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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or may not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they become involved. Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he wanted, or mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered) But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available? This includes, but is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to the end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges part, the many people that make their living through forcing (through various means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to make his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise inferred that you where unhappy he was still around... I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions for domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the court's turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by non-compliance of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance and health insurance for the kids)? ------------------ Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he must have been a terrible father. Aren't you one of the posters to ACS who insists that children do better when they have their father involved in their lives? -------------- Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in the children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's fault. The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all possible situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity with the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his actions may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such a drastic decision. Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such a decision. You left out that one, too. ----------------- There are many, many subtle things that encourage people to act the way they do. I know a lot of men who didn't stay in contact with their kids because they honestly thought it was the best thing for them. They felt that if they were around the mom might take out her anger on the kids or that the kids would be confused and uncomfortable. You, obviously, had a very bad breakup with your ex and even if you tried to hide all of it from your kids I'm sure they were able to feel the tension. You are making an assumption about which you have no way of knowing any information, and in the process, adhering to the imperfect assumption that it has to be something the *mom* caused. Pretty laughable, considering every time my children express anger at their father for things he has done (like ignoring their b'days, ignoring them at Xmas time, never calling), I ihave repeatedly explained to them that no matter what they, or anyone else thinks or says about their dad, if he wasn't their dad they wouldn't be who *they* are, and I'm quite fond of who they are. Shoot, we saw him last month at the annual state fair, he and his friend walked right past the kids... my daughter had seen them, so I handed her my cell phone so she could call him and the children could see their dad (and vice versa). He told her "I can't get away right now". I'm not saying that your ex was coming from the position that he thought it was in the kids best interest to just stay away but that there are numerous subtle influences to a persons actions. I agree - and sometimes, those subtle influences are from the person themself, and *not* some external source - it's amusing to watch how hard some posters (including you) will work to maintain the position that it's something the CP must have done. Some NCP's are just lousy people. It's almost impossible to understand why someone does something, especially when you are unable to communicate with the person in a calm, open way. That's why some of us CP's communicate in writing - that way, there's no alleged 'tone of voice', alleged body language, and there's a clear record of what was actually stated. ----------------- I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating that I understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get t he opportunity. This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would force the CP to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take the children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular situation. Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts. ------------- I don't recall you ever saying anything good/positive/nice about your ex. He was convicted after assaulting me, he ignores the children, and (like you, among others) tries to insist that the reasons for his abandonment of the children is someone else's fault. Do you see anything good/positive/nice there? He has beautiful eyes - that's pretty much the only nice thing I can think of at the moment, and the same response I gave the *last* time I was challenged to say something nice about him. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Got any evidence to substantiate your continued flaming of me? Any? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Is it possible for anyone to believe that there are those who just dont want to
be a parent? My ex hasnt seen the kids in 2 yrs. We hadnt touched court..he helped out financially at 1st and then just stopped and I never asked him for any. I never said no to him seeing the kids although he never asked I asked him. I gave him an open door to come and go as he pleased. I kissed his royal ass because I wanted no problems with the children..because I knew if I even uttered any word against him or asked him anything he didnt want to do he would stop seeing them. He just didnt like being a parent...he hated the wrok he hated the responsibility and he didnt try to hide it. So he kind of just dwindled away and that was that. Im not going to chase him and beg and if someone doesnt want to be a parent than you cant force them...the onl thing Im angry at is if he were going to walk away he didnt have to drag it out and make it so much harder for the kids.. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or may not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they become involved. Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he wanted, or mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered) But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available? This includes, but is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to the end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges part, the many people that make their living through forcing (through various means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to make his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise inferred that you where unhappy he was still around... I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions for domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the court's turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by non-compliance of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance and health insurance for the kids)? ------------------ Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he must have been a terrible father. You are getting the 'moonie' version. Those that have posted hear for a while know tha the 'abuse' is a two way street in her case. -------------- Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in the children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's fault. The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all possible situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity with the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his actions may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such a drastic decision. Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such a decision. You left out that one, too. ----------------- There are many, many subtle things that encourage people to act the way they do. I know a lot of men who didn't stay in contact with their kids because they honestly thought it was the best thing for them. They felt that if they were around the mom might take out her anger on the kids or that the kids would be confused and uncomfortable. You, obviously, had a very bad breakup with your ex and even if you tried to hide all of it from your kids I'm sure they were able to feel the tension. I'm not saying that your ex was coming from the position that he thought it was in the kids best interest to just stay away but that there are numerous subtle influences to a persons actions. It's almost impossible to understand why someone does something, especially when you are unable to communicate with the person in a calm, open way. ----------------- I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating that I understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get t he opportunity. This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would force the CP to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take the children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular situation. Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts. ------------- I don't recall you ever saying anything good/positive/nice about your ex. ~AZ~ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Moon Shyne says...
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? === |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. === |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or may not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they become involved. Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he wanted, or mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered) But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available? This includes, but is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to the end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges part, the many people that make their living through forcing (through various means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to make his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise inferred that you where unhappy he was still around... I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions for domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the court's turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by non-compliance of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance and health insurance for the kids)? ------------------ Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he must have been a terrible father. You are getting the 'moonie' version. Those that have posted hear for a while know tha the 'abuse' is a two way street in her case. Liar. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. Perhaps there where things you did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice. THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA! Well, I was being nice. heh, heh... Yupper, just like adding a lit match to a lake of gasoline! Just look at the rash of posts from Moon over this little thing! I love it. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article , Moon Shyne says... Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start taking an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in nearly 2 years now. ==== I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it will mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting to their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by the state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that context, his interest in his children may change. And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to him, he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'. === It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he parents 50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to hire a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I doubt he would), He already has. === I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt out. When did that happen? He opted out of ANY custody. His choice. I find that just way too odd, that he .."opted out of ANY custody" strikes me as there is a heck of a lot more to the story here. But as usual, Moon only gives us the information she wants us to see and hides the rest - unless you get under her skin and then the real Moon comes out. And that is never a pretty sight. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NY Federal District Court Judge Orders Defendants to Respond to Lawsuit | Editor - Child Support News | Child Support | 52 | May 18th 04 04:04 PM |
(FL.) Former DCF attorney files whistle-blower lawsuit in Lakeland | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 0 | August 28th 03 06:41 PM |