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
. 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?

No, actually, they were divorced and had been for quite some time.

If my memory (which aint' the greatest) serves me right, I believe she
stated they were married when he hit the road. If not, then I will stand
corrected.

--
[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
:

"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.









Why do you act as if I am in the wrong for saying that I would
call
the
police if he kidnapped her?

The above question is a textbook example of clouded thinking.
How
exactly
does one "act" is if someone is wrong?

You seem to have the presumption that anything I do to try and
protect my child and my own parental rights is the wrong thing to
do.

Now it's "my" child again. LOL
What seems to be and what actually is are often different.

Why do you keep remarking on how I address my daughter? She has two
parents...

Yeah, but it meanders depending on whether you are talking about
rights or talking about responsibilities. Same kind of tactic used in
government "child support" propaganda. No surprise here.


She has two parents regardless whether we are talking about rights or
responsibilities. Both of her parents have both!

No they don't. Why is it that you keep making false claims yet NEVER
support
them? Do you REALLY expect me to believe unsubstantiated claims?

Why not? You expect us to believe yours!!

I make no unsubstantiated claims; therefore, your statement is false. Not to
mention, I don't expect anyone to believe anything.

--
[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.

--
[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 :


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,

Red herring.


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.

It is YOU, rather, who is in denial. EVERY time I ask for evidence to
support your claims, you come up with exactly ZERO.

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

"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.

Already done in ALL my posts. I don't deny ANY of my claims. Never have,
don't now, and have no intention to do so in the future.

--
[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 news:ziJ9j.17375$Rf5.10713
@newsfe13.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:WZH9j.24065$Qf1.4937
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:B0A9j.24038$Qf1.21467
@newsfe07.phx:

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

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
news:Xns9A05DB184FFC8anisaerahyahoonotcom@
207.115.17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

He has the right to, but doesn't our daughter deserve
to
see
both of
her
parents regularly?

No. That's why you don't allow it.


I allow it. He can see his daughter whenever he wants to.

In case you were not aware, seeing someone requires both a
time
AND
a place.

It also requires not being 10 hours away.

Nah, REALLY? I thought I had that covered by a "place".

Ok, so he doesn't have a place to see her that is not 10 hours
away.

But he HAS a place, doesn't he.

Not close enough to her.

Thanks to YOU.

How is it my fault he moved?

Since that's not my claim, you tell me.


How is it my fault that he cannot see his daughter?

Who said it was a fault?

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

Untrue.

He has no way of supporting her there.

Irrelevant, even if true.

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

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.




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.

--
[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
:


She cannot go to school in two places, you are being ridiculous.

Untrue.


There is no way the court would allow that arrangement.

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
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?



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.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
wrote in
news:ccfc2923-ab9a-42fc-9953-2d93763d5720
@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:


If YOU can not take care of yur child, maybe you should think
about giving her to someone who can. You wouldn't get child
support..... Never mind-that's the whole reason you won't let
your daughter live with the dad.



I *do* take care of my child. her *father* is not stepping up to
his responsibilities. It's not that I'm not "not letting" her live
with her dad- he moved too far away to be able to have the 50/50
arrangement that we agreed on, and was ordered by the court.

SCREW the court! They only exist so long as you allow it. The
father has no responsibilities, and you ARE not letting her live
with him.


She was living with him half of the time until he moved;

And THAT was the point where you decided that she will no longer live
with him.


I didn't decide that. He did.

How so?




he chose to
reject that situation.

Yup, the situation of living with YOU.

The court *must* be involved in custody issues in
a divorce.

No they don't.

We agreed on a certain situation- he reneged on that with
nearly no notice to me, and none to the court.



Maybe you should find ways to be more productive and earn more
money...wait, free money, that's what CS is for.


Why do you think fathers should not have to help support their
children?

Better question: Why do you think they SHOULD?


Because parents have obligations to their children as well as rights.

Petitio principii. Not to mention, fathers do NOT have rights.

Yes they do. How is it that father shave custody of their children,
then?

The above is like asking "How is it that thieves have possession of other
people's property?". I know, because they have a RIGHT to the
property.......... duh.

--
[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 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*.

Nor did I claim so. I was speaking on practical terms. Look it up.



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

Irrelevant question.