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 |
#981
|
|||
|
|||
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 7.102... "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. I see, responsibilities WITHOUT rights. Makes sense to me. 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. Not sure what you mean by "the deal". True; a parent is not the same as a mechanic, but the principles are IDENTICAL. |
#982
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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. 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. Your point? |
#983
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... 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. Ok, I won't be like you, since that is YOUR position. 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? I take that as a "yes"? 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. I see. But the ones who walk away are still fathers. Your chaotic ideas crack me up. |
#984
|
|||
|
|||
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 : What she is saying is that men should have a way of deciding they don't want to be parents early on, *just like women already do*. Parents who take on the responsibilities of parenting their child can't just decide they don't want to anymore, male or female. Yet they do on a regular basis, legally! Prove it. You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption. |
#985
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... 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? Although untrue, THAT'S not what amuses me. |
#986
|
|||
|
|||
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 : Tell your friends in the court "thank you very much, but your services are no longer needed". Because I don't think it's good for our daughter to have to do that. Then leave the court OUT of it. If we cannot agree on an issue that is governable by a judge, what other way do we have of settling our differences? You're doing the right thing; let some third party stranger decide FOR you how your child shall be raised. Keep on truckin'....... If he thinks it's fine, he can bring it in front of a judge, and let them decide... Just curious: By which measuring stick do you make decisions, what you think is good for your daughter or what some judge says to do? My decision is not what keeps her living here. Untrue. Neither one of us can make unilateral decisions about her care like moving out of state. But there sure is one of you making a unilateral decision that she NOT move out of state. If we can't agree on where she should live, how do you suggest we handle it? Just EXACTLY the way you are right now. Afterall, YOU'RE the boss.......... Now that I answered your question, how about answering mine (that was asked BEFORE yours)? Out custody arrangement is part of a court order; if that changes, we have to submit thos changes to the court. I cannot imagine a judge approving such a set-up. It would be detrimental to her education and socialization. In your opinion. In any reasonable person's opinion. "Reasonable" being a matter of opinion. I can't imagine anyone besides you who would think it would be good for a child to be brought up that way. Among many other things you cannot imagine. Quite frankly, there are many who cannot imagine you keeping your child from being with her father. Aren't you glad I aint' one of em'? |
#987
|
|||
|
|||
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 3.102... "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. Notice the PAST tense? What does that have to do with anything? You REALLY don't know? Wait a minute, I forgot that I am debating with someone who lacks a fundamental understanding of the concept of marriage. Please forgive me. Is a divorced person who moves always moving away from their ex-spouse, specifically? |
#988
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Animal02" wrote in message ... "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 ... "Animal02" wrote in message news:_bOdnSvRiLd3sfranZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@wideopenwest .com... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Animal02" wrote in message ... "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 . 17.102... "Chris" wrote in : It's a simple "YES'" or "NO" question. Please answer it that way. It's a loaded question, so I was qualifiying my "yes". It's not loaded at all. A loaded question forces the respondent to admit by implication to something regardless of how they answer. NOT the case here. Either handing the money to the parent supports a child or it does not. Which is it? The act of handing money to the child's custodial parent does not automatically support the child. BINGO! See how simple the answer is? A responsible and honest custodial parent will use those funds to help support their child. It's not a simple yes or no question. I'm all for a system requiring accountability. Translation: "I'm all for a system requiring a man to give FREE cash to a woman". No, I'm all for a system that treats parents and children as fair as possible. I think parents have financial obligations to their children, but for basic needs, not anything more. Hence your error. Money does NOT equal basic needs. Ever see a child eat a dollar bill? So how are goods and serviced procured for a child without m oney changing hands somewhere? Perhaps you should ask the first people to walk the Earth. I'm sorry, how DUMB of me! Everyone knows that money existed before people did. Otherwise, there would be no goods or services for their children. Guess I really blew THAT one....... What do you permit your renters to give to you in lieu of money when they have no money, Chris? Nuts and berries? Who said that I permit them to give me ANYTHING? WIth all due respect, my contract with tenants simply aint' your business. Well, Chris, you did state in antoher post that you walked into living space of one of your renters and saw all sorts of Christmas presents, but they hadn't paid rent, so you evicted them. Were they attempting to take your advice and live without money? But you evicted them anyway? My only advice to them was "pay or quit". And then, ONLY because it is mandated by law. Child support is mandated by law, Chris. And yet I have never paid a dime in child support which will be 17 years next month. :-) Is there a court order for you to do so? Or do you have it worked out another way? I received 50/50 custody when my daughter was less than2 years old, over the objections of her mother who didn't want me to have ANY overnights, And it has worked out well? Did mom come to accept the arrangement? And has it worked out well for your daughter as well? I am all for 50/50 custody as the default option whenever it is possible. No you're not; unless, of course, "possible" is unilaterally defined by the mother or her designated advocate. One day you may grow up and ralize what a selfish, unreasonable person you really are, Chris. I doubt it. People like Chris never manage to own up to their own shortcomings For example? |
#989
|
|||
|
|||
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:0jbaj.48318$KU2.15176 @newsfe11.phx: Why should she have to travel to see her father? Why should her father have to travel to see her? Why can't he travel to see her? Why can't YOU travel to see her? Why should I have to travel to see her when *he* made the choice to move? Why should he have to travel to see her when *you* made the choice to not let her move? He chose to move that far! But he did NOT choose for his daughter to not live with him. To clarify, his choice not to physically take her hinged on the threat of criminal punishment. If not, then he believed that he was welcome, by you, to take her. His choice to not physically take her hinged on the fact that it would be illegal for him to do so. "Illegal" is meaningless unless YOU initiate the legal proceedings. [The SCARIEST part about people who are in the driver's seat is that many of them don't even know that they are!] Um, no. It was one of the court workers who kept saying that he could lose his legal custody by abandoning her like he did. Irrelevant. I am referring to YOUR choice; not some two-bit court worker. My choice for her father to move that far away? No, your choice for her to not live with him. Wake up! His actions have legal ramifications for him... not my fault. The statute I cited makes it illegal for him to change her legal residence (his home or my home) without permission from myself or the court. BINGO! "MYSELF". Yes. If I don't give him permission, he has to get permission from the court. That's how it works. Yeah, I know how it works alright. You give him permission, she goes, you don't give him permission, she stays. I am not obligated to send my daughter to live so far away from me. He *also* would have had every right to not agree to *me* moving out of state with her. I am not required to agree with every decision he makes. Isn't that usually the case when you're the boss? I'm not the boss. Circumstances say otherwise. He had an opportunity to petition the court; he rejected that option. Irrelevant. It's *not* irrelevant! It is TOTALLY irrelevant to the fact that he did not choose for her to not live with him. There are procedures one needs to complete before moving so far from their child or moving a child away from their other parent. Yeah, mainly asking for permission from the mother. If you don't comply with regulated procedures, you can't complain that the law is doing you wrong. Tell that to Rosa Parks...... |
#990
|
|||
|
|||
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:NTaaj.23901$Wt7.21194 @newsfe14.phx: 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. She doesn't *earn* it. PRECISELY! And that is what makes it FREE. She is being reimbursed for the costs of their child's care... Untrue. Call it what you like, but the fact remains that it is FREE money. without recipients of child support being held accountable for how the funds are spent, yes, it is true that one could use it for any purpose. However, in *my* case, I can back up how funds are allocated with documentation. |
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 |