child support review objection
Rob
hearing - as I thought she would she objected to the amount of support she
was asked to pay.
I have FULL custody of the children and she has nothing to do with them, nor
does she want anything to do with them. I gave her a break the first 3
years after the divorce. We split over 5 years ago, the first 2 years she
did not pay anything. Then the order was supposed to be $360 a month for 3
children. I agreed to lower it to 198 a month. Now the oldest child has
graduated high school and has turned 18. Our divorce decree does NOT
address college expenses and I am expected to take care of that myself. The
review came back with $249 a month (for 2 children). She had the nerve to
tell the FOC that she was NOT going to agree to ANY child support that she
should NOT have to pay anything that she wants it dropped completely simply
because she does not see the children and doesnt have anything to do with
them (yes she admitted that right out).
Well today is the hearing in front of the Judge so we will see what happens
today, it would not surprise me to see her either locked up (for yelling at
the judge which is about normal for her) or the child support order going
even higher (on imputted income) They had a review also based on imputted
income for $340 a month based on her working FULL time which she refuses to
do! (she is more than capable of working 40 hours)
I have also submitted medical bills that she is partially responsible for
and I have to take a day off of work to take them to court as well, which
seems pointless when she only pays 18% of all uncovered medical expenses
(and I have excellent insurance and the amount she owes is around $200 and I
would lose $300 if I take a day off of work!!) So that is counter
productive to say the least. I am going to ask for $265 a month in child
support and take full responsibility for all uncovered medical bills (which
are around $100 to $150 a month - my oldest son is Autistic is under
constant medical care though I am not even sure if he is my biological son
since my ex was also sleeping with her ex-bf at the same time (he later died
from an over dose on street drugs) This would explain why my oldest son
has so many issues with his health and learning disabilities --- BUT I dont
care now, though I am planning on a paterenity before he is 18 to find out
for medical reasons. I have been raising him for over 16 years now and I
dont see the point in really getting into that issue with the courts) Though
I have thought of filing a law suit against her if I find out he is not my
son, because I had a vasectomy based on the fact that I had 3 biological
children. And the fact is that the oldest child (my daughter) may be the
only biological child. She looks way to much like me and at that time my
exwife never went anywhere during the time she became pg with her. (we were
living with family at the time and we always had people around so it would
have been a little obvious since she was iether with me or a family member
all the time.)
Some women really just irk me, well and to be fair...lol some men are just
as bad if not worse! (I see it go both ways - people just need to grow up
and take care of their children and not just walk away!) I could never walk
away from my children for any reason, even if I find out they are not mine
biologically they are mine in heart.
I will post later tonight as to what happened in court today.
Robert
Rob
"Rob" <us...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AHh0j.21374$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
well I got back from court, the judge spent most of the time trying to
explain to my ex about HOW the child support was calculted and how they came
up with the amount they had figured out.
The support order was put in for $230 a month. She still had a hissy over
that. She really expected to walk out not paying a dime. She made the
excuse that she does not see the children - saying I do NOT allow her, yet
she has NEVER called, or showed up or made any effort to see them. When I
was calling her on friday (of the week she was scheduled for visitation she
yelled saying I was harassing her!! So now I have to wait for her to
contact me to see the children, and geeee she never calls!! its been close
to a year already now and I have NOT moved in 2 years and she knows where I
live)
Robert
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Rob" <us...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AHh0j.21374$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
So tell me, how does it feel getting FREE money from someone else?
>
>
>
Gini
"Chris" wrote
> "Rob" wrote
...........................
>>
>> Some women really just irk me, well and to be fair...lol some men are
> just
>> as bad if not worse! (I see it go both ways - people just need to grow
>> up
>> and take care of their children and not just walk away!) I could never
> walk
>> away from my children for any reason, even if I find out they are not
>> mine
>> biologically they are mine in heart.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will post later tonight as to what happened in court today.
>>
>> Robert
>
> So tell me, how does it feel getting FREE money from someone else?
$230. a month is fair and reasonable, Chris.
DB
"Rob" <us...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> The support order was put in for $230 a month. She still had a hissy over
> that. She really expected to walk out not paying a dime. She made the
> excuse that she does not see the children - saying I do NOT allow her, yet
> she has NEVER called, or showed up or made any effort to see them.
So much for motherly love! Is she brain damaged or something?
How do they get such low rates for 2 kids, I have just one and they want
$435/month plus another 400 for arrearages, and I only made $10/hr?
whatamess
> "Rob" <u...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Because she's a woman...If she were a man, they'd expect much more.
Yes, we pay 450 for ONE...very ridiculous when you consider that it
does
NOT cost 900USD a month to raise a child...OOPS...sorry, the CP
does not have to pay towards the child's expenses, only the NCP...
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"whatamess" <muda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:809bbf4c-4a78-463b...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".
Who in their right mind would volunteer to get cheated?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:bYp0j.2823$Jy1.2029@trndny02...
and FREE!
> Chris.
>
>
Sarah Gray
Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".
Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is
here, just spend a few hours after school :(
--
Sarah Gray
teachrmama
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@duhyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Bv61j.46411$eY.4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
Oh, but Sarah, what is more important? Spending time with dad (and ditching
school) or going to school and having limited time with dad? <chuckle>
(tongue in cheek)
teachrmama
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:ds61j.8045$Rw3....@newsfe06.phx...
The NCP could save the $230 by living in the area and parenting their own
children 50% of the time, Chris.
>
>> Chris.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Sarah Gray
I just hope he *does* come up next week, because she has really been
looking forward to see him. I have a folder full of pictures and
"letters" she insisted she had to give him in person.
--
Sarah Gray
Gini
"Sarah Gray" wrote
> teachrmama wrote:
>> "Sarah Gray" wrote
>>> Chris wrote:
>>> Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap
>>> positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are
>>> RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim
>>> that they are being "FAIR".
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their
>>> children.
>>> As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to
>>> spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead
>>> will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make
>>> an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up
>>> later in the week.
>>> She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is
>>> here, just spend a few hours after school :(
>>
>> Oh, but Sarah, what is more important? Spending time with dad (and
>> ditching school) or going to school and having limited time with dad?
>> <chuckle> (tongue in cheek)
>
> I just hope he *does* come up next week, because she has really been
> looking forward to see him. I have a folder full of pictures and "letters"
> she insisted she had to give him in person.
Did you tell him that? There were times I had to "prompt" my ex to get his
butt in gear.
Some men just don't understand how their words/actions affect the kids. I
had to prompt my ex when we
lived together to understand the child's needs/feelings from time to time.
No different after the split.
teachrmama
I have to agree. Sometimes they just don't understand the major impact they
have. And I'm not sayig this in any sort of negative way. My husband is
such a solution-finder. When our daughters were very young he commented
that they were acting the same way he had seen some of his alcoholic
relatives act, and he was concerned. I had to point out to him that they
were acting exactly as 1-1/2 and 2-1/2 year olds were supposed to act. It
was his alcoholic relatives that were acting inapproporiately. <chuckle>
Sarah Gray
I told him. He is upset that I have not mailed anything, but she has
been insistent on saving stuff to give to him in person. The thing is,
he insists that he wants to be this great dad, and that it's killing him
that he "had" to move. But it's not as if there is a shortage of $9 an
hour jobs here. And, frankly, if I were in his position, I would have
already been doing what I could to have visited her a number of times
already. I suggested renting a car and said that I would help with gas,
and he came up with the above response (he doesn't have a car of his own).
--
Sarah Gray
Sarah Gray
I think the term my ex used (and I appropriated) was "monkey on crack".
:)
It's so true, though...kids are crazy :)
--
Sarah Gray
Gini
"teachrmama" wrote
>
> "Gini" wrote
>> "Sarah Gray" wrote
>>>
>>> I just hope he *does* come up next week, because she has really been
>>> looking forward to see him. I have a folder full of pictures and
>>> "letters" she insisted she had to give him in person.
>> ==
>> Did you tell him that? There were times I had to "prompt" my ex to get
>> his butt in gear.
>> Some men just don't understand how their words/actions affect the kids. I
>> had to prompt my ex when we
>> lived together to understand the child's needs/feelings from time to
>> time.
>
> I have to agree. Sometimes they just don't understand the major impact
> they have. And I'm not sayig this in any sort of negative way. My
> husband is such a solution-finder. When our daughters were very young he
> commented that they were acting the same way he had seen some of his
> alcoholic relatives act, and he was concerned. I had to point out to him
> that they were acting exactly as 1-1/2 and 2-1/2 year olds were supposed
> to act. It was his alcoholic relatives that were acting inapproporiately.
> <chuckle>
Hehe--they can be pretty dense, eh? I remember my middle son sitting on the
hood of our car with his suitcase waiting for his dad to arrive. After a
while I called his dad
and told him to get moving. It just didn't occur to him while he was sipping
his third cup of
coffee that the boy was sitting in the driveway waiting...waiting....(Now,
if that were Moon, she
would have been typing a letter to her ex [cc the court, of course] that
the court had not authorized a change
in the visitation schedule and that 24 hour's written notice was required
for such change.)
teachrmama
<chuckle> That can certainly describe it at times.
teachrmama
Yep, I'm sure she would have. But that path has not led her to where she
wanted to go, has it?
teachrmama
It doesn't sound as if he has quite developed the knack of taking
responsibility for his own choices yet. Do you have a video camera? Maybe
seeing a video ov his daughter would motivate him to come up more often.
Gini
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@duhyahoo.com> wrote
I understand your frustration and his apparent wishywashieness (I just made
that word up :).
My ex grew up in an emotionally devoid home. After we had kids, he learned
what it was like
to deeply love someone and it kinda threw him offguard. So, while he really
really loved his babies,
he sometimes really didn't know *how* to love them. So, when others might
have seen him as uncaring,
I knew better. Now, even though the boys are in their late 20s, he's right
there for them with lots of hugs
and "I love you's"--and they worship their dad.
Gini
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fi356...@news2.newsguy.com...
Nope. And she has one helluva paper trail.
Sarah Gray
I have a slew of videos uploaded to youtube that I have emailed him
links to.
--
Sarah Gray
Sarah Gray
That is great how you guys have managed to maintain good relationships
with your kids.
I'm really hoping that my ex gets it together; As much as I cannot stand
him, I want my daughter to have a decent relationship with her dad.
--
Sarah Gray
Gini
>> ==
>> I understand your frustration and his apparent wishywashieness (I just
>> made that word up :).
>> My ex grew up in an emotionally devoid home. After we had kids, he
>> learned what it was like
>> to deeply love someone and it kinda threw him offguard. So, while he
>> really really loved his babies,
>> he sometimes really didn't know *how* to love them. So, when others might
>> have seen him as uncaring,
>> I knew better. Now, even though the boys are in their late 20s, he's
>> right there for them with lots of hugs
>> and "I love you's"--and they worship their dad.
>>
>>
>
> That is great how you guys have managed to maintain good relationships
> with your kids.
> I'm really hoping that my ex gets it together; As much as I cannot stand
> him, I want my daughter to have a decent relationship with her dad.
There's nothing more precious than family and like it or not, when we have
children, our ex's are family--forever.
teachrmama
So, is it just her nature to be that way? Or did today's system give her
that extra measure of comfort she needed to behave in that manner?
>
>
teachrmama
That's great. I'm sure she is a superstar!!
Sarah Gray
> "Sarah Gray" <anis...@duhyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> I have a slew of videos uploaded to youtube that I have emailed him links
>> to.
>
> That's great. I'm sure she is a superstar!!
>
>
Oh for sure. Only 5 and already a diva!
--
Sarah Gray
teachrmama
Same with my husband--very cold home environment growing up. My favorite
picture is the first time he went out and played with the whiffle ball and
bat with the girls when they were 6 and 7. I framed it and hung it on the
wall. Before that, he was there, but not really there, if you know what I
mean. That was a breakthrough moment for all of us. =c)
Gini
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote
>
> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote
>>
>> "teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote
>>>
>>> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote
................................
>>>> ===
>>>> Hehe--they can be pretty dense, eh? I remember my middle son sitting
>>>> on the
>>>> hood of our car with his suitcase waiting for his dad to arrive. After
>>>> a while I called his dad
>>>> and told him to get moving. It just didn't occur to him while he was
>>>> sipping his third cup of
>>>> coffee that the boy was sitting in the driveway
>>>> waiting...waiting....(Now, if that were Moon, she
>>>> would have been typing a letter to her ex [cc the court, of course]
>>>> that the court had not authorized a change
>>>> in the visitation schedule and that 24 hour's written notice was
>>>> required for such change.)
>>>
>>> Yep, I'm sure she would have. But that path has not led her to where
>>> she wanted to go, has it?
>> ==
>> Nope. And she has one helluva paper trail.
>
> So, is it just her nature to be that way? Or did today's system give her
> that extra measure of comfort she needed to behave in that manner?
Considering the behavior is consistent over the years and profoundly
pervasive, it appears to be her nature.
DB
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in
> Same with my husband--very cold home environment growing up. My favorite
> picture is the first time he went out and played with the whiffle ball and
> bat with the girls when they were 6 and 7. I framed it and hung it on the
> wall. Before that, he was there, but not really there, if you know what I
> mean. That was a breakthrough moment for all of us. =c)
I can only imagine what most kids model of a family is today, but hopefully
human nature can overcome much of the stupidity.
DB
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:MWk1j.1243$AR7...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
BTW another old fashioned ethic was to never buy anything unless you could
pay cash for it!
unlike these guys!
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2007/11/19/forecast_us_dollar_could_plunge_90_pct/4876/
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@duhyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Bv61j.46411$eY.4...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
Which has absolutely ZERO to do with my claim.
>
>
> --
>
> Sarah Gray
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@duhyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8y81j.905$4q5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Pure fantasy. It's what you ARE doing that's relevant; not what you WOULD
do.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fi2un...@news3.newsguy.com...
NOT the issue and you KNOW it too! Why is SHE the one who dictates his
options? If the shoe was on the other foot....................
>
> >
> >> Chris.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
teachrmama
I know no such thing, Chris. There is no dictating going on. There are
children that need 2 parents--and one has chosen to walk away. This isn't
some fool unmarried woman bringing a child into the world over the
objections of or without the knowledge of the father, moving away, and
demanding 18+ years of exorbitant support. It is about the responsibilities
of BOTH parents to provide basic needs for the children they chose to bring
into this world. And $230 a month seems more than reasonable for 1/2 the
basic needs of 2 children. I detest what the system has become, but there
is a place for a much milder, fairer system.
animal02
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fi74t...@news3.newsguy.com...
And unfortunately is not likely to change, due in part to people like Chris
who tend to squawk the loudest, and who become poster children for the
"other side"
Sarah Gray
>
>
>"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
>
>> The NCP could save the $230 by living in the area and parenting their >>
own
>> children 50% of the time, Chris.
>NOT the issue and you KNOW it too! Why is SHE the one who dictates his
>options? If the shoe was on the other foot....................
What do you mean, if the shoe was on the other foot? You don't think men
have any obligations towards their children, why should where they live
matter in your twisted little world?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F2DE43D7B0Can...@207.115.33.102...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:V2D1j.20225$4k.1...@newsfe11.phx:
>
> >
> >
> >"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> >> The NCP could save the $230 by living in the area and parenting their
>>
> own
> >> children 50% of the time, Chris.
>
> >NOT the issue and you KNOW it too! Why is SHE the one who dictates his
> >options? If the shoe was on the other foot....................
>
> What do you mean, if the shoe was on the other foot?
There exists not a snowball's chance in the deepest pits of the earth that
you would be willing to allow him to dictate YOUR options.
> You don't think men
> have any obligations towards their children, why should where they live
> matter in your twisted little world?
For the same reason it matters in YOURS.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"animal02" <wher...@friday.com> wrote in message
news:v8qdnV26uL7c1dra...@wideopenwest.com...
You have presented your conclusion. Now BACK it with premises.
>
>
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@duhyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Cd91j.70633$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
On YOUR terms; "decent" being a matter of opinion.
>
>
> --
>
> Sarah Gray
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:MWk1j.1243$AR7...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
Such model being "family court"; hence the term "family". :)
>
>
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fi74t...@news3.newsguy.com...
SHE has determined his options; NOT he! Sounds like dictation to me........
teachrmama
Hmmmm.....SHE forced him to give up his 50/50 parenting and move away from
his child. You try so hard to make every NCP a helpless victim, Chris, that
you end up making totally ridiculous statements.
Sarah Gray
>There exists not a snowball's chance in the deepest pits of the earth that
>you would be willing to allow him to dictate YOUR options.
The only reason I am "dictating his options" is because I was trying to
give him a break from what the state will demand.
Sarah Gray
>Sarah Gray said:
>> I'm really hoping that my ex gets it together; As much as I cannot stand
>> him, I want my daughter to have a decent relationship with her dad.
>On YOUR terms; "decent" being a matter of opinion.
On MY terms? I did not forcibly remove him to another state, Chris. He is
the one putting a stumbling block in their relationship.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fice7...@news3.newsguy.com...
What's ridiculous is your nice lil' twist in what I claimed. The ONLY thing
that she is forcing him into is to pay her free money. I know, she isn't
actually getting the cash from him (now). As if a judgement that threatens
him with prison, not to mention the fact that eventually it (the extortion
of his money) will catch up with him, is supposed to be any better.....
Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees the
child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY options as
determined by HER!
You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do. And
making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
>
>
>
Sarah Gray
news:fLp2j.27590$L15....@newsfe08.phx:
> What's ridiculous is your nice lil' twist in what I claimed. The ONLY
> thing that she is forcing him into is to pay her free money. I know,
> she isn't actually getting the cash from him (now). As if a judgement
> that threatens him with prison, not to mention the fact that
> eventually it (the extortion of his money) will catch up with him, is
> supposed to be any better.....
>
> Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees
> the child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY
> options as determined by HER!
>
> You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do. And
> making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
>
it's not "the mother's town", it's the *child's* town. I have no problem
with her visiting him, as long as it does not interrupt her schooling,
but I am certainly not sending her out of state unless we have a custody
agreement that is relevant to the current situation, which is not the
case at the moment. Why should he be allowed to move out of town and
demand that our child be deprived of an education to see him beyond
school holidays?
teachrmama
Not free money, Chris. A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his child.
>
> Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees the
> child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY options as
> determined by HER!
The child is where she always was. But he is not. He left. He chose to
abandon his child.
>
> You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do. And
> making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
Sure sounds like it, Chris.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3D50DDFAEEan...@207.115.17.102...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:aah2j.9221$Rw3....@newsfe06.phx:
> >Sarah Gray said:
> >> I'm really hoping that my ex gets it together; As much as I cannot
stand
> >> him, I want my daughter to have a decent relationship with her dad.
>
> >On YOUR terms; "decent" being a matter of opinion.
>
> On MY terms?
Well it certainly aint' on HIS terms.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3D4D047345an...@207.115.17.102...
1. The state demands NOTHING unless you tell them to demand.
2. Irrelevant what the state demands since it is in your power to
damonstrate to them a satisfaction of such demand without a single cent
being taken from the father.
(Please don't ask me to explain how that's possible.)
>
>
DB
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:aah2j.9221$Rw3....@newsfe06.phx:
Personally, I think he's trying to put some real distance between all of you
and has plans to drop out of her life.
Unfortunately, you didn't procreate with a man, this is an immature boy that
needs to be close to his mommy for security. If you realize that reality,
you can better deal with the situation and don't count on his help.
Drop this loser and go find a real man to continue your life. To dwell on
this problem is a waste of time & energy, it's not worth the heart ache.
Good luck in your new life and don't look back!
teachrmama
You notice, Sarah, that Chris does not answer the points about the father
leaving the child. It is all about everyone else concerned accomodating
themselves to make sure that the father has a relationship with the
child--as if the father has no responsibility in cultivating this
relationship himself.
whatamess
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote innews:fLp2j.27590$L15....@newsfe08.phx:
Sarah, what would happen if you had to move because of a job
for you or your new husband? Just wondering if you or him either
lost your job and were able to find a job outside of "your daughter's
town" or if you were offerred 50% increase in salary to move...
Would you stay where you are at so that your daughter can
stay in "her town"?
I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems that when the
custodial parent moves for any of these reasons, they don't
see a problem with it...because of course, they take the child
with them...but as soon as a non-custodial parent does the same,
they are seen as "abandoning" their child...
Sarah Gray
Sarah Gray
> [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> custody of such child]
> "Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99F3D4D047345an...@207.115.17.102...
>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:77h2j.9219$Rw3.6760
@newsfe06.phx:
>>
>>
>> >There exists not a snowball's chance in the deepest pits of the
earth
> that
>> >you would be willing to allow him to dictate YOUR options.
>>
>> The only reason I am "dictating his options" is because I was trying
to
>> give him a break from what the state will demand.
>
> 1. The state demands NOTHING unless you tell them to demand.
> 2. Irrelevant what the state demands since it is in your power to
> damonstrate to them a satisfaction of such demand without a single
cent
> being taken from the father.
> (Please don't ask me to explain how that's possible.)
He is the one who insisted (or rather, his lawyer at the time insisted)
that a child support order be entered. He is the one who is unwilling to
pay half of reasonable costs incurred. You don't think men should
support their children, but should be accomodated in terms of visitation
etc. when they up and leave. That makes no sense, Chris.
Sarah Gray
news:hBq2j.1458$AR7...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
>
> "Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in
>
>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in
>> news:aah2j.9221$Rw3....@newsfe06.phx:
>>>Sarah Gray said:
>>>> I'm really hoping that my ex gets it together; As much as I cannot
>>>> stand him, I want my daughter to have a decent relationship with
>>>> her dad.
>>
>>>On YOUR terms; "decent" being a matter of opinion.
>>
>> On MY terms? I did not forcibly remove him to another state, Chris.
>> He is the one putting a stumbling block in their relationship.
>
> Personally, I think he's trying to put some real distance between all
> of you and has plans to drop out of her life.
>
> Unfortunately, you didn't procreate with a man, this is an immature
> boy that needs to be close to his mommy for security. If you realize
> that reality, you can better deal with the situation and don't count
> on his help.
>
I am not counting on his help... but if he's going to "drop out" like
that, I see no reason why I shouldn't use the legal means available to
me to ensure he helps support his daughter. I don't think that is his
intention, though, considering that when I brought up our discussing
custody issues at the next court date we have, he alluded to fighting
for full custody himself. Which I think is ridiculous, considering he is
in no position to raise a child (no home of his own, no car, currently
is claiming that he is too broke to afford to come see his daughter when
he has no real expenses and makes $1000 a month)
> Drop this loser and go find a real man to continue your life. To dwell
> on this problem is a waste of time & energy, it's not worth the heart
> ache.
>
I'd love to not have to deal with him. He is my daughter's father,
though, and so I'm going to have to for as long as he cares to be
involved in her life.
Frankly, I'm not looking for a man... I need to get my own thing
together for myself and my daughter before I can devote energy to a
relationship.
Sarah Gray
10f315...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 25, 10:20 pm, Sarah Gray <anisae...@yahoonot.com> wrote:
>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote innews:fLp2j.27590$L15.4152
No. However, he did not move because of a better job. He moved *away
from his daughter* because his parents moved and he wasn't willing to
find a job here to support himself. He's still not supporting himself.
> I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems that when the
> custodial parent moves for any of these reasons, they don't
> see a problem with it...because of course, they take the child
> with them...but as soon as a non-custodial parent does the same,
> they are seen as "abandoning" their child...
>
If my ex still lived here, I would do what I could to stay in town, (let
alone the "100 mile law" in Michigan) because I would want my daughter
to be able to see her father. If my ex had had a job offer, and that was
the reason he moved, I would not have had as much of a problem with it.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidcv...@news1.newsguy.com...
Perhaps the nickname "Twist" would be appropriate for you since that is
exactly what you do to my claims. Not ONCE did I ever suggest that ANYONE
accomodate anyone else. But I welcome you to provide your evidence
supporting the contrary.
>
>
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3E465443EAan...@207.115.33.102...
Then tell him that you are willing to stop the pursuit of his money if he is
willing to be out of your life. Simple.
Sarah Gray
Whatever, Chris. No matter what you think, he has an obligation to his
daughter.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3D910B5AE2an...@207.115.33.102...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in
> news:fLp2j.27590$L15....@newsfe08.phx:
>
> > What's ridiculous is your nice lil' twist in what I claimed. The ONLY
> > thing that she is forcing him into is to pay her free money. I know,
> > she isn't actually getting the cash from him (now). As if a judgement
> > that threatens him with prison, not to mention the fact that
> > eventually it (the extortion of his money) will catch up with him, is
> > supposed to be any better.....
> >
> > Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees
> > the child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY
> > options as determined by HER!
> >
> > You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do. And
> > making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
> >
>
> it's not "the mother's town", it's the *child's* town.
Lol. So now we have the child telling the mother where they shall live.
> I have no problem
> with her visiting him, as long as it does not interrupt her schooling,
Of course, because you are the SOLE dictator as to what her living
arrangements shall be.
>
> but I am certainly not sending her out of state unless we have a custody
> agreement that is relevant to the current situation, which is not the
> case at the moment.
Well of course. Why would you do anything against YOUR will?
> Why should he be allowed to move out of town and
> demand that our child be deprived of an education to see him beyond
> school holidays?
You tell me.
>
teachrmama
Hmmm...let's see. Father has child 50% of the time in a split custody
agreement. Father voluntarily moves away--not to a better job, just moves
away. You suggest that the father/daughter bond is more important than the
child's schooling, and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
father. So tell me, Chris, if that is not accomodating the man who
abandoned his child, what is it? What *do* you think about the guy walking
away from his 50/50 split custody and moving so far away? Whose
responsibility *is* it to make sure that the child spends time with her
father?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidb5...@news5.newsguy.com...
Unearned = FREE! What part of that equation do you NOT understand?
> A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
> there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his child.
>
> >
> > Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees the
> > child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY options as
> > determined by HER!
>
> The child is where she always was.
Irrelevant.
> But he is not.
Irrelevant.
> He left.
Irrelevant.
> He chose to
> abandon his child.
Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.
>
>
> >
> > You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do. And
> > making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
>
> Sure sounds like it, Chris.
Could that pesky lil' fact that virtually every NCP is so against their will
have ANYTHING to do with it?
>
>
>
teachrmama
It is for the child. Anything a child gets is unearned. Do you have a
problem with a child being fed and housed because they are getting it free?
I can understand being upset that $$$ is given to be spent on luxuries--but
not on the basics for a child t hat you chose to have, and spent 5 years
with before abandoning said child.
>
>> A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
>> there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his child.
>>
>> >
>> > Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees the
>> > child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY options as
>> > determined by HER!
>>
>> The child is where she always was.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not so.
>
>> But he is not.
>
> Irrelevant.
Not so. You cannot care for a child if you move away from the child. And
you know it.
>
>> He left.
>
> Irrelevant.
A choice he made, so not irrelevant at all. And you know it.
>
>> He chose to
>> abandon his child.
>
> Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.
Incorrect. .He was caring for the child 50% of the time, then he abandoned
her.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do. And
>> > making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
>>
>> Sure sounds like it, Chris.
>
> Could that pesky lil' fact that virtually every NCP is so against their
> will
> have ANYTHING to do with it?
You constantly excuse every choice a NCP dad makes because virtually all
NCPs are NCPs against their will, therefore it is perfectly permissible for
a father with 50/50 custody to abandon his child, putting himself in the
position of being an NCP because he cannot possibly have custody if he is
not where the chld is, and, if the mother doesn't package the child up and
send her along to the father, the mother is evil and the NCP is a victim
although HE made a choice that took him away from his child, so it is ok to
rail against the system just because. OK, if that's how you want to live
your life, you keep right on with it, Chris.
Sarah Gray
news:Jwu2j.27821$L15....@newsfe08.phx:
>> > What's ridiculous is your nice lil' twist in what I claimed. The
>> > ONLY thing
>> > that she is forcing him into is to pay her free money. I know, she
>> > isn't actually getting the cash from him (now). As if a judgement
>> > that
> threatens
>> > him with prison, not to mention the fact that eventually it (the
> extortion
>> > of his money) will catch up with him, is supposed to be any
>> > better.....
>>
>> Not free money, Chris.
>
> Unearned = FREE! What part of that equation do you NOT understand?
>
It is *not* unearned. I am only asking him to recoup his share of the
costs of raising his daughter.
>> A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
>> there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his child.
>>
>> >
>> > Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees
>> > the child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY
>> > options as determined by HER!
>>
>> The child is where she always was.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> But he is not.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> He left.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> He chose to
>> abandon his child.
>
> Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.
That is completely false. I would never keep him from seeing her. He is
keeping himself from seeing her.
>> >
>> > You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do.
>> > And making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
>>
>> Sure sounds like it, Chris.
>
> Could that pesky lil' fact that virtually every NCP is so against
> their will have ANYTHING to do with it?
>
In this case, though, that is simply not the situation.
DB
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in
>
> A choice he made, so not irrelevant at all. And you know it.
>
>>
>>> He chose to
>>> abandon his child.
>>
>> Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.
>
> Incorrect. .He was caring for the child 50% of the time, then he abandoned
> her.
Why do we think Chris is not Christine?
Her wild irrational logic gives her away every time!
whatamess
> whatamess <mudanz...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ce5d0925-b57f-4bef-b056-
> 10f3157f4...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sarah, I do understand how much work sometimes it takes to raise a
child.
However, for some reason you are saying that you are angry at him
for abandoning his child because he "wouldn't" find a job to support
himself and instead moved with his parents and away from his child.
Does that mean that if God forbid your parents lived 100miles away
(or any other place) and someone was taking X amount of money
from you a month and therefore, you could not afford on 1000K a month
to have your own place and would basically end up on the street,
you would NOT move with your daughter to your parent's house
to ensure you had a roof over your shoulders? You would instead
stay in your daughters "town" and live in a cardboard box, pay
the money the government was taking away from you and all so
that your daughter would be able to see her father more frequently?
If so, you are one amazing woman...Unfortunately, I don't buy it.
If you could not make ends meet in your own town and could
live with your parents rent free and do much better for yourself,
you would be moving away from your daughter's town and not
care one bit about her relationship with her father...that's the
bottom line.
And please, don't use your daughter as an excuse. Should both
parents support their child, yes...should both parents be able
to see their child, yes...but also, BOTH parents should have a say
in how the child is raised, where the child lives and everything
else concerning that child.
Since you seem to think that it's so easy to get a job paying
the same amount just about anywhere, why don't you do your
daughter a favor and move her closer to her dad? Geez, imagine
that...it's so easy for you to find a job in any city (same as you
claim for your ex), so there should be no problem in you finding
a job in HIS new city and making that your daughter's new city
for the benefit of your child...
No Sarah, it's not about your child. It's not even about your ex.
It's about your need to dictate what your ex does with his money,
his time and anything else that concerns him. Otherwise, you
feel it's your right to "punish him" or be angry with him because
you can't control the choices he makes. Period.
To you, your ex has his priorities messed up...His priority should
be FIRST your child and her relationship with her dad (since
he abandoned her) then money...however, it seems to me that
you are penalizing him for making MONEY his first priority, while
you do exactly the same by making CS/money your first priority,
NOT your child's relationship with her dad.
Again, tell me what your priority is and let's see how that differs
from your ex's...I can assure you that it does NOT. Only that
you feel you have a right to make him change his priorities or PAY
for it and he does not have that same right...
Sad, but true.
Again, I am NOT in anyway saying that both parents should
not support their child...but if it takes two to tango, and both
have a responsibility, let that be a responsibility for EVERYTHING
not JUST MONEY...
Not ALL, but many CPs insist on it takes "two" to make a child
when it comes to money, but NOT when it comes to making any
decisions for that child, where they live, where they eat, what they
do with their lives, etc...no, when it comes to that, you give
yourself
the authority to make all decisions and it no longer takes two
to make and/or support a child...except of course, financially.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3E3973F974an...@207.115.33.102...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:xtq2j.9266$Rw3....@newsfe06.phx:
>
> > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
> > custody of such child]
> > "Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns99F3D4D047345an...@207.115.17.102...
> >> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:77h2j.9219$Rw3.6760
> @newsfe06.phx:
> >>
> >>
> >> >There exists not a snowball's chance in the deepest pits of the
> earth
> > that
> >> >you would be willing to allow him to dictate YOUR options.
> >>
> >> The only reason I am "dictating his options" is because I was trying
> to
> >> give him a break from what the state will demand.
> >
> > 1. The state demands NOTHING unless you tell them to demand.
> > 2. Irrelevant what the state demands since it is in your power to
> > damonstrate to them a satisfaction of such demand without a single
> cent
> > being taken from the father.
> > (Please don't ask me to explain how that's possible.)
>
> He is the one who insisted (or rather, his lawyer at the time insisted)
> that a child support order be entered.
Any other revelations?
> He is the one who is unwilling to
> pay half of reasonable costs incurred. You don't think men should
> support their children, but should be accomodated in terms of visitation
> etc. when they up and leave. That makes no sense, Chris.
It not only makes no sense, it is also NOT my claim.
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidog...@news2.newsguy.com...
Where did I make THAT claim?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidog...@news2.newsguy.com...
Where did I make THAT claim?
> and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F48036B84Can...@207.115.17.102...
No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
claim.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F3E503DCA48an...@207.115.33.102...
Uhuh. By the way, such "100 mile law" is nothing more than a meaningless
piece of legislation to make the so-called "family" court look good.
Definitely not enforced, as are ALL CP requirements. Oh, with one exception,
the requirement that the CP get FREE money.
> If my ex had had a job offer, and that was
> the reason he moved, I would not have had as much of a problem with it.
You should have NO problem with it. Where he moves and what he chooses to do
with his private life is HIS business........ NOT yours!
>
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidog...@news2.newsguy.com...
Where did I make THAT claim?
> and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidog...@news2.newsguy.com...
Where did I make THAT claim?
> and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F48036B84Can...@207.115.17.102...
No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
claim.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F48036B84Can...@207.115.17.102...
No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
claim.
>
>
> >>
teachrmama
And that's the crux, isn't it, Chris. A man should only have to be a father
as long as he wants to, then should be free to walk away. How sad.
Sarah Gray
news:08f9c9fa-e2f1-4963...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
There is no reason for an able-bodied person to be out of work for
months when they have no specialized skills. McDonald's is always
hiring.
> Does that mean that if God forbid your parents lived 100miles away
> (or any other place) and someone was taking X amount of money
> from you a month and therefore, you could not afford on 1000K a month
> to have your own place and would basically end up on the street,
> you would NOT move with your daughter to your parent's house
> to ensure you had a roof over your shoulders? You would instead
> stay in your daughters "town" and live in a cardboard box, pay
> the money the government was taking away from you and all so
> that your daughter would be able to see her father more frequently?
>
He could have found a comprable job here and found a place with
roommates. He would have been able to see his child. He was living with
his parents *here in Detroit*, and then they decided to move to TN last
winter. He lived with them rent free the entire time, and had his
daughter with him half of the week. He did not *have* to move. Until
this week, his parents still owned the house here in Detroit.
> If so, you are one amazing woman...Unfortunately, I don't buy it.
> If you could not make ends meet in your own town and could
> live with your parents rent free and do much better for yourself,
> you would be moving away from your daughter's town and not
> care one bit about her relationship with her father...that's the
> bottom line.
>
He claims that he is not living with them rent free now. He is making
less money than he was at the job he quit last year because they wanted
him to work on Christmas eve (he had agreed to work it in excnage for
Thanksgiving off, and then didn't show up on Christmas eve. They then
cut his hours, and he responded by quitting.)
> And please, don't use your daughter as an excuse. Should both
> parents support their child, yes...should both parents be able
> to see their child, yes...but also, BOTH parents should have a say
> in how the child is raised, where the child lives and everything
> else concerning that child.
>
So I should be calling him every time I give her a snack? I let him know
about things going on with her at school, and activities I would like to
sign her up for, etc. It is very difficult to discuss anything with him,
though, because he starts to yell, and then I have to hang up, or I
start yelling, too.
> Since you seem to think that it's so easy to get a job paying
> the same amount just about anywhere, why don't you do your
> daughter a favor and move her closer to her dad? Geez, imagine
> that...it's so easy for you to find a job in any city (same as you
> claim for your ex), so there should be no problem in you finding
> a job in HIS new city and making that your daughter's new city
> for the benefit of your child...
>
Actually, given that I have no degree, I was very fortunate to find the
job I have. I doubt that it would be very easy to find a job where I
would be making enough to support my daughter, considering that the
"really great job" that his mother was bragging about finding when she
was up here in August for a funeral pays less than what I make. Before
that I was working a minimum wage plus tips job, delivering orders for a
sub shop. My daughter's father only has an GED, and has few employable
skills. The kind of jobs he is qualified for are not in short supply
anywhere. He left after being unemployed by choice for months, with no
job offer in Tennessee. It's not as if he is in a specialized field and
was simply looking for a position to open, but found one in Tennessee.
> No Sarah, it's not about your child. It's not even about your ex.
> It's about your need to dictate what your ex does with his money,
> his time and anything else that concerns him. Otherwise, you
> feel it's your right to "punish him" or be angry with him because
> you can't control the choices he makes. Period.
>
I have *every* right to be angry at him about the poor choices he has
made regarding his daughter. I do not think supporting your child is
"punishment", and the fact that you do is kind of fucked up.
> To you, your ex has his priorities messed up...His priority should
> be FIRST your child and her relationship with her dad (since
> he abandoned her) then money...however, it seems to me that
> you are penalizing him for making MONEY his first priority, while
> you do exactly the same by making CS/money your first priority,
> NOT your child's relationship with her dad.
>
He has certainly not made money his first priority. His first priority
for months was to sleep late enough into the morning that he didn't even
bother taking her to her preschool some of the time.
I fail to see how I am the one responsible for facilitating his
relationship with her. That's *his* job. I am not going to do anything
to keep him from her, but I think expecting me to either pick up and
move, or spend my weekends driving back and forth fromn Tennessee so she
can see him for a few hours is ridiculous.
> Again, tell me what your priority is and let's see how that differs
> from your ex's...I can assure you that it does NOT. Only that
> you feel you have a right to make him change his priorities or PAY
> for it and he does not have that same right...
>
My priority is my daughter. If her father is not willing to step up and
play an active role in her life, he should be doing more in terms of his
share of the financial side of things. What is so wrong with that?
If I had up and left town with less than a day's notice, he would have
the very same options as me.
> Sad, but true.
>
> Again, I am NOT in anyway saying that both parents should
> not support their child...but if it takes two to tango, and both
> have a responsibility, let that be a responsibility for EVERYTHING
> not JUST MONEY...
>
How can he be responsible for anything besides money when he lives 600
miles away?
> Not ALL, but many CPs insist on it takes "two" to make a child
> when it comes to money, but NOT when it comes to making any
> decisions for that child, where they live, where they eat, what they
> do with their lives, etc...no, when it comes to that, you give
> yourself
> the authority to make all decisions and it no longer takes two
> to make and/or support a child...except of course, financially.
>
He is not here to make any of those decisions, and he has not voiced
many concerns over these things. Again, am I to call him to consult on
every little issue, as parents in an intact family might? I keep him
informed about what is going on. I ask him for input. What else can I
do?
Sarah Gray
>> He is the one who insisted (or rather, his lawyer at the time
insisted)
>> that a child support order be entered.
>
> Any other revelations?
>
About what? divorces are complicated.
>> He is the one who is unwilling to
>> pay half of reasonable costs incurred. You don't think men should
>> support their children, but should be accomodated in terms of
visitation
>> etc. when they up and leave. That makes no sense, Chris.
>
> It not only makes no sense, it is also NOT my claim.
>
then what is your claim, Chris?
Sarah Gray
>> Whatever, Chris. No matter what you think, he has an obligation to his
>> daughter.
>
> No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
> claim.
>
He does have an obligation; I suppose one could argue whether the ethical
obligation is there or not, considering your viewpoint, but he certainly
has a legal obligation towards her, and that is an undeniable fact.
Sarah Gray
news:b0J2j.22311$ck5....@newsfe09.phx:
>> If my ex still lived here, I would do what I could to stay in town,
>> (let alone the "100 mile law" in Michigan) because I would want my
>> daughter to be able to see her father.
>
> Uhuh. By the way, such "100 mile law" is nothing more than a
> meaningless piece of legislation to make the so-called "family" court
> look good. Definitely not enforced, as are ALL CP requirements. Oh,
> with one exception, the requirement that the CP get FREE money.
>
It *is* enforced. In fact, the first case I read when I was researching
it involved a man whose ex moved with thier child upstate, and the court
ended up reversing custody.
>> If my ex had had a job offer, and that was
>> the reason he moved, I would not have had as much of a problem with
>> it.
>
> You should have NO problem with it. Where he moves and what he chooses
> to do with his private life is HIS business........ NOT yours!
>
Not according to the state of Michigan.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:fidte...@news1.newsguy.com...
Uhuh. "For the child"; an old, tired, worn out, feel-good saying. A rose, by
any other name................
(see below)
> Anything a child gets is unearned. Do you have a
> problem with a child being fed and housed because they are getting it
> free?
No. Do you?
>
> I can understand being upset that $$$ is given to be spent on
luxuries--but
> not on the basics for a child t hat you chose to have, and spent 5 years
> with before abandoning said child.
Some time back, I caught a woman stealing oranges from my tree; a rather
large bag full. When confronted, she proclaimed "it's for my children". My
response: "F _ _ _ your children! What about MY children?". Needless to say,
she promptly returned the stolen goods; not that she had much of a choice.
But I think you get my drift.
[sidenote: Although I am absolutely an advocate of parents protecting their
children, it sure was a GREAT feeling to put this dirtbag, who used the
copout
phrase "for the children", in her place!]
>
>
> >
> >> A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
> >> there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his child.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees
the
> >> > child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY options
as
> >> > determined by HER!
> >>
> >> The child is where she always was.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Not so.
Explain.
>
>
> >
> >> But he is not.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Not so. You cannot care for a child if you move away from the child. And
> you know it.
Correction: You cannot care for a child if the mother REFUSES you to have
such child to care for.
>
>
> >
> >> He left.
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> A choice he made, so not irrelevant at all.
He chose to eat corn flakes too.
> And you know it.
>
>
> >
> >> He chose to
> >> abandon his child.
> >
> > Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.
>
> Incorrect. .He was caring for the child 50% of the time, then he abandoned
> her.
Incorrect. She has PREVENTED him from caring for her. Where he chooses to
live is his business, is irrelevant concerning his ability and/or choice to
have her with him, and is his RIGHT!
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do.
And
> >> > making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.
> >>
> >> Sure sounds like it, Chris.
> >
> > Could that pesky lil' fact that virtually every NCP is so against their
> > will
> > have ANYTHING to do with it?
>
> You constantly excuse every choice a NCP dad makes because virtually all
> NCPs are NCPs against their will, therefore it is perfectly permissible
for
> a father with 50/50 custody to abandon his child, putting himself in the
> position of being an NCP because he cannot possibly have custody if he is
> not where the chld is, and, if the mother doesn't package the child up and
> send her along to the father, the mother is evil and the NCP is a victim
> although HE made a choice that took him away from his child, so it is ok
to
> rail against the system just because.
With all due respect, it is unclear to me what you are trying to convey in
your above message.
> OK, if that's how you want to live
> your life, you keep right on with it, Chris.
Beats living a life of fantasy.
>
>
>
teachrmama
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:srC2j.2273$Dt4...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
<chuckle> Interesting point.
Sarah Gray
> Incorrect. She has PREVENTED him from caring for her. Where he chooses
> to live is his business, is irrelevant concerning his ability and/or
> choice to have her with him, and is his RIGHT!
>
In what way have I done so, Chris? If he wanted to take her with him, he
could have petitioned for full custody. If he did not want the state in his
business regarding where he moves, he shouldn't have filed for divorce.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" <anis...@yahoonot.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F4D9CCDCFA5an...@207.115.17.102...
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in news:90J2j.22309$ck5....@newsfe09.phx:
>
> >> Whatever, Chris. No matter what you think, he has an obligation to his
> >> daughter.
> >
> > No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
> > claim.
> >
>
> He does have an obligation; I suppose one could argue whether the ethical
> obligation is there or not, considering your viewpoint,
I DO; and it's not.
> but he certainly
> has a legal obligation towards her,
Correction: He has a legal obligation towards YOU!
> and that is an undeniable fact.
Negros once had a "legal" obligation to be slaves too! Oh, and women had a
"legal" obligation to keep their butts out of the voting booth...........
teachrmama
OK, Chris, you explain:
Dad has 50/50 custody
Dad moves away--too far to transport the child for 50/50 custody every 3 or
4 days, as before.
Mom remains where she was, does not follow dad.
Who made the choice for the dad not to see the child every 3 or 4 days?
(a) Dad, who moved away from the child?
-or-
(b) Mom, who stayed where she was?
DB
In the coming recession, there's going to be a lot of people having to move!
Sarah Gray
news:ibM2j.27079$aN3....@newsfe12.phx:
>> but he certainly
>> has a legal obligation towards her,
>
> Correction: He has a legal obligation towards YOU!
>
It's not as if I'm asking him to support me, Chris. All I want is for
him to take some responsibility in supporting *his daughter*.
>> and that is an undeniable fact.
>
> Negros once had a "legal" obligation to be slaves too! Oh, and women
> had a "legal" obligation to keep their butts out of the voting
> booth...........
>
>
So if it's such a bad law, get it changed. I don't understand why you
want kids to go without...that is hardly comparable to slavery and anti-
suffrage.
Sarah Gray
news:fig55...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:2WL2j.20373$4k....@newsfe11.phx...
>
> OK, Chris, you explain:
>
> Dad has 50/50 custody
>
> Dad moves away--too far to transport the child for 50/50 custody every
> 3 or 4 days, as before.
>
> Mom remains where she was, does not follow dad.
>
> Who made the choice for the dad not to see the child every 3 or 4
> days?
>
Actually, it was every two and a half days... I wanted to switch off
weeks, but he and his lawyer said that any longer than a few days was
too long for a kid her age to go without seeing a parent. I guess, now,
at 5 years old, it's ok to go 4 months without seeing your dad...
Sarah Gray
news:kRM2j.77679$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
People who run registers and flip burgers aren't the ones who have to
move because the economy sucks...
teachrmama
But there is a difference between having to move and moving because you want
to. I have a feeling that in the coming recession we won't be seeing
relationships thrown away so easily because people are going to need each
other--and the government is not going to be able to step into situations
with their idiot nonsolutions like they do now.
DB
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in
> But there is a difference between having to move and moving because you
> want to. I have a feeling that in the coming recession we won't be seeing
> relationships thrown away so easily because people are going to need each
> other--and the government is not going to be able to step into situations
> with their idiot nonsolutions like they do now.
The dominoes are falling, just a matter of time right now! :-)