Message to First Wives

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:01:36 GMT, "ND" wrote:




This is a very ignorant statement even from you. I find it interesting that
this one persons posting proves CS is not "too much", very scientific. I
guess this is how you came up with all your other CS facts as well, which
explains a lot.



No, I just thought it was funny that this twit came in here and brags
about how all the money gets spent on her own kids.

I was being sarcastic.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:37:23 -0700, "Mysonsfather"
wrote:


Generalities like this one is like saying ALL women are freakazoid psychos
like my ex is. Of course that isn't true. So, gimmie a break.


Yep, generalities like this persons post also arent true in ALL cases.
She directs the comments to FIRST WIVES.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:37:23 -0700, "Mysonsfather"
wrote:


Generalities like this one is like saying ALL women are freakazoid psychos
like my ex is. Of course that isn't true. So, gimmie a break.


Yep, generalities like this persons post also arent true in ALL cases.
She directs the comments to FIRST WIVES.

Fighting For Kids wrote in message . ..
On 15 Nov 2003 02:20:05 GMT, (Gypsy0005) wrote:



Thanks, .... You made it very easy for us to keep all the money left after
court ordered support to take care of our family. My daughter (your husbands
step) thanks you for the new car she got for graduation. Our daughter thanks
you for the gynmastics, cheerleading, dance and most especially the trip to
Disney every year. These are things he would have gladly shared and enjoyed
with the children you had together.....you made it impossible.


Thanks you just proved that NCP's really can live a nice life after
their support and the theory that CS is "too much" can truely be put
to rest.

Some NCPs may be able to do that. Most probably can not. Our girls
are not getting trips to Disneyland, gymnastics lessons, etc, because
we can't do that and child support, too. We also make sure to send
gifts to my husband's daughter, even though they have only seen each
other once. (Last summer, we used his vacation time and money I made
doing some extra work to go visit) We don't grudge her the money--she
needs to be supported. The only thing financial we consider unfair
are the arrearages he owes for a child he never knew existed. And, of
course, the fact that he never got to be a father to his daughter.

Fighting For Kids wrote in message . ..
On 15 Nov 2003 02:20:05 GMT, (Gypsy0005) wrote:



Thanks, .... You made it very easy for us to keep all the money left after
court ordered support to take care of our family. My daughter (your husbands
step) thanks you for the new car she got for graduation. Our daughter thanks
you for the gynmastics, cheerleading, dance and most especially the trip to
Disney every year. These are things he would have gladly shared and enjoyed
with the children you had together.....you made it impossible.


Thanks you just proved that NCP's really can live a nice life after
their support and the theory that CS is "too much" can truely be put
to rest.

Some NCPs may be able to do that. Most probably can not. Our girls
are not getting trips to Disneyland, gymnastics lessons, etc, because
we can't do that and child support, too. We also make sure to send
gifts to my husband's daughter, even though they have only seen each
other once. (Last summer, we used his vacation time and money I made
doing some extra work to go visit) We don't grudge her the money--she
needs to be supported. The only thing financial we consider unfair
are the arrearages he owes for a child he never knew existed. And, of
course, the fact that he never got to be a father to his daughter.

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:01:36 GMT, "ND" wrote:




This is a very ignorant statement even from you. I find it interesting that
this one persons posting proves CS is not "too much", very scientific. I
guess this is how you came up with all your other CS facts as well, which
explains a lot.



No, I just thought it was funny that this twit came in here and brags
about how all the money gets spent on her own kids.

I was being sarcastic.
====
Hopefully, since different states require different support amounts for the same
income. If we had paid support under a PA order (which considers subsequent
children), it would have been half what we paid under the FL order (which
doesn't consider subsequent children).
====
====

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:01:36 GMT, "ND" wrote:




This is a very ignorant statement even from you. I find it interesting that
this one persons posting proves CS is not "too much", very scientific. I
guess this is how you came up with all your other CS facts as well, which
explains a lot.



No, I just thought it was funny that this twit came in here and brags
about how all the money gets spent on her own kids.

I was being sarcastic.
====
Hopefully, since different states require different support amounts for the same
income. If we had paid support under a PA order (which considers subsequent
children), it would have been half what we paid under the FL order (which
doesn't consider subsequent children).
====
====

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:01:36 GMT, "ND" wrote:




This is a very ignorant statement even from you. I find it interesting
that
this one persons posting proves CS is not "too much", very scientific. I
guess this is how you came up with all your other CS facts as well, which
explains a lot.



No, I just thought it was funny that this twit came in here and brags
about how all the money gets spent on her own kids.

I was being sarcastic.

You being sarcastic is like an NCP needing their CS increased. Are you off
your meds again??

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:01:36 GMT, "ND" wrote:




This is a very ignorant statement even from you. I find it interesting
that
this one persons posting proves CS is not "too much", very scientific. I
guess this is how you came up with all your other CS facts as well, which
explains a lot.



No, I just thought it was funny that this twit came in here and brags
about how all the money gets spent on her own kids.

I was being sarcastic.

You being sarcastic is like an NCP needing their CS increased. Are you off
your meds again??

Thanks you just proved that NCP's really can live a nice life after
their support and the theory that CS is "too much" can truely be put
to rest.


What I proved is that since I work (unlike the ex) our child is still able to
live at the same standard as the kids from the first marriage.