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

Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
news
Chris wrote:
I don't know either of you, but it sounds as if he has some
sort of
a plan
and is tryijng to lure you into this whole court thing for a
reason. Have
you met his parents? Could he be trying for custody? I agree
that
he
should be helping with basic needs for his own child--and it is ok
that it
is a safety net, allowing you to put away a little each month in
case you
become ill and have to rely on savings for a while.

Your TRUE colors exposed.

Why should I (and my daughter) live paycheck-to-paycheck just because
her father will not contribute his *fair share* towards to cost of
raising her?

Better question: Why should he be forced to give you FREE money for your
SOLE choice? NO share if fair!

It was not my sole choice for him to decide to take an active role in
parenting, Chris. While it is true that men do not have the same post
conception rights as women, they are still responsible to their
children, particularly when they say they want to be in their child's life.


--

Sarah Gray

Gini wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote
Chris wrote:
The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me.
Uhuh.
*I* don't need anyone supporting me, unlike him. My daughter deserves to
have both of her parents supporting her, and I'll be damned if I'm going
to pick up his slack.
==
That'll show her. Oops, I mean him.



So you think women should just suck it up if the fathers of their
children just don't feel like supporting them? I don't understand the
static I'm getting here. Everyone I know IRL thinks I'm crazy to be
reasonable with my ex; maybe I should just try to get as much of his
money as possible, because I come out as a villian either way...

--

Sarah Gray

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
DB wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in

That is $516 a month; half of that is $258.

OK, just for argument sake, lets round it off to $600!

Lets look at it from a different perspective, that's about the same
cost
of new car with fuel and insurance too.
Millions of single people buy new cars everyday and live to tell
the
tale.

Are single mothers really that financially strapped that they need
a
huge
government bureaucracy to help them out?

Sounds to me you're far better off without this immature idiot in
your
life and the chump change isn't worth the aggravation.

That isn't the point. This is not about my personal financial
circumstances, it's about his responsibility to help support his
child.
He
says he wants to be in her life; Why should I assume all the costs
of
raising our daughter just because I can? That is ridiculous. If I
had
a
six-figure income, I might feel differently about it. He says that I
am
"using his money as a safety net", but seeing how irresponsible he
has
been, I see no problem in ensuring that my daughter has her needs
met.

I don't know either of you, but it sounds as if he has some sort of a
plan
and is tryijng to lure you into this whole court thing for a reason.
Have
you met his parents? Could he be trying for custody? I agree that he
should be helping with basic needs for his own child--and it is ok
that
it
is a safety net, allowing you to put away a little each month in case
you
become ill and have to rely on savings for a while.

Your TRUE colors exposed.

Chris, I have ALWAYS said that I thought that the basic needs for the
child
should be split between the parents. I have NEVER said that I thought
there
should not be child support, especially in a divorce situation. Go back
and
check it out. It is today's imfair, biased system that I do not agree
with--not the idea of both parents supporting their children. I have
also
stated repeatedly that 50/50 joint custody should be the default
position,
with no money changing hands.

I was making reference to this part: "allowing you to put away a little
each
month".

Why should she not put away part of the money she earns? If the father were
helping with basic needs, then she might just have a little money to put
away for a rainy day. What is wrong with that?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Chris wrote:
Sarah Gray wrote:
My failings as a wife have little to do with the current situation.
Besides which, *he* filed for divorce, long after I cheated on him.
The
fact that I cheated on him does not absolve him of his
responsibilities
to his daughter. If he did not want to pay child support, he could
have
stayed here in Detroit, or sued for full custody.
MUST be nice sitting in the director's chair!


what do you mean by that?

Well, let's see. You are in FULL control of yourself. You are in FULL
control of your daughter. PLUS, you get to call the shots as to what the
father shall and shall not be allowed to do regarding your child. Not to
mention, you also call the shots as to what he will be FORCED to do. Sounds
pretty rosy to me.............


--

Sarah Gray

teachrmama wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Chris" wrote in message
...

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
DB wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in

That is $516 a month; half of that is $258.
OK, just for argument sake, lets round it off to $600!

Lets look at it from a different perspective, that's about the same
cost
of new car with fuel and insurance too.
Millions of single people buy new cars everyday and live to tell
the
tale.

Are single mothers really that financially strapped that they need
a
huge
government bureaucracy to help them out?

Sounds to me you're far better off without this immature idiot in
your
life and the chump change isn't worth the aggravation.
That isn't the point. This is not about my personal financial
circumstances, it's about his responsibility to help support his
child.
He
says he wants to be in her life; Why should I assume all the costs
of
raising our daughter just because I can? That is ridiculous. If I
had
a
six-figure income, I might feel differently about it. He says that I
am
"using his money as a safety net", but seeing how irresponsible he
has
been, I see no problem in ensuring that my daughter has her needs
met.
I don't know either of you, but it sounds as if he has some sort of a
plan
and is tryijng to lure you into this whole court thing for a reason.
Have
you met his parents? Could he be trying for custody? I agree that he
should be helping with basic needs for his own child--and it is ok
that
it
is a safety net, allowing you to put away a little each month in case
you
become ill and have to rely on savings for a while.
Your TRUE colors exposed.
Chris, I have ALWAYS said that I thought that the basic needs for the
child
should be split between the parents. I have NEVER said that I thought
there
should not be child support, especially in a divorce situation. Go back
and
check it out. It is today's imfair, biased system that I do not agree
with--not the idea of both parents supporting their children. I have
also
stated repeatedly that 50/50 joint custody should be the default
position,
with no money changing hands.
I was making reference to this part: "allowing you to put away a little
each
month".

Why should she not put away part of the money she earns? If the father were
helping with basic needs, then she might just have a little money to put
away for a rainy day. What is wrong with that?



Because, for some reason, Chris thinks that if *I* am raising my
daughter, then her father should not have to help support her at all,
and that I am in the wrong for not just shipping her down to live with a
man who is not capable of supporting her on a full-time basis. Funny how
he's not obligated to support her when I am taking care of her, but I am
supposed to be making concessions on his behalf, send her to live with
him, and pay him child support....

--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
How exactly have I done *anything* to prevent him from parenting his
daughter?

Let him try to take her home so he can "parent" her, and then you will
have
your answer.

Dude! He LEFT THE STATE. Why should he get preferential treatment just
because he is a man? Because that is what you seem to be implying.

How so?

He
abandoned her, and so that means I should have to relinquish custody to
him? What kind of retarded nonsense is that?

I don't know. Did somebody say that?

I already detailed why he
is *unable* to take care of her properly elsewhere in this thread. Why
should my daughter be forced to leave the state just because her father
cannot support himself on his own?

Now you're talking nonsense. Until a child is fully responsible for their
own care, they have no say in where they shall live. Thus, it aint' "force"
making them leave a state. Children move out of state all the time.

Especially when she has a parent (who
has never moved out of state with less than a day's notice) that is
equipped to support her?

--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
Well, let's see. You are in FULL control of yourself. You are in FULL
control of your daughter. PLUS, you get to call the shots as to what the
father shall and shall not be allowed to do regarding your child. Not to
mention, you also call the shots as to what he will be FORCED to do.
Sounds
pretty rosy to me.............


Her father *created* that situation by leaving? It's not as if he left
because of a better job or school or anything like that. I don't make
rules as to what he is "allowed" to do. He is not here. I have no
control over what he does.

--

Sarah Gray

Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
How exactly have I done *anything* to prevent him from
parenting his
daughter?

Let him try to take her home so he can "parent" her, and then you
will
have
your answer.

Dude! He LEFT THE STATE. Why should he get preferential treatment just
because he is a man? Because that is what you seem to be implying.

How so?

Your statements imply that I should not have custody, but he should,
even though he has no way of supporting her full-time. That makes *no sense*

He
abandoned her, and so that means I should have to relinquish custody to
him? What kind of retarded nonsense is that?

I don't know. Did somebody say that?

You said I should send her to live with him.

I already detailed why he
is *unable* to take care of her properly elsewhere in this thread. Why
should my daughter be forced to leave the state just because her father
cannot support himself on his own?

Now you're talking nonsense. Until a child is fully responsible for their
own care, they have no say in where they shall live. Thus, it aint'
"force"
making them leave a state. Children move out of state all the time.

Why should she have to move out of state just because her father needs
his mommy and cant deal without her? Particularly when he is not in a
position to support her on his own, on a full time basis? Why should I
have to either follow him to TN or rarely see my child? These were *his
choices*, not mine. You are acting as if I somehow caused him to leave
the state, and should be punished or something.

--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
Well, her grandparents would not be watching her; they both
work,
too. I
have no problem with her being with her father;

Yes you do because that is why she is not with him.


Um, why should I give up seeing my daughter on a regular basis so she
can go live with a man who has never expressed any intention to raise
her in TN?

He is not even in a position to take care of her full-time!

- he left the state with less than a day's notice, and he has not
seen
her since July.
-he has no transportation of his own
-he has no plans to have a apartment of his own anytime soon
-he has no arrangements for schooling or childcare
-if he is unable to pay half of a conservative estimate of his
child's
expenses, how in the hell can he afford to raise her full time?

ALL irrelevant. My ONLY claim is that your claim that you have no
problem
with your child being with him is false.


It's not irrelevant. You suggest that I send her to live with him;

If you want her to be with him, as you claim, then sending her to be with
him will accomplish such goal.

I am
explaining why that is not feasible.

Correction: You are giving reasons to support why you do NOT want her to be
with him; thus, your claim is FALSE!

Plus, you know, there's the fact
that he doesn't seem to really want her there full time...



I do not have her full-time because I'm her *mother*, I have her full
time because her other parent decided she was not that important to h
im
anymore and left the state.

Guess again. You DO have custody because you are the mother; and the
government people say so too.


what are you talking about? That is completely fabricated bull****.

You're right. That "family" court sees to it that virtually all mothers
retain custody of their children is merely a figment of my imagination.

If I
left the state, leaving my daughter with her father, would I still have
"custody" because I'm her mother?

Legally, YES.


Why are you insisting that I am an unfit parent simply because I'm a
woman?

I NEVER made that claim.



--

Sarah Gray

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
t...
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

Not hard at all. Apparently, you did not understand my statement.
It
was
implied that I was referring to "child support" money. Perhaps this
statement "Or spend one penny of 'child support' money on your
child."
will
help you to understand what I meant.

considering I cover all of her expenses since he does not live in the
same city as his daughter, and all I am asking him for is half of
those
expenses, it should be very easy for me to show that I only spend
child
support money on my daughter. How hard is that to understand?

It's quite easy to understand your above claim. But the fact remains
that
you are under absolutely NO obligation to spend one thin dime of such
proceeds on your child.... not ONE dime!

I fail to understand your reasoning here. I mean, money is money. Unless
you mark bills that are intended for child support (lets pretend fund
transfers are not done electronically here), there is no way I can prove
I spent "his" child support money on anything, that is true. However, if
a child has $x in expenses for basic needs, and the support order is for
$x/2, and the child's needs are met (let's also pretend here that there
*is* some kind of accounting of how much money is spent by the CP on
basic needs), can we not dedice from that that the child support sent
was spent on the child? Or do you think that a CP should not only have
to pay for their half of basic needs, but spend all other discretionary
funds on the child as well, as to not spend any money that might be
construed as the NCPs?

Well guess what, I aint' exactly understanding YOUR reasoning here either.
The bottom line, no matter how many hypothetical situations you present,
legally, a mother can spend "child support" money ANY way she deems
fit............... PERIOD!



--

Sarah Gray