Deadbeat dad, singer & Ruben Studdard look-alike Sean Levert died of natural causes; prob. faked his death to avoid paying all that C.S.

"DVD" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"DVD" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:



Me: Or, perhaps, that your children live in california and your
parents live in
Ohio. So tell me, DVD, should a dad move to Ohio and lose his
visitation
times with his children in order to live with his paernts, just
so his
children can attend private school Which is more important?
Being able to
spend time with their father, or attending private school?



I was responding to someone who claimed he had to move back in with his
parents in order to make his child support payments. Apparently he didn't
live too far away to do it. Your hypothetical situation is a non sequitur
and completely out of context, which is why I ignored it.


Ah, another one you couldn't answer, huh?

I answered just fine, he claimed he moved back with his parents I said "So
what" In the case of your stupid anecdote I would say "Don't move back in
with your parents" How's that?

OK, so then he needs enough money to pay for a place for him to live that
his children can come to visit, right?

"DVD" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"DVD" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:


"DVD" wrote in message
.. .


teachrmama wrote:




Me: Or, perhaps, that your children live in california and your
parents live in
Ohio. So tell me, DVD, should a dad move to Ohio and lose his
visitation
times with his children in order to live with his paernts, just
so his
children can attend private school Which is more important?
Being able to
spend time with their father, or attending private school?



I was responding to someone who claimed he had to move back in with his
parents in order to make his child support payments. Apparently he
didn't live too far away to do it. Your hypothetical situation is a non
sequitur and completely out of context, which is why I ignored it.


Ah, another one you couldn't answer, huh?

I answered just fine, he claimed he moved back with his parents I said
"So what" In the case of your stupid anecdote I would say "Don't move
back in with your parents" How's that?


OK, so then he needs enough money to pay for a place for him to live that
his children can come to visit, right?

That would be up to him, I guess. It wouldn't be any of my business. How
about this hypothetical: You have your husband's kids for the week, you
want to take them out to a restaurant but you have one leg shorter than
the other. Where would you eat your steak dinner while the kids sat home
and watched the radio?

You are becoming inane. A dather needs to have enough money left in his
budget to provide a place for the children when he has them. Isn't that
more important than private school? You refuse to answer, but hide behind
the "Oooooh, the court gets to decide. Ooooh...."

"DVD" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

That would be up to him, I guess. It wouldn't be any of my business. How
about this hypothetical: You have your husband's kids for the week, you
want to take them out to a restaurant but you have one leg shorter than
the other. Where would you eat your steak dinner while the kids sat home
and watched the radio?


You are becoming inane. A father needs to have enough money left in his
budget to provide a place for the children when he has them.

That's his choice, he can have kids he can't afford and then try to weasel
out of their child support after his next divorce or he can refuse to have
more kids until he can afford them. The same choice everyone makes I
guess, except most of us don't try to weasel out of our obligations.

No--how much money he has left in his budget, according to you, is the
court's choice. What does "next divorce" mean in response to the statement
that a father needs to have enough money to provide a place for his children
to visit him?



Isn't that more important than private school? You refuse to answer,
but hide behind the "Oooooh, the court gets to decide. Ooooh...."

The court already decided,


No, no, no. You just said that **he** decided if to have enough money left
to provide a place for his children to visit him. You said that just above.


he knows how much he has and how much he has
to pay, he can take that info and make a decision whether or not to have
more kidsOh--more kids. So he checks his bidget over a period of time,
and has plenty of money to support more kids. THEN the court raises his
child support obligation. Was it bad planning on his part? Should he
have realized that his child support sould be raised? Or should fathers
just not have any more kids after their wives leave them, just in case
child support goes up?

Oh, and is it ok for mothers to have more kids, knowing that the courts will
order the other fathers to pay child support, too? Is that ok?



He doesn't get relief from his obligations to his children
just because he wants more children. Luckily he has you to eat the kids he
can't afford.

Again, prove that I said that a steak dinner is as important as child
support. (Everyone already knows you can't, but go ahead. Give it a shot)



You have been inane for some time now, at least you recognize the
symptoms. I see you refused to answer my question though. Why do you
refuse to answer? Is it because you are a cannibal?

Go ahead and prove it, DVD. You will end up eating your words, because you
know I never said it. You were just dodging again.

"DVD" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

That's his choice, he can have kids he can't afford and then try to
weasel out of their child support after his next divorce or he can refuse
to have more kids until he can afford them. The same choice everyone
makes I guess, except most of us don't try to weasel out of our
obligations.


No--how much money he has left in his budget, according to you, is the
court's choice. What does "next divorce" mean in response to the
statement that a father needs to have enough money to provide a place for
his children to visit him?


and the court's decision is based on what now? C'mon you can be honest for
one second and think about it. If you had your way the best defense
against paying child support would be to have 12 children.

I, actually, never said I was against paying child support, did I? I think
that the default situation should e 50/50 joint custody with no money
changing hands. But when that is not an option, then children *do* need to
be supported. But I think that the amount should cover the children's
needs--not luxuries. **Relationship** is the way to a paernt's heart. Not
force.


After 12 he
could get his child support down to nothing. Lucky for the children the
court system works better than you want it to.

I'm not exactly certain what you built that little scenario from. I was
talking about a couple who had based their budget on the amount of child
support the court had ordered, and were doing fine with it--until the court
doubled the child support. The court *did not* lower the support for their
subsequent children. It *doubled* the support after the subsequent children
were already in existence. So are you saying that fathers should never have
subsequent, just in case the CS amount goes up?





No, no, no. You just said that **he** decided if to have enough money
left to provide a place for his children to visit him. You said that
just above.


he knows how much he has and how much he has

to pay, he can take that info and make a decision whether or not to have
more kids


Oh--more kids. So he checks his bidget over a period of time,
and has plenty of money to support more kids. THEN the court raises his
child support obligation. Was it bad planning on his part? Should he
have realized that his child support sould be raised?

More likely he withheld money from his financial statements and he got
caught. A sensible guy would have realized this possibility and prepared
for getting caught.

Oh--you believe that men are inherantly dishonest!! Does that mean that you
are inherantly dishonest, too?



Or should fathers just not have any more kids after their wives leave
them, just in case child support goes up?



They should do what they want to do, people have kids despite rising gas
prices, some people don't have kids because gas prices put too big a dent
in their budget. In your "hypothetical" example there is another side to
the story and that side is just as much a half truth as your side.

And you know this---how? Oh, yeah. I forgot. You think that men are
dishonest.



Oh, and is it ok for mothers to have more kids, knowing that the courts
will order the other fathers to pay child support, too? Is that ok?


It is fine, not many women get knocked up by fishing condoms out of the
garbage so the father should always be held responsible.

But never poor, dear mommy, right? Poor dear just does not understand that
children require supporting, and that the court order give her a specific
amount to provide, too.



Again, prove that I said that a steak dinner is as important as child
support. (Everyone already knows you can't, but go ahead. Give it a
shot)


You said it, read your post about steak dinner and child support, you
compared them as if they were equals. That means you consider them equal.

OK, since you seem incapable of looking back at the original post about
steak, here it is:

"We all wish that were true. Unfortunately it is not. Anyway, would you
like to go to a restaurant and select a $25 steak meal--then be told by the
waitress at the end of the meal that they are charging you $50 because they
think you can afford it. That would be terrible unfair, wouldn't it? Then
why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay 20%
of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he can
afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?"

It says exactly what I told you it said: Is it ok to price gouge because
the person in charge feels you can afford it--for rent, steak, water beill,
child support, or anything else. Why is that ok with you? But, since you
could not answer the question, you made a fool of yourself doing your little
cannibal tap dance.





You have been inane for some time now, at least you recognize the
symptoms. I see you refused to answer my question though. Why do you
refuse to answer? Is it because you are a cannibal?


Go ahead and prove it, DVD. You will end up eating your words, because
you know I never said it. You were just dodging again.

I've proven it, check your post where you compared steak dinners to child
support. You keep dodging my questions about cannibalism, is it because
you are ashamed of your cannibal diet?

You check it out above, DVD, More fool you to continue repeating such
idiocy as you made up because you are unable to answer questions.