NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/dadsrig/3086

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 4.1 KB

Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:3086 alt.child-support:4037
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!hyperion!desire.wright.edu!sbishop
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights,alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Itemized accounting of child support
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:45:42 EST
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization:  Wright State University
Lines: 76

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>{_In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>> [e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, but Michal, both Alan and Bob consider anything except money paid for
>>>>immediate basic minimal needs as luxury!  So, salting money away for a
>>>>bicycle (an HUGE luxury item in their eyes), or *gasp* college is a waste
>>>>of THEIR precious funds.
>
>>>>And, yes, this is a flame.  And, yes, this is a fairly accurate description
>>>>of their position.
>
> And, yes, Sue Bishop said she is NOT salting ANY money away
> for "*gasp* college."
>
> God forbid I mention that she IS taking her foster son
> with the family on vacation in Florida.
>
> I support her every right to do whatever she wants with her
> OWN money, though.

I'm of the opinion that working your way through college builds character
and gives a better appreciation of an education.  I have several students
(about nine at present) who work for me who are working their way through
college.  Great kids, I think they will do well in life.  I really don't
believe in handing children everything on a silver platter.  My sons
all get an allowance that is partially based on their chores.  If they
dont do the chores, they don't get all their allowance.  They get a
base amount, after that, everything is subjective.  They also can earn
extra money for certain difficult chores, building fence, cleaning out
the barn, etc.


>
>>    But I don't see her chasing after the MOTHER, who she
>>    claims ALSO has support obligations.  And I don't see
>>    her answering MY question(s) about why it isn't time
>>    to start putting the "squeeze" on the MOTHER as well
>>    as this kids FATHER.
>
> Sue Bishop mentioned that the mother has some mental problems --
> but Sue's description of the father seems to indicate the same.  So
> I guess he'd have to commit himself to an institution to avoid paying --
> although I'd bet he'd be in arrears anyway, when he came out.

No, the father doesn't have mental problems, at least the Air Force doesn't
think so.  But Mike's mother is really not working with all her facilties,
poor woman is not in good shape at all, she just spent about three weeks
in a local mental hospital.
The father's problem seems to be that he is a jerk.  That's not just my
opinion, that was the description I got from the director of the Home
where Mike lived.  She says the man looks like he spent his entire life
sucking on a lemon, sour faced and nasty natured.
We go to court in January, I had to talk several of the Home councilers
from showing at the court house and waiting outside for Mike's dad.
Several of them wanted a swing at him, including a couple of the women!


>
> Don
> --
> [e-mail]                       Opinions from the PC-challenge

I really don't see why you have a problem with me leaving your sig. at
the end, but if it really bothers you so much I'll start removing it.
It is sort of generic anyway.

Sue