child support review objection

"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
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"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
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:


"My child", except when it comes to "child support"........


So are you saying that she's not my child? Must I always refer to
her as "our child" even though she is clearly *my* child
concurrently?

And here, folks, is where we have the two-step dance. Not
surprising
as that
is what happens when someone wants to be inconsistent to their OWN
advantage.
But to answer your question, she is either "my" child or "our"
child
regarding EVERYTHING. So, take your pick. Words, in context, DO
have
meaning
ya know.

Ah, yes, I understand. A man has a right to take his child 10
hours
away and raise her without her mother because the child is HIS
child,
but the child is NOT HIS child is he does not wish to be a parent.
A
woman who does not GIVE a child to the father to raise is saying
that
the child is only hers, therefore the man has no rights--unless he
takes the child 10 hours away--but if the mother calls the police,
she
is acknowledging that the child is only hers, so the man has no
responsibilities. And a man has the right to participate in the
raising of his child by having the child in his home--until he gets
tired of being a father. Then he just walks away because he did
not,
personally, birth the child. Etc, etc, etc. The Two Step. Oh,
yeah



And this is why my brain hurts

chuckle I know what you mean.

I do too. "The man gives, the woman takes" keeps it simple.........

"The woman births the child. The woman has 100% of the responsibility.
Men
just get free sex whenever they want it with no fear of consequences."

Which men might that be?

The ones you feel should be able to walk away from children they help create
any time they want to. Like you.

"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...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
:


"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
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

If he wants joint physical custody again, I would be
amenable to that in the future.

And at that point he will also have the physical
responsibilities;
but
not a moment sooner.


A parent's repsonsibilites to their child do not flip-flop
liek
that.

Then neither do their rights.


When did I say they did? He has not lost his rights to be her
parent!

Because he never had such rights.

Just saying this stuff doesn't make it so. Parental Rights are held
sacred
and are rooted in the Constitution under equal protection and due
process.
Fathers and mothers have identical parental rights unless they are
terminated or restricted by court order.

Correction: They do NOT have identical rights. You are confusing a
privilege
with a right. Mothers have rights; fathers have privileges.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you.

See: http://www.liftingtheveil.org/supreme-court.htm




I think a better argument would be to say the courts are
overstepping
their
authority when they take away a Constitutional right from one
parent.

Just saying this doesn't make it so. It is an illusion that fathers
have any
rights. The proof of this is clear for all to see in ANY "family"
court in the nation. The sword is ALWAYS mightier than the pen!

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with you. See cite above.


Chris only uses logic when it serves his nonsensical arguments at the
time.

Making statements contrary to the facts is not logic. And logic is not
based on perceptions and theories of relevance. For those reasons Chris
cannot backup his conclusions so he uses word games to twist definitions
and
connotations of words to suit his agenda.

For example?

Since you asked, in a recent thread you made a comment about parents earning
custody. Earning in that connotation means to establish worthiness. When
you got a response you didn't like you flipped the meaning of the word
"earning" to a very narrow definition of earning money, as in getting
something for services rendered. Then there is the example of ascribing
Sarah's ex's intent for moving which is nothing more than a speculative
theory not based on fact.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

That's YOUR choice.


No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal
agreement we had.

Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you agreed
upon.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are droll!!

I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice
what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would
have been neglecting my daughter!

He can't explain it, Sarah. He can only rabidly defend his ideas,
which preclude men from ever having parental responsibilities if they
don't want them, yet demands that they be permitted to be parents on
their own terms when and for however long they choose to be.

I'm just wondering why he's like this...

One question women are reluctant to ask themselves is why they are trying
to analyze and change men. Forget about what he says and focus on how
you are reacting to what he says.

For me, I sometimes take the time to try to get to the bottom of why he
says what he says. I am really curious as to why he takes the stand he
does. Does he really believe that men have no responsibility toward the
children they father? The same way I wonder about women who insist that
men are totally responsible to provide for the children they father
because it is the woman's job to care for the child, and she should not
have to work outside the home to provide a share of the childs needs. Do
they really feel that way? Or is that just what they *wish* were the
case? Both stands are unfathomable to me, and I would really like to
understand where they are coming from.

People have a mental template through which they filter their input and
output about the world around them. In your examples, those people have
very narrow mental templates that cause them to view things in the extremes
and not see other possibilities that might cause them to adjust their mental
template to be less rigid.

Here is an example totally unrelated to CS. I worked with a woman who was
given the assignment to go to a meeting (the boss was out of town) and
report back to her peers on what was discussed. At the meeting 4 major
areas were covered. She came back and only reported on two of the agenda
topics. When confronted that she failed to give us a full report, she
responded she didn't think the other two topics were relevant. Her mental
template filtered out the two topics as if they never were discussed.

--
[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
Chris, I have said time and time again that I think it is wrong for a
parent to leave the state like that and take the child with them.

What makes it wrong?

Because a child has the right to at least have the opportunity to spend a
substantial amount of time with both of their parents.

No they don't.

And both parents
have the right to be able to spend time with their child without making
20-
hour round trip drives.

Non sequitur.

--
[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
:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

Let's see: Because you shouldered ALL the choice to birth her.
Because you shoulder all the rights to have custody of her.
Because
you have ALL the custody of her. NOT rocket science.


But he shouldered all the choice to be her parent once she was
born.

Now that you REFUSE to allow him to BE a parent, so much for that
lil
tidbit of information.


How have I refused to allow him to parent?

Last I checked, one of the characteristics of parenting is caring for
one's
child in that parent's home.

Hmmmmm....you've got to wonder why he chose to stop doing that by
moving
10
hours away.........

Moving 10 hours away is NOT what caused it. But you already knew
that............

And you know it is,

Since the claim is YOURS, then the burden to support such claim is also
YOURS. Feel free.

but you have got to turn the man into a martyr--a trait
you have exibited quite often, Chris.

--
[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 :

How have I refused to allow him to parent?

Last I checked, one of the characteristics of parenting is caring for
one's
child in that parent's home.

Hmmmmm....you've got to wonder why he chose to stop doing that by
moving
10
hours away.........

Moving 10 hours away is NOT what caused it. But you already knew
that............

Why do you insist on him not being responsible for *his* decisions?

NEVER have I done so.

He
decided to move. That is why he doesn't see his daughter often.

Untrue.

--
[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
:

Uh, Leda, how long do you think post-conception choice should be an
option?
Apparently fro at least 5 years, according to what you say to Sarah.
Do
you
think that both parents should have the same post conception choices?
So both parents can, legally, according to you, leave their child at
school
and
run off to another state and never be held responsible inb any way?
That's
ok with you?

Apparently, any parent that does that is unfit to be a parent. So,
what better way than that to give up custody of the child.

If he's unfit and should lose custody, then he has no reason to want any
pareting time at all. I'm not saying I agree with that line of
reasoning, I just find it odd that you keep playing both sides of this.

Hallucinations usually are odd.


Either he has rights or he doesn't, you can't change your stance
depending on the point you are trying to make.

No kidding.......

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

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

Uh, Leda, how long do you think post-conception choice should be an
option?
Apparently fro at least 5 years, according to what you say to Sarah.
Do
you
think that both parents should have the same post conception choices?
So both parents can, legally, according to you, leave their child at
school
and
run off to another state and never be held responsible inb any way?
That's
ok with you?

Apparently, any parent that does that is unfit to be a parent. So,
what better way than that to give up custody of the child.

If he's unfit and should lose custody, then he has no reason to want any
pareting time at all. I'm not saying I agree with that line of
reasoning, I just find it odd that you keep playing both sides of this.
Either he has rights or he doesn't, you can't change your stance
depending on the point you are trying to make.

Of course he can, Sarah. He does it all the time.

Uhuh, and the sun rises in the west too.

chuckle

--
[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...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

That's YOUR choice.


No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal
agreement we had.

Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you agreed
upon.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are droll!!

I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice
what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would
have been neglecting my daughter!

Untrue.

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

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

That's YOUR choice.


No, it was not my choice for him to reneg on a binding legal
agreement we had.

Yes, it was your choice to be responsible for twice what you agreed
upon.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....oh, Chris, you are droll!!

I still don't see how it was my *choice* to be responsible for twice
what we agreed on. If I had not taken up that responsibility, I would
have been neglecting my daughter!

He can't explain it, Sarah. He can only rabidly defend his ideas, which
preclude men from ever having parental responsibilities if they don't want
them, yet demands that they be permitted to be parents on their own terms
when and for however long they choose to be.

Your claim is false.