child support review objection

"Chris" wrote in
:

So all he had to do was not move. I don't understand how that is so
difficult-

And all you had to do was allow your daughter to live with him.
Perhaps he doesn't understand how it is so difficult. But I do; it's
hard to not flex yer big muscles when ya got em'......


It is one of my rights as a parent that I don;t have to send my child to
live half the time in a city 10 hours away. Her father has that right,
too; he chose to distance himself from her.




What's the difference between being unemployed here and
unemployed there?

The same difference between your daughter living "here" and living
"there".


All he had to do was petition the court...

"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



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'?

And there are, undoubtedly, many more who cannot imagine why the father
moved 10 ours away from the child, thus putting *himself* in the position of
no longer enjoying 50/50 shared custody.

"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 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?

Not true, Chris. Just your fevered and blind defense of male NCPs causing
delusions again.

"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

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.

It's not analagous, Chris. Children aren't property.

"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
...

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.

If they walk away after the period of time they had to make that decision,
yes. If they have parented the child for yeasr then justdecide not to
parent the child any more, yes, they are still fathers and still have
parental responsibilities. It just appalls me that you think a man should
be able to walk away any time he decides not to be a father any more.

"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
:

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.

Drop offs are only for a very short specified tome. Men should have the
same time period to decide not to be parents. Adoptions do not happen based
on the decision of only one parent if there are 2 parents in the picture.

--
[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
.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:ufI9j.24068$Qf1.14614
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:gDA9j.20283$1C4.707
@newsfe10.phx:

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.

Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems
fit.........
PERIOD!

I have already said that I am able and willing to provide my ex husband
with receipts for goods and services procured for my daughter.

Irrelevant. That has NO bearing on the truth of my claim.

Internal truths have no value until they become external truths based on
agreement with others about common sense or facts. Your statement does
not
rise to the level of external truth because it excludes fathers, it
suggests
the absence of any CS spending accountability, and it assumes mothers are
not trustworthy to spend CS money on children.

It assumes NO such thing. Contrarily, your claim assumes that mothers ARE
trustworthy to spend it on the children. To say that goats have one head
just doesn't "rise to the level of external truth" because it excludes
two-headed goats. What you present are exceptions to the rules; a special
pleading of sorts. To say that clovers have three leafs doesn't "rise to the
level of external truth" because it excludes FOUR leaf clovers..............

--
[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
...

"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.

I asked you to offer some proof YOUR statement above is true and accurate.
If it is just your opinion (CS is free money only paid by fathers and
mothers don't have to spend it on children) that is fine. But you keep
tossing out alternatives for me to prove.

That's because, once again, I can NOT prove a negative. Can you? And since
proof seems to be important to you, I asked you to prove that which debunks
my claim.

On another thread I posted
information about CS accountability where the CP's can be required to
provide spending records and sworn statements regarding CS use. IOW - I
don't think your statement is true, but I want to give you a chance to
explain what you said if it is your opinion.

NONE of what I said was an opinion. In your quest to prove me wrong, at
best, you come up with rare exceptions to the rule. Better known as special
pleading. A nice way of stacking the deck, I might add.

"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
...

"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
...

"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
:

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.

Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems
fit.........
PERIOD!

Prove it.

Can't prove a negative. But then again, you already knew that (I
think).
How
about YOU prove that she must spend it on any particular thing.

CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending
the
money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS
guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to
file
a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP
to
detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS
accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting
of
how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on
the children by expense category.

Congratulations, you found a rare exception to the rule. Even when the
mother is under court direction to do so, often times she doesn't and with
absolutely NO court sanctions; and you KNOW it too!

My example is not rare at all. The family law language requiring details of
household expenditures is fairly common and required by most states. I know
of one case (my own) where the form was submitted but not signed. There can
be court sanctions for failing to comply with court ordered discovery. And
there can be sanctions for perjury, i.e. signing a false declaration.
Whether or not those sanctions get enforced is left up to judicial
discretion.

My personal experience is the judges are biased and protect women. But in
the end, all a judge has to do to cover their butt is to say something like
"I considered the relevance of all the facts and testimony before the court"
and it's a done deal. So the issue is wishy-washy judges who are biased,
not what women do.

BTW - Here is an another example of what I am saying. When the judge in my
case didn't like the way my ex was being pressured to testify with more
candor, the judge interjected herself and either cut off the questions or
took over asking her own questions designed to get the answer she wanted to
hear. There were several times it appeared the judge was representing my ex
rather than being a third party finder of fact.

"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
...

"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
.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:ufI9j.24068$Qf1.14614
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:gDA9j.20283$1C4.707
@newsfe10.phx:

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.

Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems
fit.........
PERIOD!

I have already said that I am able and willing to provide my ex
husband
with receipts for goods and services procured for my daughter.

Irrelevant. That has NO bearing on the truth of my claim.

Internal truths have no value until they become external truths based on
agreement with others about common sense or facts. Your statement does
not
rise to the level of external truth because it excludes fathers, it
suggests
the absence of any CS spending accountability, and it assumes mothers are
not trustworthy to spend CS money on children.

It assumes NO such thing. Contrarily, your claim assumes that mothers ARE
trustworthy to spend it on the children.

Now you are starting to get it. My claim is the same as the family law
"assumption" about CS spending. Mothers are trustworthy to spend the CS on
children until it can be proven otherwise.

To say that goats have one head
just doesn't "rise to the level of external truth" because it excludes
two-headed goats. What you present are exceptions to the rules; a special
pleading of sorts. To say that clovers have three leafs doesn't "rise to
the
level of external truth" because it excludes FOUR leaf
clovers..............

BTW - You ignored the points some fathers get CS and the fact there are
provisions in the law to get CS accountability that are not exceptions to
the rules.