Re: Student Attacked at School With Stun Gun
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:48370820$0$3380$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:VwDZj.2130$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >
> >
> > --
> > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> > custody of such child]
> >
> > .
> > .
> > "Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
> > news:4835a3b9$0$5114$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >>
> >> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dh9Zj.1102$J75...@newsfe20.lga...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> >> > custody of such child]
> >>
> >> The above is WRONG but the following might be an in principle
> >> correction that works:
> >>
> >> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to be
> >> considered fairly for custody of such child]
> >
> > Guess again. Perhaps the following analogy will help you to better
> > understand: Anyone that's good enough to make a car payment is good
enough
> > to have the car.
>
> Wrong -- children deserve competent care,
How'd they do that?
> but having children
> is a responsbility and incurs financial obligations whether you
> are competent or not.
Uhuh. And guess what else: Along with the responsibility of paying for the
care of a child comes the RIGHT to have custody of the child. Or are you one
who subscribes to the idea of responsibilities WITHOUT rights?
>
>
Herb Martin
I am for protecting children.
You don't get them because you pay for them; you pay for them
because you helped get them.
teachrmama
But Herb, the vast majority of parents are competent. And optimally,
children are better off having both a mother and a father in parenting roles
in their lives. If parents choose to have separate households, then 50/50
joint custody would assure the child of an ongoing relationship with both
parents. Sure it might be inconvenient for the parents--but since they are
the ones who created the child, the inconvenience should fall on them, not
on the child. Having one parent be the caretaker and the other be the
wallet is not healthy for the child. Wouldn't you agree?
Herb Martin
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g184r...@news5.newsguy.com...
That's fine and I have no reason not to agree -- and therefore by
my reading it will work out just fine for them.
I have never believed that "one parent" was genetically more
gifted for custody (and I have quite a bit of experience in the
matter although perhaps not what you might predict.)
> And optimally, children are better off having both a mother and a father
> in parenting roles in their lives.
Agreed. (As long as we presume your first point.)
> If parents choose to have separate households, then 50/50 joint custody
> would assure the child of an ongoing relationship with both parents.
In many cases this is best -- whatever is best for the children,
truly best for THAT KID, given all the evidence, and starting
without preconceptions if both parents are present and functional.
> Sure it might be inconvenient for the parents--but since they are the ones
> who created the child, the inconvenience should fall on them, not on the
> child.
The key is the KID. Each kid, as individually as it is possible for the
parents -- with the direction of the courts if the parents don't agree --
to make it.
> Having one parent be the caretaker and the other be the wallet is not
> healthy for the child. Wouldn't you agree?
Not a problem in the world with this logic.
My complaint was that financial support somehow would buy --
or in and of itself justify -- custody.
It does not.
But it should be part of the total consideration.
I was raised (literally) to believe that the Court has the responsibility
to worry about the CHILD first and foremost, and the parents
rights and wishes after that.
It's wonderful when everyone, both parents and the kid (and even
other relatives) agree. When they don't, the Court has a PRIMARY
responsibility to the kid.
Phil
Doesn't it make you wonder why C$ money is not accountable at all if the
contention that the court's responsibility is to the child? Shouldn't
the court be concerned with what happens to the money taken by force
from one parent and given to the other, ostensibly for the child?
Phil #3
Herb Martin
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:CPOdnb9EzMzduKXV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
>> news:g184r...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>>
>> my reading it will work out just fine for them.
>>
>> I have never believed that "one parent" was genetically more
>> gifted for custody (and I have quite a bit of experience in the
>> matter although perhaps not what you might predict.)
>>
>>> in parenting roles in their lives.
>>
>>
>>> would assure the child of an ongoing relationship with both parents.
>>
>> truly best for THAT KID, given all the evidence, and starting
>> without preconceptions if both parents are present and functional.
>>
>>> ones who created the child, the inconvenience should fall on them, not
>>> on the child.
>>
>> parents -- with the direction of the courts if the parents don't agree --
>> to make it.
>>
>>> healthy for the child. Wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>
>> My complaint was that financial support somehow would buy --
>> or in and of itself justify -- custody.
>>
>> It does not.
>>
>> But it should be part of the total consideration.
>>
>> I was raised (literally) to believe that the Court has the responsibility
>> to worry about the CHILD first and foremost, and the parents
>> rights and wishes after that.
>>
>> It's wonderful when everyone, both parents and the kid (and even
>> other relatives) agree. When they don't, the Court has a PRIMARY
>> responsibility to the kid.
>
> Doesn't it make you wonder why C$ money is not accountable at all if the
> contention that the court's responsibility is to the child? Shouldn't the
> court be concerned with what happens to the money taken by force from one
> parent and given to the other, ostensibly for the child?
Yes, as long as we say, "given to the child OR for the child care and
welfare".
Absolutely.
If a custodial parent is spending it on drugs, his/her own clothes,
someone else, gambling etc instead of the kids that is wrong.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:48373e40$0$3359$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
So, how'd they do that?
> >
> >> but having children
> >> is a responsbility and incurs financial obligations whether you
> >> are competent or not.
> >
> > Uhuh. And guess what else: Along with the responsibility of paying for
the
> > care of a child comes the RIGHT to have custody of the child. Or are you
> > one
> > who subscribes to the idea of responsibilities WITHOUT rights?
>
> I am for protecting children.
I'm sorry, was that a "yes" or a "no"?
>
> You don't get them because you pay for them; you pay for them
> because you helped get them.
Explain this "helped get them".
>
>
Herb Martin
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eY0_j.170$u7.55@trnddc07...> news:483861da$0$5135$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:okYZj.2633$tF1.387@trnddc01...
>> Years of working as a commercial diver (doing mostly underwater
>> construction and oil field work) has taught me to be sure of
>> ALL my safety equipment and how to OPERATE ever quick
>> release or escape feature.
>>
>> As divers, we were taught to PRACTICE removing our
>> "quick disconnect" so that we could escape a trapped
>> hose, or wedged SCUBA tank.
>>
>> As a parachutist, we were taught to work both the quick
>> release to escape the chute once on the ground or when
>> landing in water (dangers are the chute will either drag
>> you in the wind or tangle/drown you) but also to release
>> the cape releases in case of malfunction.
>>
>> But remember to Practice PERFECTLY.
>> If you practice sloppy you performance will be sloppy.
>
> Amen, you react in the manner you have practiced (trained) and if your
> practice was poor your response will be poor.
>
> Heck, I've seen men unable to walk out of their workspace on board a naval
> ship and get to the closest weather deck access just 125 feet away while
> blindfolded without getting lost, turned around or confused. Even when
> those
> same people used that access several times each and every day we're at
> sea.
Yes, it is even more amazing how radically transformed even a moderate
sized tug boat or working barge is when flooded with dark water much
less upside down or strangely canted.
Some people never do learn to work in such conditions, but even
for those of us who are/were good at it, practice and careful attention
are a key to success.
Upside down boats (I don't mean rowboats, but things smaller than
true ships) are just weird.
I've been in submerged tugs, ferries, dredge barges, and a few other
things and they are extremely disorienting.
> Nothing is so routine that you don't need to practice it and practice it
> under simulated emergency conditions.
The thing about TESTING seat belt releases is designed to produce
competence when you are upside down, can't see the belt (due to
darkness, water, or being pinned or blinded).
If you cannot find the release and operate it RIGHT AFTER your
buckle it, you have little chance in an emergency.
Phil
Without accounting, how would you know where the money goes?
Phil #3
DB
"Herb Martin" <ne...@learnquick.com> wrote in
> If a custodial parent is spending it on drugs, his/her own clothes,
> someone else, gambling etc instead of the kids that is wrong.
It's wrong for the government to collect money and piss it away!