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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come on, Moon. You know exactly what they are saying. When Mom has
something she wants to do and does not want to pay a babysitter, she calls
Dad and "graciously offers" Dad more time with the kids. MOM gets free
babysitting--Dad gets "parenting time." So, yes, *Mom* does get free
babysitting--and Dad, although being *used* by Mom--gets a little extra
parenting time. Will most dads be grateful for time with their kids? Yes.
But they are under no delusion that Mom was being generous--they know they
are being used. But being with the kids is more important than calling her
on her horse hock.


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since basic CS orders do not take into consideration father parenting time
or the costs of visitation, fathers should just suck it up and take on even
more parenting and visitation time, right?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, right. And these remarks from the only person claiming to know that
men can control their, what was it again? Men can control their fertility,
was it? Yeah, you're a real brain trust Moonie.

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what I object to.

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much do you think dad's CS should be reduced because he had the
kids for 1 additional night?

About 80%.

It should be a simpler equation. When the children are with the
father, the father pays 100% of the child support for that time. When
they are with the Mother, the mother should pay 100% of the child
support at that time.

That fixes everything. Each parent now has to balence time spent
raising the children with the time spent earning the bread to do so.
And this creates a disinsentive for anyone to dump children anywhere.
Everyone must make staried eye evaluations of their economic situation,
get a job, and to develop their careers if they want to live decently.

Imagine that.

Ruben

"mrbrklyn" wrote in message oups.com...
How much do you think dad's CS should be reduced because he had the
kids for 1 additional night?

About 80%.

It should be a simpler equation. When the children are with the
father, the father pays 100% of the child support for that time. When
they are with the Mother, the mother should pay 100% of the child
support at that time.

So my ex, who decided 3 years ago to stop seeing the children, should be rewarded for this selfishness? You sure you
want to promote that idea?



That fixes everything.

Not quite.

Each parent now has to balence time spent
raising the children with the time spent earning the bread to do so.
And this creates a disinsentive for anyone to dump children anywhere.

Not at all - it creates a HUGE incentive to abamdon the children entirely, so as to pay ZERO child support.


Everyone must make staried eye evaluations of their economic situation,
get a job, and to develop their careers if they want to live decently.

And abandon their children to avoid having to support them.

Got it.


Imagine that.

Ruben

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

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

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

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

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

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e@4a x.com...

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



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

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

children.

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

in

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



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

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors

that a

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

their

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

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

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

daughter

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

She

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


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship

between

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

best

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

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

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

the

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

the

mental state of the leech).

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

out

and

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

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

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

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

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

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

or

free babysitting time.

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

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

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

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

That's what I object to.

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

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

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

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

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

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

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

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

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



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

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

children.

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

in

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



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

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance counselors

that a

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

their

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

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

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

daughter

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

She

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


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing relationship

between

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

best

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

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

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

the

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

the

mental state of the leech).

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

out

and

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

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

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

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

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

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

or

free babysitting time.

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

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

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

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

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


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

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

- Ron ^*^