To ALL fathers Custody

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

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
legroups.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.

"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.

If you don't like it, stop reading it. In the way men handeled in
"family court", they, as well as any children involved, ARE victims,
whether *you* approve or not.

To read your posts, men either need to be given power by mom, or they
need to be given power by "the system".

I don't see that; perhaps I understood her.


At what point do men actually do for themselves?

You keep acting stupid to the point that I no longer believe it's
intentional.
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.

Then why even bring it up?

"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?


At what point do men actually do for themselves?

Within the system? They don't. In all other aeras of thier lives?
Whenevwer they want to. Just as you can in all other areas of your life,
Moon.

"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?
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?
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

"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".

At what point do men actually do for themselves?

Rhetorical non sequitur. When it comes to the "child support" arena, men get
to do NOTHING for themselves. But you already knew this.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"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.

I contacted my state representative and state senator when the issue of
same-sex marriage was being debated. I pointed out to both that if they
were going to create same-sex marriages, or civil unions, they also had to
create a way to allow dissolutions of those legal relationships. Both told
me there was no connection between marriage and divorce so separate divorce
laws would not be necessary if same-sex marriage passed in the legislature.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

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?


I guess when the system is not raping you of all your independance &
freedom, you have little mercy or understanding for those caught in this
insane system. Thank God that there are people who are not as small minded
as you are.

"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?
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?

Probable response: "He already divorced me by his actions or lack thereof. I
simply made it legal by filing." But wait, how can this be? That would make
it only ONE person screwing it up. Oh, I get it, the other person is some
third party............. duh!

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

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?


That is an insane statement. Are you saying men should violate a court
order (given by the system) or violate Mom (who would then immediately
use the "system" to get what she wants)?

Come on Moon.