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
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,

I sense a SLIGHT contradiction in the above claim.

Your attitude of "men don't have post conception rights, so they don't
have to support their children" assumes that no man, anywhere, wants
children.

Not even CLOSE!

A man that *decides* to take an active role in his child's
life should not be able to just walk away.

Because?

You can't insist that men not
be made to support their children, and then also claim that men should
be able to spend more time with their children. they are either
responsible for those children, or they are not.

FINALLY, ya got something right! Because the "family" court people say the
father has no rights, it simply follows that he has no responsibilities. Not
to mention, Federal courts say that a man has no post-conception
reproductive rights. Ya know, can't have yer cake and eat it too.



--

Sarah Gray

--
[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
...

"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.

She can't have that "safety net" without receiving HIS money. Therefore, it
is HIS money that is being "put away". Not hard at ALL to understand.

--
[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:
"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.

Oh, it's a whole lot more than just an opinion. It is the way YOU deem it
shall be if he wants to be with her. Perhaps "dictate" was not the best
choice of words, but I simply don't see a whole lot of difference.

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.

"Adequate" in YOUR opinion.





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?

The FIRST step in advocating a matriarch is to deny that one is doing so.

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?

I'm not saying that you should do ANYTHING.





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.

Of course not. You only choose to talk about the RARE exception to the rule.
Special pleading.

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 said that you have legal custody of her because you are the mother.

I take care of her full time
because her father skipped town.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Simply NOT true.

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?

Because it's a hypothesis contrary to fact.




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.

Who said anything about THAT?



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.

Uhuh, and those who purchase tickets win the lottery too. QUICK, run out and
get your ticket!

In addition,
you are talking about a different situation than I brought up.

The situation is irrelevant. It was an analogy (closely related I might add)
which proves my point; not to mention TRUE.

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.

You just might be surprised.




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.

Tell you what, quote me on that and I will concede.






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?

I rest my case.



--

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:
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!

That doesn't make it wrong to insist a father support his children.

Doesn't make it right either.

That
doesnt make CPs who make reasonable demands about support

NO demand is reasonable, unless you think extortion (blackmail) is
reasonable.

are being
unethical. It is true that there is no accountability, but given that
our society uses money to procure goods and services, trying to find a
method for NCPs to support their children that does not involve transfer
of money is nearly impossible.

But POSSIBLE. An annoying lil' fact that people who hold the same position
as you on the issue hate because it debunks their argument.



If I earn my own money, and my ex contributes monies equal to half of
the costs of raising our daughter, and she is fed, clothed, and
sheltered adequately, how can you say that the child support money was
not spent on the child?

Your diversionary tactic is relentless. Gotta give you credit for
perseverence.



--

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:
Chris, have you not been reading anything I've typed? He *had* 50%
physical custody. He decided to put himself in a situation where he
does
not see his daughter often.

Correction: It is YOU who is putting him in such situation!
I have read EVERYTHING you typed.

I don't understand what you are referring to. How have I forced him to
move out of state, creating a situation where he cannot see his child
regularly?

Nice straw man, not to mention non sequitur too. By you refusing to allow
the child to be with him, it is YOU who is putting him in the situation of
not having her with him.



--

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, please, Chris, enlighten me as to how he can contribute
anm
equal
share towards supporting her without sending me money.

EXACTLY the same way you are doing it.

Well how do you propose he pay for half of her food costs, shelter
costs, and childcare costs without sending me money (or the
equivalent)?

Like I said, EXACTLY the same way you are doing it.

But I *am* spending money on these things. He is unable to care for her
on his own.

NOW I get it....... duh! HE'S not good enough to care for her, but he's
good enough to send you free money. Please forgive me as I am not the
brightest bulb in the chandelier. I keep forgetting that we are talking
about a man and NOT a woman.




I spend the money I earn on those things. Why should he not do so?

Why SHOULD he? The burden of proof rests with you.

Why *should* he? You argue that she ought to live with him,

IF, keword "IF", you want her to be with him. For some reason, you keep
making sure to NOT include that part of my claim.


however,
this is not an option. If he is unwilling to do what he needs to do to
be a real dad, the last he can do is help to support her.

Argumentum ad misericordiam.



--

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
et...
Chris wrote:
False claim. It is FULLY possible to have 50/50 while you both
remain
where
you are living now. It's just not possible while being convenient
to
YOU.

I fail to see how this is possible, considering she is in school,
and is
required by law to attend school until she is 16.

Oh yeah. I forgot, they have no schools where the father lives. How
DUMB of
me to assume they do! Sorry.

She is *already* attending school here. He has made no arrangements for
her to attend school in TN, nor has he said he has any desire to have
her full-time in TN.

You keep using this term "full-time". Just what exactly do you mean by it?




If by "not convenient" you mean "lose my job and be unable to
support my
daughter", then yeah, sure, whatever.

That's right, whatever. But it is still possible.

If I were to lose my job, she would not be being supported adequately.

Gee, where did you purchase your crystal ball? Let me know so I can get one
too.

I
fail to see how it is my job to bend over backwards to accommodate his
irresponsibility. My responsibility is to my child, not to her father.
His responsibility is to her,

No it's not.

and not me. I don't expect him to cater to
my lifestyle,

Your lifestyle is to have and raise a child. You most CERTAINLY expect him
to cater to it by paying you free money for your sole choice.

why should I cater to his?

I never suggested that you do. Now, why should he cater to YOURS?


--

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
news
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....

CLEARLY, you have me confused with someone else.



--

Sarah Gray

--
[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
news
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....

Chris is unhappy with the system, and perfectly willing to spew his venom
all over this newsgroup.

The venom of TRUTH!

--
[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:
Why would I ask for more than an approximate of half of my
daughter's
basic expenses?

Actually, it's a demand; but that's another discussion. A better
question is
why not? Afterall, when something's FREE why not get all you can?

*you* think it unethical to expect a father to support his children
financially.

Correction: I think it "unethical" to extort money from a man by force!

What about a woman? We agreed to have a child. Now he does not want to
support her. If anything, *he* is creating a financial burden on *me*!

Uhuh. And if you agree that I should purchase a new automobile, but you
don't contribute to the payments, then you are creating a financial burden
on me. LOVE your reasoning!



Most of the world does not.

You polled the rest of the world?
no, ha.

I still don't understand why
you think a man can make the decision to be an involved father for
years, and then just take off and expect the child's mother to
cover all
expenses.

That's because you lack a fundamental comprehension of the concept of
rights
and responsibilities being a packaged deal. The two are inseperable.

Deciding that you don't want to take advantage of the right syou have
does not absolve you of responsibilities.

If you have a right, then you have already been responsible for such right.
Rights do not exist without responsibilities.


--

Sarah Gray