HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Baby sitter versus Foster parent
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:11:25 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Dec14.182239.6215@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>Here we go, having to define terms for the mentally challenged....
>
>Baby sitter -  a person who is hired to take occasional care of a child.
>Someone who either comes to your home or keeps the child at their home,
>usually while you work or while you are out for the evening.
>
>Foster parent -  Someone who, while not being the actual parent, is paid
>a set sum by the county to take the child into their home and treat them
>as if they were their own child.  
>
>NOW do you see the difference?
>
>Sue

	My previous "P.S." which was misdirected, and for which I
	was taken to task, was actually meant for you.

	your ignorance about various subjects coupled with your
	bleeding heart attitudes is reflected in the anal retentive
	posture of your posts.

	Had you been a "netter" long enough, you'd realize that
	splitting hairs over word definitions gets everyone
	nowhere.  This is not an english class, and if people
	cannot expect their posts to be read with a little
	"poetic license" (andother phrase for you to tear
	apart) then we'd all have to write books to convey
	simple thoughts.

	furthurmore, people who have nothing to say wind up
	wasting peoples time with word games.

	Lastly, I can prommise that your above definitions are
	not from the dictionary.  And just because there may be
	slight differences, the function of each is similar.
	They get paid to watch someone elses kids.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,soc.men,soc.women
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Baby sitter versus Foster parent
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:22:39 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


Here we go, having to define terms for the mentally challenged....

Baby sitter -  a person who is hired to take occasional care of a child.
Someone who either comes to your home or keeps the child at their home,
usually while you work or while you are out for the evening.

Foster parent -  Someone who, while not being the actual parent, is paid
a set sum by the county to take the child into their home and treat them
as if they were their own child.  

NOW do you see the difference?

Sue
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3988 alt.dads-rights:2983 misc.legal:21409
From: murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
Subject: Re: December FACE Newsletter
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:03:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


   I don't wish to sound like I'm carping, and I certainly don't want to
criticize FACE, after all they have a much more effective organization
than anything we have in Massachusetts ( including contact info for real
attorneys ), but I found the article 'Finding an Attorney' in the December 
newsletter a massive disappointment.

   Perhaps I got my hopes up at the title, because it touches on a subject 
I've mentioned here several times over the last few months.  But I've got 
to ask, did anybody out there who read this article come away with any 
better idea of HOW to find a good attorney than they had before reading it?

   After only a short exposure to the legal system I find entirely credible 
the author's findings that, "...ninety-nine percent of the attorneys ARE 
NOT qualified to practice domestic or juvenile relations law."  But the 
article purports to be about 'Finding an Attorney'.  Are we given any
substantive advice about how to find a member of that elusive 1%?  IMO
we are not.

   In fact the article comes back to the theme of the title only in the
last paragraph with, 'There are materials available from various groups 
on "How to Choose an Attorney." '  Not only does this article NOT tell
us anything about 'Finding an Attorney', it doesn't even tell us about
these groups that supposedly can.

   Again, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm being overly critical, but I keep
asking myself, 'Can't we do better than this?'

                                       Gerry Murphy
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.000558.23975@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
>In article <Bz0FLv.CMy@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>On the other hand, you seem to ignore the beginning of this
>>thread entirely, a position which I can only see as "spiteful bullshit"
>>against those who don't agree with you.  Perhaps you missed:
>
>Given the lack of attribution (it certainly isn't Lisa), what follows is
>worthless.
>
>>#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.
>>#I don't know what the father's choice was in this story, or if
>>#he even had a choice.  The mother, by her own admission, was a "mess,"
>>#and she had her daughter live in a trailer in order to keep a pony.

Then clearly you missed the beginning of the thread.


>The father's "choice" was simple - pay his child support. He elected not to.

In your clearly biased opinion.  Perhaps the choice was more complicated:
pay for luxuries beyond the basic upkeep of a child without having
any say in the matter (other than what your daughter "grants" him).


>>If Lisa starts with a one-sided and *incomplete* story including 
>>a complaint about having to give up a pony because child support
>>didn't come, I don't know where you get off accusing others of 
>>"spiteful bullshit."
>
>The pony was a small, financially insignifcant, part of the story, and I
>suspect you've again missed the whole point of her discussing the pony in
>the first place.

No, you've missed the point of objecting to the pony.

If 10% of what she said is true, then she has a sympathetic and
compelling story.  There's no need to claim that the ex should pay
for luxuries, though, and it really detracts from her situation
for anyone to say that he should.

>Lisa has _never_ done that - she has sacrificed quite literally everything
>she ever owned to provide for her daughters - everything. "Luxuries" never
>entered into the equation.

With a categorical "never," you imply that you think a pony is
not a luxury.  When you include the pony in the equation, you get
a story that seems more like, "Lisa sacrificed everything -- including
money she didn't earn -- and in part, to pay for luxuries for her daughters."
Back to square one.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:23:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.113844.6177@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>> 	This may be true.  But therein lies the inequity of the
>> 	system and lack of understanding on your part.
>> 
>> 	If a *mother* is proved to be unfit, she can abandon
>> 	her child(ren) at any time.  They are wards of the state.
>> 	No one FORCES her to be a mother.  no one FORCES her
>> 	to pay child support.  Can the same be said for this man?
>> 	If he is not playing with a full deck and wants out,
>> 	why is that any different than an unfit mother?
>> 
>
>In THIS state, she can and will be assessed for child support, the same
>as any man.  See the Child Support Worksheet I posted.  In Mike's case,
>his mother is mentally ill and on welfare.  If she were not, she would
>have been assessed a portion of the child support, the same as his father.
>
>Sue


	Somehow I wonder what the difference between the "letter", and
	"implementation" of the law is.

	In most cases of divorce, for example, NCP women are ordered
	to pay considerably less money than an NCP father.  And it
	seems to be enforced very leniently.

	I imagine that even in the few cases where "the letter" of the
	law states something like that, it's very seldom (or weakly)
	enforced.  And I'd be amazed to hear of a mother going to
	jail for not paying.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Subject: Re: CP, NCP, FP
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:48:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.084340.6211@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>And you refused to answer my challenge.  Well?  Can YOU provide a home
>for an active and growing teenaged boy for that amount?

I dunno what Don can provide for $300./month, but I kept records in Quicken
to track the cost of our teenage foster son.  I figured his cost to us
as not only direct expenses but increases in groceries, utilities,
etc. as compared to the year before he moved in.

I figure it cost us about $200 per month extra to have him with us.
And yes, he was healthy, active, etc. (he still is, but now he's
living away, in a college dorm).

I might note that I had a wish to parent and so his presence satisfied
my needs as well as his.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: CP, NCP, FP
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:26:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.084340.6211@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>In article <Bz6HBA.IBp@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec12.114818.6197@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>> 
>>>As for profiting from the $300 a month that my husband and I receive,
>>>I challenge either Alan OR the Beav to provide a home, allowance, clothing,
>>>transportation, food, etc. for a teenaged boy and have anything left over
>>>out of that amount.
>> 
>> Ms. Bishop, BA, FP (and whatever else):
>> 
>> Please take the chip off your shoulder long enough to remember 
>> that it was *you* who claimed that *you* use part of the $300 
>> from the [what? "NFP", now?] to pay for a vacation in Florida.
>
>And you refused to answer my challenge.  Well?  Can YOU provide a home
>for an active and growing teenaged boy for that amount?

Sue replaces a chip on her shoulder with a block on her shoulder.

To answer your question:  I guess we'll find out in 12 years.

On the other hand, $3600 might not suffice for a trip to Florida in 2004,
especially with a hungry teenager.  :-(

(By the way, use $50 of $300/month to invest in a trip, and you get 
$600/year for vacation money -- if YOU yourself decide to budget part
of it that way, as YOU yourself claimed.)


>Why are you afraid to answer the question?

Actually, if you look at your original paragraph, you didn't ask one.

Don
DISCLAIMER:  Sue Bishop leaves my .sig at the end of her postings,
despite my explicit request that she not do so.
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: Ken.Pangborn@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Ken Pangborn)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Ex-wife getting more.
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 92 08:27:11 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/20 - Mercury Opus NEC360, St Petersburg FL

APMJ>In California, if an NCP remarries the court *can* take the new
APMJ>spouse's income into account [for that matter, it doesn't have to be a
APMJ>spouse, just someone else living in the house with the NCP], but it 
APMJ>is not counted as direct income. In otherwords, if the NCP makes 
APMJ>$50k per year, and the new spouse makes $25k per year, the court 
APMJ>doesn't consider that there is a total income of $75k per year. Instead, 
APMJ>what the court *can* do is to consider that the new spouse's income is 
APMJ>available to help cover the NCPs expenses [i.e. rent] and thus to 
APMJ>free up more of the NCP's income for child support.

        Didja ever wonder WHY when the CP remaries that the courts don't
consider the income of the new spouse to REDUCE the support? Seems that
the math only works one way.

APMJ>I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality 
APMJ>Exchange.

        What is that group all about? Never heard of it.

APMJ>Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous 

        What city are you in?
 * SLMR 1.05 * If you can't make it right, make it loud

--  
Internet: Ken.Pangborn@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP:     ...!myrddin!tct!mechanic!20!Ken.Pangborn
Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between USENET & FIdonet.
      For information write to chief@mechanic.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: alt.child-support,alt.dads-rights,misc.legal
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: There must be a way
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:36:44 GMT

In article <267.2B285921@mechanic.Fidonet.org> Ken.Pangborn@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Ken Pangborn) writes:
>Internet: Ken.Pangborn@f20.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
>UUCP:     ...!myrddin!tct!mechanic!20!Ken.Pangborn
>Note: Mechanic is a free gateway between USENET & FIdonet.
>      For information write to chief@mechanic.fidonet.org
>

Well, folks, just to let you know, I am assuming that this is from THE
Ken Pangborn, the president of the National Congress for Men.  Someone
correct me if I am wrong.

I have encouraged, in the last year, as many of the leaders of national
organizations to get access to these forums as possible.  It is a very
effective way of diseminating and distributing information that can be
used by people locally and at the national level.  Among those I've
contacted and encouraged to get Internet and USENET access are Jennifer
Isham, president of Mother's WithOut Custody, Kim Hart, director of the 
Child Abuse Defense and Resource Center, Andy Cverko, Ohio president of
CAPRA, a subsidiary of the Children's Right Council, Brad Johnson, the
state representative for fathers on the committee to re-assess child
support guidelines for Ohio, Dr. Graham Jeambey, president of Victims Of
Child Abuse Laws, and through third-parties, David Levy, president of the
Children's Rights Council, James Cook, Sunny Burmeister and others.  And
then, out of the blue, one of the leaders just "shows up" in our midst.

Mr. Pangborn, welcome to these forums.  I'm sure you will have much to
contribute and I hope that you quickly find out what we are up to.  We
are not only unloading, we are acting constructively, trying to help
out those that need help, distribute information and archive important
documents.

I hope that you are willing, as Dr. David Garrod, the president of the
Indiana Children's Right Council, has been, to post some of your
writings and articles ad keep us informed about what your group is
working on.  

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: bugs@netsys.com (Mark Hittinger)
Subject: Re: Pony Support (was Re: child support problems)
Organization: Netsys Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:31:43 GMT

shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

>Perhaps if the issues can be separated out, and addressed separately,
>we'll get some where.

Ah!  An engineer is someone who busts a complex problem into smaller pieces
that can be easily solved.  A politician is someone who combines a bunch of
small problems into one big mess that nobody can solve.

Anne - I had thought lawyers were more politicians than engineers - you
just shook up my model.

Seriously - this is the way to do it.  Bust it up into pieces and deal 
with them one at a time.

So maybe we need legal engineers.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: child support problems
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:55:10 GMT

<1992Dec09.234331.23187@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
><Bz0Ewx.BzI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec09.171830.14795@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>>>Lisa couldn't afford a trip to Alberta, let alone Florida, with or without
>>>child support. She has had a very difficult time surviving, and has, under
>>>the circumstances, done a fantastic job.
>
>>Yes, but her comrade-in-arms, Sue Bishop, has said she uses
>>part of the support money for her foster son to take a family
>>vacation in Florida.
>
>Excuse me, old son, but I'm going to repeat my suggestion that you consider
>a remedial reading course - cleary you experience some difficulty knowing
>not only who the players are, but what games they are playing. Lisa doesn't
>have a foster son, and wouldn't go to Florida on a bet (no offense intended
>to all those Canadians escaping winter). That being the case, and since you
>seem bent on proclaiming this Pick on Lisa Week, I respectfully suggest you
>drop the Florida trip from your rucksack and get back to reality.

With all due respect, I suggest you consider reading the thread.
Then you might understand the pronouns.  Sue Bishop has a foster son 
whom she takes to a condo in Florida.  That's what I wrote, and if
you misunderstood, it can only be evidence of your jumping in late.

>Sue's situation is just that - Sue's situation. What she does or does not do
>(i.e. trip to Florida) has absolutely no relevance in the matter of Graham
>vrs. Graham.

It does, in the context of a discussion whether luxuries should be paid
for by child support.

>If anything,
>she has bent over backwards to be _fair_ here - something I wouldn't do.

Yes, this does seem apparent to me.  (Both parts.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: hrybyk@netcom.ubc.ca (Michael Hrybyk)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: I HAD NO CHOICE ( was: Biological reaso
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:26:33 GMT
Organization: Univ. of British Columbia - Central Networking
Distribution: world
Reply-To: hrybyk@netcom.ubc.ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: poplar.netcom.ubc.ca

In article 10313@ccd.harris.com, mba@controls.ccd.harris.com (Belinda Asbell) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec11.144451.8946@bmw.mayo.edu>, bmc@mayo.edu (Bruce Cameron) writes:
>
>|> Last time I looked, the 1040 (as well as applications for loans & credit
>|> applications) ask about other sources of income, on of which is child support
>|> payments. I also believe that you can take a deduction of a minor that does
>|> not reside with you if you contribute some given dollar amount towards that
>|> child's support. However, since I look at tax forms once a year, this is
>|> from a hazy memory and I am willing to accept that I may be off-base on
>|> this. Anyone know the actual IRS code on this?
>
>Actually, the *custodial parent* is considered to have paid half of the upkeep of
>the child (even if they don't), and thus gets to claim the kid.  In order for a 

I believe the rule is based on the amount of time spent in the household. The parent
that has the children > 50% of the year gets the deduction. This effectively
means that CPs always get the deduction, independent of support levels. If the
CP agrees to sign away the deduction using the proper IRS form, the NCP can
obtain the tax break. But how many sane CPs would do that? 

This underlines yet another instance of discrimination against NCPs. If the NCP
dutifully pays child support (in most cases, constituting well over 50% of the actual
cost of caring for the children), s/he does not get the tax break that s/he would
in a normal family situation. 

My ex claims $0 income, and my award is set such that I (dutifully and ontime)
pay 100% of the children's expenses, as determined by formula. Yet my ex
gets the federal (and therefore state) exemptions. [NB: she is remarried, and
files jointly, so the exemptions offset the new spouse's income]

Responsible NCPs are de facto punished and blamed; irresponsible NCPs are just that, and often evade the law. We need to catch the crooks, but stop handcuffing the NCPs who do live up to obligations. The situation is ridiculous.

Mike Hrybyk

PS: To arnie and the folks at MD Father's United - I've moved to BC - hello!
    
PPS: Does anyone know of similar groups in the Vancouver area?



Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan)
Subject: Re: Child support problems
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:36:14 GMT

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.184510.15385@infonode.ingr.com> morgana@infonode.ingr.com (Angela Morgan) writes:
>>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>
>>>Yes, I can see this at times with Mike.  But I have encouraged him to
>>>visit his mother, I have developed a good relationship with her and that
>>>end of the whole situation is working well.
>>>I would have liked to have done the same with Mike's father, but that
>>>was impossible.
>>
>>Why is Mike's mother not required to share the responsiblity of making
>>support payments?
>>
>>(Please excuse me if I missed something previously which would explain
>>this.  The thread has been quite long....)
>>
>>--angela


>	P.S.  You know, it's seeming to me more & more that you really
>	have no  clue about any of this.  You are just as ignorant
>	as the majority of the population, filled with idealistic
>	notions that are unsupported.

>	Again & again.

>-- 
>	Alan Yasutovich
>	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
>	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
>	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......

Alan,

Are you talking to *me*?

If you're not:  It sure looks like you are, so please try to make it
clearer to whom you're talking.

If you are:  You don't know what the hell you're talking about, since
I'm an NCP who has been raked over the coals just like all you men,
and I pay a very large amount of child support to my ex, just as much
as any man would have to pay.

Here in Alabama, at least, the NCP contribution is calculated based on
a set of tables which is *exactly* the same whether the NCP is male
or female.

Which is as it should be.  The laws are unfair, of course, but fair or
not, the laws should apply equally to males and females alike.  And if
changes in the laws are ever effected (to make them more fair), these
changes should also apply equally to all NCPs, whether male or female.

I believe that the mother should bear financial responsibility for the
children just as the father does.  I realize that the law and the courts
do not make this happen in a lot of places.  However, based on my
personal experience, I can tell you that it *does* happen, and probably
a lot more often than some of you think.

--angela