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
...

"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 11, 11:36 pm, "teachrmama"
wrote:
wrote in message




...





On Dec 11, 9:58 am, "teachrmama"
wrote:
wrote in message






.
.
.

On Dec 11, 8:22 am, Sarah Gray

wrote:
wrote in

What's the difference between married's and
unwed's
then?
The
unwed's,
mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does
Sarah
deserve
child
support just because she was married to the child
father?
I
think
she
had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who
she
knew
was
flakey
when it comes to work, and now she want's this
man,
who
can't
even
support himself, to support her and the child.

I don't want him to support me. I have never said
such
a
thing.
He's
perfectly capable of finding a job, he's just lazy.

So you want money from a jobless lazy person? Oh,
that
makes
so
much
sense. Thank you for clearing that up

You know, Leda, you sit up on this moral high horse
braggin
about
how
you
and your husband do so much to support his child,
because
neither
of
you
would ever even think about walking away--because what
you
are
doing
is
the
****right**** thing to do. Then you come down on a
mother
who
is
doing
everything in her power to take care of her own child,
and
is
asking
the
father of the child who was always vey active in her
life
until
he
walked
away to provide a small amount each month to help cover
the
expenses
he
left
behind like she was evil and greedy. Why is that?- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

My high horse? We are not forced (as Sarah's ex is being
by
her)
to
support the child, we chose to do so, and that is the
difference
between us and him. She wants extras=being greedy!

Precisely what extras is she asking for?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

But if "the means I have" is cut into by having to take
care
of
*all*
of
our child's expenses, should that mean my daughter should
go
without
and
*only* have bare-bones basic everything because I don't
make
enough
money to cover both of her parent's shares of her expenses,
*and*
have
enough for extras?

The above was a reply back to me. I don't know what
*extra's*
she
is
asking for, but she clearly wants child support so she can
have
*extras*. Maybe you didn't read everything.

I actually read everything she wrote. And everything you
wrote.
You
seem
to
feel that having a roof over the head of one's child, and
food
for
her
to
eat is enough--and that it excuses the abandoning parent from
any
further
responsibility for the child. Do you not consider Christmas
gifts
to
be
something a child should have?

I once had a tenant who refused to pay rent. While demanding
payment,
I
noticed a rather well decorated Christmas tree in his (MY)
living
room
loaded with gifts for his children. I promptly evicted him.
The
children
ended up playing with their new toys on the street.

Wow, pretty good to get through the eviction process so quickly.

I had a pretty savy lawyer.
Ya know, what REALLY sucks is that the children didn't even send
me
a
"thank
you" card for all the nice presents they got from me.


But I'm
not quite sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand.


Or should the child do without gifts because
the mother lives paycheck to paycheck? A birthday gift? An
occasional
ice
cream cone during the heat of summer? None of these are
necessities,
but
they are small islands of pleasure in a child's life.

Extras are not something that a person has a *right* to.

Ah, but having both parents contribute to the basic needs
*is*
something
that a child should be able to count on, don't you think?

If a child has their basic needs met, why should they give a
rip
WHO
is
providing them?

Why should either parent be able to walk away from providing
half
the
basic
needs of a child just because they get tired of being a parent?

When they have no responsibility in the first place, such reason
is
as
good
as any.




When you have a
child, are you going to make sure they have no small
pleasures--only
bare-bones necessities?

A lot of
familites that are intact can not afford anymore than the
bare-bones
basic's.

But both parents are contributing to those bare bones, aren't
thay?

Maybe; maybe not.

If they are living together as a family, each family menber has
his/her
contribution to make.

Not sure just what you mean by that. Nonetheless, it stands that
they
may
NOT be contributing.

They may not be contributing what, exactly?

The things that constitute "bare-bones".

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.

-OR- you could use them to purchase food, clothing, and shelter.

We're talking about contributing to the child in the family, not trading
with some retailer.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh, Chris, you are just too, too funny with
your little word dances.

--
[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:WZH9j.24065$Qf1.4937
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:B0A9j.24038$Qf1.21467
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

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

He has the right to, but doesn't our daughter deserve to
see
both of
her
parents regularly?

No. That's why you don't allow it.


I allow it. He can see his daughter whenever he wants to.

In case you were not aware, seeing someone requires both a
time
AND
a place.

It also requires not being 10 hours away.

Nah, REALLY? I thought I had that covered by a "place".

Ok, so he doesn't have a place to see her that is not 10 hours
away.

But he HAS a place, doesn't he.

Not close enough to her.

Thanks to YOU.

How is it my fault he moved?

Since that's not my claim, you tell me.

"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 :

We're talking about contributing to the child in the family, not
trading
with some retailer.



How do you contribute materially to a child without acquiring said good
and
services?

Why don't you ask the first people who walked the Earth.

Because they are not longer with us. And, if they were here, they would
have to adapt to this society. When's the last time you went out and shot a
bison and lived on it for months, making it's hide into clothing and shelter
for yourself?

"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.

"Chris" wrote in
:

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

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in
news
"Chris" wrote in
news

I was unaware that it is illegal for a parent to move beyond
a certain distance away from their child. Just curious: is it
by way of road or by way of crow?



Driving miles.

How many miles is it, and what is the prison sentence for living
beyond that distance? Got any cites?


I've cited it at least twice already:



http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/reso...anuals/focb/cp
_c hange.pdf

Dead site.


Not so. Works just fine for me.

Tried it once again, and here is what comes up:

The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name
changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----- ----

Please try the following:

Make sure that the Web site address displayed in the address bar of
your browser is spelled and formatted correctly.
If you reached this page by clicking a link, contact the Web site
administrator to alert them that the link is incorrectly formatted.
Click the Back button to try another link.
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found.
Internet Information Services (IIS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----- ----

Technical Information (for support personnel)

Go to Microsoft Product Support Services and perform a title search
for the words HTTP and 404.
Open IIS Help, which is accessible in IIS Manager (inetmgr), and
search for topics titled Web Site Setup, Common Administrative Tasks,
and About Custom Error Messages.



try copy-paste. The link must have broken in the post.


http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/reso...uals/focb/cp_c
hange.pdf








Why do you act as if I am in the wrong for saying that I
would call
the
police if he kidnapped her?

The above question is a textbook example of clouded thinking.
How exactly
does one "act" is if someone is wrong?

You seem to have the presumption that anything I do to try and
protect my child and my own parental rights is the wrong thing
to do.

Now it's "my" child again. LOL
What seems to be and what actually is are often different.

Why do you keep remarking on how I address my daughter? She has
two parents...

Yeah, but it meanders depending on whether you are talking about
rights or talking about responsibilities. Same kind of tactic used
in government "child support" propaganda. No surprise here.


She has two parents regardless whether we are talking about rights or
responsibilities. Both of her parents have both!

No they don't. Why is it that you keep making false claims yet NEVER
support them? Do you REALLY expect me to believe unsubstantiated
claims?


I'm not sure how I am suppoed to substantiate the fact that fathers have
rights. They just *do*, as do mothers.

"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. What does that have to do with
anything? Is a divorced person who moves always moving away from their
ex-spouse, specifically?

"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
:

then what did?

What did what?



Explain why the child must be sent back and forth in order to be
with
the father.

Because she also has a right to be with her mother!

Even if true, non sequitur.

How is my spending time with my daughter a non sequitir, but her
father
spending time with her is not?

Who knows. But I can tell you that her alleged "right to be with her
mother"
is. Her father spending time with her is the heart of this discussion.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha
gasp Hard to catch my breath, I'm laughing so hard. HE moves 10 hours
away, and the heart of the discussion is HIM spending time with
her--when,
before he MOVED AWAY, he had his child with him 50% of the time. Oh,
Chris,
you are too, too droll. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

Not sure why you find so much humor in the fact that this discussion is
about the mother proclaiming that she wants the father to be (spend time)
with her child, yet she prevents it. But hey, if it's funny, then knock
yourself out. LOL

Well, Chris, you can say it as often as you want to, but it doesn't change
the fact that HE moved. HE discontinued his parenting and LEFT. He could
have gone to court and requested full custody so he could move, but he did
not. HE MOVED. And that is HIS and ONLY HIS responsibility.

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

Because traveling back and forth would be undue stress on *our
daughter*.

In YOUR opinion. The only "undue stress" is the thought in your
mind of your child living with her father. That's right, I just
read your mind.......... deal with it.

You cannot expect a small child to have to travel like that, Chris.

Yes I can.


No, you cannot. That is unreasonable. Not to mention the fact that my ex
would have to drive her, making it nearly impossible to hold down a job
and support himself, let alone our daughter.

You are
being unreasonable.

I have no problem with her living with him; I do have a problem with
her living 10 hours away.

Well of course! Because then you would not have immediate absolute
control over her AND him.


No, I just want my daughter to be able to spend time with her father
without a complete disruption of her life.

It's not my fault he chose to make it difficult for
his dauighter to see him.

Not his choice.

In what way did he not choose to move far away?

"Chris" wrote in news:R1J9j.17369$Rf5.14704
@newsfe13.phx:

"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,

"Maybe"? LOL


Most is not the same as all.

"Chris" wrote in
:

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.


Completely false.

CS is a
combination of money ordered to be paid monthly by NCP's to CP's plus
the amount the CP is assumed to provide.