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]
"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?

Until you get it right or I wear out; whichever comes first.



"CS is free money" - Not true.

TOTALLY true. It certainly aint' earned.

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.

Nor have I ever claimed so.

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.

That a hand has five fingers is not true either.


Fathers receiving CS have equal discretion in how to spend CS too. CS is
for the care and maintenace of minor children.

"For the children". Ah, doesn't that just make you feel good? No matter how
you present it, the OWNER of the money determines what it's for; and don't
you forget it!

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.

That's the mother's contract with the state, thus irrelevant.




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.

Not the "statements" to which I refer; it is the RARE practice, which
translates to "rare exception".

They are facts.

--
[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
...

"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!

My example is not rare at all. The family law language requiring details
of
household expenditures is fairly common and required by most states.

Ignoratio elenchi. I don't know what world YOU live in, but in the REAL
world, such accountability is very rare.

I know
of one case (my own) where the form was submitted but not signed. There
can
be court sanctions for failing to comply with court ordered discovery.
And
there can be sanctions for perjury, i.e. signing a false declaration.
Whether or not those sanctions get enforced is left up to judicial
discretion.

Which makes such accountability even RARER!



My personal experience is the judges are biased and protect women. But in
the end, all a judge has to do to cover their butt is to say something
like
"I considered the relevance of all the facts and testimony before the
court"
and it's a done deal. So the issue is wishy-washy judges who are biased,
not what women do.

Nonsense. Although the judge is the gun, guess whose hand it's in.



BTW - Here is an another example of what I am saying. When the judge in
my
case didn't like the way my ex was being pressured to testify with more
candor, the judge interjected herself and either cut off the questions or
took over asking her own questions designed to get the answer she wanted
to
hear. There were several times it appeared the judge was representing my
ex
rather than being a third party finder of fact.

"Appeared"? Now THAT'S an understatement.

"teachrmama" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"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
===
Ah, yes--"The World According to Chris." Heh, I have a 12 year old like
that.
He continually redefines the world according to his current agenda. Take the
Phila. Eagles, for instance--when they win, he wears his jersey; when they
lose,
he hides the jersey under his bed. I thought it had something to do with
puberty.

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

Enlighten me.

--
[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
:

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

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,

Not in practical terms.


Irrelevant. We're not talking about practical terms, we are talking
about facts. The fact is that at the very least, SOME men have rights
to their children. Therefore, you cannot say that ALL men are not
responsible for their children.

For some reason, the topic strayed from whether or not women pay
"child support" to how many men have rights. That SOME women pay men
does not change the fact that practically speaking, men pay women. You
can ALWAYS find exceptions to any rule. [For what it's worth, women
being forced to pay is JUST as wrong!]

But even if most of the time, men pay women child support, it is not as
if the statutes say that men pay women. Noncustodial parents pay
custodial parents. There is no "rule" that men pay women child support.

............ on paper.

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"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.

Enlighten me.
===
No thanks.

--
[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
...

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.

Nor do they invalidate it. To believe otherwise is to deny MOST laws.

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

I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above statements.

which is
consistent with my above comment.

--
[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
:

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

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

It is YOU, rather, who is in denial. EVERY time I ask for
evidence to support your claims, you come up with exactly ZERO.

I don't see you supporting your claim that no men have parental
rights.

Tu quoque. Can you say "N E G A T I V E"?

I have already brought examples of men who retain full custody of
their children, and other demonstrations that they and other men
retain rights to their children.

The ONLY thing that you demonstrated was that some men have legal
custody of the children. That says NOTHING about any rights.


The fact that they have legal custody shows that fathers have rights to
their children.

Not even CLOSE.

Many fathers have *physical* custody of their
children.If they had no rights to their children, they would not have
custody.

And if thieves had no right to the loot, they would not have
possession.......

--
[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
...


--
[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



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.

Great, Chris. Now you are comparing children and cars. You
certainly
do
have a high opinion of children--they are possessions--like cars.
Geesh!

Study the concept of "analogy", and then get back to me.

It's not analagous, Chris. Children aren't property.

CLEARLY, you lack a basic understanding of analogies.

Oh, no, I understand analogies just fine. It's just that what you are
trying to use as an analogy is NOT analogous!

Just what does the term "analogy" mean to you?

--
[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 news

Just because men do not have the same post-conception choices as women
does
not mean they are not responsible for children they have decided to
parent.

What do you mean by "decided to parent"?

Taken on the responsibilities of being an active parent by choice.

Brilliant answer. "Why is the sky blue? Because its blueness makes it blue".