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 |
#591
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me. Uhuh. *I* don't need anyone supporting me, Umm, it's more like greed, not need. It is not greed to insist her father provide for her. Nice twist. It is GREED to insist that he give you FREE MONEY. He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do without either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on his own. His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT! How about his obligation to HIS daughter? What part of SQUAT did you not understand; the "SQ" or the "UAT"? So men have no obligations to their children? |
#592
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... DB wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in That is $516 a month; half of that is $258. OK, just for argument sake, lets round it off to $600! Lets look at it from a different perspective, that's about the same cost of new car with fuel and insurance too. Millions of single people buy new cars everyday and live to tell the tale. Are single mothers really that financially strapped that they need a huge government bureaucracy to help them out? Sounds to me you're far better off without this immature idiot in your life and the chump change isn't worth the aggravation. That isn't the point. This is not about my personal financial circumstances, it's about his responsibility to help support his child. He says he wants to be in her life; Why should I assume all the costs of raising our daughter just because I can? That is ridiculous. If I had a six-figure income, I might feel differently about it. He says that I am "using his money as a safety net", but seeing how irresponsible he has been, I see no problem in ensuring that my daughter has her needs met. I don't know either of you, but it sounds as if he has some sort of a plan and is tryijng to lure you into this whole court thing for a reason. Have you met his parents? Could he be trying for custody? I agree that he should be helping with basic needs for his own child--and it is ok that it is a safety net, allowing you to put away a little each month in case you become ill and have to rely on savings for a while. Your TRUE colors exposed. Chris, I have ALWAYS said that I thought that the basic needs for the child should be split between the parents. I have NEVER said that I thought there should not be child support, especially in a divorce situation. Go back and check it out. It is today's imfair, biased system that I do not agree with--not the idea of both parents supporting their children. I have also stated repeatedly that 50/50 joint custody should be the default position, with no money changing hands. I was making reference to this part: "allowing you to put away a little each month". Why should she not put away part of the money she earns? We aren't talking about the money she earns; we are talking about HIS money. No we're not. You're confused. He sends his half of the basic needs, she spends it on the child's basic needs. Her money that she earns that she was spending on his half of the basic needs before is now freed up for her to put a bit away. Soo, not that hard to understand. She can't have that "safety net" without receiving HIS money. Therefore, it is HIS money that is being "put away". Not hard at ALL to understand. chuckle Perhaps you will feel better when your child support obligation is finally paid off, Chris. Nice assumption. Hope it works for you. |
#593
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: well, please, Chris, enlighten me as to how he can contribute anm equal share towards supporting her without sending me money. EXACTLY the same way you are doing it. Well how do you propose he pay for half of her food costs, shelter costs, and childcare costs without sending me money (or the equivalent)? Like I said, EXACTLY the same way you are doing it. But I *am* spending money on these things. He is unable to care for her on his own. NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but he's good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are talking about a man and NOT a woman. I spend the money I earn on those things. Why should he not do so? Why SHOULD he? The burden of proof rests with you. Why *should* he? You argue that she ought to live with him, IF, keword "IF", you want her to be with him. For some reason, you keep making sure to NOT include that part of my claim. however, this is not an option. If he is unwilling to do what he needs to do to be a real dad, the last he can do is help to support her. Argumentum ad misericordiam. Idiotum ad infinitum Quod erat demonstrandum. Illegitimi no carborundum Lusus naturae. Hey, Bob, maybe we are giving Chris a whole new vocabulary!! chuckle Carpe Diem!! |
#594
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: well, please, Chris, enlighten me as to how he can contribute anm equal share towards supporting her without sending me money. EXACTLY the same way you are doing it. Well how do you propose he pay for half of her food costs, shelter costs, and childcare costs without sending me money (or the equivalent)? Like I said, EXACTLY the same way you are doing it. But I *am* spending money on these things. He is unable to care for her on his own. NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but he's good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are talking about a man and NOT a woman. I spend the money I earn on those things. Why should he not do so? Why SHOULD he? The burden of proof rests with you. Why *should* he? You argue that she ought to live with him, IF, keword "IF", you want her to be with him. For some reason, you keep making sure to NOT include that part of my claim. however, this is not an option. If he is unwilling to do what he needs to do to be a real dad, the last he can do is help to support her. Argumentum ad misericordiam. Idiotum ad infinitum Quod erat demonstrandum. Illegitimi no carborundum Lusus naturae. Hey, Bob, maybe we are giving Chris a whole new vocabulary!! chuckle Carpe Diem!! Cadit quaestio. It's his dies infaustus. |
#595
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: While I agree with the above sentiment, you still have not explained why you said that I take care of her full-time because I am her mother. I said that you have legal custody of her because you are the mother. And that is simply untrue. It is totally true. As far as I know, I don't have sole legal custody of my daughter. All you have to do, if that's the case, is tell the judge that's what you want and BAM you got it! Thus, for all practical intents and purposes, you have custody right now. then again, my ex violated a court order by moving so far away, and from the research I have done, it seems that the judge has an awful amount of latitude when it comes to penalties for that sort of thing. (In the first case I came across when I was googling, a *man* was granted custody of his child after the mother, the CP, moved away without the court's permission.) Uhuh, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. Why is your .sig at the top of your posts? Beats me. Computers, I guess. I figured out that's why my newsreader won't quote your messages... -- Sarah Gray |
#596
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message t... Chris wrote: If he was willing to live in the same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very simple Chris. Indeed it is. Apparently, he IS willing to live in the same city as her; you just don't approve of the city. He violated a court order by moving. Irrelevant. Not my fault. -- Sarah Gray |
#597
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me. Uhuh. *I* don't need anyone supporting me, Umm, it's more like greed, not need. It is not greed to insist her father provide for her. Nice twist. It is GREED to insist that he give you FREE MONEY. He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do without either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on his own. His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT! How about his obligation to HIS daughter? What part of SQUAT did you not understand; the "SQ" or the "UAT"? So men have no obligations to their children? According to the"child support" people, by THEIR reasoning............... NO! |
#598
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message t... Chris wrote: He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do without either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on his own. His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT! How about his obligation to HIS daughter? What part of SQUAT did you not understand; the "SQ" or the "UAT"? It doesn't matter what you think Chris. He has a legal obligation to his daughter that won't go away just because you think fathers should have no rights. I DON'T think that............. next. -- Sarah Gray |
#599
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... DB wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in That is $516 a month; half of that is $258. OK, just for argument sake, lets round it off to $600! Lets look at it from a different perspective, that's about the same cost of new car with fuel and insurance too. Millions of single people buy new cars everyday and live to tell the tale. Are single mothers really that financially strapped that they need a huge government bureaucracy to help them out? Sounds to me you're far better off without this immature idiot in your life and the chump change isn't worth the aggravation. That isn't the point. This is not about my personal financial circumstances, it's about his responsibility to help support his child. He says he wants to be in her life; Why should I assume all the costs of raising our daughter just because I can? That is ridiculous. If I had a six-figure income, I might feel differently about it. He says that I am "using his money as a safety net", but seeing how irresponsible he has been, I see no problem in ensuring that my daughter has her needs met. I don't know either of you, but it sounds as if he has some sort of a plan and is tryijng to lure you into this whole court thing for a reason. Have you met his parents? Could he be trying for custody? I agree that he should be helping with basic needs for his own child--and it is ok that it is a safety net, allowing you to put away a little each month in case you become ill and have to rely on savings for a while. Your TRUE colors exposed. Chris, I have ALWAYS said that I thought that the basic needs for the child should be split between the parents. I have NEVER said that I thought there should not be child support, especially in a divorce situation. Go back and check it out. It is today's imfair, biased system that I do not agree with--not the idea of both parents supporting their children. I have also stated repeatedly that 50/50 joint custody should be the default position, with no money changing hands. I was making reference to this part: "allowing you to put away a little each month". Why should she not put away part of the money she earns? We aren't talking about the money she earns; we are talking about HIS money. No we're not. You're confused. He sends his half of the basic needs, she spends it on the child's basic needs. Her money that she earns that she was spending on his half of the basic needs before is now freed up for her to put a bit away. Soo, not that hard to understand. She can't have that "safety net" without receiving HIS money. Therefore, it is HIS money that is being "put away". Not hard at ALL to understand. chuckle Perhaps you will feel better when your child support obligation is finally paid off, Chris. Nice assumption. Hope it works for you. Hope WHAT works for me? |
#600
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... Chris wrote: Why would I ask for more than an approximate of half of my daughter's basic expenses? Actually, it's a demand; but that's another discussion. A better question is why not? Afterall, when something's FREE why not get all you can? *you* think it unethical to expect a father to support his children financially. Correction: I think it "unethical" to extort money from a man by force! What about a woman? We agreed to have a child. Now he does not want to support her. If anything, *he* is creating a financial burden on *me*! Uhuh. And if you agree that I should purchase a new automobile, but you don't contribute to the payments, then you are creating a financial burden on me. LOVE your reasoning! Ah.....Car = child. Hmmmm..........Purchase = reproduction....I...um....seee......sure..... Um, I don't think so. Can you say "A-N-A-L-O-G-Y"? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CT: New Haven witch hunt for deadbeat fathers - notice that NO mothers were on their list... | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | April 5th 05 06:37 AM |
Guest Speaker: Dr. Rita Laws Topic: Topic: Why Kids Lie and What We Can Do About It | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 2nd 04 05:42 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | General | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | Breastfeeding | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |