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
...


--
[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 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?

Well it certainly aint' on HIS terms.

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

You notice, Sarah, that Chris does not answer the points about the
father
leaving the child. It is all about everyone else concerned
accomodating
themselves to make sure that the father has a relationship with the
child--as if the father has no responsibility in cultivating this
relationship himself.

Perhaps the nickname "Twist" would be appropriate for you since that is
exactly what you do to my claims. Not ONCE did I ever suggest that
ANYONE
accomodate anyone else. But I welcome you to provide your evidence
supporting the contrary.

Hmmm...let's see. Father has child 50% of the time in a split custody
agreement. Father voluntarily moves away--not to a better job, just moves
away. You suggest that the father/daughter bond is more important than
the
child's schooling,

Where did I make THAT claim?

and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
father. So tell me, Chris, if that is not accomodating the man who
abandoned his child, what is it? What *do* you think about the guy
walking
away from his 50/50 split custody and moving so far away? Whose
responsibility *is* it to make sure that the child spends time with her
father?

On Nov 25, 11:30 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
whatamess wrote in news:ce5d0925-b57f-4bef-b056-
:







On Nov 25, 10:20 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
"Chris" wrote innews:fLp2j.27590$L15.4152
@newsfe08.phx:

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.....

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!

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.

it's not "the mother's town", it's the *child's* town. I have no
problem
with her visiting him, as long as it does not interrupt her
schooling,
but I am certainly not sending her out of state unless we have a
custody
agreement that is relevant to the current situation, which is not the
case at the moment. Why should he be allowed to move out of town and
demand that our child be deprived of an education to see him beyond
school holidays?

Sarah, what would happen if you had to move because of a job
for you or your new husband? Just wondering if you or him either
lost your job and were able to find a job outside of "your daughter's
town" or if you were offerred 50% increase in salary to move...
Would you stay where you are at so that your daughter can
stay in "her town"?

No. However, he did not move because of a better job. He moved *away
from his daughter* because his parents moved and he wasn't willing to
find a job here to support himself. He's still not supporting himself.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems that when the
custodial parent moves for any of these reasons, they don't
see a problem with it...because of course, they take the child
with them...but as soon as a non-custodial parent does the same,
they are seen as "abandoning" their child...

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. 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sarah, I do understand how much work sometimes it takes to raise a
child.
However, for some reason you are saying that you are angry at him
for abandoning his child because he "wouldn't" find a job to support
himself and instead moved with his parents and away from his child.

Does that mean that if God forbid your parents lived 100miles away
(or any other place) and someone was taking X amount of money
from you a month and therefore, you could not afford on 1000K a month
to have your own place and would basically end up on the street,
you would NOT move with your daughter to your parent's house
to ensure you had a roof over your shoulders? You would instead
stay in your daughters "town" and live in a cardboard box, pay
the money the government was taking away from you and all so
that your daughter would be able to see her father more frequently?

If so, you are one amazing woman...Unfortunately, I don't buy it.
If you could not make ends meet in your own town and could
live with your parents rent free and do much better for yourself,
you would be moving away from your daughter's town and not
care one bit about her relationship with her father...that's the
bottom line.

And please, don't use your daughter as an excuse. Should both
parents support their child, yes...should both parents be able
to see their child, yes...but also, BOTH parents should have a say
in how the child is raised, where the child lives and everything
else concerning that child.

Since you seem to think that it's so easy to get a job paying
the same amount just about anywhere, why don't you do your
daughter a favor and move her closer to her dad? Geez, imagine
that...it's so easy for you to find a job in any city (same as you
claim for your ex), so there should be no problem in you finding
a job in HIS new city and making that your daughter's new city
for the benefit of your child...

No Sarah, it's not about your child. It's not even about your ex.
It's about your need to dictate what your ex does with his money,
his time and anything else that concerns him. Otherwise, you
feel it's your right to "punish him" or be angry with him because
you can't control the choices he makes. Period.

To you, your ex has his priorities messed up...His priority should
be FIRST your child and her relationship with her dad (since
he abandoned her) then money...however, it seems to me that
you are penalizing him for making MONEY his first priority, while
you do exactly the same by making CS/money your first priority,
NOT your child's relationship with her dad.

Again, tell me what your priority is and let's see how that differs
from your ex's...I can assure you that it does NOT. Only that
you feel you have a right to make him change his priorities or PAY
for it and he does not have that same right...

Sad, but true.

Again, I am NOT in anyway saying that both parents should
not support their child...but if it takes two to tango, and both
have a responsibility, let that be a responsibility for EVERYTHING
not JUST MONEY...

Not ALL, but many CPs insist on it takes "two" to make a child
when it comes to money, but NOT when it comes to making any
decisions for that child, where they live, where they eat, what they
do with their lives, etc...no, when it comes to that, you give
yourself
the authority to make all decisions and it no longer takes two
to make and/or support a child...except of course, financially.

--
[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...
whatamess wrote in news:ce5d0925-b57f-4bef-b056-
:

On Nov 25, 10:20 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
"Chris" wrote innews:fLp2j.27590$L15.4152
@newsfe08.phx:

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.....

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!

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.

it's not "the mother's town", it's the *child's* town. I have no
problem
with her visiting him, as long as it does not interrupt her
schooling,
but I am certainly not sending her out of state unless we have a
custody
agreement that is relevant to the current situation, which is not the
case at the moment. Why should he be allowed to move out of town and
demand that our child be deprived of an education to see him beyond
school holidays?

Sarah, what would happen if you had to move because of a job
for you or your new husband? Just wondering if you or him either
lost your job and were able to find a job outside of "your daughter's
town" or if you were offerred 50% increase in salary to move...
Would you stay where you are at so that your daughter can
stay in "her town"?


No. However, he did not move because of a better job. He moved *away
from his daughter* because his parents moved and he wasn't willing to
find a job here to support himself. He's still not supporting himself.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems that when the
custodial parent moves for any of these reasons, they don't
see a problem with it...because of course, they take the child
with them...but as soon as a non-custodial parent does the same,
they are seen as "abandoning" their child...


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.

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!

--
[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 :

--
[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.




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.

--
[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 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?

Well it certainly aint' on HIS terms.

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

You notice, Sarah, that Chris does not answer the points about the
father
leaving the child. It is all about everyone else concerned
accomodating
themselves to make sure that the father has a relationship with the
child--as if the father has no responsibility in cultivating this
relationship himself.

Perhaps the nickname "Twist" would be appropriate for you since that is
exactly what you do to my claims. Not ONCE did I ever suggest that
ANYONE
accomodate anyone else. But I welcome you to provide your evidence
supporting the contrary.

Hmmm...let's see. Father has child 50% of the time in a split custody
agreement. Father voluntarily moves away--not to a better job, just moves
away. You suggest that the father/daughter bond is more important than
the
child's schooling,

Where did I make THAT claim?

and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
father. So tell me, Chris, if that is not accomodating the man who
abandoned his child, what is it? What *do* you think about the guy
walking
away from his 50/50 split custody and moving so far away? Whose
responsibility *is* it to make sure that the child spends time with her
father?

--
[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 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?

Well it certainly aint' on HIS terms.

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

You notice, Sarah, that Chris does not answer the points about the
father
leaving the child. It is all about everyone else concerned
accomodating
themselves to make sure that the father has a relationship with the
child--as if the father has no responsibility in cultivating this
relationship himself.

Perhaps the nickname "Twist" would be appropriate for you since that is
exactly what you do to my claims. Not ONCE did I ever suggest that
ANYONE
accomodate anyone else. But I welcome you to provide your evidence
supporting the contrary.

Hmmm...let's see. Father has child 50% of the time in a split custody
agreement. Father voluntarily moves away--not to a better job, just moves
away. You suggest that the father/daughter bond is more important than
the
child's schooling,

Where did I make THAT claim?

and ask the mother why she does not give custody to the
father. So tell me, Chris, if that is not accomodating the man who
abandoned his child, what is it? What *do* you think about the guy
walking
away from his 50/50 split custody and moving so far away? Whose
responsibility *is* it to make sure that the child spends time with her
father?

--
[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 :

--
[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.




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.

"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 :

--
[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.

And that's the crux, isn't it, Chris. A man should only have to be a father
as long as he wants to, then should be free to walk away. How sad.

whatamess wrote in
:

On Nov 25, 11:30 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
whatamess wrote in
news:ce5d0925-b57f-4bef-b056-
:







On Nov 25, 10:20 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
"Chris" wrote innews:fLp2j.27590$L15.4152
@newsfe08.phx:

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.....

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!

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.

it's not "the mother's town", it's the *child's* town. I have no
problem
with her visiting him, as long as it does not interrupt her
schooling,
but I am certainly not sending her out of state unless we have a
custody
agreement that is relevant to the current situation, which is not
the case at the moment. Why should he be allowed to move out of
town and demand that our child be deprived of an education to see
him beyond school holidays?

Sarah, what would happen if you had to move because of a job
for you or your new husband? Just wondering if you or him either
lost your job and were able to find a job outside of "your
daughter's town" or if you were offerred 50% increase in salary to
move... Would you stay where you are at so that your daughter can
stay in "her town"?

No. However, he did not move because of a better job. He moved *away
from his daughter* because his parents moved and he wasn't willing to
find a job here to support himself. He's still not supporting
himself.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems that when the
custodial parent moves for any of these reasons, they don't
see a problem with it...because of course, they take the child
with them...but as soon as a non-custodial parent does the same,
they are seen as "abandoning" their child...

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. 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sarah, I do understand how much work sometimes it takes to raise a
child.
However, for some reason you are saying that you are angry at him
for abandoning his child because he "wouldn't" find a job to support
himself and instead moved with his parents and away from his child.


There is no reason for an able-bodied person to be out of work for
months when they have no specialized skills. McDonald's is always
hiring.

Does that mean that if God forbid your parents lived 100miles away
(or any other place) and someone was taking X amount of money
from you a month and therefore, you could not afford on 1000K a month
to have your own place and would basically end up on the street,
you would NOT move with your daughter to your parent's house
to ensure you had a roof over your shoulders? You would instead
stay in your daughters "town" and live in a cardboard box, pay
the money the government was taking away from you and all so
that your daughter would be able to see her father more frequently?


He could have found a comprable job here and found a place with
roommates. He would have been able to see his child. He was living with
his parents *here in Detroit*, and then they decided to move to TN last
winter. He lived with them rent free the entire time, and had his
daughter with him half of the week. He did not *have* to move. Until
this week, his parents still owned the house here in Detroit.

If so, you are one amazing woman...Unfortunately, I don't buy it.
If you could not make ends meet in your own town and could
live with your parents rent free and do much better for yourself,
you would be moving away from your daughter's town and not
care one bit about her relationship with her father...that's the
bottom line.


He claims that he is not living with them rent free now. He is making
less money than he was at the job he quit last year because they wanted
him to work on Christmas eve (he had agreed to work it in excnage for
Thanksgiving off, and then didn't show up on Christmas eve. They then
cut his hours, and he responded by quitting.)

And please, don't use your daughter as an excuse. Should both
parents support their child, yes...should both parents be able
to see their child, yes...but also, BOTH parents should have a say
in how the child is raised, where the child lives and everything
else concerning that child.


So I should be calling him every time I give her a snack? I let him know
about things going on with her at school, and activities I would like to
sign her up for, etc. It is very difficult to discuss anything with him,
though, because he starts to yell, and then I have to hang up, or I
start yelling, too.

Since you seem to think that it's so easy to get a job paying
the same amount just about anywhere, why don't you do your
daughter a favor and move her closer to her dad? Geez, imagine
that...it's so easy for you to find a job in any city (same as you
claim for your ex), so there should be no problem in you finding
a job in HIS new city and making that your daughter's new city
for the benefit of your child...


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.


No Sarah, it's not about your child. It's not even about your ex.
It's about your need to dictate what your ex does with his money,
his time and anything else that concerns him. Otherwise, you
feel it's your right to "punish him" or be angry with him because
you can't control the choices he makes. Period.


I have *every* right to be angry at him about the poor choices he has
made regarding his daughter. I do not think supporting your child is
"punishment", and the fact that you do is kind of ****ed up.

To you, your ex has his priorities messed up...His priority should
be FIRST your child and her relationship with her dad (since
he abandoned her) then money...however, it seems to me that
you are penalizing him for making MONEY his first priority, while
you do exactly the same by making CS/money your first priority,
NOT your child's relationship with her dad.


He has certainly not made money his first priority. His first priority
for months was to sleep late enough into the morning that he didn't even
bother taking her to her preschool some of the time.
I fail to see how I am the one responsible for facilitating his
relationship with her. That's *his* job. I am not going to do anything
to keep him from her, 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.

Again, tell me what your priority is and let's see how that differs
from your ex's...I can assure you that it does NOT. Only that
you feel you have a right to make him change his priorities or PAY
for it and he does not have that same right...


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.

Sad, but true.

Again, I am NOT in anyway saying that both parents should
not support their child...but if it takes two to tango, and both
have a responsibility, let that be a responsibility for EVERYTHING
not JUST MONEY...


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

Not ALL, but many CPs insist on it takes "two" to make a child
when it comes to money, but NOT when it comes to making any
decisions for that child, where they live, where they eat, what they
do with their lives, etc...no, when it comes to that, you give
yourself
the authority to make all decisions and it no longer takes two
to make and/or support a child...except of course, financially.


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?

"Chris" wrote in :

He is the one who insisted (or rather, his lawyer at the time
insisted)
that a child support order be entered.

Any other revelations?


About what? divorces are complicated.


He is the one who is unwilling to
pay half of reasonable costs incurred. You don't think men should
support their children, but should be accomodated in terms of
visitation
etc. when they up and leave. That makes no sense, Chris.

It not only makes no sense, it is also NOT my claim.


then what is your claim, Chris?