child support review objection

--
[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]
"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.

It assumes NO such thing. Contrarily, your claim assumes that mothers
ARE
trustworthy to spend it on the children.

Now you are starting to get it.

Already "got it" LONG ago.

My claim is the same as the family law
"assumption" about CS spending. Mothers are trustworthy

....and fathers are NOT.

to spend the CS on
children until it can be proven otherwise.

Only problem is, the courts don't give a rip WHAT the mother does with the
proceeds. This "for the children" is merely an emotional appeal to secure
their agenda; mainly redistribute the wealth. Something the government
people are expert at!



To say that goats have one head
just doesn't "rise to the level of external truth" because it excludes
two-headed goats. What you present are exceptions to the rules; a
special
pleading of sorts. To say that clovers have three leafs doesn't "rise to
the
level of external truth" because it excludes FOUR leaf
clovers..............

BTW - You ignored the points some fathers get CS and the fact there are
provisions in the law to get CS accountability that are not exceptions to
the rules.

They are BOTH exceptions to the rule. The ONLY thing ignored was my response
to your claim that mine is false because fathers pay and there is spending
accountability. Directly above too!

--
[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
. 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.

Prove it, Chris.

Can't prove a negative. Explain how he chose for her to NOT be there (move)
by moving.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Gini" wrote in message
news:Mtzaj.10007$8y4.7151@trnddc07...

"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?

I was not making reference to any response.

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote

"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?

I was not making reference to any response.
=====
Really? It seems you need to brush up on your English comp.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

BTW - You ignored the points some fathers get CS and the fact there are
provisions in the law to get CS accountability that are not exceptions to
the rules.

They are BOTH exceptions to the rule. The ONLY thing ignored was my
response
to your claim that mine is false because fathers pay and there is spending
accountability. Directly above too!

Exceptions to the rule do not prove the validity of the rule. The use of
the term means exceptions "test" the rule. Exceptions prove the rule needs
to be restated to be true.

BTW - I didn't say your claim was false. I said it was not true which is
consistent with my above comment.

"Gini" wrote in message news:BNTaj.11$pi7.3@trndny02...

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote

"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?

I was not making reference to any response.
=====
Really? It seems you need to brush up on your English comp.

English comp takes second place to Chris comp. Didn't you know that?
chuckle

"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 18, 12:50 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

snip for lenghth


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 -



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.........

Don't be asinine.

Ok, I won't be like you, since that is YOUR position.




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

I don't know, Chris. During the grace period of safe haven for the
mom,
is
she responsible to keep the child warm, fed, and sheltered? Or can
she
put
it in her dresser drawer and pretend it doesn;t exist until she makes
up
her
mind?

I take that as a "yes"?








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.

Then they are no longer fathers, Chris. Just as the mothers who drop
off
children are no linger mothers.

I see. But the ones who walk away are still fathers. Your chaotic ideas
crack me up.

If they walk away after the period of time they had to make that
decision,
yes. If they have parented the child for yeasr then justdecide not to
parent the child any more, yes, they are still fathers and still have
parental responsibilities.

And just who died and made YOU boss as to how much time must pass before a
father is a father?

I think you are prposely dense, Chris. I said that there NEEDS to be an
escape hatch for men in regards to an unwanted pregnancy, just as there is
for women. And the safe haven law is a [erfect place to put that escape
hatch. And that both men and women should have the same amount of time to
walk away from an unwanted child. Since such a law doesn't exiast at the
moment, all there is is opinion on how it should be done. Permitting the
same amount of time for both parents is my opinion. Yours seems to be that
any man can walk away from a child at any time he so chooses.

To understand this: While a father is being a parent
during this interm period, is he a father?

Both are bio parents--they are deciding whether to parent the chuild to
adulthood.


It just appalls me that you think a man should
be able to walk away any time he decides not to be a father any more.

Good, be apalled. It's HEALTHY for you!

I don't believe your schlock is healthy for anyone, Chris. Even you.

"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
:

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.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome.

Thus, mothers can NOT decide that they no longer want to take on the
responsibilities of parenting. Thanks for the clarification.

Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do not happen
based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents in the picture.

Not sure what THAT means. Since you believe that men are equally parents
(rights/responsibilities), what the heck do you call it when the mother
gets
SOLE custody?

CP/NCP--just like the courts do.

--
[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
:

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.


Prove it.

Excuse me? YOU are the one making the claim, thus YOU are the one with
the burden of proof.


I did prove it. I said that I would agree to that arrangement as long as
we wewre contributing equally to her basic expenses.

That's not your poroof, that is your CLAIM. Now prove it.







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

No you wouldn't.


I already said I would. You can't speculate on what I would do beyond
what I have *stated* that I would do.

You wouldn't do it because you AREN'T doing it. Nothing to speculate.


How am I keeping him from seeing his daughter and parenting her? He
walked away from the agreement we had!

Irrelevant. Are you allowing him to have his daughter be with him to care
for her?






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!


Not true. I would rather he be living close to his daughter.

10 hours away is just what the doctor ordered to cure you from having
your daughter be with him. And since you don't want her to be with
him, the 10 hour cure works perfectly. You WANT it!


Where are you getting this? I have never said I wanted him to be 10
hours away.

Ah, but were he NOT 10 hours away, then he would be parenting her, as you
say. Since you do NOT want him to parent her, 10 hours does the trick. It
simply follows.



When have I
ever said otherwise?




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.


Chris, it was *his* choice to move with less than 12 hours notice!

But NOT his choice that your child is not with him. That is solely
YOUR choice. The proof in the fact that he takes her against your
wishes, he gets arrested. He takes her WITH your permission, then she
is with him. Something most second graders can comprehend........


It *is* his choice. He had legal channels he could go through if he
wanted to take her to live with him, just as I would have had to do had
I wanted to move.

One such "legal channel" being your allowing her to live with him.



Just because I don't think my daughter's father should move away from
her does not mean I want to divest him of all his parental rights!

He has no rights, and your choices bears this out.

--
[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
:

"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]
"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.

Congratulations, you found a rare exception to the rule. Even when the
mother is under court direction to do so, often times she doesn't and
with absolutely NO court sanctions; and you KNOW it too!

That has nothing to do with the fact that child support *can* be
accounted for.

What part of "NO court sanctions" do you NOT understand?

Not all CPs are out to get their exes....