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
. 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.

Based on the premise that it is impossible for children to move.

--
[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
:

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

then what did?

What did what?


And you accuse me of trimming my quotes as to obfuscate the
issue...

NOW you get my point.

Are you going to address the fact that you have your posts set up as
to make them difficult to quote?

I have not a CLUE what you are talking about. I have been posting the
same for a lil' bit more than just a few days. If something has
changed, then I am fully unaware of it. But then again, knowing how
the computer world works, anything is possible......


I've told you what you can do. Set up your newsreader to post your sig
after your messages. the double hyphen cuts off all your messages.

I see no double hyphen, I see ALL my messages, and I have no idea how to
move a sig. Not to mention, NO other posters seem to have any problem with
my posts.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"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, but not all.
Therefore Chris's statement is wrong, and so is yours.

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.

Prove it.


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.

"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
...

"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
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in
message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

Don't cry to me because of YOUR choice.

In what way did I choose for him to leave the
state?

Straw man. Care to try again?

How is that a straw man?

I can explain it: it is a straw man because Chris
has
no
answer
to
your
question.

Guess again.

chuckle

It was not my choice for him to bail on parenting.

Well, of course not. But you are never going to
convince
Chris.

Correct, because I am not easily convinced by illusions.
Your
true
colors
are beginning to appear.

chuckle I have consistently said the same thing, Chris.
If
an
unmarried
mother wants to be the only parent and does not inform a
man
that
he
is
a
father within the same amount of time that he has to
contest
paternity
(whatever that jurisdiction requires) then she is SOL as
far
as
extracting
$$$ from him. If a man is informed that he is a father,
he
has
the
same
amount of time as the mother to access safe haven laws.
When
both
parents
want ot be parents, 50/50 joint custody should be the
default
option
of
at
all possible (which includes living close enough to
exercise
this
option).
If one parent does become the main caretaker, the other
should
only
have
to
pay 50% of the basic needs of the child as child support.
NEITHER
parent
has the right to just walk away after the safe haven
period
just
because
they get tired of eother being a prent or dealing with the
ex.
If
those
are
"true colors," so be it.

Nice spill, but NOT the true colors to which I refer.

chuckle Poor Chris

My wealth is probably higher than your estimate.

Money doesn't make up for it, Chris

Did someone mention "money"?

You. Constantly.

Yet the ONLY one who mentioned it in our discusion was YOU. Go
figure............

I dunno, Chris. You talk about "free money" a lot. Is that not
mentioning
money?

It certainly is; however, I didn't do it in our discussion here. But
guess
who did? YOU!

And you can no longer be held to anything you said in any other
discussion?

I am held to EVERYTHING I say in ALL discussions.

Prove it.

"Chris" wrote in
:

Nope. Not all custodial parents are women. Most, maybe,

"Maybe"? LOL


Most is not the same as all.

A CAREFUL review of my above post will reveal that your statement is a
non sequitur . There is a grand total of exactly ONE word in my
response, so study it carefully.



You're picking on my use of the word "maybe"? I guess I did not choose my
words well...

"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
:

The night must have been longer than I thought. Thank you for
pointing
out my error. The fact is NONE of them have rights.


A completely false statement.

Since the claim is yours, guess what? The burden of proof rests with
YOU.


How can I prove he has rights any more than I can prove I have rights? He
has the same rights I have!

Like I said, don't just say it........ PROVE it!

Prove what?

"Chris" wrote in news:_ZJ9j.37579$Rw3.5678
@newsfe06.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
3.102...
"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.

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


That's still not *none*.

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

"Chris" wrote in :


Because he is her father and has an obligation to help support her.

False claim.

It's not a false claim that parents have obligations to their children,
Chris, no matter how many times you try to close your eyes, shut your ears
and yell as loud as you can saying that men have no rights when it comes to
their children.

"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
:

Feel free to list all these rights:
_____________________________________________
__________________________________________________ ________________
__________________________________________________ ________________
__________________________________________________ ____________________
_
__
__________________________________________________ ____________________
_
_
__________________________________________________ ____________________
__________________________________________________ ____________________
_
__ .

Use the back side of the page if you need more space.


He has the same rights I do, unless he chooses to divest himself of
those rights, which he has.

You have my permission to fill in the blanks too. You can start with
post-conception rights.

Prove that's a good starting point for talking about parental rights.

"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
:

"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.

Works great for everybody who understands word wrap.