"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated
with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation"
to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her
to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something
that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also
then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've
got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common
sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of
those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells
me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans
stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay
half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you
think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past
his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both
parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things
through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly
refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone
calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility*
that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the
decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every
opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his
legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.

So you do not see transportation expenses as part of the already-ordered
child support payment? It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support." I would be extremely upset if someone
decided to do something as expensive as a car--then wanted me to pay half
the ongoing expenses. If they asked first, I would say no--budget already
too tight. If they did it anyway, then demanded payment--nuts to 'em. If
he has refused to be part of the decision-making process, why would one even
think that he would be willing to pay part of the ongoing expenses? And why
should he have to? Would you buy a car for your kids, expecting that your
ex would pay half the expenses? Considering what you have been through with
him, would you expect to be successful at collecting? Would you even feel
justified in dumping that kind of expense on him?