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 was the one who agreed to that arrangement. He reneged on
it;
why
should our daughter suffer even more so that he can see her
more
often
when he is not even willing to stay in the same state as her?

What "suffering" would that be?


Having to travel and uproot like that.
I did LOT of traveling as a child, and I can testify that the pain
was excruciating. LOL

You were forced to travel hundreds of miles every few weeks because
your father refused to live in the same city as you?

Last I checked, if a child travels to live with their father, they ARE
living in the same city.


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?





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.

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".

I am not
required to agree with every decision he makes.

Isn't that usually the case when you're the boss?

He had an opportunity to
petition the court; he rejected that option.

Irrelevant.

--
[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]
"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.

What is the purpose of proving that which I have not claimed? Whether or not
it's a "good" starting point is an irrelevant opinion. Opinions, because
they are self reports, must be accepted at face value.

--
[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
:

Is the only way I can not "forbid the child to live with him" is
to
move
her to live with him in Tennessee?

Unless he decides to move elsewhere, I see no other way. Do you?


If he can find a way for our daughter to spend a substantial amount
of
time with him that doesn't require her to make 20-hour round trip
car
rides, that would be awesome.

I found a way; it's called a ONE-way trip. Awesome, huh?

And then the child sees her mother---when? Or doesn't that matter to
you?

Last I checked, this discussion was about how the FATHER can spend
substantial amounts of time with her daughter.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha---dance, dance, dance, Chris.

Indeed! I LOVE dancing to the truth.





Would the father then be responsible for making sure the child had a
realtionship with her mother?

ONLY as much as the mother is responsible for securing a child/father
relationship.

So if mom sent daughter to dad with a one-way ticket, then dad would be
responsible to send child to mom with a one way ticket?

No.



BTW, who is responsible for paying for all this travelling?

--
[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
:

And you know that how? Did he tell you?

No. I know only what the mother has posted; and she claimed that
he seeked custody after he moved.

I never said that.

"...he insisted on having 'joint physical custody', even though he
lives too far away...". Ring a bell?


You usage of "custody" implies full custody. He *can't * have joint
physical custody if he lives to o far to exercise it.

Nonsense. "Joint" does NOT imply "at the same time". Additionally,
isn't it amazing that you qualify my usage of the term "custody" to
mean "SOLE custody" even though the term "JOINT custody" exists. Guess
just another lil' convenient straw man.


You have said before that "custody" *always* refers to "sole physical
custody".

Refresh my memory with a quote please.



He cannot have her half of the time because he lives too far away for
her to travel that much. It was his choice to create this situation, not
me.

No matter HOW many times you say the sun rises in the west, it aint' gonna
happen.







He sought full physical custody at the time of our
divorce, nearly a year before he moved.

More importantly, my guess is that he
is as knowledgable as I am of the fact that NO WAY will (did)
the mother allow him to take her. If this is inaccurate, then I
welcome her to correct me.

I would have fought it in court, or called the police if he ran
with her.

Thank you for making my point.


That I would call the police if someone kidnapped my child?

Basically.


In what way do I trample his rights as a parent

He has NO rights.

by calling the police on
him if he kidnapped her? Only a real asshole would take their kid like
that.



I assume he woudl do the same; most parents would.

You know this how?


Most parents love their children and would not want them kidnapped...

Petitio principii.



My saying" I
don't want you to move out of state with our daughter" is not what
would actually kepp him from doing it.

Your point?


You said that that is what keeps his from seeing his daughter!

No I din't.

You said that he had to move out of state because I would call the
police if he kidnapped her,

I didn't say that either. Your confusion over my statements is becoming so
common that I am at the point to where I may not be able to continue with
the debate.

my mistake.

"Chris" wrote in :

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.

We were not married when he left in July. Our divorce was final last
September.

"Chris" wrote in :

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

I don't see you supporting your claim that no men have parental rights.

"Chris" wrote in :

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

Untrue.


There *are* truant laws...

"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. She is being reimbursed for the costs of their
child's care...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.

"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?


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. Neither one of us can
make unilateral decisions about her care like moving out of state. If we
can't agree on where she should live, how do you suggest we handle it?




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.

"Chris" wrote in news:Uibaj.48316$KU2.4264
@newsfe11.phx:

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?


By moving away from her!





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.



Children are not property. Fathers with physical custody of their
children are not "stealing" that custody.