If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#511
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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 ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message 7.102... "teachrmama" wrote in : "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 7.102... "Chris" wrote in : "My child", except when it comes to "child support"........ So are you saying that she's not my child? Must I always refer to her as "our child" even though she is clearly *my* child concurrently? And here, folks, is where we have the two-step dance. Not surprising as that is what happens when someone wants to be inconsistent to their OWN advantage. But to answer your question, she is either "my" child or "our" child regarding EVERYTHING. So, take your pick. Words, in context, DO have meaning ya know. Ah, yes, I understand. A man has a right to take his child 10 hours away and raise her without her mother because the child is HIS child, but the child is NOT HIS child is he does not wish to be a parent. A woman who does not GIVE a child to the father to raise is saying that the child is only hers, therefore the man has no rights--unless he takes the child 10 hours away--but if the mother calls the police, she is acknowledging that the child is only hers, so the man has no responsibilities. And a man has the right to participate in the raising of his child by having the child in his home--until he gets tired of being a father. Then he just walks away because he did not, personally, birth the child. Etc, etc, etc. The Two Step. Oh, yeah And this is why my brain hurts chuckle I know what you mean. I do too. "The man gives, the woman takes" keeps it simple......... "The woman births the child. The woman has 100% of the responsibility. Men just get free sex whenever they want it with no fear of consequences." Which men might that be? The ones you feel should be able to walk away from children they help create any time they want to. Like you. |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in : "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 7.102... "Chris" wrote in : "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "Chris" wrote in : If he wants joint physical custody again, I would be amenable to that in the future. And at that point he will also have the physical responsibilities; but not a moment sooner. A parent's repsonsibilites to their child do not flip-flop liek that. Then neither do their rights. When did I say they did? He has not lost his rights to be her parent! Because he never had such rights. Just saying this stuff doesn't make it so. Parental Rights are held sacred and are rooted in the Constitution under equal protection and due process. Fathers and mothers have identical parental rights unless they are terminated or restricted by court order. Correction: They do NOT have identical rights. You are confusing a privilege with a right. Mothers have rights; fathers have privileges. The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. See: http://www.liftingtheveil.org/supreme-court.htm I think a better argument would be to say the courts are overstepping their authority when they take away a Constitutional right from one parent. Just saying this doesn't make it so. It is an illusion that fathers have any rights. The proof of this is clear for all to see in ANY "family" court in the nation. The sword is ALWAYS mightier than the pen! The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. See cite above. Chris only uses logic when it serves his nonsensical arguments at the time. Making statements contrary to the facts is not logic. And logic is not based on perceptions and theories of relevance. For those reasons Chris cannot backup his conclusions so he uses word games to twist definitions and connotations of words to suit his agenda. For example? Since you asked, in a recent thread you made a comment about parents earning custody. Earning in that connotation means to establish worthiness. When you got a response you didn't like you flipped the meaning of the word "earning" to a very narrow definition of earning money, as in getting something for services rendered. Then there is the example of ascribing Sarah's ex's intent for moving which is nothing more than a speculative theory not based on fact. |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message 7.102... "teachrmama" wrote in : "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "teachrmama" wrote in : "Chris" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message 7.102... "Chris" wrote in : That's YOUR choice. No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal agreement we had. Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you agreed upon. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are droll!! I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would have been neglecting my daughter! He can't explain it, Sarah. He can only rabidly defend his ideas, which preclude men from ever having parental responsibilities if they don't want them, yet demands that they be permitted to be parents on their own terms when and for however long they choose to be. I'm just wondering why he's like this... One question women are reluctant to ask themselves is why they are trying to analyze and change men. Forget about what he says and focus on how you are reacting to what he says. For me, I sometimes take the time to try to get to the bottom of why he says what he says. I am really curious as to why he takes the stand he does. Does he really believe that men have no responsibility toward the children they father? The same way I wonder about women who insist that men are totally responsible to provide for the children they father because it is the woman's job to care for the child, and she should not have to work outside the home to provide a share of the childs needs. Do they really feel that way? Or is that just what they *wish* were the case? Both stands are unfathomable to me, and I would really like to understand where they are coming from. People have a mental template through which they filter their input and output about the world around them. In your examples, those people have very narrow mental templates that cause them to view things in the extremes and not see other possibilities that might cause them to adjust their mental template to be less rigid. Here is an example totally unrelated to CS. I worked with a woman who was given the assignment to go to a meeting (the boss was out of town) and report back to her peers on what was discussed. At the meeting 4 major areas were covered. She came back and only reported on two of the agenda topics. When confronted that she failed to give us a full report, she responded she didn't think the other two topics were relevant. Her mental template filtered out the two topics as if they never were discussed. |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [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 Chris, I have said time and time again that I think it is wrong for a parent to leave the state like that and take the child with them. What makes it wrong? Because a child has the right to at least have the opportunity to spend a substantial amount of time with both of their parents. No they don't. And both parents have the right to be able to spend time with their child without making 20- hour round trip drives. Non sequitur. |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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 : "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "Chris" wrote in : Let's see: Because you shouldered ALL the choice to birth her. Because you shoulder all the rights to have custody of her. Because you have ALL the custody of her. NOT rocket science. But he shouldered all the choice to be her parent once she was born. Now that you REFUSE to allow him to BE a parent, so much for that lil tidbit of information. How have I refused to allow him to parent? Last I checked, one of the characteristics of parenting is caring for one's child in that parent's home. Hmmmmm....you've got to wonder why he chose to stop doing that by moving 10 hours away......... Moving 10 hours away is NOT what caused it. But you already knew that............ And you know it is, Since the claim is YOURS, then the burden to support such claim is also YOURS. Feel free. but you have got to turn the man into a martyr--a trait you have exibited quite often, Chris. |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [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 : How have I refused to allow him to parent? Last I checked, one of the characteristics of parenting is caring for one's child in that parent's home. Hmmmmm....you've got to wonder why he chose to stop doing that by moving 10 hours away......... Moving 10 hours away is NOT what caused it. But you already knew that............ Why do you insist on him not being responsible for *his* decisions? NEVER have I done so. He decided to move. That is why he doesn't see his daughter often. Untrue. |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [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 : Uh, Leda, how long do you think post-conception choice should be an option? Apparently fro at least 5 years, according to what you say to Sarah. Do you think that both parents should have the same post conception choices? So both parents can, legally, according to you, leave their child at school and run off to another state and never be held responsible inb any way? That's ok with you? Apparently, any parent that does that is unfit to be a parent. So, what better way than that to give up custody of the child. If he's unfit and should lose custody, then he has no reason to want any pareting time at all. I'm not saying I agree with that line of reasoning, I just find it odd that you keep playing both sides of this. Hallucinations usually are odd. Either he has rights or he doesn't, you can't change your stance depending on the point you are trying to make. No kidding....... |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "Chris" wrote in : Uh, Leda, how long do you think post-conception choice should be an option? Apparently fro at least 5 years, according to what you say to Sarah. Do you think that both parents should have the same post conception choices? So both parents can, legally, according to you, leave their child at school and run off to another state and never be held responsible inb any way? That's ok with you? Apparently, any parent that does that is unfit to be a parent. So, what better way than that to give up custody of the child. If he's unfit and should lose custody, then he has no reason to want any pareting time at all. I'm not saying I agree with that line of reasoning, I just find it odd that you keep playing both sides of this. Either he has rights or he doesn't, you can't change your stance depending on the point you are trying to make. Of course he can, Sarah. He does it all the time. Uhuh, and the sun rises in the west too. chuckle |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [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... "teachrmama" wrote in : "Chris" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message 7.102... "Chris" wrote in : That's YOUR choice. No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal agreement we had. Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you agreed upon. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are droll!! I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would have been neglecting my daughter! Untrue. |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 17.102... "teachrmama" wrote in : "Chris" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message 7.102... "Chris" wrote in : That's YOUR choice. No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal agreement we had. Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you agreed upon. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are droll!! I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would have been neglecting my daughter! He can't explain it, Sarah. He can only rabidly defend his ideas, which preclude men from ever having parental responsibilities if they don't want them, yet demands that they be permitted to be parents on their own terms when and for however long they choose to be. Your claim is false. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sacramento County, CA -- Review shows more child-neglect deaths:12-year-old girl wasted away to 23 pounds, even after six separate reportsto Child Protective Services about the child | fx | Spanking | 0 | September 14th 07 04:50 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | February 24th 07 10:01 AM |
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 13th 04 12:35 AM |