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 |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 9:54 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 12:18 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. He left the MOTHER! That the child is not with him is because the mother would NEVER allow such an arrangement. Get it right! Oh come on, Chris. He left the state where the child was living,. He left even though the child spent 50% of her time with him. He walked out on his entire life there. HE chose to leave and, obviously, in the process, he left the child. He took his shoes. He took his underwear. He took his toothbrush. But he LEFT his child!!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's the difference between married's and unwed's then? The unwed's, mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does Sarah deserve child support just because she was married to the child father? I think she had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who she knew was flakey when it comes to work, and now she want's this man, who can't even support himself, to support her and the child. Then you are not reading everything she wrote. She is asking for a small amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not her. And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age child. As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are* fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they have a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - She is asking for a small amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not her. And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age child. She is demanding money. The gap is her ex, and the money is how she want's to fill it. The child is school aged, so how much is child care for after, or before school, and why can't she get subsidized child care if she works and pay's taxes, and what is the latchkey she say's is the reason she can not get the childcare when she had it at one point in time? As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are* fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they have a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text - IfMarried fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother toward the child, why do they get screwed in court when it comes to custody? Because they DON'T have the same rights. In fact, they have NO rights; they only have privileges, and ONLY as long as the mother says so. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or visitation. That is false, since no custody is established until there is a court paper from a judge stating a custody agreement. A lot of fathers are ignorant to this, as you are, and assume what you stated to be true, but in fact it is false. The reason mothers try to keep the fathers from taking the children for visit's is because there is no legal obligation to bring the child back. Until a custody order is established, who ever is in possession of the child is the CP. This begs the question: If a father, barring any court order, decides to take the child away from the mother and hide said child (perhaps even moving out of the country), is this legal? A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they have a child. And a financial difference. Legality doesn't know moral, sweetheart, and that has no place in a court of law-NEXT! |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Chris" wrote .......................... Correction: SHE did by interfering with the child being with him. He places the child in the car saying "we're moving 10 hours away", and she will immediately prevent it. He secretly takes the child with him, and she will have him arrested and take the child away from him. Am I wrong? ==== Geeze Chris--That ranks right up there on the logic scale with Very Determined's assertion that men can't be equal to women because women bear children. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"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 ... wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the child would be better off with him? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare needs. What's the difference if she provides that, or he does? Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not work enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him to take care of a child?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it is acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say doesn't have the means? Pay attention, Leda!! Sarah can provide the child with her basic needs, and would like help with such things as child care, so thechild can have little extras also. The father *xcannot even provide basic needs* for the child. YOU seem to think that the child would be better off in a situation where *not even basic needs* can be provided, than in a situation where basic needs are provided. Why is that? SO...... Even though the mother can provide for the basic needs regardless of where the child lives, the child ought to live with the mother as opposed to the father because said child will have extras. Thus, material NON-essentials trumps living with one's father. What is wrong with you, Chris? Why are you insisting that it is ok to send the child to live with a man who cannot support her, and require the mother to send money to support the child? |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 9:16 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 8:20 am, Sarah Gray wrote: wrote : On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message news:7013c345-abc1-4609-b2a5- ... On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message news:5483921c-0fc6-480e-aa91-352f8b3744b5 @a35g2000prf.googlegroups.c om... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message news:8a20deeb-14d6-43c8-8408- s.com... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the child would be better off with him? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare needs. What's the difference if she provides that, or he does? Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not work enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him to take care of a child?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it is acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say doesn't have the means? The courts think like that too. No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support his child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support his child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody? Actually, I did not say that, I was asking the question why is what is acceptable for you not for your ex (again)? Basic needs. That is the key. She IS providing them--he CANNOT.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Basic needs are all a person need to survive. What does she need the money for? So you don't think the father should pay for 50% of the child's basic needs? Extras? Sorry, but extras are NOT needed to survive, only to make life more enjoyable. So you arew saying that if the custodial parent can provide the child's basic needs, then the NCP should not have to pay child support? |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 12:22 pm, "Chris" wrote: -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child]"teachrmama" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the child would be better off with him? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare needs. What's the difference if she provides that, or he does? Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not work enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him to take care of a child?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it is acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say doesn't have the means? Pay attention, Leda!! Sarah can provide the child with her basic needs, and would like help with such things as child care, so thechild can have little extras also. The father *xcannot even provide basic needs* for the child. YOU seem to think that the child would be better off in a situation where *not even basic needs* can be provided, than in a situation where basic needs are provided. Why is that? SO...... Even though the mother can provide for the basic needs regardless of where the child lives, the child ought to live with the mother as opposed to the father because said child will have extras. Thus, material NON-essentials trumps living with one's father. The courts think like that too.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Heh-Lifestyle support is what it is! I read other posts and Sarah seemed so against child support and the system, but as I progressed in the readings she is only opposed where it doesn't concern her and her lifestyle. Then you are not reading very well. She is asking for a minimal amount. Not even half a child's basic needs. To fill in the gap left by the father when he moved and abandoned their 50/50 custody arrangement. Heh-she should be doing it alone as she claims other CP's should. Being married to a looser doesn't entitle her to CS! Where did she claim that other CPs should be doing it alone? |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 9:58 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 8:22 am, Sarah Gray wrote: wrote in What's the difference between married's and unwed's then? The unwed's, mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does Sarah deserve child support just because she was married to the child father? I think she had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who she knew was flakey when it comes to work, and now she want's this man, who can't even support himself, to support her and the child. I don't want him to support me. I have never said such a thing. He's perfectly capable of finding a job, he's just lazy. So you want money from a jobless lazy person? Oh, that makes so much sense. Thank you for clearing that up You know, Leda, you sit up on this moral high horse braggin about how you and your husband do so much to support his child, because neither of you would ever even think about walking away--because what you are doing is the ****right**** thing to do. Then you come down on a mother who is doing everything in her power to take care of her own child, and is asking the father of the child who was always vey active in her life until he walked away to provide a small amount each month to help cover the expenses he left behind like she was evil and greedy. Why is that?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - My high horse? We are not forced (as Sarah's ex is being by her) to support the child, we chose to do so, and that is the difference between us and him. She wants extras=being greedy! Precisely what extras is she asking for? |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 9:16 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 8:20 am, Sarah Gray wrote: wrote : On Dec 10, 9:15 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message news:7013c345-abc1-4609-b2a5- ... On Dec 10, 9:14 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message news:5483921c-0fc6-480e-aa91-352f8b3744b5 @a35g2000prf.googlegroups.c om... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message news:8a20deeb-14d6-43c8-8408- s.com... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. Do you really think the child would be better off with him? - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I don't see how the child could be worse off with just the bare needs. What's the difference if she provides that, or he does? Because he would have to provide them on *her* money--he does not work enough to take care of even himself. How would you expect him to take care of a child?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So it is not acceptable that they be provided by her money, but it is acceptable for them to be provided by the father, whom you say doesn't have the means? The courts think like that too. No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support his child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No. What you are saying is "why should he pay any money to support his child". If that is the case, why should I if he had custody? Actually, I did not say that, I was asking the question why is what is acceptable for you not for your ex (again)? Basic needs. That is the key. She IS providing them--he CANNOT.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Basic needs are all a person need to survive. What does she need the money for? So you don't think the father should pay for 50% of the child's basic needs? Extras? Sorry, but extras are NOT needed to survive, only to make life more enjoyable. So you arew saying that if the custodial parent can provide the child's basic needs, then the NCP should not have to pay child support? NO one should have to pay "child support". Anyone who has custody of a child is responsible for the care of said child............ period. Why you can't grasp such concept escapes me. |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 9:54 am, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 11, 12:18 am, "teachrmama" wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. He left the MOTHER! That the child is not with him is because the mother would NEVER allow such an arrangement. Get it right! Oh come on, Chris. He left the state where the child was living,. He left even though the child spent 50% of her time with him. He walked out on his entire life there. HE chose to leave and, obviously, in the process, he left the child. He took his shoes. He took his underwear. He took his toothbrush. But he LEFT his child!!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - What's the difference between married's and unwed's then? The unwed's, mostly the fathers, walk away all the time. Does Sarah deserve child support just because she was married to the child father? I think she had a child she couldn't afford, with a guy who she knew was flakey when it comes to work, and now she want's this man, who can't even support himself, to support her and the child. Then you are not reading everything she wrote. She is asking for a small amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not her. And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age child. As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are* fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they have a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - She is asking for a small amount of money to fill in the gaps left by HIS leaving! HE left--not her. And we are not talking about a baby--we are talking about a school-age child. She is demanding money. The gap is her ex, and the money is how she want's to fill it. The child is school aged, so how much is child care for after, or before school, and why can't she get subsidized child care if she works and pay's taxes, and what is the latchkey she say's is the reason she can not get the childcare when she had it at one point in time? Have you asked her those questions? Or have you automatically assumed the worst because you have decided you don't like her? As for the difference between marrieds and unmarrieds--there is a legal difference. Married fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother toward the child. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or visitation. And, in fact, they don't even have to be told they *are* fathers until the mother gets around to telling them. A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they have a child. And a financial difference.- Hide quoted text - IfMarried fathers automatically have the same rights as the mother toward the child, why do they get screwed in court when it comes to custody? Uh--they are not married any more after they are divorced. Unmarried fathers have an uphill fight from the get-go, and have to petition the court for any form of custody or visitation. That is false, since no custody is established until there is a court paper from a judge stating a custody agreement. No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not tell the man that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically rests with the mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the father. Custody does not need to be established by a court if there is only a mother, does it? A lot of fathers are ignorant to this, as you are, and assume what you stated to be true, but in fact it is false. Really? Explain to me how a man who does not know he is a father gets custody of a baby he does not know exists. The reason mothers try to keep the fathers from taking the children for visit's is because there is no legal obligation to bring the child back. Until a custody order is established, who ever is in possession of the child is the CP. Exactly! A moral difference--married parents have a commitment to each other before they have a child. And a financial difference. Legality doesn't know moral, sweetheart, and that has no place in a court of law-NEXT! Oh, you are only talking about courts of law. And yet YOU claim that Sarah is wrong for even thinking about a legal resolution with her daughter's father. Hmmmm....courts only count when they are on your side, huh? |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"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 news -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Dec 6, 11:57 pm, "teachrmama" wrote: wrote in message ... On Nov 21, 10:15 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: Chris wrote: Indeed! There exists not a SINGLE CP (mother) who is willing to swap positions with the NCP (father). Why? Because they know that they are RIPPING OFF the NCP. That's why! Yet they continue to foolishly proclaim that they are being "FAIR". Maybe some of these CP's actually enjoy spending time with their children. As opposed to my ex, who told me today that he will not be coming up to spend a few days with our daughter this weekend as planned, but instead will be coming later next week. He says it's "not safe" for him to make an eight-hour drive alone, so he's waiting until his dad is driving up later in the week. She is really disappointed that she can't stay with him while he is here, just spend a few hours after school -- Sarah Gray So you would have no problem with giving your child to your ex? Why haven't you done so as of yet? Uh--he moved out of state and does not come back to visit very often. They had 50/50 custody when he lived in the same state.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But she allows him to takt the child for visits, so he isn't unfit. He lives with his parents (the childs grandparents) so the child would have a roof over her head, and child care (that wouldn't be on Sarah's shoulders, since she said cost of child care is what she need money from the ex for), and be with people that love her. Sarah wouldn't have the cost of child care to hinder her from having enough money to visit with her daughter. It's a win win situation. He shouldn't have to file for full custody to be the CP, and Sarah shouldn't be the custodial parent just because she is the mother. If she is so off that she only has the bare essentials to support her and her child with, wouldn't it make more sense that she send the child to be with the father and grandparents? Her child would have more than the bare min, she would have money enough to visit, and her child would most likely want for very little seeing as GP's like to spoil thier GC's. That would be in the best interest of the child, even if it is just a short arrangement, just long enough for her to make herself more employable so she woun't have to depend on her ex. Let him shoulder the cost's of taking care of thier child until she can find employment good enough to do so on her own. Since he is the child's father he is just as able to take care of the child as well as she, would that be fair? If you think not, please tell me why. You obviously have not read the entire thread, or you would not be making these coments. Father works sporadically, and does not have the money to support the child--Sarah would have to send enough money to help keep the roof over her child's head. Grandparents are, apparently, not doing well financially, either. Sarah is the only one among them that has a decent job that could even begin to meet the child's needs. They had a 50/50 shared custody agreement--HE left. He left the MOTHER! That the child is not with him is because the mother would NEVER allow such an arrangement. Get it right! Oh come on, Chris. He left the state where the child was living,. He left even though the child spent 50% of her time with him. He walked out on his entire life there. HE chose to leave and, obviously, in the process, he left the child. He took his shoes. He took his underwear. He took his toothbrush. But he LEFT his child!! No doubt she most certainly will have him ARRESTED should he attempt to take the child. Strike TWO. And you know this---how? ESP? |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
child support review objection
"Gini" wrote in message news:A_G7j.24049$0O1.18954@trnddc05... "Chris" wrote ......................... Correction: SHE did by interfering with the child being with him. He places the child in the car saying "we're moving 10 hours away", and she will immediately prevent it. He secretly takes the child with him, and she will have him arrested and take the child away from him. Am I wrong? ==== Geeze Chris--That ranks right up there on the logic scale with Very Determined's assertion that men can't be equal to women because women bear children. chuckle Must be a full moon. The loonies are out in force. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sacramento County, CA -- Review shows more child-neglect deaths:12-year-old girl wasted away to 23 pounds, even after six separate reportsto Child Protective Services about the child | fx | Spanking | 0 | September 14th 07 04:50 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Spanking | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... | fx | Foster Parents | 0 | July 25th 07 04:46 AM |
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform | [email protected] | Child Support | 0 | February 24th 07 10:01 AM |
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | September 13th 04 12:35 AM |