Share vehicle, insurance expenses?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!


Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.


While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?



So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!


Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.


While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?



So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

"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.

"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.

She's doing more than that, Bob...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!


Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.


While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?



So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

According to her statement, the correctness of mommy's decision has no bearing
on dad's right/duty to complain...only his contributing to the cost gives him
that right according to nasty. So if mommy decides her teenage daughter should
have access to heroin to loosen her up for an improved social life...dad has no
right to complain about such a decision unless he is helping purchase the
drugs.

It's all about mommy-power....

Mel Gamble

She's doing more than that, Bob...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!


Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.


While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?



So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough? Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?
Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

According to her statement, the correctness of mommy's decision has no bearing
on dad's right/duty to complain...only his contributing to the cost gives him
that right according to nasty. So if mommy decides her teenage daughter should
have access to heroin to loosen her up for an improved social life...dad has no
right to complain about such a decision unless he is helping purchase the
drugs.

It's all about mommy-power....

Mel Gamble

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!

Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective, but a
CP mother can't bring in her perspective?




Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.

Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for any
parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to why
some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that one?
They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?



While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?

Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child with
cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a child
that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should be the
same for both children, do you?




So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?

In some cases, no.

Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?

I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has no
place to be complaining.

Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s) about
which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.


You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with one red
cent more than absolutely mandated.

And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!

Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........ I'll
continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point, and all
your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took part in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could care less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's always
about her case!

Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's persepective, but a
CP mother can't bring in her perspective?




Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.

Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense for any
parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective" as to why
some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to that one?
They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?



While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an extraordinary need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the maximum
amount of CS owed?

Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably an
over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child with
cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from a child
that has none of those - you don't really think the child support should be the
same for both children, do you?




So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and make it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and it's up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she allocates the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he doesn't like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?

In some cases, no.

Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money is spent?

I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying has no
place to be complaining.

Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say in how
his children are raised?

Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the item(s) about
which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.


You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap of agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so they are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to part with one red
cent more than absolutely mandated.

And you still want to claim that dad's are providing financial support
voluntarily, and wage assignment isn't necessary, huh!

Face it, Bob - you want to be on your soapbax, and I don't agree with what
you're saying, and you're not likely to agree with me. Whatever........ I'll
continue to raise 2 children, and my ex will continue to prove my point, and all
your accusations and rhetoric aren't likely to change that.

"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.


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?


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?

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.

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. 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.

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?

Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.

Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

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 how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get the
child 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?

I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his help
in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to school.

And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I offered to
take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the following
week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?



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.

And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects to his
baby girl growing up? Then what?

"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.


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?


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?

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.

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. 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.

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?

Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.

Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

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 how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get the
child 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?

I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his help
in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to school.

And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I offered to
take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the following
week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

I don't recall seeing anything like that, did you?



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.

And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what? When dad objects to his
baby girl growing up? Then what?