From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:07:50 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <BzMDI4.Fvt@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Dec20.085201.6296@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>{_In article <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
> 
>>> 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.
>>
>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a 
>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>of THEIR precious funds.
> 
> Who's Bob?
> 
> 
>>And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
>>of their position.
> 
> "Fairly accurate?"  Apart from your inability to distinguish
> three-letter names...  Child-related emergencies can be covered 
> by insurance (provided by the NCP!) -- or will you now say that
> a CP might have to buy an emergency bicycle or pony or condo in Florida?
> 

Sorry, my mild dyslexia got control of my fingers.....   Sigh, you have
a real problem about the pony, what *IS* it with you?  

> 
> In Pennsylvania, a NCP is not obligated to pay for college.
> Thus, even the *law*, which you so religiously like to invoke,
> says that college is not a basic need.
> 
> There should be no LEGAL obligation to pay for college or to
> pay child support that includes money to be saved for college.
> Married parents are not legally required to pay for college.
> 

Did I say that the NCP should have to pay for college?  

> Are you going to pay for your foster son's college education 
> all by yourselves, Sue?

Nope, nor my birth sons either.  They can work their way through college
just like my husband and I did.  They know that, I've told them, either
they get good enough grades for scholarships or they work and go to school.
Actually, of the three, I only see one of them going to college, my youngest
son.  He's the only good student of the three.  In fact, he told me the
other day, he's planning on MIT or Stanford, which ever offer him the
best scholarship.   He's only 13 so has a way to go yet.  But plans to
graduate highschool at 16.  He can do it, he's already taking HS level
classes and is bored with them.

> 
> I'm going to, for my kids.  That's the only reason I could imagine 
> to call my money "precious."  And what better reason is there to make
> sure that nobody is required to spend ANY part of such money on 
> Florida condos instead of on a college education?

Don, don, don...... I've told you repeatedly about the condo.  It's really
none of your business how I spend my income.  And why you are SO obsessed
about it is really strange to me; you seem to have such a problem about me
having a foster child, too.  Seems that you have so much hate and hostility
in you, it's sad.  And I feel very sorry for your kids.  If you are this
nasty on the net, I bet you are a real psycho in person.
You have been so incredibly hostile to Lisa who was only trying to keep a
home together for her kids, you've bitched on and ON and *ON* because my
family (including my foster son) are taking a vacation.  I really wonder 
about you and why you have such problems......  Ever thought of counciling?

Sue

> 
> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights