child support review objection

"Chris" wrote in :

Whatever, Chris. No matter what you think, he has an obligation to his
daughter.

No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
claim.


He does have an obligation; I suppose one could argue whether the ethical
obligation is there or not, considering your viewpoint, but he certainly
has a legal obligation towards her, and that is an undeniable fact.

"Chris" wrote in
:

If my ex still lived here, I would do what I could to stay in town,
(let alone the "100 mile law" in Michigan) because I would want my
daughter to be able to see her father.

Uhuh. By the way, such "100 mile law" is nothing more than a
meaningless piece of legislation to make the so-called "family" court
look good. Definitely not enforced, as are ALL CP requirements. Oh,
with one exception, the requirement that the CP get FREE money.


It *is* enforced. In fact, the first case I read when I was researching
it involved a man whose ex moved with thier child upstate, and the court
ended up reversing custody.

If my ex had had a job offer, and that was
the reason he moved, I would not have had as much of a problem with
it.

You should have NO problem with it. Where he moves and what he chooses
to do with his private life is HIS business........ NOT yours!


Not according to the state of Michigan.

--
[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
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good
enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"Gini" wrote in message
news:bYp0j.2823$Jy1.2029@trndny02...

"Chris" wrote
"Rob" wrote
...........................

Some women really just irk me, well and to be fair...lol
some
men
are
just
as bad if not worse! (I see it go both ways - people
just
need
to
grow
up
and take care of their children and not just walk away!)
I
could
never
walk
away from my children for any reason, even if I find out
they
are
not
mine
biologically they are mine in heart.



I will post later tonight as to what happened in court
today.

Robert

So tell me, how does it feel getting FREE money from
someone
else?
==
$230. a month is fair and reasonable,

and FREE!

The NCP could save the $230 by living in the area and
parenting
their
own
children 50% of the time, Chris.

NOT the issue and you KNOW it too! Why is SHE the one who
dictates
his
options? If the shoe was on the other foot....................

I know no such thing, Chris. There is no dictating going on.

SHE has determined his options; NOT he! Sounds like dictation to
me........

Hmmmm.....SHE forced him to give up his 50/50 parenting and move
away
from
his child. You try so hard to make every NCP a helpless victim,
Chris,
that
you end up making totally ridiculous statements.

What's ridiculous is your nice lil' twist in what I claimed. The ONLY
thing
that she is forcing him into is to pay her free money. I know, she
isn't
actually getting the cash from him (now). As if a judgement that
threatens
him with prison, not to mention the fact that eventually it (the
extortion
of his money) will catch up with him, is supposed to be any
better.....

Not free money, Chris.

Unearned = FREE! What part of that equation do you NOT understand?

It is for the child.

Uhuh. "For the child"; an old, tired, worn out, feel-good saying. A rose, by
any other name................
(see below)

Anything a child gets is unearned. Do you have a
problem with a child being fed and housed because they are getting it
free?

No. Do you?


I can understand being upset that $$$ is given to be spent on
luxuries--but
not on the basics for a child t hat you chose to have, and spent 5 years
with before abandoning said child.

Some time back, I caught a woman stealing oranges from my tree; a rather
large bag full. When confronted, she proclaimed "it's for my children". My
response: "F _ _ _ your children! What about MY children?". Needless to say,
she promptly returned the stolen goods; not that she had much of a choice.
But I think you get my drift.

[sidenote: Although I am absolutely an advocate of parents protecting their
children, it sure was a GREAT feeling to put this dirtbag, who used the
copout
phrase "for the children", in her place!]




A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his child.


Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either sees
the
child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY options
as
determined by HER!

The child is where she always was.

Irrelevant.

Not so.

Explain.




But he is not.

Irrelevant.

Not so. You cannot care for a child if you move away from the child. And
you know it.

Correction: You cannot care for a child if the mother REFUSES you to have
such child to care for.




He left.

Irrelevant.

A choice he made, so not irrelevant at all.

He chose to eat corn flakes too.

And you know it.



He chose to
abandon his child.

Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.

Incorrect. .He was caring for the child 50% of the time, then he abandoned
her.

Incorrect. She has PREVENTED him from caring for her. Where he chooses to
live is his business, is irrelevant concerning his ability and/or choice to
have her with him, and is his RIGHT!







You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do.
And
making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.

Sure sounds like it, Chris.

Could that pesky lil' fact that virtually every NCP is so against their
will
have ANYTHING to do with it?

You constantly excuse every choice a NCP dad makes because virtually all
NCPs are NCPs against their will, therefore it is perfectly permissible
for
a father with 50/50 custody to abandon his child, putting himself in the
position of being an NCP because he cannot possibly have custody if he is
not where the chld is, and, if the mother doesn't package the child up and
send her along to the father, the mother is evil and the NCP is a victim
although HE made a choice that took him away from his child, so it is ok
to
rail against the system just because.

With all due respect, it is unclear to me what you are trying to convey in
your above message.

OK, if that's how you want to live
your life, you keep right on with it, Chris.

Beats living a life of fantasy.

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

A choice he made, so not irrelevant at all. And you know it.


He chose to
abandon his child.

Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.

Incorrect. .He was caring for the child 50% of the time, then he
abandoned her.

Why do we think Chris is not Christine?

Her wild irrational logic gives her away every time!

chuckle Interesting point.

"Chris" wrote in :

Incorrect. She has PREVENTED him from caring for her. Where he chooses
to live is his business, is irrelevant concerning his ability and/or
choice to have her with him, and is his RIGHT!


In what way have I done so, Chris? If he wanted to take her with him, he
could have petitioned for full custody. If he did not want the state in his
business regarding where he moves, he shouldn't have filed for divorce.

--
[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 :

Whatever, Chris. No matter what you think, he has an obligation to his
daughter.

No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
claim.


He does have an obligation; I suppose one could argue whether the ethical
obligation is there or not, considering your viewpoint,

I DO; and it's not.

but he certainly
has a legal obligation towards her,

Correction: He has a legal obligation towards YOU!

and that is an undeniable fact.

Negros once had a "legal" obligation to be slaves too! Oh, and women had a
"legal" obligation to keep their butts out of the voting booth...........

"Chris" wrote in message
...

OK, Chris, you explain:

Dad has 50/50 custody

Dad moves away--too far to transport the child for 50/50 custody every 3 or
4 days, as before.

Mom remains where she was, does not follow dad.

Who made the choice for the dad not to see the child every 3 or 4 days?

(a) Dad, who moved away from the child?

-or-

(b) Mom, who stayed where she was?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

OK, Chris, you explain:

Dad has 50/50 custody

Dad moves away--too far to transport the child for 50/50 custody every 3
or 4 days, as before.

Mom remains where she was, does not follow dad.

Who made the choice for the dad not to see the child every 3 or 4 days?

(a) Dad, who moved away from the child?

-or-

(b) Mom, who stayed where she was?

In the coming recession, there's going to be a lot of people having to move!

"Chris" wrote in
:

but he certainly
has a legal obligation towards her,

Correction: He has a legal obligation towards YOU!


It's not as if I'm asking him to support me, Chris. All I want is for
him to take some responsibility in supporting *his daughter*.

and that is an undeniable fact.

Negros once had a "legal" obligation to be slaves too! Oh, and women
had a "legal" obligation to keep their butts out of the voting
booth...........



So if it's such a bad law, get it changed. I don't understand why you
want kids to go without...that is hardly comparable to slavery and anti-
suffrage.

"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Chris" wrote in message
...

OK, Chris, you explain:

Dad has 50/50 custody

Dad moves away--too far to transport the child for 50/50 custody every
3 or 4 days, as before.

Mom remains where she was, does not follow dad.

Who made the choice for the dad not to see the child every 3 or 4
days?


Actually, it was every two and a half days... I wanted to switch off
weeks, but he and his lawyer said that any longer than a few days was
too long for a kid her age to go without seeing a parent. I guess, now,
at 5 years old, it's ok to go 4 months without seeing your dad...

(a) Dad, who moved away from the child?

-or-

(b) Mom, who stayed where she was?