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
...
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.

"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.

Well, if you truly don't understand that the father can work real hard to
be
unfair, and should have the same expectation for him to try to keep things
fair, so be it.

Just shows that you seem to have a mindset that women=bad, men=good.

All one has to do is look at the outcomes from family law court to recognize
there is no fairness. In all other areas of the law there is the concept of
courts being just and fair. With the disproportionate outcomes favoring
women in family law there is no fairness and justice is a joke.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

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.

Well, if you truly don't understand that the father can work real hard to
be unfair, and should have the same expectation for him to try to keep
things fair, so be it.

Just shows that you seem to have a mindset that women=bad, men=good.

Even a Numpty like you can understand that men have no chance in Family
kourt once custody is awarded to the mother. Women pay zero, Men pay
everything!

"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?

Should the husband pay CS and alimony to support her transition to her new
lover?

Should the mother get half his assets to take into her new relationship?

Should the mother be allowed to shack up using the CS to pay for her and her
new lovers expenses?

Should the children be exposed to the shacking up scenario with their "new
daddy"?

..

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?

I was


Should the husband pay CS and alimony to support her transition to her new
lover?

I did. $4800 a month, plus college for her.

Should the mother get half his assets to take into her new relationship?

She got everything


Should the mother be allowed to shack up using the CS to pay for her and her
new lovers expenses?

She and he did. He still hasn't worked,

Should the children be exposed to the shacking up scenario with their "new
daddy"?

They were.



And that is only the first marriage. The second was where I really got
screwed.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
........................

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?

Should the husband pay CS and alimony to support her transition to her new
lover?
==
Only if the wife was pregnant with her lover's child while still married.
Then hubby
has to pay CS for the lover's child. (You forgot that part

"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


Should the husband pay CS and alimony to support her transition to her new
lover?

No, though he should be contributing to the support of the children.


Should the mother get half his assets to take into her new relationship?

If she contributed to the financing of the assets, she's entitled to her
half.


Should the mother be allowed to shack up using the CS to pay for her and
her
new lovers expenses?

I think this is particularly intrusive - are you saying that any woman who
received CS should never be permitted to share her home with her significant
other? (like, isn't she allowed to have a relationship post divorce?)


Should the children be exposed to the shacking up scenario with their "new
daddy"?

How biased are you going to be, Bob? If dad can "shack up", then mom should
have the same privilege, don't you think?

And who says that mom's significant is "new daddy"? Don't the children
already HAVE a dad?

"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. In our family court system, the vast majority
of the time, mom gets custody. She can then take dad for 17%+ of his income
without raising a finger. She can have the children 60% of the time, and he
will get no financial credit for his 40%--she can keep sucking up that 17%
as her right and due. HE can be forced to provide health insurance and
child care costs even if her job has better insurance trhat doesn't cost a
penny, and her best friend provides her with half price child care but sends
dad a bill for 100%. She can be totally, completely UNFAIR, and the courts
will support her every whimper. THAT is what I mean by not being unfair--by
making sure the poster chooses to be fair in spite of the temptation to let
the system screw the dad blue and get for her what she may be entitled to
under the law, but may not really need. And what can he do about it? He's
just along for the ride.

As for your situations, this is where cooperation comes in--not fairness on
his part. If she is fair, he will probably be more cooperative. I did ask
you before what you think HE should be doing to be fair--but you didn't
answer that part. So, Moon, what do YOU think the dad in the case we are
discussing should do to be fair? How would you work out your little
scenarios? Personally, I think that if she is not going for the throat, and
both are half way decent human beings, they should be able to sit down and
discuss the issues. And if either is a jerk, then both will suffer--but she
will probably suffer the least because the courts are on her side. But,
then, you probably know if your mate is a jerk long before the divorce--but
you picked 'em. You can't expect 'em to just change to make things more
convenient for you.

"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?



Should the husband pay CS and alimony to support her transition to her
new
lover?

No, though he should be contributing to the support of the children.

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



Should the mother get half his assets to take into her new relationship?

If she contributed to the financing of the assets, she's entitled to her
half.

And if the courts decide to give her more than half--in the best interests
of the children--is this ok, too?



Should the mother be allowed to shack up using the CS to pay for her and
her
new lovers expenses?

I think this is particularly intrusive - are you saying that any woman who
received CS should never be permitted to share her home with her
significant other? (like, isn't she allowed to have a relationship post
divorce?)

I think he was talking obout her going right from exhubby's still warm bed
into the bed of a new guy. You really think this is ok?




Should the children be exposed to the shacking up scenario with their
"new
daddy"?

How biased are you going to be, Bob? If dad can "shack up", then mom
should have the same privilege, don't you think?

Did he mention dad shacking up? I didn't see that part.


And who says that mom's significant is "new daddy"? Don't the children
already HAVE a dad?

Precisely!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Should the mother be allowed to shack up using the CS to pay for her and
her
new lovers expenses?

I think this is particularly intrusive - are you saying that any woman who
received CS should never be permitted to share her home with her
significant
other? (like, isn't she allowed to have a relationship post divorce?)

No. I'm saying any CP, male or female, should not be shacking up because
that is a horrible example to set for young children. I believe you said
adults should act like adults. I don't include shacking up as being
included in acceptable adult behavior that sets a good example for children.



Should the children be exposed to the shacking up scenario with their
"new
daddy"?

How biased are you going to be, Bob? If dad can "shack up", then mom
should
have the same privilege, don't you think?

No. I say if dad shacks up that is a bad example for children. But just
because dad shacks up doesn't make it okay for mom to shack up too.


And who says that mom's significant is "new daddy"? Don't the children
already HAVE a dad?

They get to act like a daddy. And if he acts like a daddy, talks like a
daddy, and sleeps with mom like a daddy, he is a daddy. Of course, I can
guess some moms will explain to their children the shack up squeeze is just
a sexual partner who gives her personal satisfaction to fulfill her needs.
I'll bet a lot of kids understand that approach.