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 |
#551
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... -- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... DB wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in That is $516 a month; half of that is $258. OK, just for argument sake, lets round it off to $600! Lets look at it from a different perspective, that's about the same cost of new car with fuel and insurance too. Millions of single people buy new cars everyday and live to tell the tale. Are single mothers really that financially strapped that they need a huge government bureaucracy to help them out? Sounds to me you're far better off without this immature idiot in your life and the chump change isn't worth the aggravation. That isn't the point. This is not about my personal financial circumstances, it's about his responsibility to help support his child. He says he wants to be in her life; Why should I assume all the costs of raising our daughter just because I can? That is ridiculous. If I had a six-figure income, I might feel differently about it. He says that I am "using his money as a safety net", but seeing how irresponsible he has been, I see no problem in ensuring that my daughter has her needs met. I don't know either of you, but it sounds as if he has some sort of a plan and is tryijng to lure you into this whole court thing for a reason. Have you met his parents? Could he be trying for custody? I agree that he should be helping with basic needs for his own child--and it is ok that it is a safety net, allowing you to put away a little each month in case you become ill and have to rely on savings for a while. Your TRUE colors exposed. Chris, I have ALWAYS said that I thought that the basic needs for the child should be split between the parents. I have NEVER said that I thought there should not be child support, especially in a divorce situation. Go back and check it out. It is today's imfair, biased system that I do not agree with--not the idea of both parents supporting their children. I have also stated repeatedly that 50/50 joint custody should be the default position, with no money changing hands. I was making reference to this part: "allowing you to put away a little each month". Why should she not put away part of the money she earns? We aren't talking about the money she earns; we are talking about HIS money. No we're not. You're confused. He sends his half of the basic needs, she spends it on the child's basic needs. Her money that she earns that she was spending on his half of the basic needs before is now freed up for her to put a bit away. Soo, not that hard to understand. |
#552
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message HE SHOULD MOVE BACK TO BE WITH HER. In YOUR opinion. How he facilitates such arrangement is HIS business. He doesn't dictate how you shall see her, so you should not dictate how HE sees her. Wait a minute, how could I be so absent-minded. I forgot, he is the inferior (male) parent, thus you are the one who calls the shots. I'm not dictating anything, that was my opinion. He moved away. the onus is on him to maintain a relationship with his child. He's not an inferior parent because he is male, he is an inferior parent because he moved away from his child, has not seen her in three months, and is not willing to support her to an adequate level. 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! No, those are reasons why he is unable to support her. When he lived here, we split up time 50/50. I have no problem with that whatsoever,m but I don't think my daughter and I should have to make 16-hour round trip drives multiple times a week! that is preposterous! He is UNABLE to support her on his own. What good would it do my daughter to send her to live with him? Absolutely NONE! You're right; no good can ever come out of a child living with their father. Did I ever say that it was because he is a man? What good does it do my daughter to be deprived of basic necessities? Or are you saying that I should move her down there and pay child support? 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 custody of their children is merely a figment of my imagination. You said that *I* have custody because I am a mother. That is false. That's right, it's nothing more than a strange coincidence that women almost ALWAYS have legal custody of their children. I lay a MILLION bucks to your one that concealing the gender of the litigants in "family" court will lead to a monumental reduction in the percentage of mothers having custody. Why do you thnk the courts reject the idea? I'm not talking about most cases. While I agree with the above sentiment, you still have not explained why you said that I take care of her full-time because I am her mother. I take care of her full time because her father skipped town. If I had left town, he would be taking care of her full-time; why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? In fact, as far as I know, we *still* have 50/50 custody; Then he has the LEGAL right to take her to live with him 50% of the time. Well, she's in school right now. He has expressed a desire for her to get an aducation. Unless he is willing to do what he needs to do to facilitate such a situation, it cannot work. I agree that he has the right to have her half of the time, but it is simply not possible to both keep her in school and make two to four 16-hour round trip drives a week. he just does not care to exercise his parenting time. If I left the state, leaving my daughter with her father, would I still have "custody" because I'm her mother? Legally, YES. Chris, I don't really think you believe that were I to leave the state as he did, and he petitioned for full custody, that they would grant *me* full custody and force him to send her to live with me, particularly if I was, as he is, incapable of providing for her on a full-time basis. Well I do. As a matter of fact, mothers take their children out of state (away from the father) on a regular basis with absolutely NO legal sanctions. That is not true. There are legal sanctions for CPs who move out of state without showing cause for doing so. the standard of cause might not be fair, but there are legal sanctions nevertheless. In addition, you are talking about a different situation than I brought up. If I moved away, I cannot imagine that months and months later, any court would grant me full custody, particularly had I no car, apartment, or income sufficient to support her. Please cite the law that states that mothers *always* get custody, in every circumstance. I never said "always" or "every". Nonetheless, it's called "case" law. You can see it in EVERY "family" court in the nation. You said that I have custody because I am a mother; and that that is what *always* happens. Why are you insisting that I am an unfit parent simply because I'm a woman? I NEVER made that claim. You insist that my daughter would be better off not attending school, and living with her father who does not have an apartment, a car, or the means to support her on his own. I'm assuming this is because I am a woman, but maybe you just have a personal thing against me.... The only "personal" thing I have against you is your relentless false claims about what I said. And frankly, it is getting tiring and old. EVERYTHING you stated about me in your above paragraph (as well as many other places) is FALSE! Why do you insist I send her to TN to be neglected, if you don't think it is iher best interest? -- Sarah Gray |
#553
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... 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, Not even CLOSE! You say I should ,move her to TN. I cannot move to TN. Therefore, I would 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. IF you think she should be with him. You conveniently forgot about that part. I think she should see her father, but I don't think that he should not have to facilitate that himself, no. 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? You tell me. you are the one who suggested it. Particularly when he is not in a position to support her on his own, on a full time basis? Who said "full time"? Well, I cannot move to TN. SO he would have her full time if she moved there. Why should I have to either follow him to TN or rarely see my child? You shouldn't "have to" do anything. Remember? You're the boss! says who? if he wants to exercise his rights as a parent, he's perfectly capable of doing so. 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. Precisely WHAT did I say that makes you believe so? You *said* that I caused him to leave the state, and that it was my job to facilitate their relationship. -- Sarah Gray |
#554
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
Chris wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... 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? No. He didn't create ANY of what I described above. That's why YOU are in control. When he lived here, I called none of the shots. You don;t know what you are talking about. 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. Yes you DO! The FIRST rule being that he shall not take your daughter to live with him. Well, no. I am not relinquishing all rights to my child so she can go live with a man who abandoned her. If he wants to be a parent, he can move to be where she lives, not the other way around. Again, you are acting as if I moved her away from him. If he was willing to live in the same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very simple Chris. Why do you think h e should be rewarded for abandoning his daughter? He is not here. I have no control over what he does. You prevent him from raising his daughter in his home; same difference. Not to mention, you control other aspects of what happens to him. I don't prevent him from doing that. He decided to move away from her. If he wanted to raise her, he could have stayed here. He chose not to. I did nothing to make him move. -- Sarah Gray |
#555
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... Chris wrote: Then she can prove so by allowing him to do it. I am not preventing him from raising his daughter. Then allow him to take her to be with him. Ya know, first she's gotta be with him in order for him to raise her. Why must I give up all rights to my child? You don't have to give up ANY rights to your child. He's the one who decided being a dad was not as important as letting his parents support him. He is welcome to move back to the state she resides in and act like a decent father again. Who said anything about moving to your state? He lived here for 30 years. Thus, he should live there for ANOTHER 30 years. He moved to TN because his parents moved there and he is unable to support himself (or unwilling, I should say). You act as if I moved away from him with our daughter.... How do you figure? -- Sarah Gray |
#556
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
On Nov 13, 10:10 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
Chris wrote: "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 want her to be able to see her father. However, I also should be able to spend time with her. Why is it *my* obligation to facilitate his relationship with his daughter in this situation? HE SHOULD MOVE BACK TO BE WITH HER. 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! No, those are reasons why he is unable to support her. When he lived here, we split up time 50/50. I have no problem with that whatsoever,m but I don't think my daughter and I should have to make 16-hour round trip drives multiple times a week! that is preposterous! He is UNABLE to support her on his own. What good would it do my daughter to send her to live with him? 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 custody of their children is merely a figment of my imagination. You said that *I* have custody because I am a mother. That is false. In fact, as far as I know, we *still* have 50/50 custody; he just does not care to exercise his parenting time. If I left the state, leaving my daughter with her father, would I still have "custody" because I'm her mother? Legally, YES. Chris, I don't really think you believe that were I to leave the state as he did, and he petitioned for full custody, that they would grant *me* full custody and force him to send her to live with me, particularly if I was, as he is, incapable of providing for her on a full-time basis. Please cite the law that states that mothers *always* get custody, in every circumstance. Why are you insisting that I am an unfit parent simply because I'm a woman? I NEVER made that claim. You insist that my daughter would be better off not attending school, and living with her father who does not have an apartment, a car, or the means to support her on his own. I'm assuming this is because I am a woman, but maybe you just have a personal thing against me.... -- Sarah Gray no, he has a personal thing against all women who feel that there children are deserving of "free money," He does not understand a mother's reasoning... |
#557
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [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 et... 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, Not even CLOSE! You say I should ,move her to TN. IF you want her to be with her father. Forget THAT lil' part? I cannot move to TN. Therefore, I would not have custody. ONLY during the time you allow her to be there. Your point? 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. IF you think she should be with him. You conveniently forgot about that part. I think she should see her father, but I don't think that he should not have to facilitate that himself, no. So long as you don't allow it to happen, no amount of him "facilitating" in the world will make it come about. 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? You tell me. you are the one who suggested it. NEVER did I say that! [Your continued false claims about what I have said is beginning to amuse me.] Particularly when he is not in a position to support her on his own, on a full time basis? Who said "full time"? Well, I cannot move to TN. SO he would have her full time if she moved there. "Full time" in the sense that you would not be present during the time that he has her. That could be a day, a week, a month, or any other arrangement; but ONLY if approved by you. Why should I have to either follow him to TN or rarely see my child? You shouldn't "have to" do anything. Remember? You're the boss! says who? Let him knock on your door and tell you that he's there to take your daughter to come be with him, and you will have your answer. if he wants to exercise his rights as a parent, He has no rights as a parent. Oops, how could I be so dumb! Of course he has rights; he has the "right" to give you free money...... he's perfectly capable of doing so. 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. Precisely WHAT did I say that makes you believe so? You *said* that I caused him to leave the state, and that it was my job to facilitate their relationship. Your claims about what I said are so diametric to what I DID say, that I don't know if it's even worth continuing this discussion. Challenge what I said, not what I DIDN'T say; otherwise, there's no debate. -- Sarah Gray |
#558
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [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 et... 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? No. He didn't create ANY of what I described above. That's why YOU are in control. When he lived here, I called none of the shots. You don;t know what you are talking about. Notice I used the PRESENT tense? Apparently, YOU don't know what I am talking about either. 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. Yes you DO! The FIRST rule being that he shall not take your daughter to live with him. Well, no. I am not relinquishing all rights to my child so she can go live with a man who abandoned her. If he wants to be a parent, he can move to be where she lives, not the other way around. Again, you are acting as if I moved her away from him. Again, how so? If he was willing to live in the same city as her, he would have her half of the time. It is very simple Chris. Indeed it is. Apparently, he IS willing to live in the same city as her; you just don't approve of the city. Why do you think h e should be rewarded for abandoning his daughter? I don't. He is not here. I have no control over what he does. You prevent him from raising his daughter in his home; same difference. Not to mention, you control other aspects of what happens to him. I don't prevent him from doing that. If you don't let him have her there, you do. And guess what, you aren't letting him have her there. He decided to move away from her. If he wanted to raise her, he could have stayed here. Or there. He chose not to. I did nothing to make him move. -- Sarah Gray |
#559
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
In article , Chris says...
-- [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 in message et... 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, Not even CLOSE! You say I should ,move her to TN. IF you want her to be with her father. Forget THAT lil' part? Prolly futile, as this is going around and around in circles, but clearly what it needed is for the father to be a CO-parent. The best Sarah can do concerning co-parenting with him since he up and moved far away is allow travel for visitation. Which isn't really coparenting. It's a situation he created. You *are* consistently rather cryptic. Banty |
#560
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... Chris wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me. Uhuh. *I* don't need anyone supporting me, Umm, it's more like greed, not need. It is not greed to insist her father provide for her. Nice twist. It is GREED to insist that he give you FREE MONEY. He has no way of providing for her commensurate to how I do without either sending money, or paying in full for certain expenses on his own. His obligation to you and your daughter is exactly SQUAT! unlike him. My daughter deserves to have both of her parents supporting her, No she doesn't. Yes, she does. All children do. Ok, tell me just what every child does to deserve so. Um, be born? Um, they did not cause their own existence thus birth; the mother did................... next. I'm failing to see how you justify a parent not supporting their child. Impossible to justify a negative. The burden of proof rests with YOU. I'm failing to see how you justify forcing a father to support ANY child. and I'll be damned if I'm going to pick up his slack. What slack is that? um, not paying for his share of her expenses. He has no "share". Yes, he does. If you admit that he is a parent, his share is half. Because? Like the genetic material she arose from. -- Sarah Gray |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CT: New Haven witch hunt for deadbeat fathers - notice that NO mothers were on their list... | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | April 5th 05 06:37 AM |
Guest Speaker: Dr. Rita Laws Topic: Topic: Why Kids Lie and What We Can Do About It | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 2nd 04 05:42 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | General | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | Breastfeeding | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |