child support review objection

--
[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
snip



I can't imagine anyone besides you who would think it would be good for
a child to be brought up that way.

Among many other things you cannot imagine. Quite frankly, there are
many
who cannot imagine you keeping your child from being with her father.
Aren't
you glad I aint' one of em'?

And there are, undoubtedly, many more who cannot imagine why the father
moved 10 ours away from the child, thus putting *himself* in the position
of
no longer enjoying 50/50 shared custody.

Your conclusion simply is not supported by your premise. If what you
proclaim is true, then NO parent who moves shares 50/50 custody.

--
[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 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?

Why should he have to travel to see her when *you* made the choice to
not
let her move?

Not true, Chris. Just your fevered and blind defense of male NCPs causing
delusions again.

She says "yes", the child goes; she says "no", the child stays. Yup, just
another one of my MANY blind delusions..........

"Chris" wrote
........................

She says "yes", the child goes; she says "no", the child stays. Yup, just
another one of my MANY blind delusions..........
===
Doesn't there need to be a question from him before her response?

"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
...

"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.

That's because, once again, I can NOT prove a negative. Can you? And since
proof seems to be important to you, I asked you to prove that which
debunks
my claim.

How many times do we have to go through this?

"CS is free money" - Not true. CS is taxable to NCP's but but payments
received are tax-free to CP's. CS is money paid by NCP's plus money that is
provided by CP's. CP's have to earn (show worthiness) the ongoing receipt
of CS and earn (through employment) their portion of the total CS order.

"CS is money paid only by fathers" - Not true. Mothers who are NCP's or
have children in foster care or under youth authority supervision also pay
CS.

"Mothers (can) use CS for whatever purposes suit her fancy" - Not true.
Fathers receiving CS have equal discretion in how to spend CS too. CS is
for the care and maintenace of minor children. CS for adult children
attending school can be paid directly to the student or school in states
requiring it. CS accountability can be achieved and used to create
deviations from CS guidelines. Parents on welfare sign over their CS rights
to the state and the government decides how it is spent.


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.

NONE of what I said was an opinion. In your quest to prove me wrong, at
best, you come up with rare exceptions to the rule. Better known as
special
pleading. A nice way of stacking the deck, I might add.

Chris - It's your statement whether you consider it to be a negative that
can't be proven or not. Statements about the CS laws and how the CS system
works are not rare exceptions. They are facts.

"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
snip



I can't imagine anyone besides you who would think it would be good
for
a child to be brought up that way.

Among many other things you cannot imagine. Quite frankly, there are
many
who cannot imagine you keeping your child from being with her father.
Aren't
you glad I aint' one of em'?

And there are, undoubtedly, many more who cannot imagine why the father
moved 10 ours away from the child, thus putting *himself* in the position
of
no longer enjoying 50/50 shared custody.

Your conclusion simply is not supported by your premise. If what you
proclaim is true, then NO parent who moves shares 50/50 custody.

Enjoy your bitter little world, Chris.

"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
3.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

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

The difference being that you were MARRIED. Forget that part?


We have not been married for over a year.

Notice the PAST tense?

What the heck are you babbling about, Chris. Her ex did not leave right
after the divorce. He left more than a year later.


What does that have to do with
anything?

You REALLY don't know? Wait a minute, I forgot that I am debating with
someone who lacks a fundamental understanding of the concept of marriage.
Please forgive me.

Actually, you seem to be debating with your own internal demons, and
projecting them onto everyone in this newsgroup that disagrees with your
radical stand.

"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
:

If my memory (which aint' the greatest) serves me right, I believe she
stated they were married when he hit the road. If not, then I will
stand
corrected.

We were not married when he left in July. Our divorce was final last
September.

Didn't July come BEFORE September?

The september before the july when he left.

"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
...

"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
:

Is the only way I can not "forbid the child to live with him"
is
to
move
her to live with him in Tennessee?

Unless he decides to move elsewhere, I see no other way. Do
you?


If he can find a way for our daughter to spend a substantial
amount
of
time with him that doesn't require her to make 20-hour round
trip
car
rides, that would be awesome.

I found a way; it's called a ONE-way trip. Awesome, huh?

And then the child sees her mother---when? Or doesn't that matter
to
you?

Last I checked, this discussion was about how the FATHER can spend
substantial amounts of time with her daughter.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha---dance, dance, dance, Chris.

Indeed! I LOVE dancing to the truth.





Would the father then be responsible for making sure the child had
a
realtionship with her mother?

ONLY as much as the mother is responsible for securing a
child/father
relationship.

So if mom sent daughter to dad with a one-way ticket, then dad would
be
responsible to send child to mom with a one way ticket?

No.

Why not?

It simply does not follow.

Why not, Chris? Isn't the father just as responsible to keep the mother in
the child's life as the mother is to keep the father in the child's life?




And who is responsible for paying for all this travel?

Whatever travel you are referring to, whoever agreed to pay for it. Isn't
that like a given?

Nobody has agreed to it, Chris. But you are insisting that it should be
done--6 months with dad, 8 months with mom. So, since you are the one
insisting on it, will you be paying forthe travel?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:


My decision is not what keeps her living here.

Untrue.

Neither one of us can
make unilateral decisions about her care like moving out of state.

But there sure is one of you making a unilateral decision that she NOT
move out of state.


It's not a unilateral decision, it's the status quo!

Well THAT too.




If we
can't agree on where she should live, how do you suggest we handle
it?

Just EXACTLY the way you are right now. Afterall, YOU'RE the
boss.......... Now that I answered your question, how about answering
mine (that was asked BEFORE yours)?


I'm not the boss, Chris. Which question was that?

This one: By which measuring stick do you make decisions, what you think
is good for your daughter or what some judge says to do?







Out custody arrangement is part of a court order; if that changes,
we have to submit thos changes to the court. I cannot imagine a
judge approving such a set-up.


It would be
detrimental to her education and socialization.

In your opinion.

In any reasonable person's opinion.

"Reasonable" being a matter of opinion.


I can't imagine anyone besides you who would think it would be good
for a child to be brought up that way.

Among many other things you cannot imagine. Quite frankly, there are
many who cannot imagine you keeping your child from being with her
father. Aren't you glad I aint' one of em'?


I'm not keeping her from being with him. She was with him on a regular
basis before he decided to move, violating a court order.

And as soon as he moved, you prevented her from being with him. I was born
at night; just not LAST night.

--
[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
. 17.102...
"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?

Why should he have to travel to see her when *you* made the choice to
not let her move?


Because a child is not *expected* to have to move,

Perhaps not by YOU.

that's why there are
laws about this kind of thing...










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?

No, your choice for her to not live with him. Wake up!


It was *his* choice...

As soon as you tell me that he informed you that he does NOT want her to be
with him. in spite of any approval by you, then I will concede.

there was a procedure he failed to follow...

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.

Yeah, I know how it works alright. You give him permission, she goes,
you don't give him permission, she stays.


I don't have to give him permission.

Correct; but it's a requirement for him to have her.


I am not denying him any of his
rights

He has no rights.

by insisting my daughter not be moved away from me. He would have
had the right to do that, too. Neither one of us can make unilateral
decisions like that.


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.

Circumstances say otherwise.



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

Irrelevant.


It's *not* irrelevant!

It is TOTALLY irrelevant to the fact that he did not choose for her to
not live with him.

There are procedures one needs to complete before
moving so far from their child or moving a child away from their
other parent.

Yeah, mainly asking for permission from the mother.


And if the other parent (not mother specifically) says no; that is not
the decision that is binding. What the court decides is.

The court is YOUR advocate, not his. LOL




If you don't comply with regulated procedures, you can't
complain that the law is doing you wrong.

Tell that to Rosa Parks......


This is not a law that only applies to *some* parents, it applies to
*all* of them.

...... on paper.