If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say
that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
Anx99 wrote:
while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! I caught that, also, and wanted to point it out. Seems clear to me. -- Jealousy is simply and clearly the fear that you do not have value. Jealousy scans for evidence to prove the point - that others will be preferred and rewarded more than you. ~ Jennifer James |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
Anx99 wrote:
while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! I caught that, also, and wanted to point it out. Seems clear to me. -- Jealousy is simply and clearly the fear that you do not have value. Jealousy scans for evidence to prove the point - that others will be preferred and rewarded more than you. ~ Jennifer James |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
Anx99 wrote:
while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! I caught that, also, and wanted to point it out. Seems clear to me. -- Jealousy is simply and clearly the fear that you do not have value. Jealousy scans for evidence to prove the point - that others will be preferred and rewarded more than you. ~ Jennifer James |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message
... Anx99 wrote: while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! I caught that, also, and wanted to point it out. Seems clear to me. I caught that as well. The problem is getting a judge to apply it to men's rights concerning their children. I have my doubts that any judge will ever apply it to a father's case for the same or similar reasons. And if they do, watch the fallout from NOW and other whoaman's groups - they'll take to the streets and burn their panties over it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message
... Anx99 wrote: while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! I caught that, also, and wanted to point it out. Seems clear to me. I caught that as well. The problem is getting a judge to apply it to men's rights concerning their children. I have my doubts that any judge will ever apply it to a father's case for the same or similar reasons. And if they do, watch the fallout from NOW and other whoaman's groups - they'll take to the streets and burn their panties over it. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
silver lining in PA ridiculous ruling for male NCP's
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message
... Anx99 wrote: while the decision is kinda sick and anti-male (what else is new) it did say that due to weekend and summer visitation of the kids with the mother, the mother (NCP in this case) had "fixed expenses" throughout the year she had to meet due to the visitation of kids. Now I think the door may be open in PA for male NCP's to argue this same point in order to have seemingly too high $$$ CS orders reduced. It would be interesting to see the court's opinion shooting this down after using that logic to take money from a male and give it to a female!!! I caught that, also, and wanted to point it out. Seems clear to me. I caught that as well. The problem is getting a judge to apply it to men's rights concerning their children. I have my doubts that any judge will ever apply it to a father's case for the same or similar reasons. And if they do, watch the fallout from NOW and other whoaman's groups - they'll take to the streets and burn their panties over it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|