HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johne@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (John Eaton)
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:54:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

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

John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne
From: thavey@boi.hp.com (Tom Havey)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: stepparenting
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:00:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Is there a newsgroup concerning stepparenting issues
anywhere?  Is there a neeed to start one? I am a
stepfather looking for information. Any ideas?

Tom In Boise
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child supportd
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:56:02 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1993Jan21.023659.10149@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.064524.6668@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> In article <20720207@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:
>> > In alt.child-support, 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%.
>> >> 
> Couldn`t let this one slip by again.
> 
> 
> Tricky one here!  Sure it`s true each parent only contributes 10%
> of the total income.  But each parent in your example only receives
> half of the total income.  Each contribution is STILL 20% of their
> own income for one child.
> 
> David Garrod

The chart I posted was for use for sole custody.  In the case I am involved
in, the custody is with neither parent.  Also since one parent is disabled
(mentally) and on Public Assistance, the contribution is assessed wholey
on the other parent.

I don't know if there is a different chart for shared custody.

Sue
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Keywords: child-support, visitation
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:34:27 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

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

> gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:
> 
> >Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
> >their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
> >or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
> >you to be a violent sort of person.)
> 
> Yes, and an equal number of women exhibit violence against their
> children, so in those cases custody and visitation by women must 
> be restricted or eliminated altogether, right?

I ran across this while doing some file searches the other day. It's kind
of interesting. These are for the year 1990, and doesn't seems to give all
of the reports. More on this below.

What's startling is the total of cases: 982 for one year...
I sure hope these are statewide and not county.


                                             1     2     3    4    5    6
Verified Case   .........................   144   091   177  159  133  278
Terminations    .........................   061   020   101  006  040  065
Foster Care     .........................   022   039   018  013  033  011
Guardianships   .........................   052   009   055  020  026  034
Returns         .........................   009   023   003  120  034  168

Category                   Definition

1:   Males 15-20           Verified Cases consist of physical abuse to
2:   Males 21-25           biological offspring which required hospital-
3:   Males 26-up           ization on more than 3 occasions.

4:   Females 15-20         Terminations are where the parental rights were
5:   Females 21-25         revoked. Foster Care is semi-permanent placement
6:   Females 26-up         of the children. Guardianships are temporary 
                           placements (18 mo. or less). Returns are where
                           the child was returned to the care of the parent.

This *seems* to indicate that incidence of female perpetrated abuse is about
5-30% greater than male perpetrated abuse. These figures don't _appear_ to
take into account whether there was more than one child in the home or not,
and only deals with cases where intervention by the Juvenile Court system
was invoked. So cases from divorce and/or non-parent abuses are absent. CPS
only cases (cases which didn't come to court) are also apparently absent.
What I find a bit disturbing is the breakdowns --how the courts react to men
versus women in these cases.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Keywords: child-support, visitation
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:16:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.171948.514@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>
>     Inaugural Address: "We must stop expecting something for
>nothing."  W. Clinton.
>
>     Why is it appropriate then, Mr President, to demand child
>support from thousands of men, without enforcing the rights
>of the fathers to see their children?

Where does he state his policy in this regard (you seem pretty
good with quotes)?

>     There is a quid pro quo.  A father that has joint custody and
>gets to see his children pays child support in full and on time
>over 90% of the time. 
>If society is not prepared to enforce a father`s rights to see his
>children, society has no right to demand one dime of financial 
>contribution from him.  There is a quid pro quo.

I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
cause-and-effect relationships.  I'll stand corrected if you can
show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.
Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
you to be a violent sort of person.)

Greg.
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:54:44 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article qyqZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca, lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca () writes:
>
>I realize that the cost of living in the States is somewhat lower than it
>is here, the wages are often slightly lower as well.  However, I am an
>American (born in San Jose, California), so I get down there to visit family
>as often as possible.  In fact, I was in Grants Pass, and in Portland, Oregon
>last August and spent some time comparing wages, rent, food costs, etc..
>They're not that much different than ours in Canada, from what I could see.
>
>In B.C., Social Assistance ("Welfare") standard rates (maximum) for one adult is
>$525/month.  I don't know what the maximum rate is for one parent with two
>children is now, but in 1990 it was $974/mo., (maximum allowance).  That two
>year old figure is considerably more than Indiana's $580/mo. for a parent with
>two children...$396 more!  I can assure you that even in 1990, $974/mo. didn't
>go very far...
>
>No wonder single parents who aren't getting child support and who are also "on
>the system" are screaming for enforcement of child support orders!  Come on.
>All of you who are espousing that your own children should only get $148/mo.
>in total (and/or plus Blue Cross) for all of their on-going needs, while
>professing your love and dedication as a parent, ought to look at this a
>little closer. $148/month???  Give me a break!
>
>I guess $148/mo. should be adequate for food costs.  But what about clothes,
>school supplies, shelter, braces and (God forbid!) baseball gloves or birthday,
>Easter and Christmas gifts?  What about enough for the CP to pay for Life
>Insurance so that there's something left to raise the kids on should the
>unthinkable happen?  I just can't believe that anyone living in the real
>world could honestly believe that $432/mo. is adequate for a parent and child
>to live on.  How many of you live on that for just yourself, month after month
>and year after year? (Sure as hell won't pay your University tuition for long...
>not everyone can get scholarships, you know).
>
>Lisa
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Your presumption, that I or any other NCP would not provide clothing, school
supplies, christmas gifts or horse feed in the absence of mandatory child
support garneshment of our wages is sick. 

 With your thought logic in mind.....

 Who is making sure that you are adequetely providing for your children?
 The government should be checking up on you two times a day. Any foul
ups on your part will cost you "the unthinkable".
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:14:34 GMT

David Garrod writes
> There is a pleasure to be derived from having children, seeing  
them
> grow etc.  (Nobody, in their right minds, would choose to spend
> $100,000 - $200,000 to raise a child unless there was enjoyment  
and
> pleasure to be derived therefrom.)  This this the quid pro quo in
> having children.
> However the government ignores the psychological benefit a parent
> derives (the pleasure of seeing them grow) and concentrates only
> on the monetary aspect.

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

Bruce Kaskubar
kaskubar@mayo.edu
From: jlivings@sw.stratus.com (Jim Livingston)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:42:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pclark.sw.stratus.com


In article <1993Jan26.020652.29392@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:

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

My divorce decree does not allow me to sue my ex-wife nor does it allow
her to sue me.  To bad, it would be nice to be compensated for all these
years without my daughter.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jim Livingston                         If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on
mail:  jlivings@pclark.sw.stratus.com  moving, regulate it. If it stops moving,
phone: 508-490-6705                    subsidize it.  - Ronald Reagan talking
				       about Democrats...
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:32:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: helper.systems.caltech.edu

af5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Wendy Lin) writes:

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

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

How did he manage to not pay support while the kids are with him? I
think it is only fair, but I had the joy of paying my ex 40% of my
take home pay EVEN while the kids were with me for half the summer!
I wish I had divorced you....

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

Maybe he realized the $500 was more than enough to cover 4 weeks
and didn't want to give any back. Just a thought!

Danielle

>Wendy Lin
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Keywords: child-support, visitation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:17:36 CST
Reply-To: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (jim mcnicholas)
Organization: Prime Time Productions Aurora, Illinois

gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:

> In article <1993Jan20.171948.514@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purd
> >
> >     Inaugural Address: "We must stop expecting something for
> >nothing."  W. Clinton.
> >
> >     Why is it appropriate then, Mr President, to demand child
> >support from thousands of men, without enforcing the rights
> >of the fathers to see their children?
> 
> Where does he state his policy in this regard (you seem pretty
> good with quotes)?
> 
> >     There is a quid pro quo.  A father that has joint custody and
> >gets to see his children pays child support in full and on time
> >over 90% of the time. 
> >If society is not prepared to enforce a father`s rights to see his
> >children, society has no right to demand one dime of financial 
> >contribution from him.  There is a quid pro quo.
> 
> I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
> cause-and-effect relationships.  I'll stand corrected if you can
> show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.
> Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
> their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
> or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
> you to be a violent sort of person.)
> 
> Greg.
        I don't mean to steal anyones thunder but the suspicion of violence
        is enough to get your visitation screwed up.  No trial no jury, just
        He's violent ya know!!  Oh, he is well we'll protect them then!
        They took my ex's word for it and I haven't seen my kids in 3 months.
        This is unfair and I have no recourse, sorry I have no money to hire
        a lawyer she get's 40% after Uncle Sam gets 30%!!


-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
|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-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:11:58 CST

In article 20720206@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM, laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:
>> > In article <1993Jan6.122354.6441@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>
>> 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?
>
>It gets real old listening to this nitpicky bullshit.  My ex and I just
>went through looking at the costs incurred by her to support our children.
>I proved to her by doing this that I was footing the entire bill for their
>support.  She asked me how we should value her contribution as a mother,
>for being there when they needed her.  I asked her how to value my lost
>time with my kids while they were growing up.  She shut up.  
>
>The point is, many women CHOSE to become the custodial parent.  Child
>support considers, and rightly so, the financial impact of their support.
>If you chose to do this, then that was your decision.  Let's see now,  how
>much should I get for doing all of the driving to and from
>visitation....about 20 miles one way?   How much should I get creditied for
>the time my kids spend in my house, and eat my food, and all the places I
>take them, etc.  The crap goes on and on........   
>
>Laszlo
>
>> 
>> Sue
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > [ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
>> > [                      longer life through colder blood                       ]



  I've driven about 8500 miles this year just to visit my children. That is the
estimated miles JUST to meet them. It does not include anything else, 
like a trip to the movie, zoo or circus etc.

 My ex finally shut the hell up about costs of being a custodial mother.

 

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: Re: IMHO
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:41:38 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes
> In article <1993Jan18.194604.6459@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu  
(Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> 
>> 	It has always been mostly male.  And for good reason.
>> 	90+% of NCP's are men.
> 
> So, the group SHOULD be alt.child-support.male-only?  Because 
> 90+% of NCP's are men?  Yep, there you go again, saying that this 
> is only a one sided problem.  I hate to keep bursting your
> bubble, but there are *women* out there losing their homes,  
> trying to go to school, pay child-care, pay for food, work
> full-time, and struggling along on not quite enough
> to live on because their ex is not paying child-support.  
> 

Yikes, Sue.  Count to ten!  :-)

I'd say that Alan's observation regarding the gender representation  
here is undeniable.  That could be due to most people thinking this  
forum is for child support obligors (who we all know are usually  
male, which is all Alan was trying to point out).  It could be that  
men (any kind of men) have more access to this fantastic electronic  
edifice than do women.  If so, this category would be expected to  
fill with men's perspectives which, typically, are not that of  
child support recipients.

On the other hand, Alan's statement seems to be restricted to  
obligors and there is no reason that this category shouldn't  
service both sides of child support: obligors and recipients.   
There *is* inequity on both sides, depending on the specific case.   
Those of us (like me) who have been poorly served by the existing  
system should remember to step back and realize that not everyone  
on the opposite side of child support is the same as their  
individual nemesis.  Yet, some of them may be.  Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Bruce Kaskubar
kaskubar@mayo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Indiana Welfare
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:51:19 GMT


     Several persons had posted the the base for child support should
be welfare benefits, so I thought it appropriate to investigate same
for my state and post them in this forum.
Source: Peggy Taylor, Indiana State Department of Welfare
        Regional Office, 420 Hoffman St., Hammond, Indiana
        (219) 937-0232

1 mother, 1 child:           Monthly subsistence  $229
                             Food stamps          $203
                             Total         $432

1 mother, 2 children         Monthly subsistence  $288
                             Food stamps          $292
                             Total         $580

1 mother, 3 children         Monthly subsistence  $346
                             Food stamps          $374
                             Total         $720

While one cannot from these data separate out the cost of the first
child from the cost of the mother;
the second child cost is $580 - $432  =  $148
the third child cost is $720 - $580   =  $140   per month.

Medicaid (or is it medicare?) picks up medical and dental on top of 
this.

Based on my experience with economic models for child costs it would
appear to me that a reasonable estimate based on the above numbers
for the first child is about $160/month.

David Garrod
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Knowing when miscarriages occur
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:19:46 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


Kevin, you know very little about miscarriages.  Often, when very early, it
is difficult to even determine when they happen, let alone be able to obtain
any fetal tissue for analysis.  I forget exactly how big a six or eight
weight fetus is, but it is really miniscule.

Sue
From: jlivings@sw.stratus.com (Jim Livingston)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:03:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: teton.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan27.015042.16677@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> In article <1k3m5kINNnmr@transfer.stratus.com>, jlivings@sw.stratus.com (Jim Livingston) writes:
> > 
> > My divorce decree does not allow me to sue my ex-wife nor does it allow
> > her to sue me.  To bad, it would be nice to be compensated for all these
> > years without my daughter.
> > 
>     I am not an attorney, but I would be surprised if you lost your
> constitutional rights by signing any piece of paper, limiting you
> from suing for events that took place after the signing of the piece
> of paper.  How could you know what would happen in the future?
> Informed consent does not exist in such circumstances, unless the
> ex warned you that she would violate your constitutional rights to
> visitation.

It's not that I can't sue her if we are involved in automobile accident,
I can't sue as to things that were settled in the divorce. Or as my civil
procedures instructor would say "something from the same transactional
occurance."   So I can't sue her for the loss of a normal relationship
with my daughter, but I can sue for a tort that may happen the future.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jim Livingston                         If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on
mail:  jlivings@pclark.sw.stratus.com  moving, regulate it. If it stops moving,
phone: 508-490-6705                    subsidize it.  - Ronald Reagan talking
				       about Democrats...
_______________________________________________________________________________