deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

"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.

--
[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"?

--
[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.

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. As far as I know, I don't have sole legal
custody of my daughter. 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.)

Why is your .sig at the top of your posts? I figured out that's why my
newsreader won't quote your messages...
--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
Nice straw man, not to mention non sequitur too. By you refusing to allow
the child to be with him, it is YOU who is putting him in the
situation of
not having her with him.


I am not refusing to allow her to be with him. In fact, he is coming up
next weekend and she is spending a few days with him. He has stated that
he does not want her to miss school do that he can visit her.

--

Sarah Gray

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. As far as I know, I don't have sole legal
custody of my daughter. 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.)

Why is your .sig at the top of your posts? I figured out that's why my
newsreader won't quote your messages...
--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
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 never said he wasn't good enough. He has no transportation or housing
of his own, and he claims he cannot afford to cover half of her basic needs.

--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
You can't insist that men not
be made to support their children, and then also claim that men should
be able to spend more time with their children. they are either
responsible for those children, or they are not.

FINALLY, ya got something right! Because the "family" court people say
the
father has no rights, it simply follows that he has no
responsibilities. Not
to mention, Federal courts say that a man has no post-conception
reproductive rights. Ya know, can't have yer cake and eat it too.

While I do not agree with the above statement (in fact, please cite how
a man has "no rights" when it comes to family court), *if* a man truly
has no rights when it comes to his children, the mother has no reason to
let him visit with or ortherwidse be involved in his children's lives...

If there is no responsibility, there are no rights...

--

Sarah Gray

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. Not my fault.
--

Sarah Gray

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.

--

Sarah Gray