From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 22 Dec 92 10:53:06 CST

In article 1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

>>	Further, in those cases where it is impossible for split custody to
>>	work that the CP must provide an >itemized< accounting of all funds
>>	spent on supporting the child; those spent in excess of 50% of the 
>>	cost of support to be refunded to the NCP immediately under penalty
>>	of law.
>
>This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
>Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the 
>CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
>presents, or a bicycle, etc.
>

  You are wrong because your premise is seriously dumb. 

  To presume that the CP should be using a portion of the NCPs funds for
a college fund is idiotic. It's child support, not college money. 

 You presume that the NCP is a no good ass who WOULDN"T consider his children's
future. Therefore, child support includes bicycles, college tuition and 
prom tux's because you presume a NCP would not help his children. This 
presumption is contemptable, sick and just plain sexist (to use a feminista
phrase). The state has "bought" into this sick mentality that presumes
men to be evil and women as helpless victims. This presumption is sick.
It is also a stereotype that feminists' continue to foster so that a 
disportionate share of society's resources are channeled to a gender
for their own blundering plight.

 My ex and I shared part ownership in a run down fourplex in worn out
south Minneapolis. The city offered to purchase the fourplex. We had to
agree to the sale (price, terms, conditions) etc. I sent a letter to 
her attorney requesting that I would agree to the sale ONLY if the proceeds
went into a trust to be handled by ANY attorney of her choosing. This
trust could only be used by the children for tuition, NOT books, NOT cars,
NOT stereos, NOT field trips, NOT room and board. Tuition only. If the
children do not choose college or any post secondary education (tech
schools, jr. colleges, music acadamys), the money will be equally aportioned
to the children on their 25th birthday. They would NOT receive a lump
of cash to blow at the ripe old wise age of 18 OR 21. 

 The EX rejected my offer. My guess, and it is only w.a.g. on my part, but
I believe her attorney was looking for HER lump sum payment. 

 Well honey. I'm going to show my kids where MY heart and head was at back in 
1989. I'm also going to tell my little ones when they come running to me
for "who knows what" that they should go runnin' to momma and kindly ask
her where my $147,000.00 in child support went? Sorry kids. I can't do
nothing for ya now. Your momma blew it, blew it big time. 

  I asked the judge when he was perusing my tax returns (not her paycheck honey)
for more child support WHY momma rejected a perfectly good offer from 
me but is now pursuing more child support. He didn't know or care. 

Listen Michal, this boy is sick of supporting "false" victims. Namely
women.



Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix