A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Big lawsuit



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 11th 04, 01:35 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start

taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it

will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting

to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by

the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that

context,
his
interest in his children may change.


And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to

him,
he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'.

===
It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he

parents
50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to

hire
a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I
doubt he would),


He already has.


  #12  
Old September 11th 04, 01:50 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to

start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own

choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may or

may
not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that they
become involved.


Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly letters
advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he

wanted, or
mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered)


But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where things

you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.


Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available?

This includes, but
is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior to

the
end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him through
actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges

part,
the many people that make their living through forcing (through various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative) to

make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise

inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...


I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any convictions

for
domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false accusations of
mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the

court's
turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by

non-compliance
of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life insurance

and
health insurance for the kids)?

------------------
Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he must
have been a terrible father.


Aren't you one of the posters to ACS who insists that children do better when
they have their father involved in their lives?

--------------

Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in the
children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's

fault.


The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all

possible
situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his inactivity

with
the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his

actions
may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make such

a
drastic decision.


Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such a
decision. You left out that one, too.

-----------------
There are many, many subtle things that encourage people to act the way they
do. I know a lot of men who didn't stay in contact with their kids because
they honestly thought it was the best thing for them. They felt that if
they were around the mom might take out her anger on the kids or that the
kids would be confused and uncomfortable. You, obviously, had a very bad
breakup with your ex and even if you tried to hide all of it from your kids
I'm sure they were able to feel the tension.


You are making an assumption about which you have no way of knowing any
information, and in the process, adhering to the imperfect assumption that it
has to be something the *mom* caused. Pretty laughable, considering every time
my children express anger at their father for things he has done (like ignoring
their b'days, ignoring them at Xmas time, never calling), I ihave repeatedly
explained to them that no matter what they, or anyone else thinks or says about
their dad, if he wasn't their dad they wouldn't be who *they* are, and I'm quite
fond of who they are.

Shoot, we saw him last month at the annual state fair, he and his friend walked
right past the kids... my daughter had seen them, so I handed her my cell phone
so she could call him and the children could see their dad (and vice versa).

He told her "I can't get away right now".


I'm not saying that your ex
was coming from the position that he thought it was in the kids best
interest to just stay away but that there are numerous subtle influences to
a persons actions.


I agree - and sometimes, those subtle influences are from the person themself,
and *not* some external source - it's amusing to watch how hard some posters
(including you) will work to maintain the position that it's something the CP
must have done. Some NCP's are just lousy people.

It's almost impossible to understand why someone does
something, especially when you are unable to communicate with the person in
a calm, open way.


That's why some of us CP's communicate in writing - that way, there's no alleged
'tone of voice', alleged body language, and there's a clear record of what was
actually stated.


-----------------


I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however, stating

that I
understand that there are other factors that usually don't get mentioned
when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you get t

he
opportunity.


This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would force

the CP
to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take the
children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular

situation.
Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts.

-------------
I don't recall you ever saying anything good/positive/nice about your ex.


He was convicted after assaulting me, he ignores the children, and (like you,
among others) tries to insist that the reasons for his abandonment of the
children is someone else's fault. Do you see anything good/positive/nice there?

He has beautiful eyes - that's pretty much the only nice thing I can think of at
the moment, and the same response I gave the *last* time I was challenged to say
something nice about him.


  #13  
Old September 11th 04, 01:51 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to

start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own

choice, in
nearly 2 years now.


Perhaps there where things you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.


THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Got any evidence to substantiate your continued flaming of me?

Any?


  #14  
Old September 11th 04, 02:24 PM
Rowanyx19
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Is it possible for anyone to believe that there are those who just dont want to
be a parent?
My ex hasnt seen the kids in 2 yrs.
We hadnt touched court..he helped out financially at 1st and then just stopped
and I never asked him for any.
I never said no to him seeing the kids although he never asked I asked him.
I gave him an open door to come and go as he pleased.
I kissed his royal ass because I wanted no problems with the children..because
I knew if I even uttered any word against him or asked him anything he didnt
want to do he would stop seeing them.
He just didnt like being a parent...he hated the wrok he hated the
responsibility and he didnt try to hide it.
So he kind of just dwindled away and that was that. Im not going to chase him
and beg and if someone doesnt want to be a parent than you cant force
them...the onl thing Im angry at is if he were going to walk away he didnt have
to drag it out and make it so much harder for the kids..
  #15  
Old September 11th 04, 02:52 PM
P. Fritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to

start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own

choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may

or
may
not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that

they
become involved.


Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly

letters
advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he

wanted, or
mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered)


But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where

things
you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.


Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available?

This includes, but
is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior

to
the
end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him

through
actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges

part,
the many people that make their living through forcing (through

various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal

intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative)

to
make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise

inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...


I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any

convictions
for
domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false

accusations of
mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the

court's
turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by

non-compliance
of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life

insurance
and
health insurance for the kids)?

------------------
Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he

must
have been a terrible father.


You are getting the 'moonie' version. Those that have posted hear for a
while know tha the 'abuse' is a two way street in her case.


--------------

Your bias is noted, that you presume the father's lack of interest in

the
children is the mother's fault. Sometimes, it's simply the father's

fault.


The above list is by no means complete and does not constitute all

possible
situations. It does intend to point out the idea that his

inactivity
with
the children may not be a wholly conscious act on his part; that his

actions
may well have been part of a greater whole that forced him to make

such
a
drastic decision.


Or that it was simply his own selfishness that caused him to make such

a
decision. You left out that one, too.

-----------------
There are many, many subtle things that encourage people to act the way

they
do. I know a lot of men who didn't stay in contact with their kids

because
they honestly thought it was the best thing for them. They felt that if
they were around the mom might take out her anger on the kids or that

the
kids would be confused and uncomfortable. You, obviously, had a very

bad
breakup with your ex and even if you tried to hide all of it from your

kids
I'm sure they were able to feel the tension. I'm not saying that your

ex
was coming from the position that he thought it was in the kids best
interest to just stay away but that there are numerous subtle influences

to
a persons actions. It's almost impossible to understand why someone

does
something, especially when you are unable to communicate with the person

in
a calm, open way.
-----------------


I am not stating that I support his decision. I am, however,

stating
that I
understand that there are other factors that usually don't get

mentioned
when you go on an anti-father rampage and slam your X whenever you

get t
he
opportunity.


This was no rampage at all - I asked if the same actions that would

force
the CP
to relinquish the children to the NCP would also force the NCP to take

the
children. I'm sure I'm not the only CP who's in this particular

situation.
Stating facts is not slamming anyone - it's stating facts.

-------------
I don't recall you ever saying anything good/positive/nice about your

ex.

~AZ~











  #16  
Old September 11th 04, 02:53 PM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice, in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However, it
will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's parenting

to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined by

the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that

context,
his
interest in his children may change.

And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available to

him,
he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'.

===
It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he

parents
50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to

hire
a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which I
doubt he would),


He already has.

===
I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt
out. When did that happen?
===



  #17  
Old September 11th 04, 04:34 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message

...
In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to

start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own choice,

in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne. However,

it
will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's

parenting
to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as defined

by
the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In that

context,
his
interest in his children may change.

And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it available

to
him,
he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend) 'off'.
===
It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether he

parents
50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his responsibility to

hire
a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely (which

I
doubt he would),


He already has.

===
I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can opt
out. When did that happen?


He opted out of ANY custody. His choice.


===





  #18  
Old September 11th 04, 04:35 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to

start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own

choice, in
nearly 2 years now.

Forced, no. You cannot force anyone to do something that they may

or
may
not want to do. Though, you can request (urgently, strongly) that

they
become involved.

Been there, done that, cc'd the courts and the GAL on the monthly

letters
advising when the children were available (which was any weekend he

wanted, or
mid week times, or entire weeks - all were offered)


But you cannot force him. It's his choice. Perhaps there where

things
you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.

Sent him letters letting him know when the children were available?

This includes, but
is not limited to: your treatment of him in and out of court (prior

to
the
end of the relationship and during); the courts treatment of him

through
actions (or inaction) on your part, your attorneys part, the judges

part,
the many people that make their living through forcing (through

various
means) one parent to leave the family; state and federal

intervention on
your behave (weather known or unknown to you or your representative)

to
make
his life hell; things the children may have said, done or otherwise

inferred
that you where unhappy he was still around...

I notice you left out quite a few things - like if he has any

convictions
for
domestic abuse while we were still married? Like his false

accusations of
mental illness and planned 'kidnappings' of the children? Like the

court's
turning a blind eye to his repeated contempts of court orders by

non-compliance
of things that were also demanded of me? (like keeping up life

insurance
and
health insurance for the kids)?

------------------
Why in dogs name would you want him around the kids? He sounds like he

must
have been a terrible father.


You are getting the 'moonie' version. Those that have posted hear for a
while know tha the 'abuse' is a two way street in her case.


Liar.


  #19  
Old September 11th 04, 05:46 PM
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced to

start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own

choice, in
nearly 2 years now.


Perhaps there where things you
did, or are doing, that helped him make such a choice.


THAT is the understatement of the year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HA! Well, I was being nice.

heh, heh... Yupper, just like adding a lit match to a lake of gasoline!
Just look at the rash of posts from Moon over this little thing! I love it.


  #20  
Old September 11th 04, 05:54 PM
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message

...
In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message

...
In article , Moon Shyne says...


"Gini" wrote in message

...
In article , Moon Shyne says...

Does this mean that my children's father will finally be forced

to
start
taking
an active part in their lives? He hasn't seen them, by his own

choice,
in
nearly 2 years now.
====
I'm guessing universal paternalism is not defined by Mr. Shyne.

However,
it
will
mean that you will be mandated to forfeit 50% of the children's

parenting
to
their father to do with as he choses, (absent abuse/neglect as

defined
by
the
state) regardless of whether you approve of said parenting. In

that
context,
his
interest in his children may change.

And will he be mandated to *take* his 50%? He's always had it

available
to
him,
he simply doesn't take it. I wouldn't object to a day (or weekend)

'off'.
===
It wouldn't be a day or weekend. It would be 50% of the time. Whether

he
parents
50% of the time would be up to him. It would also be his

responsibility to
hire
a sitter if he wishes. Of course, if he desires to opt out completely

(which
I
doubt he would),

He already has.

===
I did not know WI(?) already has default 50/50 custody from which he can

opt
out. When did that happen?


He opted out of ANY custody. His choice.


I find that just way too odd, that he .."opted out of ANY custody" strikes
me as there is a heck of a lot more to the story here.

But as usual, Moon only gives us the information she wants us to see and
hides the rest - unless you get under her skin and then the real Moon comes
out. And that is never a pretty sight.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY Federal District Court Judge Orders Defendants to Respond to Lawsuit Editor - Child Support News Child Support 52 May 18th 04 04:04 PM
(FL.) Former DCF attorney files whistle-blower lawsuit in Lakeland [email protected] Foster Parents 0 August 28th 03 06:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.