Excuse me????????????

"Gini" wrote in message news:0f7if.118$gi3.46@trndny09...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Beverly" wrote
.......................................

Were particular weekends specified in your visitation?

By date? No, aside from his b'day and father's day - it was wide open,
anytime he wanted to see them.
====
Didn't you take him to court to require him to stick with the visitation
times or give you advanced notice
of time changes?

Only after he had repeatedly cancelled at the last minute any number of
weekends - like a year's worth of last minute cancellations?
And even then, the only specifications were every other weekend, and other
times as requested - I don't think I ever said no to any request to see the
kids, with the exception of one mother's day when he called just before
lunch, and we were heading out, having already made plans for the day.

====

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years - hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't
even figure into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping
children from their father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could
not cause harm in the eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of
the current feministic courts, anything is possible to be used against
men but at the same time hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"? I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the
father from the children.

Phil #3

I did but I forgot you can't understand English.

Gratuitous nastiness? Gee, what a surprise.

Actually, I was being kind. You simpy misunderstand nearly every post to
which you reply, for instance the cat pee and dirty house issue. It appears
that you are the *only* one posting that failed to grasp the term "stepping
on heels" does NOT mean "stepping on toes", which appeared to be intentional
in trying to change the message. Another way it can be put is 'kicking
someone's heels', as in trying to get them to do what they should but are
hesitant.
I suppose you misunderstood it because a mere father had the audicity to
have more concern about the children then the mother was showing.
Phil #3



I suppose you think the children only suffer if the father absents
himself, not when the mother forbids his interaction with them? That
would be about right for your brand of sexism.

Phil #3

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years - hasn't
had
an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in
person,
it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a nearly
grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't even figure
into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children from their
father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm in the
eyes
of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current feministic courts,
anything is possible to be used against men but at the same time hold
women
harmless.
Phil #3

"Family" kourt is run by henpecked fags and man-hating lesbians.

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract
with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years -
hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly
grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't even
figure
into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children from
their
father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm in the
eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current feministic
courts, anything is possible to be used against men but at the same
time
hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"?
I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the father from
the
children.

Since CS is awarded to pay for the children being in the care of the CP
100%
of the time, there is no incentive for the NCP to exercise any contact
with
the children. The NCP's CS obligation does not vary based on whether they
see their children or not. It is a totally voluntary process for NCP's to
add to their CS obligation by spending more money on visitation.

CP's rationalize NCP's should exercise visitation based on love alone. To
carry their logic through, CP's should want to be CP's base on love alone
too, and forgo any money incentives they receive.

Let's not forget the fact that the MORE the mother keeps her children away
from the father the MORE cash she gets! It doesn't take a rocket scientist
to figure out THAT incentive.
Of course, harm is done to the children by the father's absence ONLY when
such absence is cauesed by the father.... not the mother.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:Gb%hf.2325$Ly3.2186@trndny07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:id_hf.60$gi3.6@trndny09...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:JRYhf.1039$4r.69@trndny01...


I'm enjoying his absense from my life - it's much calmer, quiet, and
more productive around my home. The kids mention it occasionally,
and
I don't bring it up to them - anything else you'd like to
pontificate,
Gini? You're sounding more and more like the 2 harrassers, one of
whom
lost her job after harassing me one time too many, and the other who
seems to have either gone underground, or simply stopped posting - in
either even, the cessation of their harrassment was a welcome relief.

Pity you've chosen to take up the sword for them.
===
I have no relationship with them and don't care to. I just feel sorry
for the kids who have had to go through
the mess. That is nothing I haven't told you before. I have no
personal
gripe with you only the court battles
those kids have had to live with. And, I simply don't understand the
hostilities when children are involved.
My ex and I had no such battles and the separation was hard enough on
our kids.

I would have preferred to not have had all the court battles, either,
Gini - unfortunately, we can only control our own side of things, not
the
other person -

I'm thankful that my children are happy, healthy, doing well socially
and
in school, and seem to have emerged relatively unscathed - it's about
all
anyone can hope for under the circumstances.
====
Hopefully they will stay grounded. Unfortunately, the aftermath to these
things sometimes
doesn't emerge until years later (and I'm speaking from experience
here).

So far, so good here - they're both honor students, with a good circle of
friends.

"Honor students". Let me guess, from a government school. Seems to me that
most students are honor students. At least that's what the common bumper
sticker says. You got one of them too?
Anyway, if you measure your child's mental/emotional health based on school
grades/friends, then I wish you the best of luck.


I can't ask for a whole lot more than that.
====
====

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:30:20 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:19:19 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife
(who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is
not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his
constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into
the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.



If so, then this is the extremely rare "deadbeat dad" scenario
that the present child support system and it's supporters assume
is
epidemic and representative of 99% of cases. In this case, I do
believe
that forced financial support -- at a rate linked to 50% of the
expenses
necessary for raising a child and with full accountability for
those
expenses -- is justified. Forced payment of financial child
support
should be reserved for only the most aggregious abandoners.

I absolutely agree with you. And I also feel that a woman who keeps
the
birth of a child secret from the father should NEVER get a penny of
support
for that child, and should certainly never get to be the "victim"
deserving
of arrearages.

What bearing does secrecy have on her SOLE choice?

I believe that there are states that will not allow a married woman to
abort without her spouse's agreement in writing.

I could be wrong, but isn't that a violation of the Roe v. Wade decision?

Roe Vs. Wade decriminalizes abortion, but I don't believe there is any
language which gives a woman an absolute right to abort at any time.
In fact, I believe there is language which limits a woman's right
(such as where she is in the term of her pregnancy). The tenth
amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people"; hence, the states can choose
to be more restrictive absent illegalizing it.

Happens all the time. For instance, Federal minimum wage is $5.15,
but there is nothing restricting the states from "upping the ante" so
to speak and having a different mininum wage... so long as it does not
go below $5.15.

As far as I understand it, a state can require spousal involvement in
the decision to abort so long as they don't criminalize it. Hence, if
a woman aborts without her spouse's approval, it would be a civil
matter, not criminal.

That being the case, not much of a law, huh?




The form my ex and I
filled out when I had my tubal had language in it concerning abortion
(we didn't need to sign that part).




Howver, this is not the reality in most cases. Most fathers, even
if
they
ran off with Holly Bigboobs, still want to DIRECTLY support their
kids
and
would do so if the present system didn't make it nearly impossible
in
the
presence of an uncooperative/greedy/vindictive CP mother.

Jay R.

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract
with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years -
hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them
in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't
even figure into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping
children from their father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could
not cause harm in the eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of
the current feministic courts, anything is possible to be used
against
men but at the same time hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"? I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the
father from the children.

Phil #3

I did but I forgot you can't understand English.

Gratuitous nastiness? Gee, what a surprise.

Actually, I was being kind. You simpy misunderstand nearly every post to
which you reply, for instance the cat pee and dirty house issue. It
appears
that you are the *only* one posting that failed to grasp the term
"stepping
on heels" does NOT mean "stepping on toes", which appeared to be
intentional
in trying to change the message. Another way it can be put is 'kicking
someone's heels', as in trying to get them to do what they should but are
hesitant.
I suppose you misunderstood it because a mere father had the audicity to
have more concern about the children then the mother was showing.

An impossibility in her mind. Just a wild guess.

Phil #3



I suppose you think the children only suffer if the father absents
himself, not when the mother forbids his interaction with them? That
would be about right for your brand of sexism.

Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:17:11 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:48:11 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:55:55 GMT, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


wrote in message
oglegroups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract
with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect
arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years -
hasn't
had
an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in
person,
it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has
ignored them for all this time?

What have you done to mitigate these damages?

Whatever has been necessary to raise 2 children - what would you
suggest?
How would you mitigate such damage?


I've encouraged my children to have a relationship with their father.
They do not simply have his number, I suggest they call and share what
is going on in their lives with their father.

Been there, done that - they simply don't want to.

I have one who doesn't want to either, so I explain to him that
relationships go both ways. If he chooses not to share his life with
his father, then he he must also shoulder some responsibility toward a
lack of relationship. His father does call often, but this one son
prefers not to speak with him when he does. I ask him to at least say
"hi" anyway... who knows, it could lead to more.

I understand that your children's father does not call, but who knows
how things may have been different had you kept encouraging.

I did keep encouraging - for you to assume otherwise is simply a wrong
assumption. Any time anything happens, from a report card to a school
production, I continue to ask the kids if they want to advise him, invite
him, whatever is the appropriate action. I've also made his number
available so that they never have to *ask* me for his number - it's simply
there (except for the times they've thrown it away, at which point I keep
replacing it).

Is it possible that avoiding your children is the only way he can avoid YOU?


At this
point, damage is done. One will never know how much each of you may
bear in responsibility for it.

I have no worries on that one - despite the people in this newsgroup who
would like to fling accusations, I know what I have, and haven't done.
I've
done everything within my power to encourage a relationship - and he's
done
everything possible within his power to shut it down.

So be it.




I've handed my ex money during visitation to make things easier for
him financially during the visit.

Done that too - ewven handed over the money for clothing and haircuts,
to
have them come home sans new clothing and with the same shaggy hair.

Ummmm... why did you ask that such menial tasks be done during his
limited time with them?

Because he offered?

I could better understand if you had equal
joint custody, but you have sole.

This was before I had sole custody.

When I've handed my ex money, there
were never any conditions.




I've made plausible excuses for my ex when my children tell me
something negative about him giving them the opportunity to see a
perspective of which they may not have thought on their own; however,
I also tell them they COULD be right... just not to jump to
conclusions so quickly when other things may explain what the
situation was. I do not take joy in my children thinking badly of
their father.

I don't think any of us do - however, I won't make excuses for another
person - they have to stand on their own merits (or lack thereof).

My children came home and the first thing one of them said to me was
"Dad is such a liar." Part of me knew that he does often lie, but I
asked what my son THOUGHT he lied about anyway. It had something to
do with going somewhere they didn't end up going. I asked how my son
knew it was a lie and my son said, "because we didn't go." I'm pretty
sure it was, indeed, a lie because my ex makes grandiose statements to
the boys (i.e. he says he knows my son's favorite band, personally,
and they are good friends, then "proved" it with an autographed
picture... yet, he had to pay full price for concert tickets with no
backstage passes) like a child trying to be liked. My response to my
son's statement was that not going somewhere does not mean that it
wasn't the intent... or that maybe something else they did caused them
not to have enough time. After thinking about it some, my son told me
they probably didn't have enough time given how busy he kept them, but
that he still wished they could have done as his father said and gave
up something else.

My children don't talk negatively about him - they don't talk about him
at
all.



I've encouraged my ex to be more involved with the kids (he doesn't,
but all I can do is encourage).

I've sent dozens of monthly letters, letting him know things that the
kids
are doing, to which he could come, and which weekends they had nothing
going
on and were available, were he to choose to call (either me or the GAL
if
he
was uncomfortable calling me) - he never once called to see the kids.

After a while, I simply didn't bother anymore.... and I don't feel badly
about it.

Were particular weekends specified in your visitation?

By date? No, aside from his b'day and father's day - it was wide open,
anytime he wanted to see them.

The sad fact was that he didn't want to.

I know how
important it is to allow the children their activities, but we have
always scheduled another equal time, together, when the children's
activities coincided with his visitation. How often were the weekends
when they were free?

90% of the time?

Could his lack of visiting have anything to do
with the children being so busy that he felt they didn't have any time
left in their schedule for him?

Nope - with the exception of the odd birthday party that one or the other
might have been invited to, their time was wide open and available to
him -
and month after month, I would send him a letter, with a copy to the GAL
for
his files, and month after month the letters were ignored.





I have not forgotten that I loved my ex when we conceived our children
and let them know they remain a product of that love regardless of the
divorce.

Agreed - as I have consistantly pointed out to my kids, any time they
said
anything less than positive about their father.. it was necessary for it
to
be their father and I, in order for them to be them - and I love them
just
the way they are.

How about when they haven't said something less than positive about
their father? The way you phrase it could be heard as "I love you
despite the flaws you may have inherited from your father."

They talk about their father virtually not at all - so it's sort of a moot
point.

I've tried to reassure them that they are loveable, valuable people -
that's
really all I can do, and it's all I intend to do - I will not make excuses
for their father - that's on him to sort out with them, should he ever
decide to contact them.






I am careful not to say anything negative about their father where
they can hear. In fact, they did not even know he wasn't paying child
support when he wasn't... I made sure *I* took the brunt of the "going
without."

Same here - though I used to make sure that any time the CS was
increased
(back in the days when it was still a percentage order), and they
benefitted
from the increase (like the new bikes they got that summer) - I
explained
to
them that it was because of the extra money from their dad, and had them
call him to thank him.

I don't think he ever understood what I was trying to accomplish, though
I
still think it was the right thing to do.

Sounds like a very passive-aggressive attempt to rub his nose in the
fact that you got more money from him, even if spent on the children.

Well, sure, if you'd like to take a thank you and make something negative
out of it, be my guest. I thought thanking him for making new bikes
(which
were needed) was the right thing to do.


Maybe he would have preferred to buy their bikes for him, himself.

Worse yet, maybe he was hungry when they called to thank him for the
extras.

Nice try - but no.


Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to attack you.

Well, you're apparently giving it that good old college try anyway - sort
of
like saying "no offense.... but your ugly"

I know where you
were coming from and what you may think you were trying to
accomplish, but sometimes we do the wrong things for the right
reasons. I was simply pointing out how he might have seen things.

Here's how he see's things - we were at a state fair, and my kids saw him
walking past - so, thinking perhaps he hadn't seen them, I offered my cell
phone so they could call him on HIS cell phone and perhaps meet up with
him.

He told them he was too busy, and couldn't get away.

He's not too hungry for paying child support, and it has nothing to do
with
me. He's simply too self-involved to remember he has 2 children here who
would have liked to have a father. History repeats itself - he did the
same
things to his first 2 children.


I think you and I come from completely different sides of the fence
when it comes to dealing with an ex and that is okay. But I also
believe I see a side of you that is very angry with your ex whether
you know it or not. Please don't take this as an attack.... just
consider it.

He's an ass, he attacked me in front of the children, and he's caused
incalculable hurt to the children by ignoring them for years - hell yes,
I'm
angry at how he's behaved - he's acted worse than badly.

They say that behind every messed-up woman is a man that abused her.


That's much of why I make sure the kids know that they're valuable,
loveable
people - they deserve at least that much.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:0f7if.118$gi3.46@trndny09...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Beverly" wrote
.......................................

Were particular weekends specified in your visitation?

By date? No, aside from his b'day and father's day - it was wide open,
anytime he wanted to see them.
====
Didn't you take him to court to require him to stick with the visitation
times or give you advanced notice
of time changes?

Only after he had repeatedly cancelled at the last minute any number of
weekends - like a year's worth of last minute cancellations?
And even then, the only specifications were every other weekend, and other
times as requested -

Do you believe that a child should spend an equal amount of time with both
parents? If not, why not?

I don't think I ever said no to any request to see the
kids, with the exception of one mother's day when he called just before
lunch, and we were heading out, having already made plans for the day.

====

"Chris" wrote in message
news:9tqif.10173$dv.2684@fed1read02...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:0f7if.118$gi3.46@trndny09...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Beverly" wrote
.......................................

Were particular weekends specified in your visitation?

By date? No, aside from his b'day and father's day - it was wide
open,
anytime he wanted to see them.
====
Didn't you take him to court to require him to stick with the
visitation
times or give you advanced notice
of time changes?

Only after he had repeatedly cancelled at the last minute any number of
weekends - like a year's worth of last minute cancellations?
And even then, the only specifications were every other weekend, and
other
times as requested -

Do you believe that a child should spend an equal amount of time with both
parents? If not, why not?

There is no blanket answer to that one - in the case of one parent who
simply refuses to take part in the children's lives, for example, then equal
time simply isn't available. In the case of one parent who is abusive, for
example, equal time isn't reasonable or safe. It would have to be on a case
by case basis.



I don't think I ever said no to any request to see the
kids, with the exception of one mother's day when he called just before
lunch, and we were heading out, having already made plans for the day.

====