wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 12:50 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 15, 1:39 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

...
On Dec 12, 1:40 am, Sarah Gray
wrote:
"Chris" wrote
:

He's perfectly capable of getting and keeping a job.
All I
want
him
to do is to try and see her as often as is reasonable,
and
to
split
the basic costs of raising her fairly.

Fantastic! Then "split" her time with both of you by
sending
her
over
their and the basic costs will also be split. It simply
follows.

She cannot split her time with us 50/50 if he lives in
another
state.
There
is no reason I should not see my daughter regularly
because
he
chose
to
move far away.

Why Can't he have June-November and you have her
December-May,
with
the extra day left over to be for transportation?
The time can be split, and your daughter can go to school
in
TN
until
she moves back with you and can attend school where you
live.
She
could even be home schooled in TN in order to follow the
cirricular
for your county school district.
Don't say there are no options when there clearly are, it
is
just
that
you are not willing to consider them.

Why would you do that to a child? If they lived close
together
and
she
wasn't pulled away from her friends every 6 months, I could
understand
it.

Of course, because friends are FAR more valuable to a child
than
their
father.

No, Chris, because moving to a different place is an
adjustment--every
time.

So? LIFE is an "adjustment".

And breaking your arm and having to deal with that inconvenience is
an
adjustment, but that does not mean you break your arm every 6
months
and
deal with it just because lif is an adjustment.

Nor did I claim so. Your point?

Geesh.

The younger thetime, the bigger the adjustment. You are not
looking
at
the
child's well-being in this. You are only looking at the
father's
convenience.

You're right; my bad. A child living in one place is by FAR more
important
than living with their father. How could I have been so far off
with
THAT
one!

You're right, Chris--your bad. A child having the security of
living
in
the
same place, going to the same school, and having the same set of
people
aroung her is FAR more important than

.... being with her father.

indulging a man who moved 10 hours
away just because he had the "right" to do so.

That's right; it's the mother's "RIGHT" to keep her child away from
the
father. You GO girl!

It's the CHILD'S right to have a safe, consistent, secure environment
to
grow up in, Chris. The FATHER moved away--absolutely his right--but
that
does not take away the CHILD'S right to a safe, consistent, secure
environment. Being shipped back and forth from one state to another
every 6
months might satisfy the father's desire for time with his daughter,
but
it
would be an unspeakable disruption of her young life. If he really
wants
to
be a parent, let him parent the child where she is, instead of
expecting
her
to be shunted back and forth twice a year for the next 13 years!!

If being with his daughter
is so important to hime let HIM make the adjustment and move back.

And If being with his daughter is so important to the mother (which
CLEARLY
it's not), let HER make the adjustment and move to where he is.

HE moved, Chris. Perhaps in your little world everyone kowtows to you
or
is
evicted, but not in the real world.

A child is not a possession to be shared.

I agree; that's why the mother should not share her child.

The child is not
the one that should be forced to make such a radical adjustment
every
6
months.

"Radical" is a matter of opinion.

The parent needs to do the adjusting--

No they don't.

You're right--the father does not have to make any adjustment to
his
action
of moving away from his child.

It's the mother's force or threat thereof which precludes him from
being
with "his child". Not taking the child with him (moving away) simply
eliminates a whole LOT of grief. Either way, the end result is the
child
NOT
being with him.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, poor little Chris. Silly women are just not
listening to Chris tell them about the rights of the MAN, as opposed
to
the
rights of a mere child or a lowly woman. You were born out of time,
Chris.
You should have been born back when men were the rulers of the
households.

Unless he really wants to be a father to
her. His choice.

Untrue. The child is away from the father because

he moved away from her. Yes, Chris, because HE chose to move. The
mother
is not required to cater to him. The child is not required to disrupt
her
life every 6 months because of him. He is 1/3 of the people involved
here,
and the other 2/3 have lives, too. If he wants to be involved, he can
go
back to where he chose to move from, where the other 2/3 live.

the mother REFUSES to

allow the child to go be with him. Rather amusing that this fact
eludes
you..

Rather amusing that you think the other 2 OWE the MAN to the point of
having
the responsibility of making sure that they convenience him, even if
it
drastically inconveniences them.

especially since it is the
parent who did the moving and destroyed the parenting plan that
gave
the
child the opportunity to be with him 50% of the time!

Correction: It is not the parent moving that destroyed such
opportunity,
rather it is the mother's REFUSAL to allow it that has done so.

chuckle Oh, Chris, you are so stuck on "father's rights" that
you
cannot
(or will not) even see the forest for the trees.

"Father's rights", which actually don't exist, have no bearing on
the
truth
of my claim.

There is no thruth to your claim, Chris. Only narrow-minded
selfishness.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But only if the parents were married, right? It is your opinion that
only children of once wedded parents should be supported?

I didn't say that. I said that married parents are both automatically
for
the children they create. But, as far as unmarried parents go, both
should
have equitable post-conception rights. Since the woman has a certain
number
of days to walk away from parenthood via safe-haven laws, the man should
have the same right and the same amount of time to do so. Since men have
only a certain amount of time to contest paternity, women should have
only
that same amount of time to declare paternity. Make the playing field
equal. If both decide that they want to parent the child, and they do
not
wish to marry or live together as a family, 50/50 joint custody should be
the default ruling. Now if, from that, you think I said that children of
unmarried parents do not need to be supported, you are reading something
into it that isn;' there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What you just said contadicts the statement that "all children have a
right to be supported by both of thier parents".

Either all children deserve support from both parents, or they don't.

You didn't say *some* children deserve to be suported by both parents,
as you should have if you don't feel that single, never married
parents don't have a responsibility to thier children.

You are not comprehending what I am saying. Ideally. parents are married
before creating children. In that case, they will automatically be
supported by both parents. They *deserve* to be supported by both parents.
But that does not always happen, does it?


Then again, I am talking to the same person who stated that "the State
should take those children from the unwed mothers and give them to
couples" because you didn't feel the unwed parent had a right to ask
for child support.

That I did not say. What I said was that men and women should have
equitable post conception rights. A woman has a right to drop a child off
at safe haven and renounce her parental rights and responsibilities forever.
Men should have similar safe haven rights, and be able to renounce their
parental rights and responsibilities, wiithin the same time frame that women
can. So if a woman has a right to safe haven for the first week after her
child's birth, the man should have a right to safe haven for one week after
he is told he is a father.


Since legality doesn't see morality (why you would feel an unwed
mother is not moral is beyond me), all mothers who are CP are treated
equally-as it should be-since you feel all fathers have an obligation
to support basic needs of thier children.

I did not say that, either. You are missing the pice about equitable post
comception rights. Once the man has decided to be a father, however, he can
no longer walk away. NOW he is responsible for that child. Hopefully with
50/50 shared custody. But if that is not a possibility, then he (or she,
depending on who the NCP is) must pay 50% of the child's basic needs. But
only of the basic needs--no requirement to pay for anything else.


Unless you feel that only some women are entitled to child support,

I don't think **any** women are entitled to child support. Only
**children** are entitled to child support. Let the women take care of
themselves. They're adults.

and only some men have a responsibility toward thier children.

Fathers are responsible for half the basic needs of their children.
Hopefully provided during their 50% of the time with the children. If not,
then the cost of 50% of the child's basic needs.

Which
is it, please? Mind now that unmarried single mothers only get child
support and not CS and alamony that divorced parents get to rob from
the NCP.

See above.