HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrr@nsc.nsc.com (Jerry Roe)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Responsibility (was Re: I'M PRO-MALE-CHOICE)
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:24:33 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara

In article <41.34.uupcb@madness.network23.com> mark.lewis@madness.network23.com (Mark Lewis) writes:
>-> WHAT????  That isn't a choice that can be undone.  You have a
>-> responsibility to your children, no matter what the law assigns.
>-> (Usually though, the law exempts the previous husband once the wife
>-> has remarried.)

Nope.  Not unless the father releases all rights and allows the second
husband to adopt them.  Remarriage of the ex-wife only ends your liability
for alimony, not child support.


>I couldn't help but comment on your statement.....I agree that a man has
>a responsibility to his child/children even if he and his wife aren't
>married anymore, however, with that responsibility should also come the
>right to SEE the child(ren) on a regular basis......my opinion is this "
>"If the father is withheld visits by the ex-wife then he should not be
>required to bear the responsibility financially or otherwise".....also I

I usually agree with this statement, but it just occurred to me on reading
it this time that a rule of that nature would effectively allow those
ex'es who could afford it to shut out their kids' dads completely.
If that were the *only* rule on this, I bet it would happen a lot,
especially in those cases where the support level was not very high
(say a couple of hundred bucks).  There needs to be a stringent sanction
in place for CP's who deny access by the NCP, say reverse the custody and
let THEM be the NCP.  Permanently.

>am glad you used the term "usually" in the above statment.  I know of
>one case where the father hasn't been allowed to see the children for
>over 6 years, the wife has remarried and he is still required to send
>$900 per month in child support....that's in California.

Yep, see my above comments.  I wonder, does that $900 reflect a reduction
from the previous level before the ex-wife remarried, thus when she had less
income?  I bet not, not in the People's Republic of California.


Jerry Roe
jrr@nsc.nsc.com		...!{sun,pyramid,decwrl)!nsc!jrr
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: OTHER SIDE OF THE POND
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Simon : In the US the Federal government offers a bounty to the state
governments of $25,000++ per child taken per year kept. It's called the
Adoption Assistance and CHild Welfare Act of 1980 ( PL 92-272 ) and the
Code of Federal REgulations that govern it don't require audits of the
monies until 1993.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Is there a newsgroup called alt.moms-rights ??
Keywords: need info ..
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:20:43 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <i13moB1w165w@jimmc.chi.il.us>, jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas) writes:
|> W O W ! ! !
|> Anybody not holding a flamethrower hold your hand up now!!!
|> alt.moms.rights is most courts in this country!!!
|> alt.moms.rights is most lawyers in this country!!!
|> alt.moms.rights ...need          flaaaame more!
|> flame off]

If this was meant as a joke, that's cool.

But, I can not support this type of thought. One of the major problems I see
with the Women's Movement is the US v. THEM mentallity combined with
the assumption that consensus reality is by, for, and of, men. I can support
neither suppositions.

I would hope that any bolstering of "dad's rights" would be made by bolstering
"human rights" and not by removing "mom's rights".

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Children's rights?  What about responsibilities?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 21:41:45 GMT


I've seen an interesting thread in here about "children's rights," which has
become more visible since the emergence of Hillary Clinton in the public eye.
Certainly, some parents are deadbeats.  Some do not consider the best interests
of their children when they make decisions.  However, the call for children to
sue parents is ludicrous in my opinion, for several reasons.  Let me share my
reasoning with all of you.

First, this nation has gone "sue-crazy" as it is.  Lawyers are licking their
chops as new laws constantly make it easier to litigate.  It seems that
*anything* can be a civil case these days, including everything what used to
be handled only in criminal courts. We don't need lawyers drooling over our
children, who will (in general) be *far* more vulnerable to the persuasions of
lawyers, who will urge them to litigate.  For horrible problems, we already
have criminal charges which can be filed against the offending parent(s).

Second, and foremost in my mind, is the concepts of rights and responsi-
bilities.  Perhaps I grew up in an old, archaic period (the 1970's), but I was
always taught that with rights come responsibilities.  Well, if children have
a *right* to sue (such as for medical treatment), then why don't we *also*
give them the responsibility to pay for it?  Why should a child have a right
to something, without the corresponding responsibility?  It's similar to the
role of the father in an abortion decision--he has *no* legal rights in the
abortion issue, but he is held financially liable no matter what (perhaps for
50% of an abortion or 18 years of support).  What responsibilities are there
without rights?  If a parent has the financial responsibility for a child, and
if the parents are held liable for the times when a child breaks a neighbor's
window with a baseball, then don't they have any *rights* about how the child
lives?  Don't they have the *right* to raise their child as they see fit--at
least as long as they are held legally *responsible* for them?

Fine, give the child a right to sue.  Now we must also grant responsibilities.
We must allow the parents to charge rent to their children; after all, the
if the child is responsible enough to sue, then they are responsible enough to
pay rent.  To do that, we must also have the child labor laws immediately
repealed.  Obviously, children are as responsible as the rest of us and hence
they need no additional protection by laws.  Why stop there?  Let a child
smoke, let them drink, and use pornography.  After all, they are as responsible
as adults, aren't they?

Okay, Tim, get off the soap box now...


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.

Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage)
Subject: Re: RESPONSE TO DELUGE ABOUT
Summary: Shut the **** up.
Organization: If I was organized I'd just auto-send cancel messages.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:51:38 GMT

Dear Richard Donovan, aka "Mr. Broken Record",

      YOU HAVE SAID IT 100 TIMES ALREADY.

		  NOW SHUT UP.

Next time, mail will go to your site admin and then
your feed sites.
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:1692 soc.men:14004
From: root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick   )
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,soc.men
Subject: Re: SOS program
Keywords: SOS, foster parenting, male stereotypes
Date: 1 Aug 92 06:55:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> In article <Bs7DKG.5ru@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writ
> 
> )
> )Some reasons why SOS allows *only* unmarried women as foster parents 
> )were given:
> )
> )   . If there were a man in the house, he would demand
> )     attention from the woman.
> )
> )   . A man in the house increases the likelihood of child abuse.
> 
> Statistics show that *women* are the ones who actually *commit* the majority
> of child abuse.  If there is a man *present* anywhere, though, he apparently
> makes a good scapegoat, even if he's not the one *comitting* the abuse.

Whoa.

The statistics show thatwomen commit more abuse --but they also show that
men are equal in abuse *in ratio and proportion* to women. If men had a
greater custody presence, the numbers _appear_ to indicate that their
presence in the abuse figures would increase. In other words, women do
most of the abuse because they have most of the custody. In a fairer
circumstance, the abuse would be more equally spread between women and
men.


---
Bob Kirkpatrick  --  Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
root@dogear.spk.wa.us           bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us
From: jim@jimmc.chi.il.us (Jim McNicholas)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: Re: Is there a newsgroup called alt.moms-rights ??
Keywords: need info ..
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:34:41 GMT
Organization: Prime Time Productions, Aurora Il.

judy@disk.uucp (Judy Meredith) writes:

:=} 
:=} Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask such a question. But I have tried to
:=} locate such a group before posting here.
:=}  I would appreciate any advice on this. As moms too have the NEED TO KNOW!
:=} And I need to know....!
:=} 
:=} Thanks for your help
:=} 
:=}  Judy
:=} 
:=} -- 
:=} *********************************************************************** 
:=}  "Don't hurry, don't worry, and don't forget to smell the flowers."
:=}                     --- judy@disk.UUCP ---
:=} *********************************************************************** 


W O W ! ! !
Anybody not holding a flamethrower hold your hand up now!!!
alt.moms.rights is most courts in this country!!!
alt.moms.rights is most lawyers in this country!!!
alt.moms.rights ...need          flaaaame more!
flame off]

____________________________________________________________________________
|jim@jimmc.chi.il.us   |   ...And I believe in long, slow, deep, soft wet  |
|Prime Time Productions| kisses that last three days...good night...OH MY! |
|Aurora, IL. 60504     |        -crash davis to annie savoy in BULL DURHAM-|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: IT CAN'T BE MADE PERFECT.
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Maybe not. But it can be made more accountable. It can be made more
honest, and it can be made open. Most proceedings involving children are
done behind closed doors, by either law or execuitve fiat. I thought
that's 1 of the things we fought WWII for, and Sttalinism etc etc.
People tend to forget that most atrocities in the 20th century have been
committed " under law " re: Uganda, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's purges,
CChina, etc.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: RE: HILLARY CLINTON - FAM
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

AL>> I haven't thought about the issue a whole lot.
     It might help, considerably, if you read both the NY State and
Federal Laws as pertain to children. Not a flame, but expect that you'll
be shocked and dismayed. You might start with PL 92-272 which has
auditing requirements that begin *next* year.
        Richard.
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Response to Deluge About Hillary Clinton
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:07:53 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Jul23.150308.12230@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.200218.28513@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>>
>>I'm with Anne on this one. [Whew - I was almost getting a little worried
>>there when we Sue L. and I were agreeing so much :-) :-)].  We already have
>>laws that deal with 'emancipated minors'.  I don't find the argument that
>>this law would encourage frivolous suits at all shallow - we have a large
>>wave of litigation mania sweeping the US, IMO.  Allowing children to collect
>>damages from their parents (which is my understanding of the point of this
>>law) seems like a very bad idea to me.
>
>Well, Bronis, at least we can both sleep better at night,now ;-)
>
>I have conceded earlier that allowing children to collect damages 
>may not be such a hot idea.  But, on the other hand, it strikes me 
>that denying children a legal voice in their own upbringing leaves 
>them vulnerable, not only to parents but to the state and any private 
>institution or individual who may acquire custody/guardianship of the 
>child.  Without accountability comes abuse.  We see this everyday in 


 Question for those who think it would be a good idea for children to
be allowed to sue "bad parents" (whatever the hell that means).

 Can I sue a bad teenager? When he steals and destroys other's property?
Can I sue to get back fines imposed? Can I jail the incorragable little
bugger when he turns 18? 21? Can I whoop his little hinder then? Can
I sue him for the doctor bills (psych sessions) that didn't work?
Can I sue the school for failing? Doctors? How bout the 4 social workers
who for some reason or another are baffled by his behavior? Can I 
sue the church? You know, the group that made going to church so 
boring that he never liked going to church, failed to attend regularly
and became morally bankrupt as a result? Can I sue him because he
was born with a personality disorder NO ONE likes? Can he sue himself
because he doesn't like him self? How about suing his ol' man for killing
himself? Whoops, he's dead and the estate's worth nuttin, but I suppose
I could go after granny's social security check or something. Maybe
I can sue the ol' man's brother who laments today that he never took
his little brother under his wing like he should have 'cause their
ol' man left to live the life of a street bum. 
 My personal opinion about the "life should be fair" bunch (Clinton/Dems/
ignorants) is that Jesus christ will return, but he will be sued by
the National Org. of Women and countless other plaintiffs for breach
of contract whining in the court room ..... "LIFE IS NOT FAIR"
There will be thousands marching in the streets screaming for this
guys life (long hair, beard flowing dude) chanting

  LIFES NOT FAIR! (clap)
  LIFES NOT FAIR! (clap)
  LIFES NOT FAIR! (clap)
  LIFES NOT FAIR! (clap)
  LIFES NOT FAIR! (clap)
  LIFES NOT FAIR! (clap)
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: FAITH
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Sue : I largely agree with you, and especially about being able to sue
social services...see my posts on PL 92-272. As to your faith in judges,
recommend you read HITLER's JUSTICE : Courts Inside the 3rd Reich, by
Ingo Muller from Harvard University Press. Remember judges control
lawyers. If we have corrupt lawyers its because they're allowed to
ooperate that way.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: MARCH ON WASHINGTON
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:30:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

How about having a march on Washington on Labor Day. The irony is
sublime.  But it has the advantage of being a time when people can make
it.
Richard.
                                                                                                         
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: eab@uh.msc.edu (Edward Bertsch)
Subject: Man friendly states - marriage/children/divorce/etc.
Organization: Minnesota Supercomputer Center
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:26:07 GMT


I was wondering how the states in our not-so-fair union line up
in terms of man-friendliness versus the aparantly normal case of
man-animosity vis a vis divorce, children, etc. and the rights
a man gives up/what it will cost him when he enters the shackles
of marriage and especially when he is 'freed'

I believe here in Minnesota we run a nice matriarchal family
court system.  I don't have any facts or statistics to back
this up, but I guess I am asking what are the implications of
getting married and residing and divorcing in different
states?

Same thing goes for cohabitation and /common-law/ wife type
garbage.  I know some states let you live with a woman as
much as you please without their being economic ramifications.

Also, where do the various states stand as far as respect for
pre-nuptial agreements go?

What are the best ways to protect assets from marriage?  It
appears to me that a trust fund should be the best way,
but I would like to hear some real-world advice and experiences.

Thanks,

Ed

26, single, and happy to stay that way for now

--

Edward A. Bertsch (eab@msc.edu)   Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.
Operations/User Services          1200 Washington Avenue South
(612) 626-1888 work               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55415
(612) 645-0168 voice mail         [DISCLAIMER: MY OPINIONS; NOT MSCI'S]

"Read _MY_ lips: No vote this time, George"      vote Libertarian in '92

% echo "potatoe potato" | spell
potatoe
%
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: MEN'S ISSUES NEWSBRIEFS #
Date: 27 Jul 92 07:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Very interesting. I understand that there is a new book due in Sept.
1992 from a member of AAMFT that studies both geneder sides of the
issues on custiody and finds that the real variable in custody awards,
visitation and support is whether the judge is *corrupt*. We'll see.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: RE: HILLARY CLINTON - FAM
Date: 26 Jul 92 21:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

As a mandated reporter, are you familiar with the Child Abuse Prevention
Act ( passed by US Congress )? Or its Code of Fed Regs. Or the Adoption
Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 ( PL 92-272 ) and its CFR? DId
you know that the FEDS already give a *bounty* of $25,000 per child
taken per year held by the states? Or that the biggest beneficiaries
already are the private agencies under sub-contract to state
authorities?
   I don't think Hilary just want's to privatize it, I think she wants
to cover up what's *already* going on?
From: judy@disk.uucp (Judy Meredith)
Subject: Is there a newsgroup called alt.moms-rights ??
Keywords: need info ..
Organization: Digital Information Systems of KY
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:16:42 GMT


Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask such a question. But I have tried to
locate such a group before posting here.
 I would appreciate any advice on this. As moms too have the NEED TO KNOW!
And I need to know....!

Thanks for your help

 Judy

-- 
*********************************************************************** 
 "Don't hurry, don't worry, and don't forget to smell the flowers."
                    --- judy@disk.UUCP ---
***********************************************************************
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: HOW ARE KIDS NEEDS MET?
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:05:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

>>How do they put their children first(?) if a person has some other
>>in life and their needs aren't being met.

Simply, it's called sacrifice and goes with the territory of being a
parent, single or otherwise.
  The Federal government *does* have a policy of putting governmental
needs 1st -- read the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980
( PL 92-272 ) and it's Code of Fed Regs and tell me it doesn't!!!
                                                                                            
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: RESPONSE TO DELUGE ABOUT
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:27:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 

Anne:
   I agree with your post about Hilary. The problem is more pervasive
than that. I feel like this is a mantra: Adoption Assistance and CHild
Welfare Act of 1980 and its companion Code of Fed Regulations provide a
*bounty* for children taken by the STATE in judicial proceedings, Every
state in the country has gotten this money. What Hilary wants is to
continue the program.
                 Richard.
From: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
Subject: WHAT'S A FEW WORDS?
Date: 28 Jul 92 07:52:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Invention Factory's BBS - New York City, NY - 212-274-1243v.32bis
Reply-To: richard.donovan@factory.com (Richard Donovan) 


Trump -v- Trump
582 NYS2d 1008
April 16, 1992

In divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court, New York County, Acting
Judge Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, entered supplemental judgement of
divorce deleting confidentiality provision from post-nuptial
agreement to which former husband and wife had agreed to be bound.
Husband appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Sullivan
J., held that trial court lacked the authority to exclude from
separation agreement to which former husband and wife had
stipulated confidentiality provision which did not offend public
policy as prior restraint on protected speech.
          Affirmed as modified.

1. Absent any affront to public policy, parties to civil dispute
have right to fashion stipulations as means of expediting and
simplifying resolution of dispute and may even stipulate away
statutory or even constitutional rights.

2. Court may relieve party from consequences of stipulation given
showing of cause sufficient to invalidate contract, such as fraud,
collusion, mistake or similar ground.

3. Confidentiality provision top postnuptial agreement which
prohibited wife from revealing aspects of marriage or husband's
personal or financial affairs did not violate public policy and was
not result of fraud or duress so that trial court exceeded its
authority by NOT including provision in supplemental judgement;
confidentiality paragraph was not among portions of agreement which
husband and wife had agreed to modify.

**************************************************

In other words, if Donald Trump wasn't a millionaire and could have
made trouble for them, they would have let Phyllis get away with
changing the agreement and slipping it in behind his back.
                                                                                
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd,comp.org.eff.talk
From: cb253@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Chris Tobin)
Subject: chris's test
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 07:26:57 GMT


Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3, 4

-- 
Chris Tobin      Phone: +44 (0)274 383947 | University of Bradford
                   Fax: +44 (0)274 383920 | Department of Computing
          JANET: C.J.Tobin@uk.ac.bradford | (Phoenix Building), Richmond Road,
       Internet: C.J.Tobin@bradford.ac.uk | BRADFORD BD7 1DP, England, UK
From: jbuzbee@den.mmc.com (Jim Buzbee)
Newsgroups: alt.test
Subject: test
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:30:36 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver

................