[acidcomplex]

lily wrote:

acidcomplex wrote:

lily wrote:

I got the job with no training, eh? Where did I say that?

Right here:

"She stressed that she wasn't worried about my relative lack of experience"

Yes and?

Where does that say I had no training?

Um the "relative lack of experience" part might be an indicator. Just out of curiosity how is that going?. Did the "getting all new staff" thing work out so far?

[lily]

acidcomplex wrote:

lily wrote:

acidcomplex wrote:

Right here:

"She stressed that she wasn't worried about my relative lack of experience"

Yes and?

Where does that say I had no training?

Um the "relative lack of experience" part might be an indicator. Just out of curiosity how is that going?. Did the "getting all new staff" thing work out so far?

Relative lack of experience doesn't say I had no training.... or no experience for that matter.

If you want updates on my job situation, I suggest you keep reading my blog.

[C.M. Burns]

Zipperfish wrote:

Yeee-haw. I've been waiting for this. I've going to ditch the wife. Well maybe not today, since it's our anniversary, but tomorrow for sure.

[Tricks]

I think it depends on the situation of the divorce. Is the father allowed to see the kids? No? Fuck paying.

[lily]

Tricks wrote:

I think it depends on the situation of the divorce. Is the father allowed to see the kids? No? Fuck paying.

They're 2 separate issues. If you don't get to see the kids, you can't with-hold support, and vice versa.

Besides... if one parent isn't "allowed" to see the kids, there's usually a reason.

[Tricks]

lily wrote:

Tricks wrote:

I think it depends on the situation of the divorce. Is the father allowed to see the kids? No? Fuck paying.

They're 2 separate issues. If you don't get to see the kids, you can't with-hold support, and vice versa.

Besides... if one parent isn't "allowed" to see the kids, there's usually a reason.

Again, that's part of the situation. Blanketing something like this is stupid. It has to be dealt with on a case by case basis

[lily]

Tricks wrote:

lily wrote:

Tricks wrote:

I think it depends on the situation of the divorce. Is the father allowed to see the kids? No? Fuck paying.

They're 2 separate issues. If you don't get to see the kids, you can't with-hold support, and vice versa.

Besides... if one parent isn't "allowed" to see the kids, there's usually a reason.

Again, that's part of the situation. Blanketing something like this is stupid. It has to be dealt with on a case by case basis

Blanketing.....

Right.

The fact is... the courts look for the best interests of the child(ren). That means both parents should have reasonable access, and both parents should take part in the finacial responsibilities. Just becasue one might shirk doesn't mean the other gets to too.

That's not the best for the kids.

[Tricks]

lily wrote:

Blanketing.....

Right.

The fact is... the courts look for the best interests of the child(ren). That means both parents should have reasonable access, and both parents should take part in the finacial responsibilities. Just becasue one might shirk doesn't mean the other gets to too.

That's not the best for the kids.

Why should a father (who hasn't done anything wrong for arguments sake) be forced to pay child support, but can't see them.

Another thing, why is it almost always the father paying the support? Seems there is sexism inherent in the system.

[lily]

Tricks wrote:

lily wrote:

Blanketing.....

Right.

The fact is... the courts look for the best interests of the child(ren). That means both parents should have reasonable access, and both parents should take part in the finacial responsibilities. Just becasue one might shirk doesn't mean the other gets to too.

That's not the best for the kids.

Why should a father (who hasn't done anything wrong for arguments sake) be forced to pay child support, but can't see them.

Another thing, why is it almost always the father paying the support? Seems there is sexism inherent in the system.

The non-custodial parent pays support. If you've noticed, more often than not, I've used the term "parent" rather than "mother" and "father".

The non-custodial parent must pay support regardless of visitation agreements and realities. This is in the best interests of the child. Same in reverse... the custodial parent must allow visitation, regardless of payments. Again.... best interests of the child.

I think you'd be surprised about the realities, Tricks. A lot of men "move on" after divorce, and find less and less time to spend with their kids. Too many refuse to pay, which is why there are programs like the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program.

This isn't sexist. My main concern is for the kids. I hate seeing kids do without because one parent can't be bothered to make time for them... and don't want to give their ex any more than they have to.

Sadly, it happens.

[Tricks]

lily wrote:

The non-custodial parent pays support. If you've noticed, more often than not, I've used the term "parent" rather than "mother" and "father".

Why is the custodial parent almost always the mother?

Quote:

The non-custodial parent must pay support regardless of visitation agreements and realities. This is in the best interests of the child. Same in reverse... the custodial parent must allow visitation, regardless of payments. Again.... best interests of the child.

I disagree. If the custodial parent won't let the support parent see the kid, then forget them.

Quote:

I think you'd be surprised about the realities, Tricks. A lot of men "move on" after divorce, and find less and less time to spend with their kids. Too many refuse to pay, which is why there are programs like the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program.

True. Maybe it's because they aren't allowed to see as much of their kids as they would like.

Quote:

This isn't sexist. My main concern is for the kids. I hate seeing kids do without because one parent can't be bothered to make time for them... and don't want to give their ex any more than they have to.

Indeed, it's not something I would wish to see either. But forcing someone to pay for something (or in this case someone) which they will never see or have any contact with is highway robbery.

[lily]

Tricks wrote:

lily wrote:

The non-custodial parent pays support. If you've noticed, more often than not, I've used the term "parent" rather than "mother" and "father".

Why is the custodial parent almost always the mother?

Probably choice. More and more though, you see joint custody, where each parent has the child for a week at a time or whatever. If both parents live close, I think it's the ideal situation.

Quote:

Quote:

The non-custodial parent must pay support regardless of visitation agreements and realities. This is in the best interests of the child. Same in reverse... the custodial parent must allow visitation, regardless of payments. Again.... best interests of the child.

I disagree. If the custodial parent won't let the support parent see the kid, then forget them.

It doesn't matter what you think. That's the reality.

But for argument's sake, whose interests are you looking out for here, Tricks?

Quote:

Quote:

I think you'd be surprised about the realities, Tricks. A lot of men "move on" after divorce, and find less and less time to spend with their kids. Too many refuse to pay, which is why there are programs like the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program.

True. Maybe it's because they aren't allowed to see as much of their kids as they would like.

I'm sure you'd like to think so.

Quote:

Quote:

This isn't sexist. My main concern is for the kids. I hate seeing kids do without because one parent can't be bothered to make time for them... and don't want to give their ex any more than they have to.

Indeed, it's not something I would wish to see either. But forcing someone to pay for something (or in this case someone) which they will never see or have any contact with is highway robbery.

There are avenues to take if you want visitation increased or enforced. But most times, it's choice, not circumstances, that keep one parent away from their kids.


It's funny, Tricks. You like to think I'm a raving feminist, but clearly if anyone is sexist here, it's you.

You, of course, won't see that.

[Tricks]

lily wrote:

Probably choice. More and more though, you see joint custody, where each parent has the child for a week at a time or whatever. If both parents live close, I think it's the ideal situation.

Indeed. That's what my cousin's have.

Quote:

It doesn't matter what you think. That's the reality.

I know. People should pay more attention to what I think. It's generally right.

Quote:

But for argument's sake, whose interests are you looking out for here, Tricks?

Pretty much everyone involved. If the supporting parent doesn't have to pay if they don't see their kids, do you think the custodial parent will with hold that right? Doubt it. Either everyone gets screwed, or no one gets screwed. Seems fair, no?

Quote:

I'm sure you'd like to think so.

And I'm sure you'd like to not think so.

Quote:

There are avenues to take if you want visitation increased or enforced. But most times, it's choice, not circumstances, that keep one parent away from their kids.

Again, which is why it should be case by case. If a one parent won't let the other see the kids, and they still have to pay, it's a kick the nether region.

Quote:

It's funny, Tricks. You like to think I'm a raving feminist, but clearly if anyone is sexist here, it's you.

You are a raving feminist. You've shown that clearly before. If I am being sexist, it's not my intention.

[lily]

You are looking out for the men, regardless of the circumstances. You're assuming that men are screwed by this whole process, regardless of any facts that say otherwise.

I don't really care what you think, Tricks. The courts look out for the best interests of the children. If one or both parents wants to be immature, that's their issue. It shouldn't have any more impact on the kids than is absolutely necessary.

I knew a guy once that refused to pay support because he didn't get to see his kids. His wife wouldn't let him see the kids because he refused to pay. Who started it? Who cares? They were both wrong. The only losers here were the kids, who didn't get to see their dad and they had to go without some things he should have been providing.

I used to keep books. Too many men tried to split their income to hide it from their ex so they wouldn't have to pay so much. About the only truly responsible man who registered with the FMEP so that he could pay his ex what he owed so their son would be taken care of.

He was 21 tops.

[ziggy]

Tricks wrote:

lily wrote:

Blanketing.....

Right.

The fact is... the courts look for the best interests of the child(ren). That means both parents should have reasonable access, and both parents should take part in the finacial responsibilities. Just becasue one might shirk doesn't mean the other gets to too.

That's not the best for the kids.

Why should a father (who hasn't done anything wrong for arguments sake) be forced to pay child support, but can't see them.

Another thing, why is it almost always the father paying the support? Seems there is sexism inherent in the system.

Ask yourself that before you have sex next time.You bring kids into this world then their your responsibility and if you want to play the I dont see them then I withold support game then you should have had a vasectomy.

The kids allways get used in this type of who wins bullshit.Their not pawns to be used to see who was right,mom or dad.
Sadly though this is the case in most divorce's.
And By your comments I also see that this kind of thinking hasnt changed in the last 25 years.
I'll withold payments,that will show her!

I know a whack of guys who look back at their divorces from 20 to 30 years ago and just shake their heads at how stupid,petty and destructive their behaviour was for their kids at the time.Most are now older and hopefully wiser and wish they could go back in time to redo the damage they did to their kids.

Kids arent a bargaining chip to be used in a bad marriage or in a settlement dispute.I have to ask myself where you picked up the notion that they are because you seem to be condoning it.

I hope when you get married you remember that it's supposed to be for life,take the "till death do us part" seriously before slipping that ring on her finger in church in front of all your family and hers.Because in 7 to 10 years your relationship will be tested and divorce seems to be the norm these days so expect to lose everything and have to start all over from scratch,maybe a couple of times.
Unless your smart enough to sit back and settle things amicably.

[Blue_Nose]

lily wrote:

You are looking out for the men, regardless of the circumstances. You're assuming that men are screwed by this whole process, regardless of any facts that say otherwise.

Tricks seems to be treating the responsibility of having a child like it's buying a boat - he expects to get a certain experience from it, and if he doesn't get his money's worth, he's getting "screwed".

I'd say anyone that's left raising a child on their own, assisted financially or not, is the one getting "screwed".