HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:31:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Sep4.063123.3905
Organization: Wright State University

In article <1992Sep2.224655.16781@u.washington.edu>, hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
> I wrote:
>> > [The taxpayer only pay] if the larger population of
>> > taxpayers choose to pay the Child Support!
> 
> Katie replied:
>> Then why do you refuse to support the child you brought into 
>> the world, a child who DID NOT ask to be brought into the 
>> world, thereby financially raping *ME*, a taxpayer who did 
>> not ask to support your child?  
> 
>    It's my choice and I'll thank you and
>    your government to not financially rape me.
> 

Ah, yes, you are the one who 'accidently' had sex and 'accidently' got someone
pregnant.  Sheesh, more than a few of us have gotten So-o-o-o tired of hearing
you whine about it.

>    You choose to belong to that large group of
>    society called: "taxpayers".  Your group has
>    decided to pay for unwanted kids -- no one
>    is forcing the American taxpayers -- the 
>    taxpayers, as a large and powerful group,
>    have made there own decisions.
>  

Well, I guess we could just dump them on the street somewhere and let them
starve.  That seems to be your preferred method of treatment.

>    If you disagree with this larger society of
>    taxpayers then LEAVE THE GROUP -- but don't
>    bitch at me for something that you have decided.
> 
>    I live in America but I AVOID it's government.

Why don't YOU just 'leave the group'?  After all, if you want to live in
America you have to abide by the laws.  And the laws say you have to support
your biological child.  

Sue
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.family-law,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: nelson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Nelson)
Subject: Re: Grandparents' Rights/48 Hours
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:55:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.140344.7986@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>
>I was moved by your story.  I, too am experiencing a lot of troubles with 
>my daughter's grandmother.  My folks are long dead, this makes Iris's 
>grandmother her only living grandparent.  Iris loves her grandmother and 
>
...
>I have tried everything I can think of:  I have offered to take Iris to 
>her house, to have her come to my house, to leave my house, to pay for 
>phone calls.  I have invited her to family meals at my house.  I have 
>invited her on outings. She won't have any of it.  She claims that every 
>suggestion I make is based solely on my own interest!  Sheesh.  I just 
>want my kid to know her grandmother......
...
>
>I could personally care less.  But the woman is hurting her grand-
>daughter, her only grandchild.
...
>
>I say little or nothing to Iris about all this.  What could I say? 
>There is nothing at all positive I could say.
>
>Sue Larsen

Possibly you could allow your daughter to call her GrandMa (If
she's old enough). If it's long distance allow her X amount of
time.

This way it is not you who is pushing.

Alas, if grandma hurts Iris's feelings she won't want to call
anymore and the relationship may be gone BUT the relationship
is degenerating anyway.

Mike N.
From: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Dependent deductions
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:10:00 GMT
Reply-To: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS 50)
Distribution: usa

Can anyone tell me (via e-mail) if there is any way that an NCP can take
federal tax decuctions for his children?  The rules as I understand them
appear grossly unfair when it can be conclusively demonstrated that the
NCP provided more than 50% of the child raising costs.  Also, is there any
provision for splitting a deduction (i.e., she takes 40% and I take 60%)?

 \_\_\_\_      \_\_\_\_\_   \_      \_           Don McMillan       __  .   .  
 \_      \_         \_       \_\_  \_\_          GM Research Labs  /  ` |\ /|  
  \_       \_        \_       \_ \_\_ \_         (313) 986-1436    | ,_ | | |  
   \_       \_        \_       \_  \_  \_                          \__/ |   |  
    \_       \_        \_       \_      \_                                     
     \_      \_   \_   \_        \_      \_      CSNet: mcmillan@gmr.com
      \_\_\_\_      \_\_          \_      \_     I-net: dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,misc.legal
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: How a Judge is Born in America
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:02:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.053218.4660@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>Original article was published by the Divorced Men's Association of
>Connecticut, Inc.  in a publication called "Court Watcher,"
>August/September, 1990.  I took the liberty of re-writing it, because I
>didn't like the original all that much.
>
>### Begin
>
>How a Judge is Born in America
>
>To become a judge in any state in the United States, a person first
>must become an attorney.  After practicing law for a few years, an
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>attorney can then decide whether he or she would like to become a judge.
>There are two primary ways to obtain that goal.
>

Have you verified this?  A survey I saw published about 15 years ago (popular
press, not from a reliable source) indicated that only about 25% of juvenile
court judges in the US were attorneys, only half had 4 year college degrees.  

I would be glad to learn that the situation had changed.


Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2119 alt.child-support:2935 soc.men:15544 soc.women:15840 misc.kids:21992
From: lindae@netcom.com ()
Subject: Benefit Fundraiser for Missing, Abused, & Exploited Children
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 16:21:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba


Here's your chance to have a great time and benefit a good cause at the
same time.

Bop 'til you drop at the "Halloween Hop"
Friday, October 30th
Dinner, 7:30 p.m.
50's Music & Dancing
8:15 p.m.
No-host cocktails, doors open at 6:00 p.m.

Tickets:  1 for $20.00
	  2 for $35.00


Enjoy dance contests, hula hoops, most creative 50's costume awards,
prize drawings, and much more!!!

All proceeds will benefit Child Quest International, a non-profit organization
devoted to the protection and recovery of missing, abused, and exploited
children.

For tickets or more information, call (408) 492-1122

Thank you in advance!!!!



Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.family-law,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:46:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep2.224655.16781
Organization: University of Washington

I wrote:
> > [The taxpayer only pay] if the larger population of
> > taxpayers choose to pay the Child Support!

Katie replied:
> Then why do you refuse to support the child you brought into 
> the world, a child who DID NOT ask to be brought into the 
> world, thereby financially raping *ME*, a taxpayer who did 
> not ask to support your child?  

   It's my choice and I'll thank you and
   your government to not financially rape me.

   You choose to belong to that large group of
   society called: "taxpayers".  Your group has
   decided to pay for unwanted kids -- no one
   is forcing the American taxpayers -- the 
   taxpayers, as a large and powerful group,
   have made there own decisions.
 
   If you disagree with this larger society of
   taxpayers then LEAVE THE GROUP -- but don't
   bitch at me for something that you have decided.

   I live in America but I AVOID it's government.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Some kids don't GET adopted....
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:22:40 GMT
Organization: Wright State University


One thing I have never seen mentioned here is that when you (or whomever)
put a child up for adoption, there is *NO* guarantee that the child will
be adopted.  If there is some kind of serious handicap or if the child is
a teenager, people who might adopt them are few and far between.  AND if
you turn this child over to the state, the local authorities can and will
come after you for child support.  You can't just say, 'here, take this 
child, I don't want it, ' and expect the county to pay all expenses.

My foster son, Mike, is a prime example of this.  His father raised him
to age 14, then abandoned him to his mentally ill mother, did not pay
any child support at all.  When Mike ended up in juvenile court and in
the custody of the local authorities, his father told them to keep him,
he didn't want him at all.  So he was taken to court and support payment
was assessed against him.  Then suddenly he wanted Mike again.  Luckily,
the local court system allows the child to state he does not want to go
to a parent, otherwise it was the opinion of the councilers at the county
home where Mike was temporarily staying that his father would have abused
him.

So 'divorcing' yourself from your children is not always as easy as it
sounds.

Sue
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2138 alt.child-support:2966 soc.men:15623 soc.women:15912 misc.kids:22141
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:53:35 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

Bronis Vidugiris writes
>It's logical that you don't want the taxpayer to be a 
> remote wallet either, IMO.

   Only if the larger population of taxpayers
   choose to pay the Child Support!

   The taxpayers have no right to financially
   rape some one who does not wish to be a dad.

   Volition my boy!  Learn it and *** LIVE ***.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: mstrange@alfred.carleton.ca (N E N Strangelove)
Subject: Moderated?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:16:20 GMT

Greetings,

I am compiling a directory of networked resoureces for social work
studies [2nd edition]. I would like to include alt. dads-rights. I
would appreciate a *brief* description of the group [2-3 lines max.]]. I
also need to know whether to group is moderated or not.

Thanks in advance,

Natalie Strangelove

PS\ Please email me directly, as I am not suscribed to this group.
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.family-law,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Grandparents' Rights/48 Hours
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:19:33 GMT

I grew up in this country.  I lived here with my parents and brother,
but all my other relatives (4 grandparents,
all my aunts and uncles, and all my cousins except one)
lived abroad.  I didn't get to see them much, because flying
to visit them was so expensive.  Also they rarely got over here.

When I was growing up there was a lot of ill-will in the family
because everyone blamed each other for not visiting or writing or 
calling more.  I was frequently told that "if so-and-so loved 
you more they'd come visit".  What a terrible thing to tell a child.

When adults battle the children suffer.  They do not understand 
that the conflict has nothing to do with them.

For the children's sake, can't we work harder at compromising with
our spouses, ex's and il-laws??

						--  Michal
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Dependent deductions
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:07:01 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

dennisp@kpc.com (Dennis Preston) writes:

> In article <89597@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> dmcmilla@djm.cs.gmr.com (Don McMillan CS
> >Can anyone tell me (via e-mail) if there is any way that an NCP can take
> >federal tax decuctions for his children?  The rules as I understand them
> >appear grossly unfair when it can be conclusively demonstrated that the
> >NCP provided more than 50% of the child raising costs.  Also, is there any
> >provision for splitting a deduction (i.e., she takes 40% and I take 60%)?
> >
> You should be able to take the deduction if you are paying child support.
> This is, however, entirely negotiable with the CP. In my case, I take the 
> deduction for the child while she gets the child care tax credit. The only
> thing to watch out for is a sure audit if *both* of you claim the child.
> --dennisp@kpc.com

The operative words in that were 'negotiable with the CP.' 

The IRS gives deductions for dependents to the CP unless a Form 8330 is
sent in by the NCP, and the CP has to sign it. To have an arrangement
with the CP is all well and good, but make sure you jump the hurdles.
:-)

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2091 alt.child-support:2893 soc.men:15465 soc.women:15751 misc.kids:21872
From: hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:07:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug25.230720.19685
Organization: University of Washington

aaron.l.hoffmeyer writes
>Source: USA Today, August 24, 1992
>"We need to get mothers better educated and boost income, because it's
>this rather than having a father at home that affects kids the most."

   I agree -- we need good parents -- not good mothers.
   If the woman is the parent and if she is more
   independant then her forebears -- so be it.
   We need able parents not "remote wallets".

>You see, to Mr. Mott, children don't need fathers - they need rich,
>well-educated mothers.  How do we get such things?  Lots and lots of
>child-support to pay for lots of Fisher-Price stuff and alimony to pay
>for moms' getting educations, perhaps?

    Don't force people (men) to be "remote wallets".
    Don't financially rape the "non-maid parents".
    But rather empower the single parent (women).
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: terwill@arecibo.aero.org (Bill who?)
Subject: Re: RFC: Clinton's Family Values
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: terwill@arecibo.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:09:00 GMT

In article <BtJM7y.D30@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>Some excerpts from a Clinton speech on Family Values, 21 May 1992.  
>(The selection is mine.)  Comments?
> 
>For the more politically-minded, the following was attached to
>the text as it appeared on a local bbs:
> 
>:SEND COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE
>:CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN AT 75300.3115@COMPUSERVE.COM
>:
>:Family Values Address
>:Governor Bill Clinton
>:Cleveland City Club
>:Cleveland, Ohio
>:May 21, 1992
> 
> 
>BEGIN EXCERPTS
> 


Why is this in this news group? Cross-posted by someone? Only applicable quote
was the one that addressed Bill and Hillary passing a state law that notified
every credit agency in Arkansas when a "deadbeat, lowlife, scum-sucking parent"
(do you think the word "male" is infered?) was behind by more than $1000. in
his support payments. 

Well, in California, and I am sure this is true is most states (except
maybe Arkansas,) if the support check doesn't arrive by the first day of the
month, most every male paying support would break this law and be entitled
to be "thrown under the financial bus."

The outcome of November is already clear, we are all going to lose.

Bill
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2178 alt.child-support:3025 soc.men:15847 soc.women:16069 misc.kids:22437 misc.legal:16850
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.family-law,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Grandparents' Rights/48 Hours
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:22:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep2.140344.7986@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>
>Sometimes I wish there was a way for grandparents who are deprived 
>access to their grandchildren because of hateful parents to
>"adopt" the children whose own grandparents have abandoned them. 
>So much love that seems to be going to waste.....
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Dear Sue,

My grandmother was the saving grace of my life. She was the only sane
person I had for guidance in my own childhood. Thank God!

WHen I was a child I had a way of "adopting" a grandmother in any
neighborhood we moved into. I found a widow, a childless middle-aged
woman or a woman whose own children were grown and made her my special
friend. For me it was survival, but for them it was a wonderful chance
to nurture a young child when they had no grandchildren nearby either.

I am sure you could find someone to "adopt" for your daughter. Every
child deserves the kind of love only grandmothers can give, but like
our other discussion of what constitutes a grandparent, it isn't
always blood. Perhaps a nursing home, senior center or other place
where older people meet would be a good place to look for a special
friend for your daughter. Perhaps you could ask your friends if they
have an elderly neighbor who would like a regular visit from a special
child??

I had my own grandmother( I still have her and love her madly!) but
the women I adopted as my special friends played a key role in my
life. I cannot tell you how many kind and wonderful things they did
for me, but I can tell you it made a huge difference in the quality of
my life experience!

Best wishes!!

rf
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: terwill@arecibo.aero.org (Bill who?)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Marriage Requirements
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:18:00 GMT
Reply-To: terwill@arecibo.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I think we should propose a new state law in California (and every state except
Arkansas) which requires couples wanting a marriage license to spend a minimum
of 8 hours in the gallery of the Family (Divorce) Courts prior to getting their
licenses. In downtown Los Angeles it would be easy; the license bureau is on
the first floor, Family Courts up one flight of stairs. Actually, all you have
to do is follow the sounds of screaming:) Hell, this would be much better
and more useful that the stupid bloodtests. 

Marriage license applicants would be given a timecard and would have to
punch in and out on timeclocks. I don't know what it would do to the
divorce rate but it certainly would be a boost to pre-nuptiual(sp?) 
agreements!

Am I glad I divorced before the "child abuse/child molestation" weapon
came in vogue! Wow, what a weapon. Instant guilt projected by just
being accused. Very, very scary.


Bill
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: RFC: Clinton's Family Values
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:49:39 GMT

In article <716@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>In article <25AUG199213093999@arecibo.aero.org> terwill@arecibo.aero.org writes:
>>In article <BtJM7y.D30@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>>>Some excerpts from a Clinton speech on Family Values, 21 May 1992.  
>>>(The selection is mine.)  Comments?
>>
>>Why is this in this news group? Cross-posted by someone? 
>
>Because it has to do with fathers rights and child support.

>I happened to find the article informative, and I thank Aaron for taking
>the time to write it in for us. I responded to it at the address given
>for compuserve.

Oops, for better or worse, +I+ cross-posted it from a local 
(Penn State) group (actually a communications group, not a politics
group).  I may have made a mistake or the software might have; 
but the post seemed to be From me when it appeared on the 
a.d-r and a.c-s lists here.

As for my motivation, I though the speech was barely-disguised
father-bashing, with a few "mitigating" parts thrown in.  The end
of the speech seems that way.  But I wanted to see if other people
felt the same way (hence "RFC"), so I included most of what I thought 
related to parental rights and child support.  (Full text on demand,
beaver@cs.psu.edu.)

>If you don't like what it says, why don't you tell Clinton about it?

I was hoping someone would say that!

Don Beaver
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.women,misc.kids
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Impact of the absent father
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:55:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.173448.8904@ttinews.tti.com> reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.230720.19685@u.washington.edu> hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>
>>   We need able parents not "remote wallets".
>
>We need both.  If the mother isn't financially independent, and the
>father isn't going to be held responsible for the money to raise the
>children, who is?  The government (translation:  you, me, and every
>other taxpayer)?  No thanks.  If a dad isn't going to be a "real" dad,
>for whatever reason, he still has responsibilities.  I refuse to take
>them over for him because he doesn't want to be a "remote wallet".

Premise: mother has children, father has bills.

>>    Don't force people (men) to be "remote wallets".
>
>If he's fathered children, he has taken on that responsibility.  It is
>a reasonable function of government to force him to make good on it.
>It is NOT a reasonable function of government to take money away from
>other people to cover HIS familial debt.

If the government systematically treats one group unequally,
in this case taking away the right of fathers to raise their 
children personally, then the government must also take on 
the responsibilities.  

No rights without responsibilities, and no responsibilities without rights.

Mind you, I would like to see the systematic victimization of fathers
addressed and removed.  All parents should have equal rights; no
presumption of "Mother is best" should ever be made.  Each custody
case should be considered without such prejudice.

If and when fathers and mothers are treated equally under the law,
then I will agree with you that every parent is equally responsible
for his/her children, and a fully-representative government
is indeed entitled to enforce these liabilities.


>Money doesn't come from nowhere.  Someone's got to pay the bills.  It's
>either the father, or someone who had nothing to do with the child, but
>is forced to pay for it anyway (via taxes).  Which seems fairer to
>you?

Where's mom, here?

>I don't buy into
>the religious right's narrow definition of "family values", but I
>do think that parental responsibility has to fit into any reasonable
>definition of that term.

But nowhere have you even mentioned the possibility of a custodial father.  
I can only guess that you wish to impose your personal beliefs,
whether or not they are religious or moral, on other persons.
Your posting suggests you believe mothers should be with children
and fathers at work (by default); such a system imposes a non-global
moral belief on all persons and violates men's equal protection under 
the law.  I find +that+ immoral, and with luck it will one day be illegal.

>Never trust a man who can count to 1,023 on his fingers.

Then don't trust me... :-}

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