child support review objection

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

And also, *his* child, *his* responsibility. Or do you also think
men have no obligations to their children?

They don't because they have no rights to their children. There's
that pesky lil' "obligations = rights" thing again.



They *do* have rights to their children.

Some of them don't. My husband has no rights toward his child--only
parental responsibilities--and only financial ones at that. But his
is a far different case than yours.

I meant in general, in most circumstances, men at the very least have
*some* rights to their children. Your case is a type which I had never
heard of before, but I'm aware of the injustices in the system. The
thing is, Chris makes generalizations based on worst case scenarios and
acts as if they apply to everyone.

Yep. Every once in a while I converse with him, trying to figure out why he
feels as he does. Perhaps he has been very hurt by the system and is
embittered about it. I don't know. But I would not want to switch the
system we have now for the system he advocates. I would rather find a
middle ground that is fair and balanced.

"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

And also, *his* child, *his* responsibility. Or do you also think
men have no obligations to their children?

They don't because they have no rights to their children. There's
that pesky lil' "obligations = rights" thing again.



They *do* have rights to their children.

Some of them don't. My husband has no rights toward his child--only
parental responsibilities--and only financial ones at that. But his
is a far different case than yours.

I meant in general, in most circumstances, men at the very least have
*some* rights to their children. Your case is a type which I had
never heard of before, but I'm aware of the injustices in the system.
The thing is, Chris makes generalizations based on worst case
scenarios and acts as if they apply to everyone.

Yep. Every once in a while I converse with him, trying to figure out
why he feels as he does. Perhaps he has been very hurt by the system
and is embittered about it. I don't know. But I would not want to
switch the system we have now for the system he advocates. I would
rather find a middle ground that is fair and balanced.

I think it would be difficult to create *any* system that would be fair
and balanced and serve people's needs, but I don't think what Chris
seems to envision as being preferable to how it is now either.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Sarah Gray" wrote
.......................

Chris only uses logic when it serves his nonsensical arguments at the
time.

Making statements contrary to the facts is not logic. And logic is not
based on perceptions and theories of relevance. For those reasons Chris
cannot backup his conclusions so he uses word games to twist definitions
and connotations of words to suit his agenda.
===
Geeze, that's a first for acs ;-).

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

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
:


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" 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]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

If he wants joint physical custody again, I would be
amenable to that in the future.

And at that point he will also have the physical
responsibilities;
but
not a moment sooner.


A parent's repsonsibilites to their child do not flip-flop
liek
that.

Then neither do their rights.


When did I say they did? He has not lost his rights to be her
parent!

Because he never had such rights.

Just saying this stuff doesn't make it so. Parental Rights are held
sacred
and are rooted in the Constitution under equal protection and due
process.
Fathers and mothers have identical parental rights unless they are
terminated or restricted by court order.

Correction: They do NOT have identical rights. You are confusing a
privilege
with a right. Mothers have rights; fathers have privileges.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

See: http://www.liftingtheveil.org/supreme-court.htm




I think a better argument would be to say the courts are
overstepping
their
authority when they take away a Constitutional right from one
parent.

Just saying this doesn't make it so. It is an illusion that fathers
have any
rights. The proof of this is clear for all to see in ANY "family"
court in the nation. The sword is ALWAYS mightier than the pen!

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. See cite above.


Chris only uses logic when it serves his nonsensical arguments at the
time.

Making statements contrary to the facts is not logic. And logic is not
based on perceptions and theories of relevance. For those reasons Chris
cannot backup his conclusions so he uses word games to twist definitions
and
connotations of words to suit his agenda.

For example?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
:


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" 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]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

If he wants joint physical custody again, I would be
amenable to that in the future.

And at that point he will also have the physical
responsibilities;
but
not a moment sooner.


A parent's repsonsibilites to their child do not flip-flop
liek
that.

Then neither do their rights.


When did I say they did? He has not lost his rights to be her
parent!

Because he never had such rights.

Just saying this stuff doesn't make it so. Parental Rights are held
sacred
and are rooted in the Constitution under equal protection and due
process.
Fathers and mothers have identical parental rights unless they are
terminated or restricted by court order.

Correction: They do NOT have identical rights. You are confusing a
privilege
with a right. Mothers have rights; fathers have privileges.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

See: http://www.liftingtheveil.org/supreme-court.htm




I think a better argument would be to say the courts are
overstepping
their
authority when they take away a Constitutional right from one
parent.

Just saying this doesn't make it so. It is an illusion that fathers
have any
rights. The proof of this is clear for all to see in ANY "family"
court in the nation. The sword is ALWAYS mightier than the pen!

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. See cite above.


Chris only uses logic when it serves his nonsensical arguments at the
time.

Bizarre statement. Care to clarify?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in :


There is no feasible way to do 50/50 with him living in another state;

"Feasible" being a matter of opinion.



It is not reasonable or feasible to expect a small child to move back and
forth like that between two homes in different states.

This opinion being relevant how?

"Chris" wrote in
:

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!


No one ever said that. The reason she does not live with him is not
because he is male. the reason she does not live with him is because he
moved away from her.


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.

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.


It is his moving that has caused the problem in the first place.


But to send the child back and forth every 6 months is just plain
cruel to
her.

How is it cruel sending a child back and forth every 6 months so
that
she
can be with her mother?

Not so she can be with her mother, Chris. So she can be with the
father
who
chose to move away from her.

Explain why the child must be sent back and forth in order to be with
the father.

Because she also has a right to be with her mother!

"Chris" wrote in :

Making statements contrary to the facts is not logic. And logic is not
based on perceptions and theories of relevance. For those reasons Chris
cannot backup his conclusions so he uses word games to twist definitions
and
connotations of words to suit his agenda.

For example?



::laughing so hard I almost peed in my pants::

"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. 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 indulging a man who moved 10 hours
away just because he had the "right" to do so. If being with his daughter
is so important to hime let HIM make the adjustment and move back.


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


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.

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

And also, *his* child, *his* responsibility. Or do you also think
men have no obligations to their children?

They don't because they have no rights to their children. There's
that pesky lil' "obligations = rights" thing again.



They *do* have rights to their children.

Some of them don't. My husband has no rights toward his child--only
parental responsibilities--and only financial ones at that. But his
is a far different case than yours.

I meant in general, in most circumstances, men at the very least have
*some* rights to their children. Your case is a type which I had
never heard of before, but I'm aware of the injustices in the system.
The thing is, Chris makes generalizations based on worst case
scenarios and acts as if they apply to everyone.

Yep. Every once in a while I converse with him, trying to figure out
why he feels as he does. Perhaps he has been very hurt by the system
and is embittered about it. I don't know. But I would not want to
switch the system we have now for the system he advocates. I would
rather find a middle ground that is fair and balanced.

I think it would be difficult to create *any* system that would be fair
and balanced and serve people's needs, but I don't think what Chris
seems to envision as being preferable to how it is now either.

Difficult, but no impossible. The first step would be for the government to
completely step out of the picture for the vast majority of people. Most
are perectly capable of handling these things on their own. If there were
no monetary incentive to keep the kids for as much time as possible to
increase CS awards, we would not see nearly as many custody disputes.

The second step is to have CS cover ONLY 50% of a child's basic needs. This
would provide an incentive for both parents to make sure the other was in
the child's life, because it is the relationship of parent and child that
creates the desire to provide extras for the child. It is not the child's
"right" to have these extras. 50/50 joint custody should, of course, be the
default arrangement. But, in situations where this is not possible, a
parenting plan should be set up to maximaze the child's time with both
parents (without, of course, forcing the child to move around the country at
the whim of either parent)

The third step is to create a more level playing field in terms of
post-conception choices for men and women.