To ALL fathers Custody

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


So if I was responsible for fairness when I got divorced, why did my
attorney tell me his job was to help me reduce my losses?

How on earth would you expect me to know what your attorney was thinking?

Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? You know the kind of question
that is asked to make a point rather than expecting an answer to the
question.



And why did I lose on every legitimate financial issue I raised?

Without knowing what issues you raised, and what substantiation you
provided
to back 'em up, how on earth would you expect me to know the answer to
this?

Ditto.

And in case you missed it - The questions were designed to point out
instances of judicial bias in favor of women in family law matters.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.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?

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

You mean to tell me that you would send your children naked to their
father's house rather than letting them wear the clothing you have provided
for them? Why would any loving parent do that?

"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.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:vnEah.8043$7a2.3746@trndny06...

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

No, Moon, so long as the system gives the advantage to women, only women
can decide to give up some of that advantage amd be fair. Oh, and you
dismissed what I said as a "diatribe" because you didn't have any answers
again, didn't you. chuckle
==
Well, because she hasn't figured out how to spin her answers yet. She'll
figure
that out and get right back to you. "It takes 2 to screw it up." --That's
funny in that
it is her first confession that *she* was one of the 2 who screwed up her
marriage/
divorce/custody/CS situations.

Hmmmm....hadn't thought about it that way. You're right! chuckle

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:vorah.7983$7a2.3782@trndny06...

"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

I left out the other hard questions of fairness like -

Should moms be given child custody and then be allowed to retain custody
after they claim they are drug and alcohol dependant to extend welfare to
disability benefits?

Should women who have sex with a man they barely know get CS payments for
18+ years if they get pregnant?

Should DNA test results be used to rule out men from CS payments if they
are
not the bio-father?

Should paternity fraud be prosecuted instead of financially rewarded?

Should father incomes be imputed to increase CS awards above actual
incomes?

Should CS arrearages be created retroactively?

The list goes on and on. I don't think Moonie has thought this through
enough to argue for men being fair when there is so much unfairness in the
current system against men and in favor of women.

In the "child support" industry's quest for "fairness", more and more women
and children are being screwed by the system. As they extort the man's money
and hand it over to the lazy woman they are causing great harm to his wife
and their children. Thus, more accurately, it is a system in favor of CP
women and against men, other women, and children. This is why such activity
is illegal in most other cases. Why this particular industry is exempt from
stealing is beyond me.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


So if I was responsible for fairness when I got divorced, why did my
attorney tell me his job was to help me reduce my losses?

How on earth would you expect me to know what your attorney was
thinking?

Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question? You know the kind of
question
that is asked to make a point rather than expecting an answer to the
question.



And why did I lose on every legitimate financial issue I raised?

Without knowing what issues you raised, and what substantiation you
provided
to back 'em up, how on earth would you expect me to know the answer to
this?

Ditto.

And in case you missed it - The questions were designed to point out
instances of judicial bias in favor of women in family law matters.

With the advent of lesbian parents on the horizon, it's gonna be very
interesting how so-called "family court" applies its injustice when two
women divorce each other.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.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.


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.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.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?

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

You mean to tell me that you would send your children naked to their
father's house rather than letting them wear the clothing you have
provided for them?

No, that's now what I'm saying.

Chris says that each parent take care of child when said child is with him.
I was asking him how he intended to handle items that would need to cross
between parents.

Why would any loving parent do that?

I dunno - I was the parent that sent clothing, toiletries, toys and books to
their dad's home so they would have things in both places.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.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.

And if no one FEELS like it?



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.

What would YOU recommend? It was *your* proposal that states "How about
each parent take care of the child when said child is with them."

Children need clothing - so who provides it?

"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".

At what point do men actually do for themselves?