HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:30:14 GMT

<1993Jan8.130040.6476@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
><1993Jan7.163015.14562@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>><1993Jan6.131329.6442@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>YOU were the one who kept bringing up the Florida trip.  I've repeatedly
>>>suggested that if *YOU* can explain how to take a trip to Florida and
>>>only spent $300 then you should do so.

You, Sue Bishop, stated that you indeed accomplish this out of
your $3600/year.  I hope you don't need to read your words of 10/3/92
yet again.  Why are you obsessed with denying what you wrote?  

Why do you continually make excuses (oh, a pony costs nothing; oh,
1/3 million dollars is really too much) and try to hide the real
issue that Alan and I have argued:  that the principle of paying
for luxuries using child support is wrong, regardless of what the
(sexist, biased) court says. ?

[I have 'creatively' deleted most of your article, here.]

>And support on this issue in the group is very heavily in Lisa's favor
>on this.  NO one else other than you and the Beav think the pony is
>a horrible issue.

With all that "lurker" support, I wonder why you still resort to
CAPITALIZED YOU'S, name-calling, and other heated attacks.  Certainly
the moral high ground wouldn't require it.

I guess if your identifiable support consists of borderline personalities
who suggest bullets to cure the opposition, then that's all in line.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Inc., Beaverton, Oregon
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:22:44 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.152315.6445@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>>Ah, yes.  And you consider the payments outrageous.  Funny, I guess you
>>think the father shouldn't pay any support at all. 

>He should pay support.  Even if he got a raw deal.  Two wrongs don't
>make a right.  But they often make a revolution.  If he got a raw deal 
>due to a colossally sexist system and has reacted by resisting entirely, 
>he has my sympathies, and my sympathies for complaints against him are
>tempered.  Perhaps if the system treated men and NCP's better, we wouldn't 
>hear such stories.

Just for my own clarification, didn't men make up the present set of laws
(boy, do I use *THAT* term [laws] loosely!)?  How did we men do this to
ourselves?

allen
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3177 alt.child-support:4175 soc.men:22257
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:36:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.152315.6445@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <C0FxJ8.5JM@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> <1993Jan6.093642.6439@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>><1993Jan5.174701.17496@linus.mitre.org>, cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>>>>article <1993Jan4.152935.6417@desire.wright.edu> 
>>>> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>> Besides, the point that was
>>>>> actually under discussion was whether child support should provide more
>>>>> than a minimal amount of support.
>> 
>> [inflammatory summary deleted; available on demand (satisfied, Sue?)]
>> 
>>>THEN the Beav had the *nerve* to say *I* was the one who brought up the
>>>Florida vacation.  I wasn't.
>> 
>> 
>> "Plus out of the $300 we provide
>>  him an allowance, transportation to all his sporting events, food, shelter,
>>  entertainment, a really nice vacation every year....... (this Christmas
>>  we will spend a week at a condo in the Florida Keys)....  And his dad 
>>  accuses us of 'profiting!'."
>>     Sue Bishop, 10/3/92, <1992Oct3.204455.4515@desire.wright.edu>
>> 
>> "I mentioned Florida because Sue and I had a debate about whether
>>  taking a condo in the Florida Keys for a week is a luxury or a
>>  billable necessity."
>>     Don Beaver, 12/3/92, <ByosH2.B1D@cs.psu.edu>
>
>NO, Beav,*YOU* brought this up as a part of the discussion about Lisa's
>problem.  That is what I am saying, you kept trying to cloud the discussion
>of Lisa's ex who refused to pay child support by bringing in this.
>
>This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.


If you can avoid your own style of "creative history writing,"
take a look at the archives.  These comments were part of a discussion
about whether luxuries should be billed under child support.

That discussion was a spin-off of Lisa's complaints, which for the
most part I find justifiable (assuming the ex did not get mistreated)
-- just not the part about the pony.

>> 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.

>Ah, yes.  And you consider the payments outrageous.  Funny, I guess you
>think the father shouldn't pay any support at all. 

He should pay support.  Even if he got a raw deal.  Two wrongs don't
make a right.  But they often make a revolution.  If he got a raw deal 
due to a colossally sexist system and has reacted by resisting entirely, 
he has my sympathies, and my sympathies for complaints against him are
tempered.  Perhaps if the system treated men and NCP's better, we wouldn't 
hear such stories.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:33:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.142737.21266@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil 
Snodgrass) writes:
> 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?
>We should make all parents accountable
>for their children......
That really is what it boils down to.  I guess the difference is that in 
one case the contributions are voluntary and subject to daily audit and 
negotiation by the parents. In the other, they are court-ordered and not 
subject to audit and negotiation.


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3143 alt.child-support:4113 soc.men:22156
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: child support over-payments
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1993 16:28:34 GMT

In article <1iimdpINNi8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ci542@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scott L. Underwood) writes:
>For the past year and a half or so I've been making overpayments to
>on the monthly child support I owe. I started doing this for a number
>of reasons -- the most general one is simply my desire to stay out
>of court. 
>     The overpayments I've made are not large, but they've added up
>quite nicely over the months.                
>     My question is two-fold: has anyone else (non-custodial parent,
>male or female) out there been doing this? and, are there any dis-
>advantages or legal problems that I might run into in the future
>if I continue to make overpayments? 
>
>    (The mechanics are quite simple: I pay the disrict court,
>     they send the full amount to the mother of my children, 
>     and the clerk gives me credit on the next month's payment)

i think that since you are ppaying into a government plan, and the CP receives
only what is expected by the order, you are pretty safe.

the CP cannot claim that the extra amount needs to be permanent because
they never see any of the extra payment.

if they try to argue that you can obviously pay more because you are already
paying extra, you can explain that you want to build a buffer in there, in
the event that you don't have the money to make a payment (lose job, sickness,
etc).  the judges and lawyers would be insane to change this.  you are providing
"insurance" on your support payments.



-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3181 alt.child-support:4184 soc.men:22269
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
Subject: Re: College is not a "right".
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:21:13 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1993Jan6.154808.8381@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (goldstein,marvin) writes:
>In article <C0EID4.2uB@vcd.hp.com> johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton) writes:
>>goldstein,marvin (mgsail@prefect.cc.bellcore.com) wrote:
>>: 
>>: I would like to point out that, at least in NJ, if the parents of child can
>>: afford to send their child to Rutgers (it forms a cost cap), and the child
>>: has the grades for college, the child can SUE the parents to go to college.
>>: Thus, courts in this land can make them pay.
>>: 
>>: Marv
>>-------------------------------
>>Has anyone successfully done this? It seems like all you would have to do
>>is move to the next State over and the case would be thrown out of court.
>>What happens if a kid is awarded enough money to go to school but then
>>decides to spend it on fast cars and drugs instead of an education?
>>
>>John Eaton
>----------------
>According to my attorney, it has been successfully done in relation to graduate
>school as well as undergraduate.  WRT fast cars, the money never goes directly
>to the individual (notice I did not say "child") but to the school.
>

	Question.  If kids can sue parents for this, then

	1) In the case of generic college money, is it the kid suing
	as an adult, or is it still the mother suing for the kid?

	2)  Consider the following scenarios.

		a) NCP father dies.
		b) CP mother dies, thus NCP dad gets custody.

	For a, does the state make the mother pay for college? (Or
	does/can the kid sue her?)

	for b, doe "big brother" step out now that there is no longer
	a "divorce situation"?

	I guess my biggest question is if big brother loses interest
	when only one principle party exists, and if it is really
	the kid suing, or the CP parent.

-- 
	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......
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:52:20 GMT

>A perfect example in my case is both my ex-wife and I wanted my youngest
>girl to get organ lessons.  We agreed that she would by an organ and I would
>pay for the lessons.  It only works because we both had money.  If she had
>refused to help I could have just done it on my own.  The problem steps in
>when one parent wants something for their child at the others expense.  The
>court system approves the latter.  At the start of my divorced years, my
>children only got what my ex-wife could afford because I had no money.  Each
>parent really needs their own independence and choices.  They also have
>other causes that they may need to consentrate on like older parents and
>a like.
>

Two comments I heard (in the same conversation) from a woman undergoing a
divorce :

   Comment #1: My husband (separated) is so cheap he won't even give me
               money to send the kid to summer camp.  (He was up to date
               on his court ordered 27% of pre tax income interim child
               support).

   Comment #2: I've been offered work, but I cannot accept it since my
               lawyer told me I must be unemployed when we go to court if
               I want to maximize the award I get.
  
   (the state is Massachusetts).

Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,soc.singles
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action on Father Custody Cases
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:40:37 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan10.002130.11009@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>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.

Further, said NonCustodialParent, which would nominally be NonMale, would 
be charged support not on actual earnings, but on imputed earnings, as is
currently done with men.  Working at McDonalds is not an option; get your
ass out there and work in a real job, as we all know you can.

You held an executive position 5 years ago?  Well, you can do it again.  
We therefore impute earnings potential of $60,000/year, and you owe 30% 
of that, or $1500/month in child support.

Can't make the payments (don't even make that much GROSS?)  Too bad, off to
jail with you!  You dirty rotten dead-beat-mom!

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Pro-reproductive freedom for both sexes -- or neither of them.
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3139 alt.child-support:4099 soc.men:22131
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:37:52 GMT

<1993Jan8.131253.6477@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
><C0JI1o.FCs@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[...]

>What ever the amount, it sounded like a ridiculous amount for a child
>to have to spend.

Perhaps you can try to accept that some of us find ponies a ridiculous
thing to enforce child support payments for.


>> (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).

Explanations are the name of the game.  Now, do men and women have
equal opportunity to elect to stay at home, IF they both make 10,000?

IMO, no.  Even though the woman could and does make the same as the
man, the court system provides her the chance to make nothing (at her
option), placing the burden unfairly on the man.  Hence, premises
like "if each is 50%" can hide a great deal of sexism.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3221 alt.child-support:4247 soc.men:22381
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 06:53:37 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1993Jan06.235254.6318@xenitec.on.ca>, merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes:
> In article <1993Jan6.122354.6441@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>I would have no problem with doing itemized accounting
>>for my foster son, it would certainly be worthwhile if it would make his
>>father shut up.  Hmmmm, how much am I supposed to allot a mile for 
>>transportation?  I routinely put about 100+ miles a week during the
>>summer, just taking Mike to and fro to softball practice and games.  
>>
>>Do I just average in his share of the food or put down cost per meal?  
>>
>>As for laundry, do I charge by the item or by the load?  How about wear
>>and tear on the house?  
>>
>>As you can see, this can get silly very quickly.
> 
> if this gets silly, imagine how silly it seems to NCP's when an arbitrary
> amount is determined for them to pay for support.
> 
> if the CP can't justify the amount of support required, why should the NCP
> be content paying that amount?

Well, if my foster son's father wants an accounting, I guess I could work
one up pretty quickly.  
Let's see, last night I had to drive to town to pick Mike up at the library
where he was working on a book report.  It's seven miles one way to town,
then there's wear and tear on the car, then there's my time.  I occasionally
do consultant work.... do I charge my consultant fee or my usual work pay?
Also, do I figure in the time I spent at home afterward, checking Mike's
sore throat and administering medicine?

Sue
> 
> -- 
> [ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
> [                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: tas@sei.cmu.edu (Terry Ireland)
Subject: CYS
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:10:12 EST

  I was all set to do the psychological evaluation, when low and behold, CYS
sent out their decision to expunge the record. The court appointed psych sends
all the pre-evaluation papers back to my attorney and says she cannot do the
evaluation in a timely manner. Geezzz just a few days after the decision came
down and she loses her nerve.

  The home evaluator will do the home evaluation anyway. She had one little
problem. The court told her my ex and the children live in another state. I
can not help but wonder how such a mistake could have occurred. The ex and the
children I have not seen in over a year have lived just 4.5 miles away for 
the last year, no, nearly two years. I could not tell the judge this today 
as she is down at the Convention Center today, giving a speach on ethics in 
the PA jokeditial system, to the Pittsburgh Rotary Club. I may be able to 
mention this at the hearing on Friday. I'll be able to ask why the evaluators 
got a different court order than I did. I do hope her speach goes well, today.
  
 The psychologist, who was working with the children for over a year, got his
subpeona hand delivered last week. The rest of the crew will get theirs soon.
It is important to find out what all the psych work was about. I do agree with
the FREE newsletter, DO NOT trust that a Ph.D. means they know what they are
talking about or that it in ANY way implies honesty. The psych evaluator who
quit, told my attorney, she met me on several occasions. I never met her. This
has happened before. The psych person at CYS admitted under oath that she had
never met me in her life. It sort of contradicts her report that was entered
as evidence.

 Should I still shave and get a hair cut to look good in court? If the
children should happen to show up, they would not recognize me without the
beard and ponytail. It would be like asking them if they knew that stranger
with the naked face. The ex's new hubby grew one so the girls would feel
better about him being around. Did not work, they even went back to the old
house and dug up the flowers so the girls would feel more at home. NOT!
Children are not so easily fooled. Only dad could get them to grow and
flower. Maybe the flowers did not like the move, they died.

 I did get one phone call from the children in 1992. The ex asked that I drop
all the court stuff and she would let me see the children, maybe. NOT!

                                        George in Pittsburgh


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 23:52:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.122354.6441@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I would have no problem with doing itemized accounting
>for my foster son, it would certainly be worthwhile if it would make his
>father shut up.  Hmmmm, how much am I supposed to allot a mile for 
>transportation?  I routinely put about 100+ miles a week during the
>summer, just taking Mike to and fro to softball practice and games.  
>
>Do I just average in his share of the food or put down cost per meal?  
>
>As for laundry, do I charge by the item or by the load?  How about wear
>and tear on the house?  
>
>As you can see, this can get silly very quickly.

if this gets silly, imagine how silly it seems to NCP's when an arbitrary
amount is determined for them to pay for support.

if the CP can't justify the amount of support required, why should the NCP
be content paying that amount?

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1993 00:06:49 GMT

In article <gmTywB2w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>I'm curious, you stated in an earlier post that "divorce had ruined your
>relationship with your daughters" and that you prayed "to God to keep them
>safe." How is it that you apparently respect and communicate well with your
>ex, yet you say your divorce ruined your relationship with your daughters?
>It seems to me that *divorce* in itself doesn't ruin relationships with our
>children, we do.
>Children have got to be the most forgiving group of people on the face of this
>earth, when it comes right down to it.  So please explain how it is that you
>and your ex are apparently so mature and respectful and tolerant in your
>relationship with each other, yet your relationship with your daughters is
>"ruined".

sometimes i feel that with the divorce, i went from being a father, to
being a Big Brother.

My son was taken out of my life, and now i see him every other weekend.

i, too, respect my ex, and we have a very calm relationship.
we do not fight, we discuss things calmly and setlle any differences.

this does not change the fact, that since i do not have day-to-day interaction
with my son, the relationship i have with my son, is nowhere close to the
relationship i expected to have with him.

i try hard to make sure i'm there for him, i think about him daily.  but
it is not the same as i had expected.  i don't think that our relationship
is "ruined", but i can certainly accept that others in the same boat might
think so.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3250 alt.child-support:4276 soc.men:22428