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!!!

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

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

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

"The Dave©" 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.

"The Dave©" 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.

"The Dave©" 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.