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]
"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!
However, if you want to look at it that way, if you and I cosign for a car,
the bank holds you just as responsible as it does me for the payments.

"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.


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?






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.

"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, 12:53 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...





On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...

On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not
tell
the
man
that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically rests
with
the
mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the
father.
Custody
does not need to be established by a court if there is only a
mother,
does
it?

Which would lead to her being in possession of the child,

Ah, yes, children as possessions--just like dogs, cats, and toilet
seats.
Sweet.

That's just how the Cp's and CS man-ghouls treat thier children, and
I
see no reason to sugar-coat it. If you want to be kissing Sarahs
ass,
and tell her she is doing the right thing, well then you need to
extent that to ALL cp's, and CS recipients. What is good for one is
good for the other.

Nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nonsense/discrimination????!! So you ARE saying that only some single
mothers deserve child support,

No mothers anywhere deserve child support. They are adults and can pay
their own way. (If they are still minors, they might receive child
support
from their own parent, but not for their children)

meaning that only some children deserve
to be supported by two/both parents. I knew something was wrong with
you.

Not at all. I somply believe that if a woman can walk away from
responsibility for an unwanted child through safe have, a man should be
able
to do so, too.

Yet their children "desrve" to be supported by the father. You crack me
up!

Every child deserves 2 parents, Chris. A child does not choose to be born
to people who are fighting, or have no intention of having a committed
relationship, or are married, or divorced, or any other thing. A child is
born without any choices at all. He deserves the best--but very often does
not get it. Why do you consider that to be funny?

"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
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
:

Is the only way I can not "forbid the child to live with him" is
to
move
her to live with him in Tennessee?

Unless he decides to move elsewhere, I see no other way. Do you?


If he can find a way for our daughter to spend a substantial amount
of
time with him that doesn't require her to make 20-hour round trip
car
rides, that would be awesome.

I found a way; it's called a ONE-way trip. Awesome, huh?

And then the child sees her mother---when? Or doesn't that matter to
you?

Last I checked, this discussion was about how the FATHER can spend
substantial amounts of time with her daughter.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha---dance, dance, dance, Chris.

Indeed! I LOVE dancing to the truth.





Would the father then be responsible for making sure the child had a
realtionship with her mother?

ONLY as much as the mother is responsible for securing a child/father
relationship.

So if mom sent daughter to dad with a one-way ticket, then dad would be
responsible to send child to mom with a one way ticket?

No.

Why not?

And who is responsible for paying for all this travel?

"Chris" wrote in news:j0kaj.16883$R92.2074
@newsfe16.phx:

What truth? You say fathers have no rights, but the facts do not bear
that out.

Feel free to present your supporting facts he

__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________
__________________________________________________ ______________ .





What supporting facts do *you* have to say all fathers have no rights?

"Chris" wrote in
:

OH? What are we talking about, PRE-conception rights?


Parental rights. Pre-conception rights have to do with determining
ones *status* as a parent.

And post-conception rights?


There should be laws that allow men to have similar options as women.
The fact that thoselaws do not exist does not give men who have made the
decision to be active parents free reign to just drop out.

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.

If you told me that was the deal, I'd be pretty ****ed if you didn't
keep up your end of it. But a parent is not the same as a mechanic,
Chris, and you know that.

--
[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 :

I can't keep her out
of school here in Detroit.

Untrue.


There *are* truant laws...

How could I have been so absent minded! Of course. Any child that does not
attend school there is truant. Gosh darn, there must be MILLIONS!

--
[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:Yibaj.48317$KU2.45356
@newsfe11.phx:

I know, it's that 2% NCPs who are mothers. Sorry.


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.





Can you come up with a better way of a noncustodial parent to pay for
their children's needs?

Irrelevant question.


It's not irrelevant. You say a child can be provided for in a modern
society without any money changing hands between anyone...

I also say that fish swim in water; just not in THIS discussion. Irrelevant.

--
[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 :

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"?

--
[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
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.

You actually took me literally! LOL

No, Chris, I simply responded to your idiotic statement. In our modern
society money is a necessity.

Uhuh. And so are flat panel TVs.

If it were not, you would not be so h*ll-bent
on collecting every penny of rent due to you, and evicting those with
the
audacity to not pay.

I don't recall saying they paid money, did I? And even if they do, your
statement still is a non sequitur.

Oh, of course, Chris. Anything that does not agree with you or that you
cannot answer is a non sequitur, or irrelevant, or a red herring, or a
blue
herring......

Untrue.

Hey--I like that. One herring, two herring, red herring, blue
herring.....someone should write a book about it!