HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Bishop Flames (Re: Indiana Welfare)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:54:12 GMT

woody@rock.concert.net (Woody Muller) writes:
>Don Beaver writes:
>> I regard this group as a forum for all people, men and women, 
>> CP's and NCP's and parents and nonparents, to discuss their opinions 
>> of child support levels and enforcement-related issues.
>> 
>> If you would like to start alt.child-support.sue_and_lurkers_only,
>> be my guest.
>
>Don,
>     With all due respect, I think the recent "Pony Wars" have undermined
>the credibility of this group's charter.  There have been some pretty
>personal attacks on folks who *happen* to be in a position to spend
>the child-support dads like us pay.  And it looks a lot like *happening*
>to be a CP woman is what ticks you off toward a given poster.  
>
>     Extreme positions are not always in the best interests of potential
>parents who are trying to present themselves as "reasonable."  They
>tend to make the holders of the extreme positions look like "kooks."


Woody,

I don't hide my "extremist" opinion that CP's are immensely favored 
by the system, nor that women are immensely favored by the system.
Nor do I hide my opinion that NCP's should be permitted to pay for
luxuries on their own and should not pay indirect alimony.

"Happening to be a CP woman is what ticks you off" is pretty 
unfair of you, Woody.  Being a CP is pretty well correlated with 
being a woman.  On this group, the supporters of child-support,
family law, and enforcement tend to be the CP's, not the NCP's.

Yes, family law and its enforcement bother me.  If, coincidentally,
its supporters tend to be women CP's, then that is itself a telling
coincidence.


But let me conclude with the first pony-posting that this "kook" made:

"Frankly, I held my tongue because I don't know the details of this
 anecdote and it would sound cold to deny a little girl her pony.

 But I have to agree with Alan.  Ponies and trips to Florida
 are not part of the necessities of life."

                  Don Beaver, 30 Nov 92,  <ByIF92.CLM@cs.psu.edu>


I guess I must be a kook not to believe that the preceding and ensuing 
name-calling was a result of the extreme and offensive nature of 
these sentences.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women,talk.abortion
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal: Illegitimate-concept
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 11:34:57 CST

In article 14651@aston.ac.uk, evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran (kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1993Jan18.042845.19695@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>: 
>: In yet another example of hypocrisy, Kevin "keep government out of women's
>: bodies" Darcy proposes laws which would require every man, woman, doctor,
>: and hospital to report any sexual intercourse which resulted in pregnancy.
>
>As well as a large army of tax inspectors (who would be in a fine position
>to fiddle results).
>
>: 
>: He then goes on to propose that mandatory paternity tests be performed on
>: every live birth.
>
>Does he not think that medical people have better things to do, like looking
>after ILL people.
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
>+(44) 21 429 9199  (Home)                    |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
>+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |



 Mr. Evans, 

  In America, the feminist philosophy can best be stated by a quote 
I've seen by a gentleman on the net. It goes something like this:

     "When I do it to you it's sexism, [illegal] 
      when you do it to me it's feminism."[legal]    Hillel

 It is perfectly all right for feminists' to proclaim past discrimination,
revising history in most cases, as a reason to deny males basic civil 
rights, gender equity in family law and their undeniable desire for 
the world's all time double standard award, "affirmitive action". 

 The golden rule, 'do unto others...' doesn't fit into lifestyle. 
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:4696 alt.dads-rights:3512
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights
Subject: Biases Re: Female NCPs
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:20:03 PST
Distribution: na
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

Danielle had asked me some time ago to post a letter she had intended for
this group (et al), but had mistakenly sent to me only, via e-mail.

Sorry it took me so long to do so Danielle, but "better late than never", huh?
(eh?)  Here she is...:-)

In alt.child-support lisa writes:

> (rest deleted)

>With all due and sincere respect Danielle, I'm curious as to why you are not
>the CP in this case?

(deletions)

Lisa,

With all due and sincere respect, I wonder why you ask the question?
You will see from my response, that I have no real reason to be defensive.
It is just that I think it is important to recognize the very real bias
that exists against NCPs who happen to be female. I'll bet you rarely
ask why a guy doesn't have custody.  I think I have the same prejudice,
actually.  Before becoming an NCP I used to think any woman who did
not have custody must have been really bad.  It is not my intention
to lash out at you, but simply to point out how prevalent this
attitude is in society (and even more so in the courts).

My situation is that my ex-husband was a widower when I married him.
His kids were 5 years old and 8 years old.  They're great kids. After
a couple of years, I adopted them.  About a year later we divorced
(this had nothing to do with the adoption!).  Though it would seem
"normal" for me not to have custody given the facts (I had only
known the kids for 4-1/2 years), I had grave concerns over his
ability to cope as a single parent.  I begged him to give me custody,
and he threatened me if I fought for it.  I had every reason to believe
his threats.  I settled for seeing the kids as much as possible.  We
are very close.  I pay him child support despite the fact that he earns
much more than I do and already receives $500 per month for the kids
(tax free!) from the Social Security department due to their biological
mom's death.  I could go on and on, but I won't.

Danielle

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

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.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child supportd
Summary: Math error
	 Just about the same accuracy as your typical judge!
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:36:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.064524.6668@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> In article <20720207@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>, laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:
> > In alt.child-support, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> > 
> >> 
> >> Ohio's support seems quite reasonable to me.  It's based on both parents'
> >> income, does not exceed 20% of the total of both.  So if each is 50% of
> >> the entire total, each only contribute 10%.
> >> 
Couldn`t let this one slip by again.


Tricky one here!  Sure it`s true each parent only contributes 10%
of the total income.  But each parent in your example only receives
half of the total income.  Each contribution is STILL 20% of their
own income for one child.

David Garrod
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:45:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

> Why should the NCP pay for CP's insurance?  As far as braces and baseball 
> gloves, why should the court mandate that the NCP pay for these?  Why 
> should the NCP not be allowed to decide for themself what they want
> to contribute -- in precisely the same way that a married couple does?
> Why should the NCP not have the pleasure of voluntarily providing luxuries
> (and getting the credit for the work they put in to produce them)?

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

> Because too many NCPs refuse to pay even the basics.  


  This seems to be one of the larger problems with current orders:

	"Everyone knows NCPs are all deadbeats, so we'll set the amount
	 as high as possible to squeeze out as much as we can from the
	 NCP before he/she bails out."

Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Subject: Mea culpe
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:17:54 GMT


In an earlier post I quoted Mn statute on child support.

That quote was from my set of 1991 statutes.
In 1991 the statutes were heavily revised and my earlier posting
is no longer valid.
I will post the correct statutary language later today.

Sorry,
David Garrod
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:29:38 GMT

lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>><qyqZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes
>> >garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:

[...]

>Yes, people will survive somehow on whatever they can.  My concern is that that
>should not compute to, "Well, she's managed to get by on $400/mo. for herself
>and our children without any support from me, so I therefore deduce that she
>is not legitimately in need of any child support from me...to pay it would
>simply amount to alimony."

Yes, I agree with your caution.  (In the same way, courts should not
say, "Well, he managed to support standard of living X for her and
her children before, so he should continue now, despite having two
households.")


>I'd just as soon never see or hear from my ex again.  Still, he's the kids'
>dad, so I see him all the time.  If he had custody, I would want to contribute
>whatever child support I could, within reason (depending on our incomes, etc..),
>to ensure that he had an adequate income with which to provide a decent standard
>of living for our children.

I think you'll find this attitude from a lot of NCP's [assuming you
do mean "child support," not alimony].

The love and generosity of NCP's can be obscured by a legal system
that strips them of expressing their love through direct contact,
through decision-making powers, through directly buying necessities 
and presents (because the money is taken away first).

Would you be willing to generously and happily contribute whatever 
child support you could, if it were legally mandated -- and if the
legal levels were consistently far higher than your opinion of 
"whatever I could"?  Would you happily contribute more than
the legal requirements if you were unable to see your daughters?
If you were forced to include alimony in your child support?

It's these problems that make it appear that NCP's are irresponsible
and pay as minimally as possible -- which leads to the circular
conclusion that NCP's should be forced even more strongly to pay.


>  I'm perfectly willing to support my children and
>> am quite capable of doing so.  However, she isn't.  If it weren't for
>> my child support, she would be destitute.
>
>Right.  So maybe there's a legitimate need for child support here?

It sounds like there's a legitimate need to reduce child support
because it includes alimony.  If the father can raise the children
as well as the mother, then in the "best interests" of the children,
the mother should get a job, too, and the father should have custody,
since he is competent to handle *both*, unlike her.  

It makes more sense, in the blind "best interests"-view of the world.
Furthermore, without loss to the children (since the parents are equally 
qualified), there's no need to enforce alimony (or higher "child" support).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: ICSCAB@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: claiming fed tax exemption
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:26:00 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

If, when calculating which party is responsible for what percentage of the
children's support (as one must do in Arizona to figure the amount of
support to be paid), the father is responsible for 70% of the children's
support, should he not be entitled to claim both children as exemptions
on his tax return?  The current form from IRS says he has to plead with
the ex to get her to give him a letter so he can claim them on his tax
return.  His salary is $1500 per month while hers is $700.  Doesn't she
has to prove that she not only spent all of his $5000 in support checks on
the children, matched it with her own $5000 and exceeded that in order

to claim the children on her own return?  She does not want to give him any
of the two exemptions because she does not want to lose any of the EIC
credit on her return ($1350 credit, which would be decreased by $50 if
she gives her ex one of the two exemptions).  If the father is able to
claim one child, his tax liability will be decreased by $1000.

Doesn't he legally have a right to claim at least one of the children?
She lives in a $300 per month mortgaged home which she shares with her
male lover and his two children, plus her own.  Would she not have a hard
time proving she spent in excess of $10,000 on the support of her own

two children?  She dresses them shabbily and with clothing picked up
from outlet stores.

Any suggestions here?
post
qquit
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: CHILD support
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:27:51 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1993Jan20.162316.20776@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>In article 727494769@micro, danielle@micro.caltech.edu (Danielle Sanine) writes:
>>Just how do you equate supporting one's ex-spouse with hidden alimony
>>and the moral obligation we all have to our children?  I see NO
>>relationship.
>>
>>Danielle
>>
>
> Believe it or not, a staff member of legislator and former committee chairmanette
>of the Health and Social Services group (Linda Berglin) in the Mn legislature told
>me that child support is not equal. It is just that we are getting back
>what historically has been a man dominated world. 

You should have taped that conversation.  It would have made great fodder at
a federal sex discrimination case.  :-)

Assholes like this need to be bashed in the head this way.  I suggest that
men start carrying around their Perlcorders, just in case the need might
arise.

> The ex was feeling powerful that day. 
> The do-gooder gov. types took her seriously.
>
> It scared the hell out of me. My dislike for the system comes from experience.
>My distrust of the government is real. My disdain for feminist logic
>that is eroding every right to liberty we have. (except the right to 
>work and fork over 50% of my income to 'them') 

Now, the question is, <ARE YOU WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT>?

Carping on the net isn't going to change things.  Action will.

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Keywords: child-support, visitation
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:04:59 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:

David Garrod:
> >     There is a quid pro quo.  A father that has joint custody and
> >gets to see his children pays child support in full and on time
> >over 90% of the time. 
> >If society is not prepared to enforce a father`s rights to see his
> >children, society has no right to demand one dime of financial 
> >contribution from him.  There is a quid pro quo.
> 
> I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
> cause-and-effect relationships.  I'll stand corrected if you can
> show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.
> Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
> their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
> or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
> you to be a violent sort of person.)

Mr. Clinton has, on every occasion he has addressed family law, always
gone straight to the issues of unpaid support, and how he fully supports
even more draconian methods of enforcement. David points out the stats
that demonstrate that draconianism is simply the wrong way to go. If he
(Clinton) would concern himself with ensuring that fathers maintain a
close relationship with their kids, he would have only a small number of
NCPs that needed coercion. In other words, he's riding a bandwagon of
popular stereotype, and ignoring the long term studies.

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Keywords: child-support, visitation
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:38:05 GMT

gslars@staff.tc.umn.edu (Greg Larson) writes:
>garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>>
>>     Inaugural Address: "We must stop expecting something for
>>nothing."  W. Clinton.
>>
>>     Why is it appropriate then, Mr President, to demand child
>>support from thousands of men, without enforcing the rights
>>of the fathers to see their children?
>
>Where does he state his policy in this regard (you seem pretty
>good with quotes)?

Clinton wishes to use the following measures to enforce child support:
"a Draconian system of national child support" [his words]; 
fathers' social-security numbers on birth certificates; 
notifying credit agencies of "deadbeat dads" [his words]; 
wage garnishment; criminalization of nonpayment.

In other words, trickle-down visitation:  protect the chosen elite
and the rest will follow.


I have never heard the fatherless Clinton mention ensuring visitation 
as a method to promote support payments.  Nor have I heard him acknowledge
that poverty and unemployment are responsible for much unpaid support.
He is perceptive enough to avoid politically-costly truths.

Of course, if you have such evidence, please share it -- I'd be 
very interested, and consequently a tiny bit happier with Clinton's 
views on fathers' rights.


>I won't argue with you there, but you seem a little mixed up regarding
>cause-and-effect relationships.  I'll stand corrected if you can
>show me where Clinton supports prohibitions on father visitations.

IMHO, you're being a bit ridiculous here.


>Of course, there are cases where fathers exhibit violence against
>their wife or children, so in those cases visitations must be restricted
>or eliminated alltogether.  (And please don't infer that I suspect
>you to be a violent sort of person.)

Yes, and an equal number of women exhibit violence against their
children, so in those cases custody and visitation by women must 
be restricted or eliminated altogether, right?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: daw@cray.com (Dave Wright)
Subject: Re: Custody definitions
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:22:10 CST

In article <1993Jan23.155821.22597@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>
>
>Joint Legal Custody:
>    Both parents share in the decisions for the child, especially
>in the area of educational, medical and religious decisions.
>(It does not implying anything with regard to where the child lives.)

Around here joint legal custody is the default but all it means is;

	1) access to medical/school records
	2) CP can't move from state

THe parents never share in decisions and the CP treats the child as
exclusively theirs.

>
>David Garrod
> Thought for the day:
>"You have to have all the facts, before you jump to conclusions"
>G.H.W. Bush
>


Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.legal
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Legal Question
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:50:53 GMT

In article <1jih4vINN8h4@shelley.u.washington.edu> zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (DeadBeat) writes:
)I owe past child support.
)If I get a new job will my wages
)"automatically" get garnished?
)Or does my ex have to take some action?
)
)I'm in western Washington and she
)is in Utah where she (unlike me) has
)never received welfare.

You'll probably need to see a real attorney for real legal advice.

For general background reading, 'Father's Rights' talks about the subject
a little bit.
From: garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Something for nothing
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:50:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1k3m5kINNnmr@transfer.stratus.com>, jlivings@sw.stratus.com (Jim Livingston) writes:
> 
> In article <1993Jan26.020652.29392@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
> 
> > Yes, indeed.  In several instances there have been successful torts
> > against a mother with sole custody who repeatedly interfered with
> > the father`s right to see his children.
> > 
> 
> My divorce decree does not allow me to sue my ex-wife nor does it allow
> her to sue me.  To bad, it would be nice to be compensated for all these
> years without my daughter.
> 
    I am not an attorney, but I would be surprised if you lost your
constitutional rights by signing any piece of paper, limiting you
from suing for events that took place after the signing of the piece
of paper.  How could you know what would happen in the future?
Informed consent does not exist in such circumstances, unless the
ex warned you that she would violate your constitutional rights to
visitation.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:09:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.171200.13092@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:

>In article 20720206@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM, laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi) writes:

>>> > In article <1993Jan6.122354.6441@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:


>>> > [ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
>>> > [                      longer life through colder blood                       ]


other than the fact that leaving people's sigs in you followup is a waste of
bandwidth, leaving the wrong people's .sigs in is even worse.

please be a bit more careful in your editing.

-- 
[ Jim Mercer   Reptilian Research  merce@iguana.reptiles.org  +1 416-506-0654 ]
[                      longer life through colder blood                       ]