child support review objection

"Chris" wrote in :


No, it's a requirement that either parent who wants to move seek the
permission of the other parent and the court.

Actually, we are BOTH incorrect. She clarified by informing me that
permission need be granted by her OR the court. Not that there's a
difference.

Seeking permisiionis not the same thing as getting permission. If I were to
want to move, I would have to have asked *his* permission to take our
daughter. I don't understand why you cant see how this works....

"Chris" wrote in
:

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

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

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.


It's not a payment for services rendered, it is reimbursement for
child care expenditures.

No matter HOW you slice it, STILL it is free.


You just said it was free because the custodial parent does not
"earn" it. But child support is not payment for services rendered. It
is reimbursement for a child's expenses.

Call it what you want; it's still FREE!

It is not "free" in the sense you are giving it. It is REIMBURSEMENT for
expenses for the child.

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.


It is completely true that that is the purpose of child support.
SO that both parent s are contributing financially to their child.

"Contributing financially" is a meaningless term, unless the child
can eat dollar bills.


Children eat food paid for by dollar bills.

Slippery slope.


Are you saying children don't eat food paid for by dollar bills?

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.

I notice how you didn't bother addressing this.

It doesn't matter if you spend ALL of it on your child and then
some. That does not debunk my claim. So, why would I address it?

You said that custodial parents can spend child support however they
want. this is not the case *everywhere*;

It IS the case everywhere (in this country), with rare exceptions.


If there are exceptions, it's not the case everywhere.


In *my* case specifically, I
can back up the money with documentation.

Irrelevant. Not to mention, "documentation" is hardly worth the paper
it's written on.



In what way? receipts for childcare, clothing, groceries and rent are
not accurate?

"Chris" wrote in news:tH3bj.19408$yV5.4058
@newsfe15.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:X9Iaj.17016$R92.8146
@newsfe16.phx:


Why do you expect those who disagree with you to cite examples,
but
won't do so yourself?

Explain how one cites an example of that which does NOT exist.


So, basically you are saying you have this opinion, but won't back it
up, and will dimiss all refutation as "irrelevant", or simply ignore
it?

Prove how fathers with custody (legal and physical) do not have
rights
to their children.

As soon as you prove that you did not murder someone.

HOw is having physical custody or legal custody not "having rights"? If
they had no rights, they would not get custody!

"Chris" wrote in :

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
3.102...
"Chris" wrote in
:

If there was some way he could provide his share of her
expenses by procuring those goods and services for her
directly, I would be all for that.

Untrue.


Prove it.

Excuse me? YOU are the one making the claim, thus YOU are the one
with
the burden of proof.


I did prove it. I said that I would agree to that arrangement as long
as
we wewre contributing equally to her basic expenses.

That's not your poroof, that is your CLAIM. Now prove it.


I cannot prove something that has not happened yet. That *is* the
arrangement we had, and I expected it to continue, as per our agreement
that became a court order.







How so? If there was a way form him to do that, I'd go for
that.

No you wouldn't.


I already said I would. You can't speculate on what I would do
beyond
what I have *stated* that I would do.

You wouldn't do it because you AREN'T doing it. Nothing to
speculate.


How am I keeping him from seeing his daughter and parenting her? He
walked away from the agreement we had!

Irrelevant. Are you allowing him to have his daughter be with him to
care
for her?


As a matter of fact, she is with him as I type. But she can't live there
half the time; it is ridiculous to expect a child to travel like that
and uproot every few weeks or even every few months, completely ruining
their education.


However, this is no way for him to buy her groceries, pay for
latchkey, and take her shopping for school clothes from 10
hours
away.

That's correct; and he is 10 hours away because that is EXACTLY
the
way you want it to be!


Not true. I would rather he be living close to his daughter.

10 hours away is just what the doctor ordered to cure you from
having
your daughter be with him. And since you don't want her to be with
him, the 10 hour cure works perfectly. You WANT it!


Where are you getting this? I have never said I wanted him to be 10
hours away.

Ah, but were he NOT 10 hours away, then he would be parenting her, as
you
say. Since you do NOT want him to parent her, 10 hours does the trick.
It
simply follows.


I DO want him to parent her. He chose to remove himself. I hope he can
get it together and move back so that she can see him on a regular
basis.



When have I
ever said otherwise?




The thing is, he's not here, parenting her, to be able to.

Nor is she there where he is able to parent her. And whose
choice, again, is it that she is not there?

That is his choice.

Strike TWO.


Chris, it was *his* choice to move with less than 12 hours notice!

But NOT his choice that your child is not with him. That is solely
YOUR choice. The proof in the fact that he takes her against your
wishes, he gets arrested. He takes her WITH your permission, then
she
is with him. Something most second graders can comprehend........


It *is* his choice. He had legal channels he could go through if he
wanted to take her to live with him, just as I would have had to do
had
I wanted to move.

One such "legal channel" being your allowing her to live with him.



He did not even *ask* me! And my decision is not the end-all, be-all. He
could have petitioned the court (in fact, he was required to even moving
without her) but he failed to do so.



Just because I don't think my daughter's father should move away from
her does not mean I want to divest him of all his parental rights!

He has no rights, and your choices bears this out.

He has rights. If he did not have rights, she would not spend any time
with him.

--
[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
...

"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]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:RKraj.16910$R92.8023
@newsfe16.phx:

Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:Uibaj.48316$KU2.4264
@newsfe11.phx:

And THAT was the point where you decided that she will no
longer
live
with him.


I didn't decide that. He did.

How so?


By moving away from her!

Like I said, YOU were the one who pulled her off the bus.


I never pulled her off a bis. He never had plans to take her with
him,
to my knowledge.

Thanks for updating the info.










he chose to
reject that situation.

Yup, the situation of living with YOU.

The court *must* be involved in custody issues in
a divorce.

No they don't.

We agreed on a certain situation- he reneged on that with
nearly no notice to me, and none to the court.



Maybe you should find ways to be more productive and
earn
more
money...wait, free money, that's what CS is for.


Why do you think fathers should not have to help
support
their
children?

Better question: Why do you think they SHOULD?


Because parents have obligations to their children as
well
as
rights.

Petitio principii. Not to mention, fathers do NOT have
rights.

Yes they do. How is it that father shave custody of their
children,
then?

The above is like asking "How is it that thieves have
possession
of
other
people's property?". I know, because they have a RIGHT to the
property.......... duh.



Children are not property.

CLEARLY, my analogy escaped you.


Children are not analagous to property.

Not the subject that makes the analogy; it's the principal.

Property and children cannot be compared in an analogy, because the
principles are very different. You can take your old couch to the
dump
or sell it at a garage sale. You cannot do anything analogous with
children. You can forget to water your houseplants and, if they die,
simply replace them with no fear of legal prosecution. But you
cannot
do
that with children. The principles are different!


The more Chris posts, the more obvious it becomes why he is in the
position he is in

And yet he claims to be posting nothing but "truth." I cannot see how
anything is ever going to be fixed by changing how things are right now
(which is definitely weighted in favor of mothers) to a system that is
unfair because it is weighted in favor of men. Will sanity and balance
*ever* have a chance?!

Not so long as people who think like YOU do are running the show. Those
who
believe this to be a gender war are the ones who are part of the
problem.
In
case you were not aware, BOTH genders exist on BOTH sides of the fence.
This is a right versus wrong issue; not a gender issue.

But you see yourself and all of your opinions as absolute truth,

Rarely do I share my opinions. Why? Because they are ONLY opinions.

and leave
no room for anybody else's experiences or opinions.

Yet I FREQUENTLY thank folks for their opinions.

You see no gray
areas--only black and whate, right and wrong, you (the epitome of trut) vs
everyone else. You create far more discord than already exists, and your
approach does not invite discussion that will lead to a solution. It
merely
batters at everyone who disagrees with you.

Thank you for your opinion.

--
[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 news:RKraj.16910$R92.8023
@newsfe16.phx:

Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 17.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:Uibaj.48316$KU2.4264
@newsfe11.phx:

And THAT was the point where you decided that she will no
longer
live
with him.


I didn't decide that. He did.

How so?


By moving away from her!

Like I said, YOU were the one who pulled her off the bus.


I never pulled her off a bis. He never had plans to take her with
him,
to my knowledge.

Thanks for updating the info.










he chose to
reject that situation.

Yup, the situation of living with YOU.

The court *must* be involved in custody issues in
a divorce.

No they don't.

We agreed on a certain situation- he reneged on that with
nearly no notice to me, and none to the court.



Maybe you should find ways to be more productive and
earn
more
money...wait, free money, that's what CS is for.


Why do you think fathers should not have to help support
their
children?

Better question: Why do you think they SHOULD?


Because parents have obligations to their children as well
as
rights.

Petitio principii. Not to mention, fathers do NOT have
rights.

Yes they do. How is it that father shave custody of their
children,
then?

The above is like asking "How is it that thieves have
possession
of
other
people's property?". I know, because they have a RIGHT to the
property.......... duh.



Children are not property.

CLEARLY, my analogy escaped you.


Children are not analagous to property.

Not the subject that makes the analogy; it's the principal.

Property and children cannot be compared in an analogy, because the
principles are very different. You can take your old couch to the dump
or
sell it at a garage sale. You cannot do anything analogous with
children.
You can forget to water your houseplants and, if they die, simply
replace
them with no fear of legal prosecution. But you cannot do that with
children. The principles are different!

The above clearly indicates that you do NOT understand the concept of
analogy. Counterexamples often are hard to swallow.

Wrong analogies are what are hard to swallow, Chris. You cannot compare
the
responsibility of a mechanic for a car with the responsibility of a parent
for a child. They are NOT analogous.

Responsibility is responsibility.

--
[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:tH3bj.19408$yV5.4058
@newsfe15.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:X9Iaj.17016$R92.8146
@newsfe16.phx:


Why do you expect those who disagree with you to cite examples,
but
won't do so yourself?

Explain how one cites an example of that which does NOT exist.


So, basically you are saying you have this opinion, but won't back it
up, and will dimiss all refutation as "irrelevant", or simply ignore
it?

Prove how fathers with custody (legal and physical) do not have
rights
to their children.

As soon as you prove that you did not murder someone.

HOw is having physical custody or legal custody not "having rights"? If
they had no rights, they would not get custody!

And if bank robbers had no rights, they would not get money.

--
[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
7.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:8pIaj.17020$R92.7250
@newsfe16.phx:

"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.

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.

A mechanic has no responsibilty to take care of a car for it's
lifetime. A parent does have a responsibility to provide for thir
children until they are grown.

Don't TWIST it! You proclaimed that the reason a father has a
responsibility
after he moves is because he previously had an active role. Then the
SAME
holds true for a mechanic. If such mechanic had an active role to the
car
owner previously, then it follows that such role MUST continue after the
mechanic moves. YOUR reasoning.

Nonsense, Chris!! A mechanic is a paid professional. A father is NOT a
paid professional--he is a parent.

Irrelevant. Who said anything about getting paid or being a professional.
Did I? The analogy is VALID.

--
[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
:

We have not been married for over a year.

Notice the PAST tense?

What the heck are you babbling about, Chris. Her ex did not leave
right after the divorce. He left more than a year later.


A little less than a year after it was final, but more than a year after
he first filed, actually.

Thank you for the clarification. The other poster is not worth responding to
due to her offensive comments.





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.

Actually, you seem to be debating with your own internal demons, and
projecting them onto everyone in this newsgroup that disagrees with
your radical stand.

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


No, it's a requirement that either parent who wants to move seek the
permission of the other parent and the court.

Actually, we are BOTH incorrect. She clarified by informing me that
permission need be granted by her OR the court. Not that there's a
difference.

Seeking permisiionis not the same thing as getting permission. If I were
to
want to move, I would have to have asked *his* permission to take our
daughter. I don't understand why you cant see how this works....

Because he is willfully ignorant