child support review objection

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in :

I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice
what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would
have been neglecting my daughter!

Untrue.


SO I should have just left her at her preschool that Monday when he was
supposed to pick her up?

I get it! Picking up your daughter from school one day translates to being
responsible for TWICE as much as you agreed.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in news
And just how do you know that he chose to move away from Sarah?

Self report?

Does that mean that you reported it yourself? Or he reported it to
you?

It means that she reported it herself.


I never said such a thing. He said he moved because he could not find a
job
in all of metro Detroit.

I was unaware that he invited you to tag along.

"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
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

It's a simple "YES'" or "NO" question. Please answer it that way.


It's a loaded question, so I was qualifiying my "yes".

It's not loaded at all. A loaded question forces the respondent to
admit by implication to something regardless of how they answer. NOT
the case here. Either handing the money to the parent supports a child
or it does not. Which is it?


The act of handing money to the child's custodial parent does not
automatically support the child.

BINGO! See how simple the answer is?

A responsible and honest custodial
parent will use those funds to help support their child. It's not a
simple yes or no question.




I'm all
for a system requiring accountability.

Translation: "I'm all for a system requiring a man to give FREE
cash
to a
woman".


No, I'm all for a system that treats parents and children as fair as
possible. I think parents have financial obligations to their
children, but for basic needs, not anything more.

Hence your error. Money does NOT equal basic needs. Ever see a child
eat a dollar bill?


So how are goods and serviced procured for a child without m oney
changing hands somewhere?

Perhaps you should ask the first people to walk the Earth. I'm sorry, how
DUMB of me! Everyone knows that money existed before people did.
Otherwise,
there would be no goods or services for their children. Guess I really
blew
THAT one.......

What do you permit your renters to give to you in lieu of money when they
have no money, Chris? Nuts and berries?

"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
...

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

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

That's YOUR choice.


No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal
agreement we had.

Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you
agreed
upon.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are
droll!!

I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for
twice
what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I
would
have been neglecting my daughter!

He can't explain it, Sarah. He can only rabidly defend his ideas,
which
preclude men from ever having parental responsibilities if they
don't
want
them, yet demands that they be permitted to be parents on their own
terms
when and for however long they choose to be.

Your claim is false.

No it's nor, Chris. You have flat out said that, since men do not
make
the
choice to bring the child to birth, they have no responsibility toward
the
child. I have asked point blank if it is ok for a father to divorce
and
walk away from his children scot-free, and you have responded that the
one
who made the choice to birth the child bears 100% of the
responsibility
for
the child.

You presented your false claim concerning me: "..........yet demands
that
they be permitted to be parents on their own terms when and for however
long
they choose to be."

That's right, Chris, on their own terms. You have stated that a man
should
be able to parent a child for several years (such as in a marriage)

So long as the mother allows it. Get it right.


So then you are saying that if the mother does NOT want the man to leave, he
cannot walk away?



then
walk away when he is no longer interested in parenting the child because
he
did not make the choice to birth the child. You have also stated that
Sarah
should uproot her child evey 6 months so the child can live with her
father
who chose to move 10 hours away 50% of the time--his own terms.

Don't recall saying 6 months. Regardless, I never suggested that is what
she
should do. She proclaimed EQUAL parenting which translates to 50%. Not to
mention, the fact that the mother can sever the father's parenting
privilege
at ANY moment dictates that HER terms trumps the father's terms........
next.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....no man is ever going to have any responsibility
whatsoever in your eyes, Chris, because you keep coming back to "the mother
can do what she wants, so the man should never have to be responsibile
because he does so only with her permission." What a crock of foolishness!

"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
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in :

I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice
what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would
have been neglecting my daughter!

Untrue.


SO I should have just left her at her preschool that Monday when he was
supposed to pick her up?

I get it! Picking up your daughter from school one day translates to being
responsible for TWICE as much as you agreed.

When the other paent is gone, it would seem so. Or do you see Sarah pciking
her daughter up at preschool every day that dad should have as
just....picking her up that one day--not having full responsibility for the
child because dad is now 10 hours away.

"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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

Don't cry to me because of YOUR choice.

In what way did I choose for him to leave the state?

Straw man. Care to try again?

How is that a straw man?

I can explain it: it is a straw man because Chris has no answer
to
your
question.

Guess again.

chuckle

It was not my choice for him to bail on parenting.

Well, of course not. But you are never going to convince Chris.

Correct, because I am not easily convinced by illusions. Your true
colors
are beginning to appear.

chuckle I have consistently said the same thing, Chris. If an
unmarried
mother wants to be the only parent and does not inform a man that he
is
a
father within the same amount of time that he has to contest paternity
(whatever that jurisdiction requires) then she is SOL as far as
extracting
$$$ from him. If a man is informed that he is a father, he has the
same
amount of time as the mother to access safe haven laws. When both
parents
want ot be parents, 50/50 joint custody should be the default option
of
at
all possible (which includes living close enough to exercise this
option).
If one parent does become the main caretaker, the other should only
have
to
pay 50% of the basic needs of the child as child support. NEITHER
parent
has the right to just walk away after the safe haven period just
because
they get tired of eother being a prent or dealing with the ex. If
those
are
"true colors," so be it.

Nice spill, but NOT the true colors to which I refer.

chuckle Poor Chris

My wealth is probably higher than your estimate.

Money doesn't make up for it, Chris

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snip for length.

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.

In YOUR opinion.

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!!

Likewise, if the mother really wants him to be a parent, let him parent
the
child where HE is, instead of expecting her to be shunted back and forth
twice a year for the next 13 years!!

HE chose to move, Chris. It is NOT the mother's responsibility to make sure
he gets to parent his child. That responsibility rests with him.


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.

So? Now, maybe it's HER turn to move. You see, she knows that he is not
coming back and she's cool with her daughter NOT having a father. If she
weren't, then she would be in his town as we speak.

You see, he knows he is not coming back, and he's cool with not being able
to parent his child. The responsibility rests with him, Chris.

"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
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in :

Some of them don't.

NONE of them don't.


You're right. None of them don't ever have some rights to their children
at
any point.

Which means NO responsibilities either. Now that you got it correct, enjoy
being the boss.

Did you not note the double negative? And you are still incorrect.

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

So long as the mother allows it. Get it right.


So then you are saying that if the mother does NOT want the man to leave,
he cannot walk away?
===
Very good. I think she got you there, Chris.

--
[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
news

--
[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]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

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


Correction: Because you FORBID the child to live with
him.
Be
honest!


I did no such thing. Until he moved, she lived with him for
half
the
week.

Note the PRESENT tense in my claim.

Is the only way I can not "forbid the child to live with him"
is
to
move
her to live with him in Tennessee?

Unless he decides to move elsewhere, I see no other way. Do
you?

*He* chose to move away from her. He
is forbidding himself from living with his daughter.

Correction: He chose to move away from YOU, and YOU are
forbidding
his
daughter from living with him. Get it right!

And just how do you know that he chose to move away from Sarah?

Self report?

Does that mean that you reported it yourself? Or he reported it to
you?

It means that she reported it herself.

She said that he left to get away from her?

Better question: Did he invite her to go with him? If the answer is
"yes",
then I will stand corrected.

Huh? Then it is also true that he moved to get away from his daughter,
because he did not invite her to go with him either.

Since he does not want her to be with him and the mother doesn't want her to
be with him, then what's the problem?




Sarah, did you really say that?



Seems to me that Sarah said he moved to be with his parents.

The two are NOT mutually exclusive. Nice try though.

I never made the claim that they were and have no clue where you got
that
odd idea.

Anything BUT odd being that it was implied by your context.

Actually that is not true.

"And just how do you know that he chose to move away from Sarah?" followed
with "Seems to me that Sarah said he moved to be with his parents." implies
that BOTH cannot be true at the same time. Otherwise, your statement
following your question is irrelevant.



But saying it is is just another way to keep
from answering questions to which you have no answers.