home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights
- Path: sparky!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!walter.cray.com!lonesome!jsw
- From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
- Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.105307.29764@walter.cray.com>
- Lines: 60
- Nntp-Posting-Host: lonesome.cray.com
- Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
- Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
- References: <1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 10:53:06 CST
-
- In article 1h0k4aINN32a@gap.caltech.edu, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
- >karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
-
- >> Further, in those cases where it is impossible for split custody to
- >> work that the CP must provide an >itemized< accounting of all funds
- >> spent on supporting the child; those spent in excess of 50% of the
- >> cost of support to be refunded to the NCP immediately under penalty
- >> of law.
- >
- >This would not allow the CP to save any of the chilld support for college!
- >Actually, depending on how you define "immediately", it may disallow the
- >CP from salting away money for child-related emergencies, or Christmas
- >presents, or a bicycle, etc.
- >
-
- You are wrong because your premise is seriously dumb.
-
- To presume that the CP should be using a portion of the NCPs funds for
- a college fund is idiotic. It's child support, not college money.
-
- You presume that the NCP is a no good ass who WOULDN"T consider his children's
- future. Therefore, child support includes bicycles, college tuition and
- prom tux's because you presume a NCP would not help his children. This
- presumption is contemptable, sick and just plain sexist (to use a feminista
- phrase). The state has "bought" into this sick mentality that presumes
- men to be evil and women as helpless victims. This presumption is sick.
- It is also a stereotype that feminists' continue to foster so that a
- disportionate share of society's resources are channeled to a gender
- for their own blundering plight.
-
- My ex and I shared part ownership in a run down fourplex in worn out
- south Minneapolis. The city offered to purchase the fourplex. We had to
- agree to the sale (price, terms, conditions) etc. I sent a letter to
- her attorney requesting that I would agree to the sale ONLY if the proceeds
- went into a trust to be handled by ANY attorney of her choosing. This
- trust could only be used by the children for tuition, NOT books, NOT cars,
- NOT stereos, NOT field trips, NOT room and board. Tuition only. If the
- children do not choose college or any post secondary education (tech
- schools, jr. colleges, music acadamys), the money will be equally aportioned
- to the children on their 25th birthday. They would NOT receive a lump
- of cash to blow at the ripe old wise age of 18 OR 21.
-
- The EX rejected my offer. My guess, and it is only w.a.g. on my part, but
- I believe her attorney was looking for HER lump sum payment.
-
- Well honey. I'm going to show my kids where MY heart and head was at back in
- 1989. I'm also going to tell my little ones when they come running to me
- for "who knows what" that they should go runnin' to momma and kindly ask
- her where my $147,000.00 in child support went? Sorry kids. I can't do
- nothing for ya now. Your momma blew it, blew it big time.
-
- I asked the judge when he was perusing my tax returns (not her paycheck honey)
- for more child support WHY momma rejected a perfectly good offer from
- me but is now pursuing more child support. He didn't know or care.
-
- Listen Michal, this boy is sick of supporting "false" victims. Namely
- women.
-
-
-
-