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]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

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

Child support is the total amount of money both parents are expected
to
provide for the care and maintenance of their minor joint children.

Correction: "Child support" is the total amount of free money that the
father is to pay to the mother to use for whatever purposes suit her
fancy.

Prove it.

Once again, can't prove a negative. How about YOU prove that the mother
EARNS it, and that she MUST use it for a particular purpose.

I asked you to offer some proof YOUR statement above is true and accurate.
If it is just your opinion (CS is free money only paid by fathers and
mothers don't have to spend it on children) that is fine. But you keep
tossing out alternatives for me to prove. On another thread I posted
information about CS accountability where the CP's can be required to
provide spending records and sworn statements regarding CS use. IOW - I
don't think your statement is true, but I want to give you a chance to
explain what you said if it is your opinion.

"Chris" wrote in :

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

B I N G O !


So all he had to do was not move. I don't understand how that is so
difficult- What's the difference between being unemployed here and
unemployed there?

"Chris" wrote in :

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!



Prove it.

"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
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:_bOdnSvRiLd3sfranZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"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,

And it has worked out well? Did mom come to accept the arrangement?
And
has it worked out well for your daughter as well? I am all for 50/50
custody as the default option whenever it is possible.

No you're not; unless, of course, "possible" is unilaterally defined by
the
mother or her designated advocate.

One day you may grow up and ralize what a selfish, unreasonable person you
really are, Chris.

I doubt it. People like Chris never manage to own up to their own
shortcomings

--
[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, 12:50 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.

Thus NO parenting by one's father is better than SOME parenting.........

Just curious: During this grace period, is the father "responsible" for the
child or is he not?





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.

Except for the ones that "drop off" their children at a safe haven.


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.

--
[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
:


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?

Argumentum ab annis.





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.

Feel free to present your supporting facts he

__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________ .

"Chris" wrote
"Sarah Gray" wrote
...........................
What truth? You say fathers have no rights, but the facts do not bear
that out.

Feel free to present your supporting facts he
===
You got waay too much time on your hands, Chris. Proof? See below.
===

__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________ .

--
[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 news:XdR9j.18041$yV5.5719
@newsfe15.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
3.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:s5J9j.17371$Rf5.136
@newsfe13.phx:

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

Feel free to list all these rights:
_____________________________________________

__________________________________________________ ________________

__________________________________________________ ________________


__________________________________________________ ____________________
_
__


__________________________________________________ ____________________
_
_


__________________________________________________ ____________________


__________________________________________________ ____________________
_
__ .

Use the back side of the page if you need more space.


He has the same rights I do, unless he chooses to divest himself
of
those rights, which he has.

You have my permission to fill in the blanks too. You can start
with
post-conception rights.

We're not talking about post-conception rights.

OH? What are we talking about, PRE-conception rights?


Parental rights. Pre-conception rights have to do with determining ones
*status* as a parent.

And post-conception rights?

My ex already made that decision.

He has already assumed
the responsibility of being her parent.

How so?


By being her father, in an active role, before he moved.

So if I repair your vehicle regularly for a couple of years, and then move
away, I am STILL responsible to be your auto mechanic.


He cannot just walk away; I

certainly cannot.

Yes you can.

Prove it.

Guess I can't because I have no idea whether or not you have two functioning
legs.

"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
news

--
[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.

Because they are not longer with us.

You actually took me literally! LOL

No, Chris, I simply responded to your idiotic statement. In our modern
society money is a necessity.

Uhuh. And so are flat panel TVs.

If it were not, you would not be so h*ll-bent
on collecting every penny of rent due to you, and evicting those with the
audacity to not pay.

I don't recall saying they paid money, did I? And even if they do, your
statement still is a non sequitur.

Oh, of course, Chris. Anything that does not agree with you or that you
cannot answer is a non sequitur, or irrelevant, or a red herring, or a blue
herring......Hey--I like that. One herring, two herring, red herring, blue
herring.....someone should write a book about it!

"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
:

"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 !

There was a farmer had a dog and
BINGO was his name-o
B-I-N-G-O (etc)