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.

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

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

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

--
[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

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...

--
[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

--
[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

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

--
[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