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
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

OH? What are we talking about, PRE-conception rights?


Parental rights. Pre-conception rights have to do with determining
ones *status* as a parent.

And post-conception rights?


There should be laws that allow men to have similar options as women.
The fact that thoselaws do not exist does not give men who have made the
decision to be active parents free reign to just drop out.

I see, responsibilities WITHOUT rights. Makes sense to me.



My ex already made that decision.

He has already assumed
the responsibility of being her parent.

How so?


By being her father, in an active role, before he moved.

So if I repair your vehicle regularly for a couple of years, and then
move away, I am STILL responsible to be your auto mechanic.

If you told me that was the deal, I'd be pretty ****ed if you didn't
keep up your end of it. But a parent is not the same as a mechanic,
Chris, and you know that.

Not sure what you mean by "the deal". True; a parent is not the same as a
mechanic, but the principles are IDENTICAL.

--
[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

snip



Parental rights. Pre-conception rights have to do with determining ones
*status* as a parent.

And post-conception rights?

My ex already made that decision.

He has already assumed
the responsibility of being her parent.

How so?


By being her father, in an active role, before he moved.

So if I repair your vehicle regularly for a couple of years, and then
move
away, I am STILL responsible to be your auto mechanic.

Great, Chris. Now you are comparing children and cars. You certainly do
have a high opinion of children--they are possessions--like cars. Geesh!

Study the concept of "analogy", and then get back to me.


However, if you want to look at it that way, if you and I cosign for a
car,
the bank holds you just as responsible as it does me for the payments.

Your point?

--
[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
...

wrote in message

...
On Dec 18, 12:50 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

snip for lenghth


But only if the parents were married, right? It is your opinion
that
only children of once wedded parents should be supported?

I didn't say that. I said that married parents are both
automatically
for
the children they create. But, as far as unmarried parents go, both
should
have equitable post-conception rights. Since the woman has a
certain
number
of days to walk away from parenthood via safe-haven laws, the man
should
have the same right and the same amount of time to do so. Since men
have
only a certain amount of time to contest paternity, women should
have
only
that same amount of time to declare paternity. Make the playing
field
equal. If both decide that they want to parent the child, and they
do
not
wish to marry or live together as a family, 50/50 joint custody
should
be
the default ruling. Now if, from that, you think I said that
children
of
unmarried parents do not need to be supported, you are reading
something
into it that isn;' there.- Hide quoted text -



What you just said contadicts the statement that "all children have a
right to be supported by both of thier parents".

Either all children deserve support from both parents, or they don't.

You didn't say *some* children deserve to be suported by both
parents,
as you should have if you don't feel that single, never married
parents don't have a responsibility to thier children.

You are not comprehending what I am saying. Ideally. parents are
married
before creating children. In that case, they will automatically be
supported by both parents. They *deserve* to be supported by both
parents.
But that does not always happen, does it?


Then again, I am talking to the same person who stated that "the
State
should take those children from the unwed mothers and give them to
couples" because you didn't feel the unwed parent had a right to ask
for child support.

That I did not say. What I said was that men and women should have
equitable post conception rights. A woman has a right to drop a child
off
at safe haven and renounce her parental rights and responsibilities
forever.
Men should have similar safe haven rights, and be able to renounce
their
parental rights and responsibilities, wiithin the same time frame that
women
can. So if a woman has a right to safe haven for the first week after
her
child's birth, the man should have a right to safe haven for one week
after
he is told he is a father.

Thus NO parenting by one's father is better than SOME parenting.........

Don't be asinine.

Ok, I won't be like you, since that is YOUR position.




Just curious: During this grace period, is the father "responsible" for
the
child or is he not?

I don't know, Chris. During the grace period of safe haven for the mom,
is
she responsible to keep the child warm, fed, and sheltered? Or can she
put
it in her dresser drawer and pretend it doesn;t exist until she makes up
her
mind?

I take that as a "yes"?








Since legality doesn't see morality (why you would feel an unwed
mother is not moral is beyond me), all mothers who are CP are treated
equally-as it should be-since you feel all fathers have an obligation
to support basic needs of thier children.

I did not say that, either. You are missing the pice about equitable
post
comception rights. Once the man has decided to be a father, however,
he
can
no longer walk away. NOW he is responsible for that child. Hopefully
with
50/50 shared custody. But if that is not a possibility, then he (or
she,
depending on who the NCP is) must pay 50% of the child's basic needs.
But
only of the basic needs--no requirement to pay for anything else.


Unless you feel that only some women are entitled to child support,

I don't think **any** women are entitled to child support. Only
**children** are entitled to child support. Let the women take care of
themselves. They're adults.

and only some men have a responsibility toward thier children.

Fathers are responsible for half the basic needs of their children.

Except for the ones that "drop off" their children at a safe haven.

Then they are no longer fathers, Chris. Just as the mothers who drop off
children are no linger mothers.

I see. But the ones who walk away are still fathers. Your chaotic ideas
crack me up.

--
[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 :

What she is saying is that men should have a way of deciding they don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already do*. Parents who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child can't just decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.

Yet they do on a regular basis, legally!



Prove it.

You got me. I just can't prove drop-offs or adoption.

--
[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
...

wrote in message

...
On Dec 18, 12:53 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message



...





On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message



...

On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

snip

No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not
tell
the
man
that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically
rests
with
the
mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the
father.
Custody
does not need to be established by a court if there is only a
mother,
does
it?

Which would lead to her being in possession of the child,

Ah, yes, children as possessions--just like dogs, cats, and
toilet
seats.
Sweet.

That's just how the Cp's and CS man-ghouls treat thier children,
and
I
see no reason to sugar-coat it. If you want to be kissing Sarahs
ass,
and tell her she is doing the right thing, well then you need to
extent that to ALL cp's, and CS recipients. What is good for one
is
good for the other.

Nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nonsense/discrimination????!! So you ARE saying that only some single
mothers deserve child support,

No mothers anywhere deserve child support. They are adults and can pay
their own way. (If they are still minors, they might receive child
support
from their own parent, but not for their children)

meaning that only some children deserve
to be supported by two/both parents. I knew something was wrong with
you.

Not at all. I somply believe that if a woman can walk away from
responsibility for an unwanted child through safe have, a man should be
able
to do so, too.

Yet their children "desrve" to be supported by the father. You crack me
up!

Every child deserves 2 parents, Chris. A child does not choose to be born
to people who are fighting, or have no intention of having a committed
relationship, or are married, or divorced, or any other thing. A child is
born without any choices at all. He deserves the best--but very often
does
not get it. Why do you consider that to be funny?

Although untrue, THAT'S not what amuses me.

--
[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
:

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?

You're doing the right thing; let some third party stranger decide FOR you
how your child shall be raised. Keep on truckin'.......




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.

Untrue.

Neither one of us can
make unilateral decisions about her care like moving out of state.

But there sure is one of you making a unilateral decision that she NOT move
out of state.

If we
can't agree on where she should live, how do you suggest we handle it?

Just EXACTLY the way you are right now. Afterall, YOU'RE the boss..........
Now that I answered your question, how about answering mine (that was asked
BEFORE yours)?






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.

Among many other things you cannot imagine. Quite frankly, there are many
who cannot imagine you keeping your child from being with her father. Aren't
you glad I aint' one of em'?

--
[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 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?


We have not been married for over a year.

Notice the PAST tense?

What does that have to do with
anything?

You REALLY don't know? Wait a minute, I forgot that I am debating with
someone who lacks a fundamental understanding of the concept of marriage.
Please forgive me.

Is a divorced person who moves always moving away from their
ex-spouse, specifically?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Animal02" wrote in message
...

"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
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
news:_bOdnSvRiLd3sfranZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Animal02" wrote in message
...

"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]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message

. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

It's a simple "YES'" or "NO" question. Please answer
it
that
way.


It's a loaded question, so I was qualifiying my "yes".

It's not loaded at all. A loaded question forces the
respondent to
admit by implication to something regardless of how
they
answer.
NOT
the case here. Either handing the money to the parent
supports a
child
or it does not. Which is it?


The act of handing money to the child's custodial parent
does
not
automatically support the child.

BINGO! See how simple the answer is?

A responsible and honest custodial
parent will use those funds to help support their child.
It's
not a
simple yes or no question.




I'm all
for a system requiring accountability.

Translation: "I'm all for a system requiring a man
to
give
FREE
cash
to a
woman".


No, I'm all for a system that treats parents and
children
as
fair
as
possible. I think parents have financial obligations
to
their
children, but for basic needs, not anything more.

Hence your error. Money does NOT equal basic needs.
Ever
see
a
child
eat a dollar bill?


So how are goods and serviced procured for a child
without
m
oney
changing hands somewhere?

Perhaps you should ask the first people to walk the Earth.
I'm
sorry,
how
DUMB of me! Everyone knows that money existed before
people
did.
Otherwise,
there would be no goods or services for their children.
Guess
I
really
blew
THAT one.......

What do you permit your renters to give to you in lieu of
money
when
they
have no money, Chris? Nuts and berries?

Who said that I permit them to give me ANYTHING? WIth all due
respect,
my
contract with tenants simply aint' your business.

Well, Chris, you did state in antoher post that you walked into
living
space
of one of your renters and saw all sorts of Christmas presents,
but
they
hadn't paid rent, so you evicted them. Were they attempting to
take
your
advice and live without money? But you evicted them anyway?

My only advice to them was "pay or quit". And then, ONLY because
it
is
mandated by law.

Child support is mandated by law, Chris.

And yet I have never paid a dime in child support which will be 17
years
next month. :-)

Is there a court order for you to do so? Or do you have it worked
out
another way?



I received 50/50 custody when my daughter was less than2 years old,
over
the objections of her mother who didn't want me to have ANY
overnights,

And it has worked out well? Did mom come to accept the arrangement?
And
has it worked out well for your daughter as well? I am all for 50/50
custody as the default option whenever it is possible.

No you're not; unless, of course, "possible" is unilaterally defined by
the
mother or her designated advocate.

One day you may grow up and ralize what a selfish, unreasonable person
you
really are, Chris.

I doubt it. People like Chris never manage to own up to their own
shortcomings

For example?

--
[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 news:0jbaj.48318$KU2.15176
@newsfe11.phx:

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?


Why should I have to travel to see her when *he* made the choice to
move?

Why should he have to travel to see her when *you* made the choice to not
let her move?









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.

My choice for her father to move that far away?

No, your choice for her to not live with him. Wake up!

His actions have legal
ramifications for him... not my fault.



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".


Yes. If I don't give him permission, he has to get permission from the
court. That's how it works.

Yeah, I know how it works alright. You give him permission, she goes, you
don't give him permission, she stays.

I am not obligated to send my daughter to
live so far away from me. He *also* would have had every right to not
agree to *me* moving out of state with her.


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

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


I'm not the boss.

Circumstances say otherwise.



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

Irrelevant.


It's *not* irrelevant!

It is TOTALLY irrelevant to the fact that he did not choose for her to not
live with him.

There are procedures one needs to complete before
moving so far from their child or moving a child away from their other
parent.

Yeah, mainly asking for permission from the mother.

If you don't comply with regulated procedures, you can't
complain that the law is doing you wrong.

Tell that to Rosa Parks......

--
[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 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.

PRECISELY! And that is what makes it FREE.


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

Untrue. Call it what you like, but the fact remains that it is FREE money.

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.