Share vehicle, insurance expenses?

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



snipped


I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
that helps to reach the end goal.






Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?






We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



snipped


I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
that helps to reach the end goal.






Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?






We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

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
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what
is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
pay.......so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.

Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
for
the
purposes of going to school.

In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
same
state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
would not be an alternative for him.

According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
to
get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
of
transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
could
arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
drop the "impossible" ones.

So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
child? Anything?



Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
activities make up for the driving?

Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
idea"?
At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
like
the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
the
"standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
best
for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
day--there
was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
would
be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
three
days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
the
decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.

I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
in all
honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.





When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
everything else, BTW.

As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
this
case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
of
the child take precedence?

Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
Besides
which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!

And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
for
the child?



I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband
be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
interests of the child"?

Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
to
school.

Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
car
(probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
car
for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
itself.


He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
interests when thinking about the car?

Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
is.

On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
all--daughter
does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
car
would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
car
for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.

And
if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
they
fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
got the
child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
dad
wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
able
to drive a car.

Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
mention
growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
judgement
you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
his
daughter!

We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
experiences.......
that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
to
what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.



She is certainly the only child that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?

OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
child
to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
to
activities - did you?

I saw that he most likely lives in another state.

Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
lives
so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
view
is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
to
see, on a day to day basis?

It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
assume that HE left??? Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post. You are
drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
poster has issues with.

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
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what
is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
pay.......so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all
it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.

Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive
for
the
purposes of going to school.

In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the
same
state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
would not be an alternative for him.

According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her
to
get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties
of
transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom
could
arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
drop the "impossible" ones.

So leave it all to mom? So what, precisely, is dad's part in raising this
child? Anything?



Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count
on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
activities make up for the driving?

Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like
the
idea"?
At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date?
"Doesn't
like
the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on
the
"standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are
best
for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that
day--there
was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children
would
be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next
three
days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to
the
decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.

I would hope that there is some reasonable middleground......... though,
in all
honesty, you're talking a pretty extreme example there.





When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
everything else, BTW.

As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and
in
this
case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best
interests
of
the child take precedence?

Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community!
Besides
which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!

And mom does.......... so how about a compromise? Isn't that what's best
for
the child?



I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into
her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband
be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
interests of the child"?

Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go
to
school.

Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a
car
(probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the
car
for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school
itself.


He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
interests when thinking about the car?

Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly
is.

On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at
all--daughter
does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a
car
would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the
car
for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.

And
if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one
which
they
fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer -
she
got the
child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her,
if
dad
wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be
legally
able
to drive a car.

Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't
mention
growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some
judgement
you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of
his
daughter!

We all make judgements, based on what we draw from our own
experiences.......
that's part of being human. I saw a post from a father who wants to point
to
what he considers problems, and saw nothing by way of solutions.



She is certainly the only child that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?

OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could*
get
child
to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get
child
to
activities - did you?

I saw that he most likely lives in another state.

Which removes him from being a parent? Perhaps we should be asking why he
lives
so far away from the child? Perhaps we should be asking how accurate his
view
is of his child's maturity, since he's apparently too far away to be able
to
see, on a day to day basis?

It never accours to you that the CP parent moved away from the NCP? Why
assume that HE left??? Why assume he had a choice? (job, military, ect) And
he does spend summers with the child, if I recall from his post. You are
drawing to much from a post that lacks details not revelant to what the
poster has issues with.

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is
an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused
to
pay........ so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as
all
it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what point
does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at
14.
Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
the
activities make up for the driving?

When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of
pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
into
her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
should
have
a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
support.
Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
child
that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
"best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
their
own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
And
the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
imperative.
She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But
the
child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although
they
may
be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
attending
them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at
14,
and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
child
support
to maintain a car for her.




Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
those
things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.

Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
legal
where she lives.






Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in
the
kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
reasonable or
not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to try
to be
reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
from
extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he wants
(which
is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
home
happy - total win/win situation.






And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or not,
and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he offer
that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result of
everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?


Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought now.
And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom line of
how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is
an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple
court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond
what is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused
to
pay........ so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as
all
it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow
the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what point
does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem
to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at
14.
Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that
the
activities make up for the driving?

When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot of
pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
into
her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
should
have
a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my
husband be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the
best
interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
support.
Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started
paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her
best
interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the only
child
that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
"best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside
their
own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.
And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.
And
the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his
daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
imperative.
She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But
the
child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although
they
may
be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
attending
them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at
14,
and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
child
support
to maintain a car for her.




Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
those
things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving. Period.

Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
legal
where she lives.






Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is not in
the
kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
reasonable or
not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to try
to be
reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
from
extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he wants
(which
is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
home
happy - total win/win situation.






And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or not,
and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he offer
that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result of
everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?


Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought now.
And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom line of
how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



snipped


I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
that helps to reach the end goal.






Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?






We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed to
do that stuff?

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



snipped


I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok, so
don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
that helps to reach the end goal.






Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he lives
to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?






We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed to
do that stuff?

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there
is
an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's
forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for
anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of
multiple
court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs
(beyond
what is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's
refused
to
pay........ so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense,
as
all
it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would
allow
the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what
point
does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way?
Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't
seem
to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving
at
14.
Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels
that
the
activities make up for the driving?

When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot
of
pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
into
her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
should
have
a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should
my
husband be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in
the
best
interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
support.
Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he
started
paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider
her
best
interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the
only
child
that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
"best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put
aside
their
own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's
activities.
And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
there.
And
the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
best
interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the
"best
interests"
bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of
his
daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
imperative.
She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are
not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development.
But
the
child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do.
Although
they
may
be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
attending
them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving
at
14,
and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
child
support
to maintain a car for her.




Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
those
things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving.
Period.

Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
legal
where she lives.






Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is
not in
the
kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
reasonable or
not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to
try
to be
reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
from
extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he
wants
(which
is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
home
happy - total win/win situation.






And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or
not,
and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he
offer
that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result
of
everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?


Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought
now.
And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom
line of
how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.






He might not live close enough to help with rides. He might not be able to
fork out MORE money on top of his monthly CS payments. Chances of everyone
being happy are slim to none, Mom only asked for money for the car, that was
apparently her solution.

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there
is
an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's
forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for
anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of
multiple
court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs
(beyond
what is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's
refused
to
pay........ so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense,
as
all
it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and
refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular
activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would
allow
the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what
point
does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way?
Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't
seem
to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving
at
14.
Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion
count
on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels
that
the
activities make up for the driving?

When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence
over
everything else, BTW. I see that phrase used to justify a lot
of
pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it
into
her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter
should
have
a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should
my
husband be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in
the
best
interests of the child"? He already pays 85% of her total
support.
Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he
started
paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be
supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider
her
best
interests when thinking about the car? She is certainly the
only
child
that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the
"best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?
Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put
aside
their
own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's
activities.
And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities
because
their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get
there.
And
the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the
best
interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one
parent
seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the
"best
interests"
bat? And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of
his
daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is
imperative.
She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are
not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development.
But
the
child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do.
Although
they
may
be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in
attending
them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving
at
14,
and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered
child
support
to maintain a car for her.




Nice summery! Agreed here. The NCP is already paying his part of
those
things. I just don't think a 14 year old should be driving.
Period.

Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
legal
where she lives.






Its not a non-issue. Whether its legal or not the NCP feels it is
not in
the
kids best interest. He knows his kid, do you?

But you see, that's the rub - it doesn't matter if he thinks it's
reasonable or
not - the car is bought, the law says she can..........
so is he going to try to control something he can't, or is he going to
try
to be
reasonable by offering an alternative (like offering to get her to and
from
extracurricular activities), that (in the process) gets him what he
wants
(which
is for the child to not be driving) - me, I go for the most reasonable
alternative that, as a side bonus, gets me what I want - everyone goes
home
happy - total win/win situation.






And again, you are assuming that the CP consulted him before buying car.

No I'm not. It doesn't matter, in the end, if she consulted with him or
not,
and it doesn't matter if he contributes to the cost or not. What can he
offer
that helps reach the most goals for the most people, with the end result
of
everyone (or the majority of people) being happy with the outcome?


Even if he does offer an alternative to offer rides, the car is bought
now.
And that can be on mom and stepdad. But it doesn't address the bottom
line of
how to make anyone happy at the end of the day.






He might not live close enough to help with rides. He might not be able to
fork out MORE money on top of his monthly CS payments. Chances of everyone
being happy are slim to none, Mom only asked for money for the car, that was
apparently her solution.