Joint custody bill not in child's interest - says NOW's NY chapter

"Werebat" wrote in message news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e@4 ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their

children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes about....um...0

in

financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds up to 2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends she gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not equal.



The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights groups is

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors

that a

common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't see

their

fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about the

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when my

daughter

reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a leech.

She

mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she lives.


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship

between

children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in the

best

interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter is on

the

pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm just some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer, depending on

the

mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother can go

out

and

play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to being a

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with perceptions

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the children

or

free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children as 'free

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's children -

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service. Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

Come on, Moon. You know exactly what they are saying.


Yes, I do - they view themselves as babysitters of their own children, which baffles me - it sets up a situation
where they can continue to slam mom, and mom can never do it to dad's satisfaction.

If Mom goes out, and hires a sitter, so as to NOT be 'using dad as a free babysitter', then dad raises hell because
how DARE mom 'dump' the kids with someone else when there's a perfectly good PARENT (dad) with whom the kids can
spend time.

Yet when mom gives dad first right of refusal, and wants the kids to go with dad (which is theoretically better than
dumping them with a sitter, according to dear old dad) then dad pitches a bitch that mom's just using him as a free
babysitter.

Dad has clearly set mom up to be the evil person, no matter HOW mom tries to handle it.

That's what I object to.

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the kids for a while and then give him back some of
the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.

Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend time with their own kids.

Got it.


After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her kids", now, does she?

Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the children benefit. You know, like a place to live, food
to eat, medical care, school expenses, clothing, entertainment, sports, etc. Nor does she ask for more money to cover
times that the kids are supposed to be with an absent dad.


- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the kids for a while and then give him back some of
the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.


Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend time with their own kids.

To "spend time" with his kids, or to "care" for his kids? Which is he
doing when he is watching them?


After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her kids", now, does she?


Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the children benefit.

It is? Do you have any proof of this?


You know, like a place to live, food
to eat, medical care, school expenses, clothing, entertainment, sports, etc. Nor does she ask for more money to cover
times that the kids are supposed to be with an absent dad.

Hmm.

Do you think she SHOULD get more money from a totally absent father?

If so, why?

- Ron ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"

wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the
non-custodial
parent carry the same load and devote the same time to
their
children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to
the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes
about....um...0
in
financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds
up
to
2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends
she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not
equal.


The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights
groups
is
totally
financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance
counselors
that a
common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't
see
their
fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain
about
the
inequities
of material advantages they often observe when their
father
acquires
his
new
family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when
my
daughter
reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a
leech.
She
mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she
lives.

This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing
relationship
between
children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates
in
the
best
interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing
to
advance
the
welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter
is
on
the
pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm
just
some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer,
depending
on
the
mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the
mother
can
go
out
and
play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted
from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to
being
a
babysitter? Is that really how you view your
time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with
perceptions
by
fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is
the
father's
time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation
schedules
initiated
by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the
children
or
free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children
as
'free
babysitting time", I'd certainly question their
perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's
children -
babysitting is what you do for other people's
children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

You are right again. When mothers demand fathers parent beyond a
court's
visitation order and the moms are just giving the dads additional
parenting
opportunities. And I am sure you will agree, fathers should never be
given
credit for this additional parenting time by reducing CS for their
increased
time spent with their children.

How much do you think dad's CS should be reduced because he had the
kids
for 1 additional night? Sure sounds like
you're the one demanding to be paid for parenting your own children -
but
wait, that's what you accuse the MOMs of
doing, isn't it?

1/30th of his CS obligation, or an amount equivalent to what mom would
have
to pay for an overnight sitter, whichever is greater plus any extra
costs
like transportation.

As you may not be able to see this topic from the father's perspective,
the
scenario we are discussing is not about 4-5 hours while mom goes out for
the
evening. It is typically when mom goes away for an overnight or a
weekend.
I'm so far removed from paying babysitters I have no idea what the
current
going rates are. But I do recall many years ago paying $3 per hour for
two
children and a flat rate of at least $30 for an overnight sitter.

If mom is to be compensated to care for the children while in her
custody,
fathers should get the same treatment when they perform extra visitation
time.

Are you saying that my ex should have been compensating me for all those
missed weekends since he decided to drop out of
the fathering game? Lemme see - 26 weekends per year, times 3 years,
times 2 nights per weekend - so you're saying he
owes me $4,680 so far? (using your figure of $30 for overnight, of course)

Is this intentional stupidity? First you argue fathers should parent and
not be called babysitters so paying them for extra time is out of the
question. Then you argue mothers should be compensated by fathers for the
extra time they spend with their children as if they are babysitters. You
are on both sides of this issue.

The facts are - CS awards, unless adjusted by the new parenting time models,
assume the CP has the children 100% of the time. Why would you even suggest
a mother should get more than the 100% formula amount for performing a
parenting function already paid as if she does it 100% of the time?

"Werebat" wrote in message news:xwzXf.61694$YX1.34233@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the kids for a while and then give him back some of
the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.


Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend time with their own kids.

To "spend time" with his kids, or to "care" for his kids? Which is he doing when he is watching them?

Both - isn't that what most parents do?



After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her kids", now, does she?


Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the children benefit.

It is? Do you have any proof of this?

Did I offer it up as fact? Or did I say "generally" - perhaps that's a word you don't understand?



You know, like a place to live, food to eat, medical care, school expenses, clothing, entertainment, sports, etc.
Nor does she ask for more money to cover times that the kids are supposed to be with an absent dad.

Hmm.

Do you think she SHOULD get more money from a totally absent father?

I suppose it might be appropriate to allow for some modest stipend, since the father's absense foists his alternate
weekend expenses on her.


If so, why?

- Ron ^*^

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"

wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the
non-custodial
parent carry the same load and devote the same time to
their
children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to
the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes
about....um...0
in
financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds
up
to
2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends
she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not
equal.


The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights
groups
is
totally
financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance
counselors
that a
common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't
see
their
fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain
about
the
inequities
of material advantages they often observe when their
father
acquires
his
new
family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when
my
daughter
reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a
leech.
She
mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she
lives.

This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing
relationship
between
children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates
in
the
best
interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing
to
advance
the
welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter
is
on
the
pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm
just
some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer,
depending
on
the
mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the
mother
can
go
out
and
play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted
from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to
being
a
babysitter? Is that really how you view your
time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with
perceptions
by
fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is
the
father's
time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation
schedules
initiated
by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the
children
or
free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children
as
'free
babysitting time", I'd certainly question their
perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's
children -
babysitting is what you do for other people's
children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

You are right again. When mothers demand fathers parent beyond a
court's
visitation order and the moms are just giving the dads additional
parenting
opportunities. And I am sure you will agree, fathers should never be
given
credit for this additional parenting time by reducing CS for their
increased
time spent with their children.

How much do you think dad's CS should be reduced because he had the
kids
for 1 additional night? Sure sounds like
you're the one demanding to be paid for parenting your own children -
but
wait, that's what you accuse the MOMs of
doing, isn't it?

1/30th of his CS obligation, or an amount equivalent to what mom would
have
to pay for an overnight sitter, whichever is greater plus any extra
costs
like transportation.

As you may not be able to see this topic from the father's perspective,
the
scenario we are discussing is not about 4-5 hours while mom goes out for
the
evening. It is typically when mom goes away for an overnight or a
weekend.
I'm so far removed from paying babysitters I have no idea what the
current
going rates are. But I do recall many years ago paying $3 per hour for
two
children and a flat rate of at least $30 for an overnight sitter.

If mom is to be compensated to care for the children while in her
custody,
fathers should get the same treatment when they perform extra visitation
time.

Are you saying that my ex should have been compensating me for all those
missed weekends since he decided to drop out of
the fathering game? Lemme see - 26 weekends per year, times 3 years,
times 2 nights per weekend - so you're saying he
owes me $4,680 so far? (using your figure of $30 for overnight, of course)

Is this intentional stupidity?

What's wrong, Bob? Don't like it when your own words and figures are embraced? Or is it that it just doesn't support
what you claim it does?

First you argue fathers should parent and
not be called babysitters so paying them for extra time is out of the
question. Then you argue mothers should be compensated by fathers for the
extra time they spend with their children as if they are babysitters. You
are on both sides of this issue.

I argued no such thing. You stated that if mom is compensated for when the children are in their care, then dad should
be as well. Fine. That means that if they're in mom's care during times they're supposed to be in dad's care, then mom
is being stuck with dad's responsibility, right? Isn't that compensable in the same way that you claimed "fathers
should get the same treatment when they perform extra visitation time."?


The facts are - CS awards, unless adjusted by the new parenting time models,
assume the CP has the children 100% of the time. Why would you even suggest
a mother should get more than the 100% formula amount for performing a
parenting function already paid as if she does it 100% of the time?

I suggested no such thing, sorry. So nice of you to claim things that are false - I'm getting used to seeing you do it.
Sort of blows any perception of you as an honest voice, however.

Too bad, so sad.

"Werebat" wrote in message newsmzXf.61683$YX1.43032@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e@4ax .com...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty" wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their

children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes about....um...0

in

financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds up to 2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends she gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not equal.



The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights groups is

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors

that a

common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't see

their

fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about the

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when my

daughter

reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a leech.

She

mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she lives.


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship

between

children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in the

best

interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter is on

the

pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm just some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer, depending on

the

mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother can go

out

and

play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to being a

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with perceptions

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the children

or

free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children as 'free

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's children -

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service. Fathers
pay to perform it.


Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

Right. And when CP mothers parent, money is given to them. Right?

Towards the support and expenses of the children, yes. For "babysitting" them? Nope.


- Ron ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
newsmzXf.61683$YX1.43032@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e@4ax .com...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"
wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their

children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes
about....um...0

in

financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds up to
2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not equal.



The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights groups is

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance
counselors

that a

common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't see

their

fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about the

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when my

daughter

reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a leech.

She

mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she lives.


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship

between

children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in the

best

interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter is on

the

pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm just
some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer, depending on

the

mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother can
go

out

and

play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to being
a

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with
perceptions

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the
children

or

free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children as
'free

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's children -

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.


Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

Right. And when CP mothers parent, money is given to them. Right?

Towards the support and expenses of the children, yes. For "babysitting"
them? Nope.

You crack me up. Do you REALLY believe that such money is "for the
children"?



- Ron ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"
wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the
non-custodial
parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their
children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes
about....um...0
in
financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds up
to 2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not equal.


The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights groups
is
totally
financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance
counselors
that a
common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't see
their
fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about
the
inequities
of material advantages they often observe when their father
acquires
his
new
family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when my
daughter
reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a
leech.
She
mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she
lives.

This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship
between
children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in
the
best
interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to
advance
the
welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter is
on
the
pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm just
some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer, depending
on
the
mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother
can go
out
and
play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to
being a
babysitter? Is that really how you view your
time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with
perceptions
by
fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the
father's
time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules
initiated
by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the
children
or
free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children as
'free
babysitting time", I'd certainly question their
perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's children -
babysitting is what you do for other people's
children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

Come on, Moon. You know exactly what they are saying.

Yes, I do - they view themselves as babysitters of their own children,
which baffles me - it sets up a situation where
they can continue to slam mom, and mom can never do it to dad's
satisfaction.

If Mom goes out, and hires a sitter, so as to NOT be 'using dad as a free
babysitter', then dad raises hell because how
DARE mom 'dump' the kids with someone else when there's a perfectly good
PARENT (dad) with whom the kids can spend time.

Yet when mom gives dad first right of refusal, and wants the kids to go
with dad (which is theoretically better than
dumping them with a sitter, according to dear old dad) then dad pitches a
bitch that mom's just using him as a free
babysitter.

Dad has clearly set mom up to be the evil person, no matter HOW mom tries
to handle it.

That's what I object to.

Of course you do, because you want dad to be a good obedient little boy and
continue to get ripped off by the mother.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e@ 4ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"
wrote:
[snip]

Yes, I do - they view themselves as babysitters of their own children,
which baffles me - it sets up a situation where they can continue to
slam mom, and mom can never do it to dad's satisfaction.

If Mom goes out, and hires a sitter, so as to NOT be 'using dad as a
free babysitter', then dad raises hell because how DARE mom 'dump' the
kids with someone else when there's a perfectly good PARENT (dad) with
whom the kids can spend time.

Yet when mom gives dad first right of refusal, and wants the kids to go
with dad (which is theoretically better than dumping them with a sitter,
according to dear old dad) then dad pitches a bitch that mom's just
using him as a free babysitter.

Dad has clearly set mom up to be the evil person, no matter HOW mom
tries to handle it.

Sometimes she IS the evil person.


That's what I object to.

Translation: Fathers.


There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the kids
for a while and then give him back some of the money he entrusted to her
to use for the care of said kids.

Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend time
with their own kids.

Got it.

No more than CPs do.



After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her
kids", now, does she?

Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the children
benefit.

Huge assumption and often incorrect. As there is no mechanism in place to
even insure the children are living in the manner that is near or equal to
the SOL of the received C$ much less that and the portion she is "presumed"
to put in, there is no way to insure that the CP is not spending some of the
C$ received from the NCP on herself or another individual.

You know, like a place to live, food to eat, medical care, school expenses,
clothing, entertainment, sports, etc.

....mom's (and maybe her boyfriend-of-the-week's) tobacco, alcohol, gambling,
crack, etc.
As you well know, there is no law, order, stipulation or court that
determines where the C$ will be spent, in what amounts or percentages. In
short, *nobody* checks. The laws of many, if not most states stipulate that
the NCP will pay for child care expenses to allow the CP time to look for a
job, work at a job, education and sometimes other items. NCP gets no breaks
to look for a job, education or while working.
I myself paid child care in addition the "child support" until the "child"
was 19. How much of this was actually child care? Answer: none of it as
there was *never* a child care cost. It went right into the CPs pocket as
personal income.

Nor does she ask for more money to cover times that the kids are supposed
to be with an absent dad.

Um, yes, I'm sure many times they do. The custom seems to be if there is any
indication they may be able to increase C$, they try it and this would be
one.
Phil #3



- Ron ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e@4 ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"
wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their

children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes
about....um...0

in

financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds up
to 2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not equal.



The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights groups
is

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance
counselors

that a

common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't see

their

fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about
the

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when my

daughter

reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a
leech.

She

mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she
lives.


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship

between

children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in
the

best

interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter is
on

the

pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm just
some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer, depending
on

the

mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother can
go

out

and

play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to
being a

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with
perceptions

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the
children

or

free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children as
'free

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's children -

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

Come on, Moon. You know exactly what they are saying.


Yes, I do - they view themselves as babysitters of their own children,
which baffles me - it sets up a situation
where they can continue to slam mom, and mom can never do it to dad's
satisfaction.

If Mom goes out, and hires a sitter, so as to NOT be 'using dad as a
free babysitter', then dad raises hell because
how DARE mom 'dump' the kids with someone else when there's a perfectly
good PARENT (dad) with whom the kids can
spend time.

Yet when mom gives dad first right of refusal, and wants the kids to go
with dad (which is theoretically better than
dumping them with a sitter, according to dear old dad) then dad
pitches a bitch that mom's just using him as a free
babysitter.

Dad has clearly set mom up to be the evil person, no matter HOW mom
tries to handle it.

That's what I object to.

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the kids
for a while and then give him back some of
the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.

Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend time
with their own kids.

Got it.


After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her
kids", now, does she?

Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the children
benefit.

.....when they're with their father.

You know, like a place to live, food
to eat, medical care, school expenses, clothing, entertainment, sports,
etc. Nor does she ask for more money to cover
times that the kids are supposed to be with an absent dad.


- Ron ^*^