child support review objection

"Chris" wrote in :

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


A completely false statement.

Since the claim is yours, guess what? The burden of proof rests with YOU.


How can I prove he has rights any more than I can prove I have rights? He
has the same rights I have!

"Chris" wrote in
:

He didn't, what is your point. He never stated that he was leaving
townb to get away from me specifically.

I see. He assumed that you were just going to hop in the car and ride
along. Then when you didn't, he was totally shocked, but decided to
not share that with you. Got it.

He didn't ask anyone else to go with him, either.. was he moving away from
them, specifically, too?

"Sarah Gray" wrote
"Chris" wrote

Nooooooo---of course not, Chris-------"child support is free money
paid to mothers by fathers" is not sort of sweeping generalization.

Not at all. It's a statement of FACT.



No, it is not. Child support is money paid by noncustodial parents to
support their children.
===
Well, it's actually money given to the CP to use as she pleases as long as
the kid isn't starving.

"Chris" wrote in :

We're talking about contributing to the child in the family, not trading
with some retailer.



How do you contribute materially to a child without acquiring said good and
services?

"Chris" wrote in
:
He was the one who agreed to that arrangement. He reneged on it;
why
should our daughter suffer even more so that he can see her more
often
when he is not even willing to stay in the same state as her?

What "suffering" would that be?


Having to travel and uproot like that.
I did LOT of traveling as a child, and I can testify that the pain was
excruciating. LOL

You were forced to travel hundreds of miles every few weeks because your
father refused to live in the same city as you?

He chose to move that far!

But he did NOT choose for his daughter to not live with him. To
clarify, his choice not to physically take her hinged on the threat of
criminal punishment. If not, then he believed that he was welcome, by
you, to take her.


His choice to not physically take her hinged on the fact that it would
be illegal for him to do so.

"Chris" wrote in
:

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

I was unaware that it is illegal for a parent to move beyond a
certain distance away from their child. Just curious: is it by
way of road or by way of crow?



Driving miles.

How many miles is it, and what is the prison sentence for living
beyond that distance? Got any cites?


I've cited it at least twice already:


http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/reso...anuals/focb/cp
_c hange.pdf

Dead site.


Not so. Works just fine for me.







Why do you act as if I am in the wrong for saying that I would
call
the
police if he kidnapped her?

The above question is a textbook example of clouded thinking. How
exactly
does one "act" is if someone is wrong?

You seem to have the presumption that anything I do to try and
protect my child and my own parental rights is the wrong thing to
do.

Now it's "my" child again. LOL
What seems to be and what actually is are often different.

Why do you keep remarking on how I address my daughter? She has two
parents...

Yeah, but it meanders depending on whether you are talking about
rights or talking about responsibilities. Same kind of tactic used in
government "child support" propaganda. No surprise here.


She has two parents regardless whether we are talking about rights or
responsibilities. Both of her parents have both!

"Gini" wrote in news:aTF9j.7686$DO.4577@trndny08:


"Sarah Gray" wrote
"Chris" wrote

Nooooooo---of course not, Chris-------"child support is free money
paid to mothers by fathers" is not sort of sweeping generalization.

Not at all. It's a statement of FACT.



No, it is not. Child support is money paid by noncustodial parents to
support their children.
===
Well, it's actually money given to the CP to use as she pleases as
long as the kid isn't starving.

Nope. Not all custodial parents are women. Most, maybe, but not all.
Therefore Chris's statement is wrong, and so is yours.

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:
He was the one who agreed to that arrangement. He reneged on it;
why
should our daughter suffer even more so that he can see her more
often
when he is not even willing to stay in the same state as her?

What "suffering" would that be?


Having to travel and uproot like that.
I did LOT of traveling as a child, and I can testify that the pain was
excruciating. LOL

You were forced to travel hundreds of miles every few weeks because your
father refused to live in the same city as you?

If true, it partly explains how screwed up he is.




He chose to move that far!

But he did NOT choose for his daughter to not live with him. To
clarify, his choice not to physically take her hinged on the threat of
criminal punishment. If not, then he believed that he was welcome, by
you, to take her.


His choice to not physically take her hinged on the fact that it would
be illegal for him to do so.

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

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:WvCdnV_T99lMY_janZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:XJm9j.17327$Rf5.4274
@newsfe13.phx:

He was the one who agreed to that arrangement. He reneged on it;
why should our daughter suffer even more so that he can see her
more
often
when he is not even willing to stay in the same state as her?

What "suffering" would that be?


Having to travel and uproot like that

And then there is the education issue as well.

Correct, because education does not exist where the father lives.


She cannot go to school in two places, you are being ridiculous.



That is the understatement of the year.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
...

"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]
"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?

Who said that I permit them to give me ANYTHING? WIth all due
respect,
my
contract with tenants simply aint' your business.

Well, Chris, you did state in antoher post that you walked into living
space
of one of your renters and saw all sorts of Christmas presents, but
they
hadn't paid rent, so you evicted them. Were they attempting to take
your
advice and live without money? But you evicted them anyway?

My only advice to them was "pay or quit". And then, ONLY because it is
mandated by law.

Child support is mandated by law, Chris.

And yet I have never paid a dime in child support which will be 17 years
next month. :-)

Is there a court order for you to do so? Or do you have it worked out
another way?



I received 50/50 custody when my daughter was less than2 years old, over the
objections of her mother who didn't want me to have ANY overnights,