PDA

View Full Version : Share vehicle, insurance expenses?


Scott Ross
August 14th 03, 07:13 PM
I am looking for opinions.

My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
miles or so out in the country.

It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to drive.
Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
participate in extra-curricular school activities.

They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.

My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when it
is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether it
is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the first
place).

Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?

The DaveŠ
August 14th 03, 07:31 PM
Scott Ross wrote:
> I am looking for opinions.
>
> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives
> 10 miles or so out in the country.
>
> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that
> state, so her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle
> for her to drive. Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or
> impossible for her to participate in extra-curricular school
> activities.
>
> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.

Did they ask your opinion on purchasing the vehicle to begin with?

> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her
> when it is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I
> question whether it is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for
> her school car and insurance. (I am not at all excited about a
> 14-year-old driving in the first place).
>
> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?

My opinion, based on what was presented. Part of the job of raising
kids is to prepare them for adulthood. In that perspective, I believe
that kids should support their own driving with a job, or some other
legal means. That includes, insurance, gas, upkeep, etc. I did when I
was a teenager and I knew that if I did something stupid (always a
possibility when a teenager is involved), I knew it would adversely
affect my mobility. Hence, I valued my car and maintained it, and
learned to plan and budget for gas money, tires, repair, etc. Those
are lessons that are still with me today. You should give kids
everything they truly *need*, and some of what they want, but some
things they need to learn right from the beginning to be
self-sufficient. I think that helping a teenager buy their first car
is fine, but day-to-day operation should be on the kid's shoulders.

Will this car be used to help her visit you? If not, I would not
contribute. If she spent a reasonable amount of time with me, I'd help
her while she was with me.

While most certainly convenient, driving and having a car at that age
is not a necessity. It sounds like they want it solely so they don't
have to get up or be bothered when she wants to do something. The
inconvenience of living so far from town was a choice made by her
mother and step-father. You should not be expected to subsidize their
(poor?) choice. If that's the case, they should pay for all of it.

~August
August 14th 03, 10:06 PM
"Scott Ross" > wrote in message
...
> I am looking for opinions.
>
> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> miles or so out in the country.
>
> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
drive.
> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>
> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>
> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it
> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether
it
> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
first
> place).
>
> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?

I think it might be reasonable for her to drive in the country setting. I
think it is reasonable for her mom to think you should contribute to the
vehicle expenses. I think that you Should contribute to those expenses.
Tell her to use the monthly CS payment that you send to her to cover your
share of those expenses.

Tracy
August 15th 03, 12:53 AM
"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am looking for opinions.
> >
> > My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> > miles or so out in the country.
> >
> > It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
so
> > her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
> drive.
> > Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> > participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> >
> > They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> > ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> >
> > My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
> it
> > is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
whether
> it
> > is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> > insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
> first
> > place).
> >
> > Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
>
> I think it might be reasonable for her to drive in the country setting. I
> think it is reasonable for her mom to think you should contribute to the
> vehicle expenses. I think that you Should contribute to those expenses.
> Tell her to use the monthly CS payment that you send to her to cover your
> share of those expenses.


My thoughts exactly.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Moon Shyne
August 15th 03, 02:39 AM
"Scott Ross" > wrote in message
...
> I am looking for opinions.
>
> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> miles or so out in the country.
>
> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to drive.
> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>
> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>
> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when it
> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether it
> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the first
> place).
>
> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?

Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you think Mom
should help shoulder the cost?

>

Bob Whiteside
August 15th 03, 02:41 AM
"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am looking for opinions.
> >
> > My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> > miles or so out in the country.
> >
> > It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
so
> > her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
> drive.
> > Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> > participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> >
> > They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> > ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> >
> > My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
> it
> > is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
whether
> it
> > is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> > insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
> first
> > place).
> >
> > Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
>
> I think it might be reasonable for her to drive in the country setting. I
> think it is reasonable for her mom to think you should contribute to the
> vehicle expenses. I think that you Should contribute to those expenses.
> Tell her to use the monthly CS payment that you send to her to cover your
> share of those expenses.

Ditto. One of the components of CS is transportation for the child. that
includes car payments, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. You are already
paying for your share.

BTW - CS also covers the cost of the school extracurricular activities she
attends by driving the car.

teachrmama
August 15th 03, 04:40 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I am looking for opinions.
> >
> > My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> > miles or so out in the country.
> >
> > It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
so
> > her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
drive.
> > Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> > participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> >
> > They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> > ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> >
> > My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it
> > is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
whether it
> > is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> > insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
first
> > place).
> >
> > Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
>
> Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
think Mom
> should help shoulder the cost?

But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does not
approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for it.
Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.

Moon Shyne
August 15th 03, 10:43 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I am looking for opinions.
> > >
> > > My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> > > miles or so out in the country.
> > >
> > > It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
> so
> > > her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
> drive.
> > > Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> > > participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> > >
> > > They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> > > ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> > >
> > > My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
> it
> > > is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
> whether it
> > > is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> > > insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
> first
> > > place).
> > >
> > > Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
> >
> > Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
> think Mom
> > should help shoulder the cost?
>
> But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does not
> approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
> her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
> unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for it.
> Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.

I'm curious to see how he feels about the situation if it were reversed - I
think that will be a whole lot more telling than trying to determine rights or
wrongs for an area that permits 14 year old children to drive.

>
>

Scott Ross
August 15th 03, 03:21 PM
in article , Moon Shyne at
wrote on 8/15/03 3:43 AM:

>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I am looking for opinions.
>>>>
>>>> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
>>>> miles or so out in the country.
>>>>
>>>> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
>> so
>>>> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
>> drive.
>>>> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
>>>> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>>>>
>>>> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
>>>> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
>> it
>>>> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
>> whether it
>>>> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
>>>> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
>> first
>>>> place).
>>>>
>>>> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
>>>
>>> Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
>> think Mom
>>> should help shoulder the cost?
>>
>> But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does not
>> approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
>> her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
>> unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for it.
>> Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.
>
> I'm curious to see how he feels about the situation if it were reversed - I
> think that will be a whole lot more telling than trying to determine rights or
> wrongs for an area that permits 14 year old children to drive.
>
>>
>>
>
>
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision. It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary",
and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

I really appreciate all of the feedback I've gotten on this.

Tracy
August 15th 03, 03:37 PM
"Scott Ross" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
to
> a 14-year-old driving without supervision. It's difficult to work that
into
> the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",
> and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
part
> of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> consider this.


I strongly believe you would feel different if you were living out in the
country with your children. It isn't uncommon to find 14 year olds driving.
I have a cousin who was driving small motorcycles since he was 12. I was
taught how to drive a car at the age of 12. Did my parents purchase me a
car, etc? No. Did I grow up in the country? No. Of those who I know that
did - they were out there helping on the farm, which included driving, at a
young age.

Some of the opinions formed on this subject reminds me of the opinions on
housing within the large cities from those living in the country. They view
it as a huge risk to the safety of their child to live in a large city, and
can't believe what people live like.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

bluefields
August 15th 03, 05:05 PM
Scott,
I agree with you, if I had a 14 year old child I would not want them driving.
Your daughter might be responsible but maturity and experiences of 14 year olds
makes them very risky drivers-period. I'm sure most people can remember the names
or at least the recent time when young drivers were killed in their own
neighborhoods.

It sounds like her mom and step dad already purchased, repaired, and insured a
vehicle for your daughter, without your consent. Your ex wife was wrong not to
discuss this with you first and also selfish to have brought your daughter into a
conversation about money and her freedom to drive a vehicle. How can you not look
like the bad guy here?!

Anyway, it does not seem like you would NOT have any obligation to pay anything, and
it sounds pretty tacky for your x to be asking, since she made this choice 100%
without you. I would tell her that you respect her opinion on the matter but you
really feel uncomfortable with her driving at age 14. You could than politely
decline to contribute to your daughter's driving, and would feel more comfortable
spending that money another way on your daughter. Your daughter might get mad at
you, but I think she is old enough to hear from you that it is not a matter of
money, it is solely because you know that 14 years old is to unsafe to be driving,
at that you love her too much to contribute to her driving. Perhaps when she is
older and working or going to College, you would be happy to help her choose and
contribute to a nice safe and reliable vehicle.

Scott Ross wrote:

> in article , Moon Shyne at
> wrote on 8/15/03 3:43 AM:
>
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> I am looking for opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> >>>> miles or so out in the country.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
> >> so
> >>>> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
> >> drive.
> >>>> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> >>>> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> >>>>
> >>>> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> >>>> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> >>>>
> >>>> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
> >> it
> >>>> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
> >> whether it
> >>>> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> >>>> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
> >> first
> >>>> place).
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
> >>>
> >>> Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
> >> think Mom
> >>> should help shoulder the cost?
> >>
> >> But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does not
> >> approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
> >> her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
> >> unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for it.
> >> Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.
> >
> > I'm curious to see how he feels about the situation if it were reversed - I
> > think that will be a whole lot more telling than trying to determine rights or
> > wrongs for an area that permits 14 year old children to drive.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
> exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
> standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary
> driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden
> that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
>
> I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to
> a 14-year-old driving without supervision. It's difficult to work that into
> the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary",
> and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part
> of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> consider this.
>
> I really appreciate all of the feedback I've gotten on this.

gini52
August 16th 03, 03:49 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote
> "Scott Ross" > wrote
.................
> > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
> > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
> > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
> > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
> > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> >
> > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
to
> > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
>
> Which is apparently legal where she resides?
>
> It's difficult to work that into
> > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",
>
> Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take
part
> in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
>
> So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
> from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
>
> Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?
>
> > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
part
> > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > consider this.
>
> The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
> drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There
is no
> magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.
==
==

Moon Shyne
August 16th 03, 12:30 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> ................
> > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
> > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
> > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> necessary
> > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> broaden
> > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > >
> > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
> to
> > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> >
> > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> >
> > It's difficult to work that into
> > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> "necessary",
> >
> > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take
> part
> > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> >
> > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> prohibited
> > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> >
> > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> activities?
> >
> > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
> part
> > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > consider this.
> >
> > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> permitted to
> > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There
> is no
> > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> ==
> But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well.



> ==
> ==
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 16th 03, 12:30 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> ................
> > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
> > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
> > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> necessary
> > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> broaden
> > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > >
> > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
> to
> > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> >
> > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> >
> > It's difficult to work that into
> > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> "necessary",
> >
> > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take
> part
> > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> >
> > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> prohibited
> > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> >
> > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> activities?
> >
> > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
> part
> > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > consider this.
> >
> > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> permitted to
> > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There
> is no
> > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> ==
> But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well.



> ==
> ==
>
>

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 05:55 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > ................
> > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
> > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
> > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > necessary
> > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > broaden
> > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > >
> > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
> > to
> > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > >
> > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > >
> > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > "necessary",
> > >
> > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
> > part
> > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > >
> > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > prohibited
> > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > activities?
> > >
> > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
> > part
> > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > consider this.
> > >
> > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > permitted to
> > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
> > is no
> > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > ==
> > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > regardless of statute.
>
> So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
> 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?
>
> There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
> common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
>
> What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
> more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
> landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
he'll
> have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
>
>
>
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
>
>

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 05:55 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > ................
> > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
> > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
> > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > necessary
> > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > broaden
> > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > >
> > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
> > to
> > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > >
> > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > >
> > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > "necessary",
> > >
> > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
> > part
> > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > >
> > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > prohibited
> > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > activities?
> > >
> > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
> > part
> > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > consider this.
> > >
> > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > permitted to
> > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
> > is no
> > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > ==
> > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > regardless of statute.
>
> So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
> 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?
>
> There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
> common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
>
> What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
> more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
> landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
he'll
> have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
>
>
>
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
>
>

gini52
August 16th 03, 06:59 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > ................
> > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
> > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
> > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > necessary
> > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > broaden
> > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > >
> > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
> > to
> > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > >
> > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > >
> > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > "necessary",
> > >
> > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
> > part
> > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > >
> > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > prohibited
> > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > activities?
> > >
> > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
> > part
> > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > consider this.
> > >
> > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > permitted to
> > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
> > is no
> > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > ==
> > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > regardless of statute.
>
> So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
> 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?
>
> There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
> common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
he was 17.
==
==

gini52
August 16th 03, 06:59 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > ................
> > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
> > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
> > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > necessary
> > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > broaden
> > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > >
> > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
> > to
> > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > >
> > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > >
> > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > "necessary",
> > >
> > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
> > part
> > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > >
> > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > prohibited
> > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > activities?
> > >
> > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
> > part
> > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > consider this.
> > >
> > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > permitted to
> > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
> > is no
> > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > ==
> > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > regardless of statute.
>
> So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
> 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?
>
> There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
> common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
he was 17.
==
==

Moon Shyne
August 16th 03, 10:58 PM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > ................
> > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> interesting
> > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
> simple
> > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > > necessary
> > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > > broaden
> > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> opposition
> > > to
> > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > >
> > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > >
> > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > > "necessary",
> > > >
> > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
> take
> > > part
> > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > >
> > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > > prohibited
> > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > > activities?
> > > >
> > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> daughter
> > > part
> > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > > consider this.
> > > >
> > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > permitted to
> > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> There
> > > is no
> > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > ==
> > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > regardless of statute.
> >
> > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> permits, or
> > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> sensible?
> >
> > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> children,
> > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> >
> > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
> having
> > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
> > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
> he'll
> > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
> well.
>
> Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
> to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
> of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
> that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.

> >
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > > ==
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 16th 03, 10:58 PM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > ................
> > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> interesting
> > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
> simple
> > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > > necessary
> > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > > broaden
> > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> opposition
> > > to
> > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > >
> > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > >
> > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > > "necessary",
> > > >
> > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
> take
> > > part
> > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > >
> > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > > prohibited
> > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > > activities?
> > > >
> > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> daughter
> > > part
> > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > > consider this.
> > > >
> > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > permitted to
> > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> There
> > > is no
> > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > ==
> > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > regardless of statute.
> >
> > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> permits, or
> > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> sensible?
> >
> > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> children,
> > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> >
> > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
> having
> > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
> > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
> he'll
> > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
> well.
>
> Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
> to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
> of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
> that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.

> >
> >
> >
> > > ==
> > > ==
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 16th 03, 10:59 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > ................
> > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> interesting
> > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
> simple
> > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > > necessary
> > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > > broaden
> > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> opposition
> > > to
> > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > >
> > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > >
> > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > > "necessary",
> > > >
> > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
> take
> > > part
> > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > >
> > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > > prohibited
> > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > > activities?
> > > >
> > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> daughter
> > > part
> > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > > consider this.
> > > >
> > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > permitted to
> > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> There
> > > is no
> > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > ==
> > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > regardless of statute.
> >
> > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> permits, or
> > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> sensible?
> >
> > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> children,
> > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> ==
> Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
> course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
> age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
> told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
> the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
> he was 17.

My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single
occupant to the car.

> ==
> ==
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 16th 03, 10:59 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > ................
> > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> interesting
> > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
> simple
> > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
> > > necessary
> > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
> > > broaden
> > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> opposition
> > > to
> > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > >
> > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > >
> > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > > "necessary",
> > > >
> > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
> take
> > > part
> > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > >
> > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
> > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
> > > prohibited
> > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > > activities?
> > > >
> > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> daughter
> > > part
> > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> > > > > consider this.
> > > >
> > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > permitted to
> > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> There
> > > is no
> > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > ==
> > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
> > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > regardless of statute.
> >
> > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> permits, or
> > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> sensible?
> >
> > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> children,
> > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> ==
> Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
> course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
> age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
> told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
> the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
> he was 17.

My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident, single
occupant to the car.

> ==
> ==
>
>

gini52
August 16th 03, 11:20 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
........................
> > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > > permitted to
> > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> > There
> > > > is no
> > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > ==
> > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
sense)
> > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > regardless of statute.
> > >
> > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > permits, or
> > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > sensible?
> > >
> > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> > children,
> > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > ==
> > Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-).
(Of
> > course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys
at
> > age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days
who
> > told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's
safety,
> > the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident
when
> > he was 17.
>
> My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident,
single
> occupant to the car.
==
I'm sorry to hear that.
==
==

gini52
August 16th 03, 11:20 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
........................
> > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > > permitted to
> > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> > There
> > > > is no
> > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > ==
> > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
sense)
> > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > regardless of statute.
> > >
> > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > permits, or
> > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > sensible?
> > >
> > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> > children,
> > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > ==
> > Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-).
(Of
> > course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys
at
> > age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days
who
> > told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's
safety,
> > the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident
when
> > he was 17.
>
> My step-son was 3 months past his 21st birthday - single car accident,
single
> occupant to the car.
==
I'm sorry to hear that.
==
==

teachrmama
August 17th 03, 12:25 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > > ................
> > > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> > interesting
> > > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
> > simple
> > > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
with
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
to
> > > > broaden
> > > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> > opposition
> > > > to
> > > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > > > "necessary",
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her
to
> > take
> > > > part
> > > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
that's
> > > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
then
> > > > prohibited
> > > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > > > activities?
> > > > >
> > > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> > daughter
> > > > part
> > > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
got to
> > > > > > consider this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > > permitted to
> > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> > There
> > > > is no
> > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > ==
> > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
sense)
> > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > regardless of statute.
> > >
> > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > permits, or
> > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > sensible?
> > >
> > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> > children,
> > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > >
> > > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
> > having
> > > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
those
> > > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells
me
> > he'll
> > > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
> > well.
> >
> > Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
stepdad
> > to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay
half
> > of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
think
> > that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
>
> This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
his
> objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
> situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
parents
> should (or should not) be helping with the costs.
>
> Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
through
> the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
refused
> to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone
calls
> asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
that
> we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
decision
> making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
opportunity to
> take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
legally or
> morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
> decision.

So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?

teachrmama
August 17th 03, 12:25 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > > ................
> > > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> > interesting
> > > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
> > simple
> > > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
with
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
to
> > > > broaden
> > > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> > opposition
> > > > to
> > > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
> > > > "necessary",
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her
to
> > take
> > > > part
> > > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > > >
> > > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
that's
> > > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
then
> > > > prohibited
> > > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
> > > > activities?
> > > > >
> > > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> > daughter
> > > > part
> > > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
got to
> > > > > > consider this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
> > > > permitted to
> > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
> > There
> > > > is no
> > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > ==
> > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
sense)
> > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > regardless of statute.
> > >
> > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > permits, or
> > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > sensible?
> > >
> > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
> > children,
> > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > >
> > > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
> > having
> > > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
those
> > > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells
me
> > he'll
> > > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
> > well.
> >
> > Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
stepdad
> > to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay
half
> > of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
think
> > that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
>
> This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
his
> objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
> situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
parents
> should (or should not) be helping with the costs.
>
> Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
through
> the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
refused
> to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone
calls
> asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
that
> we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
decision
> making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
opportunity to
> take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
legally or
> morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
> decision.

So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 01:33 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > > > ................
> > > > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> > > interesting
> > > > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from
a
> > > simple
> > > > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
> with
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
> to
> > > > > broaden
> > > > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> > > opposition
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving
is
> > > > > "necessary",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for
her
> to
> > > take
> > > > > part
> > > > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
> that's
> > > > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
> then
> > > > > prohibited
> > > > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra
curricular
> > > > > activities?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> > > daughter
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
> got to
> > > > > > > consider this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she
is
> > > > > permitted to
> > > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car
accident.
> > > There
> > > > > is no
> > > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
> sense)
> > > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > > regardless of statute.
> > > >
> > > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > > permits, or
> > > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > > sensible?
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for
many
> > > children,
> > > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > > >
> > > > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad
is
> > > having
> > > > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
> those
> > > > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something
tells
> me
> > > he'll
> > > > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16
as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
> stepdad
> > > to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to
pay
> half
> > > of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
> think
> > > that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
> >
> > This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
> his
> > objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at
the
> > situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
> parents
> > should (or should not) be helping with the costs.
> >
> > Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
> through
> > the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
> refused
> > to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and
phone
> calls
> > asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
> that
> > we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
> decision
> > making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
> opportunity to
> > take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
> legally or
> > morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
> > decision.
>
> So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
> child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if
someone
> decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
> the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
> too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
> he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one
even
> think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And
why
> should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
> ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through
with
> him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
> justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
and above normal CS expenditures.

So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 01:33 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > > > ................
> > > > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> > > interesting
> > > > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from
a
> > > simple
> > > > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
> with
> > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
> to
> > > > > broaden
> > > > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> > > opposition
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving
is
> > > > > "necessary",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for
her
> to
> > > take
> > > > > part
> > > > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
> that's
> > > > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
> then
> > > > > prohibited
> > > > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra
curricular
> > > > > activities?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> > > daughter
> > > > > part
> > > > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
> got to
> > > > > > > consider this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she
is
> > > > > permitted to
> > > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car
accident.
> > > There
> > > > > is no
> > > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
> sense)
> > > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > > regardless of statute.
> > > >
> > > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > > permits, or
> > > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > > sensible?
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for
many
> > > children,
> > > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > > >
> > > > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad
is
> > > having
> > > > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
> those
> > > > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something
tells
> me
> > > he'll
> > > > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16
as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
> stepdad
> > > to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to
pay
> half
> > > of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
> think
> > > that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
> >
> > This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
> his
> > objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at
the
> > situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
> parents
> > should (or should not) be helping with the costs.
> >
> > Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
> through
> > the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
> refused
> > to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and
phone
> calls
> > asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
> that
> > we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
> decision
> > making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
> opportunity to
> > take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
> legally or
> > morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
> > decision.
>
> So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
> child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if
someone
> decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
> the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
> too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
> he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one
even
> think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And
why
> should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
> ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through
with
> him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
> justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures. While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
and above normal CS expenditures.

So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 03:10 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > > > > ................
> > > > > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from
> a
> > > > simple
> > > > > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
> > with
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
> > to
> > > > > > broaden
> > > > > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> > > > opposition
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving
> is
> > > > > > "necessary",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for
> her
> > to
> > > > take
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
> > that's
> > > > > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
> > then
> > > > > > prohibited
> > > > > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra
> curricular
> > > > > > activities?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> > > > daughter
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
> > got to
> > > > > > > > consider this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she
> is
> > > > > > permitted to
> > > > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car
> accident.
> > > > There
> > > > > > is no
> > > > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
> > sense)
> > > > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > > > regardless of statute.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > > > permits, or
> > > > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > > > sensible?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for
> many
> > > > children,
> > > > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad
> is
> > > > having
> > > > > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
> > those
> > > > > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something
> tells
> > me
> > > > he'll
> > > > > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16
> as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
> > stepdad
> > > > to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to
> pay
> > half
> > > > of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
> > think
> > > > that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
> > >
> > > This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
> > his
> > > objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at
> the
> > > situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
> > parents
> > > should (or should not) be helping with the costs.
> > >
> > > Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
> > through
> > > the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
> > refused
> > > to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and
> phone
> > calls
> > > asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
> > that
> > > we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
> > decision
> > > making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
> > opportunity to
> > > take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
> > legally or
> > > morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
> > > decision.
> >
> > So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
> > child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if
> someone
> > decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
> > the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
> > too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
> > he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one
> even
> > think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And
> why
> > should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
> > ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through
> with
> > him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
> > justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?
>
> I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
> to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
> expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it all.

Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
> agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
> and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

>
> So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
> clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
> the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
> she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 03:10 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > > > > "Scott Ross" > wrote
> > > > > > ................
> > > > > > > > Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
> > > > interesting
> > > > > > > > exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from
> a
> > > > simple
> > > > > > > > standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
> > with
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
> > to
> > > > > > broaden
> > > > > > > > that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
> > > > opposition
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > a 14-year-old driving without supervision.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which is apparently legal where she resides?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's difficult to work that into
> > > > > > > > the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving
> is
> > > > > > "necessary",
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for
> her
> > to
> > > > take
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
> > that's
> > > > > > > apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
> > then
> > > > > > prohibited
> > > > > > > from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra
> curricular
> > > > > > activities?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
> > > > daughter
> > > > > > part
> > > > > > > > of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
> > got to
> > > > > > > > consider this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she
> is
> > > > > > permitted to
> > > > > > > drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car
> accident.
> > > > There
> > > > > > is no
> > > > > > > magical age that will protect them from risk.
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
> > sense)
> > > > > > dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
> > > > > > regardless of statute.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
> > > > permits, or
> > > > > 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
> > > > sensible?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for
> many
> > > > children,
> > > > > common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad
> is
> > > > having
> > > > > more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
> > those
> > > > > landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something
> tells
> > me
> > > > he'll
> > > > > have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16
> as
> > > > well.
> > > >
> > > > Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
> > stepdad
> > > > to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to
> pay
> > half
> > > > of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
> > think
> > > > that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?
> > >
> > > This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
> > his
> > > objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at
> the
> > > situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
> > parents
> > > should (or should not) be helping with the costs.
> > >
> > > Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
> > through
> > > the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
> > refused
> > > to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and
> phone
> > calls
> > > asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
> > that
> > > we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
> > decision
> > > making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
> > opportunity to
> > > take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
> > legally or
> > > morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
> > > decision.
> >
> > So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
> > child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if
> someone
> > decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
> > the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
> > too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
> > he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one
> even
> > think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And
> why
> > should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
> > ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through
> with
> > him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
> > justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?
>
> I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for fathers
> to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
> expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it all.

Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates to
> agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need over
> and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

>
> So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it very
> clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up to
> the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the CS
> she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

>
>

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 03:38 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...

> > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
> > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
> > expenditures.
>
> Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
> soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!

>
> Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.

>
> While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
> > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
> > and above normal CS expenditures.
>
> Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?

>
> >
> > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
> > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
> > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
> > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>
> Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
> mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 03:38 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...

> > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
> > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
> > expenditures.
>
> Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
> soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!

>
> Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.

>
> While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
> > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
> > and above normal CS expenditures.
>
> Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?

>
> >
> > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
> > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
> > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
> > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>
> Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
> mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

teachrmama
August 17th 03, 07:35 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
..
>
> I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an amount
of CS
> paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly extracted
via
> wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything, because
he
> wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
orders for
> refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what is
covered
> by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
pay........ so
> there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
would do
> is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing......... to
hell
> with him.
>
> It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > costs are covered by child support."
>
> Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
either.......
> since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the child
to
> take part in normal child activities........... at what point does anyone
stop
> to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
activities make up for the driving?

When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should have a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported. But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only child that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities? Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities. And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there. And the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best interests"
bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative. She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14, and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child support
to maintain a car for her.

teachrmama
August 17th 03, 07:35 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
..
>
> I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an amount
of CS
> paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly extracted
via
> wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything, because
he
> wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
orders for
> refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what is
covered
> by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
pay........ so
> there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
would do
> is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing......... to
hell
> with him.
>
> It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > costs are covered by child support."
>
> Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
either.......
> since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the child
to
> take part in normal child activities........... at what point does anyone
stop
> to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
activities make up for the driving?

When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should have a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported. But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only child that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities? Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities. And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there. And the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best interests"
bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative. She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14, and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child support
to maintain a car for her.

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 08:16 AM
She's doing more than that, Bob...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
>fathers
>> > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
>> > expenditures.
>>
>> Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
>> soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
>all.
>
>Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
>about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
>about her case!
>
>>
>> Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
>
>That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
>extracurricular activities.
>
>>
>> While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
>> > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
>to
>> > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
>over
>> > and above normal CS expenditures.
>>
>> Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.
>
>So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
>dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
>amount of CS owed?
>
>>
>> >
>> > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
>very
>> > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
>to
>> > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
>CS
>> > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>>
>> Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
>the
>> mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>
>Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
>pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
>Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
>his children are raised?
>
>You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
>to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
>implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

According to her statement, the correctness of mommy's decision has no bearing
on dad's right/duty to complain...only his contributing to the cost gives him
that right according to nasty. So if mommy decides her teenage daughter should
have access to heroin to loosen her up for an improved social life...dad has no
right to complain about such a decision unless he is helping purchase the
drugs.

It's all about mommy-power....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 08:16 AM
She's doing more than that, Bob...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
>> > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
>fathers
>> > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
>> > expenditures.
>>
>> Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
>> soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
>all.
>
>Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
>about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
>about her case!
>
>>
>> Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
>
>That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
>extracurricular activities.
>
>>
>> While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
>> > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
>to
>> > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
>over
>> > and above normal CS expenditures.
>>
>> Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.
>
>So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
>dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
>amount of CS owed?
>
>>
>> >
>> > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
>very
>> > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
>to
>> > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
>CS
>> > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>>
>> Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
>the
>> mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>
>Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
>pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
>Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
>his children are raised?
>
>You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
>to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
>implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

According to her statement, the correctness of mommy's decision has no bearing
on dad's right/duty to complain...only his contributing to the cost gives him
that right according to nasty. So if mommy decides her teenage daughter should
have access to heroin to loosen her up for an improved social life...dad has no
right to complain about such a decision unless he is helping purchase the
drugs.

It's all about mommy-power....

Mel Gamble

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 11:42 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
> fathers
> > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
> > > expenditures.
> >
> > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
> > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
> all.
>
> Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
> about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
> about her case!

Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective, but a
CP mother can't bring in her perspective?


>
> >
> > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
>
> That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
> extracurricular activities.

Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for any
parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to why
some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that one?
They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?

>
> >
> > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
> to
> > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
> over
> > > and above normal CS expenditures.
> >
> > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.
>
> So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
> dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
> amount of CS owed?

Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child with
cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a child
that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should be the
same for both children, do you?

>
> >
> > >
> > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
> very
> > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
> to
> > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
> CS
> > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> >
> > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
> the
> > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>
> Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?

In some cases, no.

Why are you insisting fathers
> pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?

I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has no
place to be complaining.

> Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
> his children are raised?

Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s) about
which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.

>
> You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
> to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
> implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with one red
cent more than absolutely mandated.

And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!

Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........ I'll
continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point, and all
your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 11:42 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
> fathers
> > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
> > > expenditures.
> >
> > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
> > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
> all.
>
> Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
> about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
> about her case!

Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective, but a
CP mother can't bring in her perspective?


>
> >
> > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
>
> That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
> extracurricular activities.

Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for any
parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to why
some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that one?
They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?

>
> >
> > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
> to
> > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
> over
> > > and above normal CS expenditures.
> >
> > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.
>
> So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
> dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
> amount of CS owed?

Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child with
cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a child
that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should be the
same for both children, do you?

>
> >
> > >
> > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
> very
> > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
> to
> > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
> CS
> > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> >
> > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
> the
> > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>
> Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?

In some cases, no.

Why are you insisting fathers
> pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?

I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has no
place to be complaining.

> Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
> his children are raised?

Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s) about
which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.

>
> You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
> to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
> implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with one red
cent more than absolutely mandated.

And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!

Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........ I'll
continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point, and all
your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 11:53 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> .
> >
> > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an amount
> of CS
> > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly extracted
> via
> > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything, because
> he
> > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> orders for
> > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what is
> covered
> > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> pay........ so
> > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> would do
> > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing......... to
> hell
> > with him.
> >
> > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > costs are covered by child support."
> >
> > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> either.......
> > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the child
> to
> > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does anyone
> stop
> > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
>
> Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to feel
> that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.

Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" - meanwhile, in
the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for the
purposes of going to school.


> Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> activities make up for the driving?

Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the idea"?
At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the community,
the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives come in?
Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut? "Doesn't
like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't like
the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

>
> When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> everything else, BTW.

As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in this
case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests of
the child take precedence?

I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her head
> that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should have a
> car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband be
> forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> interests of the child"?

Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
school.

He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying child
> support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported. But
> should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> interests when thinking about the car?

Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is. And
if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which they
fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she got the
child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if dad
wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally able
to drive a car.

She is certainly the only child that
> the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
>
> Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?

OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get child
to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child to
activities - did you?

Certainly
> hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their own
> personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.

Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

And
> probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because their
> parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.

And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get the
child there!

And the
> majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best interests
> of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent seems
> to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best interests"
> bat?

I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his help
in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to school.

And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I offered to
take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the following
week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?


>
> One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative. She
> would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the child
> will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may be
> enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending them
> do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14, and/or
> his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child support
> to maintain a car for her.

And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects to his
baby girl growing up? Then what?

>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 11:53 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> .
> >
> > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an amount
> of CS
> > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly extracted
> via
> > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything, because
> he
> > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> orders for
> > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what is
> covered
> > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> pay........ so
> > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> would do
> > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing......... to
> hell
> > with him.
> >
> > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > costs are covered by child support."
> >
> > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> either.......
> > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the child
> to
> > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does anyone
> stop
> > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
>
> Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to feel
> that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.

Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" - meanwhile, in
the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for the
purposes of going to school.


> Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> activities make up for the driving?

Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the idea"?
At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the community,
the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives come in?
Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut? "Doesn't
like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't like
the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

>
> When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> everything else, BTW.

As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in this
case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests of
the child take precedence?

I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her head
> that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should have a
> car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband be
> forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> interests of the child"?

Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
school.

He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying child
> support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported. But
> should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> interests when thinking about the car?

Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is. And
if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which they
fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she got the
child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if dad
wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally able
to drive a car.

She is certainly the only child that
> the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
>
> Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?

OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get child
to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child to
activities - did you?

Certainly
> hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their own
> personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.

Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

And
> probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because their
> parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.

And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get the
child there!

And the
> majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best interests
> of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent seems
> to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best interests"
> bat?

I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his help
in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to school.

And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I offered to
take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the following
week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?


>
> One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative. She
> would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the child
> will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may be
> enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending them
> do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14, and/or
> his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child support
> to maintain a car for her.

And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects to his
baby girl growing up? Then what?

>
>
>

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 01:20 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > .
> > >
> > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
> > of CS
> > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
> > via
> > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
> > he
> > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> > orders for
> > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
is
> > covered
> > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > pay........ so
> > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> > would do
> > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
to
> > hell
> > > with him.
> > >
> > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > >
> > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > either.......
> > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
child
> > to
> > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
> > stop
> > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> >
> > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
> > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
>
> Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
> the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
the
> purposes of going to school.

Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?


>
>
> > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > activities make up for the driving?
>
> Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
idea"?
> At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
> the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
> Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
> like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
like
> the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT risk
to themselves and others.
>
> >
> > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > everything else, BTW.
>
> As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
this
> case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
of
> the child take precedence?
>
> I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
head
> > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
> > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
be
> > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > interests of the child"?
>
> Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
> school.

Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol


>
> He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
child
> > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
> > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > interests when thinking about the car?
>
> Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.
And
> if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
they
> fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
got the
> child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
dad
> wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
able
> to drive a car.
>
> She is certainly the only child that
> > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> >
> > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>
> OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
child
> to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
to
> activities - did you?
>
> Certainly
> > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
> > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>
> Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>
> And
> > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
> > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>
> And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
the
> child there!
>
> And the
> > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
> > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
> > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
> > bat?
>
> I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
> exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
help
> in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
school.
>
> And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>
> If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
> something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
offered to
> take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
following
> week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>
> I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?

Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then ask
for financial help?


>
>
> >
> > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
She
> > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
> > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
be
> > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
them
> > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
and/or
> > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
support
> > to maintain a car for her.
>
> And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects
to his
> baby girl growing up? Then what?
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 01:20 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > .
> > >
> > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
> > of CS
> > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
> > via
> > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
> > he
> > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> > orders for
> > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
is
> > covered
> > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > pay........ so
> > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> > would do
> > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
to
> > hell
> > > with him.
> > >
> > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > >
> > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > either.......
> > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
child
> > to
> > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
> > stop
> > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> >
> > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
> > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
>
> Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
> the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
the
> purposes of going to school.

Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?


>
>
> > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > activities make up for the driving?
>
> Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
idea"?
> At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
> the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
> Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
> like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
like
> the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT risk
to themselves and others.
>
> >
> > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > everything else, BTW.
>
> As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
this
> case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
of
> the child take precedence?
>
> I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
head
> > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
> > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
be
> > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > interests of the child"?
>
> Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
> school.

Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol


>
> He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
child
> > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
> > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > interests when thinking about the car?
>
> Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.
And
> if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
they
> fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
got the
> child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
dad
> wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
able
> to drive a car.
>
> She is certainly the only child that
> > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> >
> > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>
> OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
child
> to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
to
> activities - did you?
>
> Certainly
> > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
> > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>
> Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>
> And
> > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
> > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>
> And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
the
> child there!
>
> And the
> > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
> > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
> > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
> > bat?
>
> I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
> exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
help
> in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
school.
>
> And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>
> If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
> something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
offered to
> take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
following
> week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>
> I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?

Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then ask
for financial help?


>
>
> >
> > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
She
> > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
> > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
be
> > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
them
> > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
and/or
> > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
support
> > to maintain a car for her.
>
> And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects
to his
> baby girl growing up? Then what?
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 02:03 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> amount
> > > of CS
> > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> extracted
> > > via
> > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> because
> > > he
> > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> > > orders for
> > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
> is
> > > covered
> > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > pay........ so
> > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> > > would do
> > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
> to
> > > hell
> > > > with him.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > >
> > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > either.......
> > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
> child
> > > to
> > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> anyone
> > > stop
> > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > >
> > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
> feel
> > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> >
> > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> meanwhile, in
> > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
> the
> > purposes of going to school.
>
> Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?

Personally? No. However, it's not legal for a minor to possess or smoke - once
they're 18, they have every right as much as you or I to decide if they want to
do it.

>
>
> >
> >
> > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > activities make up for the driving?
> >
> > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
> idea"?
> > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> community,
> > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> come in?
> > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> "Doesn't
> > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
> like
> > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>
> I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT risk
> to themselves and others.

Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others. Shall
we legislate against all of those?

Bottom line, what the child has access to is legal - the OP's whole point seems
to be her age - whether he likes it or not, his child is growing up, and he'd
probably be a whole lot more comfortable once he gets used to that idea.

> >
> > >
> > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > everything else, BTW.
> >
> > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
> this
> > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
> of
> > the child take precedence?
> >
> > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
> head
> > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> have a
> > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
> be
> > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > > interests of the child"?
> >
> > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
> > school.
>
> Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol

Of course not - which is why we also teach them they need to take responsibility
for their actions.

>
>
> >
> > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
> child
> > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> But
> > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > > interests when thinking about the car?
> >
> > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.
> And
> > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
> they
> > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
> got the
> > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
> dad
> > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
> able
> > to drive a car.
> >
> > She is certainly the only child that
> > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > >
> > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> >
> > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
> child
> > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
> to
> > activities - did you?
> >
> > Certainly
> > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
> own
> > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> >
> > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> >
> > And
> > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> their
> > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> >
> > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
> the
> > child there!
> >
> > And the
> > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> interests
> > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> seems
> > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> interests"
> > > bat?
> >
> > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
> > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
> help
> > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> school.
> >
> > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> >
> > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
> > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> offered to
> > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> following
> > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> >
> > I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?
>
> Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then ask
> for financial help?

According to the OP, yes - and I still didn't see where the OP states that as an
alternative to helping financially, that he offered to help in other ways, the
bottom line being to arrange things so that the daughter could take part in
those extra-curricular activities.

I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular activities" -
did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.

>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
> She
> > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
> child
> > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
> be
> > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
> them
> > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> and/or
> > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> support
> > > to maintain a car for her.
> >
> > And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects
> to his
> > baby girl growing up? Then what?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 02:03 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> amount
> > > of CS
> > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> extracted
> > > via
> > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> because
> > > he
> > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> > > orders for
> > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
> is
> > > covered
> > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > pay........ so
> > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> > > would do
> > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
> to
> > > hell
> > > > with him.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > >
> > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > either.......
> > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
> child
> > > to
> > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> anyone
> > > stop
> > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > >
> > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
> feel
> > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> >
> > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> meanwhile, in
> > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
> the
> > purposes of going to school.
>
> Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?

Personally? No. However, it's not legal for a minor to possess or smoke - once
they're 18, they have every right as much as you or I to decide if they want to
do it.

>
>
> >
> >
> > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > activities make up for the driving?
> >
> > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
> idea"?
> > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> community,
> > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> come in?
> > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> "Doesn't
> > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
> like
> > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>
> I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT risk
> to themselves and others.

Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others. Shall
we legislate against all of those?

Bottom line, what the child has access to is legal - the OP's whole point seems
to be her age - whether he likes it or not, his child is growing up, and he'd
probably be a whole lot more comfortable once he gets used to that idea.

> >
> > >
> > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > everything else, BTW.
> >
> > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
> this
> > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
> of
> > the child take precedence?
> >
> > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
> head
> > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> have a
> > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
> be
> > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > > interests of the child"?
> >
> > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
> > school.
>
> Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol

Of course not - which is why we also teach them they need to take responsibility
for their actions.

>
>
> >
> > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
> child
> > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> But
> > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > > interests when thinking about the car?
> >
> > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.
> And
> > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
> they
> > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
> got the
> > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
> dad
> > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
> able
> > to drive a car.
> >
> > She is certainly the only child that
> > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > >
> > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> >
> > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
> child
> > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
> to
> > activities - did you?
> >
> > Certainly
> > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
> own
> > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> >
> > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> >
> > And
> > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> their
> > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> >
> > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
> the
> > child there!
> >
> > And the
> > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> interests
> > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> seems
> > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> interests"
> > > bat?
> >
> > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
> > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
> help
> > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> school.
> >
> > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> >
> > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
> > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> offered to
> > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> following
> > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> >
> > I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?
>
> Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then ask
> for financial help?

According to the OP, yes - and I still didn't see where the OP states that as an
alternative to helping financially, that he offered to help in other ways, the
bottom line being to arrange things so that the daughter could take part in
those extra-curricular activities.

I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular activities" -
did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.

>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
> She
> > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
> child
> > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
> be
> > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
> them
> > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> and/or
> > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> support
> > > to maintain a car for her.
> >
> > And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects
> to his
> > baby girl growing up? Then what?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Virginia
August 17th 03, 03:27 PM
To borrow a phrase from you: Bull****!!!

When still together parents disagree on issues and both get a say into
those decisions regardless of which spouse is paying for the activity
disagreed upon. Why should one parents right to disagree cease to exist
simply because the parents are no longer together.

Moon Shyne wrote:

> Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the
> mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>
>
>>
>
>

Virginia
August 17th 03, 03:27 PM
To borrow a phrase from you: Bull****!!!

When still together parents disagree on issues and both get a say into
those decisions regardless of which spouse is paying for the activity
disagreed upon. Why should one parents right to disagree cease to exist
simply because the parents are no longer together.

Moon Shyne wrote:

> Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like the
> mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>
>
>>
>
>

gini52
August 17th 03, 03:34 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote
......................
>
> Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue. It's
legal
> where she lives.
==
If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
engage in that as well?
==
==
>
> >
> >
>
>

gini52
August 17th 03, 03:34 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote
......................
>
> Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue. It's
legal
> where she lives.
==
If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
engage in that as well?
==
==
>
> >
> >
>
>

Virginia
August 17th 03, 03:42 PM
Moon Shyne wrote:
> Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the idea"?
> At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the community,
> the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives come in?
> Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut? "Doesn't
> like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't like
> the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Why shouldn't it. Almost all parenting decisions are made based upon
what particular parents feel are good or bad ideas. I feel sending my
daughter to our local public school system is a bad idea (got an F
rating from the state the last 7 years in a row in Elem grades) and
therefore choose not to send her there. Other people feel it's a good
idea to send there children there. My choice doesn't supercede there's
just because they don't agree with my point of view, and I would never
dream of forcing them to pay for my decision (regardless of the fact I
pay for theirs).

Virginia
August 17th 03, 03:42 PM
Moon Shyne wrote:
> Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the idea"?
> At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the community,
> the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives come in?
> Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut? "Doesn't
> like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't like
> the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Why shouldn't it. Almost all parenting decisions are made based upon
what particular parents feel are good or bad ideas. I feel sending my
daughter to our local public school system is a bad idea (got an F
rating from the state the last 7 years in a row in Elem grades) and
therefore choose not to send her there. Other people feel it's a good
idea to send there children there. My choice doesn't supercede there's
just because they don't agree with my point of view, and I would never
dream of forcing them to pay for my decision (regardless of the fact I
pay for theirs).

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 06:31 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
> > fathers
> > > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
children
> > > > expenditures.
> > >
> > > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part
in
> > > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
paid it
> > all.
> >
> > Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care
less
> > about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
> > about her case!
>
> Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective,
but a
> CP mother can't bring in her perspective?

In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's perspectives
and I added the father's perspective.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
> >
> > That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
> > extracurricular activities.
>
> Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for
any
> parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to
why
> some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that
one?
> They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?

Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the basic
CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another form
of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer camp
requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
additional payment from the father.

>
> >
> > >
> > > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
equates
> > to
> > > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary
need
> > over
> > > > and above normal CS expenditures.
> > >
> > > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
everyone.
> >
> > So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
award
> > dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
> > amount of CS owed?
>
> Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
> over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
with
> cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a
child
> that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should
be the
> same for both children, do you?

If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
guidelines, then they both get the same amount. Of course, courts vary from
the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have pointed
out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not use
the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
healthy.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make
it
> > very
> > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's
up
> > to
> > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates
the
> > CS
> > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > >
> > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't
like
> > the
> > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> >
> > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
>
> In some cases, no.

And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not sufficient
the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.

>
> Why are you insisting fathers
> > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is
spent?
>
> I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has
no
> place to be complaining.

But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you can
always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments and
claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses and
didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example where
the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to cover
the extra expenses for summer camp.)

>
> > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in
how
> > his children are raised?
>
> Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s)
about
> which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.

CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs. What child
expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay towards?

>
> >
> > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
agreeing
> > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
> > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
>
> There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with
one red
> cent more than absolutely mandated.

Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father should
pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not pay
one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.

>
> And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
> voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!

Wage assignments are a good thing. When wage garnishments were put in place
in my case, all the false testimony about CS not received stopped because a
third party was managing the CS accounting. No more lost checks. No more
complaints about getting too many checks to have to deposit. No more
holding checks to claim non-payment. No more disputes over how much was
paid and when.
>
> Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
> you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........
I'll
> continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point,
and all
> your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.

Still want to demonize him, don't you.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 06:31 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
> > fathers
> > > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
children
> > > > expenditures.
> > >
> > > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part
in
> > > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
paid it
> > all.
> >
> > Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care
less
> > about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
> > about her case!
>
> Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective,
but a
> CP mother can't bring in her perspective?

In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's perspectives
and I added the father's perspective.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
> >
> > That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
> > extracurricular activities.
>
> Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for
any
> parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to
why
> some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that
one?
> They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?

Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the basic
CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another form
of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer camp
requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
additional payment from the father.

>
> >
> > >
> > > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
equates
> > to
> > > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary
need
> > over
> > > > and above normal CS expenditures.
> > >
> > > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
everyone.
> >
> > So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
award
> > dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
> > amount of CS owed?
>
> Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
> over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
with
> cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a
child
> that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should
be the
> same for both children, do you?

If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
guidelines, then they both get the same amount. Of course, courts vary from
the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have pointed
out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not use
the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
healthy.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make
it
> > very
> > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's
up
> > to
> > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates
the
> > CS
> > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > >
> > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't
like
> > the
> > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> >
> > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
>
> In some cases, no.

And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not sufficient
the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.

>
> Why are you insisting fathers
> > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is
spent?
>
> I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has
no
> place to be complaining.

But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you can
always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments and
claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses and
didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example where
the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to cover
the extra expenses for summer camp.)

>
> > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in
how
> > his children are raised?
>
> Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s)
about
> which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.

CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs. What child
expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay towards?

>
> >
> > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
agreeing
> > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
> > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
>
> There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with
one red
> cent more than absolutely mandated.

Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father should
pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not pay
one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.

>
> And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
> voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!

Wage assignments are a good thing. When wage garnishments were put in place
in my case, all the false testimony about CS not received stopped because a
third party was managing the CS accounting. No more lost checks. No more
complaints about getting too many checks to have to deposit. No more
holding checks to claim non-payment. No more disputes over how much was
paid and when.
>
> Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
> you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........
I'll
> continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point,
and all
> your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.

Still want to demonize him, don't you.

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 10:28 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
> > > fathers
> > > > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
> children
> > > > > expenditures.
> > > >
> > > > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part
> in
> > > > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
> paid it
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care
> less
> > > about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
> > > about her case!
> >
> > Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective,
> but a
> > CP mother can't bring in her perspective?
>
> In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's perspectives
> and I added the father's perspective.

Since it's clear you missed it, the OP was the father, and *his* perspective.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
> > >
> > > That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
> > > extracurricular activities.
> >
> > Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for
> any
> > parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to
> why
> > some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that
> one?
> > They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?
>
> Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the basic
> CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
> definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another form
> of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
> care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer camp
> requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
> additional payment from the father.

When the father pays nothing towards day care, and it's not built into the CS?
Somehow, this is exactly what I expected from you.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > > > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
> equates
> > > to
> > > > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary
> need
> > > over
> > > > > and above normal CS expenditures.
> > > >
> > > > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
> everyone.
> > >
> > > So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
> award
> > > dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
> > > amount of CS owed?
> >
> > Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
> > over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
> with
> > cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a
> child
> > that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should
> be the
> > same for both children, do you?
>
> If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
> guidelines, then they both get the same amount.

Yup - it's clear where your concern is - and it ain't the kids.

Of course, courts vary from
> the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have pointed
> out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not use
> the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
> healthy.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make
> it
> > > very
> > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's
> up
> > > to
> > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates
> the
> > > CS
> > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > > >
> > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't
> like
> > > the
> > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> > >
> > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
> >
> > In some cases, no.
>
> And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not sufficient
> the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
> circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.

And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has the
ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance, and seek
a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does (and
did)

>
> >
> > Why are you insisting fathers
> > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is
> spent?
> >
> > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has
> no
> > place to be complaining.
>
> But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you can
> always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments and
> claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses and
> didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example where
> the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to cover
> the extra expenses for summer camp.)

Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards *any* day
care.

>
> >
> > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in
> how
> > > his children are raised?
> >
> > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s)
> about
> > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
>
> CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.

Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution out of
my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have been
saving.

What child
> expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay towards?

Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses....... extraordinary
medical expenses.......... to name just a few.

>
> >
> > >
> > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
> agreeing
> > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
> > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
> >
> > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with
> one red
> > cent more than absolutely mandated.
>
> Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father should
> pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not pay
> one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.

In many cases, they are.

>
> >
> > And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
> > voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!
>
> Wage assignments are a good thing. When wage garnishments were put in place
> in my case,

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt - if specifics about my case are not to be included, as per
your prior complaint, your personal testimony is heretofore toossed]

<snip>

> >
> > Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
> > you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........
> I'll
> > continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point,
> and all
> > your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.
>
> Still want to demonize him, don't you.

He's done that all on his own - he's even convinced the GAL.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 10:28 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
> > > fathers
> > > > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
> children
> > > > > expenditures.
> > > >
> > > > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part
> in
> > > > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
> paid it
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care
> less
> > > about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
> > > about her case!
> >
> > Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective,
> but a
> > CP mother can't bring in her perspective?
>
> In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's perspectives
> and I added the father's perspective.

Since it's clear you missed it, the OP was the father, and *his* perspective.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.
> > >
> > > That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
> > > extracurricular activities.
> >
> > Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for
> any
> > parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to
> why
> > some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that
> one?
> > They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?
>
> Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the basic
> CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
> definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another form
> of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
> care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer camp
> requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
> additional payment from the father.

When the father pays nothing towards day care, and it's not built into the CS?
Somehow, this is exactly what I expected from you.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
> > > > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
> equates
> > > to
> > > > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary
> need
> > > over
> > > > > and above normal CS expenditures.
> > > >
> > > > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
> everyone.
> > >
> > > So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
> award
> > > dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
> > > amount of CS owed?
> >
> > Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
> > over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
> with
> > cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a
> child
> > that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should
> be the
> > same for both children, do you?
>
> If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
> guidelines, then they both get the same amount.

Yup - it's clear where your concern is - and it ain't the kids.

Of course, courts vary from
> the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have pointed
> out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not use
> the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
> healthy.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make
> it
> > > very
> > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's
> up
> > > to
> > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates
> the
> > > CS
> > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > > >
> > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't
> like
> > > the
> > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> > >
> > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
> >
> > In some cases, no.
>
> And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not sufficient
> the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
> circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.

And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has the
ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance, and seek
a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does (and
did)

>
> >
> > Why are you insisting fathers
> > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is
> spent?
> >
> > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has
> no
> > place to be complaining.
>
> But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you can
> always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments and
> claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses and
> didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example where
> the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to cover
> the extra expenses for summer camp.)

Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards *any* day
care.

>
> >
> > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in
> how
> > > his children are raised?
> >
> > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s)
> about
> > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
>
> CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.

Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution out of
my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have been
saving.

What child
> expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay towards?

Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses....... extraordinary
medical expenses.......... to name just a few.

>
> >
> > >
> > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
> agreeing
> > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
> > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
> >
> > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with
> one red
> > cent more than absolutely mandated.
>
> Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father should
> pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not pay
> one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.

In many cases, they are.

>
> >
> > And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
> > voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!
>
> Wage assignments are a good thing. When wage garnishments were put in place
> in my case,

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt - if specifics about my case are not to be included, as per
your prior complaint, your personal testimony is heretofore toossed]

<snip>

> >
> > Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
> > you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........
> I'll
> > continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point,
> and all
> > your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.
>
> Still want to demonize him, don't you.

He's done that all on his own - he's even convinced the GAL.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 10:29 PM
"Virginia" > wrote in message
et...
> To borrow a phrase from you: Bull****!!!
>
> When still together parents disagree on issues and both get a say into
> those decisions regardless of which spouse is paying for the activity
> disagreed upon. Why should one parents right to disagree cease to exist
> simply because the parents are no longer together.

And when one parent refuses to take part in the decision making process, despite
having ample opportunity? Then what?

>
> Moon Shyne wrote:
>
> > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
> > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Moon Shyne
August 17th 03, 10:29 PM
"Virginia" > wrote in message
et...
> To borrow a phrase from you: Bull****!!!
>
> When still together parents disagree on issues and both get a say into
> those decisions regardless of which spouse is paying for the activity
> disagreed upon. Why should one parents right to disagree cease to exist
> simply because the parents are no longer together.

And when one parent refuses to take part in the decision making process, despite
having ample opportunity? Then what?

>
> Moon Shyne wrote:
>
> > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
> > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:44 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
> > > of CS
> > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
> > > via
> > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
> > > he
> > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
> > > orders for
> > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what is
> > > covered
> > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > pay........ so
> > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
> > > would do
> > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
> > to
> > > hell
> > > > with him.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > >
> > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > either.......
> > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
> > child
> > > to
> > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > anyone
> > > stop
> > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > >
> > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
> > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
> > head
> > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have
> > a
> > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband be
> > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total support.
> > Should
> > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
> > child
> > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
> > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
child
> > that
> > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > >
> > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities? Certainly
> > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
> > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities. And
> > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
> > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
And
> > the
> > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > interests
> > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
> > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > interests"
> > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
> > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > >
> > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
> > She
> > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
> > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
may
> > be
> > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
> > them
> > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> > and/or
> > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> > support
> > > to maintain a car for her.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of those
> > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.
>
> Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue. It's
legal
> where she lives.
>
> >
> >
>
>

Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in the
kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:44 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
> > > of CS
> > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
> > > via
> > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
> > > he
> > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
> > > orders for
> > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what is
> > > covered
> > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > pay........ so
> > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
> > > would do
> > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
> > to
> > > hell
> > > > with him.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > >
> > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > either.......
> > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
> > child
> > > to
> > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > anyone
> > > stop
> > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > >
> > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
> > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
> > head
> > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have
> > a
> > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband be
> > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total support.
> > Should
> > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
> > child
> > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
> > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
child
> > that
> > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > >
> > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities? Certainly
> > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
> > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities. And
> > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
> > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
And
> > the
> > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > interests
> > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
> > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > interests"
> > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
> > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > >
> > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
> > She
> > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
> > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
may
> > be
> > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
> > them
> > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> > and/or
> > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> > support
> > > to maintain a car for her.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of those
> > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.
>
> Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue. It's
legal
> where she lives.
>
> >
> >
>
>

Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in the
kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:45 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > .....................
> > >
> > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
> > legal
> > > where she lives.
> > ==
> > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
> > engage in that as well?
>
> If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
be
> participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
>

In this case.... don't buy a car.

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:45 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > .....................
> > >
> > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
> > legal
> > > where she lives.
> > ==
> > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
> > engage in that as well?
>
> If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
be
> participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
>

In this case.... don't buy a car.

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:50 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> > amount
> > > > of CS
> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > extracted
> > > > via
> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > because
> > > > he
> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
> > > > orders for
> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what
> > is
> > > > covered
> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > pay........ so
> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
> > > > would do
> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
> > to
> > > > hell
> > > > > with him.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > either.......
> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > anyone
> > > > stop
> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
> > feel
> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > >
> > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> > meanwhile, in
> > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
for
> > the
> > > purposes of going to school.
> >
> > Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?
>
> Personally? No. However, it's not legal for a minor to possess or
smoke - once
> they're 18, they have every right as much as you or I to decide if they
want to
> do it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
> > idea"?
> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > community,
> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > come in?
> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > "Doesn't
> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
> > like
> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> >
> > I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT
risk
> > to themselves and others.
>
> Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
> People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
> make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others.
Shall
> we legislate against all of those?

Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive. Should
the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.

>
> Bottom line, what the child has access to is legal - the OP's whole point
seems
> to be her age - whether he likes it or not, his child is growing up, and
he'd
> probably be a whole lot more comfortable once he gets used to that idea.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW.
> > >
> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
> > this
> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
> > of
> > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
> > head
> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> > have a
> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband
> > be
> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
> > > > interests of the child"?
> > >
> > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
to
> > > school.
> >
> > Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol
>
> Of course not - which is why we also teach them they need to take
responsibility
> for their actions.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
> > child
> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> > But
> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
> > > > interests when thinking about the car?
> > >
> > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
is.
> > And
> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
> > they
> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
> > got the
> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
> > dad
> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
> > able
> > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > She is certainly the only child that
> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > >
> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
> > child
> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
> > to
> > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > Certainly
> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
their
> > own
> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > >
> > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > >
> > > And
> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> > their
> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > >
> > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
get
> > the
> > > child there!
> > >
> > > And the
> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > interests
> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> > seems
> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > interests"
> > > > bat?
> > >
> > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
possible
> > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
his
> > help
> > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > school.
> > >
> > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > >
> > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
seen
> > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > offered to
> > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> > following
> > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > >
> > > I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?
> >
> > Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then
ask
> > for financial help?
>
> According to the OP, yes - and I still didn't see where the OP states that
as an
> alternative to helping financially, that he offered to help in other ways,
the
> bottom line being to arrange things so that the daughter could take part
in
> those extra-curricular activities.
>
> I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
> available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
activities" -
> did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.

No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again, doesn't
seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
imperative.
> > She
> > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
> > child
> > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
may
> > be
> > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
attending
> > them
> > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> > and/or
> > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> > support
> > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > >
> > > And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad
objects
> > to his
> > > baby girl growing up? Then what?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:50 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> > amount
> > > > of CS
> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > extracted
> > > > via
> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > because
> > > > he
> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
> > > > orders for
> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what
> > is
> > > > covered
> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > pay........ so
> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
> > > > would do
> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
> > to
> > > > hell
> > > > > with him.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > either.......
> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > anyone
> > > > stop
> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
> > feel
> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > >
> > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> > meanwhile, in
> > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
for
> > the
> > > purposes of going to school.
> >
> > Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?
>
> Personally? No. However, it's not legal for a minor to possess or
smoke - once
> they're 18, they have every right as much as you or I to decide if they
want to
> do it.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
> > idea"?
> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > community,
> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > come in?
> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > "Doesn't
> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
> > like
> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> >
> > I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT
risk
> > to themselves and others.
>
> Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
> People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
> make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others.
Shall
> we legislate against all of those?

Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive. Should
the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.

>
> Bottom line, what the child has access to is legal - the OP's whole point
seems
> to be her age - whether he likes it or not, his child is growing up, and
he'd
> probably be a whole lot more comfortable once he gets used to that idea.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW.
> > >
> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
> > this
> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
> > of
> > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
> > head
> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> > have a
> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband
> > be
> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
> > > > interests of the child"?
> > >
> > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
to
> > > school.
> >
> > Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol
>
> Of course not - which is why we also teach them they need to take
responsibility
> for their actions.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
> > child
> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> > But
> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
> > > > interests when thinking about the car?
> > >
> > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
is.
> > And
> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
> > they
> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
> > got the
> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
> > dad
> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
> > able
> > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > She is certainly the only child that
> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > >
> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
> > child
> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
> > to
> > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > Certainly
> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
their
> > own
> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > >
> > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > >
> > > And
> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> > their
> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > >
> > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
get
> > the
> > > child there!
> > >
> > > And the
> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > interests
> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> > seems
> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > interests"
> > > > bat?
> > >
> > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
possible
> > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
his
> > help
> > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > school.
> > >
> > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > >
> > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
seen
> > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > offered to
> > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> > following
> > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > >
> > > I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?
> >
> > Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then
ask
> > for financial help?
>
> According to the OP, yes - and I still didn't see where the OP states that
as an
> alternative to helping financially, that he offered to help in other ways,
the
> bottom line being to arrange things so that the daughter could take part
in
> those extra-curricular activities.
>
> I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
> available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
activities" -
> did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.

No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again, doesn't
seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
imperative.
> > She
> > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
> > child
> > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
may
> > be
> > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
attending
> > them
> > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> > and/or
> > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> > support
> > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > >
> > > And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad
objects
> > to his
> > > baby girl growing up? Then what?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

gini52
August 18th 03, 12:06 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > .....................
> > >
> > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
> > legal
> > > where she lives.
> > ==
> > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
> > engage in that as well?
>
> If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
be
> participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
==
I would pull rank--this is a minor child after all.
==
==

gini52
August 18th 03, 12:06 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > .....................
> > >
> > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
> > legal
> > > where she lives.
> > ==
> > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
> > engage in that as well?
>
> If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
be
> participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
==
I would pull rank--this is a minor child after all.
==
==

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:49 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
> make
> > > it
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and
> it's
> > > up
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
> allocates
> > > the
> > > > > CS
> > > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
> doesn't
> > > like
> > > > > the
> > > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
> > > >
> > > > In some cases, no.
> > >
> > > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
> sufficient
> > > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
> > > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
> >
> > And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
> the
> > ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
> and seek
> > a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
> (and
> > did)
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why are you insisting fathers
> > > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
> is
> > > spent?
> > > >
> > > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
> has
> > > no
> > > > place to be complaining.
> > >
> > > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
> can
> > > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
> and
> > > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
> and
> > > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
> where
> > > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
> cover
> > > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
> >
> > Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
> *any* day
> > care.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
> in
> > > how
> > > > > his children are raised?
> > > >
> > > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
> item(s)
> > > about
> > > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
> > >
> > > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
> >
> > Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
> out of
> > my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
> been
> > saving.
>
> Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
> paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs with
> his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be paying
> 15% of the child's expenses.

My ex has a court ordered amount of child support. He's supposed to be
providing health insurance - he isn't, I am. He was supposed to keep up his
pre-divorce life insurance, with the 2 minor children as beneficiaries - he
didn't, I did. He is supposed to reimburse me for half of the co-pays, and
uncovered medical bills (after the insurance has paid their share) - he doesn't,
I pay the full amount. In the first 5 years, post-divorce, I paid over $44,000
in day care alone - he paid nothing. I can show documentation that I"m
providing the lion's share of the children's financial needs, as well as 100% of
their emotional/physical/psyche needs. His share doesn't come close to half.

>
>
> > What child
> > > expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
> towards?
> >
> > Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
> extraordinary
> > medical expenses.......... to name just a few.
>
> But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon. My
children are under 12 - I don't expect my ex to help with my car expenses,
though he's apparently more than happy to complain that I had to purchase a new
one 2 years ago when mine was totalled by an uninsured driver.

I would hope that when each of the children becomes of legal age to drive, that
he would offer to help them obtain cars........ though I won't hold my breath.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
> > > agreeing
> > > > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they
> are
> > > > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
> > > >
> > > > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part
> with
> > > one red
> > > > cent more than absolutely mandated.
> > >
> > > Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
> should
> > > pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not
> pay
> > > one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.
> >
> > In many cases, they are.
>
> And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
> money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
> phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to pay
> for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty of
> punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
> fiscally responsible.

Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get his
daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the cost of
the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to help
out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
showing any inclination to help provide solutions.

>
>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:49 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
> make
> > > it
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and
> it's
> > > up
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
> allocates
> > > the
> > > > > CS
> > > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
> doesn't
> > > like
> > > > > the
> > > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
> > > >
> > > > In some cases, no.
> > >
> > > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
> sufficient
> > > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
> > > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
> >
> > And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
> the
> > ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
> and seek
> > a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
> (and
> > did)
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why are you insisting fathers
> > > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
> is
> > > spent?
> > > >
> > > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
> has
> > > no
> > > > place to be complaining.
> > >
> > > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
> can
> > > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
> and
> > > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
> and
> > > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
> where
> > > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
> cover
> > > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
> >
> > Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
> *any* day
> > care.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
> in
> > > how
> > > > > his children are raised?
> > > >
> > > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
> item(s)
> > > about
> > > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
> > >
> > > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
> >
> > Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
> out of
> > my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
> been
> > saving.
>
> Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
> paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs with
> his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be paying
> 15% of the child's expenses.

My ex has a court ordered amount of child support. He's supposed to be
providing health insurance - he isn't, I am. He was supposed to keep up his
pre-divorce life insurance, with the 2 minor children as beneficiaries - he
didn't, I did. He is supposed to reimburse me for half of the co-pays, and
uncovered medical bills (after the insurance has paid their share) - he doesn't,
I pay the full amount. In the first 5 years, post-divorce, I paid over $44,000
in day care alone - he paid nothing. I can show documentation that I"m
providing the lion's share of the children's financial needs, as well as 100% of
their emotional/physical/psyche needs. His share doesn't come close to half.

>
>
> > What child
> > > expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
> towards?
> >
> > Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
> extraordinary
> > medical expenses.......... to name just a few.
>
> But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon. My
children are under 12 - I don't expect my ex to help with my car expenses,
though he's apparently more than happy to complain that I had to purchase a new
one 2 years ago when mine was totalled by an uninsured driver.

I would hope that when each of the children becomes of legal age to drive, that
he would offer to help them obtain cars........ though I won't hold my breath.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
> > > agreeing
> > > > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they
> are
> > > > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
> > > >
> > > > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part
> with
> > > one red
> > > > cent more than absolutely mandated.
> > >
> > > Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
> should
> > > pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not
> pay
> > > one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.
> >
> > In many cases, they are.
>
> And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
> money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
> phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to pay
> for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty of
> punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
> fiscally responsible.

Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get his
daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the cost of
the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to help
out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
showing any inclination to help provide solutions.

>
>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:53 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...

<snip>

> >
> > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
> > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
> > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others.
> Shall
> > we legislate against all of those?
>
> Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive. Should
> the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.

And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the child to
and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the extra
bonus of more time with the child.

It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his post.


<snip>

> >
> > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
> > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> activities" -
> > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
>
> No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again, doesn't
> seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I don't see
that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the only
thing that stopped him was himself.

>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:53 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...

<snip>

> >
> > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
> > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
> > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others.
> Shall
> > we legislate against all of those?
>
> Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive. Should
> the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.

And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the child to
and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the extra
bonus of more time with the child.

It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his post.


<snip>

> >
> > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
> > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> activities" -
> > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
>
> No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again, doesn't
> seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I don't see
that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the only
thing that stopped him was himself.

>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:55 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > .....................
> > > >
> > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> It's
> > > legal
> > > > where she lives.
> > > ==
> > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
> > > engage in that as well?
> >
> > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
> be
> > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
> >
>
> In this case.... don't buy a car.

He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take the
child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to be
able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they can,
and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he doesn't
want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an alternative,
don't you think?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:55 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > .....................
> > > >
> > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> It's
> > > legal
> > > > where she lives.
> > > ==
> > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
> > > engage in that as well?
> >
> > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
> be
> > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
> >
>
> In this case.... don't buy a car.

He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take the
child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to be
able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they can,
and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he doesn't
want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an alternative,
don't you think?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:59 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> amount
> > > > of CS
> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> extracted
> > > > via
> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> because
> > > > he
> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
> court
> > > > orders for
> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
> what is
> > > > covered
> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > pay........ so
> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
> it
> > > > would do
> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> refusing.........
> > > to
> > > > hell
> > > > > with him.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > either.......
> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
> > > child
> > > > to
> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > > anyone
> > > > stop
> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
> feel
> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
> on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
> her
> > > head
> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> have
> > > a
> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
> husband be
> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total support.
> > > Should
> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
> > > child
> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> But
> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
> child
> > > that
> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities? Certainly
> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
> own
> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities. And
> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> their
> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> And
> > > the
> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > interests
> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> seems
> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > interests"
> > > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
> daughter
> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
> > > She
> > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
> child
> > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
> may
> > > be
> > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
> > > them
> > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> > > and/or
> > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> > > support
> > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of those
> > > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.
> >
> > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue. It's
> legal
> > where she lives.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in the
> kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's reasonable or
not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to try to be
reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and from
extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he wants (which
is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes home
happy - total win/win situation.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:59 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> amount
> > > > of CS
> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> extracted
> > > > via
> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> because
> > > > he
> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
> court
> > > > orders for
> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
> what is
> > > > covered
> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > pay........ so
> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
> it
> > > > would do
> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> refusing.........
> > > to
> > > > hell
> > > > > with him.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > either.......
> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
> > > child
> > > > to
> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > > anyone
> > > > stop
> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
> feel
> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
> on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
> her
> > > head
> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> have
> > > a
> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
> husband be
> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total support.
> > > Should
> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
> > > child
> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> But
> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
> child
> > > that
> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities? Certainly
> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
> own
> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities. And
> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> their
> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> And
> > > the
> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > interests
> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> seems
> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > interests"
> > > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
> daughter
> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
> > > She
> > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
> child
> > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
> may
> > > be
> > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
> > > them
> > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
> > > and/or
> > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
> > > support
> > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of those
> > > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.
> >
> > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue. It's
> legal
> > where she lives.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in the
> kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's reasonable or
not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to try to be
reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and from
extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he wants (which
is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes home
happy - total win/win situation.

>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:14 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
drive.
> > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
putting on
> > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
others.
> > Shall
> > > we legislate against all of those?
> >
> > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
Should
> > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>
> And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
child to
> and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
extra
> bonus of more time with the child.
>
> It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
post.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
I'm
> > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > activities" -
> > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> >
> > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
doesn't
> > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
>
> What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
don't see
> that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
only
> thing that stopped him was himself.
>
> >
>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:14 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
drive.
> > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
putting on
> > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
others.
> > Shall
> > > we legislate against all of those?
> >
> > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
Should
> > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>
> And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
child to
> and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
extra
> bonus of more time with the child.
>
> It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
post.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
I'm
> > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > activities" -
> > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> >
> > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
doesn't
> > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
>
> What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
don't see
> that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
only
> thing that stopped him was himself.
>
> >
>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:18 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > .....................
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> > It's
> > > > legal
> > > > > where she lives.
> > > > ==
> > > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for
her to
> > > > engage in that as well?
> > >
> > > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age
to
> > be
> > > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
> > >
> >
> > In this case.... don't buy a car.
>
> He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take
the
> child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to
be
> able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

He can't stop her as his feelings weren't taken into consideration. The CP
could prevent the child from driving very easily. Don't buy her a car.

>
> Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they
can,
> and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he
doesn't
> want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an
alternative,
> don't you think?
>
> >
> >
>
>

Again.... he wasn't given the choice. The CP bought the car then asked for
money after the fact. Apparently his feelings weren't even considered nor
was he approached, until Mom wanted more money.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:18 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > .....................
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> > It's
> > > > legal
> > > > > where she lives.
> > > > ==
> > > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for
her to
> > > > engage in that as well?
> > >
> > > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age
to
> > be
> > > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
> > >
> >
> > In this case.... don't buy a car.
>
> He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take
the
> child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to
be
> able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

He can't stop her as his feelings weren't taken into consideration. The CP
could prevent the child from driving very easily. Don't buy her a car.

>
> Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they
can,
> and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he
doesn't
> want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an
alternative,
> don't you think?
>
> >
> >
>
>

Again.... he wasn't given the choice. The CP bought the car then asked for
money after the fact. Apparently his feelings weren't even considered nor
was he approached, until Mom wanted more money.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:20 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > .....................
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> > It's
> > > > legal
> > > > > where she lives.
> > > > ==
> > > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for
her to
> > > > engage in that as well?
> > >
> > > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age
to
> > be
> > > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
> > ==
> > I would pull rank--this is a minor child after all.
>
> Then you offer alternatives - like offering to take the child to and from
the
> extracurricular activities...... something the OP doesn't seem to have
either
> thought of, or actually done.
>
> It's really not so hard to be reasonable - digging in one's heels on
something
> that, in the end, he has no power to control, doesn't seem to be the most
> reasonable way of approaching it.
>
> What's next? Child didn't *need* to be seen by a doctor, therefore he
won't
> help with the medical expense? Child didn't *need* to be seen by a
dentist,
> therefore let's refuse to help with dental expenses? At what point does
it seem
> to be better to be reasonable?
>


The post wasn't about medical bills. It was about a car that was bought for
said child, without consulting the father. Father doesn't hear about car
until Mom wants money. I do see a red flag, its called greed.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:20 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
> > > > .....................
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> > It's
> > > > legal
> > > > > where she lives.
> > > > ==
> > > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for
her to
> > > > engage in that as well?
> > >
> > > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age
to
> > be
> > > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
> > ==
> > I would pull rank--this is a minor child after all.
>
> Then you offer alternatives - like offering to take the child to and from
the
> extracurricular activities...... something the OP doesn't seem to have
either
> thought of, or actually done.
>
> It's really not so hard to be reasonable - digging in one's heels on
something
> that, in the end, he has no power to control, doesn't seem to be the most
> reasonable way of approaching it.
>
> What's next? Child didn't *need* to be seen by a doctor, therefore he
won't
> help with the medical expense? Child didn't *need* to be seen by a
dentist,
> therefore let's refuse to help with dental expenses? At what point does
it seem
> to be better to be reasonable?
>


The post wasn't about medical bills. It was about a car that was bought for
said child, without consulting the father. Father doesn't hear about car
until Mom wants money. I do see a red flag, its called greed.

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 01:28 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> drive.
> > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> putting on
> > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> others.
> > > Shall
> > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > >
> > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> Should
> > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> >
> > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> child to
> > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
> extra
> > bonus of more time with the child.
> >
> > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
> post.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
> I'm
> > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > activities" -
> > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> > >
> > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> doesn't
> > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
> >
> > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> don't see
> > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
> only
> > thing that stopped him was himself.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> As he hasn't re-posted, no one can be sure of whether or not help was
> offered but as already stated, the CP bought the car THEN asked him to help
> pay for it.

I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do *something*
that helps to reach the end goal.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 01:28 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> drive.
> > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> putting on
> > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> others.
> > > Shall
> > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > >
> > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> Should
> > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> >
> > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> child to
> > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
> extra
> > bonus of more time with the child.
> >
> > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
> post.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
> I'm
> > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > activities" -
> > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> > >
> > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> doesn't
> > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
> >
> > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> don't see
> > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
> only
> > thing that stopped him was himself.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> As he hasn't re-posted, no one can be sure of whether or not help was
> offered but as already stated, the CP bought the car THEN asked him to help
> pay for it.

I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do *something*
that helps to reach the end goal.

>
>

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 01:28 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > .
> > >
> > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
> > of CS
> > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
> > via
> > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
> > he
> > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> > orders for
> > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
is
> > covered
> > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > pay.......so
> > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> > would do
> > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
to
> > hell
> > > with him.
> > >
> > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > >
> > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > either.......
> > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
child
> > to
> > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
> > stop
> > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> >
> > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
> > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
>
> Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
> the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
the
> purposes of going to school.

In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the same
state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
would not be an alternative for him.

According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her to
get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties of
transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom could
arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
drop the "impossible" ones.

>
> > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > activities make up for the driving?
>
> Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
idea"?
> At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
> the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
> Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
> like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
like
> the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on the
"standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are best
for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that day--there
was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children would
be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next three
days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to the
decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.

>
> >
> > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > everything else, BTW.
>
> As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
this
> case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
of
> the child take precedence?

Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community! Besides
which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!

>
> I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
head
> > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
> > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
be
> > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > interests of the child"?
>
> Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
> school.

Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a car
(probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the car
for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school itself.

>
> He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
child
> > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
> > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > interests when thinking about the car?
>
> Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.

On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at all--daughter
does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a car
would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the car
for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.

And
> if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
they
> fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
got the
> child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
dad
> wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
able
> to drive a car.

Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't mention
growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some judgement
you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of his
daughter!

>
> She is certainly the only child that
> > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> >
> > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>
> OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
child
> to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
to
> activities - did you?

I saw that he most likely lives in another state.

>
> Certainly
> > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
> > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>
> Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

He seems to live in another state.

>
> And
> > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
> > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>
> And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
the
> child there!

It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your children
ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?

>
> And the
> > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
> > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
> > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
> > bat?
>
> I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
> exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
help
> in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
school.

I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking for
advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so young an
age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.

>
> And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>
> If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
> something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
offered to
> take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
following
> week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

All the way from another state?

> > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
She
> > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
> > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
be
> > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
them
> > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
and/or
> > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
support
> > to maintain a car for her.
>
> And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what?

As far as I'm concerned, Moon, CS is supposed to cover transportation for
the child. Perhaps this dad, though, would feel more comfortable about her
driving a couple of years down the road. I don't know. He did mention that
he would prefer to handle driving expenses when she was with him, and let
mom handle them when she is with mom. Entirely fair, since CS is supposed
to cover transportation for the child.

When dad objects to his
> baby girl growing up? Then what?

There is absolutely nothing in the original post to suggest this. You seem
to have decided that any parent that doesn't base the raising of their
children on the standards of the community is somehow out of line. I
disagree. Dad has every right to voice his opinion about his child driving
at 14 without being accused of objecting to his child growing up.

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 01:28 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > .
> > >
> > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
> > of CS
> > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
> > via
> > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
> > he
> > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
> > orders for
> > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
is
> > covered
> > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > pay.......so
> > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
> > would do
> > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
to
> > hell
> > > with him.
> > >
> > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > >
> > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > either.......
> > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
child
> > to
> > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
> > stop
> > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> >
> > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
> > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
>
> Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
> the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
the
> purposes of going to school.

In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the same
state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
would not be an alternative for him.

According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her to
get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties of
transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom could
arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
drop the "impossible" ones.

>
> > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
> > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > activities make up for the driving?
>
> Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
idea"?
> At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
> the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
> Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
> like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
like
> the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on the
"standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are best
for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that day--there
was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children would
be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next three
days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to the
decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.

>
> >
> > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > everything else, BTW.
>
> As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
this
> case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
of
> the child take precedence?

Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community! Besides
which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!

>
> I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
head
> > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
> > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
be
> > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
> > interests of the child"?
>
> Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
> school.

Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a car
(probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the car
for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school itself.

>
> He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
child
> > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
> > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
> > interests when thinking about the car?
>
> Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.

On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at all--daughter
does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a car
would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the car
for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.

And
> if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
they
> fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
got the
> child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
dad
> wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
able
> to drive a car.

Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't mention
growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some judgement
you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of his
daughter!

>
> She is certainly the only child that
> > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> >
> > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>
> OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
child
> to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
to
> activities - did you?

I saw that he most likely lives in another state.

>
> Certainly
> > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
> > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>
> Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

He seems to live in another state.

>
> And
> > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
> > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>
> And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
the
> child there!

It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your children
ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?

>
> And the
> > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
> > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
> > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
> > bat?
>
> I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
> exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
help
> in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
school.

I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking for
advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so young an
age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.

>
> And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>
> If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
> something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
offered to
> take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
following
> week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

All the way from another state?

> > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
She
> > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
> > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
be
> > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
them
> > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
and/or
> > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
support
> > to maintain a car for her.
>
> And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what?

As far as I'm concerned, Moon, CS is supposed to cover transportation for
the child. Perhaps this dad, though, would feel more comfortable about her
driving a couple of years down the road. I don't know. He did mention that
he would prefer to handle driving expenses when she was with him, and let
mom handle them when she is with mom. Entirely fair, since CS is supposed
to cover transportation for the child.

When dad objects to his
> baby girl growing up? Then what?

There is absolutely nothing in the original post to suggest this. You seem
to have decided that any parent that doesn't base the raising of their
children on the standards of the community is somehow out of line. I
disagree. Dad has every right to voice his opinion about his child driving
at 14 without being accused of objecting to his child growing up.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:34 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >


snipped

>
> I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
don't.
> But at least offer to help in some other way
> It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
> you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
> that helps to reach the end goal.
>
> >
> >
>
>

Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated, something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:34 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >


snipped

>
> I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
don't.
> But at least offer to help in some other way
> It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
> you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
> that helps to reach the end goal.
>
> >
> >
>
>

Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated, something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 01:44 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
drive.
> > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
putting on
> > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
others.
> > Shall
> > > we legislate against all of those?
> >
> > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
Should
> > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>
> And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
child to
> and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
extra
> bonus of more time with the child.

Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different state.

>
> It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
post.

Read it again and get back to us.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
I'm
> > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > activities" -
> > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> >
> > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
doesn't
> > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
>
> What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
don't see
> that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
only
> thing that stopped him was himself.

And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 01:44 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
drive.
> > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
putting on
> > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
others.
> > Shall
> > > we legislate against all of those?
> >
> > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
Should
> > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>
> And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
child to
> and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
extra
> bonus of more time with the child.

Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different state.

>
> It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
post.

Read it again and get back to us.

>
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
I'm
> > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > activities" -
> > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> >
> > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
doesn't
> > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
>
> What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
don't see
> that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
only
> thing that stopped him was himself.

And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 01:44 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground
> and
> > > make
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures
> and
> > > it's
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
> > > allocates
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > CS
> > > > > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
> > > doesn't
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In some cases, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
> > > sufficient
> > > > > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant
> change of
> > > > > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
> > > >
> > > > And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP
> has
> > > the
> > > > ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
> circunstance,
> > > and seek
> > > > a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it
> does
> > > (and
> > > > did)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are you insisting fathers
> > > > > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the
> money
> > > is
> > > > > spent?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not*
> paying
> > > has
> > > > > no
> > > > > > place to be complaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course,
> you
> > > can
> > > > > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS
> payments
> > > and
> > > > > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined
> expenses
> > > and
> > > > > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp
> example
> > > where
> > > > > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough
> to
> > > cover
> > > > > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
> > > *any* day
> > > > care.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a
> say
> > > in
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > his children are raised?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
> > > item(s)
> > > > > about
> > > > > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
> > > >
> > > > Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive
> contribution
> > > out of
> > > > my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could
> have
> > > been
> > > > saving.
> > >
> > > Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
> > > paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs
> with
> > > his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be
> paying
> > > 15% of the child's expenses.
> >
> > My ex has a court ordered amount of child support. He's supposed to be
> > providing health insurance - he isn't, I am. He was supposed to keep up
> his
> > pre-divorce life insurance, with the 2 minor children as beneficiaries -
> he
> > didn't, I did. He is supposed to reimburse me for half of the co-pays,
> and
> > uncovered medical bills (after the insurance has paid their share) - he
> doesn't,
> > I pay the full amount. In the first 5 years, post-divorce, I paid over
> $44,000
> > in day care alone - he paid nothing. I can show documentation that I"m
> > providing the lion's share of the children's financial needs, as well as
> 100% of
> > their emotional/physical/psyche needs. His share doesn't come close to
> half.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > What child
> > > > > expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
> > > towards?
> > > >
> > > > Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
> > > extraordinary
> > > > medical expenses.......... to name just a few.
> > >
> > > But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon.
> My
> > children are under 12 - I don't expect my ex to help with my car expenses,
> > though he's apparently more than happy to complain that I had to purchase
> a new
> > one 2 years ago when mine was totalled by an uninsured driver.
> >
> > I would hope that when each of the children becomes of legal age to drive,
> that
> > he would offer to help them obtain cars........ though I won't hold my
> breath.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap
> of
> > > > > agreeing
> > > > > > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to
> part
> > > with
> > > > > one red
> > > > > > cent more than absolutely mandated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
> > > should
> > > > > pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to
> not
> > > pay
> > > > > one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their
> children.
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, they are.
> > >
> > > And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
> > > money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
> > > phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to
> pay
> > > for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty
> of
> > > punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
> > > fiscally responsible.
> >
> > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get
> his
> > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> cost of
> > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to
> help
> > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
> > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
>
> Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same state!

So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 01:44 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground
> and
> > > make
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures
> and
> > > it's
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
> > > allocates
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > CS
> > > > > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
> > > doesn't
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In some cases, no.
> > > > >
> > > > > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
> > > sufficient
> > > > > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant
> change of
> > > > > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
> > > >
> > > > And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP
> has
> > > the
> > > > ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
> circunstance,
> > > and seek
> > > > a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it
> does
> > > (and
> > > > did)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are you insisting fathers
> > > > > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the
> money
> > > is
> > > > > spent?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not*
> paying
> > > has
> > > > > no
> > > > > > place to be complaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course,
> you
> > > can
> > > > > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS
> payments
> > > and
> > > > > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined
> expenses
> > > and
> > > > > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp
> example
> > > where
> > > > > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough
> to
> > > cover
> > > > > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
> > > *any* day
> > > > care.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a
> say
> > > in
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > his children are raised?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
> > > item(s)
> > > > > about
> > > > > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
> > > > >
> > > > > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
> > > >
> > > > Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive
> contribution
> > > out of
> > > > my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could
> have
> > > been
> > > > saving.
> > >
> > > Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
> > > paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs
> with
> > > his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be
> paying
> > > 15% of the child's expenses.
> >
> > My ex has a court ordered amount of child support. He's supposed to be
> > providing health insurance - he isn't, I am. He was supposed to keep up
> his
> > pre-divorce life insurance, with the 2 minor children as beneficiaries -
> he
> > didn't, I did. He is supposed to reimburse me for half of the co-pays,
> and
> > uncovered medical bills (after the insurance has paid their share) - he
> doesn't,
> > I pay the full amount. In the first 5 years, post-divorce, I paid over
> $44,000
> > in day care alone - he paid nothing. I can show documentation that I"m
> > providing the lion's share of the children's financial needs, as well as
> 100% of
> > their emotional/physical/psyche needs. His share doesn't come close to
> half.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > What child
> > > > > expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
> > > towards?
> > > >
> > > > Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
> > > extraordinary
> > > > medical expenses.......... to name just a few.
> > >
> > > But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon.
> My
> > children are under 12 - I don't expect my ex to help with my car expenses,
> > though he's apparently more than happy to complain that I had to purchase
> a new
> > one 2 years ago when mine was totalled by an uninsured driver.
> >
> > I would hope that when each of the children becomes of legal age to drive,
> that
> > he would offer to help them obtain cars........ though I won't hold my
> breath.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap
> of
> > > > > agreeing
> > > > > > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to
> part
> > > with
> > > > > one red
> > > > > > cent more than absolutely mandated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
> > > should
> > > > > pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to
> not
> > > pay
> > > > > one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their
> children.
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, they are.
> > >
> > > And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
> > > money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
> > > phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to
> pay
> > > for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty
> of
> > > punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
> > > fiscally responsible.
> >
> > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get
> his
> > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> cost of
> > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to
> help
> > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
> > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
>
> Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same state!

So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 01:54 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
>
>
> snipped
>
> >
> > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> don't.
> > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> co-parenting...... if
> > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> *something*
> > that helps to reach the end goal.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated, something
> I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives to
> far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 01:54 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
>
>
> snipped
>
> >
> > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> don't.
> > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> co-parenting...... if
> > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> *something*
> > that helps to reach the end goal.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated, something
> I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives to
> far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?

>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:55 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> >
> >
> > snipped
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> > don't.
> > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > co-parenting...... if
> > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > *something*
> > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
> > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
> > far away to offer help, maybe not.
>
> So he's too far away to be a father?
>
> >
> >
>
>

We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 01:55 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> >
> >
> > snipped
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> > don't.
> > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > co-parenting...... if
> > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > *something*
> > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
> > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
> > far away to offer help, maybe not.
>
> So he's too far away to be a father?
>
> >
> >
>
>

We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:08 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> > amount
> > > > of CS
> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > extracted
> > > > via
> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > because
> > > > he
> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
> > > > orders for
> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what
> > is
> > > > covered
> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > pay.......so
> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
> > > > would do
> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
> > to
> > > > hell
> > > > > with him.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > either.......
> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > anyone
> > > > stop
> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
> > feel
> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > >
> > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> > meanwhile, in
> > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
for
> > the
> > > purposes of going to school.
> >
> > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
same
> > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > would not be an alternative for him.
> >
> > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
to
> > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
of
> > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
could
> > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > drop the "impossible" ones.
>
> So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> child? Anything?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
> > idea"?
> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > community,
> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > come in?
> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > "Doesn't
> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
> > like
> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> >
> > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
the
> > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
best
> > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
day--there
> > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
would
> > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
three
> > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
the
> > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>
> I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
in all
> honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW.
> > >
> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
> > this
> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
> > of
> > > the child take precedence?
> >
> > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
Besides
> > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>
> And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
for
> the child?
>
> >
> > >
> > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
> > head
> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> > have a
> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband
> > be
> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
> > > > interests of the child"?
> > >
> > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
to
> > > school.
> >
> > Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
car
> > (probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
car
> > for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
itself.
> >
> > >
> > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
> > child
> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> > But
> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
> > > > interests when thinking about the car?
> > >
> > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
is.
> >
> > On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
all--daughter
> > does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
car
> > would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
car
> > for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.
> >
> > And
> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
> > they
> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
> > got the
> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
> > dad
> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
> > able
> > > to drive a car.
> >
> > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
mention
> > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
judgement
> > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
his
> > daughter!
>
> We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
experiences.......
> that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
to
> what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>
> >
> > >
> > > She is certainly the only child that
> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > >
> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
> > child
> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
> > to
> > > activities - did you?
> >
> > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>
> Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
lives
> so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
view
> is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
to
> see, on a day to day basis?

It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
assume that HE left??? Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post. You are
drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
poster has issues with.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:08 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> > amount
> > > > of CS
> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > extracted
> > > > via
> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > because
> > > > he
> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
> > > > orders for
> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what
> > is
> > > > covered
> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > pay.......so
> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
> > > > would do
> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
> > to
> > > > hell
> > > > > with him.
> > > > >
> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > either.......
> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > anyone
> > > > stop
> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > >
> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
> > feel
> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > >
> > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> > meanwhile, in
> > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
for
> > the
> > > purposes of going to school.
> >
> > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
same
> > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > would not be an alternative for him.
> >
> > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
to
> > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
of
> > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
could
> > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > drop the "impossible" ones.
>
> So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> child? Anything?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
> > idea"?
> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > community,
> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > come in?
> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > "Doesn't
> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
> > like
> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> >
> > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
the
> > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
best
> > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
day--there
> > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
would
> > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
three
> > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
the
> > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>
> I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
in all
> honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW.
> > >
> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
> > this
> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
> > of
> > > the child take precedence?
> >
> > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
Besides
> > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>
> And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
for
> the child?
>
> >
> > >
> > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
> > head
> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> > have a
> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband
> > be
> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
> > > > interests of the child"?
> > >
> > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
to
> > > school.
> >
> > Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
car
> > (probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
car
> > for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
itself.
> >
> > >
> > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
> > child
> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> > But
> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
> > > > interests when thinking about the car?
> > >
> > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
is.
> >
> > On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
all--daughter
> > does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
car
> > would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
car
> > for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.
> >
> > And
> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
> > they
> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
> > got the
> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
> > dad
> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
> > able
> > > to drive a car.
> >
> > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
mention
> > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
judgement
> > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
his
> > daughter!
>
> We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
experiences.......
> that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
to
> what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>
> >
> > >
> > > She is certainly the only child that
> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > >
> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
> > child
> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
> > to
> > > activities - did you?
> >
> > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>
> Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
lives
> so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
view
> is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
to
> see, on a day to day basis?

It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
assume that HE left??? Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post. You are
drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
poster has issues with.

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 02:09 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is
> an
> > > amount
> > > > > > of CS
> > > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > > extracted
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > > because
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
> > > court
> > > > > > orders for
> > > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
> > > what is
> > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused
> to
> > > > > > pay........ so
> > > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as
> all
> > > it
> > > > > > would do
> > > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> > > refusing.........
> > > > > to
> > > > > > hell
> > > > > > > with him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
> activities
> > > > > > either.......
> > > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
> the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point
> does
> > > > > anyone
> > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
> to
> > > feel
> > > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at
> 14.
> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
> count
> > > on
> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
> the
> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
> over
> > > > > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of
> pain
> > > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
> into
> > > her
> > > > > head
> > > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
> should
> > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
> > > husband be
> > > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
> best
> > > > > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
> support.
> > > > > Should
> > > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
> paying
> > > > > child
> > > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
> supported.
> > > But
> > > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
> best
> > > > > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
> > > child
> > > > > that
> > > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
> "best
> > > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> Certainly
> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> their
> > > own
> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> And
> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
> because
> > > their
> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > And
> > > > > the
> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > > > interests
> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
> parent
> > > seems
> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > > > interests"
> > > > > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
> > > daughter
> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
> imperative.
> > > > > She
> > > > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But
> the
> > > child
> > > > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although
> they
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
> attending
> > > > > them
> > > > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at
> 14,
> > > > > and/or
> > > > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
> child
> > > > > support
> > > > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
> those
> > > > > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.
> > > >
> > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> It's
> > > legal
> > > > where she lives.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in
> the
> > > kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?
> >
> > But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
> reasonable or
> > not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
> > so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to try
> to be
> > reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
> from
> > extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he wants
> (which
> > is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
> > alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
> home
> > happy - total win/win situation.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or not,
and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he offer
that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result of
everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?


> Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought now.
And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom line of
how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 02:09 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is
> an
> > > amount
> > > > > > of CS
> > > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > > extracted
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > > because
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
> > > court
> > > > > > orders for
> > > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
> > > what is
> > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused
> to
> > > > > > pay........ so
> > > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as
> all
> > > it
> > > > > > would do
> > > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> > > refusing.........
> > > > > to
> > > > > > hell
> > > > > > > with him.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
> activities
> > > > > > either.......
> > > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
> the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point
> does
> > > > > anyone
> > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
> to
> > > feel
> > > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at
> 14.
> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
> count
> > > on
> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
> the
> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
> over
> > > > > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of
> pain
> > > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
> into
> > > her
> > > > > head
> > > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
> should
> > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
> > > husband be
> > > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
> best
> > > > > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
> support.
> > > > > Should
> > > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
> paying
> > > > > child
> > > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
> supported.
> > > But
> > > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
> best
> > > > > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
> > > child
> > > > > that
> > > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
> "best
> > > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> Certainly
> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> their
> > > own
> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> And
> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
> because
> > > their
> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > And
> > > > > the
> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > > > interests
> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
> parent
> > > seems
> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > > > interests"
> > > > > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
> > > daughter
> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
> imperative.
> > > > > She
> > > > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
> > > > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But
> the
> > > child
> > > > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although
> they
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
> attending
> > > > > them
> > > > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at
> 14,
> > > > > and/or
> > > > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
> child
> > > > > support
> > > > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
> those
> > > > > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.
> > > >
> > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> It's
> > > legal
> > > > where she lives.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in
> the
> > > kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?
> >
> > But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
> reasonable or
> > not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
> > so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to try
> to be
> > reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
> from
> > extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he wants
> (which
> > is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
> > alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
> home
> > happy - total win/win situation.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or not,
and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he offer
that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result of
everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?


> Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought now.
And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom line of
how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 02:18 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > snipped
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> > > don't.
> > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > > *something*
> > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> something
> > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
> to
> > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> >
> > So he's too far away to be a father?
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed to
do that stuff?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 02:18 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > snipped
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> > > don't.
> > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > > *something*
> > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> something
> > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
> to
> > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> >
> > So he's too far away to be a father?
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed to
do that stuff?

>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:19 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there
is
> > an
> > > > amount
> > > > > > > of CS
> > > > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's
forceibly
> > > > extracted
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for
anything,
> > > > because
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of
multiple
> > > > court
> > > > > > > orders for
> > > > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs
(beyond
> > > > what is
> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's
refused
> > to
> > > > > > > pay........ so
> > > > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense,
as
> > all
> > > > it
> > > > > > > would do
> > > > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> > > > refusing.........
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > hell
> > > > > > > > with him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
> > activities
> > > > > > > either.......
> > > > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would
allow
> > the
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what
point
> > does
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way?
Ever?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't
seem
> > to
> > > > feel
> > > > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving
at
> > 14.
> > > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
> > count
> > > > on
> > > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels
that
> > the
> > > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
> > over
> > > > > > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot
of
> > pain
> > > > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
> > into
> > > > her
> > > > > > head
> > > > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
> > should
> > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should
my
> > > > husband be
> > > > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in
the
> > best
> > > > > > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
> > support.
> > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he
started
> > paying
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
> > supported.
> > > > But
> > > > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider
her
> > best
> > > > > > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the
only
> > > > child
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
> > "best
> > > > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > Certainly
> > > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put
aside
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's
activities.
> > And
> > > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
> > because
> > > > their
> > > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
there.
> > > > And
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
best
> > > > > > interests
> > > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
> > parent
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the
"best
> > > > > > interests"
> > > > > > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of
his
> > > > daughter
> > > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
> > imperative.
> > > > > > She
> > > > > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are
not
> > > > > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development.
But
> > the
> > > > child
> > > > > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do.
Although
> > they
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
> > attending
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving
at
> > 14,
> > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
> > child
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
> > those
> > > > > > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving.
Period.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> > It's
> > > > legal
> > > > > where she lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is
not in
> > the
> > > > kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?
> > >
> > > But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
> > reasonable or
> > > not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
> > > so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to
try
> > to be
> > > reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
> > from
> > > extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he
wants
> > (which
> > > is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
> > > alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
> > home
> > > happy - total win/win situation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.
>
> No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or
not,
> and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he
offer
> that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result
of
> everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?
>
>
> > Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought
now.
> And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom
line of
> how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.
>
> >
> >
>
>

He might not live close enough to help with rides. He might not be able to
fork out MORE money on top of his monthly CS payments. Chances of everyone
being happy are slim to none, Mom only asked for money for the car, that was
apparently her solution.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:19 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > teachrmama > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there
is
> > an
> > > > amount
> > > > > > > of CS
> > > > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's
forceibly
> > > > extracted
> > > > > > > via
> > > > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for
anything,
> > > > because
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of
multiple
> > > > court
> > > > > > > orders for
> > > > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs
(beyond
> > > > what is
> > > > > > > covered
> > > > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's
refused
> > to
> > > > > > > pay........ so
> > > > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense,
as
> > all
> > > > it
> > > > > > > would do
> > > > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> > > > refusing.........
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > hell
> > > > > > > > with him.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
> > activities
> > > > > > > either.......
> > > > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would
allow
> > the
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what
point
> > does
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way?
Ever?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't
seem
> > to
> > > > feel
> > > > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving
at
> > 14.
> > > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
> > count
> > > > on
> > > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels
that
> > the
> > > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
> > over
> > > > > > > everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot
of
> > pain
> > > > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
> > into
> > > > her
> > > > > > head
> > > > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
> > should
> > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should
my
> > > > husband be
> > > > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in
the
> > best
> > > > > > > interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
> > support.
> > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he
started
> > paying
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
> > supported.
> > > > But
> > > > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider
her
> > best
> > > > > > > interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the
only
> > > > child
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
> > "best
> > > > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > Certainly
> > > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put
aside
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's
activities.
> > And
> > > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
> > because
> > > > their
> > > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
there.
> > > > And
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
best
> > > > > > interests
> > > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
> > parent
> > > > seems
> > > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the
"best
> > > > > > interests"
> > > > > > > bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of
his
> > > > daughter
> > > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
> > imperative.
> > > > > > She
> > > > > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are
not
> > > > > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development.
But
> > the
> > > > child
> > > > > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do.
Although
> > they
> > > > may
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
> > attending
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving
at
> > 14,
> > > > > > and/or
> > > > > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
> > child
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > to maintain a car for her.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
> > those
> > > > > > things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving.
Period.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
> > It's
> > > > legal
> > > > > where she lives.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is
not in
> > the
> > > > kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?
> > >
> > > But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
> > reasonable or
> > > not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
> > > so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to
try
> > to be
> > > reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
> > from
> > > extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he
wants
> > (which
> > > is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
> > > alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
> > home
> > > happy - total win/win situation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.
>
> No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or
not,
> and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he
offer
> that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result
of
> everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?
>
>
> > Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought
now.
> And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom
line of
> how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.
>
> >
> >
>
>

He might not live close enough to help with rides. He might not be able to
fork out MORE money on top of his monthly CS payments. Chances of everyone
being happy are slim to none, Mom only asked for money for the car, that was
apparently her solution.

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 02:20 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> drive.
> > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> putting on
> > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> others.
> > > Shall
> > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > >
> > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> Should
> > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> >
> > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> child to
> > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
> extra
> > bonus of more time with the child.
>
> Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different state.

Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was the one
who moved, and how far away are we talking?

>
> >
> > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
> post.
>
> Read it again and get back to us.

I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red flags

>
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
> I'm
> > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > activities" -
> > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> > >
> > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> doesn't
> > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
> >
> > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> don't see
> > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
> only
> > thing that stopped him was himself.
>
> And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.

And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch about
both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?


>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 02:20 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> drive.
> > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> putting on
> > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> others.
> > > Shall
> > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > >
> > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
> > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> Should
> > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> >
> > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> child to
> > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
> extra
> > bonus of more time with the child.
>
> Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different state.

Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was the one
who moved, and how far away are we talking?

>
> >
> > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
> post.
>
> Read it again and get back to us.

I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red flags

>
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
> I'm
> > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > activities" -
> > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
> > >
> > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> doesn't
> > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.
> >
> > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> don't see
> > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
> only
> > thing that stopped him was himself.
>
> And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.

And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch about
both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?


>
>

gini52
August 18th 03, 02:20 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> >
> >
> > snipped
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> > don't.
> > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > co-parenting...... if
> > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > *something*
> > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
> > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
> > far away to offer help, maybe not.
>
> So he's too far away to be a father?
===
Where the heck did *that* come from?
(Inquires Gini while banging head on keyboard as DH looks on quizzically)
===
===



>
> >
> >
>
>

gini52
August 18th 03, 02:20 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> >
> >
> > snipped
> >
> > >
> > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
> > don't.
> > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > co-parenting...... if
> > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > *something*
> > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
> > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
> > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
> > far away to offer help, maybe not.
>
> So he's too far away to be a father?
===
Where the heck did *that* come from?
(Inquires Gini while banging head on keyboard as DH looks on quizzically)
===
===



>
> >
> >
>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:22 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money.
Ok, so
> > > > don't.
> > > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But
do
> > > > *something*
> > > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> > something
> > > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly
that he
> > > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
lives
> > to
> > > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> > >
> > > So he's too far away to be a father?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
>
> Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are
supposed to
> do that stuff?
>
> >
> >
>
>

Well, if father lives a few hours away, it may not be convenient to drive a
few hours to give a child a ride home from school. I would think that the
mother would have already adjusted to this.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:22 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money.
Ok, so
> > > > don't.
> > > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But
do
> > > > *something*
> > > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> > something
> > > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly
that he
> > > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
lives
> > to
> > > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> > >
> > > So he's too far away to be a father?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
>
> Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are
supposed to
> do that stuff?
>
> >
> >
>
>

Well, if father lives a few hours away, it may not be convenient to drive a
few hours to give a child a ride home from school. I would think that the
mother would have already adjusted to this.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:23 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> > drive.
> > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> > putting on
> > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> > others.
> > > > Shall
> > > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > > >
> > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what
is
> > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> > Should
> > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> > >
> > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> > child to
> > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had
the
> > extra
> > > bonus of more time with the child.
> >
> > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
state.
>
> Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was
the one
> who moved, and how far away are we talking?
>
> >
> > >
> > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read
his
> > post.
> >
> > Read it again and get back to us.
>
> I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red
flags
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary
when
> > I'm
> > > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > > activities" -
> > > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure
didn't.
> > > >
> > > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> > doesn't
> > > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was
wanted.
> > >
> > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> > don't see
> > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
the
> > only
> > > thing that stopped him was himself.
> >
> > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
>
> And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch
about
> both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
>
>
> >


Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 02:23 AM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> > drive.
> > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> > putting on
> > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> > others.
> > > > Shall
> > > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > > >
> > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what
is
> > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> > Should
> > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> > >
> > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> > child to
> > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had
the
> > extra
> > > bonus of more time with the child.
> >
> > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
state.
>
> Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was
the one
> who moved, and how far away are we talking?
>
> >
> > >
> > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read
his
> > post.
> >
> > Read it again and get back to us.
>
> I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red
flags
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary
when
> > I'm
> > > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > > activities" -
> > > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure
didn't.
> > > >
> > > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> > doesn't
> > > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was
wanted.
> > >
> > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> > don't see
> > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
the
> > only
> > > thing that stopped him was himself.
> >
> > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
>
> And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch
about
> both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
>
>
> >


Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 02:36 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...

> > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
same
> > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > would not be an alternative for him.
> >
> > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
to
> > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
of
> > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
could
> > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > drop the "impossible" ones.
>
> So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> child? Anything?

He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she stays
with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
child support. Does that count?

> > >
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
> > idea"?
> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > community,
> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > come in?
> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > "Doesn't
> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
> > like
> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> >
> > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
the
> > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
best
> > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
day--there
> > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
would
> > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
three
> > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
the
> > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>
> I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
in all
> honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.

Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.

> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW.
> > >
> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
> > this
> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
> > of
> > > the child take precedence?
> >
> > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
Besides
> > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>
> And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
for
> the child?

Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this situation,
Moon?

>
> ><snip>

> > >
> > And
> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
> > they
> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
> > got the
> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
> > dad
> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
> > able
> > > to drive a car.
> >
> > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
mention
> > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
judgement
> > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
his
> > daughter!
>
> We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
experiences.......
> that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
to
> what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.

Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking some
advice.

>
> >

> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > >
> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
> > child
> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
> > to
> > > activities - did you?
> >
> > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>
> Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
lives
> so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
view
> is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
to
> see, on a day to day basis?

Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted. That's
pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?

>
> All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
problems,
> you never get to a solution.
>
> Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?

Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?

>
> >
> > >
> > > Certainly
> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
their
> > own
> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > >
> > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> >
> > He seems to live in another state.
>
> Which begs the question of why?

Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.


> >
> > >
> > > And
> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> > their
> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > >
> > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
get
> > the
> > > child there!
> >
> > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
children
> > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
>
> It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any more
than
> I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
>
> >
> > >
> > > And the
> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > interests
> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> > seems
> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > interests"
> > > > bat?
> > >
> > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
possible
> > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
his
> > help
> > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > school.
> >
> > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking
for
> > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
young an
> > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
> > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
>
> And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have the
most
> trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
without
> any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a solution.

He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't know
whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some specific
questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.

>
> >
> > >
> > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > >
> > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
seen
> > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > offered to
> > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> > following
> > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> >
> > All the way from another state?
>
> And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in the
first
> place?

He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
lives with mom "during the school year."

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 02:36 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...

> > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
same
> > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > would not be an alternative for him.
> >
> > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
to
> > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
of
> > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
could
> > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > drop the "impossible" ones.
>
> So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> child? Anything?

He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she stays
with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
child support. Does that count?

> > >
> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > >
> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
> > idea"?
> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > community,
> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > come in?
> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > "Doesn't
> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
> > like
> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> >
> > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
the
> > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
best
> > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
day--there
> > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
would
> > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
three
> > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
the
> > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>
> I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
in all
> honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.

Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.

> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > everything else, BTW.
> > >
> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
> > this
> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
> > of
> > > the child take precedence?
> >
> > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
Besides
> > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>
> And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
for
> the child?

Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this situation,
Moon?

>
> ><snip>

> > >
> > And
> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
> > they
> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
> > got the
> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
> > dad
> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
> > able
> > > to drive a car.
> >
> > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
mention
> > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
judgement
> > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
his
> > daughter!
>
> We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
experiences.......
> that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
to
> what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.

Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking some
advice.

>
> >

> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > >
> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
> > child
> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
> > to
> > > activities - did you?
> >
> > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>
> Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
lives
> so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
view
> is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
to
> see, on a day to day basis?

Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted. That's
pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?

>
> All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
problems,
> you never get to a solution.
>
> Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?

Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?

>
> >
> > >
> > > Certainly
> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
their
> > own
> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > >
> > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> >
> > He seems to live in another state.
>
> Which begs the question of why?

Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.


> >
> > >
> > > And
> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> > their
> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > >
> > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
get
> > the
> > > child there!
> >
> > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
children
> > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
>
> It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any more
than
> I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
>
> >
> > >
> > > And the
> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > interests
> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> > seems
> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > interests"
> > > > bat?
> > >
> > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
possible
> > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
his
> > help
> > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > school.
> >
> > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking
for
> > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
young an
> > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
> > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
>
> And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have the
most
> trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
without
> any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a solution.

He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't know
whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some specific
questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.

>
> >
> > >
> > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > >
> > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
seen
> > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > offered to
> > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> > following
> > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> >
> > All the way from another state?
>
> And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in the
first
> place?

He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
lives with mom "during the school year."

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 02:44 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...

<giant snip>

> > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?
> >
> > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him?
>
> At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money - I've
tried,
> over and over, to point out that there are other things he could be
> offering..........
>
> Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
>
> Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in person, with
the
> extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping financially
with
> those activities........

Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child support
is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!

>
> And you don't see a problem with this?

No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him during
the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she engages in
while living with him, son't you think?


>
> He
> > seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that
she
> > isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.
>
> Ok...... so he only pays the bare minimum CS the court has ordered, and
does the
> every other weekend divorced dad thing........
>
> I thought men wanted the whole 50/50 thing happening........
>
> No?

50/50 thing? Apparently the judge did not order that. He ordered child
support and visitation instead. And more than likely it is a lifestyle
support order--not bare minimum. Which would include extras--not just bare
bones support, right?

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 02:44 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...

<giant snip>

> > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?
> >
> > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him?
>
> At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money - I've
tried,
> over and over, to point out that there are other things he could be
> offering..........
>
> Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
>
> Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in person, with
the
> extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping financially
with
> those activities........

Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child support
is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!

>
> And you don't see a problem with this?

No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him during
the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she engages in
while living with him, son't you think?


>
> He
> > seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that
she
> > isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.
>
> Ok...... so he only pays the bare minimum CS the court has ordered, and
does the
> every other weekend divorced dad thing........
>
> I thought men wanted the whole 50/50 thing happening........
>
> No?

50/50 thing? Apparently the judge did not order that. He ordered child
support and visitation instead. And more than likely it is a lifestyle
support order--not bare minimum. Which would include extras--not just bare
bones support, right?

gini52
August 18th 03, 03:15 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote
> Moon Shyne > wrote
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
...........................................
> > > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation?
I
> > > don't see
> > > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
> the
> > > only
> > > > thing that stopped him was himself.
> > >
> > > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
> >
> > And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole
pitch
> about
> > both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?


> Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
> wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.
==
She's toying with you, Tiffany. She's not as stupid as she appears here.
She must be bored tonight. Right, Moon? Fess up.
==
==
>
>

gini52
August 18th 03, 03:15 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote
> Moon Shyne > wrote
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
...........................................
> > > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation?
I
> > > don't see
> > > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
> the
> > > only
> > > > thing that stopped him was himself.
> > >
> > > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
> >
> > And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole
pitch
> about
> > both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?


> Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
> wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.
==
She's toying with you, Tiffany. She's not as stupid as she appears here.
She must be bored tonight. Right, Moon? Fess up.
==
==
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:32 AM
Not to mention the fact, Tiffany...

>Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
>> > amount
>> > > > of CS
>> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
>> > extracted
>> > > > via
>> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
>> > because
>> > > > he
>> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
>court
>> > > > orders for
>> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
>what
>> > is
>> > > > covered
>> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
>> > > > pay........ so
>> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
>it
>> > > > would do
>> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
>refusing.........
>> > to
>> > > > hell
>> > > > > with him.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
>> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
>> > > > either.......
>> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
>the
>> > child
>> > > > to
>> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
>> > anyone
>> > > > stop
>> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
>> > > >
>> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
>to
>> > feel
>> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
>> > >
>> > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
>> > meanwhile, in
>> > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
>for
>> > the
>> > > purposes of going to school.
>> >
>> > Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?
>>
>> Personally? No. However, it's not legal for a minor to possess or
>smoke - once
>> they're 18, they have every right as much as you or I to decide if they
>want to
>> do it.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
>on
>> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
>> > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > >
>> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
>the
>> > idea"?
>> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
>> > community,
>> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
>> > come in?
>> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > "Doesn't
>> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>"Doesn't
>> > like
>> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> >
>> > I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT
>risk
>> > to themselves and others.
>>
>> Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
>> People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
>> make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others.
>Shall
>> we legislate against all of those?
>
>Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
>legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive. Should
>the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>
>>
>> Bottom line, what the child has access to is legal - the OP's whole point
>seems
>> to be her age - whether he likes it or not, his child is growing up, and
>he'd
>> probably be a whole lot more comfortable once he gets used to that idea.
>>
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
>> > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > >
>> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
>in
>> > this
>> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>interests
>> > of
>> > > the child take precedence?
>> > >
>> > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
>> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
>her
>> > head
>> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
>> > have a
>> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
>husband
>> > be
>> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
>best
>> > > > interests of the child"?
>> > >
>> > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
>to
>> > > school.
>> >
>> > Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol
>>
>> Of course not - which is why we also teach them they need to take
>responsibility
>> for their actions.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
>> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
>paying
>> > child
>> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
>> > But
>> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
>best
>> > > > interests when thinking about the car?
>> > >
>> > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
>is.
>> > And
>> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
>which
>> > they
>> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
>she
>> > got the
>> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
>if
>> > dad
>> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>legally
>> > able
>> > > to drive a car.
>> > >
>> > > She is certainly the only child that
>> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
>> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
>> > > >
>> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > >
>> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
>get
>> > child
>> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>child
>> > to
>> > > activities - did you?
>> > >
>> > > Certainly
>> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
>their
>> > own
>> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>> > >
>> > > And
>> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
>> > their
>> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>> > >
>> > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
>get
>> > the
>> > > child there!
>> > >
>> > > And the
>> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
>> > interests
>> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
>> > seems
>> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
>> > interests"
>> > > > bat?
>> > >
>> > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
>possible
>> > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
>his
>> > help
>> > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
>> > school.
>> > >
>> > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
>> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>> > >
>> > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
>seen
>> > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
>> > offered to
>> > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
>> > following
>> > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>> > >
>> > > I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?
>> >
>> > Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then
>ask
>> > for financial help?
>>
>> According to the OP, yes - and I still didn't see where the OP states that
>as an
>> alternative to helping financially, that he offered to help in other ways,
>the
>> bottom line being to arrange things so that the daughter could take part
>in
>> those extra-curricular activities.
>>
>> I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
>> available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
>activities" -
>> did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
>
>No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again, doesn't
>seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

.... that he lives in a different state, if I remember the details from the
original post. Now the question is whether nasty missed that detail or just
hoped everyone else would forget it as she made the thread all about her...

Mel Gamble

>> > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
>imperative.
>> > She
>> > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
>> > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
>> > child
>> > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
>may
>> > be
>> > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
>attending
>> > them
>> > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
>> > and/or
>> > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
>> > support
>> > > > to maintain a car for her.
>> > >
>> > > And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad
>objects
>> > to his
>> > > baby girl growing up? Then what?

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:32 AM
Not to mention the fact, Tiffany...

>Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > .
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
>> > amount
>> > > > of CS
>> > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
>> > extracted
>> > > > via
>> > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
>> > because
>> > > > he
>> > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
>court
>> > > > orders for
>> > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
>what
>> > is
>> > > > covered
>> > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
>> > > > pay........ so
>> > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
>it
>> > > > would do
>> > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
>refusing.........
>> > to
>> > > > hell
>> > > > > with him.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
>> > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
>> > > > either.......
>> > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
>the
>> > child
>> > > > to
>> > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
>> > anyone
>> > > > stop
>> > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
>> > > >
>> > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
>to
>> > feel
>> > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
>> > >
>> > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
>> > meanwhile, in
>> > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
>for
>> > the
>> > > purposes of going to school.
>> >
>> > Its legal to smoke but do you want your kid doing it?
>>
>> Personally? No. However, it's not legal for a minor to possess or
>smoke - once
>> they're 18, they have every right as much as you or I to decide if they
>want to
>> do it.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
>on
>> > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
>> > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > >
>> > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
>the
>> > idea"?
>> > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
>> > community,
>> > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
>> > come in?
>> > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > "Doesn't
>> > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>"Doesn't
>> > like
>> > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> >
>> > I am sure stats will show that drivers of such a young age are at GREAT
>risk
>> > to themselves and others.
>>
>> Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to drive.
>> People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or putting on
>> make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to others.
>Shall
>> we legislate against all of those?
>
>Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
>legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive. Should
>the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>
>>
>> Bottom line, what the child has access to is legal - the OP's whole point
>seems
>> to be her age - whether he likes it or not, his child is growing up, and
>he'd
>> probably be a whole lot more comfortable once he gets used to that idea.
>>
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
>> > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > >
>> > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
>in
>> > this
>> > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>interests
>> > of
>> > > the child take precedence?
>> > >
>> > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
>> > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
>her
>> > head
>> > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
>> > have a
>> > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
>husband
>> > be
>> > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
>best
>> > > > interests of the child"?
>> > >
>> > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
>to
>> > > school.
>> >
>> > Sure and kids always abide by the rules. lol
>>
>> Of course not - which is why we also teach them they need to take
>responsibility
>> for their actions.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
>> > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
>paying
>> > child
>> > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
>> > But
>> > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
>best
>> > > > interests when thinking about the car?
>> > >
>> > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
>is.
>> > And
>> > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
>which
>> > they
>> > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
>she
>> > got the
>> > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
>if
>> > dad
>> > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>legally
>> > able
>> > > to drive a car.
>> > >
>> > > She is certainly the only child that
>> > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
>> > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
>> > > >
>> > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > >
>> > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
>get
>> > child
>> > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>child
>> > to
>> > > activities - did you?
>> > >
>> > > Certainly
>> > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
>their
>> > own
>> > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>> > >
>> > > And
>> > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
>> > their
>> > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>> > >
>> > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
>get
>> > the
>> > > child there!
>> > >
>> > > And the
>> > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
>> > interests
>> > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
>> > seems
>> > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
>> > interests"
>> > > > bat?
>> > >
>> > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
>possible
>> > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
>his
>> > help
>> > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
>> > school.
>> > >
>> > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
>> > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>> > >
>> > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
>seen
>> > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
>> > offered to
>> > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
>> > following
>> > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>> > >
>> > > I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?
>> >
>> > Doesn't seem he had that chance..... didn't the CP buy a car and then
>ask
>> > for financial help?
>>
>> According to the OP, yes - and I still didn't see where the OP states that
>as an
>> alternative to helping financially, that he offered to help in other ways,
>the
>> bottom line being to arrange things so that the daughter could take part
>in
>> those extra-curricular activities.
>>
>> I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when I'm
>> available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
>activities" -
>> did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.
>
>No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again, doesn't
>seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

.... that he lives in a different state, if I remember the details from the
original post. Now the question is whether nasty missed that detail or just
hoped everyone else would forget it as she made the thread all about her...

Mel Gamble

>> > > > One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
>imperative.
>> > She
>> > > > would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
>> > > > imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
>> > child
>> > > > will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they
>may
>> > be
>> > > > enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
>attending
>> > them
>> > > > do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
>> > and/or
>> > > > his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
>> > support
>> > > > to maintain a car for her.
>> > >
>> > > And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad
>objects
>> > to his
>> > > baby girl growing up? Then what?

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:34 AM
Strange, isn't it, Gini? You would think ...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
>> > .....................
>> > >
>> > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
>It's
>> > legal
>> > > where she lives.
>> > ==
>> > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
>> > engage in that as well?
>>
>> If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
>be
>> participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
>==
>I would pull rank--this is a minor child after all.
>==

.... throwing your weight around to force others to do your bidding would be one
of the first things that would come to nasty's mind...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:34 AM
Strange, isn't it, Gini? You would think ...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
>> > .....................
>> > >
>> > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
>It's
>> > legal
>> > > where she lives.
>> > ==
>> > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her to
>> > engage in that as well?
>>
>> If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
>be
>> participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
>==
>I would pull rank--this is a minor child after all.
>==

.... throwing your weight around to force others to do your bidding would be one
of the first things that would come to nasty's mind...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:38 AM
Yes, Teach...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > ink.net...
>
><snip>
>
>> > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
>make
>> > it
>> > > > very
>> > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and
>it's
>> > up
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
>allocates
>> > the
>> > > > CS
>> > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
>doesn't
>> > like
>> > > > the
>> > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
>> > >
>> > > In some cases, no.
>> >
>> > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
>sufficient
>> > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
>> > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
>>
>> And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
>the
>> ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
>and seek
>> a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
>(and
>> did)
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Why are you insisting fathers
>> > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
>is
>> > spent?
>> > >
>> > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
>has
>> > no
>> > > place to be complaining.
>> >
>> > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
>can
>> > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
>and
>> > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
>and
>> > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
>where
>> > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
>cover
>> > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
>>
>> Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
>*any* day
>> care.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
>in
>> > how
>> > > > his children are raised?
>> > >
>> > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
>item(s)
>> > about
>> > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
>> >
>> > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
>>
>> Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
>out of
>> my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
>been
>> saving.
>
>Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
>paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs with
>his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be paying
>15% of the child's expenses.
>
>> What child
>> > expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
>towards?
>>
>> Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
>extraordinary
>> medical expenses.......... to name just a few.
>
>But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon.

.... and since her order also fails to stipulate that it covers carrots we will
no doubt one day be hearing from nasty that her ex should be paying extra so
she can provide a healthy diet for her burdens.

Mel Gamble

>> > > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
>> > agreeing
>> > > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they
>are
>> > > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
>> > >
>> > > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part
>with
>> > one red
>> > > cent more than absolutely mandated.
>> >
>> > Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
>should
>> > pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not
>pay
>> > one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.
>>
>> In many cases, they are.
>
>And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
>money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
>phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to pay
>for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty of
>punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
>fiscally responsible.
>
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:38 AM
Yes, Teach...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > ink.net...
>
><snip>
>
>> > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
>make
>> > it
>> > > > very
>> > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and
>it's
>> > up
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
>allocates
>> > the
>> > > > CS
>> > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
>doesn't
>> > like
>> > > > the
>> > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
>> > >
>> > > In some cases, no.
>> >
>> > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
>sufficient
>> > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
>> > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
>>
>> And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
>the
>> ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
>and seek
>> a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
>(and
>> did)
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Why are you insisting fathers
>> > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
>is
>> > spent?
>> > >
>> > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
>has
>> > no
>> > > place to be complaining.
>> >
>> > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
>can
>> > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
>and
>> > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
>and
>> > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
>where
>> > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
>cover
>> > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
>>
>> Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
>*any* day
>> care.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
>in
>> > how
>> > > > his children are raised?
>> > >
>> > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
>item(s)
>> > about
>> > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
>> >
>> > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
>>
>> Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
>out of
>> my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
>been
>> saving.
>
>Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
>paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs with
>his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be paying
>15% of the child's expenses.
>
>> What child
>> > expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
>towards?
>>
>> Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
>extraordinary
>> medical expenses.......... to name just a few.
>
>But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon.

.... and since her order also fails to stipulate that it covers carrots we will
no doubt one day be hearing from nasty that her ex should be paying extra so
she can provide a healthy diet for her burdens.

Mel Gamble

>> > > > You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of
>> > agreeing
>> > > > to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they
>are
>> > > > implying they will help pay for those expenditures.
>> > >
>> > > There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part
>with
>> > one red
>> > > cent more than absolutely mandated.
>> >
>> > Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
>should
>> > pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to not
>pay
>> > one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their children.
>>
>> In many cases, they are.
>
>And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
>money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
>phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to pay
>for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty of
>punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
>fiscally responsible.
>
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:47 AM
(pssst....hey....stupid nasty, nasty and stupid - don't tell anybody, but....)

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
>> > > .....................
>> > > >
>> > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
>> It's
>> > > legal
>> > > > where she lives.
>> > > ==
>> > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her
>to
>> > > engage in that as well?
>> >
>> > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
>> be
>> > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
>> >
>>
>> In this case.... don't buy a car.
>
>He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take
>the
>child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to be
>able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

(... Tiffany didn't say WHO should not buy the car. See, since she's going to
be driving because MOMMY bought the car...MOMMY could NOT buy the car. Now
don't take it too hard, I'm sure you could have thought of that on your own if
you hadn't been racking your little brain trying to figure out how to totally
take over this thread and make it all about you...)

Mel Gamble

>Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they
>can,
>and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he
>doesn't
>want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an
>alternative,
>don't you think?

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:47 AM
(pssst....hey....stupid nasty, nasty and stupid - don't tell anybody, but....)

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
>> > > .....................
>> > > >
>> > > > Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
>> It's
>> > > legal
>> > > > where she lives.
>> > > ==
>> > > If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her
>to
>> > > engage in that as well?
>> >
>> > If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
>> be
>> > participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?
>> >
>>
>> In this case.... don't buy a car.
>
>He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take
>the
>child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to be
>able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

(... Tiffany didn't say WHO should not buy the car. See, since she's going to
be driving because MOMMY bought the car...MOMMY could NOT buy the car. Now
don't take it too hard, I'm sure you could have thought of that on your own if
you hadn't been racking your little brain trying to figure out how to totally
take over this thread and make it all about you...)

Mel Gamble

>Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they
>can,
>and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he
>doesn't
>want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an
>alternative,
>don't you think?

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:56 AM
You've really got your nerve, Teach...

(SNIP)

>Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same state!

.... expecting nasty to read a post before trying to take over the thread...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 08:56 AM
You've really got your nerve, Teach...

(SNIP)

>Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same state!

.... expecting nasty to read a post before trying to take over the thread...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:03 AM
Guess that puts the lie to her claim, Bob...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > ink.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap
>for
>> > > > fathers
>> > > > > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
>> > children
>> > > > > > expenditures.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took
>part
>> > in
>> > > > > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
>> > paid it
>> > > > all.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could
>care
>> > less
>> > > > about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's
>always
>> > > > about her case!
>> > >
>> > > Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's
>persepective,
>> > but a
>> > > CP mother can't bring in her perspective?
>> >
>> > In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's
>perspectives
>> > and I added the father's perspective.
>>
>> Since it's clear you missed it, the OP was the father, and *his*
>perspective.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything
>else.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
>> > > > extracurricular activities.
>> > >
>> > > Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense
>for
>> > any
>> > > parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective"
>as to
>> > why
>> > > some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to
>that
>> > one?
>> > > They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?
>> >
>> > Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the
>basic
>> > CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
>> > definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another
>form
>> > of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
>> > care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer
>camp
>> > requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
>> > additional payment from the father.
>>
>> When the father pays nothing towards day care, and it's not built into the
>CS?
>> Somehow, this is exactly what I expected from you.
>
>Look, some of us have been around here long enough to know a lot about your
>case. You have previously posted that Wisconsin law allows the NCP to take
>a pro-rata share of the day care tax deductions.

This would indicate that Wisconsin considers CS - in the general sense - to
INCLUDE an amount for daycare.

>You also posted that you
>had language placed in your divorce decree stating none of the CS he paid
>was to be considered day care related so you could take 100% of the tax
>deductions.

.... further indicating she knows damn well that daycare is included in CS in
Wisconsin - in general...

>Claiming he pays nothing towards day care is disingenuous on
>your part. You ask that it be set up that way and you got what you asked
>for.

Actually, Bob, I think she started making the claim in this thread in a more
general statement - as if she believes CS - in general - doesn't include
daycare. Guess she has trouble keeping things seperate when she tries to make
a thread all about her - she often seems to forget whether she's referring to
the general or the specific.

Mel Gamble

>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
>> > > > > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
>> > equates
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an
>extraordinary
>> > need
>> > > > over
>> > > > > > and above normal CS expenditures.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
>> > everyone.
>> > > >
>> > > > So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
>> > award
>> > > > dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the
>maximum
>> > > > amount of CS owed?
>> > >
>> > > Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably
>an
>> > > over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
>> > with
>> > > cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from
>a
>> > child
>> > > that has none of those - you don't really think the child support
>should
>> > be the
>> > > same for both children, do you?
>> >
>> > If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
>> > guidelines, then they both get the same amount.
>>
>> Yup - it's clear where your concern is - and it ain't the kids.
>
>Well let me reveal a detail from my case to change your mind. Both of my
>children had severe acne conditions when they were in their early teens. My
>son's was so bad he was getting teased about it at school. My daughter's
>was at the stage of causing scaring. I discussed dermatologist treatments
>with my ex and urged her to take the children to the dermatologist. She
>claimed she didn't have the money needed to take the children to the doctor.
>So I made appointments with the dermatologist, picked the children up from
>school, took the children to the dermatologist, paid for 100% of their
>Accutane treatments, and took them back for follow-up visits and required
>lab work for blood tests.
>
>Now you want to tell me again my concerns "ain't with the kids?" That's
>just one example of many. And I'm sure other fathers here can relate
>similar experiences where the mothers refused to spend the CS on the
>children. Mel has shared a few.
>
>>
>> Of course, courts vary from
>> > the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have
>pointed
>> > out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not
>use
>> > the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
>> > healthy.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
>make
>> > it
>> > > > very
>> > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and i
>t's
>> > up
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
>allocates
>> > the
>> > > > CS
>> > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
>doesn't
>> > like
>> > > > the
>> > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
>> > >
>> > > In some cases, no.
>> >
>> > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
>sufficient
>> > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
>> > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
>>
>> And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
>the
>> ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
>and seek
>> a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
>(and
>> did)
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Why are you insisting fathers
>> > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
>is
>> > spent?
>> > >
>> > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
>has
>> > no
>> > > place to be complaining.
>> >
>> > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
>can
>> > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
>and
>> > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
>and
>> > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
>where
>> > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
>cover
>> > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
>>
>> Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
>*any* day
>> care.
>
>See above. We all know why no day care was covered by CS.
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
>in
>> > how
>> > > > his children are raised?
>> > >
>> > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
>item(s)
>> > about
>> > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
>> >
>> > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
>>
>> Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
>out of
>> my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
>been
>> saving.
>
>Let me help you. Wisconsin is a percent of income state that only accesses
>CS against the NCP's income. As the CP you have no CS ordered amount to
>provide. But in income shares model states the total CS award is detailed
>and the percentage share to be paid by each parnet is detailed. In the vast
>majority of states the CS ordered is designed to cover 100% of the child's
>expenses.
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:03 AM
Guess that puts the lie to her claim, Bob...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > ink.net...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > > > I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap
>for
>> > > > fathers
>> > > > > > to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
>> > children
>> > > > > > expenditures.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took
>part
>> > in
>> > > > > soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
>> > paid it
>> > > > all.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could
>care
>> > less
>> > > > about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's
>always
>> > > > about her case!
>> > >
>> > > Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's
>persepective,
>> > but a
>> > > CP mother can't bring in her perspective?
>> >
>> > In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's
>perspectives
>> > and I added the father's perspective.
>>
>> Since it's clear you missed it, the OP was the father, and *his*
>perspective.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything
>else.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
>> > > > extracurricular activities.
>> > >
>> > > Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense
>for
>> > any
>> > > parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective"
>as to
>> > why
>> > > some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to
>that
>> > one?
>> > > They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?
>> >
>> > Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the
>basic
>> > CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
>> > definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another
>form
>> > of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
>> > care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer
>camp
>> > requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
>> > additional payment from the father.
>>
>> When the father pays nothing towards day care, and it's not built into the
>CS?
>> Somehow, this is exactly what I expected from you.
>
>Look, some of us have been around here long enough to know a lot about your
>case. You have previously posted that Wisconsin law allows the NCP to take
>a pro-rata share of the day care tax deductions.

This would indicate that Wisconsin considers CS - in the general sense - to
INCLUDE an amount for daycare.

>You also posted that you
>had language placed in your divorce decree stating none of the CS he paid
>was to be considered day care related so you could take 100% of the tax
>deductions.

.... further indicating she knows damn well that daycare is included in CS in
Wisconsin - in general...

>Claiming he pays nothing towards day care is disingenuous on
>your part. You ask that it be set up that way and you got what you asked
>for.

Actually, Bob, I think she started making the claim in this thread in a more
general statement - as if she believes CS - in general - doesn't include
daycare. Guess she has trouble keeping things seperate when she tries to make
a thread all about her - she often seems to forget whether she's referring to
the general or the specific.

Mel Gamble

>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
>> > > > > > an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
>> > equates
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an
>extraordinary
>> > need
>> > > > over
>> > > > > > and above normal CS expenditures.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
>> > everyone.
>> > > >
>> > > > So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
>> > award
>> > > > dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the
>maximum
>> > > > amount of CS owed?
>> > >
>> > > Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably
>an
>> > > over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
>> > with
>> > > cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from
>a
>> > child
>> > > that has none of those - you don't really think the child support
>should
>> > be the
>> > > same for both children, do you?
>> >
>> > If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
>> > guidelines, then they both get the same amount.
>>
>> Yup - it's clear where your concern is - and it ain't the kids.
>
>Well let me reveal a detail from my case to change your mind. Both of my
>children had severe acne conditions when they were in their early teens. My
>son's was so bad he was getting teased about it at school. My daughter's
>was at the stage of causing scaring. I discussed dermatologist treatments
>with my ex and urged her to take the children to the dermatologist. She
>claimed she didn't have the money needed to take the children to the doctor.
>So I made appointments with the dermatologist, picked the children up from
>school, took the children to the dermatologist, paid for 100% of their
>Accutane treatments, and took them back for follow-up visits and required
>lab work for blood tests.
>
>Now you want to tell me again my concerns "ain't with the kids?" That's
>just one example of many. And I'm sure other fathers here can relate
>similar experiences where the mothers refused to spend the CS on the
>children. Mel has shared a few.
>
>>
>> Of course, courts vary from
>> > the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have
>pointed
>> > out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not
>use
>> > the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
>> > healthy.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
>make
>> > it
>> > > > very
>> > > > > > clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and i
>t's
>> > up
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
>allocates
>> > the
>> > > > CS
>> > > > > > she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
>doesn't
>> > like
>> > > > the
>> > > > > mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.
>> > > >
>> > > > Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?
>> > >
>> > > In some cases, no.
>> >
>> > And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
>sufficient
>> > the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
>> > circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.
>>
>> And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
>the
>> ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
>and seek
>> a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
>(and
>> did)
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Why are you insisting fathers
>> > > > pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
>is
>> > spent?
>> > >
>> > > I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
>has
>> > no
>> > > place to be complaining.
>> >
>> > But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
>can
>> > always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
>and
>> > claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
>and
>> > didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
>where
>> > the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
>cover
>> > the extra expenses for summer camp.)
>>
>> Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
>*any* day
>> care.
>
>See above. We all know why no day care was covered by CS.
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
>in
>> > how
>> > > > his children are raised?
>> > >
>> > > Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
>item(s)
>> > about
>> > > which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.
>> >
>> > CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.
>>
>> Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
>out of
>> my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
>been
>> saving.
>
>Let me help you. Wisconsin is a percent of income state that only accesses
>CS against the NCP's income. As the CP you have no CS ordered amount to
>provide. But in income shares model states the total CS award is detailed
>and the percentage share to be paid by each parnet is detailed. In the vast
>majority of states the CS ordered is designed to cover 100% of the child's
>expenses.
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:10 AM
And maybe she's forgotten, Teach ...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...

(SNIP)

>> So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?
>
>He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him? He
>seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that she
>isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.

Mommy and stepdaddy bought AND FIXED a car for her. So they're sending her
down the road in a junker - "How does that benefit the child?" - as nasty would
say.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:10 AM
And maybe she's forgotten, Teach ...

>"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...

(SNIP)

>> So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?
>
>He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him? He
>seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that she
>isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.

Mommy and stepdaddy bought AND FIXED a car for her. So they're sending her
down the road in a junker - "How does that benefit the child?" - as nasty would
say.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:19 AM
In the majority of cases, ...

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > snipped
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
>so
>> > > don't.
>> > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
>> > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
>> > > co-parenting...... if
>> > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
>> > > *something*
>> > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
>> something
>> > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
>he
>> > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
>lives
>> to
>> > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
>> >
>> > So he's too far away to be a father?
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
>
>Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed
>to
>do that stuff?

.... it is done by whoever is parenting the child on the day in question,
although some of us realize that if we didn't do it, our kids would never get
to do anything.

But in general - "... is it only moms that are supposed to do that stuff?" -
only if she opted for custody.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:19 AM
In the majority of cases, ...

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > snipped
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
>so
>> > > don't.
>> > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
>> > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
>> > > co-parenting...... if
>> > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
>> > > *something*
>> > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
>> something
>> > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
>he
>> > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
>lives
>> to
>> > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
>> >
>> > So he's too far away to be a father?
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
>
>Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed
>to
>do that stuff?

.... it is done by whoever is parenting the child on the day in question,
although some of us realize that if we didn't do it, our kids would never get
to do anything.

But in general - "... is it only moms that are supposed to do that stuff?" -
only if she opted for custody.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:22 AM
: ) Those red flags she sees ...

>Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > > ...
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
>> > drive.
>> > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
>> > putting on
>> > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
>> > others.
>> > > > Shall
>> > > > > we legislate against all of those?
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what
>is
>> > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
>> > Should
>> > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>> > >
>> > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
>> > child to
>> > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had
>the
>> > extra
>> > > bonus of more time with the child.
>> >
>> > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
>state.
>>
>> Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was
>the one
>> who moved, and how far away are we talking?
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read
>his
>> > post.
>> >
>> > Read it again and get back to us.
>>
>> I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red
>flags

.... are the little blood vessels in her eyes popping as she strains to figure
more ways to make this thread all about her.

Mel Gamble

>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary
>when
>> > I'm
>> > > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
>> > > > activities" -
>> > > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure
>didn't.
>> > > >
>> > > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
>> > doesn't
>> > > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was
>wanted.
>> > >
>> > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
>> > don't see
>> > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
>the
>> > only
>> > > thing that stopped him was himself.
>> >
>> > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
>>
>> And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch
>about
>> both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
>>
>>
>> >
>
>
>Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
>wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:22 AM
: ) Those red flags she sees ...

>Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > ...
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > > > ...
>> > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
>> > drive.
>> > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
>> > putting on
>> > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
>> > others.
>> > > > Shall
>> > > > > we legislate against all of those?
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what
>is
>> > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
>> > Should
>> > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
>> > >
>> > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
>> > child to
>> > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had
>the
>> > extra
>> > > bonus of more time with the child.
>> >
>> > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
>state.
>>
>> Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was
>the one
>> who moved, and how far away are we talking?
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read
>his
>> > post.
>> >
>> > Read it again and get back to us.
>>
>> I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red
>flags

.... are the little blood vessels in her eyes popping as she strains to figure
more ways to make this thread all about her.

Mel Gamble

>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary
>when
>> > I'm
>> > > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
>> > > > activities" -
>> > > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure
>didn't.
>> > > >
>> > > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
>> > doesn't
>> > > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was
>wanted.
>> > >
>> > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
>> > don't see
>> > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
>the
>> > only
>> > > thing that stopped him was himself.
>> >
>> > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
>>
>> And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch
>about
>> both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
>>
>>
>> >
>
>
>Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
>wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:32 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> And maybe she's forgotten, Teach ...
>
> >"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (SNIP)
>
> >> So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?
> >
> >He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him? He
> >seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that she
> >isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.
>
> Mommy and stepdaddy bought AND FIXED a car for her. So they're sending her
> down the road in a junker

Oh? You've only purchased brand-new, less than 10 miles on the speedometer,
type of cars?

- "How does that benefit the child?" - as nasty would
> say.

I've bought and fixed any number of cars in my driving career - doesn't come
close to being junkers, however.

There was also no mention on the part of the OP to indicate that the car was a
junker, and his objections were based on the car, itself, being unsafe.

Nice try, though.

>
> Mel Gamble

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:32 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> And maybe she's forgotten, Teach ...
>
> >"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (SNIP)
>
> >> So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?
> >
> >He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him? He
> >seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that she
> >isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.
>
> Mommy and stepdaddy bought AND FIXED a car for her. So they're sending her
> down the road in a junker

Oh? You've only purchased brand-new, less than 10 miles on the speedometer,
type of cars?

- "How does that benefit the child?" - as nasty would
> say.

I've bought and fixed any number of cars in my driving career - doesn't come
close to being junkers, however.

There was also no mention on the part of the OP to indicate that the car was a
junker, and his objections were based on the car, itself, being unsafe.

Nice try, though.

>
> Mel Gamble

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:37 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Stupid nasty, nasty and stupid...
>
> (Snip "it's all about me" bull****)
>
> >Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get his
> >daughter to and from extracurricular activities -
>
> And did you also "not see" the part about them living in different states? Or
> are you just hoping the rest of us missed that part so we won't call you on it
> as you continue trying to make this a thread about you and your burdens?

Then we go back to why.........

>
> Mel Gamble
>
> >would have saved the cost
> >of
> >the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to help
> >out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
> >showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> >
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:37 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Stupid nasty, nasty and stupid...
>
> (Snip "it's all about me" bull****)
>
> >Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get his
> >daughter to and from extracurricular activities -
>
> And did you also "not see" the part about them living in different states? Or
> are you just hoping the rest of us missed that part so we won't call you on it
> as you continue trying to make this a thread about you and your burdens?

Then we go back to why.........

>
> Mel Gamble
>
> >would have saved the cost
> >of
> >the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to help
> >out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
> >showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> >
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:47 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> In the majority of cases, ...
>
> >"Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > > > ...
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > snipped
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
> >so
> >> > > don't.
> >> > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> >> > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> >> > > co-parenting...... if
> >> > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> >> > > *something*
> >> > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> >> something
> >> > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
> >he
> >> > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
> >lives
> >> to
> >> > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> >> >
> >> > So he's too far away to be a father?
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
> >
> >Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed
> >to
> >do that stuff?
>
> ... it is done by whoever is parenting the child on the day in question,
> although some of us realize that if we didn't do it, our kids would never get
> to do anything.
>
> But in general - "... is it only moms that are supposed to do that stuff?" -
> only if she opted for custody.

Or........... if dad's removed himself to enough of a distance that mom's just
supposed to "adjust to it" like Tiffany has suggested.

>
> Mel Gamble
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:47 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> In the majority of cases, ...
>
> >"Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > > > ...
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > snipped
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
> >so
> >> > > don't.
> >> > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> >> > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> >> > > co-parenting...... if
> >> > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> >> > > *something*
> >> > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> >> something
> >> > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
> >he
> >> > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
> >lives
> >> to
> >> > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> >> >
> >> > So he's too far away to be a father?
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
> >
> >Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed
> >to
> >do that stuff?
>
> ... it is done by whoever is parenting the child on the day in question,
> although some of us realize that if we didn't do it, our kids would never get
> to do anything.
>
> But in general - "... is it only moms that are supposed to do that stuff?" -
> only if she opted for custody.

Or........... if dad's removed himself to enough of a distance that mom's just
supposed to "adjust to it" like Tiffany has suggested.

>
> Mel Gamble
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:55 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
> so
> > > > don't.
> > > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > > > *something*
> > > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> > something
> > > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
> he
> > > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
> lives
> > to
> > > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> > >
> > > So he's too far away to be a father?
> > ===
> > Where the heck did *that* come from?
> > (Inquires Gini while banging head on keyboard as DH looks on quizzically)
> > ===
> > ===
>
> <chuckle> There have been a couple of things that have popped up here that
> I ask myself the same question!!

Easily enough answered - I read the same post that the rest of you did -
daughter lives in a state where she's allowed to drive, mom and stepdad get her
a car (used and they fix it up) so that she can get to extracurricular
activities that she would otherwise not be able to go to, and mom had the
temerity to ask dad to help contribute to this item, which is clearly not
included in child support and which just as clearly is solely for the benefit of
the child (since child will be the one driving it to child's activities)

First, the people in this NG want to insist that the car is included in the CS -
though I can't really see any state's statutes that include a car for the child
as an inclusion in the CS.

Then, the people in this NG want to insist that dad doesn't need to contribute
to the car because he wasn't consulted beforehand (for which, of course, we only
have the complaining OP's post to go by)

Then, the people in this NG want to defend the OP for not taking a more active
part in the child's life, and providing an alternative to the offending driving
(which seems to be his complaint, though I question that one), because he 'lives
in another state' (which, of course, he hasn't exactly stated..... he simply
referred to his daughter's state, which could mean he lives in another state, or
could be weasel wording to make it look at though he can't provide alternatives
due to distance) - in any case, so far, I see an awful lot of people who think
dad shouldn't have to help pay for transportation for the child to get to the
activities, mom should be doing that
and dad shouldn't have to help get the child, physically, to the activities,
mom's supposed to be doing that, too

So I have to wonder why there's so many demands for 50% parenting, 50%
involvement, when so many of the posters to this NG are so clearly willing to
exclude dad from the 50%..........

So as far as I'm concerned, this is all done - we're simply going to not
agree.........

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:55 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
> so
> > > > don't.
> > > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
> > > > *something*
> > > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> > something
> > > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
> he
> > > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
> lives
> > to
> > > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> > >
> > > So he's too far away to be a father?
> > ===
> > Where the heck did *that* come from?
> > (Inquires Gini while banging head on keyboard as DH looks on quizzically)
> > ===
> > ===
>
> <chuckle> There have been a couple of things that have popped up here that
> I ask myself the same question!!

Easily enough answered - I read the same post that the rest of you did -
daughter lives in a state where she's allowed to drive, mom and stepdad get her
a car (used and they fix it up) so that she can get to extracurricular
activities that she would otherwise not be able to go to, and mom had the
temerity to ask dad to help contribute to this item, which is clearly not
included in child support and which just as clearly is solely for the benefit of
the child (since child will be the one driving it to child's activities)

First, the people in this NG want to insist that the car is included in the CS -
though I can't really see any state's statutes that include a car for the child
as an inclusion in the CS.

Then, the people in this NG want to insist that dad doesn't need to contribute
to the car because he wasn't consulted beforehand (for which, of course, we only
have the complaining OP's post to go by)

Then, the people in this NG want to defend the OP for not taking a more active
part in the child's life, and providing an alternative to the offending driving
(which seems to be his complaint, though I question that one), because he 'lives
in another state' (which, of course, he hasn't exactly stated..... he simply
referred to his daughter's state, which could mean he lives in another state, or
could be weasel wording to make it look at though he can't provide alternatives
due to distance) - in any case, so far, I see an awful lot of people who think
dad shouldn't have to help pay for transportation for the child to get to the
activities, mom should be doing that
and dad shouldn't have to help get the child, physically, to the activities,
mom's supposed to be doing that, too

So I have to wonder why there's so many demands for 50% parenting, 50%
involvement, when so many of the posters to this NG are so clearly willing to
exclude dad from the 50%..........

So as far as I'm concerned, this is all done - we're simply going to not
agree.........

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:57 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> > > drive.
> > > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> > > putting on
> > > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> > > others.
> > > > > Shall
> > > > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what
> is
> > > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> > > Should
> > > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> > > >
> > > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> > > child to
> > > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had
> the
> > > extra
> > > > bonus of more time with the child.
> > >
> > > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
> state.
> >
> > Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was
> the one
> > who moved, and how far away are we talking?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read
> his
> > > post.
> > >
> > > Read it again and get back to us.
> >
> > I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red
> flags
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary
> when
> > > I'm
> > > > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > > > activities" -
> > > > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure
> didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> > > doesn't
> > > > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was
> wanted.
> > > >
> > > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> > > don't see
> > > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
> the
> > > only
> > > > thing that stopped him was himself.
> > >
> > > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
> >
> > And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch
> about
> > both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
> wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.

I didn't condemn anyone ........ though you, among others, want to defend, based
on the same lack of details.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:57 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
> > > drive.
> > > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> > > putting on
> > > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
> > > others.
> > > > > Shall
> > > > > > we legislate against all of those?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what
> is
> > > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
> > > Should
> > > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.
> > > >
> > > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
> > > child to
> > > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had
> the
> > > extra
> > > > bonus of more time with the child.
> > >
> > > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
> state.
> >
> > Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who was
> the one
> > who moved, and how far away are we talking?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read
> his
> > > post.
> > >
> > > Read it again and get back to us.
> >
> > I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of red
> flags
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary
> when
> > > I'm
> > > > > > available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
> > > > > activities" -
> > > > > > did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure
> didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
> > > doesn't
> > > > > seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was
> wanted.
> > > >
> > > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
> > > don't see
> > > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering.......
> the
> > > only
> > > > thing that stopped him was himself.
> > >
> > > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
> >
> > And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole pitch
> about
> > both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
> wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.

I didn't condemn anyone ........ though you, among others, want to defend, based
on the same lack of details.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 11:05 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> > > amount
> > > > > of CS
> > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > > extracted
> > > > > via
> > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > > because
> > > > > he
> > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
> court
> > > > > orders for
> > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
> what
> > > is
> > > > > covered
> > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > > pay.......so
> > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
> it
> > > > > would do
> > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> refusing.........
> > > to
> > > > > hell
> > > > > > with him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > > either.......
> > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
> the
> > > child
> > > > > to
> > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > > anyone
> > > > > stop
> > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
> to
> > > feel
> > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > > >
> > > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> > > meanwhile, in
> > > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
> for
> > > the
> > > > purposes of going to school.
> > >
> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
> same
> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > >
> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
> to
> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
> of
> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> could
> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> >
> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> > child? Anything?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
> on
> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
> the
> > > idea"?
> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > > community,
> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > > come in?
> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > "Doesn't
> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> "Doesn't
> > > like
> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
> the
> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> best
> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> day--there
> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> would
> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> three
> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> the
> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> >
> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> in all
> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > >
> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
> in
> > > this
> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> interests
> > > of
> > > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> Besides
> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> >
> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
> for
> > the child?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
> her
> > > head
> > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> > > have a
> > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
> husband
> > > be
> > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
> best
> > > > > interests of the child"?
> > > >
> > > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
> to
> > > > school.
> > >
> > > Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
> car
> > > (probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
> car
> > > for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
> itself.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
> paying
> > > child
> > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> > > But
> > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
> best
> > > > > interests when thinking about the car?
> > > >
> > > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
> is.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
> all--daughter
> > > does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
> car
> > > would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
> car
> > > for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.
> > >
> > > And
> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> which
> > > they
> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> she
> > > got the
> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
> if
> > > dad
> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> legally
> > > able
> > > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> mention
> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> judgement
> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> his
> > > daughter!
> >
> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> experiences.......
> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
> to
> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > She is certainly the only child that
> > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > >
> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> get
> > > child
> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> child
> > > to
> > > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> >
> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
> lives
> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
> view
> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
> to
> > see, on a day to day basis?
>
> It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
> assume that HE left???

I didn't. I said "perhaps we should be asking why he lives so far away from the
child", which could just as easily be answered by "mom moved child away"

Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
> he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post.

I made no assumptions, though you, among others, have apparently made some of
your own.

You are
> drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
> poster has issues with.

So is everyone else, apparently.

>
>
>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 11:05 AM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
> > > amount
> > > > > of CS
> > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
> > > extracted
> > > > > via
> > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
> > > because
> > > > > he
> > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
> court
> > > > > orders for
> > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
> what
> > > is
> > > > > covered
> > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
> > > > > pay.......so
> > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
> it
> > > > > would do
> > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
> refusing.........
> > > to
> > > > > hell
> > > > > > with him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
> > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
> > > > > either.......
> > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
> the
> > > child
> > > > > to
> > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
> > > anyone
> > > > > stop
> > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
> to
> > > feel
> > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.
> > > >
> > > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
> > > meanwhile, in
> > > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
> for
> > > the
> > > > purposes of going to school.
> > >
> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
> same
> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > >
> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
> to
> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
> of
> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> could
> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> >
> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> > child? Anything?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
> on
> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
> the
> > > idea"?
> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > > community,
> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > > come in?
> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > "Doesn't
> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> "Doesn't
> > > like
> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
> the
> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> best
> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> day--there
> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> would
> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> three
> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> the
> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> >
> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> in all
> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > >
> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
> in
> > > this
> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> interests
> > > of
> > > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> Besides
> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> >
> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
> for
> > the child?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
> > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
> her
> > > head
> > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
> > > have a
> > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
> husband
> > > be
> > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
> best
> > > > > interests of the child"?
> > > >
> > > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
> to
> > > > school.
> > >
> > > Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
> car
> > > (probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
> car
> > > for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
> itself.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
> > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
> paying
> > > child
> > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
> > > But
> > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
> best
> > > > > interests when thinking about the car?
> > > >
> > > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
> is.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
> all--daughter
> > > does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
> car
> > > would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
> car
> > > for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.
> > >
> > > And
> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> which
> > > they
> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> she
> > > got the
> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
> if
> > > dad
> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> legally
> > > able
> > > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> mention
> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> judgement
> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> his
> > > daughter!
> >
> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> experiences.......
> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
> to
> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > She is certainly the only child that
> > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
> > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > >
> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> get
> > > child
> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> child
> > > to
> > > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> >
> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
> lives
> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
> view
> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
> to
> > see, on a day to day basis?
>
> It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
> assume that HE left???

I didn't. I said "perhaps we should be asking why he lives so far away from the
child", which could just as easily be answered by "mom moved child away"

Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
> he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post.

I made no assumptions, though you, among others, have apparently made some of
your own.

You are
> drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
> poster has issues with.

So is everyone else, apparently.

>
>
>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 11:14 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
> same
> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > >
> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
> to
> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
> of
> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> could
> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> >
> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> > child? Anything?
>
> He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she stays
> with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
> school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> child support. Does that count?

Do you consider that sufficient? Do the majority of fathers consider it
sufficient?

>
> > > >
> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
> on
> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
> the
> > > idea"?
> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > > community,
> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > > come in?
> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > "Doesn't
> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> "Doesn't
> > > like
> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
> the
> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> best
> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> day--there
> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> would
> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> three
> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> the
> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> >
> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> in all
> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>
> Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
> satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.

Please keep in mind the OP's description was "10 miles out in the country" -
we're not talking cities, or even suburbia - we're talking "out in the country"
where children far younger routinely learn to drive on things like tractors.


>
> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > >
> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
> in
> > > this
> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> interests
> > > of
> > > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> Besides
> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> >
> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
> for
> > the child?
>
> Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this situation,
> Moon?

Hmmmm, how about driving lessons, to help the child to be a safe (and defensive)
driver? How about dad teaches daughter what he thinks she needs to now about
driving? That would help allay his fears, help child to be a better and safer
driver, and everyone goes home happy.


>
> >
> > ><snip>
>
> > > >
> > > And
> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> which
> > > they
> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> she
> > > got the
> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
> if
> > > dad
> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> legally
> > > able
> > > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> mention
> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> judgement
> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> his
> > > daughter!
> >
> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> experiences.......
> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
> to
> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>
> Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think?


He didn't come asking for advice - he came asking if he was required to pay.

Or
> perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking some
> advice.
>
> >
> > >
>
> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > >
> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> get
> > > child
> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> child
> > > to
> > > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> >
> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
> lives
> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
> view
> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
> to
> > see, on a day to day basis?
>
> Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.

All summer? I've re-read the post yet again, and there's no mention of all
summer.


That's
> pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?

I don't see any mention of all summer.

>
> >
> > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> problems,
> > you never get to a solution.
> >
> > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>
> Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
> as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
> doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?

In this case, and in these circumstances, no, I don't think it does.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Certainly
> > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> their
> > > own
> > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > >
> > > He seems to live in another state.
> >
> > Which begs the question of why?
>
> Why what?

Why he lives in another state.

I don't understand what you are asking here.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> > > their
> > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > >
> > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
> get
> > > the
> > > > child there!
> > >
> > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> children
> > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> >
> > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any more
> than
> > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the
> > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > interests
> > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> > > seems
> > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > interests"
> > > > > bat?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> possible
> > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
> his
> > > help
> > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > > school.
> > >
> > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking
> for
> > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> young an
> > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
> > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> >
> > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have the
> most
> > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
> without
> > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a solution.
>
> He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon.

You don't think it would be better for his relationship with his child, and his
child's mother, if he were willing to bring alternatives to reach a solution
concerning his child? I do.

And we certainly don't know
> whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have.

He certainly didn't post any to this newsgroup.

He asked some specific
> questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.

Yup - he wanted to know if he was required to pay. That's all he wanted an
opinion on.

Here's the contents of his original post:

"I am looking for opinions.

My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
miles or so out in the country."

<< please note, he makes no mention of summer arrangements for the child - so
it's at least safe to assume that during the 9-10 months of the school year, he
probably has limited contact and interaction with his child >>


"It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to drive.
Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
participate in extra-curricular school activities.

They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.

My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when it
is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether it
is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the first
place)."

<< please note, he only wants to provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it is necessary for her to drive when she is with him......... so as long as he
insists he drives his car when she's with him, he never has to provide vehicle
and insurance for her >>


"Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?"

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
> seen
> > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > > offered to
> > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> > > following
> > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > >
> > > All the way from another state?
> >
> > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in the
> first
> > place?
>
> He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
> lives with mom "during the school year."
>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 11:14 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
> same
> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
> > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > >
> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
> to
> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
> of
> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> could
> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> >
> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
> > child? Anything?
>
> He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she stays
> with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
> school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> child support. Does that count?

Do you consider that sufficient? Do the majority of fathers consider it
sufficient?

>
> > > >
> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
> on
> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
> the
> > > idea"?
> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
> > > community,
> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
> > > come in?
> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > "Doesn't
> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> "Doesn't
> > > like
> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
> the
> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> best
> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> day--there
> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> would
> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> three
> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> the
> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> >
> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> in all
> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>
> Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
> satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.

Please keep in mind the OP's description was "10 miles out in the country" -
we're not talking cities, or even suburbia - we're talking "out in the country"
where children far younger routinely learn to drive on things like tractors.


>
> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
> > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > >
> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
> in
> > > this
> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> interests
> > > of
> > > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> Besides
> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> >
> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
> for
> > the child?
>
> Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this situation,
> Moon?

Hmmmm, how about driving lessons, to help the child to be a safe (and defensive)
driver? How about dad teaches daughter what he thinks she needs to now about
driving? That would help allay his fears, help child to be a better and safer
driver, and everyone goes home happy.


>
> >
> > ><snip>
>
> > > >
> > > And
> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> which
> > > they
> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> she
> > > got the
> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
> if
> > > dad
> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> legally
> > > able
> > > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> mention
> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> judgement
> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> his
> > > daughter!
> >
> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> experiences.......
> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
> to
> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>
> Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think?


He didn't come asking for advice - he came asking if he was required to pay.

Or
> perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking some
> advice.
>
> >
> > >
>
> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > >
> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> get
> > > child
> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> child
> > > to
> > > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> >
> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
> lives
> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
> view
> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
> to
> > see, on a day to day basis?
>
> Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.

All summer? I've re-read the post yet again, and there's no mention of all
summer.


That's
> pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?

I don't see any mention of all summer.

>
> >
> > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> problems,
> > you never get to a solution.
> >
> > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>
> Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
> as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
> doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?

In this case, and in these circumstances, no, I don't think it does.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Certainly
> > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> their
> > > own
> > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > >
> > > He seems to live in another state.
> >
> > Which begs the question of why?
>
> Why what?

Why he lives in another state.

I don't understand what you are asking here.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
> > > their
> > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > >
> > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to
> get
> > > the
> > > > child there!
> > >
> > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> children
> > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> >
> > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any more
> than
> > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the
> > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > interests
> > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
> > > seems
> > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > interests"
> > > > > bat?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> possible
> > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
> his
> > > help
> > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > > school.
> > >
> > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking
> for
> > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> young an
> > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
> > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> >
> > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have the
> most
> > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
> without
> > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a solution.
>
> He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon.

You don't think it would be better for his relationship with his child, and his
child's mother, if he were willing to bring alternatives to reach a solution
concerning his child? I do.

And we certainly don't know
> whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have.

He certainly didn't post any to this newsgroup.

He asked some specific
> questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.

Yup - he wanted to know if he was required to pay. That's all he wanted an
opinion on.

Here's the contents of his original post:

"I am looking for opinions.

My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
miles or so out in the country."

<< please note, he makes no mention of summer arrangements for the child - so
it's at least safe to assume that during the 9-10 months of the school year, he
probably has limited contact and interaction with his child >>


"It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to drive.
Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
participate in extra-curricular school activities.

They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.

My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when it
is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether it
is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the first
place)."

<< please note, he only wants to provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it is necessary for her to drive when she is with him......... so as long as he
insists he drives his car when she's with him, he never has to provide vehicle
and insurance for her >>


"Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?"

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
> > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
> seen
> > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > > offered to
> > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
> > > following
> > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > >
> > > All the way from another state?
> >
> > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in the
> first
> > place?
>
> He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
> lives with mom "during the school year."
>
>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:01 PM
For those of you that may have missed it - the OP's objection isn't to the
cost - he states, below, that he believes some of these "reasonable costs" can
be "equitably shared" ........ His problem is her age.


"Scott Ross" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Moon Shyne at
> wrote on 8/15/03 3:43 AM:
>
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> I am looking for opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> >>>> miles or so out in the country.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
> >> so
> >>>> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
> >> drive.
> >>>> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> >>>> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> >>>>
> >>>> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> >>>> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> >>>>
> >>>> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
> >> it
> >>>> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
> >> whether it
> >>>> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> >>>> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
> >> first
> >>>> place).
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
> >>>
> >>> Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
> >> think Mom
> >>> should help shoulder the cost?
> >>
> >> But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does
not
> >> approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
> >> her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
> >> unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for
it.
> >> Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.
> >
> > I'm curious to see how he feels about the situation if it were reversed - I
> > think that will be a whole lot more telling than trying to determine rights
or
> > wrongs for an area that permits 14 year old children to drive.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
================================================== ======
> Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
> exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
> standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary
> driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden
> that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
>
> I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to
> a 14-year-old driving without supervision. It's difficult to work that into
> the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary",
> and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part
> of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> consider this.
================================================== =

>
> I really appreciate all of the feedback I've gotten on this.
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 12:01 PM
For those of you that may have missed it - the OP's objection isn't to the
cost - he states, below, that he believes some of these "reasonable costs" can
be "equitably shared" ........ His problem is her age.


"Scott Ross" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Moon Shyne at
> wrote on 8/15/03 3:43 AM:
>
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> "Scott Ross" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> I am looking for opinions.
> >>>>
> >>>> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> >>>> miles or so out in the country.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
> >> so
> >>>> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
> >> drive.
> >>>> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> >>>> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
> >>>>
> >>>> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> >>>> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
> >>>>
> >>>> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
> >> it
> >>>> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
> >> whether it
> >>>> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> >>>> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
> >> first
> >>>> place).
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
> >>>
> >>> Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
> >> think Mom
> >>> should help shoulder the cost?
> >>
> >> But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does
not
> >> approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
> >> her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
> >> unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for
it.
> >> Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.
> >
> > I'm curious to see how he feels about the situation if it were reversed - I
> > think that will be a whole lot more telling than trying to determine rights
or
> > wrongs for an area that permits 14 year old children to drive.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
================================================== ======
> Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
> exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
> standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary
> driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden
> that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.
>
> I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to
> a 14-year-old driving without supervision. It's difficult to work that into
> the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary",
> and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part
> of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
> consider this.
================================================== =

>
> I really appreciate all of the feedback I've gotten on this.
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 12:21 PM
Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> : ) Those red flags she sees ...
>
> >Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> > > > ...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > ...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and
to
> >> > drive.
> >> > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> >> > putting on
> >> > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and
to
> >> > others.
> >> > > > Shall
> >> > > > > we legislate against all of those?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about
what
> >is
> >> > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to
drive.
> >> > Should
> >> > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is
for.
> >> > >
> >> > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get
the
> >> > child to
> >> > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have
had
> >the
> >> > extra
> >> > > bonus of more time with the child.
> >> >
> >> > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
> >state.
> >>
> >> Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who
was
> >the one
> >> who moved, and how far away are we talking?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I
read
> >his
> >> > post.
> >> >
> >> > Read it again and get back to us.
> >>
> >> I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of
red
> >flags
>
> ... are the little blood vessels in her eyes popping as she strains to
figure
> more ways to make this thread all about her.
>



lol... thanks for the laugh

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 12:21 PM
Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> : ) Those red flags she sees ...
>
> >Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> ink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> > > > ...
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > ...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > ...
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> >> > > > > > > > > ...
> >> > >
> >> > > <snip>
> >> > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and
to
> >> > drive.
> >> > > > > People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
> >> > putting on
> >> > > > > make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and
to
> >> > others.
> >> > > > Shall
> >> > > > > we legislate against all of those?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about
what
> >is
> >> > > > legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to
drive.
> >> > Should
> >> > > > the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is
for.
> >> > >
> >> > > And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get
the
> >> > child to
> >> > > and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have
had
> >the
> >> > extra
> >> > > bonus of more time with the child.
> >> >
> >> > Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different
> >state.
> >>
> >> Then I'd have to wonder why he's so far away from his child..... who
was
> >the one
> >> who moved, and how far away are we talking?
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I
read
> >his
> >> > post.
> >> >
> >> > Read it again and get back to us.
> >>
> >> I"ve read the post numerous times......... and there's a whole lot of
red
> >flags
>
> ... are the little blood vessels in her eyes popping as she strains to
figure
> more ways to make this thread all about her.
>



lol... thanks for the laugh

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 12:24 PM
teachrmama > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
the
> same
> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
in
> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
activities
> > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > >
> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
her
> to
> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
difficulties
> of
> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> could
> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
can
> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> >
> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
this
> > child? Anything?
>
> He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
stays
> with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
> school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> child support. Does that count?
>
> > > >
> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
> on
> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
the
> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
like
> the
> > > idea"?
> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
the
> > > community,
> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
lives
> > > come in?
> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > "Doesn't
> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> "Doesn't
> > > like
> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
on
> the
> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> best
> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> day--there
> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> would
> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
is
> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> three
> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> the
> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> >
> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> in all
> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>
> Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
> satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>
> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
> > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > >
> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
and
> in
> > > this
> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> interests
> > > of
> > > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> Besides
> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> >
> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
best
> for
> > the child?
>
> Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
situation,
> Moon?
>
> >
> > ><snip>
>
> > > >
> > > And
> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> which
> > > they
> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> she
> > > got the
> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
her,
> if
> > > dad
> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> legally
> > > able
> > > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> mention
> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> judgement
> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> his
> > > daughter!
> >
> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> experiences.......
> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
point
> to
> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>
> Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
> perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
some
> advice.
>
> >
> > >
>
> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > >
> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> get
> > > child
> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> child
> > > to
> > > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> >
> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
he
> lives
> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
his
> view
> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
able
> to
> > see, on a day to day basis?
>
> Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted. That's
> pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
>
> >
> > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> problems,
> > you never get to a solution.
> >
> > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>
> Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
> as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
> doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Certainly
> > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> their
> > > own
> > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > >
> > > He seems to live in another state.
> >
> > Which begs the question of why?
>
> Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
> > > their
> > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > >
> > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
to
> get
> > > the
> > > > child there!
> > >
> > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> children
> > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> >
> > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
more
> than
> > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the
> > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > interests
> > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
> > > seems
> > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > interests"
> > > > > bat?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> possible
> > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
for
> his
> > > help
> > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > > school.
> > >
> > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
asking
> for
> > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> young an
> > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
for
> > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> >
> > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
the
> most
> > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
> without
> > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
solution.
>
> He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't
know
> whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some
specific
> questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
> > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
have
> seen
> > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > > offered to
> > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
the
> > > following
> > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > >
> > > All the way from another state?
> >
> > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
the
> first
> > place?
>
> He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
> lives with mom "during the school year."
>
>
>

Must not be good enough.... some think Mom should suck him dry.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 12:24 PM
teachrmama > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
the
> same
> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
in
> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
activities
> > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > >
> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
her
> to
> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
difficulties
> of
> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> could
> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
can
> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> >
> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
this
> > child? Anything?
>
> He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
stays
> with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
> school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> child support. Does that count?
>
> > > >
> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
> on
> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
the
> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > >
> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
like
> the
> > > idea"?
> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
the
> > > community,
> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
lives
> > > come in?
> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > "Doesn't
> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> "Doesn't
> > > like
> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > >
> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
on
> the
> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> best
> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> day--there
> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> would
> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
is
> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> three
> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> the
> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> >
> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> in all
> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>
> Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
> satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>
> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
> > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > >
> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
and
> in
> > > this
> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> interests
> > > of
> > > > the child take precedence?
> > >
> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> Besides
> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> >
> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
best
> for
> > the child?
>
> Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
situation,
> Moon?
>
> >
> > ><snip>
>
> > > >
> > > And
> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> which
> > > they
> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> she
> > > got the
> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
her,
> if
> > > dad
> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> legally
> > > able
> > > > to drive a car.
> > >
> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> mention
> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> judgement
> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> his
> > > daughter!
> >
> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> experiences.......
> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
point
> to
> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>
> Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
> perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
some
> advice.
>
> >
> > >
>
> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > >
> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> get
> > > child
> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> child
> > > to
> > > > activities - did you?
> > >
> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> >
> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
he
> lives
> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
his
> view
> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
able
> to
> > see, on a day to day basis?
>
> Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted. That's
> pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
>
> >
> > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> problems,
> > you never get to a solution.
> >
> > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>
> Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
> as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
> doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Certainly
> > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> their
> > > own
> > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > >
> > > He seems to live in another state.
> >
> > Which begs the question of why?
>
> Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
> > > their
> > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > >
> > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
to
> get
> > > the
> > > > child there!
> > >
> > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> children
> > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> >
> > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
more
> than
> > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And the
> > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > interests
> > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
> > > seems
> > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > interests"
> > > > > bat?
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> possible
> > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
for
> his
> > > help
> > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > > school.
> > >
> > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
asking
> for
> > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> young an
> > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
for
> > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> >
> > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
the
> most
> > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
> without
> > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
solution.
>
> He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't
know
> whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some
specific
> questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
> > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > >
> > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
have
> seen
> > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > > offered to
> > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
the
> > > following
> > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > >
> > > All the way from another state?
> >
> > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
the
> first
> > place?
>
> He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
> lives with mom "during the school year."
>
>
>

Must not be good enough.... some think Mom should suck him dry.

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 02:48 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > <giant snip>
> >
> > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the
child?
> > > >
> > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from
him?
> > >
> > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money - I've
> > tried,
> > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could be
> > > offering..........
> > >
> > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
> > >
> > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in person,
with
> > the
> > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
financially
> > with
> > > those activities........
> >
> > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
support
> > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
> >
> > >
> > > And you don't see a problem with this?
> >
> > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
during
> > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she engages
in
> > while living with him, son't you think?
>
> From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or not)
and
> that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in the
> child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
>
> If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
father's
> viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of being a
> parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
number of
> people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only requirement of
being
> a parent....... and I disagree.

Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much input
besides the input of cash called child support. This is not often a
voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a father
NEEDS to contribute. I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem to
feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
father.

>
> It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for each
of the
> parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.

And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
reall equal "more involved father"?

teachrmama
August 18th 03, 02:48 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > <giant snip>
> >
> > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the
child?
> > > >
> > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from
him?
> > >
> > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money - I've
> > tried,
> > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could be
> > > offering..........
> > >
> > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
> > >
> > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in person,
with
> > the
> > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
financially
> > with
> > > those activities........
> >
> > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
support
> > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
> >
> > >
> > > And you don't see a problem with this?
> >
> > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
during
> > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she engages
in
> > while living with him, son't you think?
>
> From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or not)
and
> that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in the
> child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
>
> If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
father's
> viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of being a
> parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
number of
> people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only requirement of
being
> a parent....... and I disagree.

Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much input
besides the input of cash called child support. This is not often a
voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a father
NEEDS to contribute. I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem to
feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
father.

>
> It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for each
of the
> parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.

And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
reall equal "more involved father"?

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 05:23 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
get
> > his
> > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> > cost of
> > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
to
> > help
> > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
without
> > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> >
> > Here's a few potential solutions for the OP to consider suggesting:
> >
> > 1. Tell the mother and step-dad to figure out how two adults could
> > coordinate their schedules to accommodate the child's extracurricular
> > activities.
> >
> > 2. Tell the mother and step-dad to move closer to the school so the
child
> > isn't inconvenienced by their choice of where to live.
> >
> > 3. Tell the mother and step-dad to accept their role as the child's
> > custodial parents and coordinate their parenting efforts to accommodate
the
> > child's best interests.
> >
> > 4. Tell the mother and step-dad to pay their own bills and stop asking
for
> > a handout.
> >
> > 5. Tell the mother and step-dad that between them they have two incomes
> > plus CS so they should pay for all the extras not covered by CS.
>
> You left out 1:
>
> Tell the dad he's the child's parent, too, and should be parenting the
child 50%
> of the time, which includes coordinating his schedule to accomodate the
child's
> extracurricular activities, that he should move closer to the child, so
that the
> child isn't inconvenienced by his choice of where to live, that he needs
to
> accept his role as the child's parent and coordinate his parenting efforts
to
> accomodate the child's best interested, that raising children sometimes
has
> costs over and above the court ordered child support amount, and that
sometimes
> parents pay for extras for their children without making the child feel as
> though they're nothing but a walking talking bill.

Well at least I came up with some original alternative solutions.

You on the other hand used the old school grounds "you're one too" response
technique and parroted back what I said without any original thought.

It's pretty obvious you are fixated on a solution you advocate and are
unwilling to be open to hear and consider other alternatives.

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 05:23 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
get
> > his
> > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> > cost of
> > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
to
> > help
> > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
without
> > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> >
> > Here's a few potential solutions for the OP to consider suggesting:
> >
> > 1. Tell the mother and step-dad to figure out how two adults could
> > coordinate their schedules to accommodate the child's extracurricular
> > activities.
> >
> > 2. Tell the mother and step-dad to move closer to the school so the
child
> > isn't inconvenienced by their choice of where to live.
> >
> > 3. Tell the mother and step-dad to accept their role as the child's
> > custodial parents and coordinate their parenting efforts to accommodate
the
> > child's best interests.
> >
> > 4. Tell the mother and step-dad to pay their own bills and stop asking
for
> > a handout.
> >
> > 5. Tell the mother and step-dad that between them they have two incomes
> > plus CS so they should pay for all the extras not covered by CS.
>
> You left out 1:
>
> Tell the dad he's the child's parent, too, and should be parenting the
child 50%
> of the time, which includes coordinating his schedule to accomodate the
child's
> extracurricular activities, that he should move closer to the child, so
that the
> child isn't inconvenienced by his choice of where to live, that he needs
to
> accept his role as the child's parent and coordinate his parenting efforts
to
> accomodate the child's best interested, that raising children sometimes
has
> costs over and above the court ordered child support amount, and that
sometimes
> parents pay for extras for their children without making the child feel as
> though they're nothing but a walking talking bill.

Well at least I came up with some original alternative solutions.

You on the other hand used the old school grounds "you're one too" response
technique and parroted back what I said without any original thought.

It's pretty obvious you are fixated on a solution you advocate and are
unwilling to be open to hear and consider other alternatives.

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 06:32 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...

Bob wants to insist a car is part of the CS
> calculations, yet that shows in none of the statutes I've looked at.

Please quote me correctly. I said children transportation needs are
included in the CS guidelines and resultant CS awards.

The reason you cannot find references to cars in the CS statutes is because
they are not there. You will also not be able to find the child support
guidelines in the statutes because they aren't there either. That doesn't
mean they don't exist and get applied every day. What you will find in the
statutes is law directing the state CS unit to do regular studies of their
guideline amounts to ensure they are just and appropriate.

All of the child support economic models behind the Cs guidelines include a
combination of the children's share of expenses, which can be clearly
defined, and some portion of family consumption, which includes
transportation spending, allocated to children.

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 06:32 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...

Bob wants to insist a car is part of the CS
> calculations, yet that shows in none of the statutes I've looked at.

Please quote me correctly. I said children transportation needs are
included in the CS guidelines and resultant CS awards.

The reason you cannot find references to cars in the CS statutes is because
they are not there. You will also not be able to find the child support
guidelines in the statutes because they aren't there either. That doesn't
mean they don't exist and get applied every day. What you will find in the
statutes is law directing the state CS unit to do regular studies of their
guideline amounts to ensure they are just and appropriate.

All of the child support economic models behind the Cs guidelines include a
combination of the children's share of expenses, which can be clearly
defined, and some portion of family consumption, which includes
transportation spending, allocated to children.

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:44 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
> get
> > > his
> > > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> > > cost of
> > > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
> to
> > > help
> > > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
> without
> > > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> > >
> > > Here's a few potential solutions for the OP to consider suggesting:
> > >
> > > 1. Tell the mother and step-dad to figure out how two adults could
> > > coordinate their schedules to accommodate the child's extracurricular
> > > activities.
> > >
> > > 2. Tell the mother and step-dad to move closer to the school so the
> child
> > > isn't inconvenienced by their choice of where to live.
> > >
> > > 3. Tell the mother and step-dad to accept their role as the child's
> > > custodial parents and coordinate their parenting efforts to accommodate
> the
> > > child's best interests.
> > >
> > > 4. Tell the mother and step-dad to pay their own bills and stop asking
> for
> > > a handout.
> > >
> > > 5. Tell the mother and step-dad that between them they have two incomes
> > > plus CS so they should pay for all the extras not covered by CS.
> >
> > You left out 1:
> >
> > Tell the dad he's the child's parent, too, and should be parenting the
> child 50%
> > of the time, which includes coordinating his schedule to accomodate the
> child's
> > extracurricular activities, that he should move closer to the child, so
> that the
> > child isn't inconvenienced by his choice of where to live, that he needs
> to
> > accept his role as the child's parent and coordinate his parenting efforts
> to
> > accomodate the child's best interested, that raising children sometimes
> has
> > costs over and above the court ordered child support amount, and that
> sometimes
> > parents pay for extras for their children without making the child feel as
> > though they're nothing but a walking talking bill.
>
> Well at least I came up with some original alternative solutions.
>
> You on the other hand used the old school grounds "you're one too" response
> technique and parroted back what I said without any original thought.

That's because of your glaring oversight in suggesting any things that the
father could be doing - every single one of your suggestions puts the burden
back on mom.


>
> It's pretty obvious you are fixated on a solution you advocate and are
> unwilling to be open to hear and consider other alternatives.

I've been suggesting that the OP offer alternatives pretty much since I joined
this thread - how is it that you missed that, every single time?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:44 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
> get
> > > his
> > > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> > > cost of
> > > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
> to
> > > help
> > > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
> without
> > > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> > >
> > > Here's a few potential solutions for the OP to consider suggesting:
> > >
> > > 1. Tell the mother and step-dad to figure out how two adults could
> > > coordinate their schedules to accommodate the child's extracurricular
> > > activities.
> > >
> > > 2. Tell the mother and step-dad to move closer to the school so the
> child
> > > isn't inconvenienced by their choice of where to live.
> > >
> > > 3. Tell the mother and step-dad to accept their role as the child's
> > > custodial parents and coordinate their parenting efforts to accommodate
> the
> > > child's best interests.
> > >
> > > 4. Tell the mother and step-dad to pay their own bills and stop asking
> for
> > > a handout.
> > >
> > > 5. Tell the mother and step-dad that between them they have two incomes
> > > plus CS so they should pay for all the extras not covered by CS.
> >
> > You left out 1:
> >
> > Tell the dad he's the child's parent, too, and should be parenting the
> child 50%
> > of the time, which includes coordinating his schedule to accomodate the
> child's
> > extracurricular activities, that he should move closer to the child, so
> that the
> > child isn't inconvenienced by his choice of where to live, that he needs
> to
> > accept his role as the child's parent and coordinate his parenting efforts
> to
> > accomodate the child's best interested, that raising children sometimes
> has
> > costs over and above the court ordered child support amount, and that
> sometimes
> > parents pay for extras for their children without making the child feel as
> > though they're nothing but a walking talking bill.
>
> Well at least I came up with some original alternative solutions.
>
> You on the other hand used the old school grounds "you're one too" response
> technique and parroted back what I said without any original thought.

That's because of your glaring oversight in suggesting any things that the
father could be doing - every single one of your suggestions puts the burden
back on mom.


>
> It's pretty obvious you are fixated on a solution you advocate and are
> unwilling to be open to hear and consider other alternatives.

I've been suggesting that the OP offer alternatives pretty much since I joined
this thread - how is it that you missed that, every single time?

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:46 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> teachrmama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
> the
> > same
> > > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
> in
> > > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
> activities
> > > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > > >
> > > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
> her
> > to
> > > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
> difficulties
> > of
> > > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> > could
> > > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
> can
> > > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> > >
> > > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
> this
> > > child? Anything?
> >
> > He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
> stays
> > with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
> > school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> > child support. Does that count?
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
> count
> > on
> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
> the
> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > >
> > > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
> like
> > the
> > > > idea"?
> > > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
> the
> > > > community,
> > > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
> lives
> > > > come in?
> > > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > > "Doesn't
> > > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> > "Doesn't
> > > > like
> > > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > > >
> > > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
> on
> > the
> > > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> > best
> > > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> > day--there
> > > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> > would
> > > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
> is
> > > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> > three
> > > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> > the
> > > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> > >
> > > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> > in all
> > > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
> >
> > Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
> > satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
> >
> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
> over
> > > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
> and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> > interests
> > > > of
> > > > > the child take precedence?
> > > >
> > > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> > Besides
> > > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> > >
> > > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
> best
> > for
> > > the child?
> >
> > Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> > compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
> situation,
> > Moon?
> >
> > >
> > > ><snip>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> > which
> > > > they
> > > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> > she
> > > > got the
> > > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
> her,
> > if
> > > > dad
> > > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> > legally
> > > > able
> > > > > to drive a car.
> > > >
> > > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> > mention
> > > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> > judgement
> > > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> > his
> > > > daughter!
> > >
> > > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> > experiences.......
> > > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
> point
> > to
> > > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
> >
> > Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
> > perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
> some
> > advice.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > > >
> > > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> > get
> > > > child
> > > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > activities - did you?
> > > >
> > > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> > >
> > > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
> he
> > lives
> > > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
> his
> > view
> > > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
> able
> > to
> > > see, on a day to day basis?
> >
> > Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted. That's
> > pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
> >
> > >
> > > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> > problems,
> > > you never get to a solution.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
> >
> > Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
> > as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
> > doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Certainly
> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > > >
> > > > He seems to live in another state.
> > >
> > > Which begs the question of why?
> >
> > Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
> because
> > > > their
> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > > >
> > > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
> to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > child there!
> > > >
> > > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> > children
> > > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> > >
> > > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
> more
> > than
> > > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the
> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > > interests
> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
> parent
> > > > seems
> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > > interests"
> > > > > > bat?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> > possible
> > > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
> for
> > his
> > > > help
> > > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > > > school.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
> asking
> > for
> > > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> > young an
> > > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
> for
> > > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> > >
> > > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
> the
> > most
> > > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
> > without
> > > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
> solution.
> >
> > He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't
> know
> > whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some
> specific
> > questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
> daughter
> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
> have
> > seen
> > > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > > > offered to
> > > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
> the
> > > > following
> > > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > > >
> > > > All the way from another state?
> > >
> > > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
> the
> > first
> > > place?
> >
> > He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
> > lives with mom "during the school year."
> >
> >
> >
>
> Must not be good enough.... some think Mom should suck him dry.

I saw no one making that suggestion.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 18th 03, 10:46 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> teachrmama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
> the
> > same
> > > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
> > > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
> in
> > > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
> activities
> > > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > > >
> > > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
> her
> > to
> > > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
> difficulties
> > of
> > > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
> > could
> > > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
> can
> > > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> > >
> > > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
> this
> > > child? Anything?
> >
> > He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
> stays
> > with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
> > school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> > child support. Does that count?
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
> count
> > on
> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
> the
> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > >
> > > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
> like
> > the
> > > > idea"?
> > > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
> the
> > > > community,
> > > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
> lives
> > > > come in?
> > > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
> > > > "Doesn't
> > > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> > "Doesn't
> > > > like
> > > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > > >
> > > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
> on
> > the
> > > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> > best
> > > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
> > > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> > day--there
> > > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
> > would
> > > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
> is
> > > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
> > three
> > > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
> > the
> > > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> > >
> > > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
> > in all
> > > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
> >
> > Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
> > satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
> >
> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
> over
> > > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
> and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> > interests
> > > > of
> > > > > the child take precedence?
> > > >
> > > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> > Besides
> > > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> > >
> > > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
> best
> > for
> > > the child?
> >
> > Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> > compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
> situation,
> > Moon?
> >
> > >
> > > ><snip>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
> > which
> > > > they
> > > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
> > she
> > > > got the
> > > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
> her,
> > if
> > > > dad
> > > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> > legally
> > > > able
> > > > > to drive a car.
> > > >
> > > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> > mention
> > > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> > judgement
> > > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
> > his
> > > > daughter!
> > >
> > > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> > experiences.......
> > > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
> point
> > to
> > > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
> >
> > Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
> > perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
> some
> > advice.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > > >
> > > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
> > get
> > > > child
> > > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > activities - did you?
> > > >
> > > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> > >
> > > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
> he
> > lives
> > > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
> his
> > view
> > > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
> able
> > to
> > > see, on a day to day basis?
> >
> > Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted. That's
> > pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
> >
> > >
> > > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> > problems,
> > > you never get to a solution.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
> >
> > Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
> > as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
> > doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Certainly
> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > > >
> > > > He seems to live in another state.
> > >
> > > Which begs the question of why?
> >
> > Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
> because
> > > > their
> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
> > > > >
> > > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
> to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > child there!
> > > >
> > > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> > children
> > > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> > >
> > > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
> more
> > than
> > > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the
> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
> > > > interests
> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
> parent
> > > > seems
> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > > interests"
> > > > > > bat?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> > possible
> > > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
> for
> > his
> > > > help
> > > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
> > > > school.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
> asking
> > for
> > > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> > young an
> > > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
> for
> > > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> > >
> > > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
> the
> > most
> > > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
> > without
> > > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
> solution.
> >
> > He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't
> know
> > whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some
> specific
> > questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
> daughter
> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
> have
> > seen
> > > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
> > > > offered to
> > > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
> the
> > > > following
> > > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > > >
> > > > All the way from another state?
> > >
> > > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
> the
> > first
> > > place?
> >
> > He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
> > lives with mom "during the school year."
> >
> >
> >
>
> Must not be good enough.... some think Mom should suck him dry.

I saw no one making that suggestion.

>
>

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 11:24 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > For those of you that may have missed it - the OP's objection isn't to
the
> > > cost - he states, below, that he believes some of these "reasonable
costs"
> > can
> > > be "equitably shared" ........ His problem is her age.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Where are you coming up with this crap? No where does he state anything
> > about sharing costs.
>
> Perhaps you missed his subsequent post, from which I quoted? Here's the
link
> for it:

My bad, I did read it when first posted but forgot about it.

Tiffany
August 18th 03, 11:24 PM
Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > For those of you that may have missed it - the OP's objection isn't to
the
> > > cost - he states, below, that he believes some of these "reasonable
costs"
> > can
> > > be "equitably shared" ........ His problem is her age.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Where are you coming up with this crap? No where does he state anything
> > about sharing costs.
>
> Perhaps you missed his subsequent post, from which I quoted? Here's the
link
> for it:

My bad, I did read it when first posted but forgot about it.

Tracy
August 18th 03, 11:33 PM
"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ross wrote:
> >
> > Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
>
> When I was 12, I drove to school; because it was the only way for
> me to get to school. But, that didn't include ANYTHING other
> than TO school and FROM school on a defined route during specific
> times of the day. And, the school district provided the vehicle,
> which THEY insured. So, my first question would be whether or
> not your daughter's mother clearly understands the relevant
> statutes . . . is extracirricular included? It would be terrible
> for your daughter to get caught on a licensure violation because
> her mother did not correctly understand the law.


The State of Oregon will issue a special privilege driver's license to an
individual who is at least 14 years old. In order to receive such a license
to drive the parent (or guardian), county sheriff, and school principal must
sign the application. I'm sure the OP's daughter is receiving the license
under similar conditions.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 18th 03, 11:33 PM
"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ross wrote:
> >
> > Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?
>
> When I was 12, I drove to school; because it was the only way for
> me to get to school. But, that didn't include ANYTHING other
> than TO school and FROM school on a defined route during specific
> times of the day. And, the school district provided the vehicle,
> which THEY insured. So, my first question would be whether or
> not your daughter's mother clearly understands the relevant
> statutes . . . is extracirricular included? It would be terrible
> for your daughter to get caught on a licensure violation because
> her mother did not correctly understand the law.


The State of Oregon will issue a special privilege driver's license to an
individual who is at least 14 years old. In order to receive such a license
to drive the parent (or guardian), county sheriff, and school principal must
sign the application. I'm sure the OP's daughter is receiving the license
under similar conditions.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

teachrmama
August 19th 03, 02:42 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > <giant snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit
the
> > child?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that
from
> > him?
> > > > >
> > > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
I've
> > > > tried,
> > > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could
be
> > > > > offering..........
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in
person,
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
> > financially
> > > > with
> > > > > those activities........
> > > >
> > > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
> > support
> > > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
> > > >
> > > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
> > during
> > > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
engages
> > in
> > > > while living with him, son't you think?
> > >
> > > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or
not)
> > and
> > > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in
the
> > > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
> > >
> > > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
> > father's
> > > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of
being a
> > > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
> > number of
> > > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only
requirement of
> > being
> > > a parent....... and I disagree.
> >
> > Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much
input
> > besides the input of cash called child support.
>
> There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
>
> This is not often a
> > voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a
father
> > NEEDS to contribute.
>
> Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that
dad
> already PAID the CS?

Because he HAS paid CS, Moon--and CS is what covers transportation costs for
the child. How can you not understand that?

>
> I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
> > required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem
to
> > feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
> > father.
>
> Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
alternatives
> to the request for a financial contribution.

And how do you know that he has not offered alternatives? Perhaps he has
done so, and just not told us about it. Perhapshe just wanted opinions
about what he posted.

>
> >
> > >
> > > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for
each
> > of the
> > > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
> >
> > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
> > reall equal "more involved father"?
>
> How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
to
> offer alternatives?

How do you know he has not offered alternatives?

teachrmama
August 19th 03, 02:42 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > <giant snip>
> > > >
> > > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit
the
> > child?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that
from
> > him?
> > > > >
> > > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
I've
> > > > tried,
> > > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could
be
> > > > > offering..........
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in
person,
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
> > financially
> > > > with
> > > > > those activities........
> > > >
> > > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
> > support
> > > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
> > > >
> > > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
> > during
> > > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
engages
> > in
> > > > while living with him, son't you think?
> > >
> > > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or
not)
> > and
> > > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in
the
> > > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
> > >
> > > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
> > father's
> > > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of
being a
> > > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
> > number of
> > > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only
requirement of
> > being
> > > a parent....... and I disagree.
> >
> > Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much
input
> > besides the input of cash called child support.
>
> There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
>
> This is not often a
> > voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a
father
> > NEEDS to contribute.
>
> Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that
dad
> already PAID the CS?

Because he HAS paid CS, Moon--and CS is what covers transportation costs for
the child. How can you not understand that?

>
> I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
> > required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem
to
> > feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
> > father.
>
> Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
alternatives
> to the request for a financial contribution.

And how do you know that he has not offered alternatives? Perhaps he has
done so, and just not told us about it. Perhapshe just wanted opinions
about what he posted.

>
> >
> > >
> > > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for
each
> > of the
> > > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
> >
> > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
> > reall equal "more involved father"?
>
> How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
to
> offer alternatives?

How do you know he has not offered alternatives?

Moon Shyne
August 19th 03, 03:01 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > <giant snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit
> the
> > > child?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that
> from
> > > him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
> I've
> > > > > tried,
> > > > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could
> be
> > > > > > offering..........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in
> person,
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
> > > financially
> > > > > with
> > > > > > those activities........
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
> > > support
> > > > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
> > > > >
> > > > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
> > > during
> > > > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
> engages
> > > in
> > > > > while living with him, son't you think?
> > > >
> > > > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or
> not)
> > > and
> > > > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in
> the
> > > > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
> > > >
> > > > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
> > > father's
> > > > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of
> being a
> > > > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
> > > number of
> > > > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only
> requirement of
> > > being
> > > > a parent....... and I disagree.
> > >
> > > Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much
> input
> > > besides the input of cash called child support.
> >
> > There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
> >
> > This is not often a
> > > voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a
> father
> > > NEEDS to contribute.
> >
> > Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that
> dad
> > already PAID the CS?
>
> Because he HAS paid CS, Moon--and CS is what covers transportation costs for
> the child. How can you not understand that?
>
> >
> > I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
> > > required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem
> to
> > > feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
> > > father.
> >
> > Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
> alternatives
> > to the request for a financial contribution.
>
> And how do you know that he has not offered alternatives? Perhaps he has
> done so, and just not told us about it. Perhapshe just wanted opinions
> about what he posted.

Then he's done himself a disservice by making it appear that his only concern is
money.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for
> each
> > > of the
> > > > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
> > >
> > > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
> > > reall equal "more involved father"?
> >
> > How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
> to
> > offer alternatives?
>
> How do you know he has not offered alternatives?

I don't - I've pointed out that he hasn't stated that he *has* offered any
alternatives.

>
>

Moon Shyne
August 19th 03, 03:01 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > <giant snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit
> the
> > > child?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that
> from
> > > him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
> I've
> > > > > tried,
> > > > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could
> be
> > > > > > offering..........
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in
> person,
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
> > > financially
> > > > > with
> > > > > > those activities........
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
> > > support
> > > > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
> > > > >
> > > > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
> > > during
> > > > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
> engages
> > > in
> > > > > while living with him, son't you think?
> > > >
> > > > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or
> not)
> > > and
> > > > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in
> the
> > > > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
> > > >
> > > > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
> > > father's
> > > > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of
> being a
> > > > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
> > > number of
> > > > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only
> requirement of
> > > being
> > > > a parent....... and I disagree.
> > >
> > > Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much
> input
> > > besides the input of cash called child support.
> >
> > There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
> >
> > This is not often a
> > > voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a
> father
> > > NEEDS to contribute.
> >
> > Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that
> dad
> > already PAID the CS?
>
> Because he HAS paid CS, Moon--and CS is what covers transportation costs for
> the child. How can you not understand that?
>
> >
> > I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
> > > required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem
> to
> > > feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
> > > father.
> >
> > Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
> alternatives
> > to the request for a financial contribution.
>
> And how do you know that he has not offered alternatives? Perhaps he has
> done so, and just not told us about it. Perhapshe just wanted opinions
> about what he posted.

Then he's done himself a disservice by making it appear that his only concern is
money.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for
> each
> > > of the
> > > > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
> > >
> > > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
> > > reall equal "more involved father"?
> >
> > How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
> to
> > offer alternatives?
>
> How do you know he has not offered alternatives?

I don't - I've pointed out that he hasn't stated that he *has* offered any
alternatives.

>
>

teachrmama
August 19th 03, 06:32 AM
I think you have been very soured by your experiences with your ex, Moon.
This man was just seeking opinions. Somehow he has become a selfish father
who does not take an active enough part in his daughter's life, and he
should make up for his terrible attitude by helping to provide money for a
car which he was never consulted about and which he doesn't even want her to
drive simply because it is legal to drive and you think it is ok for her to
drive it so his very question reeks of deadbeat daddery in your rather
jaundiced view. Geesh!!

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
the
> > same
> > > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in
that
> > > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
in
> > > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
activities
> > > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > > >
> > > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
her
> > to
> > > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
difficulties
> > of
> > > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe
mom
> > could
> > > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
can
> > > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> > >
> > > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
this
> > > child? Anything?
> >
> > He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
stays
> > with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and
maybe
> > school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> > child support. Does that count?
>
> Do you consider that sufficient? Do the majority of fathers consider it
> sufficient?
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
> > on
> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
the
> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > >
> > > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
like
> > the
> > > > idea"?
> > > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
the
> > > > community,
> > > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
lives
> > > > come in?
> > > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a
haircut?
> > > > "Doesn't
> > > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> > "Doesn't
> > > > like
> > > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > > >
> > > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children
based on
> > the
> > > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> > best
> > > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A
minor
> > > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> > day--there
> > > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the
children
> > would
> > > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My
child is
> > > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the
next
> > three
> > > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary
to
> > the
> > > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> > >
> > > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground.........
though,
> > in all
> > > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
> >
> > Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is
the
> > satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>
> Please keep in mind the OP's description was "10 miles out in the
country" -
> we're not talking cities, or even suburbia - we're talking "out in the
country"
> where children far younger routinely learn to drive on things like
tractors.
>
>
> >
> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
> > > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> > interests
> > > > of
> > > > > the child take precedence?
> > > >
> > > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> > Besides
> > > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> > >
> > > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
best
> > for
> > > the child?
> >
> > Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> > compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
situation,
> > Moon?
>
> Hmmmm, how about driving lessons, to help the child to be a safe (and
defensive)
> driver? How about dad teaches daughter what he thinks she needs to now
about
> driving? That would help allay his fears, help child to be a better and
safer
> driver, and everyone goes home happy.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > ><snip>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used
one
> > which
> > > > they
> > > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a
beamer -
> > she
> > > > got the
> > > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
her,
> > if
> > > > dad
> > > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> > legally
> > > > able
> > > > > to drive a car.
> > > >
> > > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> > mention
> > > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> > judgement
> > > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety
of
> > his
> > > > daughter!
> > >
> > > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> > experiences.......
> > > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
point
> > to
> > > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
> >
> > Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think?
>
>
> He didn't come asking for advice - he came asking if he was required to
pay.
>
> Or
> > perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
some
> > advice.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > > >
> > > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom
*could*
> > get
> > > > child
> > > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to
get
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > activities - did you?
> > > >
> > > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> > >
> > > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking
why he
> > lives
> > > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
his
> > view
> > > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
able
> > to
> > > see, on a day to day basis?
> >
> > Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.
>
> All summer? I've re-read the post yet again, and there's no mention of
all
> summer.
>
>
> That's
> > pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did
you?
>
> I don't see any mention of all summer.
>
> >
> > >
> > > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> > problems,
> > > you never get to a solution.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
> >
> > Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem.
But
> > as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this
before)
> > doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>
> In this case, and in these circumstances, no, I don't think it does.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Certainly
> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > > >
> > > > He seems to live in another state.
> > >
> > > Which begs the question of why?
> >
> > Why what?
>
> Why he lives in another state.
>
> I don't understand what you are asking here.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
> > > > their
> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
there.
> > > > >
> > > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options
available to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > child there!
> > > >
> > > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> > children
> > > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> > >
> > > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
more
> > than
> > > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more
information.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the
> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
best
> > > > interests
> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
> > > > seems
> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > > interests"
> > > > > > bat?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> > possible
> > > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
for
> > his
> > > > help
> > > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get
to
> > > > school.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
asking
> > for
> > > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> > young an
> > > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
for
> > > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> > >
> > > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
the
> > most
> > > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the
problems
> > without
> > > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
solution.
> >
> > He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon.
>
> You don't think it would be better for his relationship with his child,
and his
> child's mother, if he were willing to bring alternatives to reach a
solution
> concerning his child? I do.
>
> And we certainly don't know
> > whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have.
>
> He certainly didn't post any to this newsgroup.
>
> He asked some specific
> > questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>
> Yup - he wanted to know if he was required to pay. That's all he wanted
an
> opinion on.
>
> Here's the contents of his original post:
>
> "I am looking for opinions.
>
> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> miles or so out in the country."
>
> << please note, he makes no mention of summer arrangements for the child -
so
> it's at least safe to assume that during the 9-10 months of the school
year, he
> probably has limited contact and interaction with his child >>
>
>
> "It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
so
> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
drive.
> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>
> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>
> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it
> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether
it
> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
first
> place)."
>
> << please note, he only wants to provide a vehicle and insurance for her
when
> it is necessary for her to drive when she is with him......... so as long
as he
> insists he drives his car when she's with him, he never has to provide
vehicle
> and insurance for her >>
>
>
> "Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?"
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
have
> > seen
> > > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so
I
> > > > offered to
> > > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
the
> > > > following
> > > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > > >
> > > > All the way from another state?
> > >
> > > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
the
> > first
> > > place?
> >
> > He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that
she
> > lives with mom "during the school year."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

teachrmama
August 19th 03, 06:32 AM
I think you have been very soured by your experiences with your ex, Moon.
This man was just seeking opinions. Somehow he has become a selfish father
who does not take an active enough part in his daughter's life, and he
should make up for his terrible attitude by helping to provide money for a
car which he was never consulted about and which he doesn't even want her to
drive simply because it is legal to drive and you think it is ok for her to
drive it so his very question reeks of deadbeat daddery in your rather
jaundiced view. Geesh!!

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >
> > > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
the
> > same
> > > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in
that
> > > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
in
> > > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
activities
> > > > would not be an alternative for him.
> > > >
> > > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
her
> > to
> > > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
difficulties
> > of
> > > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe
mom
> > could
> > > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
can
> > > > drop the "impossible" ones.
> > >
> > > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
this
> > > child? Anything?
> >
> > He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
stays
> > with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and
maybe
> > school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
> > child support. Does that count?
>
> Do you consider that sufficient? Do the majority of fathers consider it
> sufficient?
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
> > on
> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
the
> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
> > > > >
> > > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
like
> > the
> > > > idea"?
> > > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
the
> > > > community,
> > > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
lives
> > > > come in?
> > > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a
haircut?
> > > > "Doesn't
> > > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
> > "Doesn't
> > > > like
> > > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
> > > >
> > > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children
based on
> > the
> > > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
> > best
> > > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A
minor
> > > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
> > > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
> > day--there
> > > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the
children
> > would
> > > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My
child is
> > > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the
next
> > three
> > > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
> > > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
> > > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary
to
> > the
> > > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
> > >
> > > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground.........
though,
> > in all
> > > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
> >
> > Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is
the
> > satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>
> Please keep in mind the OP's description was "10 miles out in the
country" -
> we're not talking cities, or even suburbia - we're talking "out in the
country"
> where children far younger routinely learn to drive on things like
tractors.
>
>
> >
> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
> > > > > > everything else, BTW.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
and
> > in
> > > > this
> > > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
> > interests
> > > > of
> > > > > the child take precedence?
> > > >
> > > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
> > Besides
> > > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
> > >
> > > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
best
> > for
> > > the child?
> >
> > Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
> > compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
situation,
> > Moon?
>
> Hmmmm, how about driving lessons, to help the child to be a safe (and
defensive)
> driver? How about dad teaches daughter what he thinks she needs to now
about
> driving? That would help allay his fears, help child to be a better and
safer
> driver, and everyone goes home happy.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > ><snip>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > And
> > > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used
one
> > which
> > > > they
> > > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a
beamer -
> > she
> > > > got the
> > > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
her,
> > if
> > > > dad
> > > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
> > legally
> > > > able
> > > > > to drive a car.
> > > >
> > > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
> > mention
> > > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
> > judgement
> > > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety
of
> > his
> > > > daughter!
> > >
> > > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
> > experiences.......
> > > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
point
> > to
> > > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
> >
> > Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think?
>
>
> He didn't come asking for advice - he came asking if he was required to
pay.
>
> Or
> > perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
some
> > advice.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
> > > > >
> > > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom
*could*
> > get
> > > > child
> > > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to
get
> > child
> > > > to
> > > > > activities - did you?
> > > >
> > > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
> > >
> > > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking
why he
> > lives
> > > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
his
> > view
> > > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
able
> > to
> > > see, on a day to day basis?
> >
> > Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.
>
> All summer? I've re-read the post yet again, and there's no mention of
all
> summer.
>
>
> That's
> > pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did
you?
>
> I don't see any mention of all summer.
>
> >
> > >
> > > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
> > problems,
> > > you never get to a solution.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
> > > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
> >
> > Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem.
But
> > as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this
before)
> > doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>
> In this case, and in these circumstances, no, I don't think it does.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Certainly
> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
> > their
> > > > own
> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
> > > >
> > > > He seems to live in another state.
> > >
> > > Which begs the question of why?
> >
> > Why what?
>
> Why he lives in another state.
>
> I don't understand what you are asking here.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
> > > > their
> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
there.
> > > > >
> > > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options
available to
> > get
> > > > the
> > > > > child there!
> > > >
> > > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
> > children
> > > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
> > >
> > > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
more
> > than
> > > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more
information.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And the
> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
best
> > > > interests
> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
> > > > seems
> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
> > > > interests"
> > > > > > bat?
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
> > possible
> > > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
for
> > his
> > > > help
> > > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get
to
> > > > school.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
asking
> > for
> > > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
> > young an
> > > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
for
> > > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
> > >
> > > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
the
> > most
> > > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the
problems
> > without
> > > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
solution.
> >
> > He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon.
>
> You don't think it would be better for his relationship with his child,
and his
> child's mother, if he were willing to bring alternatives to reach a
solution
> concerning his child? I do.
>
> And we certainly don't know
> > whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have.
>
> He certainly didn't post any to this newsgroup.
>
> He asked some specific
> > questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>
> Yup - he wanted to know if he was required to pay. That's all he wanted
an
> opinion on.
>
> Here's the contents of his original post:
>
> "I am looking for opinions.
>
> My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
> miles or so out in the country."
>
> << please note, he makes no mention of summer arrangements for the child -
so
> it's at least safe to assume that during the 9-10 months of the school
year, he
> probably has limited contact and interaction with his child >>
>
>
> "It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
so
> her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
drive.
> Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
> participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>
> They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
> ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>
> My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it
> is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether
it
> is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
> insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
first
> place)."
>
> << please note, he only wants to provide a vehicle and insurance for her
when
> it is necessary for her to drive when she is with him......... so as long
as he
> insists he drives his car when she's with him, he never has to provide
vehicle
> and insurance for her >>
>
>
> "Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?"
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
have
> > seen
> > > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so
I
> > > > offered to
> > > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
the
> > > > following
> > > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
> > > >
> > > > All the way from another state?
> > >
> > > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
the
> > first
> > > place?
> >
> > He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that
she
> > lives with mom "during the school year."
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 09:45 AM
I doubt it...

>"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tiffany" > wrote
>> > Moon Shyne > wrote
>> > >
>> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote
>> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
>> ..........................................
>> > > > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation?
>> I
>> > > > don't see
>> > > > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from
>offering.......
>> > the
>> > > > only
>> > > > > thing that stopped him was himself.
>> > > >
>> > > > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
>> > >
>> > > And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole
>> pitch
>> > about
>> > > both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
>>
>>
>> > Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
>> > wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.
>> ==
>> She's toying with you, Tiffany. She's not as stupid as she appears here.
>> She must be bored tonight. Right, Moon? Fess up.
>
>I'm appalled at the hypocrisy - there are people here who want to insist that
>I've forced my ex out of my children's lives, which I know for a dead
>certainty
>just ain't so. There are people here who fill flame any custodial mother,
>for
>any reason at all, and will excuse the father for everything.
>
>Most of the posters to this thread want to flame the mom for having the nerve
>to
>get a car for the child, despite the fact that it's legal for the child to
>drive, it's for the purpose of getting the child to and from extracurricular
>activities, and the same people want to excuse the father from actively
>parenting and from making any financial contribution for getting the child to
>and from the activities. Bob wants to insist a car is part of the CS
>calculations, yet that shows in none of the statutes I've looked at. Mel
>wants
>to insist the car is an unsafe junker, with zero evidence, aside from it was
>a
>used car that was fixed up. Anyone here bought a used car and never fixed up
>anything on it?
>So now, when I've questioned over and over why dad doesn't provide an
>alternative to physically being with the child to help get her to and from
>the
>activities, the new bandwagon on which some posters want to jump is that dad
>lives too far away.
>
>I'm appalled that no one (aside from me, apparently) wants to see the father
>taking a far more active part in the child's life.... the excuses just keep
>on
>rolling.........

*******************
>so I'm all done.
*******************

My AOL shows 18 more posts in this thread - I'll give odds that at least 1/3 of
them are nasty's...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 09:45 AM
I doubt it...

>"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Tiffany" > wrote
>> > Moon Shyne > wrote
>> > >
>> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote
>> > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote
>> ..........................................
>> > > > > What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation?
>> I
>> > > > don't see
>> > > > > that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from
>offering.......
>> > the
>> > > > only
>> > > > > thing that stopped him was himself.
>> > > >
>> > > > And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.
>> > >
>> > > And apparently that's acceptable? What ever happened to that whole
>> pitch
>> > about
>> > > both parents keeping close to the children? Right out the window, huh?
>>
>>
>> > Again, we don't know the details of who left who, who moved, ect. So I
>> > wouldn't jump the gun on condemning the man.
>> ==
>> She's toying with you, Tiffany. She's not as stupid as she appears here.
>> She must be bored tonight. Right, Moon? Fess up.
>
>I'm appalled at the hypocrisy - there are people here who want to insist that
>I've forced my ex out of my children's lives, which I know for a dead
>certainty
>just ain't so. There are people here who fill flame any custodial mother,
>for
>any reason at all, and will excuse the father for everything.
>
>Most of the posters to this thread want to flame the mom for having the nerve
>to
>get a car for the child, despite the fact that it's legal for the child to
>drive, it's for the purpose of getting the child to and from extracurricular
>activities, and the same people want to excuse the father from actively
>parenting and from making any financial contribution for getting the child to
>and from the activities. Bob wants to insist a car is part of the CS
>calculations, yet that shows in none of the statutes I've looked at. Mel
>wants
>to insist the car is an unsafe junker, with zero evidence, aside from it was
>a
>used car that was fixed up. Anyone here bought a used car and never fixed up
>anything on it?
>So now, when I've questioned over and over why dad doesn't provide an
>alternative to physically being with the child to help get her to and from
>the
>activities, the new bandwagon on which some posters want to jump is that dad
>lives too far away.
>
>I'm appalled that no one (aside from me, apparently) wants to see the father
>taking a far more active part in the child's life.... the excuses just keep
>on
>rolling.........

*******************
>so I'm all done.
*******************

My AOL shows 18 more posts in this thread - I'll give odds that at least 1/3 of
them are nasty's...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 09:47 AM
That's one....

Mel Gamble

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > > .
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
>> > > amount
>> > > > > of CS
>> > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
>> > > extracted
>> > > > > via
>> > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
>> > > because
>> > > > > he
>> > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
>> court
>> > > > > orders for
>> > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
>> what
>> > > is
>> > > > > covered
>> > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
>> > > > > pay.......so
>> > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as
>all
>> it
>> > > > > would do
>> > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
>> refusing.........
>> > > to
>> > > > > hell
>> > > > > > with him.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
>> > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
>activities
>> > > > > either.......
>> > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
>> the
>> > > child
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point
>does
>> > > anyone
>> > > > > stop
>> > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
>> to
>> > > feel
>> > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at
>14.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
>> > > meanwhile, in
>> > > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
>> for
>> > > the
>> > > > purposes of going to school.
>> > >
>> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
>> same
>> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
>> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
>> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
>activities
>> > > would not be an alternative for him.
>> > >
>> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
>her
>> to
>> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
>> of
>> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
>> could
>> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
>can
>> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
>> >
>> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
>this
>> > child? Anything?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
>count
>> on
>> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
>> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > > >
>> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
>> the
>> > > idea"?
>> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
>> > > community,
>> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
>lives
>> > > come in?
>> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > > "Doesn't
>> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>> "Doesn't
>> > > like
>> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> > >
>> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
>on
>> the
>> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
>> best
>> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
>> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
>> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
>> day--there
>> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
>> would
>> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
>is
>> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
>> three
>> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
>> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
>> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
>> the
>> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>> >
>> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
>> in all
>> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
>> > > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > > >
>> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
>and
>> in
>> > > this
>> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>> interests
>> > > of
>> > > > the child take precedence?
>> > >
>> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
>> Besides
>> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>> >
>> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
>> for
>> > the child?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
>> > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
>> her
>> > > head
>> > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
>should
>> > > have a
>> > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
>> husband
>> > > be
>> > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
>> best
>> > > > > interests of the child"?
>> > > >
>> > > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to
>go
>> to
>> > > > school.
>> > >
>> > > Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
>> car
>> > > (probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
>> car
>> > > for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
>> itself.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
>> > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
>> paying
>> > > child
>> > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
>supported.
>> > > But
>> > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
>> best
>> > > > > interests when thinking about the car?
>> > > >
>> > > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
>> is.
>> > >
>> > > On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
>> all--daughter
>> > > does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
>> car
>> > > would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
>> car
>> > > for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.
>> > >
>> > > And
>> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
>> which
>> > > they
>> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
>> she
>> > > got the
>> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
>> if
>> > > dad
>> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>> legally
>> > > able
>> > > > to drive a car.
>> > >
>> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
>> mention
>> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
>> judgement
>> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
>> his
>> > > daughter!
>> >
>> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
>> experiences.......
>> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
>point
>> to
>> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > She is certainly the only child that
>> > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
>"best
>> > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > > >
>> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
>> get
>> > > child
>> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>> child
>> > > to
>> > > > activities - did you?
>> > >
>> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>> >
>> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
>he
>> lives
>> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
>> view
>> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
>> to
>> > see, on a day to day basis?
>>
>> It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
>> assume that HE left???
>
>I didn't. I said "perhaps we should be asking why he lives so far away from
>the
>child", which could just as easily be answered by "mom moved child away"
>
>Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
>> he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post.
>
>I made no assumptions, though you, among others, have apparently made some of
>your own.
>
> You are
>> drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
>> poster has issues with.
>
>So is everyone else, apparently.
>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 09:47 AM
That's one....

Mel Gamble

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > > .
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
>> > > amount
>> > > > > of CS
>> > > > > > paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
>> > > extracted
>> > > > > via
>> > > > > > wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
>> > > because
>> > > > > he
>> > > > > > wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
>> court
>> > > > > orders for
>> > > > > > refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
>> what
>> > > is
>> > > > > covered
>> > > > > > by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
>> > > > > pay.......so
>> > > > > > there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as
>all
>> it
>> > > > > would do
>> > > > > > is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
>> refusing.........
>> > > to
>> > > > > hell
>> > > > > > with him.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
>> > > > > > > costs are covered by child support."
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
>activities
>> > > > > either.......
>> > > > > > since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
>> the
>> > > child
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > take part in normal child activities........... at what point
>does
>> > > anyone
>> > > > > stop
>> > > > > > to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
>> to
>> > > feel
>> > > > > that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at
>14.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
>> > > meanwhile, in
>> > > > the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
>> for
>> > > the
>> > > > purposes of going to school.
>> > >
>> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
>> same
>> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
>> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
>> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
>activities
>> > > would not be an alternative for him.
>> > >
>> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
>her
>> to
>> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
>> of
>> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
>> could
>> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
>can
>> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
>> >
>> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
>this
>> > child? Anything?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
>count
>> on
>> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
>> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > > >
>> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
>> the
>> > > idea"?
>> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
>> > > community,
>> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
>lives
>> > > come in?
>> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > > "Doesn't
>> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>> "Doesn't
>> > > like
>> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> > >
>> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
>on
>> the
>> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
>> best
>> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
>> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
>> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
>> day--there
>> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
>> would
>> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
>is
>> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
>> three
>> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
>> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
>> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
>> the
>> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>> >
>> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
>> in all
>> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
>> > > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > > >
>> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
>and
>> in
>> > > this
>> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>> interests
>> > > of
>> > > > the child take precedence?
>> > >
>> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
>> Besides
>> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>> >
>> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
>> for
>> > the child?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
>> > > > > inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
>> her
>> > > head
>> > > > > that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
>should
>> > > have a
>> > > > > car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
>> husband
>> > > be
>> > > > > forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
>> best
>> > > > > interests of the child"?
>> > > >
>> > > > Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to
>go
>> to
>> > > > school.
>> > >
>> > > Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
>> car
>> > > (probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
>> car
>> > > for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
>> itself.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
>> > > > > he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
>> paying
>> > > child
>> > > > > support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
>supported.
>> > > But
>> > > > > should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
>> best
>> > > > > interests when thinking about the car?
>> > > >
>> > > > Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
>> is.
>> > >
>> > > On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
>> all--daughter
>> > > does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
>> car
>> > > would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
>> car
>> > > for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.
>> > >
>> > > And
>> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
>> which
>> > > they
>> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
>> she
>> > > got the
>> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
>> if
>> > > dad
>> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>> legally
>> > > able
>> > > > to drive a car.
>> > >
>> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
>> mention
>> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
>> judgement
>> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
>> his
>> > > daughter!
>> >
>> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
>> experiences.......
>> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
>point
>> to
>> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > She is certainly the only child that
>> > > > > the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
>"best
>> > > > > interests of the child" are a cover for something else.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > > >
>> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
>> get
>> > > child
>> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>> child
>> > > to
>> > > > activities - did you?
>> > >
>> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>> >
>> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
>he
>> lives
>> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
>> view
>> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
>> to
>> > see, on a day to day basis?
>>
>> It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
>> assume that HE left???
>
>I didn't. I said "perhaps we should be asking why he lives so far away from
>the
>child", which could just as easily be answered by "mom moved child away"
>
>Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
>> he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post.
>
>I made no assumptions, though you, among others, have apparently made some of
>your own.
>
> You are
>> drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
>> poster has issues with.
>
>So is everyone else, apparently.
>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:14 AM
Stupid nasty, nasty and stupid ...

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
>> same
>> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
>> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
>> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
>activities
>> > > would not be an alternative for him.
>> > >
>> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
>her
>> to
>> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
>> of
>> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
>> could
>> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
>can
>> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
>> >
>> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
>this
>> > child? Anything?
>>
>> He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she stays
>> with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
>> school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
>> child support. Does that count?
>
>Do you consider that sufficient? Do the majority of fathers consider it
>sufficient?

There's a huge difference between guiding a tractor around a big field at 5 mph
and pointing a car down the road at ten times that speed and dodging other
speeding vehicles instead of stationary cattle. The similarity between the two
ends with the fact that both get you off your feet.

>> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
>count
>> on
>> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
>> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > > >
>> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
>> the
>> > > idea"?
>> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
>> > > community,
>> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
>lives
>> > > come in?
>> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > > "Doesn't
>> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>> "Doesn't
>> > > like
>> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> > >
>> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
>on
>> the
>> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
>> best
>> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
>> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
>> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
>> day--there
>> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
>> would
>> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
>is
>> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
>> three
>> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
>> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
>> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
>> the
>> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>> >
>> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
>> in all
>> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>>
>> Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
>> satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>
>Please keep in mind the OP's description was "10 miles out in the country" -
>we're not talking cities, or even suburbia - we're talking "out in the
>country"
>where children far younger routinely learn to drive on things like tractors.

They LIVE out in the country, stupid. What makes you think the school is out
in some cow pasture and not in the nearest town????

>> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
>> > > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > > >
>> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
>and
>> in
>> > > this
>> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>> interests
>> > > of
>> > > > the child take precedence?
>> > >
>> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
>> Besides
>> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>> >
>> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
>> for
>> > the child?
>>
>> Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
>> compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this situation,
>> Moon?
>
>Hmmmm, how about driving lessons, to help the child to be a safe (and
>defensive)
>driver? How about dad teaches daughter what he thinks she needs to now about
>driving? That would help allay his fears, help child to be a better and safer
>driver, and everyone goes home happy.

Except mommy, who didn't get her $$$$.

>> > ><snip>
>>
>> > > >
>> > > And
>> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
>> which
>> > > they
>> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
>> she
>> > > got the
>> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
>> if
>> > > dad
>> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>> legally
>> > > able
>> > > > to drive a car.
>> > >
>> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
>> mention
>> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
>> judgement
>> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
>> his
>> > > daughter!
>> >
>> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
>> experiences.......
>> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
>point
>> to
>> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>>
>> Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think?
>
>
>He didn't come asking for advice - he came asking if he was required to pay.
>
> Or
>> perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking some
>> advice.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>>
>> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > > >
>> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
>> get
>> > > child
>> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>> child
>> > > to
>> > > > activities - did you?
>> > >
>> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>> >
>> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
>he
>> lives
>> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
>> view
>> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
>> to
>> > see, on a day to day basis?
>>
>> Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.
>
>All summer? I've re-read the post yet again, and there's no mention of all
>summer.
>
>
> That's
>> pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
>
>I don't see any mention of all summer.

You don't see a lot of things, get used to it.

>> > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
>> problems,
>> > you never get to a solution.
>> >
>> > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
>> > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>>
>> Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
>> as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
>> doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>
>In this case, and in these circumstances, no, I don't think it does.

It does in oregun - "extraordinary transportation expenses" are one of the
rebuttals for a variation from the guidelines, indicating that "ordinary"
transportation expenses are already accounted for. And if 14-year-olds
routinely drive in that state, that would make their driving costs an ordinary
expense, unless there was unusually high mileage involved.

>> > > > Certainly
>> > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
>> their
>> > > own
>> > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>> > >
>> > > He seems to live in another state.
>> >
>> > Which begs the question of why?
>>
>> Why what?
>
>Why he lives in another state.
>
> I don't understand what you are asking here.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And
>> > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
>> > > their
>> > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>> > > >
>> > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
>to
>> get
>> > > the
>> > > > child there!
>> > >
>> > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
>> children
>> > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
>> >
>> > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
>more
>> than
>> > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And the
>> > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
>> > > interests
>> > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
>parent
>> > > seems
>> > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
>> > > interests"
>> > > > > bat?
>> > > >
>> > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
>> possible
>> > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
>> his
>> > > help
>> > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
>> > > school.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
>asking
>> for
>> > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
>> young an
>> > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
>for
>> > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
>> >
>> > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have the
>> most
>> > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
>> without
>> > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a solution.
>>
>> He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon.
>
>You don't think it would be better for his relationship with his child, and
>his
>child's mother, if he were willing to bring alternatives to reach a solution
>concerning his child? I do.

The deed was already done, stupid. "Alternative" means something different
would be done. It was too late for alternatives.

> And we certainly don't know
>> whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have.
>
>He certainly didn't post any to this newsgroup.

His not posting something means as little as your posting something means.

> He asked some specific
>> questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>
>Yup - he wanted to know if he was required to pay. That's all he wanted an
>opinion on.
>
>Here's the contents of his original post:
>
>"I am looking for opinions.
>
>My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
>miles or so out in the country."
>
><< please note, he makes no mention of summer arrangements for the child -

Other than the fact that if she lives with mommy all year, he stated it in a
damn strange way.

>so
>it's at least safe to assume that during the 9-10 months of the school year,
>he
>probably has limited contact and interaction with his child >>

It is "safe" to assume he has the standard every other weekend and holidays.
If you assumed anything less, you showed yourself to be an ass.

>"It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
>her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to drive.
>Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
>participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>
>They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
>ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>
>My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when it
>is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether it
>is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
>insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the first
>place)."
>
><< please note, he only wants to provide a vehicle and insurance for her
>when
>it is necessary for her to drive when she is with him......... so as long as
>he
>insists he drives his car when she's with him, he never has to provide
>vehicle
>and insurance for her >>

And the vehicle and driving he provides is worth nothing - so much for all the
whining about the time and expense of running her kids around...

By the way, nasty, that was 2 after "I'm done"....

Mel Gamble

>"Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?"
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
>daughter
>> > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>> > > >
>> > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
>> seen
>> > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
>> > > offered to
>> > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
>the
>> > > following
>> > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>> > >
>> > > All the way from another state?
>> >
>> > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
>the
>> first
>> > place?
>>
>> He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
>> lives with mom "during the school yea

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:14 AM
Stupid nasty, nasty and stupid ...

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>>
>> > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
>> same
>> > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
>> > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
>> > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
>activities
>> > > would not be an alternative for him.
>> > >
>> > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
>her
>> to
>> > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
>> of
>> > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
>> could
>> > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
>can
>> > > drop the "impossible" ones.
>> >
>> > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
>this
>> > child? Anything?
>>
>> He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she stays
>> with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
>> school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
>> child support. Does that count?
>
>Do you consider that sufficient? Do the majority of fathers consider it
>sufficient?

There's a huge difference between guiding a tractor around a big field at 5 mph
and pointing a car down the road at ten times that speed and dodging other
speeding vehicles instead of stationary cattle. The similarity between the two
ends with the fact that both get you off your feet.

>> > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
>count
>> on
>> > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
>> > > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > > >
>> > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
>> the
>> > > idea"?
>> > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
>> > > community,
>> > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
>lives
>> > > come in?
>> > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > > "Doesn't
>> > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>> "Doesn't
>> > > like
>> > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> > >
>> > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
>on
>> the
>> > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
>> best
>> > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
>> > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
>> > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
>> day--there
>> > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
>> would
>> > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
>is
>> > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
>> three
>> > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
>> > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
>> > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
>> the
>> > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>> >
>> > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
>> in all
>> > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>>
>> Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is the
>> satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>
>Please keep in mind the OP's description was "10 miles out in the country" -
>we're not talking cities, or even suburbia - we're talking "out in the
>country"
>where children far younger routinely learn to drive on things like tractors.

They LIVE out in the country, stupid. What makes you think the school is out
in some cow pasture and not in the nearest town????

>> > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
>> > > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > > >
>> > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
>and
>> in
>> > > this
>> > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>> interests
>> > > of
>> > > > the child take precedence?
>> > >
>> > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
>> Besides
>> > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>> >
>> > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
>> for
>> > the child?
>>
>> Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
>> compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this situation,
>> Moon?
>
>Hmmmm, how about driving lessons, to help the child to be a safe (and
>defensive)
>driver? How about dad teaches daughter what he thinks she needs to now about
>driving? That would help allay his fears, help child to be a better and safer
>driver, and everyone goes home happy.

Except mommy, who didn't get her $$$$.

>> > ><snip>
>>
>> > > >
>> > > And
>> > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
>> which
>> > > they
>> > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
>> she
>> > > got the
>> > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
>> if
>> > > dad
>> > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>> legally
>> > > able
>> > > > to drive a car.
>> > >
>> > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
>> mention
>> > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
>> judgement
>> > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
>> his
>> > > daughter!
>> >
>> > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
>> experiences.......
>> > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
>point
>> to
>> > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>>
>> Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think?
>
>
>He didn't come asking for advice - he came asking if he was required to pay.
>
> Or
>> perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking some
>> advice.
>>
>> >
>> > >
>>
>> > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > > >
>> > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
>> get
>> > > child
>> > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>> child
>> > > to
>> > > > activities - did you?
>> > >
>> > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>> >
>> > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
>he
>> lives
>> > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
>> view
>> > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
>> to
>> > see, on a day to day basis?
>>
>> Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.
>
>All summer? I've re-read the post yet again, and there's no mention of all
>summer.
>
>
> That's
>> pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
>
>I don't see any mention of all summer.

You don't see a lot of things, get used to it.

>> > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
>> problems,
>> > you never get to a solution.
>> >
>> > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
>> > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>>
>> Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem. But
>> as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this before)
>> doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>
>In this case, and in these circumstances, no, I don't think it does.

It does in oregun - "extraordinary transportation expenses" are one of the
rebuttals for a variation from the guidelines, indicating that "ordinary"
transportation expenses are already accounted for. And if 14-year-olds
routinely drive in that state, that would make their driving costs an ordinary
expense, unless there was unusually high mileage involved.

>> > > > Certainly
>> > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
>> their
>> > > own
>> > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>> > >
>> > > He seems to live in another state.
>> >
>> > Which begs the question of why?
>>
>> Why what?
>
>Why he lives in another state.
>
> I don't understand what you are asking here.
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And
>> > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
>> > > their
>> > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
>> > > >
>> > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
>to
>> get
>> > > the
>> > > > child there!
>> > >
>> > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
>> children
>> > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
>> >
>> > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
>more
>> than
>> > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And the
>> > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
>> > > interests
>> > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
>parent
>> > > seems
>> > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
>> > > interests"
>> > > > > bat?
>> > > >
>> > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
>> possible
>> > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for
>> his
>> > > help
>> > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
>> > > school.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
>asking
>> for
>> > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
>> young an
>> > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
>for
>> > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
>> >
>> > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have the
>> most
>> > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
>> without
>> > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a solution.
>>
>> He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon.
>
>You don't think it would be better for his relationship with his child, and
>his
>child's mother, if he were willing to bring alternatives to reach a solution
>concerning his child? I do.

The deed was already done, stupid. "Alternative" means something different
would be done. It was too late for alternatives.

> And we certainly don't know
>> whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have.
>
>He certainly didn't post any to this newsgroup.

His not posting something means as little as your posting something means.

> He asked some specific
>> questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>
>Yup - he wanted to know if he was required to pay. That's all he wanted an
>opinion on.
>
>Here's the contents of his original post:
>
>"I am looking for opinions.
>
>My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
>miles or so out in the country."
>
><< please note, he makes no mention of summer arrangements for the child -

Other than the fact that if she lives with mommy all year, he stated it in a
damn strange way.

>so
>it's at least safe to assume that during the 9-10 months of the school year,
>he
>probably has limited contact and interaction with his child >>

It is "safe" to assume he has the standard every other weekend and holidays.
If you assumed anything less, you showed yourself to be an ass.

>"It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state, so
>her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to drive.
>Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
>participate in extra-curricular school activities.
>
>They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
>ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.
>
>My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when it
>is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question whether it
>is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
>insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the first
>place)."
>
><< please note, he only wants to provide a vehicle and insurance for her
>when
>it is necessary for her to drive when she is with him......... so as long as
>he
>insists he drives his car when she's with him, he never has to provide
>vehicle
>and insurance for her >>

And the vehicle and driving he provides is worth nothing - so much for all the
whining about the time and expense of running her kids around...

By the way, nasty, that was 2 after "I'm done"....

Mel Gamble

>"Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?"
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
>daughter
>> > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>> > > >
>> > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have
>> seen
>> > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
>> > > offered to
>> > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
>the
>> > > following
>> > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>> > >
>> > > All the way from another state?
>> >
>> > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
>the
>> first
>> > place?
>>
>> He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
>> lives with mom "during the school yea

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:20 AM
And 5...

Mel Gamble

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > >
>> > > <giant snip>
>> > >
>> > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the
>> child?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from
>> him?
>> > > >
>> > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
>I've
>> > > tried,
>> > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could be
>> > > > offering..........
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in person,
>> with
>> > > the
>> > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
>> financially
>> > > with
>> > > > those activities........
>> > >
>> > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
>> support
>> > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
>> > >
>> > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
>> during
>> > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
>engages
>> in
>> > > while living with him, son't you think?
>> >
>> > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or not)
>> and
>> > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in
>the
>> > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
>> >
>> > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
>> father's
>> > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of being
>a
>> > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
>> number of
>> > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only requirement
>of
>> being
>> > a parent....... and I disagree.
>>
>> Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much input
>> besides the input of cash called child support.
>
>There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
>
> This is not often a
>> voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a father
>> NEEDS to contribute.
>
>Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that dad
>already PAID the CS?
>
> I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
>> required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem to
>> feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
>> father.
>
>Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
>alternatives
>to the request for a financial contribution.
>
>>
>> >
>> > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for each
>> of the
>> > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
>>
>> And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
>> reall equal "more involved father"?
>
>How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP to
>offer alternatives?

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:20 AM
And 5...

Mel Gamble

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > >
>> > > <giant snip>
>> > >
>> > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the
>> child?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from
>> him?
>> > > >
>> > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
>I've
>> > > tried,
>> > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could be
>> > > > offering..........
>> > > >
>> > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in person,
>> with
>> > > the
>> > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
>> financially
>> > > with
>> > > > those activities........
>> > >
>> > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
>> support
>> > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
>> > >
>> > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
>> during
>> > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
>engages
>> in
>> > > while living with him, son't you think?
>> >
>> > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or not)
>> and
>> > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved in
>the
>> > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
>> >
>> > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
>> father's
>> > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of being
>a
>> > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
>> number of
>> > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only requirement
>of
>> being
>> > a parent....... and I disagree.
>>
>> Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much input
>> besides the input of cash called child support.
>
>There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
>
> This is not often a
>> voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a father
>> NEEDS to contribute.
>
>Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that dad
>already PAID the CS?
>
> I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
>> required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You seem to
>> feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
>> father.
>
>Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
>alternatives
>to the request for a financial contribution.
>
>>
>> >
>> > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for each
>> of the
>> > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
>>
>> And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
>> reall equal "more involved father"?
>
>How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP to
>offer alternatives?

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:22 AM
BINGO!!! That's 6 out of 18 - do I know nasty or do I know nasty??? : )

Mel Gamble

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
>> get
>> > > his
>> > > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved
>the
>> > > cost of
>> > > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
>> to
>> > > help
>> > > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
>> without
>> > > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
>> > >
>> > > Here's a few potential solutions for the OP to consider suggesting:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Tell the mother and step-dad to figure out how two adults could
>> > > coordinate their schedules to accommodate the child's extracurricular
>> > > activities.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Tell the mother and step-dad to move closer to the school so the
>> child
>> > > isn't inconvenienced by their choice of where to live.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Tell the mother and step-dad to accept their role as the child's
>> > > custodial parents and coordinate their parenting efforts to accommodate
>> the
>> > > child's best interests.
>> > >
>> > > 4. Tell the mother and step-dad to pay their own bills and stop asking
>> for
>> > > a handout.
>> > >
>> > > 5. Tell the mother and step-dad that between them they have two
>incomes
>> > > plus CS so they should pay for all the extras not covered by CS.
>> >
>> > You left out 1:
>> >
>> > Tell the dad he's the child's parent, too, and should be parenting the
>> child 50%
>> > of the time, which includes coordinating his schedule to accomodate the
>> child's
>> > extracurricular activities, that he should move closer to the child, so
>> that the
>> > child isn't inconvenienced by his choice of where to live, that he needs
>> to
>> > accept his role as the child's parent and coordinate his parenting
>efforts
>> to
>> > accomodate the child's best interested, that raising children sometimes
>> has
>> > costs over and above the court ordered child support amount, and that
>> sometimes
>> > parents pay for extras for their children without making the child feel
>as
>> > though they're nothing but a walking talking bill.
>>
>> Well at least I came up with some original alternative solutions.
>>
>> You on the other hand used the old school grounds "you're one too" response
>> technique and parroted back what I said without any original thought.
>
>That's because of your glaring oversight in suggesting any things that the
>father could be doing - every single one of your suggestions puts the burden
>back on mom.
>
>
>>
>> It's pretty obvious you are fixated on a solution you advocate and are
>> unwilling to be open to hear and consider other alternatives.
>
>I've been suggesting that the OP offer alternatives pretty much since I
>joined
>this thread - how is it that you missed that, every single time?
>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:22 AM
BINGO!!! That's 6 out of 18 - do I know nasty or do I know nasty??? : )

Mel Gamble

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
>> get
>> > > his
>> > > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved
>the
>> > > cost of
>> > > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
>> to
>> > > help
>> > > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
>> without
>> > > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
>> > >
>> > > Here's a few potential solutions for the OP to consider suggesting:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Tell the mother and step-dad to figure out how two adults could
>> > > coordinate their schedules to accommodate the child's extracurricular
>> > > activities.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Tell the mother and step-dad to move closer to the school so the
>> child
>> > > isn't inconvenienced by their choice of where to live.
>> > >
>> > > 3. Tell the mother and step-dad to accept their role as the child's
>> > > custodial parents and coordinate their parenting efforts to accommodate
>> the
>> > > child's best interests.
>> > >
>> > > 4. Tell the mother and step-dad to pay their own bills and stop asking
>> for
>> > > a handout.
>> > >
>> > > 5. Tell the mother and step-dad that between them they have two
>incomes
>> > > plus CS so they should pay for all the extras not covered by CS.
>> >
>> > You left out 1:
>> >
>> > Tell the dad he's the child's parent, too, and should be parenting the
>> child 50%
>> > of the time, which includes coordinating his schedule to accomodate the
>> child's
>> > extracurricular activities, that he should move closer to the child, so
>> that the
>> > child isn't inconvenienced by his choice of where to live, that he needs
>> to
>> > accept his role as the child's parent and coordinate his parenting
>efforts
>> to
>> > accomodate the child's best interested, that raising children sometimes
>> has
>> > costs over and above the court ordered child support amount, and that
>> sometimes
>> > parents pay for extras for their children without making the child feel
>as
>> > though they're nothing but a walking talking bill.
>>
>> Well at least I came up with some original alternative solutions.
>>
>> You on the other hand used the old school grounds "you're one too" response
>> technique and parroted back what I said without any original thought.
>
>That's because of your glaring oversight in suggesting any things that the
>father could be doing - every single one of your suggestions puts the burden
>back on mom.
>
>
>>
>> It's pretty obvious you are fixated on a solution you advocate and are
>> unwilling to be open to hear and consider other alternatives.
>
>I've been suggesting that the OP offer alternatives pretty much since I
>joined
>this thread - how is it that you missed that, every single time?
>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:24 AM
Hmmm, she's now up to 7 out of 18 and it's only post 22 of 26. D'ya suppose
she went all the way from "I'm done" to 50% of the thread? Let's check....

Mel Gamble

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> teachrmama > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
>> the
>> > same
>> > > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
>> > > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
>> in
>> > > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
>> activities
>> > > > would not be an alternative for him.
>> > > >
>> > > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
>> her
>> > to
>> > > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
>> difficulties
>> > of
>> > > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
>> > could
>> > > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
>> can
>> > > > drop the "impossible" ones.
>> > >
>> > > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
>> this
>> > > child? Anything?
>> >
>> > He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
>> stays
>> > with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
>> > school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
>> > child support. Does that count?
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
>> count
>> > on
>> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
>> the
>> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
>> like
>> > the
>> > > > idea"?
>> > > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
>> the
>> > > > community,
>> > > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
>> lives
>> > > > come in?
>> > > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > > > "Doesn't
>> > > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>> > "Doesn't
>> > > > like
>> > > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> > > >
>> > > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
>> on
>> > the
>> > > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
>> > best
>> > > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
>> > > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
>> > > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
>> > day--there
>> > > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
>> > would
>> > > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
>> is
>> > > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
>> > three
>> > > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
>> > > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
>> > > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary
>to
>> > the
>> > > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>> > >
>> > > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground.........
>though,
>> > in all
>> > > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>> >
>> > Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is
>the
>> > satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>> >
>> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
>> over
>> > > > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
>> and
>> > in
>> > > > this
>> > > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>> > interests
>> > > > of
>> > > > > the child take precedence?
>> > > >
>> > > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
>> > Besides
>> > > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>> > >
>> > > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
>> best
>> > for
>> > > the child?
>> >
>> > Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
>> > compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
>> situation,
>> > Moon?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > ><snip>
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > And
>> > > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used
>one
>> > which
>> > > > they
>> > > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer
>-
>> > she
>> > > > got the
>> > > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
>> her,
>> > if
>> > > > dad
>> > > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>> > legally
>> > > > able
>> > > > > to drive a car.
>> > > >
>> > > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
>> > mention
>> > > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
>> > judgement
>> > > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety
>of
>> > his
>> > > > daughter!
>> > >
>> > > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
>> > experiences.......
>> > > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
>> point
>> > to
>> > > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>> >
>> > Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
>> > perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
>> some
>> > advice.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom
>*could*
>> > get
>> > > > child
>> > > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>> > child
>> > > > to
>> > > > > activities - did you?
>> > > >
>> > > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>> > >
>> > > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
>> he
>> > lives
>> > > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
>> his
>> > view
>> > > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
>> able
>> > to
>> > > see, on a day to day basis?
>> >
>> > Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.
>That's
>> > pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
>> > problems,
>> > > you never get to a solution.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
>> > > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>> >
>> > Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem.
>But
>> > as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this
>before)
>> > doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Certainly
>> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
>> > their
>> > > > own
>> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>> > > >
>> > > > He seems to live in another state.
>> > >
>> > > Which begs the question of why?
>> >
>> > Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.
>> >
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And
>> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
>> because
>> > > > their
>> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
>there.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
>> to
>> > get
>> > > > the
>> > > > > child there!
>> > > >
>> > > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
>> > children
>> > > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
>> > >
>> > > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
>> more
>> > than
>> > > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And the
>> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
>best
>> > > > interests
>> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
>> parent
>> > > > seems
>> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
>> > > > interests"
>> > > > > > bat?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
>> > possible
>> > > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
>> for
>> > his
>> > > > help
>> > > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get
>to
>> > > > school.
>> > > >
>> > > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
>> asking
>> > for
>> > > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
>> > young an
>> > > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
>> for
>> > > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
>> > >
>> > > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
>> the
>> > most
>> > > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
>> > without
>> > > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
>> solution.
>> >
>> > He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't
>> know
>> > whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some
>> specific
>> > questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
>> daughter
>> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
>> have
>> > seen
>> > > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so
>I
>> > > > offered to
>> > > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
>> the
>> > > > following
>> > > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>> > > >
>> > > > All the way from another state?
>> > >
>> > > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
>> the
>> > first
>> > > place?
>> >
>> > He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
>> > lives with mom "during the school year."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Must not be good enough.... some think Mom should suck him dry.
>
>I saw no one making that suggestion.
>
>>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:24 AM
Hmmm, she's now up to 7 out of 18 and it's only post 22 of 26. D'ya suppose
she went all the way from "I'm done" to 50% of the thread? Let's check....

Mel Gamble

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> teachrmama > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> >
>> > > > In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in
>> the
>> > same
>> > > > state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
>> > > > state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live
>> in
>> > > > different places. So running the child back and forth to her
>> activities
>> > > > would not be an alternative for him.
>> > > >
>> > > > According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for
>> her
>> > to
>> > > > get the child places. Many, many parents work through the
>> difficulties
>> > of
>> > > > transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
>> > could
>> > > > arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she
>> can
>> > > > drop the "impossible" ones.
>> > >
>> > > So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising
>> this
>> > > child? Anything?
>> >
>> > He seems to have her with him for a portion of the year. He says she
>> stays
>> > with mom for the school year, so he may have her for the summer and maybe
>> > school breaks at Christmas ans Easter. Does that count? He seem to pay
>> > child support. Does that count?
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
>> count
>> > on
>> > > > > > that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
>> the
>> > > > > > activities make up for the driving?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't
>> like
>> > the
>> > > > idea"?
>> > > > > At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of
>> the
>> > > > community,
>> > > > > the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she
>> lives
>> > > > come in?
>> > > > > Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
>> > > > "Doesn't
>> > > > > like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
>> > "Doesn't
>> > > > like
>> > > > > the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?
>> > > >
>> > > > Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based
>> on
>> > the
>> > > > "standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
>> > best
>> > > > for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
>> > > > example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
>> > > > participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
>> > day--there
>> > > > was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
>> > would
>> > > > be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child
>> is
>> > > > very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
>> > three
>> > > > days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
>> > > > classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
>> > > > community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary
>to
>> > the
>> > > > decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.
>> > >
>> > > I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground.........
>though,
>> > in all
>> > > honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.
>> >
>> > Actually, I see permitting a 14 year old to drive simply because it is
>the
>> > satndard of the community as a bit more extreme than my example.
>> >
>> > > > > > When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
>> over
>> > > > > > everything else, BTW.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community,
>> and
>> > in
>> > > > this
>> > > > > case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
>> > interests
>> > > > of
>> > > > > the child take precedence?
>> > > >
>> > > > Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
>> > Besides
>> > > > which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!
>> > >
>> > > And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's
>> best
>> > for
>> > > the child?
>> >
>> > Dad does not think that driving at 14 is best for the child--how do you
>> > compromise that? How would you see the MOM compromising in this
>> situation,
>> > Moon?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > ><snip>
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > And
>> > > > > if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used
>one
>> > which
>> > > > they
>> > > > > fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer
>-
>> > she
>> > > > got the
>> > > > > child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten
>> her,
>> > if
>> > > > dad
>> > > > > wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
>> > legally
>> > > > able
>> > > > > to drive a car.
>> > > >
>> > > > Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
>> > mention
>> > > > growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
>> > judgement
>> > > > you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety
>of
>> > his
>> > > > daughter!
>> > >
>> > > We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
>> > experiences.......
>> > > that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to
>> point
>> > to
>> > > what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.
>> >
>> > Which was most likely why he was asking for advice, don't you think? Or
>> > perhaps he offered solutions which were rejected, so came here seeking
>> some
>> > advice.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > > > > > Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom
>*could*
>> > get
>> > > > child
>> > > > > to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
>> > child
>> > > > to
>> > > > > activities - did you?
>> > > >
>> > > > I saw that he most likely lives in another state.
>> > >
>> > > Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why
>> he
>> > lives
>> > > so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate
>> his
>> > view
>> > > is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be
>> able
>> > to
>> > > see, on a day to day basis?
>> >
>> > Um, he seems to have her with him all summer, from what he posted.
>That's
>> > pretty day-to-day. And I didn't see him question her maturity. Did you?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > All I've tried to say, all along, is that if all you do is point to
>> > problems,
>> > > you never get to a solution.
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps the OP will grace us with his presence, and let us know what
>> > > alternatives he's offered by way of a solution?
>> >
>> > Maybe there are none, Moon. There is not a solution to every problem.
>But
>> > as for mom wanting him to help pay for the car (and I did ask this
>before)
>> > doesn't child support cover transportation for the child?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Certainly
>> > > > > > hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
>> > their
>> > > > own
>> > > > > > personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.
>> > > >
>> > > > He seems to live in another state.
>> > >
>> > > Which begs the question of why?
>> >
>> > Why what? I don't understand what you are asking here.
>> >
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And
>> > > > > > probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
>> because
>> > > > their
>> > > > > > parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
>there.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available
>> to
>> > get
>> > > > the
>> > > > > child there!
>> > > >
>> > > > It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your
>> > children
>> > > > ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?
>> > >
>> > > It would depend on the driver - I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand any
>> more
>> > than
>> > > I would a 16 year old driver, until I had a whole lot more information.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And the
>> > > > > > majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
>best
>> > > > interests
>> > > > > > of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
>> parent
>> > > > seems
>> > > > > > to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
>> > > > interests"
>> > > > > > bat?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the
>> > possible
>> > > > > exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked
>> for
>> > his
>> > > > help
>> > > > > in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get
>to
>> > > > school.
>> > > >
>> > > > I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father
>> asking
>> > for
>> > > > advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so
>> > young an
>> > > > age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month
>> for
>> > > > something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.
>> > >
>> > > And didn't offer any alternatives to, either - that's the part I have
>> the
>> > most
>> > > trouble with - we've all dealt with people who dish up all the problems
>> > without
>> > > any solutions..... I'd like to see some alternatives to reach a
>> solution.
>> >
>> > He didn't need to offer us any solutions, Moon. And we certainly don't
>> know
>> > whether he offered the mom solutions. He may have. He asked some
>> specific
>> > questions he wanted opinions on. That's all.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
>> daughter
>> > > > > > at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would
>> have
>> > seen
>> > > > > something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so
>I
>> > > > offered to
>> > > > > take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days
>> the
>> > > > following
>> > > > > week, in order to share the burden with her mother"
>> > > >
>> > > > All the way from another state?
>> > >
>> > > And that doesn't make you wonder just how much parenting he's doing in
>> the
>> > first
>> > > place?
>> >
>> > He seems to have her every summer, Moon. He specifically states that she
>> > lives with mom "during the school year."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Must not be good enough.... some think Mom should suck him dry.
>
>I saw no one making that suggestion.
>
>>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:26 AM
And 8 of 18. There's only one left.......drum roll please.....

Mel Gamble

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <giant snip>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit
>> the
>> > > child?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that
>> from
>> > > him?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
>> I've
>> > > > > tried,
>> > > > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could
>> be
>> > > > > > offering..........
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in
>> person,
>> > > with
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
>> > > financially
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > those activities........
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
>> > > support
>> > > > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
>> > > during
>> > > > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
>> engages
>> > > in
>> > > > > while living with him, son't you think?
>> > > >
>> > > > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or
>> not)
>> > > and
>> > > > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved
>in
>> the
>> > > > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
>> > > >
>> > > > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
>> > > father's
>> > > > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of
>> being a
>> > > > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
>> > > number of
>> > > > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only
>> requirement of
>> > > being
>> > > > a parent....... and I disagree.
>> > >
>> > > Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much
>> input
>> > > besides the input of cash called child support.
>> >
>> > There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
>> >
>> > This is not often a
>> > > voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a
>> father
>> > > NEEDS to contribute.
>> >
>> > Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that
>> dad
>> > already PAID the CS?
>>
>> Because he HAS paid CS, Moon--and CS is what covers transportation costs
>for
>> the child. How can you not understand that?
>>
>> >
>> > I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
>> > > required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You
>seem
>> to
>> > > feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
>> > > father.
>> >
>> > Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
>> alternatives
>> > to the request for a financial contribution.
>>
>> And how do you know that he has not offered alternatives? Perhaps he has
>> done so, and just not told us about it. Perhapshe just wanted opinions
>> about what he posted.
>
>Then he's done himself a disservice by making it appear that his only concern
>is
>money.
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for
>> each
>> > > of the
>> > > > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
>> > >
>> > > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
>> > > reall equal "more involved father"?
>> >
>> > How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
>> to
>> > offer alternatives?
>>
>> How do you know he has not offered alternatives?
>
>I don't - I've pointed out that he hasn't stated that he *has* offered any
>alternatives.
>

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:26 AM
And 8 of 18. There's only one left.......drum roll please.....

Mel Gamble

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > ...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <giant snip>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit
>> the
>> > > child?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that
>> from
>> > > him?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > At no time had I ever remotely suggested that he pay more money -
>> I've
>> > > > > tried,
>> > > > > > over and over, to point out that there are other things he could
>> be
>> > > > > > offering..........
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Yet oh dear, he's too far away to be able to do that, either.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Ok, so riddle me this....... he apparently isn't helping in
>> person,
>> > > with
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > extracurricular activities, and he apparently isn't helping
>> > > financially
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > those activities........
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Of course he is, Moon!! He pays Child Support. THAT is what child
>> > > support
>> > > > > is for--especially lifestyle child support amounts!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > And you don't see a problem with this?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No--no, I don't. He pays child support--and has the child with him
>> > > during
>> > > > > the summer. I'm pretty sure he would pay for the activities she
>> engages
>> > > in
>> > > > > while living with him, son't you think?
>> > > >
>> > > > From the looks and sounds of it, he sends CS (whether willingly or
>> not)
>> > > and
>> > > > that's about it. There's no indication that he's actively involved
>in
>> the
>> > > > child's life at anything approaching 50%, nor any indication of why.
>> > > >
>> > > > If paying one's CS is the only criteria that is necessary (from the
>> > > father's
>> > > > viewpoint) for the NCP to be satisfied that he's done his share of
>> being a
>> > > > parent to the child, then so be it - certainly, it appears, from the
>> > > number of
>> > > > people clamoring "But he paid his CS" that this is the only
>> requirement of
>> > > being
>> > > > a parent....... and I disagree.
>> > >
>> > > Get real, Moon!! Men who are denied 50/50 custody rarely have much
>> input
>> > > besides the input of cash called child support.
>> >
>> > There is no indication that the OP was denied anything.
>> >
>> > This is not often a
>> > > voluntary condition!! I see nobody clamoring that CS is all that a
>> father
>> > > NEEDS to contribute.
>> >
>> > Then how does one explain all of the posts to this thread insisting that
>> dad
>> > already PAID the CS?
>>
>> Because he HAS paid CS, Moon--and CS is what covers transportation costs
>for
>> the child. How can you not understand that?
>>
>> >
>> > I do see people sayingthat the monetary contribution
>> > > required by child support is supposed to cover transportation. You
>seem
>> to
>> > > feel that sending more money upon request will make him a more involved
>> > > father.
>> >
>> > Not at all - I've suggested, over and over, that the OP offer some
>> alternatives
>> > to the request for a financial contribution.
>>
>> And how do you know that he has not offered alternatives? Perhaps he has
>> done so, and just not told us about it. Perhapshe just wanted opinions
>> about what he posted.
>
>Then he's done himself a disservice by making it appear that his only concern
>is
>money.
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > It also makes me wonder at all the noise demanding 50% parenting for
>> each
>> > > of the
>> > > > parents, if "he already paid his CS" is sufficient.
>> > >
>> > > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
>> > > reall equal "more involved father"?
>> >
>> > How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
>> to
>> > offer alternatives?
>>
>> How do you know he has not offered alternatives?
>
>I don't - I've pointed out that he hasn't stated that he *has* offered any
>alternatives.
>

Moon Shyne
August 19th 03, 10:49 AM
Congratulations, Mel - you had 8 posts that said ....................

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> OOOPS!!! Drum roll followed by dissonent chord - she made over 1/3 of the
> posts to this thread today, but missed 50% by one little post : )

nothing that contributed to the conversation - did you have any opinion about a
father contributing or not contributing to a used car so that his 14 year old
daughter could get to extracurricular activities?

Moon Shyne
August 19th 03, 10:49 AM
Congratulations, Mel - you had 8 posts that said ....................

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> OOOPS!!! Drum roll followed by dissonent chord - she made over 1/3 of the
> posts to this thread today, but missed 50% by one little post : )

nothing that contributed to the conversation - did you have any opinion about a
father contributing or not contributing to a used car so that his 14 year old
daughter could get to extracurricular activities?

~August
August 19th 03, 02:41 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
get
> > his
> > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> > cost of
> > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
to
> > help
> > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
without
> > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> >
> > Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same
state!
>
> So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?

He pays CS. That *is* his offering. Mom needs to make the budget work with
the income that she has. If it doesnt work, it doesnt work, and she needs
to be making different decisions.

~August
August 19th 03, 02:41 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help
get
> > his
> > > daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
> > cost of
> > > the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways
to
> > help
> > > out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems,
without
> > > showing any inclination to help provide solutions.
> >
> > Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same
state!
>
> So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?

He pays CS. That *is* his offering. Mom needs to make the budget work with
the income that she has. If it doesnt work, it doesnt work, and she needs
to be making different decisions.

~August
August 19th 03, 02:59 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
> > reall equal "more involved father"?
>
> How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
to
> offer alternatives?

He does not have to offer ANY alternatives. He pays CS which normally (or
the general concensus here seems to be) should cover the costs associated
with a car for the child. It does not make him a bad dad if he turns around
and says "Use the CS i send each month to pay my share of the expenses. If
you (mom) cannot come up with the full amount to cover those expenses, then
obviously we cannot afford to get the girl a car.

~August
August 19th 03, 02:59 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > And the child support he pays covers transportation. Does "more money"
> > reall equal "more involved father"?
>
> How is it that you've missed every single suggestion I've made for the OP
to
> offer alternatives?

He does not have to offer ANY alternatives. He pays CS which normally (or
the general concensus here seems to be) should cover the costs associated
with a car for the child. It does not make him a bad dad if he turns around
and says "Use the CS i send each month to pay my share of the expenses. If
you (mom) cannot come up with the full amount to cover those expenses, then
obviously we cannot afford to get the girl a car.

~August
August 19th 03, 03:18 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money.
Ok, so
> > > > don't.
> > > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But
do
> > > > *something*
> > > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> > something
> > > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly
that he
> > > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
lives
> > to
> > > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> > >
> > > So he's too far away to be a father?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
>
> Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are
supposed to
> do that stuff?

If the mom is the custodial parent and lives to far from the dad, then yes,
i would expect it to be only the mom that does that stuff. My ex lives in
Massachussettes. I live in Indiana. I am the only one who ferries my kids
back and forth. To expect my ex to do so from MA is ridiculous. To expect
my ex to pay me more CS because he is not available to help ferry them on a
daily basis is also ridiculous.

~August
August 19th 03, 03:18 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > snipped
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money.
Ok, so
> > > > don't.
> > > > > But at least offer to help in some other way
> > > > > It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
> > > > co-parenting...... if
> > > > > you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But
do
> > > > *something*
> > > > > that helps to reach the end goal.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
> > something
> > > > I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly
that he
> > > > doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
lives
> > to
> > > > far away to offer help, maybe not.
> > >
> > > So he's too far away to be a father?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.
>
> Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are
supposed to
> do that stuff?

If the mom is the custodial parent and lives to far from the dad, then yes,
i would expect it to be only the mom that does that stuff. My ex lives in
Massachussettes. I live in Indiana. I am the only one who ferries my kids
back and forth. To expect my ex to do so from MA is ridiculous. To expect
my ex to pay me more CS because he is not available to help ferry them on a
daily basis is also ridiculous.

~August
August 19th 03, 03:34 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> : ) Those red flags she sees ...
>
>
> ... are the little blood vessels in her eyes popping as she strains to
figure
> more ways to make this thread all about her.


I notice that happens a lot with her posts and sometimes i wonder why you
all bother. But it makes for some amusing reading sometimes, and whether it
sinks into her or not, some good points get made in response... read by
lurkers and such, so maybe that is why. If she could just get past her own
"its all about me" way of posting, you might find an answer from her that
you kind of agree with. But she bounces around too much.

~August
August 19th 03, 03:34 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> : ) Those red flags she sees ...
>
>
> ... are the little blood vessels in her eyes popping as she strains to
figure
> more ways to make this thread all about her.


I notice that happens a lot with her posts and sometimes i wonder why you
all bother. But it makes for some amusing reading sometimes, and whether it
sinks into her or not, some good points get made in response... read by
lurkers and such, so maybe that is why. If she could just get past her own
"its all about me" way of posting, you might find an answer from her that
you kind of agree with. But she bounces around too much.

Mel Gamble
August 20th 03, 11:41 AM
>
>Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
>> Hmmm, she's now up to 7 out of 18 and it's only post 22 of 26. D'ya
>suppose
>> she went all the way from "I'm done" to 50% of the thread? Let's
>check....
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>>
>
>
><snipped al whole lot of ****>
>
>I can't beleive you are still counting! lol

And I can't believe she's still posting. Actually, I can - nasty will play
this "all about me" thread until everybody else quits replying to her.

>BTW.... how are the pups?

Thanks for asking : ) We were down to the one my daughter is keeping and one
left to find a home for until this evening. The folks who took Bashful called
a couple of days ago and said it wasn't working out, so we picked him up and I
took him back to the house this evening. Gotta take some more pictures and
make another flyer....

The oddest coincidence has happened. Anyone who went to the website I set up
might remember that Bandit had very unique markings. He has a black mask that
includes his eyes and ears; he has a large black area around the base of his
tail like mom has; and the remainder is a mottled white with nickel- to
quarter-size grey and black splotches. A couple of weeks ago the latest
neighbor to move in up on this end of my territory came out to chat while I had
momma out in the yard. He brought his dog out and it looks EXACTLY like
Bandit, but fully grown. Just amazing......

Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 20th 03, 11:41 AM
>
>Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
>> Hmmm, she's now up to 7 out of 18 and it's only post 22 of 26. D'ya
>suppose
>> she went all the way from "I'm done" to 50% of the thread? Let's
>check....
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>>
>
>
><snipped al whole lot of ****>
>
>I can't beleive you are still counting! lol

And I can't believe she's still posting. Actually, I can - nasty will play
this "all about me" thread until everybody else quits replying to her.

>BTW.... how are the pups?

Thanks for asking : ) We were down to the one my daughter is keeping and one
left to find a home for until this evening. The folks who took Bashful called
a couple of days ago and said it wasn't working out, so we picked him up and I
took him back to the house this evening. Gotta take some more pictures and
make another flyer....

The oddest coincidence has happened. Anyone who went to the website I set up
might remember that Bandit had very unique markings. He has a black mask that
includes his eyes and ears; he has a large black area around the base of his
tail like mom has; and the remainder is a mottled white with nickel- to
quarter-size grey and black splotches. A couple of weeks ago the latest
neighbor to move in up on this end of my territory came out to chat while I had
momma out in the yard. He brought his dog out and it looks EXACTLY like
Bandit, but fully grown. Just amazing......

Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?

Mel Gamble

Tiffany
August 20th 03, 01:53 PM
Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Hmmm, she's now up to 7 out of 18 and it's only post 22 of 26. D'ya
> >suppose
> >> she went all the way from "I'm done" to 50% of the thread? Let's
> >check....
> >>
> >> Mel Gamble
> >>
> >
> >
> ><snipped al whole lot of ****>
> >
> >I can't beleive you are still counting! lol
>
> And I can't believe she's still posting. Actually, I can - nasty will
play
> this "all about me" thread until everybody else quits replying to her.
>
> >BTW.... how are the pups?
>
> Thanks for asking : ) We were down to the one my daughter is keeping and
one
> left to find a home for until this evening. The folks who took Bashful
called
> a couple of days ago and said it wasn't working out, so we picked him up
and I
> took him back to the house this evening. Gotta take some more pictures
and
> make another flyer....
>
> The oddest coincidence has happened. Anyone who went to the website I set
up
> might remember that Bandit had very unique markings. He has a black mask
that
> includes his eyes and ears; he has a large black area around the base of
his
> tail like mom has; and the remainder is a mottled white with nickel- to
> quarter-size grey and black splotches. A couple of weeks ago the latest
> neighbor to move in up on this end of my territory came out to chat while
I had
> momma out in the yard. He brought his dog out and it looks EXACTLY like
> Bandit, but fully grown. Just amazing......
>
> Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?
>
> Mel Gamble

That's great! One to go. I wish I could snag it up.

Tiffany
August 20th 03, 01:53 PM
Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Hmmm, she's now up to 7 out of 18 and it's only post 22 of 26. D'ya
> >suppose
> >> she went all the way from "I'm done" to 50% of the thread? Let's
> >check....
> >>
> >> Mel Gamble
> >>
> >
> >
> ><snipped al whole lot of ****>
> >
> >I can't beleive you are still counting! lol
>
> And I can't believe she's still posting. Actually, I can - nasty will
play
> this "all about me" thread until everybody else quits replying to her.
>
> >BTW.... how are the pups?
>
> Thanks for asking : ) We were down to the one my daughter is keeping and
one
> left to find a home for until this evening. The folks who took Bashful
called
> a couple of days ago and said it wasn't working out, so we picked him up
and I
> took him back to the house this evening. Gotta take some more pictures
and
> make another flyer....
>
> The oddest coincidence has happened. Anyone who went to the website I set
up
> might remember that Bandit had very unique markings. He has a black mask
that
> includes his eyes and ears; he has a large black area around the base of
his
> tail like mom has; and the remainder is a mottled white with nickel- to
> quarter-size grey and black splotches. A couple of weeks ago the latest
> neighbor to move in up on this end of my territory came out to chat while
I had
> momma out in the yard. He brought his dog out and it looks EXACTLY like
> Bandit, but fully grown. Just amazing......
>
> Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?
>
> Mel Gamble

That's great! One to go. I wish I could snag it up.

Paul Fritz
August 20th 03, 05:54 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>
> Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?
>
> Mel Gamble

My daughter......but she can't have em.......LOL

Paul Fritz
August 20th 03, 05:54 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>
> Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?
>
> Mel Gamble

My daughter......but she can't have em.......LOL

Mel Gamble
August 21st 03, 07:12 AM
>"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?
>> >
>> > Mel Gamble
>>
>> My daughter......but she can't have em.......LOL
>
>
>Just like I know a whole neighborhood full of kids who would love them...
>but they can't have them either. :)
>
>
>Tracy

Just as well.... I'm sure I speak for Penny when I say "We aren't ready to
supply a whole neighborhood"... : )

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 21st 03, 07:12 AM
>"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Know anybody who wants a very friendly, mostly black puppy? Or two?
>> >
>> > Mel Gamble
>>
>> My daughter......but she can't have em.......LOL
>
>
>Just like I know a whole neighborhood full of kids who would love them...
>but they can't have them either. :)
>
>
>Tracy

Just as well.... I'm sure I speak for Penny when I say "We aren't ready to
supply a whole neighborhood"... : )

Mel Gamble