HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:26:25 GMT
Organization: Lebenty-Screech's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA

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

> In article <1993Jan26.035102.3766@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.e
> >In article <1993Jan26.011724.27341@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.
>
Deletions...

> Ted, one question....
> 
> Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
> (usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
> in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
> under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
> emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
> awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
> domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
> sexual discrimination?
> 
> Aaron L. Hoffmeyer

Just one question;  Does anyone have real stats on how often men ask for
sole or primary custody, in comparison to how often they are actually
awarded it?

For example, if men ask for some kind of custody in only 30% of all divorce
cases, how many of *that* 30% are awarded sole or primary custody?

I don't doubt that in many, or even perhaps most cases, there is a judicial
sexual bias against men in custody battles.  I'd just like to see the stats
(comparisons) for this.  If anyone has them, please cite these stats and your
reference sources.

Lisa

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

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: Re: Help!  Wife left state with the kids
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 22:04:43 GMT

Should we have a periodic FAQ posting?

Bruce Kaskubar
kaskubar@mayo.edu
From: kaskubar@mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Sex Discrimination in Divorce
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:42:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus

David Garrod writes
>     When mother was given custody, no support order against  
father .04%

Is that a point-zero-four percent?!
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:43:42 CST

In article <C1DrGF.LK6@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.102416.8212@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>
>
>If you get a few victories in a few states then women will be put on notice
>that we are not going to stop until we have equality in the bedroom.  Then,
>perhaps, the feminists will decide to join with us and <reform> the
>reproductive freedom issue entirely.  Perhaps, seeing the force which can be
>mustered, this can be turned into much more than just "fathers rights" -- it
>can become the "equal rights" reproductive proposals that I, and many other
>men, would love to see come to pass.
>
>I, even though I am not a father, am willing to put up $100 to the
>organization which spearheads these lawsuits across all 50 states.  If 
>every NCP does this as well there will be millions of dollars available 
>for these cases.  If we could get every MAN to put up $10.00 there would 
>be nearly a billion dollars available for these cases.
>
>I like this idea.  Let's go for it.
>
I have a case that I think would win if the legal eagles got thier money.
I am unable to follow my case to an appeal because of running out of money.
I am over $30,000 now because of X@B lawyer dealying for over 2 years.

My custody evaluation called me an excellent parent with more to offer my
son and my X2B was told to take child development classes and that my son
needs more than maternal nurturing to grow up. I go to trial Feb 16, unless
it is delayed again. If I lose, it will be because of sexual descrimination
and against my son's best interrest. I have only asked for joint physical,
and an equal parent. I put forward a parenting plan and asked for mediation
which were refused by my X2B. I offered 70% of my income but her pride
won't allow her to share joint physical custody. My son would
prefer to live with me and would be hurt if I'm not an equal parent but at
5 yrs old he has no say.

Seems to me we're talking over $200,000 for one case.

Just my last .02 cents worth.

Dave W


Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.legal,alt.child-support,soc.men
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Sex Discrimination in Divorce
Keywords: custody
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:08:27 GMT



     We have had some discussion regarding a class action suit to
redress the sexist attitude of judges in custody hearings.

What do we need to prove?  How do we do it?

We have data from Indiana, originally given to the Indiana Child
Support Advisory Committee showing two areas of discrimination:

i.  Sole custody given to mother 82.6% whereas sole custody to father 9.6%
ii. When father was given custody, no support order against mother 52%,
    When mother was given custody, no support order against father .04%

Clearly a difference with the sexes, but is it due to sex of parent?

If the laws are gender-neutral, what is the remedy?  You can`t order
the judges to give out equal numbers for custody.  Each judge will
claim that every time he was acting in the best interest of the child.

What other data do we need?

What is the constitutional argument(s) on which the claim can be made?
Due process?  Equal protection?

David Garrod
Is it best to file for one state, or for several?
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Subject: Action proposals
Reply-To: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: SLAC
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:57:57 GMT

As many are doing in the dads-rights postings, I also support the idea of
using this group to strengthen the dads' rights movement in this country
in order to effect real change in the family laws for the protection of
mens' rights (people's rights).  Various ideas have been proposed recently,
perhaps earlier also, which I would like to recommend as many of you men and
other sympathetic NCP's out there to actively support.  

These proposals include:
	.An increased letter-writing campaign using various template letters 
	 as a starting point.

	.A model court case charging the courts with sexual discrimination
	 against men.

As I am sure others have proposed earlier, I would like to suggest that we
attempt to gain the support of feminist groups in this effort, as odd as it
may sound at first.  Some claim they are generally in opposition to mens'
rights in divorce/custody issues and contribute to the unjust state of
affairs now prevailing in the courts.  I personally know so many womens'
rights people where this is not the case.  They agree that men are getting
a terribly raw deal, for the most part.  Why don't we tap into this
potential source of support as a means also of either dividing or perhaps
entirely winning over the supposed opposition?  It would also help lawmakers
and the courts to realize that it is not really a matter of men versus women
but of basic human rights that everyone supports.

Concerning particulars of what issues and proposals should be addressed in
connection with the above action items, I would like to suggest the following
be added to whatever points are to be made:
	If one of the parents following a divorce/custody case is given
	primary physical custody of the children involved, that action has
	to recognized as a grievous infringement on the basic, inalienable
	human right of a parent to be with their children.  If the court
	nevertheless sanctions such action, the NCP must be compensated in
	some way.  The form of compensation can be worked out.  The important
	thing is for the courts to recognize the grievous nature of such
	action and not just ignore it as something inconseqential, as seems
	so often the case now.
	The compensation of the NCP could, just as an example, take the form
	of rapidly decreasing financial OBLIGATION of the NCP to support the 
	family.  This is not to say there couldn't be VOLUNTARY support.

Something else that could be done is to communicate these proposals to
as many dads' rights groups currently already existing (which may not be
hooked into netnews) as possible in order to facilitate organizing and 
coordinating.

	Bob Boeninger, e-mail boe@slac.stanford.edu

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3539 soc.men:23373 soc.women:23134 misc.legal:23434
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:34:35 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <C1HtrE.C9w@panix.com>, eck@panix.com sez:
>In <1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com sez:
>>
>>Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
>>(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
>>in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
>>under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
>>emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
>>awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
>>domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
>>sexual discrimination?

>  See
>Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976).
>
>Under _Washington v. Davis_, mere "disparate impact" isn't enough.  If
>you actually want to discuss this intelligently, you'll need to read
>and understand that decision first.

Actually, on further reflection last night I remembered an even more
relevant case.  In _McCleskey v. Kemp_, 482 U.S. 279 (1987), the
Supreme Court held that statistics showing disproportional application
of the death penalty to blacks would not suffice to overturn the
sentence in a particular case.  Moreover, the Court expressly noted
with disapproval that allowing such claims "could easily be extended
to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate
to membership in other minority groups, *and even to gender*."  Id. at
316-17.

If broad-based statistical evidence of uneven treatment isn't enough
to prove that a State's application of the death penalty is
constitutionally infirm, it's difficult to imagine that similar
evidence concerning child custody -- an important liberty interest, to
be sure, but perhaps a wee bit lower on the scale -- is going to
impress the courts.

(I don't particularly like the result in _McCleskey_, but that doesn't
alter the fact that anyone raising analogous arguments will have to
confront it.)


-- 
        "Maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm not.  Frankly, I really don't
         give a damn . . . ."    - Paul Havemann (paul@hsh.com)
                                   in <1993Jan25.190648.548@hsh.com>
	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: sexual discrimination
From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Date: 24 Jan 93 22:13:08 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In Message-ID: <1993Jan23.102416.8212@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>,
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:


>So, what I am asking, or suggesting is this:  Why don't we look at this
>avenue of approach for correcting the injustices in the system?  Any
>precedent establishing case could inspire reform throughout the
>country, and, at the very least, it could garner much needed attention
>on the plight of oppressed, divorcing or divorced fathers.

>Is it unreasonable to incorporate such a goal into the mission of
>divorced fathers' rights groups?  If 52 class-action lawsuits  were
>filed simultaneously in the states and territories, the courts and the
>media would have to sit up and take notice.  And maybe, at last, the
>charade would be exposed for what it is:  sexual discrimination.

>Comments, anyone?

   I have suggested this approach to a couple of the other Mass. divorced
dads with whom I have email correspondence.  I think it's a terrific idea.

   My rationale was that the legislative process, even when it works, is
terribly slow.  And on this issue it WILL NOT WORK.  Many folks who write
about the gridlock in our government have pointed to the problem:  the
ability of well-organized special interest groups to block legislation
they oppose, even when they are a decided minority.  We can cite many
examples: retired folks blocking any attempt to change Social Security,
the perception of women voting as a bloc making politicians unwilling to
anger them, environmental activists effectively stopping developments by
delaying tactics that drive up the cost to the point where the other
side gives up, etc.  ( Mind you, I have quite a bit of sympathy for the
environmental movement.  I merely wish to illustrate a point. )

   So I am and have been all in favor of this approach.  If it works it will
happen faster than legislation.  Somebody, I think it was Alan Yasutovich,
who went to one of the Mass. group's meetings mentioned a lawyer who was
talking about pursuing a class action suit in this state.  How can we
proceed with this?

                                       Gerry Murphy


   
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: shedevil@leland.Stanford.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, JD)
Subject: Re: Help!  Wife left state with the kids
Reply-To: shedevil@gw.home.vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.)
Organization: Fathers Rights & Equality Exchange
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 22:21:31 GMT

In a recent missive jimbo@csusb tells us:

>600 miles away.  She did not tell me of the move until she and
>her new hubby bought a house in Reno.  She has given me her new
>address and phone number so I can stay in written and verbal
>communication with the kids(now between 10 and 17).  I have never
>missed paying my child care even though sometimes it has been
>extremly draining financially on me.  She moved in June and I have
>continued to pay support.

Technically speaking she was required to give you 45 days notice,
according to California law.  What you needed to do was to immediately
file an Order to Show cause *when she told you she was moving*, before
she moved.  I say this now not to make you feel bad, but in case others
find themselves in the same situation.

Now that she is already moved, and because she has had the kids since
1982, and because [and correct me if I am wrong] ther is nothing here to
indicate her purpose in moving was primarily to frustrate your
visitation, practically speaking even though you *could* file an action
for modification of custody, it won't happen.

What you *can* do is attempt to negotiate a new time-sharing agreement
with her, based on the distance.  I.e., instead of just weekends,
longer chunks of time as they are appropiriate.  If the two of you can't
reach an agreement, then you can file for a modification of 'visitation.

>Questions---Is this considered a form of abduction or kidnapping?

No, although if your orders say that neither of you can leave the state,
she's in contempt, technically.

>Am I still obligated(legally, not morally.  Of course I'll continue
>to pay support)to pay child support

Yes.

>if I do, does this mean, from
>a legal standpoint, I accept the de facto situation and approve her
>move out of state?  

No.

>Will Neveda recognize my parental rights granted
>by California?  Anything I might also need to ask that I haven't?

Yes, Nevada should recognize your California order.

Because she has already moved, I would say you should attempt to
negotiate a modified time-sharing [and expense of travel sharing]
agreement.  If you can work it out between the two of you, and then just
have an attorney formalize it, so much the better.  If you can't work it
out, you'll need to have your attorney file for an Order to Show Cause,
and you are then looking at Family Court Services mediation and at least
one court appearance.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Action proposals
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:57:23 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger) writes:

> As many are doing in the dads-rights postings, I also support the idea of
> using this group to strengthen the dads' rights movement in this country
> in order to effect real change in the family laws for the protection of
> mens' rights (people's rights).  Various ideas have been proposed recently,
> perhaps earlier also, which I would like to recommend as many of you men and
> other sympathetic NCP's out there to actively support.  
>
Some deleted...

> may sound at first.  Some claim they are generally in opposition to mens'
> rights in divorce/custody issues and contribute to the unjust state of
> affairs now prevailing in the courts.  I personally know so many womens'
> rights people where this is not the case.  They agree that men are getting
> a terribly raw deal, for the most part.  Why don't we tap into this
> potential source of support as a means also of either dividing or perhaps
> entirely winning over the supposed opposition?  It would also help lawmakers
> and the courts to realize that it is not really a matter of men versus women
> but of basic human rights that everyone supports.
>
Rest deleted.

YES!  YES!  YES!

Thank you Robert, for pointing this out.  United v. Divided!  I like it! :-)

Lisa

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

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3537 soc.men:23371 soc.women:23132 misc.legal:23433
From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            )
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:52:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.dads-rights
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <qy4ZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:

>Just one question;  Does anyone have real stats on how often men ask for
>sole or primary custody, in comparison to how often they are actually
>awarded it?

>For example, if men ask for some kind of custody in only 30% of all divorce
>cases, how many of *that* 30% are awarded sole or primary custody?

The answer to that would be misleading or irrelevant unless one could also
show how many men were discouraged from asking because they knew the 
odds of winning are so poor, or because they didn't have $10,000 to contest
a decision against them, or because they didn't want to get hit with a 
phony child-abuse accusation.

I imagine one might argue that almost 100% of all blacks who ran for political
office in Mississippi in the 1920's were elected, and so therefore there was
really no racial discrimination in Mississippi...

- db
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3525 soc.men:23326 soc.women:23099 misc.legal:23383
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:51:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


 noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) posts:
>Given that women are awarded either sole custody or primary custody
>(usually something like a 75/25 split) in roughly 85% of all divorces
>in this country in which the divorcing couple are parents of children
>under age eighteen, despite laws in virtually every state that
>emphatically set forth that judges should NOT be biased by gender in
>awarding said custody of children, are the judges and referees of the
>domestic relations courts of the United States of America guilty of
>sexual discrimination?                            

  You would have a good case if you can show that, for your
  sample, the same percentage of men and women demanded custody
  and they were equally suited to have custody awarded (by
  whatever reasonable metric for this you care to use).

  Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the courts 
  have an unfair bias toward awarding custody to the mother, based
  on anecdotal evidence.  But on the face of it the data you've
  presented here doesn't really add up to anything.


---peter
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:34:26 GMT

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>>    I think you are overstating your case to say that the data do not
>>>(data is plural of datum) add up to anything.  You really should say that
>>>the data are not decisive.  But then decisive data are almost never avaiable.
>>>The data presented are a prima facie case that discrimination exists
>>
>>  No it ISN'T!   Any more than the fact that blacks and women are
>>  way underrepresented among workimg EE's relative to their % of
>>  the population is "prima facie" evidence for discrimination
>>  in this field.   There *might* be discrimination; it doesn't
>>  rule it out; but it doesn't support it, either.

>    Yes it is.  Prima facie means `at first glance', not `at last glance'.
>When there is a very substantial difference, then it is, at first glance,
>evidence that discrimnation exists.  If you are holding a gun over
>a dead body, it is, at first glance, evidence that you are the killer.
>Of course, the discrimination might not be there, and you might not be
>the killer, YES, BUT, at first glance it does count for something.  I
>would suggest you read up on non-monotonic reasosning which the logic
>operating here.

I think both of you are right.

In general terms, "prima facie" means "apparent," "at first glance" --
so indeed an underrepresentation of blacks among EE's could be evidence
of discrimination, at first glance.

In legal terms, I believe "prima facie evidence" implies furthermore
that the evidence is sufficient to make a conclusion which must 
be disproved.  In other words, it implies a default conclusion
as well, which the general, "at first glance" meaning might not.
Thus, underrepresentation might not *legally* be prima facie evidence.

But I'm not a lawyer (what lawyer would say "both of you are right," anyway?).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged