child support review objection

"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
. 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.

Since SHE is the one who mentioned that ONE day, take it up with HER.

Well, Chris, it seems that SHE comprehended the fact that since he 1) called
and said he was moving effective immediately and 2) her daughter was at
preschool on a day that dad was supposed to pick her up, she would have to
pick up her daughter from preschool on *that day* and continue picking her
up every day that the father was 10 hours away. Which constitutes her now
providing double what their agreement was--both mother's half of the care
and father's half of the care. Despite the fact that there was only one
"first day that he had moved and mom had to pick daughter up gfrom school on
dad's day."

"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
...

"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

Did someone mention "money"?

You. Constantly. When you rant about mom's getting free money from dads.
chuckle If one does not need money to live, why are you so upset that it
is taken from dads and given to moms? Dads can live without it just as well
as moms can, right?

--
[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
...

"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.

Correct.

That responsibility rests with him.

He has no responsibility.




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.

He has no responsibility.

"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
...
snip

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.

That's not at all true, Chris. More word-game tap dancing from you. Still
no real answers, though.

--
[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 newse69j.20181$1C4.16533
@newsfe10.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:cm88j.19966$1C4.817
@newsfe10.phx:

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?


If he can find a way for our daughter to spend a substantial amount
of
time with him that doesn't require her to make 20-hour round trip car
rides, that would be awesome.

I found a way; it's called a ONE-way trip. Awesome, huh?


Why should she live with him as *opposed * to me? *He* moved away from
her. Doesn't she have a right to be able to see her mother?

No.

How is
moving her to a place where she cannot be supported properly, away from
all the rest of her family and friends a positive change for her?

However, he does not seem very willing to
do so for his daughter's sake.

*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!

Why are you making this distinction? I live in the same place as our
daughter. She was living with him half the time. He chose to move
away
from where she lived. Are you implying he moved to get away from me?

Just as much as you imply that he moved to get away from her. Unless
he
invited you to tag along, it's pretty much a given. Am I wrong?


He didn't invite her to tag along, either.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Children do not make such decisions; thus
any invitation would be meaningless.

Or any of the millions of
people in the metro Detroit area.

If
so, that's pretty selfish, seeing what it is doing to his daughter.

What is his decision to be away from you doing to "his" daughter?
[I just LOVE your argumentum ad misericordiam. You're pretty good at
it
actually.]


And my daughter should not be pitied for her father's dropping out of
her life like he has?

Then DON'T do it. And if you don't like him dropping out of her life, then
DON'T drop him. If you do, then everything's cool.

--
[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
. 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.

The night must have been longer than I thought. Thank you for pointing out
my error. The fact is NONE of them have rights.

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote

"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.

How so?
===
It's a no-brainer. Sleep on it.

"Chris" wrote in :

He didn't invite her to tag along, either.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Children do not make such decisions;
thus any invitation would be meaningless.



He didn't ask her other parent, if she could "tag along" either.

"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
...

"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.

Correct.

That responsibility rests with him.

He has no responsibility.




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.

He has no responsibility.

The fact that he demonstrates no responsibility does not mean that he *has*
no responsibility, Chris.

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in :

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

Untrue.


then what did?

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!

Even if true, non sequitur.

How is my spending time with my daughter a non sequitir, but her father
spending time with her is not?

And Chris can't understand why he is such a detriment to the father's rights
movement.