child support review objection

"Sarah Gray" wrote
"Gini" wrote
.............................................
===
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.
=====
What is it about my statement that is wrong?

--
[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...
wrote in
:

On Dec 13, 12:00 am, Sarah Gray wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote
...@ gmail.com wrote in
message

news:ec28f535-6104-491f-a5e0-6e361e881891
@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com
...

The *extras* are misspelled. It should be *lifestyle* not
*extras*, because a lot of people that do have the *extras* also a
lifestyle that affords them the *extras*. She needs to live within
her means. NEXT!

No--lifestyle is saying that because an NCP earns $2500 per month,
he must pay $600 in child support. And if he earns $4000 per
month, he must pay $950 per month. With basics only costing $500
per month total, the child support *should* be $250 per parent.
The extra above that $250 for basic needs is what lifestyle support
is. (I'd be rude and bark "NEXT" but I can't see what that would
accomplish)

Exactly! I have no desire to bleed my ex dry. I just want him to step
up and be responsible at a *reasonable* level.

I have no desire to bleed my ex dry. I just want him to step up
and be responsible at a *reasonable* level.
But as soon as he is unable to cater to your money demands, you won't
bleed him dry, just call the law for CS enforcement-lol
If you don't plan on calling the law then why have the CS order? You
will either get your free money, or your ex will go to jail (just like
money to you since this is all about revenge.)
Your ex is probably taking his girlfriend out instead of paying free
money to you.


He insisted on the order in the first place. I don't have to call anyone
for enforcement. If he can't hold down a job in order to support his
child, that's his problem. If it came to them trying to jail him, I
would request that they not (which is what my mother did with my father)

Telling them that he is not paying IS a request to jail him. DON'T be a
phony hero.



I'd be rude
and bark "NEXT" but I can't see what that would accomplish

And seeing how as somebody who is hounding a person for money because
they feel entitled to it, and too lazy to work for it themself, I can
see how you would think I am rude. NEXT!


I do work for the money. He is not reimbursing me for half the basic
costs of raising her, which he should be.

Why?

--
[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 :

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?

Why don't you ask the first people who walked the Earth.

--
[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
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

You didn't answer the rest of my question. Are you talking about
financial
contributions?

I suppose if one could gain nourishment from chewing on a dollar
bill, then the answer would be "yes". Sewing enough of them
together could probably provide clothing too. For that matter, with
an ample supply you might even be able to provide warmth by burning
them.

If there was some way he could provide his share of her expenses by
procuring those goods and services for her directly, I would be all
for that.

Untrue.


How so? If there was a way form him to do that, I'd go for that.

No you wouldn't.


However, this is no way for him to buy her groceries, pay for latchkey,
and take her shopping for school clothes from 10 hours away.

That's correct; and he is 10 hours away because that is EXACTLY the way you
want it to be!



The thing is, he's not here, parenting her, to be able to.

Nor is she there where he is able to parent her. And whose choice,
again, is it that she is not there?

That is his choice.

Strike TWO.

He decided to move away from her.

--
[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
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

then what did?

What did what?


And you accuse me of trimming my quotes as to obfuscate the issue...

NOW you get my point.

Are you going to address the fact that you have your posts set up as to
make them difficult to quote?

I have not a CLUE what you are talking about. I have been posting the same
for a lil' bit more than just a few days. If something has changed, then I
am fully unaware of it. But then again, knowing how the computer world
works, anything is possible......

"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 :

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.

Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems fit.........
PERIOD!

Prove it.

"Chris" wrote in :


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

Untrue.


There is no way the court would allow that arrangement. It would be
detrimental to her education and socialization.

"Chris" wrote in news:WZH9j.24065$Qf1.4937
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:B0A9j.24038$Qf1.21467
@newsfe07.phx:

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

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

He has the right to, but doesn't our daughter deserve to
see
both of
her
parents regularly?

No. That's why you don't allow it.


I allow it. He can see his daughter whenever he wants to.

In case you were not aware, seeing someone requires both a
time
AND
a place.

It also requires not being 10 hours away.

Nah, REALLY? I thought I had that covered by a "place".

Ok, so he doesn't have a place to see her that is not 10 hours
away.

But he HAS a place, doesn't he.

Not close enough to her.

Thanks to YOU.

How is it my fault he moved?

"Chris" wrote in
:

"Chris" wrote in
:

He cannot be an active parent from 10 hours away. Neither could I
.If he wants to reduce himself to being a visitor in her life, and
not a parent, there is not much I can do about it.

That's correct; but you can do EVERYTHING about YOUR choice to
reduce him to such status.


It was not my choice.

Untrue.


In what way was it my choice for him to move?

I want him to be an active parent.

No you don't.


Uh yes, I do.


I should not have
to give up my own rights as a parent in order to facilitate his
parenting time.

But he should.

When did I say that? The fact that we both have rights to her means
neither one of us supersedes the other.

"Gini" wrote in news:z5I9j.8714$DO.2346@trndny08:


"Sarah Gray" wrote
"Gini" wrote
............................................
===
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.
=====
What is it about my statement that is wrong?




Your use of "she".