child support review objection

"Chris" wrote in news:Yibaj.48317$KU2.45356
@newsfe11.phx:

I know, it's that 2% NCPs who are mothers. Sorry.


That's still not *none*.

Nor did I claim so. I was speaking on practical terms. Look it up.


Your argument only holds up if *no* men have rights,



Can you come up with a better way of a noncustodial parent to pay for
their children's needs?

Irrelevant question.


It's not irrelevant. You say a child can be provided for in a modern
society without any money changing hands between anyone...

"Chris" wrote in news:0jbaj.48318$KU2.15176
@newsfe11.phx:

Why should she have to travel to see her father?

Why should her father have to travel to see her?

Why can't he travel to
see her?

Why can't YOU travel to see her?


Why should I have to travel to see her when *he* made the choice to
move?






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.

"Illegal" is meaningless unless YOU initiate the legal proceedings.
[The SCARIEST part about people who are in the driver's seat is
that
many of them don't even know that they are!]


Um, no. It was one of the court workers who kept saying that he could
lose his legal custody by abandoning her like he did.

Irrelevant. I am referring to YOUR choice; not some two-bit court
worker.

My choice for her father to move that far away? His actions have legal
ramifications for him... not my fault.



The statute I
cited makes it illegal for him to change her legal residence (his
home
or my home) without permission from myself or the court.

BINGO! "MYSELF".


Yes. If I don't give him permission, he has to get permission from the
court. That's how it works. I am not obligated to send my daughter to
live so far away from me. He *also* would have had every right to not
agree to *me* moving out of state with her.


I am not
required to agree with every decision he makes.

Isn't that usually the case when you're the boss?


I'm not the boss.

He had an opportunity to
petition the court; he rejected that option.

Irrelevant.


It's *not* irrelevant! There are procedures one needs to complete before
moving so far from their child or moving a child away from their other
parent. If you don't comply with regulated procedures, you can't
complain that the law is doing you wrong.

"Chris" wrote in
:


You have said before that "custody" *always* refers to "sole physical
custody".

Refresh my memory with a quote please.



http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...1b7840eec5fe88





He cannot have her half of the time because he lives too far away for
her to travel that much. It was his choice to create this situation,
not me.

No matter HOW many times you say the sun rises in the west, it aint'
gonna happen.







He sought full physical custody at the time of our
divorce, nearly a year before he moved.

More importantly, my guess is that he
is as knowledgable as I am of the fact that NO WAY will (did)
the mother allow him to take her. If this is inaccurate, then
I welcome her to correct me.

I would have fought it in court, or called the police if he ran
with her.

Thank you for making my point.


That I would call the police if someone kidnapped my child?

Basically.


In what way do I trample his rights as a parent

He has NO rights.


Prove it.


by calling the police on
him if he kidnapped her? Only a real asshole would take their kid
like that.



I assume he woudl do the same; most parents would.

You know this how?


Most parents love their children and would not want them
kidnapped...

Petitio principii.



My saying" I
don't want you to move out of state with our daughter" is not
what would actually kepp him from doing it.

Your point?


You said that that is what keeps his from seeing his daughter!

No I din't.

You said that he had to move out of state because I would call the
police if he kidnapped her,

I didn't say that either. Your confusion over my statements is
becoming so common that I am at the point to where I may not be able
to continue with the debate.

my mistake.

You said he was forced into the current situation because of fear of
having the police called on him.

--
[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
:

"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
:

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.

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?

His, of course. He moved.

Based on the premise that it is impossible for children to move.

Children can move only with the permission of the other parent or the
court.

B I N G O !

"teachrmama" wrote

"Gini" wrote
"teachrmama" wrote
.....................
(Even if, down the road, everything they paid was called
a 'gift' because it wasn't collected by them) Sort of the Catch 22 of
NCPhood.
=======
Did you have to bring that up? That $7,000. "gift" still ****es me off
;-(

Just keep thinking about the karma she built up by letting that happen.
===
:-)

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
news:ZQR9j.9737$c82.2885@trnddc01...
The general principle is that women who have been given the power to make
unilateral post-conception reproductive choices should not also be given
the
power to impose the cost of their unilateral choices on men who are
excluded
from these choices.

AMEN!



[The swan]

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.
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.

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.

Unless you feel that only some women are entitled to child support,
and only some men have a responsibility toward thier children. 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.

--
[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 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,

No mothers anywhere deserve child support. They are adults and can pay
their own way. (If they are still minors, they might receive child
support
from their own parent, but not for their children)

meaning that only some children deserve
to be supported by two/both parents. I knew something was wrong with
you.

Not at all. I somply believe that if a woman can walk away from
responsibility for an unwanted child through safe have, a man should be
able
to do so, too.

Yet their children "desrve" to be supported by the father. You crack me up!




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.

Every child ever born deserves a loving, 2 parent home. Absent that, they
deserve to be reared equally by mom and dad via 50/50 shared custody. But
just because someone deserves something does not mean they always get it.
A
man should not be forced into parenthood any more than a woman should be.

--
[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 18, 12:53 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:19d1a531-03a6-4fc8-b438-

...





On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:632831e8-3d8e-4d3d-98cb-

om...

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.


What she is saying is that men should have a way of deciding they don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already do*. Parents who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child can't just decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

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.

Better known as rights WITHOUT responsibilities. Makes sense to
me.............

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

My attorney made it clear to me that judges resent men who make more money
than them because they are arrogant attorneys who couldn't compete
effectively in the free market of private practice.

Imagine them doing all that law school, just to work for a collection
agency! LOL