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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................. Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. == == |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. == == |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. == == |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? == == |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? == == |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( == Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety, the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when he was 17. == == |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( == Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety, the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when he was 17. == == |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. == == |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Share vehicle, insurance expenses?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "gini52" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote "Scott Ross" wrote ................ Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared. I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to a 14-year-old driving without supervision. Which is apparently legal where she resides? It's difficult to work that into the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary", Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take part in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted. So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then prohibited from taking part in the extra-curricular activities. Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular activities? and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to consider this. The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is permitted to drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There is no magical age that will protect them from risk. == But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense) dictates that 14 is too young to drive-- regardless of statute. So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or 16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible? There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children, common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-( What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well. Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses? This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents should (or should not) be helping with the costs. Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the decision. == == |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 25th 03 02:04 AM |
FRONTLINE FIX (now one for babies, Raney?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | November 7th 03 04:47 AM |
Vagina-related insurance fraud (Dan Fitz. at The Hartford, you're removed) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 1st 03 04:20 PM |
The largest insurance fraud (medical birth) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 29th 03 09:48 PM |