfunctional type problem or what I'm sure there are some
psych people out there?

	Any contributions thoughts or comments would be appreciated...
immensely, greatly, truly. My apologies if this is not the proper group
for such topic.

Mike Perron
mperron@abacus.bates.edu

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,talk.abortion
From: acp@cray.com (Anthony Peterson)
Subject: Re: Let's Play StipU (1)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:03:30 CST

In article <1gtcprINNbds@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Sure, once the child is born and the mother takes custody, the laws are 
>>superficially "equal". But that's like saying if I own two automobiles, and 
>>you own none, and you steal one of mine, that it would be OK to legally 
>>condone that, since the result is that we each have one automobile, and that's 
>>"equal". 
>
>A good argument, but for the opposite stance.  The woman, by the vagaries
>of biology, has two automobiles.  You have none.  Learn to live with it.
>

	If you have all of the cars. Why do you have a problem with
	making all of the payments?

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3032 alt.child-support:4012
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:52:01 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> 
>>	If custody is 50-50 split then child support 
>>	is unnecessary since the child(ren) are >already< receiving half their
>>	support from each parent).
> 
> Not necessarily.  
> An example:  if one parent has the child Jan-June, and the other parent
> has the child July-Dec, the "summer parent" may end up paying a 
> disproportionate share of childcare costs (because in the other 1/2 year 
> the child is in school most of the day).  On the other hand, if the child
> is in private school then the "winter parent" might carry the lion's share.
> (Such inequities in payment might arise no matter how one splits the time.)
> 
>>	Further, in those cases where it is impossible for split custody to
>>	work that the CP must provide an >itemized< accounting of all funds
>>	spent on supporting the child; those spent in excess of 50% of the 
>>	cost of support to be refunded to the NCP immediately under penalty
>>	of law.
> 
> This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
> Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
> CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
> presents, or a bicycle, etc.
> 

Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
of THEIR precious funds.

And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
of their position.

Sue

After all, they both fixated on the very inexpensive pony (already paid for
and food already bought) as a tremendous luxury.  


> -- 
> 
>                                                 --  Michal
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,talk.abortion
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:42:01 GMT

Taken out of context, 
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

>This does not jive with reality.  Women file 85% of the divorces in
>this country.  Who's threatening whom?

This maybe just a tangent, but here is some data from the 1987 National
Survey of Families and Households.

Survey Question:  "Sometimes both partners equally want a marriage
to end, other times one partner wants it to end much more than the
other.  How was it in your case?"  

The possible responses were "I did; spouse did not", "I wanted it more",
"We both wanted it", "Spouse wanted it more", "Spouse wanted it, I did not."
Since the percents were broken down by sex, I rearranged it a little 
(and collapsed some categories) for this table:

             H wanted   H wanted   Both   W wanted  W wanted   Don't know
               only       more    wanted    more      only     or refused
According to  
the women      10%        10%      21%       20%       30%        9%

According to 
the men        10%         9%      34%       18%       19%       11%


I just think it is really interesting that most of the percentages
match up quite closely, except for the big disparity in the "both
wanted" and the "wife wanted" percentages.  Men are much more likely
to say that they both wanted the divorce equally, while women are
much more likely to say that they alone were the primary instigator.  

Also, to get in the neighborhood of the 85% figure cited by aaron, 
it must be that women are the ones who file, even if both parties
want the divorce... (???)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.child-support
Subject: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 20 Dec 1992 02:00:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>	If custody is 50-50 split then child support 
>	is unnecessary since the child(ren) are >already< receiving half their
>	support from each parent).

Not necessarily.  
An example:  if one parent has the child Jan-June, and the other parent
has the child July-Dec, the "summer parent" may end up paying a 
disproportionate share of childcare costs (because in the other 1/2 year 
the child is in school most of the day).  On the other hand, if the child
is in private school then the "winter parent" might carry the lion's share.
(Such inequities in payment might arise no matter how one splits the time.)

>	Further, in those cases where it is impossible for split custody to
>	work that the CP must provide an >itemized< accounting of all funds
>	spent on supporting the child; those spent in excess of 50% of the 
>	cost of support to be refunded to the NCP immediately under penalty
>	of law.

This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
presents, or a bicycle, etc.

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2969 soc.men:21230 alt.flame:16803
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:44:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec16.044437.4059@dracut.keps.com> sue@dracut.keps.com (Sue Klimowicz) writes:
> [deleted: loads of attributions and wasted bandwidth]
> Now that is a good flame (sincere admiration).
> I don't know the whole story here, I am not taking any sides and I was just
>passing through this news group and after reading this I had to comment.
>Since this is alt.flame group I apologize for not flaming.
>
What Nerve.  How dare you think you can come in here and get away with
not flaming.  It's worthless articles like this that can bring a newsgroup
such as this to a grinding halt.  Now listen here.  You turn around and 
re-do that post in the proper method, or don't bother posting here again.

#include ~/profanity/insult/sick.taste.file3e
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Paternity Test
Date: 13 Dec 92 10:05:35 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1992Dec12.211047.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> Question quick and dirty (sorry don't have patients to score thru all the
> messages here).
> 
> What happens if a ex-girlfriend gets married. Does the father still have to pay
> child support? I have been paying. But my ex got married and people have been
> saying now that she is married I don't have to pay anymore,  I kow if I stop,
> it can be a dangerous thought.. Will hope fully be seeing a lawyer to find out.
> But ... Also what states would it might be possible..
> 

The only way you will be allowed to stop paying support is if her new husband
adopts the child.  
Just because she is married doesn't mean you are no longer the child's father.

> Also how much does it generally cost to get a paternity test to find out if you
> are actually the father and what kidns of tests are there..

Call up a doctor.  Ask him/her.  

> 
> This is not to say that I want to get out of my obligation, Im just trying to
> find out to make sure that I have not taken on an obligation that I need nnot
> take on.
> 
> please send info to NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu
> 
> 

It is a good idea to check this out, but don't be too sure the courts will
let you off the hook, laws in this particular area are very vague.

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,misc.kids
From: L629159@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: And They Try to Call This "Justice"
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:37:57 GMT

From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)

[Posted for George in Pittsburgh....]

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

                             Judge's Chambers
                          Court of Common Pleas
                           Pittsburgh,PA. 15219
(Judge's form letter deleted)
(Excessively prolonged tale of woe also deleted)
(Prolonged by circumstances, not author -- put down that flamethrower!)

	The children have seen more than 40 therapists in that time.

   Your ex is looking for a therapist who will agree with her.
Be glad she hasn't found one yet.

	of your questions. MONEY FIRST!!!"

  Dress neatly, shave, wash your hair, and get yourself to the
evaluator's office with a check, pronto.  More than anyone else,
the evaluator is going to determine where your kids live, how
much you see of them...  Don't give any excuse to dislike you.
Let them be annoyed by your ex instead.

					George in Pittsburgh	

  In California, you would have a stron case for primary custody,
if not sole custody.  That may also be true where you are.  Don't
blow it.  This legal action is going to take more patience, and
probably more money than you ever thought you had.  Start as you
mean to continue, and stick with it.

  Al Moore.

By the way, I agree with you about lying to the kids.  The evaluator
may not. Don't tell them any more than you have to, but if you want
them to grow up honest, don't lie to them.
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Dr. Garrod's research on support collection
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:45:40 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

PLANCHAJ@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Tony Planchart) writes:

> Sorry if this is FAQ, but I'm new to the group and haven't a clue what AFDC
> stands for. Thanks in advance for clarifying this point.

State operated federal monies plan: Aid to Families with Dependent
Children. The usual name is 'welfare.'

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3042 alt.child-support:4014
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:15:49 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <32V2VB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> 
>> Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>> immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>> bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>> of THEIR precious funds.
>> 
>> And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
>> of their position.
> 
> That would depend greatly on which "Bob" you're talking about.
> 
> --- 

I meant 'The Beav', of course.

Sue

> Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
> Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,talk.abortion
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Dec 92 13:11:03 CST

In article <1992Dec11.150608.3921@vicorp.com> mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
>
>>The kind of power we're talking about here is really power of when and
>>how divorce is to take place.  It strikes me as evidence of great
>>naivete that you really don't seem to understand how much more power a
>>husband can wield against his wife in most cases simply by threatening
>>divorce than a wife can wield over her husband, and the reason for
>>that stems from the answer to the question above.
>
>Eh?
>
>From what I've seen, the _typical_ situation when a separation is imminent
>is for the women to go to court while the husband is at work and get a 
>restraining order on the husband granting her temporary custody of the children
>and usually requiring the husband to immediately vacate the home. 
>Also _typically_ the husband has a fulltime job and cannot use these tactics 
>himself to get the divorce off and running in the direction favorable to him.
>

In my case, my wife knew that if we divorced she would get the house, the
kids and half my income. I spent three years with her extorting me for
money (even though she worked) by threatening divorce. She would say if
I didn't give her what whe wanted, she would have me thrown out of the
house, take my income and find a new father for my kids. What did she
want $400/wk, me working 4 hr days, and her to go to the bars 4 nights a
week, and for her to have boyfriends(adultery) over whenever she wanted.
And her to have no responsibilities to the kids. There is no way that
anyone can convince me a man has more power in a family. My X would even
call the police to have me thrown out of the house, but I had done nothing
except to say we could not afford her spending whatever she wanted without
any responsibility. I have never heard of a man threatening divorce to
establish authority in family matters. I hav heard many stories of the
women threatening to sic the system after the husband if he stands up for
what is best for the family. My X also tried to get a restraining order
on me to help her case. I WAS NEVER ABUSIVE IN ANY WAY. SHE WAS THE
AGRESSOR and I was trying to be RESPONSIBLE. SHe had been listening to
her femi-nazi support network that contibuted to the breakup instead of
helping the family work things out. She expects all parental rights with
NO RESPONSIBILITY.

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,alt.flame
From: sue@dracut.keps.com (Sue Klimowicz)
Subject: Re: Unfounded Allegations Of Sexism
Originator: sue@dracut
Organization: Kodak Electronic Printing Systems
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.222744.10576@wdl.loral.com> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> # daw@cray.com (Dave Wright) writes:
> # >mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
> # >>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes:
> 
> So's this:
> 
> Listen up, you pathetic snivelling wasted shell of a man... just
> because you had a horrifying divorce experience does not make you a
> martyr for the masculine gender.  Your casual dismissal of arguments
> you don't like by re-telling your own personal _War_Of_The_Roses_ saga
> and following it with raw sewage intended to paint the source of those
> arguments as some kind of Judas to his gender simply because he won't
> join you in your brainless anti-feminist backlash, is a clear
> illustration of the kind of silliness I've come to expect from the
> borderline psychopathic squirrel-cage automatons that are currently
> giving the men's movement a reputation for being a campaign entirely
> staffed with whining Pecksniffian losers such as yourself who all
> seem to be suffering from some kind of Reaganesque self-delusion that
> every last man eventually gets tortured by the divorce courts into
> slaving to support his ex-wife in luxury, and that sexual equality for
> men means putting women into bondage.
> 
> So, given that we don't seem to have any common ground whereupon we
> may both write sensibly, I leave you with the standard flame:
> 
> 	Bite my cheezeweasel, you flatulent dog.

 Now that is a good flame (sincere admiration).
 I don't know the whole story here, I am not taking any sides and I was just
passing through this news group and after reading this I had to comment.
Since this is alt.flame group I apologize for not flaming.

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Dr. Garrod's research on support collection
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:19:58 CST

In article 1@indyvax.iupui.edu, idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu () writes:
>Posting from Dr. Garrod.  Posting by Dale Marmaduke 
>                                     idqm400@indycms.iupui.edu
>
>
>
> 
>COLLECTION STATISTICS
> 
>by David K. Garrod. Ph.D.
> 
>September 25, 1992
> 
>     An often quoted statistic is that collection has doubled.
>(Of course, at the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars in
>collection costs nation-wide.)
>     In fact collection really has not changed very much on a per
>case basis, despite the fact that the dollar amount of individual
>support orders has almost doubled in 5 years in Indiana.
> 
>     Here is what you will get as information if you ask the State of
>Indiana about collection:
> 
>Year          Total collected
> 
>1992          $126,769,521
>1991           114,828,062
>1990           100,101,377
>1989            88,362,623
>1988            58,006,521
>(1992 is a projection, based on 6 months actual collection)
> 
>Looks pretty good doesn`t it?
> 
>Not if you dig a little deeper!
> 
> 
>Here is the full breakdown:
> 
>Non-AFDC collection:
>Year       Collected       collect/case
>1992      $73,917,196       $779.74   (projected)
>1991      $61,205,034       $833.73
>1990       54,699,537        792.92
>1989       48,477,951        802.10
>1988       34,840,582        776.81
> 
> 
>AFDC collection:
>Year       Collected       collect/case
>1992      $52,852,325       $229.36   (projected)
>1991       53,623,028        246.84
>1990       45,401,840        217.45
>1989       39,884,672        203.68
>1988       34,303,815        179.75
> 
> 
> 
>Despite significantly increased efforts in collection the dollars
>collected per case has not changed very much.
> 
>     So why is not more being collected per case?
> 
>I do not know the answer.....I suspect that what is limiting the
>dollars/case collected is the financial resource of the noncustodial
>parent.  Many, if not most, dead-beat dads would not be dead-beat
>dads if they were financially able to pay all the support.
> 
>


 I stated before based on an article in the Mpls Star Tribune that
the number of men paying has declined. The excessive child support
awards currently practiced pretty much destroys ANY low wage earning
NCPs desire to pay. Hence, they run for the hills. 

 I have no proof, just a gut feeling and the counties stats that
back up the decreased numbers of men paying in Hennepin County Minnesota.


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: "Guilty Until Proven Innocent"
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:22:39 GMT
Keywords: And even when proven innocent, you are still guilty.

I forget the subtitle, I think it is "A Manual for Surviving False
Allegations of Child Abuse."  As the Men's Issue FAQ on Book Reviews
stated, this manual is a MUST HAVE for anyone falsely accused of
abusing children.  I am very familiar with Kim Hart, the author of the
book, I have been to her house, she was almost needed in my divorce
case, and I am helping her with the John Schulte case.  Anyway, I
mentioned in a previous post that if anyone wanted information about
how to obtain that book to contact me.  Five people did.

Therefore, I am now posting with the information on how to obtain the
book.  It is quite simple.

Call 1 (800) 452-9873 and ask for Hank.  Really, I'm serious.

The book is published by the Winchester Group, a subsidiary of Parker &
Sons Publishing, Inc.  Hank is the person responsible for the
publication of this book and responsible for its distribution.

I'm sure that you can pay for this book by check or money order, not
exactly sure about using a credit card.  The cost of the book is $38.

I have the book.  It is definitely worth the money.  It concentrates on
the legal battle and is necessary, a virtual requirement in educating
your attorney on how to handle these types of cases.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
From: repstein@mlink.UUCP (Randy Epstein)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: What is this group for?
Date: 7 Dec 92 13:12:22 GMT
Organization: GOV

What is this newsgroup for?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- repstein@mlink.UUCP |                               |The ModemLink Network -
- 800.735.1071 (voice)| DRIVE CAREFULLY:              |516.889.6509  (modem) -
-                     | 90% of the people in the      |                      -
- UseNet access to all| world are caused by accident. |205 megs, games,      -
- validated users     |                               |text files, D/L, etc. -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi