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
...

OK, Chris, you explain:

Dad has 50/50 custody

Dad moves away--too far to transport the child for 50/50 custody every 3
or
4 days, as before.

Mom remains where she was, does not follow dad.

Who made the choice for the dad not to see the child every 3 or 4 days?

I'm sorry, but I just don't recall mentioning anything about every 3 or 4
days. Will you enlighten me?



(a) Dad, who moved away from the child?

-or-

(b) Mom, who stayed where she was?

--
[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
:

but he certainly
has a legal obligation towards her,

Correction: He has a legal obligation towards YOU!


It's not as if I'm asking him to support me, Chris.

Irrelevant. You are FORCING him to give you FREE money!

All I want is for
him to take some responsibility in supporting *his daughter*.

I see. It's "HIS" daughter when it comes to paying you the money, but when
it comes to anything ELSE, suddenly it is "YOUR" daughter. Your logic cracks
me up.



and that is an undeniable fact.

Negros once had a "legal" obligation to be slaves too! Oh, and women
had a "legal" obligation to keep their butts out of the voting
booth...........



So if it's such a bad law, get it changed.

OK. "Oh magic wand, magic wand, twist and turn; make this evil law crash and
BURN". Did it work, did it WORK?

I don't understand why you
want kids to go without...that is hardly comparable to slavery and anti-
suffrage.

It was an ANALOGY, thus your comparison is irrelevant. And by the way,
WHEREVER did I proclaim that I want kids to go without?

--
[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:jvO2j.27141$aN3.4998
@newsfe12.phx:

--
[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
:

If my ex still lived here, I would do what I could to stay in
town,
(let alone the "100 mile law" in Michigan) because I would want my
daughter to be able to see her father.

Uhuh. By the way, such "100 mile law" is nothing more than a
meaningless piece of legislation to make the so-called "family"
court
look good. Definitely not enforced, as are ALL CP requirements. Oh,
with one exception, the requirement that the CP get FREE money.


It *is* enforced. In fact, the first case I read when I was
researching
it involved a man whose ex moved with thier child upstate, and the
court
ended up reversing custody.

Special pleading.



WTF? The fact is, the law is enforced all the time.

In your WILDEST dreams. It's enforced just like J-walking laws are enforced.
When was the last time you heard of someone getting a J-walking citation?
Like any of their laws, they do enforce it against women on occasion just so
they can say "NOT TRUE" if someone claims they only apply it to men.
Fact is, such law is RARELY enforced (against the mother).






If my ex had had a job offer, and that was
the reason he moved, I would not have had as much of a problem
with
it.

You should have NO problem with it. Where he moves and what he
chooses
to do with his private life is HIS business........ NOT yours!


Not according to the state of Michigan.

Explain.


He chose to file for divorce after a child was born from that marriage.

That changes things just a lil' bit.


The state of Michigan has a statute that says a child of parents with
joint legal custody has a legal residence with both parents. One may not
move a child's legal residence more than 100 miles from their other
legal residence without permission from the other parent or the court.

So essentially he has requested that the court make it illegal for him to
move like he did.



http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/reso...uals/focb/cp_c
hange.pdf

--
[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 :

Incorrect. She has PREVENTED him from caring for her. Where he chooses
to live is his business, is irrelevant concerning his ability and/or
choice to have her with him, and is his RIGHT!


In what way have I done so, Chris? If he wanted to take her with him, he
could have petitioned for full custody. If he did not want the state in
his
business regarding where he moves, he shouldn't have filed for divorce.

Yet ANOTHER revelation. How nice!

--
[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 :


Actually, given that I have no degree, I was very fortunate to find
the job I have. I doubt that it would be very easy to find a job
where I would be making enough to support my daughter, considering
that the "really great job" that his mother was bragging about
finding when she was up here in August for a funeral pays less than
what I make. Before that I was working a minimum wage plus tips job,
delivering orders for a sub shop. My daughter's father only has an
GED, and has few employable skills. The kind of jobs he is qualified
for are not in short supply anywhere. He left after being unemployed
by choice for months, with no job offer in Tennessee. It's not as if
he is in a specialized field and was simply looking for a position to
open, but found one in Tennessee.

BLAH Blah blah blah blah. Of course! It's ALWAYS different when it
comes to you.

Did I say that? no.

" I doubt that it would be very easy to find a job where I would be making
enough to support my daughter...". Ring a bell?

We are in a pretty similar boat, actually, when it
comes to employment.

Then what applies to him EQUALLY applies to you!

That doesn't mean that $8 an hour jobs are not
readily available here in Detroit.

Nor does it mean that employment is not readily available to YOU where he
lives.



but I think expecting me to either pick up and
move, or spend my weekends driving back and forth fromn Tennessee so
she
can see him for a few hours is ridiculous.

I agree, because your convenience trumps your child having a
relationship
with her father.


If he was willing to come see her, he would have a relationship with
him. Please explain to me why it is on *me* to ensure they have a
relationship.

I never suggested that you ensure ANYTHING; let alone their relationship.



My priority is my daughter. If her father is not willing to step up
and
play an active role in her life, he should be doing more in terms of
his
share of the financial side of things. What is so wrong with that?
If I had up and left town with less than a day's notice, he would
have
the very same options as me.

Perhaps if you were living on Mars.

What do you mean by that? The law is the same for men and women when it
comes to this sort of thing.

Not when it comes to enforcement.



How can he be responsible for anything besides money when he lives
600
miles away?

Guess what: You ALSO live 600 miles away.

But I didn't create that situation, Chris. Why are you blaming me for
his moving?

I'm not. I simply am pointing out that the distance between you is
irrelevant.



He is not here to make any of those decisions, and he has not voiced
many concerns over these things. Again, am I to call him to consult
on
every little issue, as parents in an intact family might? I keep him
informed about what is going on. I ask him for input. What else can I
do?

Well, if you REALLY believe that he is equally a parent, then DON'T
interfere with your daughter going to be with him. But if you believe
that
he is somewhat LESSER of a parent by virtue of his gender (after all,
it is
the woman that gives birth), then continue down your current path; just
leave his money alone!

*I* don't belive he is a lesser parent because he is a man. I am not
interfering with anything.

Then you are telling me that you are not preventing him from taking her to
be with him.

She is in school right now. We already agreed
that she will visit him during school holidays. There is nothing wrong
with asking him to support his child.

Yup, "HIS" child ONLY when it comes to the money. LOL

--
[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
:
Teachermama wrote:
What's ridiculous is your nice lil' twist in what I claimed. The
ONLY thing
that she is forcing him into is to pay her free money. I know, she
isn't actually getting the cash from him (now). As if a judgement
that
threatens
him with prison, not to mention the fact that eventually it (the
extortion
of his money) will catch up with him, is supposed to be any
better.....

Not free money, Chris.

Unearned = FREE! What part of that equation do you NOT understand?


It is *not* unearned. I am only asking him to recoup his share of the
costs of raising his daughter.

Unless you have provided for him goods and/or services, it is unearned.
And
guess what; you've provided NEITHER.

The money is for the child's basic needs.

Uhuh, "for the children". Well guess what, I don't give a RIP about "the
children"; how bout that? And guess what else, the money is FOR the mother
to do whatever the mother pleases to do with it..... and LEGALLY too!

What goods and/or services do you
think the child should provide, Chris?




A portion of the child's needs, since he is not
there to provide those needs himself. He chose to abandon his
child.


Now, to remind you once again, her dictation is that he either
sees
the child in the mother's town or not at all. These are his ONLY
options as determined by HER!

The child is where she always was.

Irrelevant.

But he is not.

Irrelevant.

He left.

Irrelevant.

He chose to
abandon his child.

Correction: SHE chose to NOT allow him to have the child be with him.


That is completely false. I would never keep him from seeing her.

Then allow her to go be with him.

All he has to do is be there, Chris. If he can't do even that, what makes
you think he wants her?

And all the mother has to do is allow him to take her. If she can't do even
that, what makes you think she wants her to be with him?



He is
keeping himself from seeing her.


You don't tell me what I "try" to do; I tell YOU what I try to do.
And making every NCP a helpless victim aint' it.

Sure sounds like it, Chris.

Could that pesky lil' fact that virtually every NCP is so against
their will have ANYTHING to do with it?


In this case, though, that is simply not the situation.

So let me guess: You offered him the position of CP and he refused
saying
that he preferred the NCP role.

He HAD the position of 50/50 coparent. HE chose to abandon that role.

Did I say "coparent"? I thought "CP" stood for "custodial" parent, no?

On Nov 26, 3:53 pm, "Chris" wrote:
--
[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 :

--
[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...
"DB" wrote in
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in

"Chris" wrote in
:
Sarah Gray said:
I'm really hoping that my ex gets it together; As much as I
cannot stand him, I want my daughter to have a decent
relationship with her dad.

On YOUR terms; "decent" being a matter of opinion.

On MY terms? I did not forcibly remove him to another state,
Chris. He is the one putting a stumbling block in their
relationship.

Personally, I think he's trying to put some real distance between
all of you and has plans to drop out of her life.

Unfortunately, you didn't procreate with a man, this is an immature
boy that needs to be close to his mommy for security. If you
realize that reality, you can better deal with the situation and
don't count on his help.

I am not counting on his help... but if he's going to "drop out" like
that, I see no reason why I shouldn't use the legal means available
to me to ensure he helps support his daughter. I don't think that is
his intention, though, considering that when I brought up our
discussing custody issues at the next court date we have, he alluded
to fighting for full custody himself. Which I think is ridiculous,
considering he is in no position to raise a child (no home of his
own, no car, currently is claiming that he is too broke to afford to
come see his daughter when he has no real expenses and makes $1000 a
month)

Drop this loser and go find a real man to continue your life. To
dwell on this problem is a waste of time & energy, it's not worth
the heart ache.

I'd love to not have to deal with him. He is my daughter's father,
though, and so I'm going to have to for as long as he cares to be
involved in her life.

Then tell him that you are willing to stop the pursuit of his money if
he is willing to be out of your life. Simple.

Whatever, Chris. No matter what you think, he has an obligation to his
daughter.

No matter what YOU think, he does not. But I welcome you to support your
claim.

It does matter, according to the laws of my state all parents, male,
female, CP, or NCP have a legal obligation to their child, moral
obligation I guess is your choice

NRS 125B.020 Obligation of parents.
1. The parents of a child have a duty to provide the child
necessary maintenance, health care, education and support.

Now Chris, for your sake, here is one definition of parents.

A parent is a father or mother; one who sires or gives birth to and/or
nurtures and raises an offspring.

I know you will take your own meaning on this...but real parents know
who they are, and with that my state also defines an unfit parent;

NRS 128.018 "Unfit parent" defined. "Unfit parent" is any parent of a
child who, by reason of his fault or habit or conduct toward the child
or other persons, fails to provide such child with proper care,
guidance and support.
Sounds to me he is legally obligated, as is she...She chooses to take
her obligation a little more seriously...iare these bad laws?





Frankly, I'm not looking for a man... I need to get my own thing
together for myself and my daughter before I can devote energy to a
relationship.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Very Determined!" wrote in

It does matter, according to the laws of my state all parents, male,
female, CP, or NCP have a legal obligation to their child, moral
obligation I guess is your choice

And what is the government's one and only legal obligation to each citizen
of this country?


Clue, it has something to do with this:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/200...et-taser-utah/

On Nov 27, 2:49 pm, "DB" wrote:
"Very Determined!" wrote in

It does matter, according to the laws of my state all parents, male,
female, CP, or NCP have a legal obligation to their child, moral
obligation I guess is your choice

And what is the government's one and only legal obligation to each citizen
of this country?

Clue, it has something to do with this:http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/200...et-taser-utah/

Sarah, you must be kidding on women having to support their children,
right? You must!
Perfect example is Britney Spears...you see, the CS agency is using
her to make the public
"think" they go after all mothers...well, no, the fact is that they
don't. You see, most of the time
in order for men to get custody, they have to give up the right to
CS...otherwise, the woman
won't go for it and she is awarded custody...2nd, I guess you missed
the case on glenn sacks
about the idiot who killer one of her sons and when the ex (father of
the children) wanted to
stop paying both CS and ALIMONY the judge said NO...so yes, she's in
jail, he takes care
of the only living son without any CS from her and won't get any
either...and yes, he will
continue to have to pay alimony to the crazy nut who killed his
child..

You see, baby Grace that washed up on the shore of Texas was killed by
her mother, not her father...
Oh, but I can assure you that someone will twist it to the point of it
being the father's faul...
just like they have done with all the other crazy women who do the
same...

So anyway, back to the issue...you have no clue what you are talking
about...
I have yet to meet a single mother who pays CS for her kids and that's
in jail for not doing so...
Of course, most idiots out there say that women pay slightly less than
men on CS...which is
not true if you look at statistics...but what they fail to say is that
most women are NOT court
ordered to pay cs...period...

Again, you keep complaining about his move, him divorcing you,
etc...it's not about your
child it's about PAYBACK because you feel you have a right to make his
life miserable
because he could no longer stand to be with you...period.

"Very Determined!" wrote
............................................

It does matter, according to the laws of my state all parents, male,
female, CP, or NCP have a legal obligation to their child, moral
obligation I guess is your choice

NRS 125B.020 Obligation of parents.
1. The parents of a child have a duty to provide the child
necessary maintenance, health care, education and support.
=============
And therein lies the dilemma for NCPs. While all parents
"have a duty to provide the child necessary maintenance, health care,
education and support,"
only NCPs are required to provide *more* than necessary support by means of
a government
mandate to provide according to their income even when that support goes
beyond "necessary"
support. It doesn't strike you that the statute doesn't require all parents
to provide a percentage of their
income to support their children?