To ALL fathers Custody

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but
not more than
half. And that happens far more often than you might
imagine. As
long
as you are careful to take responsibility for every step
you take
(or
agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer
made me do
it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into
that trap.
Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so
you remain
aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing.
The burden
is
on *you* to keep things fair.

Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things
fair?

You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts
rolling, HE
will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat.
How do you
propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay
check to her,
and
live on what she deigns to throw back to him?

I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to
keep things
fair.

Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH*
of them to
keep things fair?"

And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide
to be fair.
He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know
perfectly
well.

Here, Teach - let's try this.

2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance.
Who
should
be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it,
the person
who
earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split
the cost?

In my state healthcare insurance is at the discretion of the CP.
They can
select the NCP's coverage or provide their own coverage. In
either case,
the premiums are pro-rated based on their relative incomes and
any
unreimbursed healthcare expenses are pro-rated too. So the
higher income
parent pays more for premiums and for unreimbursed expenses.


2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every
weekend. Should
the child support reflect this?

It already does. Right now CS is calculated based on one parent
having the
children 100% of the time. CS would not change for the parent
having the
chidlren 100% of the time, but it should be reduced when the
other parent
has visitations becasue the costs of NCP children expenses are
not included
in any CS award that is not based on a parenting agreement.


2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child.
Who should
get the tax exemptions?

By default the CP gets both child exemptions. Fairness would be
to give one
up, but that only happens when the CP decides to share the
financial
benefit.


Let's see what your idea of fair is.

Now let's test your concept of fairness.

A mother has an affair and decides to leave husband for her new
main
squeeze.

Should the husband be removed from the family home by restaining
order?
No

Ah, but the mom can get custody anf force this to happen. UNFAIR
on her part--but a very normal scenario. What could he do to make
it more fair?

Nice try teach - I see that you've totally ignored my questions for
you.

Pretty telling.

Enjoy your bias.

(hint for you - not all women act in the way you ASSume they do and
not all men are the perfect angels you would like to portray)

Actually, Moon, I have never made all moms out to be that way--you
simply don't like it being pointed out that women who choose to
behave that way have the court's backing to do so. Nor have I ever
said that I think all men are angels--I am perfectly aware that
there are men who do not care what the court orders--they do as they
please. However, no matter how you slice it, WOMEN have the
overwhelming advantage in today's biased system. No matter what
little questions you come up with. All of which are decided by the
court in most places.

And how does ANY of that prevent *BOTH* parties from trying to keep
things fair?

How coan MEN keep it fair, Moon, when they are given NO POWER or
backing in the system. Only the MOTHER, who has the power to take it
all, has the power to be fair. You are purposely beinmg obtuse.

Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious,
though.
To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they
need to be given power by "the system".

Whether you like it or not, men have no power within the system. If mom
wants the ful pound of flesh exacted byt the eyetem, she gets it, and
there is nothing he can do about it. Only SHE can decide not to take so
much.. He has NO POWER to make the it more fair. It doesn't matter how
often you try to assert that HE can make the process more fair--he
can't.

Noe, believe it or not, the fact that a man has no power to make the
system work in a more fair way does not make him a victim. It just
means that he has n power to make changes in that one aea of his
life--which does, indeed, affect other areas of his life. But he has
the power to make of the rest of his life anything he wants to make of
it.

You talk often enough about your kids' fther walking out and not looking
back. You have absolutely no power in that area--does that mean that
*you* are a victim, Moon?

Nope. What he does has zero effect on me. It DOES, however, make these
kids victims of his poor behavior.

I certainly hope you are not teaching your children that they are victims!

Of course not. We simply go about our business and live our lives.


Everyone needs to play the cards they are dealt, and not liking your cards
should never make you sit down and pout!

Then why are so many men doing precisely that?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not
more than half. And that happens far more often than you
might imagine. As long as you are careful to take
responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take),
and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it"
excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that trap.
Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so you
remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole court
thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair.

Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?

You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts
rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the
driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair?
Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns
to throw back to him?

I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep
things fair.

Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of
them to keep things fair?"

And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to
be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you
know perfectly well.

Here, Teach - let's try this.

2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance.
Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person
providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they
both try to be fair and split the cost?

2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every
weekend. Should the child support reflect this?

2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child. Who
should get the tax exemptions?

Let's see what your idea of fair is.


Ok, Moon, let's discuss fair.

snipping diatribe

Teach, I believe your starting premise is as screwed up as your
view of CP's.

Trying to keep things fair is NOT the responsibility of one, and
only one, person.

As long as you insist that it is, you've tossed any sense of
fairness right out the window.

When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to screw it up, and it takes 2
to try to make things fair.

You mean you are partly responsible for being abandoned by your ex?

I wasn't abandoned. Never made that claim, not once. Let's
see.......... oh yeah, I was there - I was the one who filed for
divorce.


You kicked him out?

No, I filed for divorce.


You admit some fault in the failed marriage *other* than just being
the one to file or was it just his actions or inactions that resulted
in divorce?

I couldn't be married to him anymore. I filed for divorce.

Phil #3


Perhaps, but I disagree with your overall statement.
No matter how wonderful things are, it only takes one to screw it up
and in today's world, it only takes one to make the result unfair.
Phil #3

Complete and total sidestep.
Typical.
Don't you just hate it when your own words bite you in the ass?

What sidestep? You asked if I kicked him out, and I did not.

You asked about the reasons for my divorce (which is none of your
business), and I answered - I couldn't be married to him anymore.

Actually, Moon, you stated that " When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to
screw it up."

So the question was, did you, also, screw things up in your marriage--not
just ex-hubby?

Yeah - I married him.

AND, kin the whole CS court battle that followed, with its
disagreementsm etc, did you also have a part in the difficulties that you
dealt with. (IOW, did you help screw things up there, too?)

I don't think so - much of the court activity was a direct result of his
refusal to honor agreements, court orders, or common sense.

My part in all of it was in expecting him to act like an honorable adult....
something he still seems to find impossible to do.

It's provided by each parent just like anything else. What part of my
statement did you NOT understand?

Then exactly what is the purpose of child support? ya, food, shelter,
CLOTHES for the child..

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Everyone needs to play the cards they are dealt, and not liking your
cards should never make you sit down and pout!

Then why are so many men doing precisely that?


You are a fine example of the type of souless people that drive this whole
depraved system.

teachrmama wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

Chris wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"Chris" wrote in message
...


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


"Relayer" wrote in message
ooglegroups.com...


It really sounds as if you think you are trying to be fair. But

there


is


an
unfortunate trap you seem to be about to walk in to. The "but I

only


want
what he owes me" trap. Why is 17% a fair amount? Who determined
that?
Have you actually sat down and figured out an amount that would get
you
through the month without a shortfall? Is it *really* a full 17% of

his


pay? Does your child spend time with his father? If so, dad needs

to


have
everything you need for the child. It isn't as if his expenses have
disappeared.

Also keep in mind that you have some great tax advantages. You pay

no


taxes
on the child support. And YOU get to claim the child on you taxes.

I


believe you also get to file as head of household, which further
decreases
your tax burden. He will be paying taxes at the higher single rate.

Oh, another thing. Are you going to be telling the court that he

has


not


paid you a thin dime in 10 months? If so, he will have an outomatic
arrearage, with all the joys of having even more money taken

straight


from
his paycheck, plus interest charges, and a big fat black mark on his
credit
report. And if he is ever injoured or laid off, the arrearages will

grow


and grow and grow. You, however, can be injured or laid off without

any


consequence other than being short of cash.

Do you have a written budget? My suggestion is that you prepare

one,


and


take a good hard look at it. I know that there are things that you

want


to
be able to provide for your son that you maight consider to be
indispenseable. But, being very honest, divide your budget into
essential
items and negotiable items. Then have your child's father take a

look


at


what you really need, and give him a voice in the negotiable items.

That


way he will be a part of the decision making, and will see that you
are
not
trying to gouge him, but truly do need the money. And make sure

that


you


recognize his expenses, too. Say it over and over so he knows you
understand. Communication isn't something that just
happens--sometimes
you
have to work at it--sometimes you have to work harder than you've

ever


worked in your life. But your son is worth it, right?

And, above all, don't fall into the "he owes me" trap. The fact

that


the


state of NY says is doesn't make it true.


The 17% is determined by State law, but adjustable. Getting through

the


month without a shortfall is not up to him alone. If there is a short
fall, the custodial parent needs to search for more lucrative
employment.

My impression is that she does work. And I most certainly did not say
anything about his making up shortfalls. I said to look at what is
really
needed, and proceed from there. Work together to come up with a plan
that
is mutually agreeable--not get into the "I am owed" mindset. It will
probably come out to far less than the 17% decreed by law.

How about each parent take care of the child when said child is with

them.


So who provides the child with health insurance?


Whoever FEELS like it.

More like, whoever doesn't want to pay the medical costs not covered by
insurance. Health insurance is NOT necessary to raise a child.



And what about clothing? Shall we send the children stark naked, so
that
the parent with whom the child is staying provides their clothing?


If it trips your trigger, go for it.


Stumpy once again shows how petty and asinine she is. Clothes are not
"consumed" like food. They are simply returned with the child when they
return to the opposing parent.

Chris stated that each parent provides for the child when said child is
with that parent.

I'll ask again - who provides for the items that need to cross between the
parents? The one who FEELS like it, as was his answer about health
insurance? What happens when neither parent FEELS like it.

Chris's suggestion was assinine.


I kind of feel that way about your statement that children should be
stripped naked before being sent to the other parent's house. Who would do
such a thing?


Stumpy still doesn't get it. Insurance is NOT a necessity.

teachrmama wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news:HdednfRcp67LovfYnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@gi ganews.com...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
.. .

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
.. .

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
c-kc.rr.com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
. ..

Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not
more than
half. And that happens far more often than you might
imagine. As

long

as you are careful to take responsibility for every step
you take

(or

agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer
made me do
it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that
trap.
Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so
you remain
aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing.
The burden

is

on *you* to keep things fair.

Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?

You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts
rolling, HE
will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat.
How do you
propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay check
to her,

and

live on what she deigns to throw back to him?

I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep
things
fair.

Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of
them to
keep things fair?"

And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to
be fair.
He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know
perfectly
well.

Here, Teach - let's try this.

2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance.
Who

should

be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it,
the person

who

earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split
the cost?

In my state healthcare insurance is at the discretion of the CP.
They can
select the NCP's coverage or provide their own coverage. In
either case,
the premiums are pro-rated based on their relative incomes and
any
unreimbursed healthcare expenses are pro-rated too. So the
higher income
parent pays more for premiums and for unreimbursed expenses.


2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every
weekend. Should
the child support reflect this?

It already does. Right now CS is calculated based on one parent
having the
children 100% of the time. CS would not change for the parent
having the
chidlren 100% of the time, but it should be reduced when the
other parent
has visitations becasue the costs of NCP children expenses are
not included
in any CS award that is not based on a parenting agreement.


2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child.
Who should
get the tax exemptions?

By default the CP gets both child exemptions. Fairness would be
to give one
up, but that only happens when the CP decides to share the
financial
benefit.


Let's see what your idea of fair is.

Now let's test your concept of fairness.

A mother has an affair and decides to leave husband for her new
main
squeeze.

Should the husband be removed from the family home by restaining
order?

No

Ah, but the mom can get custody anf force this to happen. UNFAIR
on her part--but a very normal scenario. What could he do to make
it more fair?

Nice try teach - I see that you've totally ignored my questions for
you.

Pretty telling.

Enjoy your bias.

(hint for you - not all women act in the way you ASSume they do and
not all men are the perfect angels you would like to portray)

Actually, Moon, I have never made all moms out to be that way--you
simply don't like it being pointed out that women who choose to
behave that way have the court's backing to do so. Nor have I ever
said that I think all men are angels--I am perfectly aware that there
are men who do not care what the court orders--they do as they
please. However, no matter how you slice it, WOMEN have the
overwhelming advantage in today's biased system. No matter what
little questions you come up with. All of which are decided by the
court in most places.

And how does ANY of that prevent *BOTH* parties from trying to keep
things fair?

How coan MEN keep it fair, Moon, when they are given NO POWER or
backing in the system. Only the MOTHER, who has the power to take it
all, has the power to be fair. You are purposely beinmg obtuse.

Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious,
though.
To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they
need to be given power by "the system".

Whether you like it or not, men have no power within the system. If mom
wants the ful pound of flesh exacted byt the eyetem, she gets it, and
there is nothing he can do about it. Only SHE can decide not to take so
much.. He has NO POWER to make the it more fair. It doesn't matter how
often you try to assert that HE can make the process more fair--he can't.

Noe, believe it or not, the fact that a man has no power to make the
system work in a more fair way does not make him a victim. It just means
that he has n power to make changes in that one aea of his life--which
does, indeed, affect other areas of his life. But he has the power to
make of the rest of his life anything he wants to make of it.

You talk often enough about your kids' fther walking out and not looking
back. You have absolutely no power in that area--does that mean that
*you* are a victim, Moon?

Nope. What he does has zero effect on me. It DOES, however, make these
kids victims of his poor behavior.


I certainly hope you are not teaching your children that they are victims!
Everyone needs to play the cards they are dealt, and not liking your cards
should never make you sit down and pout!


Stumpy is reaping what she sowed.........she drove him away and now
whines about it.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but
not more than
half. And that happens far more often than you might
imagine. As
long
as you are careful to take responsibility for every step
you take
(or
agree to take), and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer
made me do
it" excuse, you should not find yourself falling into
that trap.
Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills, so
you remain
aware of how much it costs to do the whole court thing.
The burden
is
on *you* to keep things fair.

Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things
fair?

You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts
rolling, HE
will simply be an ATM. She will be in the driver's seat.
How do you
propose that he keep things fair? Sign over every pay
check to her,
and
live on what she deigns to throw back to him?

I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to
keep things
fair.

Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH*
of them to
keep things fair?"

And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide
to be fair.
He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you know
perfectly
well.

Here, Teach - let's try this.

2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health
insurance. Who
should
be paying for the health insurance? The person providing it,
the person
who
earns more money, or should they both try to be fair and split
the cost?

In my state healthcare insurance is at the discretion of the
CP. They can
select the NCP's coverage or provide their own coverage. In
either case,
the premiums are pro-rated based on their relative incomes and
any
unreimbursed healthcare expenses are pro-rated too. So the
higher income
parent pays more for premiums and for unreimbursed expenses.


2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every
weekend. Should
the child support reflect this?

It already does. Right now CS is calculated based on one
parent having the
children 100% of the time. CS would not change for the parent
having the
chidlren 100% of the time, but it should be reduced when the
other parent
has visitations becasue the costs of NCP children expenses are
not included
in any CS award that is not based on a parenting agreement.


2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child.
Who should
get the tax exemptions?

By default the CP gets both child exemptions. Fairness would
be to give one
up, but that only happens when the CP decides to share the
financial
benefit.


Let's see what your idea of fair is.

Now let's test your concept of fairness.

A mother has an affair and decides to leave husband for her new
main
squeeze.

Should the husband be removed from the family home by
restaining order?
No

Ah, but the mom can get custody anf force this to happen. UNFAIR
on her part--but a very normal scenario. What could he do to
make it more fair?

Nice try teach - I see that you've totally ignored my questions
for you.

Pretty telling.

Enjoy your bias.

(hint for you - not all women act in the way you ASSume they do
and not all men are the perfect angels you would like to portray)

Actually, Moon, I have never made all moms out to be that way--you
simply don't like it being pointed out that women who choose to
behave that way have the court's backing to do so. Nor have I ever
said that I think all men are angels--I am perfectly aware that
there are men who do not care what the court orders--they do as
they please. However, no matter how you slice it, WOMEN have the
overwhelming advantage in today's biased system. No matter what
little questions you come up with. All of which are decided by the
court in most places.

And how does ANY of that prevent *BOTH* parties from trying to keep
things fair?

How coan MEN keep it fair, Moon, when they are given NO POWER or
backing in the system. Only the MOTHER, who has the power to take it
all, has the power to be fair. You are purposely beinmg obtuse.

Not at all - I find this "men as victim" line of yours pretty tedious,
though.
To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they
need to be given power by "the system".

Whether you like it or not, men have no power within the system. If
mom wants the ful pound of flesh exacted byt the eyetem, she gets it,
and there is nothing he can do about it. Only SHE can decide not to
take so much.. He has NO POWER to make the it more fair. It doesn't
matter how often you try to assert that HE can make the process more
fair--he can't.

Noe, believe it or not, the fact that a man has no power to make the
system work in a more fair way does not make him a victim. It just
means that he has n power to make changes in that one aea of his
life--which does, indeed, affect other areas of his life. But he has
the power to make of the rest of his life anything he wants to make of
it.

You talk often enough about your kids' fther walking out and not
looking back. You have absolutely no power in that area--does that
mean that *you* are a victim, Moon?

Nope. What he does has zero effect on me. It DOES, however, make these
kids victims of his poor behavior.

I certainly hope you are not teaching your children that they are
victims!

Of course not. We simply go about our business and live our lives.


Everyone needs to play the cards they are dealt, and not liking your
cards should never make you sit down and pout!

Then why are so many men doing precisely that?

Really? Who is just sitting down and pouting? I see people complaining,
and rightly so. This is a good place to vent! But which of them have
stopped living thier lives, and just sit around and complain that someone
else owes them because they are victims?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Of course half the marital assets should be yours--but not
more than half. And that happens far more often than you
might imagine. As long as you are careful to take
responsibility for every step you take (or agree to take),
and don't hide behind the "but my lawyer made me do it"
excuse, you should not find yourself falling into that
trap. Also, don't try to make him pay your lawyer's bills,
so you remain aware of how much it costs to do the whole
court thing. The burden is on *you* to keep things fair.

Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of them to keep things fair?

You know doggone well why, Moon. Once the system starts
rolling, HE will simply be an ATM. She will be in the
driver's seat. How do you propose that he keep things fair?
Sign over every pay check to her, and live on what she deigns
to throw back to him?

I propose that *BOTH* adults act like adults, and try to keep
things fair.

Like I said, right above - "Why isn't the burden on *BOTH* of
them to keep things fair?"

And as I said right above, only she has the power to decide to
be fair. He will have to do as ordered by the court. Which you
know perfectly well.

Here, Teach - let's try this.

2 parents, both working. Only 1 is providing health insurance.
Who should be paying for the health insurance? The person
providing it, the person who earns more money, or should they
both try to be fair and split the cost?

2 parents, both working. 1 Parent has the children every
weekend. Should the child support reflect this?

2 parents, both working. 2 tax exemptions, 1 for each child.
Who should get the tax exemptions?

Let's see what your idea of fair is.


Ok, Moon, let's discuss fair.

snipping diatribe

Teach, I believe your starting premise is as screwed up as your
view of CP's.

Trying to keep things fair is NOT the responsibility of one, and
only one, person.

As long as you insist that it is, you've tossed any sense of
fairness right out the window.

When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to screw it up, and it takes 2
to try to make things fair.

You mean you are partly responsible for being abandoned by your ex?

I wasn't abandoned. Never made that claim, not once. Let's
see.......... oh yeah, I was there - I was the one who filed for
divorce.


You kicked him out?

No, I filed for divorce.


You admit some fault in the failed marriage *other* than just being
the one to file or was it just his actions or inactions that resulted
in divorce?

I couldn't be married to him anymore. I filed for divorce.

Phil #3


Perhaps, but I disagree with your overall statement.
No matter how wonderful things are, it only takes one to screw it
up and in today's world, it only takes one to make the result
unfair.
Phil #3

Complete and total sidestep.
Typical.
Don't you just hate it when your own words bite you in the ass?

What sidestep? You asked if I kicked him out, and I did not.

You asked about the reasons for my divorce (which is none of your
business), and I answered - I couldn't be married to him anymore.

Actually, Moon, you stated that " When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to
screw it up."

So the question was, did you, also, screw things up in your marriage--not
just ex-hubby?

Yeah - I married him.

AND, kin the whole CS court battle that followed, with its
disagreementsm etc, did you also have a part in the difficulties that you
dealt with. (IOW, did you help screw things up there, too?)

I don't think so - much of the court activity was a direct result of his
refusal to honor agreements, court orders, or common sense.

My part in all of it was in expecting him to act like an honorable
adult.... something he still seems to find impossible to do.

But, Moon, you said "When there are 2 people, it takes 2 to
screw it up."

So now you are saying that it didn't take 2 people to screw it up in your
case?

"teachrmama" wrote
.............................

I certainly hope you are not teaching your children that they are victims!
Everyone needs to play the cards they are dealt, and not liking your cards
should never make you sit down and pout!
==
That is the tragedy of some children of divorce. A parent's obsession with
the
minutia of "issues" tramples common sense and dignity. Fortunately, the
children come of age and
sort beyond the BS they were handed. Then mom's "too bad your dad didn't
show for your party," becomes
child's "no damn wonder he stayed away after the horrible wretch you were to
him."

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
glegroups.com...

It really sounds as if you think you are trying to be fair. But

there

is

an
unfortunate trap you seem to be about to walk in to. The "but I

only

want
what he owes me" trap. Why is 17% a fair amount? Who determined
that?
Have you actually sat down and figured out an amount that would get
you
through the month without a shortfall? Is it *really* a full 17%
of

his

pay? Does your child spend time with his father? If so, dad needs

to

have
everything you need for the child. It isn't as if his expenses
have
disappeared.

Also keep in mind that you have some great tax advantages. You pay

no

taxes
on the child support. And YOU get to claim the child on you taxes.

I

believe you also get to file as head of household, which further
decreases
your tax burden. He will be paying taxes at the higher single
rate.

Oh, another thing. Are you going to be telling the court that he

has

not

paid you a thin dime in 10 months? If so, he will have an
outomatic
arrearage, with all the joys of having even more money taken

straight

from
his paycheck, plus interest charges, and a big fat black mark on
his
credit
report. And if he is ever injoured or laid off, the arrearages
will

grow

and grow and grow. You, however, can be injured or laid off
without

any

consequence other than being short of cash.

Do you have a written budget? My suggestion is that you prepare

one,

and

take a good hard look at it. I know that there are things that you

want

to
be able to provide for your son that you maight consider to be
indispenseable. But, being very honest, divide your budget into
essential
items and negotiable items. Then have your child's father take a

look

at

what you really need, and give him a voice in the negotiable items.

That

way he will be a part of the decision making, and will see that you
are
not
trying to gouge him, but truly do need the money. And make sure

that

you

recognize his expenses, too. Say it over and over so he knows you
understand. Communication isn't something that just
happens--sometimes
you
have to work at it--sometimes you have to work harder than you've

ever

worked in your life. But your son is worth it, right?

And, above all, don't fall into the "he owes me" trap. The fact

that

the

state of NY says is doesn't make it true.


The 17% is determined by State law, but adjustable. Getting through

the

month without a shortfall is not up to him alone. If there is a
short
fall, the custodial parent needs to search for more lucrative
employment.

My impression is that she does work. And I most certainly did not
say
anything about his making up shortfalls. I said to look at what is
really
needed, and proceed from there. Work together to come up with a plan
that
is mutually agreeable--not get into the "I am owed" mindset. It will
probably come out to far less than the 17% decreed by law.

How about each parent take care of the child when said child is with

them.

So who provides the child with health insurance?


Whoever FEELS like it.

More like, whoever doesn't want to pay the medical costs not covered by
insurance. Health insurance is NOT necessary to raise a child.



And what about clothing? Shall we send the children stark naked, so
that
the parent with whom the child is staying provides their clothing?


If it trips your trigger, go for it.


Stumpy once again shows how petty and asinine she is. Clothes are not
"consumed" like food. They are simply returned with the child when they
return to the opposing parent.

Chris stated that each parent provides for the child when said child is
with
that parent.

I'll ask again - who provides for the items that need to cross between the
parents? The one who FEELS like it, as was his answer about health
insurance? What happens when neither parent FEELS like it.

Chris's suggestion was assinine.

Because?