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 |
#571
|
|||
|
|||
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] "Banty" wrote in message ... 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. YOU figured it out. Banty |
#572
|
|||
|
|||
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] "Very Determined!" wrote in message ups.com... 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... SWEEPING generalization. But when a mother claims 2+2=5, you're right; I will NEVER understand such "reasoning". |
#573
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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! How about his obligation to HIS daughter? |
#574
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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. chuckle Perhaps you will feel better when your child support obligation is finally paid off, Chris. |
#575
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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. Idiotum ad infinitum |
#576
|
|||
|
|||
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] "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... teachrmama wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... DB wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in He is angry because I cheated on him, so his mindset is that *everything* I say and do is wrong. Betrayal is a strong motivator for denying you any assistance of any kind in his eyes! He's never going to give you a dime, I would plan on going it alone from here out! The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me. And frankly, I am not willing to fight this in court past the motion I filed to increase support. If he really does quit his job to haul me into court over and over, that's his problem- he'll just be accruing arrearages. Well, it is very sad that you cheated on him. Were you married or just in a relationship? It would be a very hurtful thing to work through. It would be nice if he could look past the hurt and see his daughter. We were married. I'll admit, I was a pretty crummy wife in many respects. That has nothing to do with how well of a job I do raising our daughter. The only reason I *didn't* file for divorce once I realized things were not working out at all, was because of our daughter. Again, it is very hard to look past hurt. Hurt tends to obscure just about everthing else. You say you only need $250 per month to make it financially--the court will probably order much more than that. If you really want to keep things cooperative for your daughter's sake, you could send back the monies over and above the $250 per month. Just because the court orders it doesn't mean you have to keep it. I see your point, but why should I be cooperative when he refuses to agree to the $250 in the first place? I think the money would be better spent in a college savings fund for my daughter, but I'm sure you think that that would be stealing money from him or something. Well, if you tell him that the money is going into a college fund, and you keep him apprised as to how much he is contributing to the fund, he may not be as upset. But let's just hope that he is reasonable, and agrees to the $250. She controls her money, she controls the child, she controls HIS money, and he's supposed to be reasonable by by giving her free cash? With all due respect, what the heck is WRONG with you? If he is lurking here, he will have begun to understand how unfair courts can be to NCPs. Code for "fathers". |
#577
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"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] "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. Idiotum ad infinitum Quod erat demonstrandum. |
#578
|
|||
|
|||
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] "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! Ah.....Car = child. Hmmmm..........Purchase = reproduction....I...um....seee......sure..... |
#579
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"Chris" wrote in message news -- [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 . net... teachrmama wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . net... DB wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in He is angry because I cheated on him, so his mindset is that *everything* I say and do is wrong. Betrayal is a strong motivator for denying you any assistance of any kind in his eyes! He's never going to give you a dime, I would plan on going it alone from here out! The thing is, it's for *his daughter*, not for me. And frankly, I am not willing to fight this in court past the motion I filed to increase support. If he really does quit his job to haul me into court over and over, that's his problem- he'll just be accruing arrearages. Well, it is very sad that you cheated on him. Were you married or just in a relationship? It would be a very hurtful thing to work through. It would be nice if he could look past the hurt and see his daughter. We were married. I'll admit, I was a pretty crummy wife in many respects. That has nothing to do with how well of a job I do raising our daughter. The only reason I *didn't* file for divorce once I realized things were not working out at all, was because of our daughter. Again, it is very hard to look past hurt. Hurt tends to obscure just about everthing else. You say you only need $250 per month to make it financially--the court will probably order much more than that. If you really want to keep things cooperative for your daughter's sake, you could send back the monies over and above the $250 per month. Just because the court orders it doesn't mean you have to keep it. I see your point, but why should I be cooperative when he refuses to agree to the $250 in the first place? I think the money would be better spent in a college savings fund for my daughter, but I'm sure you think that that would be stealing money from him or something. Well, if you tell him that the money is going into a college fund, and you keep him apprised as to how much he is contributing to the fund, he may not be as upset. But let's just hope that he is reasonable, and agrees to the $250. She controls her money, she controls the child, she controls HIS money, and he's supposed to be reasonable by by giving her free cash? With all due respect, what the heck is WRONG with you? Where, pray tell, is she controlling his money? What the heck is wrong with you? If he is lurking here, he will have begun to understand how unfair courts can be to NCPs. Code for "fathers". Most often, yes. |
#580
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "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] "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. Idiotum ad infinitum Quod erat demonstrandum. Illegitimi no carborundum |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CT: New Haven witch hunt for deadbeat fathers - notice that NO mothers were on their list... | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | April 5th 05 06:37 AM |
Guest Speaker: Dr. Rita Laws Topic: Topic: Why Kids Lie and What We Can Do About It | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 2nd 04 06:42 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | General | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | Breastfeeding | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |