If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#911
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Chris" wrote in
: How do you contribute materially to a child in a *modern* society without spending money on goods and services? Like I said, ask the first people. Cmon', don't be afraid. What do ancient people have to do with houw goods and services are procured today? This game is getting old... Especially when you refuse to address the TRUTH. What truth? You say fathers have no rights, but the facts do not bear that out. |
#913
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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 . 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. Can't prove a negative. But then again, you already knew that (I think). How about YOU prove that she must spend it on any particular thing. CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent. Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS accounting. The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on the children by expense category. |
#914
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 12:53 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message snip No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not tell the man that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically rests with the mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the father. Custody does not need to be established by a court if there is only a mother, does it? Which would lead to her being in possession of the child, Ah, yes, children as possessions--just like dogs, cats, and toilet seats. Sweet. That's just how the Cp's and CS man-ghouls treat thier children, and I see no reason to sugar-coat it. If you want to be kissing Sarahs ass, and tell her she is doing the right thing, well then you need to extent that to ALL cp's, and CS recipients. What is good for one is good for the other. Nonsense.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Nonsense/discrimination????!! So you ARE saying that only some single mothers deserve child support, meaning that only some children deserve to be supported by two/both parents. I knew something was wrong with you. Please explain why some women should get child support while others shouldn't-mind now that *all* children are deserving to be supported by both parents. Single mothers can be fit into categories of women who get 100% of CS (non-TANF cases), women who get some portion of CS (TANF cases with pass-throughs), and women who get no CS (TANF cases with no pass-throughs). The latter two categories of mothers are "assumed" to be unable to provide any portion of a CS order and therefore do not support their own children. |
#915
|
|||
|
|||
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] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message .102... "Chris" wrote in news:ufI9j.24068$Qf1.14614 @newsfe07.phx: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 33.102... "Chris" wrote in news:gDA9j.20283$1C4.707 @newsfe10.phx: Nooooooo---of course not, Chris-------"child support is free money paid to mothers by fathers" is not sort of sweeping generalization. Not at all. It's a statement of FACT. No, it is not. Child support is money paid by noncustodial parents to support their children. Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems fit......... PERIOD! I have already said that I am able and willing to provide my ex husband with receipts for goods and services procured for my daughter. Irrelevant. That has NO bearing on the truth of my claim. Internal truths have no value until they become external truths based on agreement with others about common sense or facts. Your statement does not rise to the level of external truth because it excludes fathers, it suggests the absence of any CS spending accountability, and it assumes mothers are not trustworthy to spend CS money on children. |
#916
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Bob Whiteside" wrote ............................... CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent. Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS accounting. The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on the children by expense category. === In theory, of course. |
#917
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Gini" wrote in message news:HmW9j.5994$L91.1601@trndny05... "Bob Whiteside" wrote .............................. CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent. Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS accounting. The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on the children by expense category. === In theory, of course. I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in family law is hard to accept sometimes. When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a totally fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed and notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described as a "draft" and not the finished product. I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing the variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to show she was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge protected her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No evidence. No perjury. Simple. Screw the dad! She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to sign the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy. |
#918
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Bob Whiteside" wrote "Gini" wrote "Bob Whiteside" wrote .............................. CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent. Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS accounting. The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on the children by expense category. === In theory, of course. I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in family law is hard to accept sometimes. When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a totally fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed and notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described as a "draft" and not the finished product. I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing the variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to show she was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge protected her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No evidence. No perjury. Simple. Screw the dad! She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to sign the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy. === Of course, because to the court, it doesn't matter. Florida statute requires all parties to file a financial affidavit with the court, and support cannot be set without it. But...in our case, the ex filled it out with all her expenses and to the item "Actual expenses for the child(ren)," she totaled $300.00. Yep. Right there it was--She actually spent $300. of the $1200. CS on the kids. No matter--this mandatory document that must be submitted to the court for the establishment of a child support order, was never even looked at by the judge. He didn't give a **** what it said. Support is set at the guidelines amount. Period. Rhetorically, does anyone really believe that if the NCP exercises his right under law to require an accounting of CS expenditures, that the court will actually audit it? Family law judges simply refuse to be encumbered by details. |
#919
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Gini" wrote in message news:ksZ9j.5764$Xh1.5273@trndny03... "Bob Whiteside" wrote "Gini" wrote "Bob Whiteside" wrote .............................. CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent. Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS accounting. The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on the children by expense category. === In theory, of course. I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in family law is hard to accept sometimes. When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a totally fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed and notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described as a "draft" and not the finished product. I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing the variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to show she was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge protected her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No evidence. No perjury. Simple. Screw the dad! She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to sign the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy. === Of course, because to the court, it doesn't matter. Florida statute requires all parties to file a financial affidavit with the court, and support cannot be set without it. But...in our case, the ex filled it out with all her expenses and to the item "Actual expenses for the child(ren)," she totaled $300.00. Yep. Right there it was--She actually spent $300. of the $1200. CS on the kids. No matter--this mandatory document that must be submitted to the court for the establishment of a child support order, was never even looked at by the judge. He didn't give a **** what it said. Support is set at the guidelines amount. Period. Rhetorically, does anyone really believe that if the NCP exercises his right under law to require an accounting of CS expenditures, that the court will actually audit it? Family law judges simply refuse to be encumbered by details. The reason the judge gave for not entering my spreadsheet analysis into evidence was because she didn't want to take the time to go through it. Similarly, the same judge wouldn't allow me to testify about our previous and current tax positions because I wasn't a CPA and therefore couldn't be an "expert witness". They just make up crap on the fly to prevent the real facts from coming out. (My anecdote is from the pre-guidelines days so the expenses were important in setting the need for CS and SS. When the guidelines came out my CS was lowered even though my income was higher.) My attorney told me the judges are lazy and don't want to have to think or get into any details. It was about this time I came to the realization family courts are not about justice and fairness. And paying an attorney to coach me behind the scenes was the way to go since the results were going to be the same with or without an attorney. |
#920
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
wrote in message ... On Dec 18, 12:50 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 15, 1:39 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "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 ... 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. Nor did I claim so. Your point? 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 .... being with her father. indulging a man who moved 10 hours away just because he had the "right" to do so. That's right; it's the mother's "RIGHT" to keep her child away from the father. You GO girl! It's the CHILD'S right to have a safe, consistent, secure environment to grow up in, Chris. 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. 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!! 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. Perhaps in your little world everyone kowtows to you or is evicted, but not in the real world. 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. It's the mother's force or threat thereof which precludes him from being with "his child". Not taking the child with him (moving away) simply eliminates a whole LOT of grief. Either way, the end result is the child NOT being with him. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, poor little Chris. Silly women are just not listening to Chris tell them about the rights of the MAN, as opposed to the rights of a mere child or a lowly woman. You were born out of time, Chris. You should have been born back when men were the rulers of the households. Unless he really wants to be a father to her. His choice. Untrue. The child is away from the father because he moved away from her. Yes, Chris, because HE chose to move. The mother is not required to cater to him. The child is not required to disrupt her life every 6 months because of him. He is 1/3 of the people involved here, and the other 2/3 have lives, too. If he wants to be involved, he can go back to where he chose to move from, where the other 2/3 live. the mother REFUSES to allow the child to go be with him. Rather amusing that this fact eludes you.. Rather amusing that you think the other 2 OWE the MAN to the point of having the responsibility of making sure that they convenience him, even if it drastically inconveniences them. 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. "Father's rights", which actually don't exist, have no bearing on the truth of my claim. There is no thruth to your claim, Chris. Only narrow-minded selfishness.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But only if the parents were married, right? It is your opinion that only children of once wedded parents should be supported? I didn't say that. I said that married parents are both automatically for the children they create. But, as far as unmarried parents go, both should have equitable post-conception rights. Since the woman has a certain number of days to walk away from parenthood via safe-haven laws, the man should have the same right and the same amount of time to do so. Since men have only a certain amount of time to contest paternity, women should have only that same amount of time to declare paternity. Make the playing field equal. If both decide that they want to parent the child, and they do not wish to marry or live together as a family, 50/50 joint custody should be the default ruling. Now if, from that, you think I said that children of unmarried parents do not need to be supported, you are reading something into it that isn;' there.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What you just said contadicts the statement that "all children have a right to be supported by both of thier parents". Either all children deserve support from both parents, or they don't. You didn't say *some* children deserve to be suported by both parents, as you should have if you don't feel that single, never married parents don't have a responsibility to thier children. You are not comprehending what I am saying. Ideally. parents are married before creating children. In that case, they will automatically be supported by both parents. They *deserve* to be supported by both parents. But that does not always happen, does it? Then again, I am talking to the same person who stated that "the State should take those children from the unwed mothers and give them to couples" because you didn't feel the unwed parent had a right to ask for child support. That I did not say. What I said was that men and women should have equitable post conception rights. A woman has a right to drop a child off at safe haven and renounce her parental rights and responsibilities forever. Men should have similar safe haven rights, and be able to renounce their parental rights and responsibilities, wiithin the same time frame that women can. So if a woman has a right to safe haven for the first week after her child's birth, the man should have a right to safe haven for one week after he is told he is a father. Since legality doesn't see morality (why you would feel an unwed mother is not moral is beyond me), all mothers who are CP are treated equally-as it should be-since you feel all fathers have an obligation to support basic needs of thier children. I did not say that, either. You are missing the pice about equitable post comception rights. Once the man has decided to be a father, however, he can no longer walk away. NOW he is responsible for that child. Hopefully with 50/50 shared custody. But if that is not a possibility, then he (or she, depending on who the NCP is) must pay 50% of the child's basic needs. But only of the basic needs--no requirement to pay for anything else. Unless you feel that only some women are entitled to child support, I don't think **any** women are entitled to child support. Only **children** are entitled to child support. Let the women take care of themselves. They're adults. and only some men have a responsibility toward thier children. Fathers are responsible for half the basic needs of their children. Hopefully provided during their 50% of the time with the children. If not, then the cost of 50% of the child's basic needs. Which is it, please? Mind now that unmarried single mothers only get child support and not CS and alamony that divorced parents get to rob from the NCP. See above. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sacramento County, CA -- Review shows more child-neglect deaths:12-year-old girl wasted away to 23 pounds, even after six separate reportsto Child Protective Services about the child | fx | Spanking | 0 | September 14th 07 04:50 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | February 24th 07 11:01 AM |
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 13th 04 12:35 AM |