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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
Chris wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Relayer" wrote in message legroups.com... It really sounds as if you think you are trying to be fair. But there is an unfortunate trap you seem to be about to walk in to. The "but I only want what he owes me" trap. Why is 17% a fair amount? Who determined that? Have you actually sat down and figured out an amount that would get you through the month without a shortfall? Is it *really* a full 17% of his pay? Does your child spend time with his father? If so, dad needs to have everything you need for the child. It isn't as if his expenses have disappeared. Also keep in mind that you have some great tax advantages. You pay no taxes on the child support. And YOU get to claim the child on you taxes. I believe you also get to file as head of household, which further decreases your tax burden. He will be paying taxes at the higher single rate. Oh, another thing. Are you going to be telling the court that he has not paid you a thin dime in 10 months? If so, he will have an outomatic arrearage, with all the joys of having even more money taken straight from his paycheck, plus interest charges, and a big fat black mark on his credit report. And if he is ever injoured or laid off, the arrearages will grow and grow and grow. You, however, can be injured or laid off without any consequence other than being short of cash. Do you have a written budget? My suggestion is that you prepare one, and take a good hard look at it. I know that there are things that you want to be able to provide for your son that you maight consider to be indispenseable. But, being very honest, divide your budget into essential items and negotiable items. Then have your child's father take a look at what you really need, and give him a voice in the negotiable items. That way he will be a part of the decision making, and will see that you are not trying to gouge him, but truly do need the money. And make sure that you recognize his expenses, too. Say it over and over so he knows you understand. Communication isn't something that just happens--sometimes you have to work at it--sometimes you have to work harder than you've ever worked in your life. But your son is worth it, right? And, above all, don't fall into the "he owes me" trap. The fact that the state of NY says is doesn't make it true. The 17% is determined by State law, but adjustable. Getting through the month without a shortfall is not up to him alone. If there is a short fall, the custodial parent needs to search for more lucrative employment. My impression is that she does work. And I most certainly did not say anything about his making up shortfalls. I said to look at what is really needed, and proceed from there. Work together to come up with a plan that is mutually agreeable--not get into the "I am owed" mindset. It will probably come out to far less than the 17% decreed by law. How about each parent take care of the child when said child is with them. So who provides the child with health insurance? Whoever FEELS like it. More like, whoever doesn't want to pay the medical costs not covered by insurance. Health insurance is NOT necessary to raise a child. And what about clothing? Shall we send the children stark naked, so that the parent with whom the child is staying provides their clothing? If it trips your trigger, go for it. Stumpy once again shows how petty and asinine she is. Clothes are not "consumed" like food. They are simply returned with the child when they return to the opposing parent. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not more than half. And that happens far more often than you might imagine. As long as you are careful to take responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that trap. Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so you remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair. Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair? You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns to throw back to him? I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep things fair. Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?" And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know perfectly well. Here, Teach - let's try this. 2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance. Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split the cost? In my state healthcare insurance is at the discretion of the CP. They can select the NCP's coverage or provide their own coverage. In either case, the premiums are pro-rated based on their relative incomes and any unreimbursed healthcare expenses are pro-rated too. So the higher income parent pays more for premiums and for unreimbursed expenses. 2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every weekend. Should the child support reflect this? It already does. Right now CS is calculated based on one parent having the children 100% of the time. CS would not change for the parent having the chidlren 100% of the time, but it should be reduced when the other parent has visitations becasue the costs of NCP children expenses are not included in any CS award that is not based on a parenting agreement. 2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child. Who should get the tax exemptions? By default the CP gets both child exemptions. Fairness would be to give one up, but that only happens when the CP decides to share the financial benefit. Let's see what your idea of fair is. Now let's test your concept of fairness. A mother has an affair and decides to leave husband for her new main squeeze. Should the husband be removed from the family home by restaining order? No Ah, but the mom can get custody anf force this to happen. UNFAIR on her part--but a very normal scenario. What could he do to make it more fair? Nice try teach - I see that you've totally ignored my questions for you. Pretty telling. Enjoy your bias. (hint for you - not all women act in the way you ASSume they do and not all men are the perfect angels you would like to portray) Actually, Moon, I have never made all moms out to be that way--you simply don't like it being pointed out that women who choose to behave that way have the court's backing to do so. Nor have I ever said that I think all men are angels--I am perfectly aware that there are men who do not care what the court orders--they do as they please. However, no matter how you slice it, WOMEN have the overwhelming advantage in today's biased system. No matter what little questions you come up with. All of which are decided by the court in most places. And how does ANY of that prevent *BOTH* parties from trying to keep things fair? How coan MEN keep it fair, Moon, when they are given NO POWER or backing in the system. Only the MOTHER, who has the power to take it all, has the power to be fair. You are purposely beinmg obtuse. Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious, though. If you don't like it, stop reading it. In the way men handeled in "family court", they, as well as any children involved, ARE victims, whether *you* approve or not. To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they need to be given power by "the system". I don't see that; perhaps I understood her. At what point do men actually do for themselves? You keep acting stupid to the point that I no longer believe it's intentional. Phil #3 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Relayer" wrote in message oups.com... It really sounds as if you think you are trying to be fair. But there is an unfortunate trap you seem to be about to walk in to. The "but I only want what he owes me" trap. Why is 17% a fair amount? Who determined that? Have you actually sat down and figured out an amount that would get you through the month without a shortfall? Is it *really* a full 17% of his pay? Does your child spend time with his father? If so, dad needs to have everything you need for the child. It isn't as if his expenses have disappeared. Also keep in mind that you have some great tax advantages. You pay no taxes on the child support. And YOU get to claim the child on you taxes. I believe you also get to file as head of household, which further decreases your tax burden. He will be paying taxes at the higher single rate. Oh, another thing. Are you going to be telling the court that he has not paid you a thin dime in 10 months? If so, he will have an outomatic arrearage, with all the joys of having even more money taken straight from his paycheck, plus interest charges, and a big fat black mark on his credit report. And if he is ever injoured or laid off, the arrearages will grow and grow and grow. You, however, can be injured or laid off without any consequence other than being short of cash. Do you have a written budget? My suggestion is that you prepare one, and take a good hard look at it. I know that there are things that you want to be able to provide for your son that you maight consider to be indispenseable. But, being very honest, divide your budget into essential items and negotiable items. Then have your child's father take a look at what you really need, and give him a voice in the negotiable items. That way he will be a part of the decision making, and will see that you are not trying to gouge him, but truly do need the money. And make sure that you recognize his expenses, too. Say it over and over so he knows you understand. Communication isn't something that just happens--sometimes you have to work at it--sometimes you have to work harder than you've ever worked in your life. But your son is worth it, right? And, above all, don't fall into the "he owes me" trap. The fact that the state of NY says is doesn't make it true. The 17% is determined by State law, but adjustable. Getting through the month without a shortfall is not up to him alone. If there is a short fall, the custodial parent needs to search for more lucrative employment. My impression is that she does work. And I most certainly did not say anything about his making up shortfalls. I said to look at what is really needed, and proceed from there. Work together to come up with a plan that is mutually agreeable--not get into the "I am owed" mindset. It will probably come out to far less than the 17% decreed by law. How about each parent take care of the child when said child is with them. So who provides the child with health insurance? And what about clothing? Shall we send the children stark naked, so that the parent with whom the child is staying provides their clothing? You mean to tell me that you would send your children naked to their father's house rather than letting them wear the clothing you have provided for them? No, that's now what I'm saying. Chris says that each parent take care of child when said child is with him. I was asking him how he intended to handle items that would need to cross between parents. Why would any loving parent do that? I dunno - I was the parent that sent clothing, toiletries, toys and books to their dad's home so they would have things in both places. Then why even bring it up? |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not more than half. And that happens far more often than you might imagine. As long as you are careful to take responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that trap. Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so you remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair. Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair? You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns to throw back to him? I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep things fair. Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?" And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know perfectly well. Here, Teach - let's try this. 2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance. Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split the cost? In my state healthcare insurance is at the discretion of the CP. They can select the NCP's coverage or provide their own coverage. In either case, the premiums are pro-rated based on their relative incomes and any unreimbursed healthcare expenses are pro-rated too. So the higher income parent pays more for premiums and for unreimbursed expenses. 2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every weekend. Should the child support reflect this? It already does. Right now CS is calculated based on one parent having the children 100% of the time. CS would not change for the parent having the chidlren 100% of the time, but it should be reduced when the other parent has visitations becasue the costs of NCP children expenses are not included in any CS award that is not based on a parenting agreement. 2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child. Who should get the tax exemptions? By default the CP gets both child exemptions. Fairness would be to give one up, but that only happens when the CP decides to share the financial benefit. Let's see what your idea of fair is. Now let's test your concept of fairness. A mother has an affair and decides to leave husband for her new main squeeze. Should the husband be removed from the family home by restaining order? No Ah, but the mom can get custody anf force this to happen. UNFAIR on her part--but a very normal scenario. What could he do to make it more fair? Nice try teach - I see that you've totally ignored my questions for you. Pretty telling. Enjoy your bias. (hint for you - not all women act in the way you ASSume they do and not all men are the perfect angels you would like to portray) Actually, Moon, I have never made all moms out to be that way--you simply don't like it being pointed out that women who choose to behave that way have the court's backing to do so. Nor have I ever said that I think all men are angels--I am perfectly aware that there are men who do not care what the court orders--they do as they please. However, no matter how you slice it, WOMEN have the overwhelming advantage in today's biased system. No matter what little questions you come up with. All of which are decided by the court in most places. And how does ANY of that prevent *BOTH* parties from trying to keep things fair? How coan MEN keep it fair, Moon, when they are given NO POWER or backing in the system. Only the MOTHER, who has the power to take it all, has the power to be fair. You are purposely beinmg obtuse. Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious, though. To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they need to be given power by "the system". Whether you like it or not, men have no power within the system. If mom wants the ful pound of flesh exacted byt the eyetem, she gets it, and there is nothing he can do about it. Only SHE can decide not to take so much.. He has NO POWER to make the it more fair. It doesn't matter how often you try to assert that HE can make the process more fair--he can't. Noe, believe it or not, the fact that a man has no power to make the system work in a more fair way does not make him a victim. It just means that he has n power to make changes in that one aea of his life--which does, indeed, affect other areas of his life. But he has the power to make of the rest of his life anything he wants to make of it. You talk often enough about your kids' fther walking out and not looking back. You have absolutely no power in that area--does that mean that *you* are a victim, Moon? At what point do men actually do for themselves? Within the system? They don't. In all other aeras of thier lives? Whenevwer they want to. Just as you can in all other areas of your life, Moon. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not more than half. And that happens far more often than you might imagine. As long as you are careful to take responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that trap. Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so you remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair. Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair? You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns to throw back to him? I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep things fair. Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?" And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know perfectly well. Here, Teach - let's try this. 2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance. Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split the cost? 2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every weekend. Should the child support reflect this? 2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child. Who should get the tax exemptions? Let's see what your idea of fair is. Ok, Moon, let's discuss fair. snipping diatribe Teach, I believe your starting premise is as screwed up as your view of CP's. Trying to keep things fair is NOT the responsibility of one, and only one, person. As long as you insist that it is, you've tossed any sense of fairness right out the window. When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to screw it up, and it takes 2 to try to make things fair. You mean you are partly responsible for being abandoned by your ex? I wasn't abandoned. Never made that claim, not once. Let's see.......... oh yeah, I was there - I was the one who filed for divorce. You kicked him out? You admit some fault in the failed marriage *other* than just being the one to file or was it just his actions or inactions that resulted in divorce? Phil #3 Perhaps, but I disagree with your overall statement. No matter how wonderful things are, it only takes one to screw it up and in today's world, it only takes one to make the result unfair. Phil #3 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not more than half. And that happens far more often than you might imagine. As long as you are careful to take responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that trap. Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so you remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair. Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair? You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns to throw back to him? I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep things fair. Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?" And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know perfectly well. Here, Teach - let's try this. 2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance. Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split the cost? In my state healthcare insurance is at the discretion of the CP. They can select the NCP's coverage or provide their own coverage. In either case, the premiums are pro-rated based on their relative incomes and any unreimbursed healthcare expenses are pro-rated too. So the higher income parent pays more for premiums and for unreimbursed expenses. 2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every weekend. Should the child support reflect this? It already does. Right now CS is calculated based on one parent having the children 100% of the time. CS would not change for the parent having the chidlren 100% of the time, but it should be reduced when the other parent has visitations becasue the costs of NCP children expenses are not included in any CS award that is not based on a parenting agreement. 2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child. Who should get the tax exemptions? By default the CP gets both child exemptions. Fairness would be to give one up, but that only happens when the CP decides to share the financial benefit. Let's see what your idea of fair is. Now let's test your concept of fairness. A mother has an affair and decides to leave husband for her new main squeeze. Should the husband be removed from the family home by restaining order? No Ah, but the mom can get custody anf force this to happen. UNFAIR on her part--but a very normal scenario. What could he do to make it more fair? Nice try teach - I see that you've totally ignored my questions for you. Pretty telling. Enjoy your bias. (hint for you - not all women act in the way you ASSume they do and not all men are the perfect angels you would like to portray) Actually, Moon, I have never made all moms out to be that way--you simply don't like it being pointed out that women who choose to behave that way have the court's backing to do so. Nor have I ever said that I think all men are angels--I am perfectly aware that there are men who do not care what the court orders--they do as they please. However, no matter how you slice it, WOMEN have the overwhelming advantage in today's biased system. No matter what little questions you come up with. All of which are decided by the court in most places. And how does ANY of that prevent *BOTH* parties from trying to keep things fair? How coan MEN keep it fair, Moon, when they are given NO POWER or backing in the system. Only the MOTHER, who has the power to take it all, has the power to be fair. You are purposely beinmg obtuse. Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious, though. To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they need to be given power by "the system". At what point do men actually do for themselves? Rhetorical non sequitur. When it comes to the "child support" arena, men get to do NOTHING for themselves. But you already knew this. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Chris" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... So if I was responsible for fairness when I got divorced, why did my attorney tell me his job was to help me reduce my losses? How on earth would you expect me to know what your attorney was thinking? Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? You know the kind of question that is asked to make a point rather than expecting an answer to the question. And why did I lose on every legitimate financial issue I raised? Without knowing what issues you raised, and what substantiation you provided to back 'em up, how on earth would you expect me to know the answer to this? Ditto. And in case you missed it - The questions were designed to point out instances of judicial bias in favor of women in family law matters. With the advent of lesbian parents on the horizon, it's gonna be very interesting how so-called "family court" applies its injustice when two women divorce each other. I contacted my state representative and state senator when the issue of same-sex marriage was being debated. I pointed out to both that if they were going to create same-sex marriages, or civil unions, they also had to create a way to allow dissolutions of those legal relationships. Both told me there was no connection between marriage and divorce so separate divorce laws would not be necessary if same-sex marriage passed in the legislature. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Moon Shyne" wrote in Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious, though. To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they need to be given power by "the system". At what point do men actually do for themselves? I guess when the system is not raping you of all your independance & freedom, you have little mercy or understanding for those caught in this insane system. Thank God that there are people who are not as small minded as you are. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
"Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not more than half. And that happens far more often than you might imagine. As long as you are careful to take responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that trap. Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so you remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair. Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair? You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns to throw back to him? I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep things fair. Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?" And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know perfectly well. Here, Teach - let's try this. 2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance. Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split the cost? 2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every weekend. Should the child support reflect this? 2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child. Who should get the tax exemptions? Let's see what your idea of fair is. Ok, Moon, let's discuss fair. snipping diatribe Teach, I believe your starting premise is as screwed up as your view of CP's. Trying to keep things fair is NOT the responsibility of one, and only one, person. As long as you insist that it is, you've tossed any sense of fairness right out the window. When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to screw it up, and it takes 2 to try to make things fair. You mean you are partly responsible for being abandoned by your ex? I wasn't abandoned. Never made that claim, not once. Let's see.......... oh yeah, I was there - I was the one who filed for divorce. You kicked him out? You admit some fault in the failed marriage *other* than just being the one to file or was it just his actions or inactions that resulted in divorce? Probable response: "He already divorced me by his actions or lack thereof. I simply made it legal by filing." But wait, how can this be? That would make it only ONE person screwing it up. Oh, I get it, the other person is some third party............. duh! Phil #3 Perhaps, but I disagree with your overall statement. No matter how wonderful things are, it only takes one to screw it up and in today's world, it only takes one to make the result unfair. Phil #3 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
To ALL fathers Custody
Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious, though. To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they need to be given power by "the system". At what point do men actually do for themselves? That is an insane statement. Are you saying men should violate a court order (given by the system) or violate Mom (who would then immediately use the "system" to get what she wants)? Come on Moon. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intro, and a question, might be long. | Vicki | Single Parents | 13 | October 10th 06 04:20 AM |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
AL: Court issues history-making decision in child custody case | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | August 3rd 05 01:07 AM |
Child support alienates fathers from their children | dani | Child Support | 0 | October 15th 03 07:56 AM |