child support review objection

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 9:54 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 11, 12:18 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

news

--
[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 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...

On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray
wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing
to
swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that
they
are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to
foolishly
proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with
their
children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be
coming
up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned,
but
instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for
him
to
make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is
driving
up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him
while he
is
here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to your
ex?
Why
haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very
often.
They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't
unfit.
He
lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child
would
have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on
Sarah's
shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need
money
from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah
wouldn't
have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough
money
to
visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't
have
to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be
the
custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so
off
that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child
with,
wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with
the
father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare
min,
she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most
likely
want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's.
That
would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a
short
arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more
employable
so she woun't have to depend on her ex.
Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until
she
can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is
the
child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as
well
as
she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be
making
these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the
money
to
support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help
keep
the
roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not
doing
well
financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a
decent
job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50
shared
custody agreement--HE left.

He left the MOTHER! That the child is not with him is because the
mother
would NEVER allow such an arrangement. Get it right!

Oh come on, Chris. He left the state where the child was living,.
He
left
even though the child spent 50% of her time with him. He walked out
on
his
entire life there. HE chose to leave and, obviously, in the process,
he
left the child. He took his shoes. He took his underwear. He took
his
toothbrush. But he LEFT his child!!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's the difference between married's and unwed's then? The unwed's,
mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does Sarah deserve child
support just because she was married to the child father? I think she
had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who she knew was flakey
when it comes to work, and now she want's this man, who can't even
support himself, to support her and the child.

Then you are not reading everything she wrote. She is asking for a
small
amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not
her.
And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age
child.

As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal
difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the
mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from
the
get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or
visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are*
fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral
difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they
have
a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

She is asking for a small
amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not
her.
And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age
child.
She is demanding money. The gap is her ex, and the money is how she
want's to fill it.
The child is school aged, so how much is child care for after, or
before school, and why can't she get subsidized child care if she
works and pay's taxes, and what is the latchkey she say's is the
reason she can not get the childcare when she had it at one point in
time?


As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal
difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the
mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from
the
get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or
visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are*
fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral
difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they
have
a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text -

IfMarried fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother
toward the child, why do they get screwed in court when it comes to
custody?

Because they DON'T have the same rights. In fact, they have NO rights; they
only have privileges, and ONLY as long as the mother says so.



Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to
petition the court for any form of custody or visitation.
That is false, since no custody is established until there is a court
paper from a judge stating a custody agreement. A lot of fathers are
ignorant to this, as you are, and assume what you stated to be true,
but in fact it is false.
The reason mothers try to keep the fathers from taking the children
for visit's is because there is no legal obligation to bring the child
back. Until a custody order is established, who ever is in possession
of the child is the CP.

This begs the question: If a father, barring any court order, decides to
take the child away from the mother and hide said child (perhaps even moving
out of the country), is this legal?



A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other
before they have a child. And a financial difference.
Legality doesn't know moral, sweetheart, and that has no place in a
court of law-NEXT!

"Chris" wrote
..........................

Correction: SHE did by interfering with the child being with him.
He places the child in the car saying "we're moving 10 hours away", and
she
will immediately prevent it. He secretly takes the child with him, and she
will have him arrested and take the child away from him. Am I wrong?
====
Geeze Chris--That ranks right up there on the logic scale with Very
Determined's assertion that men
can't be equal to women because women bear children.

"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 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...





On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...

On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...

On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray
wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing
to
swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that
they
are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to
foolishly
proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with
their
children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be
coming
up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned,
but
instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for
him
to
make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is
driving
up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while
he
is
here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to your
ex?
Why
haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very
often.
They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't
unfit.
He
lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child
would
have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on
Sarah's
shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need
money
from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah
wouldn't
have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough
money
to
visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't
have
to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the
custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off
that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child
with,
wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with
the
father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare
min,
she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most
likely
want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's.
That
would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a
short
arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more
employable
so she woun't have to depend on her ex.
Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until
she
can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is
the
child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as
well
as
she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be
making
these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the
money
to
support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help
keep
the
roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not
doing
well
financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a
decent
job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50
shared
custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the child would be
better
off with him?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare
needs.
What's the difference if she provides that, or he does?

Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not work
enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him to take
care
of a child?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it is
acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say doesn't
have the means?

Pay attention, Leda!! Sarah can provide the child with her basic needs,
and
would like help with such things as child care, so thechild can have
little
extras also. The father *xcannot even provide basic needs* for the
child.
YOU seem to think that the child would be better off in a situation where
*not even basic needs* can be provided, than in a situation where basic
needs are provided. Why is that?

SO...... Even though the mother can provide for the basic needs
regardless
of where the child lives, the child ought to live with the mother as
opposed
to the father because said child will have extras. Thus, material
NON-essentials trumps living with one's father.

What is wrong with you, Chris? Why are you insisting that it is ok to send
the child to live with a man who cannot support her, and require the mother
to send money to support the child?

wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 9:16 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 11, 8:20 am, Sarah Gray wrote:
wrote
:

On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:7013c345-abc1-4609-b2a5-

...

On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:5483921c-0fc6-480e-aa91-352f8b3744b5

@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.c om...

On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:8a20deeb-14d6-43c8-8408-



s.com...

On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray
wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is
willing
to swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know
that
they are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to
foolishly proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with
their children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be
coming up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as
planned,
but instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe"
for
him to make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad
is
driving up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him
while he is here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to your
ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit
very
often. They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't
unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so
the child would have a roof over her head, and child care
(that
wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child
care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with
people
that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to
hinder her from having enough money to visit with her
daughter.
It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full
custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial
parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child
with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to
be
with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more
than
the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her
child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's
like
to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the
child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long
enough
for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to
depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care
of
thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so
on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able
to
take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If
you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not
be
making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not
have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send
enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head.
Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially,
either.
Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a
50/50
shared custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the
child
would be better
off with him?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare
needs. What's the difference if she provides that, or he does?

Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not
work enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him
to take care of a child?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it
is
acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say
doesn't
have the means?
The courts think like that too.

No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support his
child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody?- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support his
child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody?

Actually, I did not say that, I was asking the question why is what is
acceptable for you not for your ex (again)?

Basic needs. That is the key. She IS providing them--he CANNOT.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Basic needs are all a person need to survive. What does she need the
money for?

So you don't think the father should pay for 50% of the child's basic needs?

Extras? Sorry, but extras are NOT needed to survive, only
to make life more enjoyable.

So you arew saying that if the custodial parent can provide the child's
basic needs, then the NCP should not have to pay child support?

wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 12:22 pm, "Chris" wrote:
--
[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 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...







On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray
wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is
willing
to
swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know
that
they
are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to
foolishly
proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with
their
children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be
coming
up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned,
but
instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for
him
to
make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is
driving
up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him
while
he
is
here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to your
ex?
Why
haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very
often.
They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't
unfit.
He
lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child
would
have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on
Sarah's
shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need
money
from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah
wouldn't
have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough
money
to
visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't
have
to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be
the
custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so
off
that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child
with,
wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with
the
father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the
bare
min,
she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most
likely
want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's.
That
would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just
a
short
arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more
employable
so she woun't have to depend on her ex.
Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until
she
can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he
is
the
child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as
well
as
she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not
be
making
these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the
money
to
support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help
keep
the
roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not
doing
well
financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a
decent
job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a
50/50
shared
custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the child would
be
better
off with him?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare
needs.
What's the difference if she provides that, or he does?

Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not
work
enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him to
take
care
of a child?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it is
acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say
doesn't
have the means?

Pay attention, Leda!! Sarah can provide the child with her basic
needs,
and
would like help with such things as child care, so thechild can have
little
extras also. The father *xcannot even provide basic needs* for the
child.
YOU seem to think that the child would be better off in a situation
where
*not even basic needs* can be provided, than in a situation where basic
needs are provided. Why is that?

SO...... Even though the mother can provide for the basic needs
regardless
of where the child lives, the child ought to live with the mother as
opposed
to the father because said child will have extras. Thus, material
NON-essentials trumps living with one's father.





The courts think like that too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heh-Lifestyle support is what it is! I read other posts and Sarah
seemed so against child support and the system, but as I progressed in
the readings she is only opposed where it doesn't concern her and her
lifestyle.

Then you are not reading very well. She is asking for a minimal amount.
Not even half a child's basic needs. To fill in the gap left by the father
when he moved and abandoned their 50/50 custody arrangement.

Heh-she should be doing it alone as she claims other CP's should.
Being married to a looser doesn't entitle her to CS!

Where did she claim that other CPs should be doing it alone?

wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 9:58 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 11, 8:22 am, Sarah Gray wrote:
wrote in

What's the difference between married's and unwed's then? The
unwed's,
mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does Sarah deserve child
support just because she was married to the child father? I think
she
had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who she knew was flakey
when it comes to work, and now she want's this man, who can't even
support himself, to support her and the child.

I don't want him to support me. I have never said such a thing. He's
perfectly capable of finding a job, he's just lazy.

So you want money from a jobless lazy person? Oh, that makes so much
sense. Thank you for clearing that up

You know, Leda, you sit up on this moral high horse braggin about how you
and your husband do so much to support his child, because neither of you
would ever even think about walking away--because what you are doing is
the
****right**** thing to do. Then you come down on a mother who is doing
everything in her power to take care of her own child, and is asking the
father of the child who was always vey active in her life until he walked
away to provide a small amount each month to help cover the expenses he
left
behind like she was evil and greedy. Why is that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My high horse? We are not forced (as Sarah's ex is being by her) to
support the child, we chose to do so, and that is the difference
between us and him. She wants extras=being greedy!

Precisely what extras is she asking for?

--
[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 11, 9:16 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...





On Dec 11, 8:20 am, Sarah Gray wrote:
wrote

:

On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:7013c345-abc1-4609-b2a5-

...

On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:5483921c-0fc6-480e-aa91-352f8b3744b5

@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.c om...

On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama"
wrote:
wrote in message

news:8a20deeb-14d6-43c8-8408-



s.com...

On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray
wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is
willing
to swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know
that
they are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to
foolishly proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time
with
their children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not
be
coming up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as
planned,
but instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe"
for
him to make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad
is
driving up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him
while he is here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to
your
ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit
very
often. They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't
unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents)
so
the child would have a roof over her head, and child care
(that
wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of
child
care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with
people
that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to
hinder her from having enough money to visit with her
daughter.
It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full
custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial
parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her
child
with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to
be
with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more
than
the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her
child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's
like
to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of
the
child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long
enough
for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have
to
depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care
of
thier child until she can find employment good enough to do
so
on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as
able
to
take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair?
If
you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would
not
be
making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not
have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send
enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head.
Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially,
either.
Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a
50/50
shared custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the
child
would be better
off with him?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare
needs. What's the difference if she provides that, or he does?

Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not
work enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect
him
to take care of a child?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it
is
acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say
doesn't
have the means?
The courts think like that too.

No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support
his
child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody?- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support
his
child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody?

Actually, I did not say that, I was asking the question why is what
is
acceptable for you not for your ex (again)?

Basic needs. That is the key. She IS providing them--he CANNOT.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Basic needs are all a person need to survive. What does she need the
money for?

So you don't think the father should pay for 50% of the child's basic
needs?

Extras? Sorry, but extras are NOT needed to survive, only
to make life more enjoyable.

So you arew saying that if the custodial parent can provide the child's
basic needs, then the NCP should not have to pay child support?

NO one should have to pay "child support". Anyone who has custody of a child
is responsible for the care of said child............ period. Why you can't
grasp such concept escapes me.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 11, 9:54 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 11, 12:18 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

news

--
[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 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray
wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing
to
swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that
they
are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to
foolishly
proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with
their
children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be
coming
up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned,
but
instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for
him
to
make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is
driving
up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while
he
is
here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to your
ex?
Why
haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very
often.
They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't
unfit.
He
lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child
would
have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on
Sarah's
shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need
money
from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah
wouldn't
have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough
money
to
visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't
have
to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the
custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off
that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child
with,
wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with
the
father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare
min,
she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most
likely
want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's.
That
would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a
short
arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more
employable
so she woun't have to depend on her ex.
Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until
she
can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is
the
child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as
well
as
she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be
making
these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the
money
to
support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help
keep
the
roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not
doing
well
financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a
decent
job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50
shared
custody agreement--HE left.

He left the MOTHER! That the child is not with him is because the
mother
would NEVER allow such an arrangement. Get it right!

Oh come on, Chris. He left the state where the child was living,. He
left
even though the child spent 50% of her time with him. He walked out
on
his
entire life there. HE chose to leave and, obviously, in the process,
he
left the child. He took his shoes. He took his underwear. He took
his
toothbrush. But he LEFT his child!!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's the difference between married's and unwed's then? The unwed's,
mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does Sarah deserve child
support just because she was married to the child father? I think she
had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who she knew was flakey
when it comes to work, and now she want's this man, who can't even
support himself, to support her and the child.

Then you are not reading everything she wrote. She is asking for a small
amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not
her.
And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age
child.

As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal
difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the
mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the
get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or
visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are*
fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral
difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they
have
a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

She is asking for a small
amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not
her.
And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age
child.
She is demanding money. The gap is her ex, and the money is how she
want's to fill it.
The child is school aged, so how much is child care for after, or
before school, and why can't she get subsidized child care if she
works and pay's taxes, and what is the latchkey she say's is the
reason she can not get the childcare when she had it at one point in
time?

Have you asked her those questions? Or have you automatically assumed the
worst because you have decided you don't like her?



As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal
difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the
mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the
get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or
visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are*
fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral
difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they
have
a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text -

IfMarried fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother
toward the child, why do they get screwed in court when it comes to
custody?

Uh--they are not married any more after they are divorced.


Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to
petition the court for any form of custody or visitation.
That is false, since no custody is established until there is a court
paper from a judge stating a custody agreement.

No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not tell the man
that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically rests with the
mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the father. Custody
does not need to be established by a court if there is only a mother, does
it?

A lot of fathers are
ignorant to this, as you are, and assume what you stated to be true,
but in fact it is false.

Really? Explain to me how a man who does not know he is a father gets
custody of a baby he does not know exists.

The reason mothers try to keep the fathers from taking the children
for visit's is because there is no legal obligation to bring the child
back. Until a custody order is established, who ever is in possession
of the child is the CP.

Exactly!


A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other
before they have a child. And a financial difference.
Legality doesn't know moral, sweetheart, and that has no place in a
court of law-NEXT!

Oh, you are only talking about courts of law. And yet YOU claim that Sarah
is wrong for even thinking about a legal resolution with her daughter's
father. Hmmmm....courts only count when they are on your side, huh?

"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
news


--
[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 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message



...





On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
Chris wrote:

Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to
swap
positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that
they
are
RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly
proclaim
that they are being "FAIR".

Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their
children.
As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be
coming
up
to
spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but
instead
will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him
to
make
an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is
driving
up
later in the week.
She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he
is
here, just spend a few hours after school

--

Sarah Gray

So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex?
Why
haven't you done so as of yet?

Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very
often.
They
had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit.
He
lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would
have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on
Sarah's
shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money
from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't
have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money
to
visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have
to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the
custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off
that
she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with,
wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the
father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare
min,
she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most
likely
want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That
would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a
short
arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more
employable
so she woun't have to depend on her ex.
Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she
can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the
child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well
as
she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why.

You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be
making
these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money
to
support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep
the
roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing
well
financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a
decent
job
that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50
shared
custody agreement--HE left.

He left the MOTHER! That the child is not with him is because the
mother
would NEVER allow such an arrangement. Get it right!

Oh come on, Chris. He left the state where the child was living,. He
left
even though the child spent 50% of her time with him. He walked out on
his
entire life there. HE chose to leave and, obviously, in the process, he
left the child. He took his shoes. He took his underwear. He took his
toothbrush. But he LEFT his child!!

No doubt she most certainly will have him ARRESTED should he attempt to
take
the child. Strike TWO.

And you know this---how? ESP?

"Gini" wrote in message
news:A_G7j.24049$0O1.18954@trnddc05...

"Chris" wrote
.........................

Correction: SHE did by interfering with the child being with him.
He places the child in the car saying "we're moving 10 hours away", and
she
will immediately prevent it. He secretly takes the child with him, and
she
will have him arrested and take the child away from him. Am I wrong?
====
Geeze Chris--That ranks right up there on the logic scale with Very
Determined's assertion that men
can't be equal to women because women bear children.

chuckle Must be a full moon. The loonies are out in force.