HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dirbze@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: another shooting
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:36:04 MST

In article <Bw7t8G.H3L@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.193530.26489@ll.mit.edu> yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>In article <f+3z!rl@rpi.edu> liberk@rpi.edu writes:
>>>	Just heard on the radio that a man shot and killed 5 people in the
>>>Watkins Cty Social Services Office. This is located in upper New York state.
>>
>>	What happens to these guys?  Do they get locked up and
>>	throw away the key (so they can't pay anymore) or do
>>	they get some kind of temporary insanity thing going?
> 
> (Were you referring to the lawyers or the shooters?  :-)

Well, in this case the shooter is one of the five dead.... and I don't think
[haven't heard any mention] the lawyer(s) were anywhere around...

Rick Sorensen
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,alt.dads-rights
From: zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Reply-To: zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:33:05 GMT

I wrote:
   "The real way to stop dad-kid-divorce abuse is to bring it above ground
   -- MAKE IT LEGAL [MAKE IT NO-FAULT]
   -- and advertise against dad-kid-divorce  =ABUSE= (NOT use)."

Shankar Unni replied:
> Drug abuse [is] in the purview of one adult, or
> two consenting adults.  "Dad-kid divorce" is *NOT* - there's one
> helpless, unwilling and definitely non-consensual party involved.

The child should be taken care of -- BUT NOT BY SOMEONE WHO
DOESN'T WANT HIM.  Children can and will be taken care of
despite (or rather "due to") dad-kid-divorce.

> Almost by definition, the problem of supporting kids in a divorce is
> nearly insoluble.  Support of the child is a joint responsibility, and
> is not something that can be easily achieved when the parents are
> going their own ways and (often) have it in for each other.

It is only "insoluble" because people like you wish it that way.
Raising a child is NOT a joint responsibility -- only Bush`s
family police would say that.  The person or persons who
most want to raise the kids should be granted that MOST
COVETED RIGHT.

> "Easy" solutions, like the ones being bandied around here ("Dad-kid
> divorce" indeed!) . . . are unworkable.

It's totally workable -- it's best for EVERYONE.
If you hate "easy things" then run off somewhere and
play with yourself -- but don't inflict your "hard things"
on others.

> Solomon himself would be hard put to solve this one in these days of
> deadbeat dads and child-abuse cross-allegations.  Chances are, if he
> brought out the sword, both parents would rather the kid be halved
> than let the other have it.

Solomon IS the answer to today`s sick legislation.
The one who said "let the child be halved" (Mr Fathers-Rights) 
was the one who king Solomon DENIED custody to.  The courts NEVER
NEVER split the child in half.  They always grant
"Primary Custody" to =ONE PERSON=. Even the biggest dolt
knows that there must be only ONE person with "Primary Custody".

> Certainly *I* have no easy solutions to what is a giant national
> tragedy.  I do have long laments on the alarming rise in the divorce
> rate, and the totally casual attitude that most Americans have towards
> divorce . . .

It's easy to not war against Russia -- we hate easy things
beacuse we LOVE WAR.
NO FAULT DIVORCE -- even for dad-kid-divorce -- IS WONDERFUL.
It's wonderful for the dad, the mom, the society and the kid.
You can't wage war against forced-fathers and expect anyone
to win.  Forced-fathers join the underground and they regularly
kidnap and kill their kids -- ALL BECAUSE YOU LOVE TO WAR --
YOU LOVE TO WAR AGAINST FORCED-FATHERS.

GO PLAY WITH YOURSELF AND LEAVE THE FORCED-FATHERS ALONE!
GRANT FORCED-FATHERS NO-FAULT-DAD-KID-DIVORCE.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding chi
Reply-To: sga@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:51:04 CDT

In article 10257@galileo.cc.rochester.edu, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (John Kolassa) writes:
>
>May I remind you that alimony is not the same as child support?  The
>bluring of the distinction, and the assumption that it's only moms
>that do or should get custody and the assumption that all deadbeat
>parents are fathers are two of the things that made my election choice
>clear.
May I remind you that it is the party currently holding the Presidency that
has created the problem with bankrupt economic and social policies.  Clinton
is responding like any good politician who wants to be elected.  He is reading
the political climate and issuing statements accordingly.  It is the "Family
Values" far-right religious minority that have created this atmosphere.  Lets
get rid of them first, and then deal with the problems they have created.  As
long as they are in control, nothing useful can be done.

Steve Anderson
sga@cray.com



From: laszlo@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Laszlo Nobi)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:54:04 GMT
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.child-support

In alt.child-support, shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:

> In a recent missive seeker@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karen Lynn White) tells us:
> *
> *
> *In article <1992Sep30.043039.26375@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> *
> *Since you are using Indiana as an example I wonder if your example is
> *true anywhere - in practice.
> 
> Yes, it is true in practice in some places [although I can't speak to
> Indiana... Dale?]  Last I checked, the requirement that an NCP *must*
> pay for college for their children was alive and well in, among other
> places, Washington and New York.

Child support guidelines in Colorado provide for the court to order the ncp
to share college expenses IN PROPORTION TO INCOMES!!!!!  That means, that
my kid can decide to go to Harvard, or wherever, and I could be held
responsible for about 80% of the bill. I don't know if this is actually
ever used in practice though... 

> 
> I agree with Aaron that this is a heinous and indefensible law..I have
> long said that such a law will be my first constitutional case [i.e. I
> believe that such a law is unconstitutional and must be challenged].

I agree completely.   In an intact family, each parent has the choice of
whether or not to contribute to college expenses, and how much.  I am
perfectly willing to discuss this with my kids and help them as much as
possible, but it really PISSES ME OFF that the state tells me I HAVE TO
contribute- and how much.  This must be challenged......go for it!!

Laszlo

> 
> 
> -- 
>    LOOKING FOR:  David Widdicombe, Hobson Woodward, Lorna Taylor & JJ Lancey
> I am: Anne Mitchell, mom, & founder of the Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange
> Ask me about FREE!  FREE files available via anonymous ftp 128.45.1.1; dir /pub
> 			DE STELLA MARTIS VERE VENISTI
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Recent Bill Clinton quote regarding chi
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:58:05 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

sga@cray.com (Steven G. Anderson) writes:

> In article 10257@galileo.cc.rochester.edu, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu (Jo
> >
> >May I remind you that alimony is not the same as child support?  The
> >bluring of the distinction, and the assumption that it's only moms
> >that do or should get custody and the assumption that all deadbeat
> >parents are fathers are two of the things that made my election choice
> >clear.
> May I remind you that it is the party currently holding the Presidency that
> has created the problem with bankrupt economic and social policies.  Clinton
> is responding like any good politician who wants to be elected.  He is readin
> the political climate and issuing statements accordingly.  It is the "Family
> Values" far-right religious minority that have created this atmosphere.  Lets
> get rid of them first, and then deal with the problems they have created.  As
> long as they are in control, nothing useful can be done.

There are always going to be people who have opinions. Some of them will have
power, and some won't. What we need to get rid of is candidates who respond
to lobby groups instead of the majority they wish to serve. 

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
From: murf@tekgen.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Jim Murphy;627-2266;50-453)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: CS laws in Oregon (was Re: What a Problem!!!)
Keywords: time limits, obligations
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:05:42 GMT
Distribution: usa


In Oregon, child support continues until the child reaches age 18.  If s/he
remains in school, the support obligation continues until age 21.

I'm no lawyer, but that is the what mine told me.  My daughter started college
this fall.  She turns 18 in February.  I'm asking for copies of registration
and grades to verify that she is indeed attending school.

Jim Murphy
jim.murphy@tek.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Subject: I'M FUCKED!!!!!!!!!
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 12:30:41 GMT


	Well, it's going to happen.  I got a court summons for support
	modification.  I spoke to my ex today.  There doesn't seem to
	be any talking to her.

	But here's a question.  If support guidelines are going to be
	used anyway, what advantage does having/getting an attorney
	have?


	What can he do for me?

-- 
	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: judi@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Jude)
Subject: Re: Pro Male Legislation
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:50:21 GMT

In <20840033@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse) writes:

>California Senator Charles Calderone 
>and Mr. Kelly Jensen are drafting pro-
>male legislation. Kelly (and perhaps 
>Senator Calderone) will be in San Jose
>soon to meet with interested folks. 
>This is a chance to change the system.

>Who:    Mr. Kelly Jensen / 
>	Senator Charles Calderone
>        916 327 8315
>What:   Pro-male legislation
>Where:  Trinity Episcopal Church
>        at 2nd and St. John
>	San Jose, CA
>When:   7 pm

>Here's what you can do to help:

>	1.) Bring interested women	
>	2.) Make or bring a mailing list
>	3.) Cooperate toward a consensus
>	4.) Prepare to legislate in January
> 

I would be interested in attending if I knew the date that this was to take
place.  Please post a date if you know it.
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:39:18 GMT

Jude writes
> I have been reading a lot of the postings on this [alt.child-support]
> newsgroup lately.  I don't
> really know the true intent of the group, whether it is a support group for
> people who are being screwed on having to pay child support or if it's just
> a ragfest about how you are being reemed by the woman you married, and how
> you'll never be free.

  It's about child support.  For me it is not about
  and ex-love.  It's about the need for "no fault dad kid divorce".

> What I'm seeing is a lot of frustration that seems to end up being vented
> towards the kids,

  "no fault dad kid divorce" is not "anger vented at the kids"
  it PREVENTS anger by eliminating an unnatural tie.

> and I don't understand it. 

  I don't blame you -- you have to "be there".

> I came from a divorced family
> and vividly remember all the fights and arguments.

  So why can't you see the value of divorce?
  divorce is the cure -- not the disease.

> I don't wish it on anyone.
> My question is:  Do you or did you ever love your children? 

  Hell yes -- but everyone know that ONLY ON PERSON
  CAN GET "PRIMARY CUSTODY".

> Are all the children whom are being
> supported by members of this network so horrific?

  Get serious.  You only wish to pretend abuse so
  you can cry over it.  How convenient for you to
  pigeonhole who is and who isn't a money-parent.

> Why would you begrudge your child--your flesh and blood--the money that it
> takes to support them (Not so they can have every Nintendo game, etc, but so
> they have food, appropriate clothes and shelter),

  Oh right -- my biological kids are freezing and starving.
  What a drama queen!  People need divorce.  and after
  divorce one is on longer held responsible by society.

> which you would have to 
> provide if you were still married or the CP? 

   But this isn't the case, now is it?
   Do you want money from a man and then
   have him physically out of your life?
   Do you live in a dream world (or is it 
   the real world?) where men
   are made your financial slave and yet
   you never have to see them?

> I honestly didn't think that the world was as terrible as 
> some of the perceptions I've read here.

  Your world is not my world.
  If an observer waches a dog eat a rabbit then
  there are three moralities happening:
    dog: good
    rabbit: bad
    observer: indifferent

  When it comes to the payment of child support,
  I think you are the dog -- you think it's good.
  You might be the observer -- you're indifferent.
  But as a woman you will never be the rabbit --
  you will never see male financial slavery to
  a child he can't divorce as being bad.

> Do any of your children read in this newsgroup?  How would they feel?

   I think they would want the "no fault dad kid divorce"
   also.  When they get old enough, some even ask for it.
   I'm going to have the courts force you pay child support to
   my biological children -- then you'll understand.
From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: another shooting
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:35:30 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <f+3z!rl@rpi.edu> liberk@rpi.edu writes:
>	Just heard on the radio that a man shot and killed 5 people in the
>Watkins Cty Social Services Office. This is located in upper New York state.
>	The reporter said the man was distressed at the amount of child support
>he had to pay. He was quoted as saying he was " Paying too much for too long"
>	This is what Jacobe and Meyers should show on their commercials in-
>stead of the crap I just saw on T.V showing this guy dressed to the teeth
>complaining that this law firm keeps bugging him for more $. What a poor
>representation of fathers ( IMHO)
>	I hope that firm's lawyers forget their bullet proof vests someday!

	What happens to these guys?  Do they get locked up and
	throw away the key (so they can't pay anymore) or do
	they get some kind of temporary insanity thing going?

	I would imagine the insanity thing would stick.

-- 
	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......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3461 soc.men:17490 soc.women:17497
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:06:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Oct8.230603.6257
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct6.233030.17681@u.washington.edu> zzz@u.washington.edu (Sample) writes:
>Duane Hentrich wrote:
>   "Where and when was divorce illegal in the western world?"
>
>Michael Helm replied:
>> It's still illegal in Ireland.  Wasn't that long ago it was
>> illegal in Italy.

Divorce is still illegal in the Philippines today, which is "sort of"
part of the Western world. It has a western religion (Roman
Catholicism).

>> 
>> Except in that bastion of family values, Nevada.  I'm foggy on the
>> details but I think Nevada had easy divorce laws & no waiting periods
>> for either marriage or divorce, so you could fly out, get split, & get
>> rehitched, & get on with your life, if you had the doremi.  These
>> last 2 paragraphs are strictly from memory, I can't cite you a
>> source for the info.
>
>I shudder to admit this . . . but I think that Neveda
>is blazing the trail toward our =better= futures.

I think that Nevada has no waiting period for marriages, but for
divorces you must be a "resident," which takes something like 30 days.

>But sooner or later we must stop picking fights.

But isn't that what feminism is all about: "make war, not love!"?

As was said earlier, divorce itself isn't the problem, it's only a poor 
solution to a messy problem. The real solution requires a cease-fire in
the war against men.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: rodean@fc.hp.com (Bruce Rodean)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Summertime child care payments
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:33:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


 Janis Clark (jrc@IEDV4.acd.com) wrote:
> In my case, my three children spent four weeks with me last summer
> (I was the NCP at that time) and I continued to pay child support
> to their father.  The thinking is that the support is averaged out
> over the year and is not just for immediate expenses but what it
> will cost long term for the CP to raise a child or children.  It
> was a financial hardship to pay support AND have the expense of
> the children actually living with me for a month, but that's the
> way it was.  I didn't quite understand what you meant by the 
> sentence:"at the same time the payments are not permitting the CP to 
> work since the children aren't with that parent."

OK perhaps I wasn't entirely clear on my situation.  In the past, my
child support payment was reasonably fixed.  We made minor adjustments
as necessary (even if it wasn't the 10% change as mandated by law).  On
top of that we took child care payments separately because my ex was
going through school, and each semester brought about differences in how
much child care was required.  But the cost was split proportionately to
income.  Also the kids were growing up and entering school so child care
was different in that regard.  During the summer, the child care portion
went down to virtually zero since she was in school or teaching.

At the end of this past summer, she and the kids moved out of state.
We're still working on modifications to our agreement, but basically I
am to have the kids eight weeks in the summeer uninterrupted.  I cannot
take all that as vacation during that period obviously.  They will need
some sort of daytime camp or whatever that will cost some money.  It's
here that it gets sticky for me.

Do I pay the child care even though I probably cannot claim it as an
income tax deduction since I'm the NCP?  Does she pay it even though it
really isn't work-related for her?  She has offered to pay her share and
I suppose I should just take that and be happy, but I was wondering what
the IRS and others think of this.  I understand that I would contine to
pay the basic child care support during the summer, but it's the child
care portion that has me confused.

--
Bruce Rodean                          Hewlett-Packard Company
rodean@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:57:43 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <BvnxIy.89B@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.204455.4515@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.144840.14716@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct2.221630.6791@kpc.com> dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston) writes:
>>>>(42% physical custody). I do agree that child support is _outrageous_ to
>>>>the tune of $800.00 per month for one child. I would never let that be
>>> 
>>Wow, my foster son's father thinks it is absolutely highway robbery that
>>he has to pay $368 a month.  Mike gets the $68 to put away for college
>>and some of his expenses, we get the $300.  
> 
> Why should the father pay for Mike's expenses after age 18?  
> (Arguably: children "ought" to have some sort of allowance, and they 
> might "choose" to save something, as an exercise.  But there's no need
> for the father to finance college for this reason.)
> 

In our state, Mike's dad does not have to pay for college.  That's fair,
I don't think he should have to.  But he does legally have to pay child
support as long as Mike is still in high school, even if Mike does have
to attend past the age of 18.  We are encouraging Mike to try to make
it through in the next year or two.  But he is behind, due to being taken
out of school just a few months into junior high and being dumped on
his mentally ill mother.

>>Plus out of the $300 we provide
>>him an allowance, transportation to all his sporting events, food, shelter,
>>entertainment, a really nice vacation every year....... (this Christmas
>>we will spend a week at a condo in the Florida Keys)....  And his dad 
>>accuses us of 'profiting!'.
> 
> Both my parents worked, but we never spent a week a year in a
> condo in the Florida Keys.  Is this necessary for parenting?
> 

Mike is a member of our family, we take nice vacations, he goes along.
No, I am not making money on Mike, we took him in because we wanted to
and because he needed us.  Not to spite his father.  Although I do think
the man is a real jerk.

> If you're saying you spend extra, above the $300, that's fine
> and nice and admirable.
> 
> Otherwise, investing in college savings or investing in a mortgage 
> or spending money on a vacation is a misuse of the father's money -- 
> because it goes beyond what the child needs while he's a minor.
> 

> Don
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Dad-Kid Divorce Prohibition: Use vs Abuse
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:28:03 GMT

In article <riaedwards.1.718953878@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au> riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.230603.6257@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>But isn't that what feminism is all about: "make war, not love!"?
>
>>As was said earlier, divorce itself isn't the problem, it's only a poor 
>>solution to a messy problem. The real solution requires a cease-fire in
>>the war against men.

>I could not resist this! No, Mr Sheaffer, feminism is not about war 
>against men. Rather, it is the campaign for *equality of opportunity* and 
>the recognition of the equal status of men and women by all in society. 
>
>If, as you appear (by your various postings) to believe, all (or at least 
>most) of the social ills of the world derive from feminism, then why is that 
>the U.K. (my own country) where (generally speaking).... 
>* we have not got a PC movement (except personal computers!), 
>* we don't know who McKinnen or Dworkin are, 
>* we have fault based divorce, but 'clean-break' financial settlements,  
>* politically, we have had conservative leadership for some time,


With such "*equality of opportunity*" in the UK, what is the
rate of child custody awards between men and women?

We have no-fault divorce and alimony is less common, but we also
have child support that replaces alimony -- no clean breaks there.
What is child support like in the UK?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3439 soc.men:17425 soc.women:17453