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 |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message news Chris wrote: 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. Why should I (and my daughter) live paycheck-to-paycheck just because her father will not contribute his *fair share* towards to cost of raising her? Better question: Why should he be forced to give you FREE money for your SOLE choice? NO share if fair! It was not my sole choice for him to decide to take an active role in parenting, Chris. While it is true that men do not have the same post conception rights as women, they are still responsible to their children, particularly when they say they want to be in their child's life. -- Sarah Gray |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Gini wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote Chris wrote: The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me. Uhuh. *I* don't need anyone supporting me, unlike him. My daughter deserves to have both of her parents supporting her, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pick up his slack. == That'll show her. Oops, I mean him. So you think women should just suck it up if the fathers of their children just don't feel like supporting them? I don't understand the static I'm getting here. Everyone I know IRL thinks I'm crazy to be reasonable with my ex; maybe I should just try to get as much of his money as possible, because I come out as a villian either way... -- Sarah Gray |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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? If the father were helping with basic needs, then she might just have a little money to put away for a rainy day. What is wrong with that? |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
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 et... Chris wrote: Sarah Gray wrote: My failings as a wife have little to do with the current situation. Besides which, *he* filed for divorce, long after I cheated on him. The fact that I cheated on him does not absolve him of his responsibilities to his daughter. If he did not want to pay child support, he could have stayed here in Detroit, or sued for full custody. MUST be nice sitting in the director's chair! what do you mean by that? Well, let's see. You are in FULL control of yourself. You are in FULL control of your daughter. PLUS, you get to call the shots as to what the father shall and shall not be allowed to do regarding your child. Not to mention, you also call the shots as to what he will be FORCED to do. Sounds pretty rosy to me............. -- Sarah Gray |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
teachrmama wrote:
"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? If the father were helping with basic needs, then she might just have a little money to put away for a rainy day. What is wrong with that? Because, for some reason, Chris thinks that if *I* am raising my daughter, then her father should not have to help support her at all, and that I am in the wrong for not just shipping her down to live with a man who is not capable of supporting her on a full-time basis. Funny how he's not obligated to support her when I am taking care of her, but I am supposed to be making concessions on his behalf, send her to live with him, and pay him child support.... -- Sarah Gray |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
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: How exactly have I done *anything* to prevent him from parenting his daughter? Let him try to take her home so he can "parent" her, and then you will have your answer. Dude! He LEFT THE STATE. Why should he get preferential treatment just because he is a man? Because that is what you seem to be implying. How so? He abandoned her, and so that means I should have to relinquish custody to him? What kind of retarded nonsense is that? I don't know. Did somebody say that? I already detailed why he is *unable* to take care of her properly elsewhere in this thread. Why should my daughter be forced to leave the state just because her father cannot support himself on his own? Now you're talking nonsense. Until a child is fully responsible for their own care, they have no say in where they shall live. Thus, it aint' "force" making them leave a state. Children move out of state all the time. Especially when she has a parent (who has never moved out of state with less than a day's notice) that is equipped to support her? -- Sarah Gray |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Chris wrote:
Well, let's see. You are in FULL control of yourself. You are in FULL control of your daughter. PLUS, you get to call the shots as to what the father shall and shall not be allowed to do regarding your child. Not to mention, you also call the shots as to what he will be FORCED to do. Sounds pretty rosy to me............. Her father *created* that situation by leaving? It's not as if he left because of a better job or school or anything like that. I don't make rules as to what he is "allowed" to do. He is not here. I have no control over what he does. -- Sarah Gray |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message t... Chris wrote: How exactly have I done *anything* to prevent him from parenting his daughter? Let him try to take her home so he can "parent" her, and then you will have your answer. Dude! He LEFT THE STATE. Why should he get preferential treatment just because he is a man? Because that is what you seem to be implying. How so? Your statements imply that I should not have custody, but he should, even though he has no way of supporting her full-time. That makes *no sense* He abandoned her, and so that means I should have to relinquish custody to him? What kind of retarded nonsense is that? I don't know. Did somebody say that? You said I should send her to live with him. I already detailed why he is *unable* to take care of her properly elsewhere in this thread. Why should my daughter be forced to leave the state just because her father cannot support himself on his own? Now you're talking nonsense. Until a child is fully responsible for their own care, they have no say in where they shall live. Thus, it aint' "force" making them leave a state. Children move out of state all the time. Why should she have to move out of state just because her father needs his mommy and cant deal without her? Particularly when he is not in a position to support her on his own, on a full time basis? Why should I have to either follow him to TN or rarely see my child? These were *his choices*, not mine. You are acting as if I somehow caused him to leave the state, and should be punished or something. -- Sarah Gray |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
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: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: Well, her grandparents would not be watching her; they both work, too. I have no problem with her being with her father; Yes you do because that is why she is not with him. Um, why should I give up seeing my daughter on a regular basis so she can go live with a man who has never expressed any intention to raise her in TN? He is not even in a position to take care of her full-time! - he left the state with less than a day's notice, and he has not seen her since July. -he has no transportation of his own -he has no plans to have a apartment of his own anytime soon -he has no arrangements for schooling or childcare -if he is unable to pay half of a conservative estimate of his child's expenses, how in the hell can he afford to raise her full time? ALL irrelevant. My ONLY claim is that your claim that you have no problem with your child being with him is false. It's not irrelevant. You suggest that I send her to live with him; If you want her to be with him, as you claim, then sending her to be with him will accomplish such goal. I am explaining why that is not feasible. Correction: You are giving reasons to support why you do NOT want her to be with him; thus, your claim is FALSE! Plus, you know, there's the fact that he doesn't seem to really want her there full time... I do not have her full-time because I'm her *mother*, I have her full time because her other parent decided she was not that important to h im anymore and left the state. Guess again. You DO have custody because you are the mother; and the government people say so too. what are you talking about? That is completely fabricated bull****. You're right. That "family" court sees to it that virtually all mothers retain custody of their children is merely a figment of my imagination. If I left the state, leaving my daughter with her father, would I still have "custody" because I'm her mother? Legally, YES. Why are you insisting that I am an unfit parent simply because I'm a woman? I NEVER made that claim. -- Sarah Gray |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
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: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: Not hard at all. Apparently, you did not understand my statement. It was implied that I was referring to "child support" money. Perhaps this statement "Or spend one penny of 'child support' money on your child." will help you to understand what I meant. considering I cover all of her expenses since he does not live in the same city as his daughter, and all I am asking him for is half of those expenses, it should be very easy for me to show that I only spend child support money on my daughter. How hard is that to understand? It's quite easy to understand your above claim. But the fact remains that you are under absolutely NO obligation to spend one thin dime of such proceeds on your child.... not ONE dime! I fail to understand your reasoning here. I mean, money is money. Unless you mark bills that are intended for child support (lets pretend fund transfers are not done electronically here), there is no way I can prove I spent "his" child support money on anything, that is true. However, if a child has $x in expenses for basic needs, and the support order is for $x/2, and the child's needs are met (let's also pretend here that there *is* some kind of accounting of how much money is spent by the CP on basic needs), can we not dedice from that that the child support sent was spent on the child? Or do you think that a CP should not only have to pay for their half of basic needs, but spend all other discretionary funds on the child as well, as to not spend any money that might be construed as the NCPs? Well guess what, I aint' exactly understanding YOUR reasoning here either. The bottom line, no matter how many hypothetical situations you present, legally, a mother can spend "child support" money ANY way she deems fit............... PERIOD! -- Sarah Gray |
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 |