HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Fight for sole custody or joint
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:04:57 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov6.171019.24229@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>you must file in court. 1 grand taint worth a lawyer as I thought at
>the time. I drove to Mpls to find out that you need forms and the 
>people at the desk WON"T help you with a special form (Office supply
>co. down the street charges .85 for the affidavits, Motions, etc.) 
>I missed the deadline and really was furious (how could you tell) frustrated
>and completely heartbroken. You see the system is bad and benefits only
>children (pardon the sarcasm) LAWYERS.
>So I learned about forms.......
>Example below. This form was used by me and was PERFECTLY acceptable by
>the judge ...
>

	Well you possibly remember my small claims story, and you're
	right!  You can do anything a lawyer can.  You just have to
	know what forms to fill out, where to bring them, and when.
	And if you hung around the court for about a week, it would
	go a long way toward a law degree.  Because other than
	that, "advice" is just that.  And lawyers are short on advice
	for different reasons than people here don't have any.
	*They* don't have any.


>
>I have ALL the forms now. I'm ready. Go to your nearest LAW library and 
>steal a copy of your states Civil Procedures and follow what the Petitioner
>does. It works for me. This is where I found out the rule about serving
>you papers in a timely manner. 
>

	Good show!

> I'm thinking of opening a SELF HELP LAW  FIRM for NCPs. 
>

	I thik it's a good idea.  But you'll get reamed if you
	advertise.  And I can't think of any other way to get
	word out.

> Time is on my side.
>
	Why?

-- 
	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.child-support
From: mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous)
Subject: Re: Ohio Choices
Organization: V. I. Corporation, Northampton, Massachusetts
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:33:43 GMT

smiles@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Kevin Ruddy) writes:

>The point is: child support is not a tax, and should not be viewed as such.

>>	How can we get things changed?

>I don't know, but if you find out, please tell us!  Gee, can you look up
>lobbying organizations under "Lobby" in the Yellow Pages?  Maybe we should
>make one.  CSAM, Child Support Alliance of Massachusetts.
>-- 
>Kevin.Ruddy@NMC.ED.RAY.COM

Hey, let's go for it! I live in Massachussetts (unfortunately), and I also
(again, unfortunately) be here for quite a while now...

But seriously, I'm willing to do some work. I like the name you came up with,
did you notice how if you switch the first two letters of the acronym you
get "SCAM"?

Man, I'd love to show up with a group of like-minded screwed-over divorced
fathers at one of thos %&^$#&#((## rallys the women's support groups are
*constantly* having here in W. Mass (feminazi heaven. Ouch! Did I say that?).

---Mark

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
From: idqm400@indyvax.iupui.edu
Subject: Dr. Garrod..Research in support guidelines
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:59:21 GMT
X-Posted-From: indyvax.iupui.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: smiles@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Kevin Ruddy)
Subject: Re: Ohio Choices
Organization: Equipment Division, Raytheon Company
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.133445.12366@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>In article <RPRIMMER.92Oct29151453@home.webo.dg.com> rprimmer@home.webo.dg.com (Bob Primmer) writes:
>>GROSS WEEKLY INCOME             NUMBER OF CHILDREN
>>                        1               2                   3
>>$0-200          Discretion of the Court, but no less than $50.00 per month
>>$201-$500           25% (+/- 2%)    28% (+/- 2%)        31% (+/- 2%)
>>$501-$max           27% (+/- 2%)    30% (+/- 2%)        33% (+/- 2%)
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>	Interesting that the percentage goes up if income is high.

I can only guess that the legislators viewed child support as a tax.  Public
opinion holds that it's OK to graduate taxes, reasoning that those who are
earning more can better afford paying more.  (I'm not agreeing or
disagreeing.)

I don't know why that justifies an even better standard of living than they
would have gotten if the percentages were not graduated.  (And yes, I do know
we're talking about 2% here, which is not likely to cause the end of the
world for someone.)

The point is: child support is not a tax, and should not be viewed as such.

>	How can we get things changed?

I don't know, but if you find out, please tell us!  Gee, can you look up
lobbying organizations under "Lobby" in the Yellow Pages?  Maybe we should
make one.  CSAM, Child Support Alliance of Massachusetts.
-- 
Kevin.Ruddy@NMC.ED.RAY.COM
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Retroactive Increase in CS
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:22:30 CST

In article 6NOV199209173367@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov, edjcb@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Brown) writes:
>Along with some gnashing of teeth over various child support issues,
>my ex has threatened to attempt collection of what she calls "back
>child support".  We were divorced in 1983 and our decree has not been
>modified since then.  Our order called for $200/mo initially and a
>yearly index for inflation, plus I pay insurance and all uncovered med
>and dental.  I have paid every cent ordered on time and without question.
>
>When the support guidelines changed in 1986 to the income shares BS,
>she could have requested a modification of the order for increased
>support, but she didn't.  She claims now that she did not know she
>could have done this, and that she never got a letter supposedly sent
>by her lawyer advising her of her rights.  She feels now that she has
>grounds to request a retroactive increase in the order.  My lawyer says
>no way.  There don't seem to be any clear precedents, however.
>
>We are now negotiating new support along the guidelines and she'll
>get that starting next month.
>
>My question:  Is a retroactive increase in support possible even though
>the ordered support was paid in full?

  NO. The unchanged, unmodified order paid in full stands. No retroactive
pay increase will occur. 
>
>E-mail or post.  I'm usually lurking...
>
>Jeff Brown
>edjcb@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov



 What will occur is a marked increase to meet the current guidelines. They 
will not take into account ANYTHING you say otherwise, even if it makes
you feel better. 

 Remember, this standard of living increase for MOMMA is in the best
interests of the children. 

 Why retain a lawyer? Get the guidelines and eat the shit comin' down.
Ask this sleazeball of an attorney WHAT EXACTLY is likely to occur. Ask
him politely why do you need his services if: 1. Momma aint gettin' 
play money for fairy tale judgements. and 2. The court is going to 
slap the new quidelines on your ass. 

Figure the cost of the sleazeball (OK, a sleazeball if he won't answer
the two questions HONESTLY) and compare that with the amount he CAN"T
save you. 

Lawyers who take men's money for jobbin' men on these issues just want
a new Corvette.  

I'll bet the results will be what I just told ya.
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Fight for sole custody or joint
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:14:21 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov10.155213.3138@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
> Alan, when I pressed certain lawyers about 'the odds' factor when determining
>whether I felt it necessary to pursue filing motions and affidavits, good lawyers
>told me the score, i.e. that I'd lose and it would cost me more money to hire
>them than I would gain. 
>
>MEN"S LAW #1
>   Child support orders only go up, they don't go down. Don't fight 'em.
>
>I do recommend that men go to the county where there children are (most
>likely it is the county who has jurisdiction) and learn the rules for
>filing. 
>All men should contest automatic living expenses, even if review would
>increase your payment more. WHY? Jam the courts up. You have X number of
>days to respond. Just don't show up. This also gives you a feeling of 
>power. 
>Hennepin County Collection Services are clogged and so they no longer
>grant reviews to cp's for frivolous reasons. If the 'ol man is paid up
>they won't bother.
>


>Word of mouth.
>I wonder why I can't HELP. Most of these 'cases' are merely a formality
>in screwing the NCP. Who needs a lawyer. 
>I often have wanted to place want ads in the paper just to get a rise
>out of the attorneys. 
>>
>>> Time is on my side.
>>>
>>	Why?
>>
> I honestly believe that the system against NCPs is so overwhelmingly
>biased and sick that in due time, as the draconian measures puked down
>from Congress in 1987 cover more and more men, there will be inevitable
>changes in the system. It's just a matter of time. 
>



	Tick Tock???????????????


> I think it is time that people like me and others rise up against 
>GOVERNMENT intrusion into our personal lives. Feminists think they can
>have it both ways, government intrusion (affirmitive action) and non-
>government intrusion (my body my right but god damn it, someone else
>pay for it, ABORTION). There politics smells like, feels like and looks
>like that of Stalinism. 


	I am trying to understand the spirit of what you are saying
	and intend to do.  You say that there is no help for men,
	but that you want to help them.

	And what in particular do you think will change this system
	by "collapse under it's own weight"?  What would mmotivate
	the change, what elements would change, and on what level.
	Federal?  State?

	I'm confused.

-- 
	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......
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: thanks for all the input
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:00:42 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 27911@vicorp.com, mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>
>Just wanted to thank all the people who responded to my posts. I'm not
>able to respond personally to all, so here it is:
>
>Thanks!
>
>Based on the input, I've pretty much decided to fight for sole custody.
>I'm still unsure on whether or not I should pursue the criminal charges.
>
>My lawyer has not been straightforward with me. He's been trying to convince
>me that we should "fight" for joint legal custody, which I've come to realize
>(thanks to virtually everyone's input) is a crock of %$#^. 
>
>If I'm going to go down, I'm going to go down swinging...
>
>Mark


 Alright Mark!!!

Ask this lawyer for evidence that suggests "joint custody' is in your
best interest. 

Sounds to me like this prick was educated at some liberal do-gooder school
taught by wimps like Anita Hill!

Drop that wimp if he fails to listen to you. Get a second and third opinion.
Call around, don't be afraid to ask judges who don't cover family court.
All these bastards hang out at the same bar.
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Divorce, custody, child support, need advice
Keywords: custody, child support
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:57:27 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov6.075603.14415@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Non-custodial parents of Massachusetts (or any other state blatantly
>oppressive to non-custodial parents):  You have to start fighting these
>laws, you have to direct your anger in constructive ways, you have to
>start being seen and heard on these issues.
>
>Paying child support to age 23 is ludicrous.  Obviously, it is assumed
>all children in Mass will go to college and that the non-custodial
>parents should pay for that expense (something custodial parents and
>parents of intact families are not required to do).  This denies equal
>protection under the law.  It is also sexist in its intent.  
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

	As usual you have said lots of "good words", Aaron.  But
	the "how" of it all seems evasive if not impossible.

	1) I know of no "fathers groups" in Mass.  I have seen
	posts asking about such groups with no reply.  Once, about
	2 years ago, I had heard of the name of a group in either
	Mass or N.H..  I tried contacting them and received no reply.

	2) It seems to be obvious that implimenting a law which steps
	outside of the usual norm of parental expectancy is unfair
	and probably unconstitutional.  Is it so hard to argue the
	obvious in our legal system?

	3)  Specifically *WHO* is in charge of making/breaking laws
	in the state?  Specifically (at least by title).  How many
	of them are there, and where do they meet?  Specifically!

	4)  Here comes my ignorance of the law, but aren't we again
	back to a "class action" issue?  If it is not one specifically,
	it certainly smells like what one would be like.  And where/
	how SPECIFICALLY can one or more individuals gather information
	about NCP's and this system to attack this problem, given the
	limited resources of individuals.


	Give me some of this info.  I'd be willing to dive into this
	for a while in my local area.  But I don't know where to
	start.
-- 
	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......
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child abuse
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:47:49 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

> In article <BxBoBo.EE1@mach1.wlu.ca>, suth4970@mach1.wlu.ca (Donna Sutherland
> > ...  My research question is:  Is one
> > isolated incident of physical abuse (intent) more psychologically
> > damaging then consistent abuse of a lesser extreme?
> 
> From what I have seen, emotional neglect and abandonment can be more
> emotionally devestating than physical abuse.  I've tried to help girls
> who are literally living on the street because to them, it's better than
> going home where Daddy (who has custody) has a live-in girl friend who
> hates them.  

I agree. My experience is that an isolated event isn't going to have any-
thing near the impact of an abuse over time. Repeated incidents have a
very negative effect on the feelings of worth, where an incidental event
is likely to be forgiven. Kids are *somewhat* resilliant, and can ferret
out the difference between an explosion and ongoing demonstration. Every
parent is bound to cross the line sooner or later. It would be great if
we could somehow prevent ourselves from doing it. Don't mistake me: Any
negative display is bad news.

I question the use of the word 'intent.' It's in parens, but I'm not so
sure what the import is in this instance. If any abuse is intentional,
it has the form of criminal premediated assault, and is an animal of a
different color.

Ongoing expressions of concern and value are the most important thing a
child can be given --assuming the feelings are real. A child can catch
a parent in a fallacious display faster than a bullet leaves a gun.

Each year, approximately a million and a half children are abused and
neglected. Like it or not, through action or inaction, we're at fault.
Children are the living image of the future, and it behooves us to be
sure they're protected. Not necessarily through regulation and the
intervention of government; instead through a personal committment to
observing the fragile balance that exists between appropriate expres-
sions of anger and distaste, and physical or emotional assaults.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: xenon@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: RESULT: misc.legal.family fails 126:28
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:32:28 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <PP5ZTB2w165w@xocolatl.com>, ssmith@xocolatl.com (Shannon Smith) writes:
> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
> 
> -> misc.legal.family (moderated) fails. 126 to 28
> 
> 
> Damn.  Sooooooo close!
> 
> Bob, please consider going through the process again.  Maybe next
> time...

Please don't, unless you keep a better count of the votes... my NO vote
was counted as a yes, and I'll bet I'm not the only one... ;(

- xenon

p.s. I didn't send it to the wrong address either... i checked on the log of my
outgoing mail.

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: starg@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (tony.a.stargel)
Subject: Day Care expenses
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:24:51 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Day care expenses
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T


I was wondering how day care expenses were distributed in other
people's cases.

I am in process of what is turning into an ugly financial war.
I have 3 children and my lawyer says the state (ILL) will take 32%
of my NET.  My ex2b wants the 32% PLUS 1/2 of the day care (which
is $800/month).

Is this reasonable? How did others handle this?
Is the 32% suppose to include the day acre of some portion
as well?

Thanks.

Tony Stargel
starg@cbnewsl.att.com
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Lafave)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: was:Ohio Choices; now:Mass Fathers group (CSAM?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:02:42 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory


In article <1992Nov10.174503.3528@vicorp.com> mc@vicorp.com (Mark Charalambous) writes:
>
>I'm willing to do something to get this going. Who else is in?
>
>Mark Charalambous
>mc@vicorp.com


  Me (Rich LaFave)
  x73rl@ll.mit.edu
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Children living with you.
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:23:45 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Nov10.142730.16965@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
> 
> 	If you have a child (your own) living with you who is
> 	for some reason uncontrollable or does not like their
> 	situation (teenager)  what are your/their options.
> 
> 	Does "DSS" get involved in cases like these?
> 
> 	If a parent called someone (like DSS) would the teen be
> 	removed?  Could they do it of their own request?
> 

Alan, call up your local Juvenile Court and ask to speak to one of the
Probation Officers.  They can answer all your questions.  And it's a lot
cheaper (free) than talking to a lawyer.  You can turn a child over to
Juvenile Court.  You can have the Police remove them from your home.
BUT, you can (almost certainly will) be assessed child support by the 
court if they place the child in a Home or some other facility.

Sue


-- 
> 	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:3629 alt.dads-rights:2583
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:20:27 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Nov9.172521.4078@hemlock.cray.com> sle@cray.com (Stan L. Eads) writes:
>Question2:  What about this Colorado college support law?  Can she get
>this even if the "boy" is working a job (and paying support to his own
>out-of-wedlock child)?  And does the money go to her, the child, or
>the college?
>
>Question3:  Does the state of Minnesota garnishee wages for these
>support payments (including college) in another state?
>
>If I had a willing lawyer and some support around me, I would be
>willing to be the test case, and try to take this to the Supreme Court
>for a ruling on the constitutionality of these college support
>payments.  If anyone else is interested, we could use the net and other
>sources of publicity to get some kind of class action suit going, with
>a large number of plaintiffs across several states.  We could share
>the expenses among us and make a real change.  
>
>Stan Eads
>Cray Research, inc
>(612) 683-5354

	As I've recently posted, I am interested in this area.

	Just to make an additional slam at many people, I find it
	interesting how many people wanted "contributions" on this
	net, but refuse to offer comments.  they don't have anything
	to say so they tell you , "they can't give legal advice".

	Even though qualified, that's the same thing lawyers tell you,
	except they word it differently.  they just tell you you're
	fucked.  That's the "advice".


	Anyway, I am greatly interested in this situation for my own
	reasons.  Keep me posted.


-- 
	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:3623 alt.dads-rights:2580
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Fighting the System. How?
From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Date: 11 Nov 92 07:05:33 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In Message-ID: <1992Nov6.075603.14415@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) says:

>Non-custodial parents of Massachusetts (or any other state blatantly
>oppressive to non-custodial parents):  You have to start fighting these
>laws, you have to direct your anger in constructive ways, you have to
>start being seen and heard on these issues.

   I think we all agree, Aaron, but, like Mr. Yasutovich, I think it
would be more valuable if someone could show us a little more concretely
how to do this.

   As Alan pointed out there is no effective organization here in MA.
As I mentioned several months ago, when those of us facing the prospect
of a divorce here in Massachusetts ask for help and advice all we get is
that same old list of largely-defunct groups that's been kicking around
on the Net forever.  Even I've passed on this list when asked, but at
least I've pointed out to newbies that it's essentially worthless.

>This denies equal protection under the law.  It is also sexist in its 
>intent.  

   I think all of us here could agree with this, but how do we proceed
from here?  I know nothing about the law, I've only been in a court
building once before my divorce hearing, and that was to report for jury
duty and be dismissed.  I'd never before been in a courtroom nor seen a
judge in the flesh, and the only lawyer I'd ever talked to previously was 
the guy who handled the closing on my house.

>I know you are being laid away in child support expenses, but get 
>organized, get active, talk to other people who have fought the law and 
>won and start repealing and overturning these incredibly biased, illogical 
>laws.

   I'll say I'm getting laid away, in fact if I can't find a second job in
the next few weeks I'm going broke.  When the judge ordered me to move out
but continue paying the mortgage as well as CS my attorney objected that
that amount exceeded the guidelines.  The judge just shrugged and ignored
him.  What are we supposed to do?

   I don't KNOW anybody in my situation who's '...fought the law and won...'.   
I don't mean to sound like I'm angry at you, Aaron.  But these proposed
meta-solutions are simply frustrating.  

                                       Gerry Murphy





Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3577 alt.dads-rights:2544 misc.kids:27755 soc.men:18653 soc.women:18822