HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@az.stratus.com (Bill Everts)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Non-custodial Parent Issue
Date: 28 Jul 92 21:15:14 GMT

Thank you for your input Donna. Here is a little more detail...

In article <1992Jul28.172806.5423@b21.b21.ingr.com> donna@b21.b21.ingr.com  
(Donna Smith) writes:
> Since your son is 14 now, I think he should be involved in the decision
> concerning whether he should continue to visit his mother. Does he enjoy
> the visits? Does he think he is well cared for?
> 

I honestly don't know if he enjoys himself or not. He says he does but if you  
try to pin him down about what fun stuff he did it is mostly the fact that he  
can watch whatever he wants to on TV (some unbelievable movies!) etc. When he  
returns home tomorrow I'd like to ask him what he thinks about the care he  
receives but how do I do that without sounding like I am looking for some  
excuse to stop sending him? Am I looking for an excuse to stop sending him? Not  
really. I think it would be great that he'd have the opportunity to get out of  
the blistering heat every summer if I believed he was getting proper care. It  
would be ideal if his mother showed some interest in having him there besides  
picking him up at the airport and dropping him off. Ideal but not a requirement  
or we wouldn't have been doing it this long. Now, however, I am becoming more  
concerned about the care he is receiving.  What would she do if he broke his  
leg instead of his glasses?

> Since you have been footing the bill for four years, it seems to me that it
> is not a question of you being able to afford it, but resentment that his
> mother can't/won't even offer to help with the cost. 
> 

Yes, we can afford to send him. I mean we don't miss any meals because of it  
but we're not rich. The financial aspect gets billing because it is unfair to  
my spouse and is a source of "discussion."

> Don't let the money issue get in the way of your son's enjoyment of the
> visits (if indeed he does enjoy them and you can afford to continue to
> foot the bill).

I realize I highlighted the money issue but there are other items of care which  
are being neglected. We have to "re-train" him every time he comes back  
regarding things like don't eat in the family room, cleaning his own dishes,  
making his bed, putting clothes in the hamper, showering every day, brushing  
his teeth, changing his clothes when they are dirty etc for several weeks until  
he gets back into healthy habits.  The entire family routine is out of wack. 

How do I approach this difficult subject with my teenager in a loving,  
constructive environment?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-everts-                     		bill@az.stratus.com

Virtual reality is nothing more than real reality which has yet to be realized.
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
From: danlip@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel Adam Lipofsky)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:51:30 GMT

In article <64@ima.com> kehres@ima.com (Tim Kehres) writes:
>This does not sound like a situation that is likely to have an ideal solution
>for all possible combinations.  Sure, there are parents out there that are in
>no position to offer guidance to their children (they themselves are in dire
>need of it many times).  The problem I see with this is that it establishes a 
>dangerous precedence.  At a time where one of my main concerns in this country 
>(USA) is the trend of the government to get more involved rather than less 
>involved in peoples personal and business lives, this type of situation scares 
>me.  Sure there are problems with some families in these area, but opening
>the door for the government to come in and take control (based on criteria it 
>establishes), does not sound like the act of a truly free society.

If you think the giving children rights will make the gov't become
more involed in peoples personal rights think of this:

- The gov't current forces anyone under 18 to get thier parents written
permission to do anything. 
- If a minor try to get out of a bad situation by physically removing
themselves, the police will chase them down and drag them back.
- The gov't continues to force children into situations which get them
hurt or killed.
etc.

Giving children rights would remove many of these gov't intrusions into
private lives.  It would not cause gov't interference.
(A civil suit is NOT gov't interference!)

--danlip
-- 
"The calender of the Theocracy of Muntab counts down, not up.  No-one knows
why, but it might not be a good idea to hang around and find out."
	--Terry Pratchett, _Wyrd_Sisters_
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
From: L621035@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Adult teens & child support owed
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 21:39:48 GMT

My teen asked the other day if, after she's 18 (3 yrs hence) is there
a way to go after her non-support paying father for money owed, or do
I as the mother (who paid the bills, & doesn't want anything from the
person, so I could care less...) have to?  Or, is there a statute of
limitations?
I don't think it's the money she's after, just the rules & regs.  She's
planning on being a lawyer (maybe) one day, & every now & then asks
questions I don't know the answers to.  I've heard the story both ways.
After 18, he's off the hook, & you get no back (which at $60/mo wasn't
much anyway) *and* I've heard it's up to the kid to get it.  Either
way, thanks for all the expert input, from those who are also going
through it.
My OWN personal opinion is, that if I don't need his money, AND he's
not now or ever planning on being a part of her life.  And all of my
teens' needs are being monetarily met (emotional & physical are too,
but another subject entirely) then WE DON'T NEED HIM!!!  But, as I've
said, that's MHO, & I don't impose it on her or anyone else.
Again, thanks in advance.  Pam
Xref: sparky alt.parents-teens:1085 misc.kids:19563
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:31:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.parents-teens
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1682CD7CC.M18611@MBVM.Mitre.Org>, M18611@MBVM.Mitre.Org (Kathy Wilk) writes:
|>   All of your questions (how everything would be handled) have to do with
|> the way the law is implemented.

One of my objections to the proposal is also bound up in implementation. 

By what criteria does one judge a child  or adult competent to make and/or 
challenge life decisions? Age is a valid indicator only in the most broad
sense.

Note that this is also a problem with current procedures such as emancipation.
I feel this concern to be a show stopper for this and similar proposals.

Another major objection is that I don't want Uncle Sam sticking his nose
into my family affairs any more than he does now. And actually I'd like
him to reduce his busybodying. Uncle Sam isn't that good administering
justice through its current implementation. I see no reason to expect
it to implement and execute Ms. Clinton's plan any better.
-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: jh10579@medtronic.COM (Jerry Herbek)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: re:Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:36:17 GMT

While I can understand the exasperation of someone dealing with abuse
issues in disfunctional homes, I cannot tolerate the concept of
court/government/public intervention in my family.  Most everything
that I do or fail to do has the potential of having a lifetime effect
on my children.  That is part of the charter of being a parent.  While
the issues Hillary Clinton spoke of do have a significant impact on
children, I submit that they are less important than loving,
nurturing, and supporting our children.  Will the Hillary Clintons of
the US support attempts to legislate these issues?

I care very deeply for children, all children.  I would have none of
them hurt by their parents.  I would prefer that none of them would
have their freedom arbitarily limited by parents; or be forced to make
"wrong" decisions.  But would her "cure" ever be worse than the
"affliction".  One of the biggest things that this country has done to
shoot itself in the foot is to cultivate the social acceptance of
disrespect for authority; whether it be parents, teachers, or
government officials.  Now she wants one authority to publically show
disrespect for and undermine another authority.  AAaaarrrggghh!

I truly wish that we could stop all of this social injustice.  But,
alas, we cannot.  Perhaps we should focus on prevention instead of
intervention.  At least, I prefer to focus on that.  When support
organizations want to help underdeveloped starving countries, they go
in and provide the tools and teach the techniques to the people so
that they can solve their own problem.  We need to provide the tools
and teach the techniques to our children on how to be responsible
adults and effective parents.  That starts with each of us *living*
the example of what we want to teach our children.  We need to behave
as responsible, moral, honest, and respectful adults.  Paul Harvey
once said that our forefathers fled their homeland and came to America
to be free not to do what they want, but to be free to do what they
ought.  The people of the United States have shifted their desire from
the latter to the former.  I am putting all my energy into making the
shift back.
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 07:01:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.200218.28513@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>My understanding is that the current laws allow children to get away from
>bad parents, but don't allow them to collect damages.  This is just about
>how the law should be, I think.  If I'm wrong in my understanding (which is
>possible, this isn't something I've researched) I'd be interesting in hearing
>about it.

I find this interesting.  If I hit you in a car accident and you
receive injuries, you can sue me for damages.  But if a parent, for
example, repeatedly beats and/or molests her/his children, the
children shouldn't be able to collect damages?

In a few states adult survivors of incest and/or abuse can bring suit
against their abusers.  Once the adult remembers the abuse, the adult
has two years to bring charges against the abuser.  The statute of
limitations starts from the time of the memory, not the time of the
actual abuse.  Otherwise, the victim has until s/he's 20 (two years
past 18) to bring charges.  (I'm not a lawyer, so this is only my
understanding of the law.)

Personally, I think it would be a good thing if child abusers and
molesters knew that at any time in their lives they may be facing
legal charges brought by their victims.  I'd like to see child abusers
and molesters as haunted as Nazi war criminals.  They should know that
we don't care if they're old women or men, if they've lived wonderful
lives for the last 20 years, they still will be held accountable for
what they did.

(Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox.  But this topic really raises my
hackles.)

Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: lje@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (lisa.j.elser)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:58:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.200218.28513@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.144714.10646@news.nd.edu> slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>)The argument that giving children the ability to sue their parents would 
>)cause for frivolous lawsuits is, IMO, callous and shallow in light of 
>)the huge numbers of children being abused by the same persons who are 
>)charged with protecting the interests of the children.  If there is a 
>)real failure on the part of the parent, where can a child go for help?
>)Maybe H. Clinton's suggestion that a child should be allowed to divorce 
>)a parent is unworkable, but at least the woman is trying to find a 
>)voice for those whose voices are not loud enough, or strident enough, 
>)or persistent enough to get a hearing on their own.
>
>I'm with Anne on this one. [Whew - I was almost getting a little worried
>there when we Sue L. and I were agreeing so much :-) :-)].  We already have
>laws that deal with 'emancipated minors'.  I don't find the argument that
>this law would encourage frivolous suits at all shallow - we have a large
>wave of litigation mania sweeping the US, IMO.  Allowing children to collect
>damages from their parents (which is my understanding of the point of this
>law) seems like a very bad idea to me.
>
>My understanding is that the current laws allow children to get away from
>bad parents, but don't allow them to collect damages.  This is just about
>how the law should be, I think.  If I'm wrong in my understanding (which is
>possible, this isn't something I've researched) I'd be interesting in hearing
>about it.
>

I'm NOT with Anne on this one.  The case in the Florida courts would allow
a 12 year old boy to divorce his birth parents so that he can be adopted
by the foster parents who have had him since the last time (of several)
that his birth mother abandoned him.

No one is talking about damages, and there is no question of suing for
"rights" within the relationship.  The problem is that if birth parents
do not relinquish their parental claims, abused and abandoned children
have no way of refusing to return when the birth parent tell the courts
"It'll be better this time."

Many children as young as 12 run away rather than return.  Others
return adn are once again abused or abandoned.  The great "family
values" driving the system force children away from loving homes, or
even mere tolerable situations (like institutions) back to people
who have been judged or who judged themselves unfit before.

Lisa Elser
UNIX System Labs
Summit, NJ
lje@usl.com

Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.070113.2049@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)In article <1992Jul22.200218.28513@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>
)>My understanding is that the current laws allow children to get away from
)>bad parents, but don't allow them to collect damages.  This is just about
)>how the law should be, I think.  If I'm wrong in my understanding (which is
)>possible, this isn't something I've researched) I'd be interesting in hearing
)>about it.
)
)I find this interesting.  If I hit you in a car accident and you
)receive injuries, you can sue me for damages.  But if a parent, for
)example, repeatedly beats and/or molests her/his children, the
)children shouldn't be able to collect damages?

I think that our US system of damages needs some overhaul in any event.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done.  Certainly,
allowing children to initiate laawsuits by hiring a lawyer would be a *big*
mistake, IMO.  I might possibly be convinced that having CPS bring suits
on their behalf could be reasonable, but I have strong doubts about that too.
Especially with the horror stories I've heard about CPS (Child Protective
Services).

)In a few states adult survivors of incest and/or abuse can bring suit
)against their abusers.  Once the adult remembers the abuse, the adult
)has two years to bring charges against the abuser.  The statute of
)limitations starts from the time of the memory, not the time of the
)actual abuse.  Otherwise, the victim has until s/he's 20 (two years
)past 18) to bring charges.  (I'm not a lawyer, so this is only my
)understanding of the law.)

I've heard the same thing.  I think that such laws are a mistake.

)Personally, I think it would be a good thing if child abusers and
)molesters knew that at any time in their lives they may be facing
)legal charges brought by their victims.  I'd like to see child abusers
)and molesters as haunted as Nazi war criminals.  They should know that
)we don't care if they're old women or men, if they've lived wonderful
)lives for the last 20 years, they still will be held accountable for
)what they did.
)
)(Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox.  But this topic really raises my
)hackles.)

Well, we'll probably continue to disagree on this topic.  The problem I have
with what you propose and some of the current actual legislation is not so
much what happens to the molesters and abusers, as with what happens to
people who are not molesters and abusers but are accused of it anyway.
From: bill@az.stratus.com (Bill Everts)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Non-custodial Parent Issue
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:37:33 GMT

I have custody of my 14 year old son from my first marriage. His mother lives  
in Virginia while we live in Arizona with my wife and 7.5 month old son.  I  
have been divorced for 5 years and in Arizona for the last 4. The issue is, of  
course, "visitation."  Although the divorce papers do not directly address  
visitation, my wife and I have paid for Wil, the 14yo, to fly to Virginia every  
summer. We also paid for his flight there this last Christmas.  Not only  
doesn't his mother offer to pay for his flights, she doesn't even go so far as  
to get his hair cut while he is there.  This summer I got a frantic call from  
him about how I had to wire them $75 so he could get a new pair of glasses  
because he had broken his. His mother is currently working, although jobs come  
and go for her. 

Question: If his mother cannot/will not afford to care for his well being when  
he is there, how long should I (we) foot the bill for his visits?

BTW: She has paid one month of child support in the last 5 years. The attorney  
I consulted recommended against persuing it as I would end up being the bad guy  
and Wil would feel guilty if his mother complained about funds since she has  
trouble keeping a job.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-everts-                     		bill@az.stratus.com

#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 22:19:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.150308.12230@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
)In article <1992Jul22.200218.28513@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>
)>I'm with Anne on this one. [Whew - I was almost getting a little worried
)>there when we Sue L. and I were agreeing so much :-) :-)].

)Well, Bronis, at least we can both sleep better at night,now ;-)

You know you've been posting to the net too much when you like arguing
with someone rather than agreeing with them.  [Which is about where I
am.]  Oh well.

)So, the search is on for the middle ground.  Certainly, any rights 
)granted to a child, while a child, would have to be limited rights.
)Questions of the child's competency would have to be addressed. 
)I believe in the original statements made by H. Clinton, she did 
)qualify that the minor must be "competent."

I can't hontestly think of anything better than continuing having children
not have full rights unless they are 'emancipated'.  Which is how things
work already (I think).
From: bill@az.stratus.com (Bill Everts)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Non-custodial Parent Issue
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:54:43 GMT

In article <Bs4s17.Iq7@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond)  
writes:
> The financial thing however.... why don't you get a court order for
> support. It is a responsibility for both parents to financially support
> their offspring, not just for the man. My exwife and I have had very
> amicable relations over the years , and she pays support even though
> *I* don't need it. Note that she pays willingly and of her own volition
> based on her feelings of responsibility. (count me lucky in having
> an ex of exemplary character)
> 
When my wife (not ex) and I consulted an attorney on that issue, he advised us  
against taking action. He based his recommendation on a few issues. My ex does  
not manage funds well and is in and out of work regularly (of her own  
volition).  His question to us was how much was the child support worth in  
terms of Wil's (my 14 YO son) feelings? In other words, the risk we would take  
is in terms of guilt he may feel when his mother laments that she can't send  
him a birthday present or afford to call him on the phone because she doesn't  
"have a job right now" should she change that to she can't because she was put  
in jail when we notified the authorities she wont pay child support.

Paula Mickevich reminded me that the money is not what is relevant, what is  
relevant is what my son wants and needs. Bob Primmer pointed out that since  
this will only be an issue for four more years I should just relax and let it  
be! Why make the last four years hellish?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-everts-                     		bill@az.stratus.com
Virtual reality is nothing more than real reality which has yet to be realized.
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 11:52:46 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Jul27.221950.10549@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>I can't hontestly think of anything better than continuing having children
>not have full rights unless they are 'emancipated'.  Which is how things
>work already (I think).

Well, I can agree with you to some extent, but whatever happened to
those "inalienable rights, among which are, life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness"?

A child should not be able to bring a lawsuit against his parents if
those parents are, indeed, abridging his rights to life, liberty, and
the purfuit of happineff?  ("That's 'pursuit of happiness.'"
"Oh...well, all your s's look like f's."  "It's stylish....  It's in,
it's very in!")

If a child is being neglected, shouldn't he have the right to call his
guardians on it?  I agree with the caveat of "frivolous suits" such
as, "Mom wouldn't let me go to the prom," but I don't think that such
cautions should exclude the possibility.

For example, I don't think anybody would have qualms with parents
attempting to rid themselves of a child who attempts to murder them,
correct?  Well, why should we be so up-in-arms about the reverse
situation?  Yes, that's an extreme example, but it points out the fact
that as of now, it can be difficult for a child to do just that.  For
every horror story about how CPS takes children away from families
where no harm is occurring, there is a horror story about how CPS is
powerless to take a child away from a family where harm *is*
occurring.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights