If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved.... "TeacherMama" wrote in message . com... "The DaveŠ" wrote in message ews.com... "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story. Bottom-line - the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That doesn't sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship between him and his sons. ... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she placed on HER relationship with the kids... Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids as weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even aware of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right, that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to them. It's just hateful all the way around! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved.... "TeacherMama" wrote in message . com... "The DaveŠ" wrote in message ews.com... "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story. Bottom-line - the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That doesn't sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship between him and his sons. ... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she placed on HER relationship with the kids... Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids as weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even aware of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right, that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to them. It's just hateful all the way around! How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a bad thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country, what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either move or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave. The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have to do that. ~August |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"~August" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved.... "TeacherMama" wrote in message . com... "The DaveŠ" wrote in message ews.com... "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story. Bottom-line - the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That doesn't sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship between him and his sons. ... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she placed on HER relationship with the kids... Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids as weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even aware of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right, that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to them. It's just hateful all the way around! How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a bad thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country, what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either move or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave. The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have to do that. But you are skipping the part where dad's relationship with the boys is "tenuous and detached" and always has been. And the part where new wife (maybe soon to be ex #3) does not have a good relationship with the boys, either. Perhaps you could lay part of this at mom's door--but there seem to have been a series of counselors over the last 7 years--and the original request for a move was denied by the court so that the relationship between dad and the boys could improve. When you look at how family court tends to act toward NCP dads, it would seem that this family had a judge who was actually willing to work with dad to make sure he DID have a relationship with the boys--a somewhat rare judge in the scheme of things these days. And yet the relationship has not improved. In spite of a father-friendly judge. So, did dad go to court to block the move in order to keep his visitation schedule? Or in order to stick it to mom? I don't know--but my first impression was not a positive one about either parent. I have a friend who wants to move this summer with her 8 year old daughter and husband. She has to get the court's permission even though the child's father has not seen her, asked about her, paid child support, or communicated with her in over 4 years. That man has the power to say "No. You can't move." Would he be just a loving dad who doesn't want his child moved across country? As for mom, she absolutely should not have moved those children. She was wrong! And, considering how long it has taken for her last request to move to work its way through the courts, she is probably counting on it taking equally as long to resolve the mess created by their move to AZ--and the boys will be pretty near grown by then. The whole system is disgusting! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "~August" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved.... "TeacherMama" wrote in message . com... "The DaveŠ" wrote in message ews.com... "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story. Bottom-line - the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That doesn't sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship between him and his sons. ... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she placed on HER relationship with the kids... Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids as weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even aware of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right, that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to them. It's just hateful all the way around! How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a bad thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country, what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either move or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave. The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have to do that. But you are skipping the part where dad's relationship with the boys is "tenuous and detached" and always has been. And the part where new wife (maybe soon to be ex #3) does not have a good relationship with the boys, either. Perhaps you could lay part of this at mom's door--but there seem to have been a series of counselors over the last 7 years--and the original request for a move was denied by the court so that the relationship between dad and the boys could improve. When you look at how family court tends to act toward NCP dads, it would seem that this family had a judge who was actually willing to work with dad to make sure he DID have a relationship with the boys--a somewhat rare judge in the scheme of things these days. And yet the relationship has not improved. In spite of a father-friendly judge. So, did dad go to court to block the move in order to keep his visitation schedule? Or in order to stick it to mom? I don't know--but my first impression was not a positive one about either parent. I have a friend who wants to move this summer with her 8 year old daughter and husband. She has to get the court's permission even though the child's father has not seen her, asked about her, paid child support, or communicated with her in over 4 years. That man has the power to say "No. You can't move." Would he be just a loving dad who doesn't want his child moved across country? As for mom, she absolutely should not have moved those children. She was wrong! And, considering how long it has taken for her last request to move to work its way through the courts, she is probably counting on it taking equally as long to resolve the mess created by their move to AZ--and the boys will be pretty near grown by then. The whole system is disgusting! You've made some good points. I just want to point out that when a father remarries and has subsequent children, the courts rule he knew about his prior obligation to his ex-spouse for CS and therefore he gets no preferential treatment for his subsequent family. Likewise, when a mother remarries and knows she has an obligation to not move the children away from their father, the court is telling her she should not get preferential treatment just because her new husband wants to move. The feminists are making a big deal out of this case because the rulings have limited mother's choices post-divorce. As usual the feminists won't admit similar treatment of fathers occurs all the time. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "~August" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... And mom was told she'd lose the kids if she moved.... "TeacherMama" wrote in message . com... "The DaveŠ" wrote in message ews.com... "Tracy" wrote Nice to read that Garrett & Devlen LaMusga will end up being screwed up kids because their parents simply could not come to terms about their divorce and do what is necessary for the sake of their children. Instead they have spent 6+ years in court beating each other up - NOT for their children, in my opinion, but for their own selfish pity me type attitude. I mean really now - two parents come to terms with their own divorce and parent their children - what am I thinking! I hope Gary LaMusga is able to gain custody of the boys, Garrett & Devlen, so they can return home. Suzy is free to move where ever she wishes, but she shouldn't have taken those kids without working out the details with Gary first. I agree. The court was correct in not granting permission to move the kids. The kids should have ready access to both parents, and both parents have an obligation to see to it that access is available. There are other law schools she could have attended. Her current husband got a job offer? Tough. She then had a decision to make, but tearing her kids from their father should never have been an option in her mind. You are 100% correct, Tracy, it was all about what *she* wanted. Yeah, but he doesn't seem to be an innocent victim either. His relationship with his sons is still tenuous and troubled. The courts seem to have refused the move so that the relationship can improve--not so that the boys miss don't out on the warm and loving relationship they have with dear old dad. Seems to me that the only ones who are victims here are the children, whose parents can't put their differences aside for the sake of their children! TM - keep in mind what you read what one side of the story. Bottom-line - the father took the case to court to keep the boys near him. That doesn't sound like a father who doesn't give a hoot about the relationship between him and his sons. ... and has done just that. Sounds like mom has also lost any value she placed on HER relationship with the kids... Looks like it could be one of those cases where BOTH parents use the kids as weapons against the ex. I've been subpoenaed to testify in a couple of those over the years--not fun! None of the parents involved seem even aware of how they are using the children--they are just so sure they are right, that they truly believe that what they are fighting for is BEST for the children. And the children MUST be upset because of what the OTHER parent is doing. So here we have dad jamming things up in court to keep mom from moving--and mom moving to a different place to stick it to dad. And the kids now in a very precarious position, not knowing WHAT will happen to them. It's just hateful all the way around! How can dad "jammin things up in court" to keep his kids near him be a bad thing??? If mom is intent to take his kids half way across the country, what else is he suppose to do? You cant "work out" moving. You either move or dont. Mom wanted to move... dad said he didnt want the kids to leave. The only thing dad could do was arrange to move also. He shouldnt have to do that. But you are skipping the part where dad's relationship with the boys is "tenuous and detached" and always has been. And the part where new wife (maybe soon to be ex #3) does not have a good relationship with the boys, either. Perhaps you could lay part of this at mom's door--but there seem to have been a series of counselors over the last 7 years--and the original request for a move was denied by the court so that the relationship between dad and the boys could improve. When you look at how family court tends to act toward NCP dads, it would seem that this family had a judge who was actually willing to work with dad to make sure he DID have a relationship with the boys--a somewhat rare judge in the scheme of things these days. And yet the relationship has not improved. In spite of a father-friendly judge. So, did dad go to court to block the move in order to keep his visitation schedule? Or in order to stick it to mom? I don't know--but my first impression was not a positive one about either parent. I have a friend who wants to move this summer with her 8 year old daughter and husband. She has to get the court's permission even though the child's father has not seen her, asked about her, paid child support, or communicated with her in over 4 years. That man has the power to say "No. You can't move." Would he be just a loving dad who doesn't want his child moved across country? As for mom, she absolutely should not have moved those children. She was wrong! And, considering how long it has taken for her last request to move to work its way through the courts, she is probably counting on it taking equally as long to resolve the mess created by their move to AZ--and the boys will be pretty near grown by then. The whole system is disgusting! You've made some good points. I just want to point out that when a father remarries and has subsequent children, the courts rule he knew about his prior obligation to his ex-spouse for CS and therefore he gets no preferential treatment for his subsequent family. Likewise, when a mother remarries and knows she has an obligation to not move the children away from their father, the court is telling her she should not get preferential treatment just because her new husband wants to move. The feminists are making a big deal out of this case because the rulings have limited mother's choices post-divorce. As usual the feminists won't admit similar treatment of fathers occurs all the time. Mom's choices to move or stay are not at all limited. She can go anywhere she wants to. Her choice to move the children is what is limited. I think what is being sought is a judgement that states that mom and kids are a package, and, since she has a right to move, the whole package goes with her. Hopefully, that won't happen. The other thing that bothers me about this particular case is that, not only does mom want to move the boys away from dad, she also wants him to pay more in child support at the same time. I don't know if that is arrogance, or just plain rudeness. Geesh!! As for no preferential treatment for subsequent families--my husband didn't even know about daughter #1 when we married and had kids, and our children are still considered "subsequent family!" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LaMusga, Braver, Burgess, and Move-aways | Asherah | Single Parents | 0 | July 25th 03 06:20 PM |