HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HF.JJS@forsythe.stanford.edu (John Stamets)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:24:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

>> In article <1993Jan23.102416.8212@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>> >
>> >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?
>>
>> Yes.  This is the best idea I've heard in a long time.
>>
>> Men, EVERY ONE of you who is a NCP can participate in this one freely.  Why?
>> Because you can claim with impunity that you are acting in the best interest
>> of your child(ren) in filing and keeping up on this one.  There are a lot of
>> you out there.
>>
>> There is strength in numbers behind a united goal.  However, one thing MUST
>> BE MADE CLEAR for this strategy to work:
>>
>> NO ONE, I REPEAT - NO ONE -- CAN SETTLE THESE CASES.  THEY MUST GO TO TRIAL.
>> You only establish law when you go to trial and WIN.  Settlements establish
>> no precedent, make no law, and are short-lived victories.  There is but ONE
>> way to make law in this case, and make a positive difference - settle for
>> nothing less than 100% victory in open trial.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
>> Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
>>
>
>I second this opinion!  Please count me in for a contribution and some
>volunteer work, if it comes to fruition.
>
>I applaud Karl for his initiative in proposing this course of action
>and Aaron for coming up with the idea.  Let's go for it!
>--
>
>         DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this posting are mine
>            solely and do not represent my employer in any way.
>       F. A. Karner AIX Technical Support | karner@austin.vnet.ibm.com
.
Damn straight! Count me in.
If your lawyer is any good (right attitude Etc.)
Let them in on the idea. The ones that really care will help.
John.
From: jimbo@csusb
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Help!  Wife left state with the kids
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:19:49 GMT
Organization: California State University, San Bernardino
Nntp-Posting-User: jimbo

I hope someone out there can help me with this problem---
short of seeking legal help, I'm kind of stuck.  I do know
I will get that legal aid shortly, but before that, I do
need some advice as to what questions and options to discuss.

Background---Divorced in Calif. 1982, five kids.  Joint custody
awarded with primary care to ex-wife.  Child care payments set
at $900.00 mo.  Alimony awarded on top of child care(no problem
here; ex was decent enough to waive alimony in writing).  Since
the divorce, no problem as to visitation---I just call up and
give 48 hrs. notice I'm free for the weekend or whatever.  We
lived only a few miles apart so no visitation hassles.  The
problem now is that my ex got married and moved to Reno, Nev. 
She never petitioned for out of state custody.  She said she
assumed I would not object as I am still free to see my kids
whenever I want.  Never mind instead of a miles, they are about
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.

Questions---Is this considered a form of abduction or kidnapping?
Am I still obligated(legally, not morally.  Of course I'll continue
to pay support)to pay child support---if I do, does this mean, from
a legal standpoint, I accept the de facto situation and approve her
move out of state?  Will Neveda recognize my parental rights granted
by California?  Anything I might also need to ask that I haven't?

As I said, I will be seeing a lawyer on this matter shortly but I 
need an idea of what I really need to ask.  Thanks in advance for
any help.

Tony Ardelean
Cal State University San Bernardino

Since this is a shared account, the normal disclaimers are hereby
considered rendered.    
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men
From: sle@cray.com (Stan L. Eads)
Subject: Re: adoption rules
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:00:59 CST

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>Don, I've thought about it alot this weekend.  I've concluded that 
>>>the *good* of protecting the father's right to stop an adoption is not
>>>worth the *bad* of subjecting the mother and child to the risk of 
>>>injury from an abusive father.  Thus I cannot condone a legal 
>>>requirement for paternal notification.  
>
>>Fine.  Will you legally permit a father to abduct a child and disappear
>>if he knows the mother to be abusive?
>>Do you condone a legal requirement to inform a mother where her child is?
>
>Are you claiming that abducting a child is equivalent to a mother 
>declining to go out of her way to notify a former sex partner that 
>she has borne a child?

No, what he is saying, after thinking about it alot, is that the *good*
of protecting the birth mother's right to her child is not worth the
*bad* of subjecting that child to the risk of injury from an abusive
mother.  Thus, how could you possibly condone laws which would prevent
a conscientious father from doing the right thing?


Sincerely interested in your response.

Stan...   Just an interested observer of blind sexism in action

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3556 soc.men:23429 soc.women:23176 misc.legal:23486 alt.feminism:7722
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:09:56 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:

> i am very curious to know how all of you think child custody
> cases should be decided.  you are constantly complaining 
> about how men don't get custody frequently enough, and 
> claiming that it is because of sexual discrimination.  

You ask a question which has been discussed pretty extensively over the 
years, Peggy. Statistical information, personal case histories, inputs
from Federal and State Organizations have been cited, ad nauseum. 

> what should be the factors in making this decision?  what
> are judges/mediators/lawyers not doing/doing now that should
> be changed?  

We know that the current circumstances involve standards --either by
income shares, national tables, or both, and they don't come close
to reflecting equity between the parents either in terms of support
amounts and or custody and visitation. It is the belief of many, and
I include myself among them, that support, custody, and/or visitation
should be decided wholly on a specific individual need basis that
reflects the individual family, a recognized need for both parents
to significantly participate in the child(ren's) life, and presump-
tions which contain no 'traditionalist' gender values. (* the wife
belonged at home, daddy out at work).

> -who also wants to know if you are a legal scholar or not, 
> and have ever been through a custody "battle" (they all 
> aren't, you know) either as a child or parent...

There are a wide range of expertises available here. We have people 
from Legislative Advisory Committees, Lawyers, Guardians ad Litem,
Social Services Workers, and 'plain folk' who've been through the
system in one capacity or another.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:49:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <93027.141620RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <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.

  But that's a bad analogy.  A more correct one would involve just
  a dead body and you claiming that it was murdered.  And a dead 
  body with no other information is not prima facie evidence of
  murder.

  As I was explaining to the other poster who was using an analogy
  to arrests for loitering and whites being released, that's got
  2 independent variables, as does YOURS (a body and a man with
  a gun - either can be present or absent independently of the
  other).   But just citing the percentage of custody awards
  going to men in the absence of other data such as what % were
  contested or the relative merits of the parties, is a ONE
  variable system and it's almost impossible to draw any
  inferences about cause and effect from ONE variable.
                        

---peter



PS --   Look, I've had years of debating experience so maybe this
  colors my views, but really -- Usenet is basically a debating forum
  and there are right and wrong ways to construct compelling 
  arguments or support a point.  If you're going to use things like
  analogies, learn to set them up correctly!  If you're going 
  to employ statistics learn something about that topic.  If
  you're going to create a logical chain of reasoning, learn
  how to do that correctly (this last point is not directed at 
  this poster, it's just a general one that I find I have to 
  explain frequently).    

  Reasonable men may disagree, a given set of data may not
  always have a clear explanation, and I'm just as capable
  of being wrong as anyone else.  But it is dismaying how
  poor the quality of the THINKING often is on Usenet.
  One of the most important functions of a college education
  is not to teach *facts* in history, science, or whatever.
  But rather it is to teach people HOW TO THINK, that is,
  how to take a body of information or a problem and analyze
  it to draw inferences, conclusions, or questions from it.  

  

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:30:49 GMT

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?

I know it's futile trying to discuss actual case law with you, Aaron,
but other readers may be interested in knowing the answer to your
question, which I take to be "Does this statistic prove that men are
denied equal protection as guaranteed under the 14th amendment?"

The answer is no, the numbers by themselves are not dispositive.  As I
wrote in a related context last month:

=====
Newsgroups: misc.legal
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Assessing Governmental Interest
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:21:16 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <4f0l02uU2fIm01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com sez:
>For example, if a government passes a law which treats people differently 
>based on race, the law will be struck down as violative of the Equal 
>Protection clause of the 14th Amendment unless the government can show that 
>it (the government) had a compelling governmental interest, and that the 
>regulation was necessary to acheiving that interest.

Point of clarification: this is trivially true if the law on its face
distinguishes on a racial basis.  If, however, a facially neutral law
"treats people differently" in that it affects one racial group more
adversely than another, strict scrutiny may or may not apply.  See
Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976).

Example: Assume that members of a racial group are disproportionately
likely to use public transit.  A significant fare hike has the effect
of "treat[ing] people differently based on race", but is probably not
EP-violative. 

Terry already knew all this, I'm certain; I just thought a gloss on
the "disparate impact" doctrine would be useful given his phrasing.

===========end insert

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.


-- 
They told me you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:07:44 GMT
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article 27278@cbnewsk.cb.att.com, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>In article <qy4ZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>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.
>
>
>Men are dissuaded from pursuing custody, even joint custody, both by
>court officials and their own attorneys.  Attorneys are not willing to
>fight for something they cannot deliver.  Most men do NOT have the
>money to pay for an expensive court battle to merely achieve what they
>should be awarded by default.  For a comprehensive analysis of the
>reality of the custody situation, based on one of the most thorough
>studies ever conducted on this topic (which discusses this phenomenon),
>see
>
>"Dividing the Child:  Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody"
>by Mnookin and Maccoby
> 
>ISBN:  0-674-21294-0
>Harvard Press
>
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 



 To quote my attorney regarding the probability of men winning custody;

  "Unless you have pictures of your wife sticking dildos full of cocaine
   up your children's ass, you don't have a snowball chance in hell of
   winning custody."



 Attorney's are known as 'counselors'. They advise. Give wise legal
advice based on experience.

 

 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Sexual Discrimination
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:57:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.085757.6320@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>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?

I just noticed that you're comparing apples and oranges.  Not all
divorces are litigated before judges and referees.  It could very
well be the case that in 75% of divorces, the parents agree to grant
the mother custody, in 5% of divorces, the parents agree to grant the
father custody, and the other 20% goes before a judge for a 50/50
split.  It's certainly the case that custody battles are the exception,
and not the rule.

Aaron's solution, apparentally, would be to require parents to go to
court and have a judge flip a coin to get his desired 50% quota.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Subject: Peggy Boucher Murphy's question about custody.
Followup-To: Sexual Discrimination
Reply-To: boe@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Robert Boeninger)
Organization: SLAC
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:51:13 GMT


Peggy Boucher Murphy posted an inquiry concerning how people feel custody
decisions should be handled differently, better than they are now.
Here are my very partial thoughts, which I have already posted here earlier:

I am not a legal scholar.

I have not been through custody "battle", because, as has been pointed out
here many times in general, my lawyer also advised me against doing so because
of the unliklihood of success.

I believe the courts should consider much more seriously than hitherto the
tremendous injustice that is involved in granting almost total custody to 
only one parent to the detriment of the other parent, and perhaps of the kids.
The custodial parent should at the very least be willing to pay a certain 
price for the privilege of having been granted custody.  This price could 
consist, e.g., of being obligated to rapidly assume a larger share of the 
financial burden of the family support, after an initial period of financial 
assistance from the NCP.  Maybe some other form of compensation could be 
worked out.  What seems to me to be happening now is that the courts
usually allocate full custody to one of the parents and simply ignore the
emotional needs of the NCP in this regard.  Instead, a long-term state of 
indenture is imposed on the NCP.  It should, in my view, be a very short-term
state.
Just my two cents' worth.


Thanks, Bob Boeninger

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal,alt.feminism
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Sex Discrimination in Divorce
Keywords: custody
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:26:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.170827.8963@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> 
>      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%
                                          Oops! mis-type.  should be 0.4%
> 
> 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.
     It is in the guidelines that the minimum child support should be $25,
     so we have clear bias with regard to no support order.
> 
> What other data do we need?
> 
> What is the constitutional argument(s) on which the claim can be made?
> Due process?  Equal protection?

    How would the following argument fly? 
    Since there is no fault in the divorce, (assuming no abuse,etc) it
    should be the duty of the court to preserve the parental rights
    post-divorce as closely as possible to those that existed
    pre-divorce.  (After all the parents are divorcing each other,
    not their children.)
    Thus, absent fault, it is unreasonable to take any rights away from
    any parent unless it can be shown necessary for the sake of the 
    child.  Therefore, a minimum of joint legal custody should be
    awarded.  Further, it should be the duty of the court to maintain
    physical custody to as close a situation as pre-divorce as possible
    allowing for the fact that there are now two separate households.

Thus to award custody solely to one parent, in the absence of cause,
is demonstration, prima facie, of discrimination.

David Garrod
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women,misc.legal