 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / July 2004PLEASE....ADVICE!!!!
Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take my chances. I need help/advice. My daughter's ex-husband, who is in the military is getting ready to go to Japan (his choice). He has threatened my daughter that if she does not agree for their son to come to Japan (4 yrs old) next summer for a month he is going to stop paying child support. For the past three years he was living in Colorado and she would bring their son to her ex's parents house, because he felt if he could not see his dad, at least he could see his grandparents. This is not something she had to do, but did it because she felt it was in the child's best interest. Now he is back and in Biloxi until he has to leave for Japan. His visitation is every other week from 6 on Friday until 6 on Sunday. However, she lets their son go to see his father anytime he comes to town. She has no problem with this. When they divorced she left and left all the furniture, etc in his name because she did not need it. He had hit her and she was in the hospital (reason for divorce). I am not bashing him because he is a man. I am not a woman's libber and when my ex and I were divorced years ago, we remained friends until the day he died. I am upset because he talks bad about my daughter to their son, which I think is not in the best interest of this baby. He is remarried, yet continues to harrass my daughter and talk bad about her. I have told her not to say a bad word about him, because it will hurt their son. She has never had a problem with him or his parents having the child, however, does have a problem with him flying overseas with the state of the world right now. On top of that he is threatening to stop paying child support. (Louisiana is the state of divorce). Can he do this? Lawyers are an option, but an expense that with surgery coming up may not be affordable. Any advise?? All she expects is the child support (400/m) and to keep peace for the child's sake. > Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take my > chances. I need help/advice. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > surgery coming up may not be affordable. Any advise?? All she expects is the > child support (400/m) and to keep peace for the child's sake. It is in the interest of a child to be with his father. Many children grow up quite well in Japan. She ought to get a life and stop trying to prevent her son from having the advantage of a father. Bob  SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] Sorry, obviously I am in the wrong forum. I was hoing for unbiased opinions. My daughter is overly fair with her ex, going above and beyond what the court has ordered. She was concerned about his flying overseas in such troubling times....NOT keeping him away from his father. Her ex hit her and abused her....and was put in anger management by the military. He is not the greatest husband material, but is a good father. My daughter does have a life and has met a wonderful man. I am sorry if your ex was a bitch, we are not all that way. I was asking an opinion, not man bashing....sorry if you took it wrong. > > Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take my > > chances. I need help/advice. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All > posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > Sorry, obviously I am in the wrong forum. I was hoing for unbiased opinions. LOL. If you're looking for support for misandry this is the wrong place. > My daughter is overly fair with her ex, going above and beyond what the > court has ordered. She was concerned about his flying overseas in such > troubling times....NOT keeping him away from his father. Sounds like she's more fair than you. > Her ex hit her and > abused her....and was put in anger management by the military. Every woman a victim. Yada yada yada. Men=bad, women=good. The story never changes. > He is not the > greatest husband material, but is a good father. My daughter does have a > life and has met a wonderful man. I am sorry if your ex was a bitch, we are > not all that way. You obviously are. You have no clue about me. > I was asking an opinion, not man bashing....sorry if you took it wrong. You were man bashing, and still are. Sorry if you wanted sympathy for misandry. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] Just a note, completely disregard whatever Bob says. short > Sorry, obviously I am in the wrong forum. I was hoing for unbiased opinions. > My daughter is overly fair with her ex, going above and beyond what the [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All > > posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > Just a note, completely disregard whatever Bob says. Nice try sh.t. But that feminazi tactic of making men shut up and go away doesn't work any more. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ >> Just a note, completely disregard whatever Bob says. > >Nice try sh.t. But that feminazi tactic of making men shut up and go >away doesn't work any more. Nor do women cower to abrasive men anymore. > > Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take my > > chances. I need help/advice. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > grow up quite well in Japan. She ought to get a life and stop trying to > prevent her son from having the advantage of a father. Reminds me of the "Elian" case. It's not good enough for the AmeriKan government folks to keep the fathers of THIS country out of their children's lives; they attempted to do the same thing to a CUBAN father. It's like a cancer that just loves to spread itself. > Bob >>>Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take >> [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > lives; they attempted to do the same thing to a CUBAN father. It's like a > cancer that just loves to spread itself. Indeed. The Ilian case was an opportunity for every TV talking head to oppose fathers. FOX was probably the most outspoken against men. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] If a woman cannot afford to care for a child on her own then she should turn over custody to the father. If the father is unwilling or unable to take the child then he should pay his 50% share of the childs livings expenses and only lifestyle expenses as he sees fit. A reasonable person would expect if the child will be in Japan for a month the father will be supporting the child for that time and should not be expected to pay support. He will also be incurring a costly round trip flight for the child. Legally however he does not have a leg to stand on. > Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take my > chances. I need help/advice. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > surgery coming up may not be affordable. Any advise?? All she expects is the > child support (400/m) and to keep peace for the child's sake. I give up!!! I never said my daughter could not support her son. I said he is threatening to top paying child support. The other issue is the concern of safety. Let me reiterate. She is not keeping him from his child. He sees him all the time now. She is concerned for safety in traveling overseas. He is not withholding child support for one month...he is saying if she does not do things his way....he will never pay child support. > If a woman cannot afford to care for a child on her own then she should turn > over custody to the father. If the father is unwilling or unable to take [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > the > > child support (400/m) and to keep peace for the child's sake. Meleah wrote: >I give up!!! Don't give up, just ignore them. I never said my daughter could not support her son. I said he >is threatening to top paying child support. The other issue is the concern >of safety. You made yourself perfectly clear, but some don't let that get in the way of their tirads. Here's the deal. *If* your daughter has a court order for CS then she needs to get his wages garnished by the military. Once she does that she won't have to worry about his threats to stop paying. As far as a 4 yr old flying to Japan, first I'd look into how the airlines handle this. I wouldn't be surprised if children of that age are not allowed to fly unattended for that many hours. If they aren't your daughter could offer to fly with the child and be flown back, and then flown back to retrive him at the father's expenses. Or the father could do the same, as his expense. This could even be suggested *if* the airlines allow a child of that age fly unattended. What I would also do if I was your daughter is to find out how Japan looks at custody and if they fully honor the USA's custody orders. Just in case the father gets any funny ideas. Bottom line is once you get the wages garnished he will no longer have a threat to use with your daughter. The Japan thing can be pushed by the father, but it will most likely need to be decided by a judge, so that will mean her ex will need to take this into court to get it ironed out. I highly doubt many judges will feel it's ok to put a 4 yr old on a plane alone to fly overseas. Good Luck Mrs Indyguy >Let me reiterate. She is not keeping him from his child. He sees him all the >time now. She is concerned for safety in traveling overseas. He is not [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > Japan (his choice). He has threatened my daughter that if she does not >> agree > Meleah wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > need to take this into court to get it ironed out. I highly doubt many judges > will feel it's ok to put a 4 yr old on a plane alone to fly overseas. It won't matter what a judge rules. The airlines won't fly the kid to Japan without an adult companion. The term airlines use for flying minors without an adult is "Unaccompanied Minor." Here is United Airlines policy for unaccompanied minors. Under 5 - Won't let them fly. 5-7 - Fly on direct flights only. 8-11 - Travel within the U.S. with connections on United and to other airlines. 12-17 - Escort service available. United will not accept an unaccompanied minor to Japan. >> Meleah wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >It won't matter what a judge rules. The airlines won't fly the kid to Japan >without an adult companion. ==== Did I miss the post where she said the child would be flying alone? ==== ==== Gini asked: >In article <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob >Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >==== >Did I miss the post where she said the child would be flying alone? I think I might to be to blame for that assumption. I figured that is why the mother was so nervous about the 4 yr old flying to Japan. Sorry if I caused any confussion. Mrs Indyguy >==== >==== >Gini asked: ............... >>==== >>Did I miss the post where she said the child would be flying alone? >>=== >I think I might to be to blame for that assumption. I figured that is why the >mother was so nervous about the 4 yr old flying to Japan. Sorry if I caused any >confussion. === That does it! You're fired! === >Mrs Indyguy > >> Meleah wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > ==== > ==== No. But practically the child cannot travel alone without the company of an adult. And I believe the airlines are very cautious about not allowing a child to leave the U.S. with a person other than the CP. Remember the case where the judge ordered the plane to land and the airline to return the child to the origin city? That child was traveling in the company of the NCP and the court feared once the child left U.S. air space the child would not return. In that case, the airline did not follow their own procedures for checking the relationship between the child and the adult traveler. >> In article <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob >Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >own procedures for checking the relationship between the child and the adult >traveler. ==== Is it not now true that either parent must have a release from the other parent to take the child out of the country? ==== > ==== > Is it not now true that either parent must have a release from the other parent > to take the child out of the country? > ==== No, the US law is heavily biased for females and against men. The US government prohibits men from taking children out of the country without the female's permission, and will use it's agents in foreign countries to take children away from their fathers and "restore" the children to mothers, even when such action is illegal in the father's home country. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob Whiteside > says... > > > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > >news:cbql3s01sob@drn.newsguy.com... > >> In article <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > >Whiteside > >> says... > >> > > >> > > >> >"Indyguy1" <indyguy1@aol.com> wrote in message > >> >news:20040628201808.19468.00000776@mb-m17.aol.com... > >> >> Meleah wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >I give up!!! > >> >> > >> >> Don't give up, just ignore them. > >> >> > >> >> I never said my daughter could not support her son. I said he > >> >> >is threatening to top paying child support. The other issue is the > >> >concern > >> >> >of safety. > >> >> > >> >> You made yourself perfectly clear, but some don't let that get in the > >way > >> >of > >> >> their tirads. > >> >> > >> >> Here's the deal. *If* your daughter has a court order for CS then she > >> >needs to > >> >> get his wages garnished by the military. Once she does that she won't > >have > >> >to > >> >> worry about his threats to stop paying. > >> >> > >> >> As far as a 4 yr old flying to Japan, first I'd look into how the > >airlines > >> >> handle this. I wouldn't be surprised if children of that age are not > >> >allowed to > >> >> fly unattended for that many hours. If they aren't your daughter could > >> >offer to > >> >> fly with the child and be flown back, and then flown back to retrive > >him > >> >at > >> >> the father's expenses. Or the father could do the same, as his expense. > >> >This > >> >> could even be suggested *if* the airlines allow a child of that age fly > >> >> unattended. > >> >> > >> >> What I would also do if I was your daughter is to find out how Japan > >looks > >> >at > >> >> custody and if they fully honor the USA's custody orders. Just in case > >> >the > >> >> father gets any funny ideas. > >> >> > >> >> Bottom line is once you get the wages garnished he will no longer have > >a > >> >threat > >> >> to use with your daughter. The Japan thing can be pushed by the father, > >> >but it > >> >> will most likely need to be decided by a judge, so that will mean her > >ex > >> >will > >> >> need to take this into court to get it ironed out. I highly doubt many > >> >judges > >> >> will feel it's ok to put a 4 yr old on a plane alone to fly overseas. > >> > > >> >It won't matter what a judge rules. The airlines won't fly the kid to > >Japan > >> >without an adult companion. > >> ==== > >> Did I miss the post where she said the child would be flying alone? > >> ==== > >> ==== > > > >No. But practically the child cannot travel alone without the company of an > >adult. And I believe the airlines are very cautious about not allowing a > >child to leave the U.S. with a person other than the CP. > > > >Remember the case where the judge ordered the plane to land and the airline > >to return the child to the origin city? That child was traveling in the > >company of the NCP and the court feared once the child left U.S. air space > >the child would not return. In that case, the airline did not follow their > >own procedures for checking the relationship between the child and the adult > >traveler. > ==== > Is it not now true that either parent must have a release from the other parent > to take the child out of the country? Have never had to do that execpt for flying into Mexico.....and have taken my duaghter on many trips out of the country. > ==== > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to produce some documentation that I had permission to take him across the border from his mother. I had a notarized statement from her to giving me "permission" to transport him out of the US. Without it, I doubt I'd have been able to do so. The really odd feature is that I was traveling with a woman and her children (without the father present) of whom no such demands were made whatsoever. Sexism at it's finest. Phil #3 > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > ==== > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to produce some > documentation that I had permission to take him across the border from his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sexism at it's finest. > Phil #3 I took my daughter across the border on Sunday without a question > > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > > Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > > ==== > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to produce > some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I took my daughter across the border on Sunday without a question Why do you suppose it was different for you? > > > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Bob [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > > > > ==== > > > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to produce > > some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Why do you suppose it was different for you? As I previously posted.......I have travelled internationally with her many times, the ONLY time that required a notarized permission was traveling to Mexico, and that is required for all minors travelling there with only one parent, regardless of the sex. I have entered Ireland, Holland, Greece, Italy, Egypt, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic with her with absolutely no questions asked WRT custody etc. > > > > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > Bob [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to > produce [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Italy, Egypt, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic with her > with absolutely no questions asked WRT custody etc. Apparently, my question was unclear to you. Why is it that the other poster was required to produce documentation, but you were not? Could it be because he went to Canada, but you went to other countries? > > > > > > In article > <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > news:10e32sja24i7k16@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:FKfEc.17396$6r1.11380@fed1read06... > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > news:10e2uvh4qchq8b8@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > "Phil #3" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > > > news:ESdEc.4809$lh4.3460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to > > produce > > > > some > > > > > documentation that I had permission to take him across the border > from > > > his > > > > > mother. I had a notarized statement from her to giving me > "permission" > > > to > > > > > transport him out of the US. Without it, I doubt I'd have been able > to > > > do > > > > > so. > > > > > > > > > > The really odd feature is that I was traveling with a woman and her > > > > children > > > > > (without the father present) of whom no such demands were made > > > whatsoever. > > > > > Sexism at it's finest. > > > > > Phil #3 > > > > > > > > I took my daughter across the border on Sunday without a question > > > > > > Why do you suppose it was different for you? > > > > As I previously posted.......I have travelled internationally with her > many > > times, the ONLY time that required a notarized permission was traveling to > > Mexico, and that is required for all minors travelling there with only one > > parent, regardless of the sex. I have entered Ireland, Holland, Greece, > > Italy, Egypt, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic with her > > with absolutely no questions asked WRT custody etc. > > Apparently, my question was unclear to you. Why is it that the other poster > was required to produce documentation, but you were not? Could it be because > he went to Canada, but you went to other countries? I live about 10 miles from the canadian border and cross it all the time.....People around here ( except for Immigration and Customs) do not even think about it as "going out of the country" Get it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:10e2o9kq9tmhdd5@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:cbqq4q02b57@drn.newsguy.com... > > > > > > > In article > > <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > Bob > > > > > > Whiteside > > > > > > > says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:cbql3s01sob@drn.newsguy.com... > > > > > > > >> In article > > > > <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > >Whiteside > > > > > > > >> says... > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >"Indyguy1" <indyguy1@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > >> >news:20040628201808.19468.00000776@mb-m17.aol.com... > > > > > > > >> >> Meleah wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >I give up!!! > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> Don't give up, just ignore them. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> I never said my daughter could not support her son. I > > said > > > he > > > > > > > >> >> >is threatening to top paying child support. The other > > issue > > > > is > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >> >concern > > > > > > > >> >> >of safety. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> You made yourself perfectly clear, but some don't let > that > > > get > > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >way > > > > > > > >> >of > > > > > > > >> >> their tirads. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> Here's the deal. *If* your daughter has a court order > for > > CS > > > > > then > > > > > > she > > > > > > > >> >needs to > > > > > > > >> >> get his wages garnished by the military. Once she does > > that > > > > she > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > >have > > > > > > > >> >to > > > > > > > >> >> worry about his threats to stop paying. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> As far as a 4 yr old flying to Japan, first I'd look > into > > > how > > > > > the > > > > > > > >airlines > > > > > > > >> >> handle this. I wouldn't be surprised if children of that > > age > > > > are > > > > > > not > > > > > > > >> >allowed to > > > > > > > >> >> fly unattended for that many hours. If they aren't your > > > > daughter > > > > > > could > > > > > > > >> >offer to > > > > > > > >> >> fly with the child and be flown back, and then flown > back > > > to > > > > > > retrive > > > > > > > >him > > > > > > > >> >at > > > > > > > >> >> the father's expenses. Or the father could do the same, > as > > > his > > > > > > expense. > > > > > > > >> >This > > > > > > > >> >> could even be suggested *if* the airlines allow a child > of > > > > that > > > > > > age fly > > > > > > > >> >> unattended. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> What I would also do if I was your daughter is to find > out > > > how > > > > > > Japan > > > > > > > >looks > > > > > > > >> >at > > > > > > > >> >> custody and if they fully honor the USA's custody > orders. > > > > Just > > > > > in > > > > > > case > > > > > > > >> >the > > > > > > > >> >> father gets any funny ideas. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> Bottom line is once you get the wages garnished he will > no > > > > > longer > > > > > > have > > > > > > > >a > > > > > > > >> >threat > > > > > > > >> >> to use with your daughter. The Japan thing can be pushed > > by > > > > the > > > > > > father, > > > > > > > >> >but it > > > > > > > >> >> will most likely need to be decided by a judge, so that > > will > > > > > mean > > > > > > her > > > > > > > >ex > > > > > > > >> >will > > > > > > > >> >> need to take this into court to get it ironed out. I > > highly > > > > > doubt > > > > > > many > > > > > > > >> >judges > > > > > > > >> >> will feel it's ok to put a 4 yr old on a plane alone to > > fly > > > > > > overseas. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> >It won't matter what a judge rules. The airlines won't > fly > > > the > > > > > kid > > > > > > to > > > > > > > >Japan > > > > > > > >> >without an adult companion. > > > > > > > >> ==== > > > > > > > >> Did I miss the post where she said the child would be > flying > > > > alone? > > > > > > > >> ==== > > > > > > > >> ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No. But practically the child cannot travel alone without > the > > > > > company > > > > > > of an > > > > > > > >adult. And I believe the airlines are very cautious about > not > > > > > allowing > > > > > > a > > > > > > > >child to leave the U.S. with a person other than the CP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Remember the case where the judge ordered the plane to land > and > > > the > > > > > > airline > > > > > > > >to return the child to the origin city? That child was > > traveling > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > >company of the NCP and the court feared once the child left > > U.S. > > > > air > > > > > > space > > > > > > > >the child would not return. In that case, the airline did > not > > > > follow > > > > > > their > > > > > > > >own procedures for checking the relationship between the > child > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > adult > > > > > > > >traveler. > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > Is it not now true that either parent must have a release from > > the > > > > > other > > > > > > parent > > > > > > > to take the child out of the country? > > > > > > > > > > > > Have never had to do that execpt for flying into Mexico.....and > > have > > > > > taken > > > > > > my duaghter on many trips out of the country. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other than the one-time problem of taking my son into Canada (I've only taken him once), I have had far more problems getting back into the US from Canada. I've been to Canada and back many times over the past 15 years and the US agents are brash, rude and downright hostile and have been every single time while the Canadian agents have been polite and friendly, even during the one time the vehicle in which I was riding and it's entire contents were searched inside one of the garages. I've crossed the border at three separate border crossings yet the treatment in each direction is the same: pleasant entering Canada, rude re-entering the US. Once upon re-entering the US, I was even accused of being an ex-con. I have never been jailed once for anything, in fact, I am an ex-COP, not an ex-con. :) Phil #3 > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 292 lines] > > > > > Other than the one-time problem of taking my son into Canada (I've only > taken him once), I have had far more problems getting back into the US from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > re-entering the US, I was even accused of being an ex-con. I have never been > jailed once for anything, in fact, I am an ex-COP, not an ex-con. :) And I thought it was only in Detroit that it was like that......................... > Phil #3 > [quoted text clipped - 308 lines] > > > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > time.....People around here ( except for Immigration and Customs) do not > even think about it as "going out of the country" Get it? Yes, but my question has gone unanswered. Why is it that the other poster was required to produce documentation, but you were not? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 230 lines] > > > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > > > "Phil #3" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ESdEc.4809$lh4.3460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... <snip> > Yes, but my question has gone unanswered. IRONY ALERT > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > IRONY ALERT What the heck are you talking about? > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > IRONY ALERT Now that's funny, Moon! <snicker> > > "Moon Shyne" <moonshyne__@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:2kl0prF386ppU1@uni-berlin.de... > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:JI7Fc.29127$6r1.6183@fed1read06... > > > > > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > news:10e5dm938rqqr68@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > news:SAmEc.17423$6r1.3562@fed1read06... > > > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:10e32sja24i7k16@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:FKfEc.17396$6r1.11380@fed1read06... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:10e2uvh4qchq8b8@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Phil #3" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:ESdEc.4809$lh4.3460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Yes, but my question has gone unanswered. > > > > IRONY ALERT > > Now that's funny, Moon! <snicker> I think Chris is competing with Bob for NG moron. > > > I think Chris is competing with Bob for NG moron. What, are you trying to pass off the trophy? SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] P Fritz wrote: > > > > "Moon Shyne" <moonshyne__@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I think Chris is competing with Bob for NG moron. I find it amazing that there have been so few quality newbees on this ng. Those of us that have been posting here for many years have fought our battles and some of us still disagree on many points but at least our debates were interesting. LOL Mrs Indyguy > > > > >P Fritz wrote: > >> > >> > "Moon Shyne" <moonshyne__@hotmail.com> wrote in message ................... >> > > > >> > > > Yes, but my question has gone unanswered. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >of us that have been posting here for many years have fought our battles and >some of us still disagree on many points =========== Yeah--You're still wrong about that college thing ;-) =========== but at least our debates were >interesting. LOL > >Mrs Indyguy ============= But--Chris has been around a long time--just never posted anything except one or two word responses. Seems Bob just aroused his inner child. I guess that makes Chris NG moronette. (Pssst, Chris. I know, you don't understand. It's OK.) ============= ============= > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message > news:10e5dm938rqqr68@corp.supernews.com... > > > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > news:SAmEc.17423$6r1.3562@fed1read06... > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > news:10e32sja24i7k16@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote in message > > > > news:FKfEc.17396$6r1.11380@fed1read06... > > > > > > > > > > "P.Fritz" <paulNOfritzSPAM@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > > > news:10e2uvh4qchq8b8@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Phil #3" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > > > > > news:ESdEc.4809$lh4.3460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded > to > > > > produce > > > > > > some > > > > > > > documentation that I had permission to take him across the > > border > > > from > > > > > his > > > > > > > mother. I had a notarized statement from her to giving me > > > "permission" > > > > > to > > > > > > > transport him out of the US. Without it, I doubt I'd have been > > able > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > > > so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The really odd feature is that I was traveling with a woman > and > > her > > > > > > children > > > > > > > (without the father present) of whom no such demands were made > > > > > whatsoever. > > > > > > > Sexism at it's finest. > > > > > > > Phil #3 > > > > > > > > > > > > I took my daughter across the border on Sunday without a > question > > > > > > > > > > Why do you suppose it was different for you? > > > > > > > > As I previously posted.......I have travelled internationally with > her > > > many > > > > times, the ONLY time that required a notarized permission was > > traveling to > > > > Mexico, and that is required for all minors travelling there with > only > > one > > > > parent, regardless of the sex. I have entered Ireland, Holland, > > Greece, > > > > Italy, Egypt, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic with > > her > > > > with absolutely no questions asked WRT custody etc. > > > > > > Apparently, my question was unclear to you. Why is it that the other > > poster > > > was required to produce documentation, but you were not? Could it be > > because > > > he went to Canada, but you went to other countries? > > > > I live about 10 miles from the canadian border and cross it all the > > time.....People around here ( except for Immigration and Customs) do not > > even think about it as "going out of the country" Get it? > > Yes, but my question has gone unanswered. Why is it that the other poster > was required to produce documentation, but you were not? Free hint for the clueless......since I was NOT the one asking the questions, there is absolutely no way to answer the question.....sheesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:10e2o9kq9tmhdd5@corp.supernews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:cbqq4q02b57@drn.newsguy.com... > > > > > > > > > In article > > > > <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > Whiteside > > > > > > > > > says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:cbql3s01sob@drn.newsguy.com... > > > > > > > > > >> In article > > > > > > <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > >Whiteside > > > > > > > > > >> says... > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >"Indyguy1" <indyguy1@aol.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >> >news:20040628201808.19468.00000776@mb-m17.aol.com... > > > > > > > > > >> >> Meleah wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >I give up!!! > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Don't give up, just ignore them. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> I never said my daughter could not support her > son. > > I > > > > said > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > >> >> >is threatening to top paying child support. The > > other > > > > issue > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >> >concern > > > > > > > > > >> >> >of safety. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> You made yourself perfectly clear, but some don't > > let > > > that > > > > > get > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >way > > > > > > > > > >> >of > > > > > > > > > >> >> their tirads. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Here's the deal. *If* your daughter has a court > > order > > > for > > > > CS > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > she > > > > > > > > > >> >needs to > > > > > > > > > >> >> get his wages garnished by the military. Once she > > does > > > > that > > > > > > she > > > > > > > > won't > > > > > > > > > >have > > > > > > > > > >> >to > > > > > > > > > >> >> worry about his threats to stop paying. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> As far as a 4 yr old flying to Japan, first I'd > look > > > into > > > > > how > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >airlines > > > > > > > > > >> >> handle this. I wouldn't be surprised if children > of > > that > > > > age > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > >> >allowed to > > > > > > > > > >> >> fly unattended for that many hours. If they aren't > > your > > > > > > daughter > > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > >> >offer to > > > > > > > > > >> >> fly with the child and be flown back, and then > > flown > > > back > > > > > to > > > > > > > > retrive > > > > > > > > > >him > > > > > > > > > >> >at > > > > > > > > > >> >> the father's expenses. Or the father could do the > > same, > > > as > > > > > his > > > > > > > > expense. > > > > > > > > > >> >This > > > > > > > > > >> >> could even be suggested *if* the airlines allow a > > child > > > of > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > age fly > > > > > > > > > >> >> unattended. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> What I would also do if I was your daughter is to > > find > > > out > > > > > how > > > > > > > > Japan > > > > > > > > > >looks > > > > > > > > > >> >at > > > > > > > > > >> >> custody and if they fully honor the USA's custody > > > orders. > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > >> >the > > > > > > > > > >> >> father gets any funny ideas. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Bottom line is once you get the wages garnished he > > will > > > no > > > > > > > longer > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > >a > > > > > > > > > >> >threat > > > > > > > > > >> >> to use with your daughter. The Japan thing can be > > pushed > > > > by > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > father, > > > > > > > > > >> >but it > > > > > > > > > >> >> will most likely need to be decided by a judge, so > > that > > > > will > > > > > > > mean > > > > > > > > her > > > > > > > > > >ex > > > > > > > > > >> >will > > > > > > > > > >> >> need to take this into court to get it ironed out. > I > > > > highly > > > > > > > doubt > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > >> >judges > > > > > > > > > >> >> will feel it's ok to put a 4 yr old on a plane > alone > > to > > > > fly > > > > > > > > overseas. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >It won't matter what a judge rules. The airlines > > won't > > > fly > > > > > the > > > > > > > kid > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >Japan > > > > > > > > > >> >without an adult companion. > > > > > > > > > >> ==== > > > > > > > > > >> Did I miss the post where she said the child would be > > > flying > > > > > > alone? > > > > > > > > > >> ==== > > > > > > > > > >> ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >No. But practically the child cannot travel alone > > without > > > the > > > > > > > company > > > > > > > > of an > > > > > > > > > >adult. And I believe the airlines are very cautious > > about > > > not > > > > > > > allowing > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > >child to leave the U.S. with a person other than the > CP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Remember the case where the judge ordered the plane to > > land > > > and > > > > > the > > > > > > > > airline > > > > > > > > > >to return the child to the origin city? That child was > > > > traveling > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > >company of the NCP and the court feared once the child > > left > > > > U.S. > > > > > > air > > > > > > > > space > > > > > > > > > >the child would not return. In that case, the airline > > did > > > not > > > > > > follow > > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > >own procedures for checking the relationship between > the > > > child > > > > > and > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > adult > > > > > > > > > >traveler. > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > Is it not now true that either parent must have a > release > > from > > > > the > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > parent > > > > > > > > > to take the child out of the country? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have never had to do that execpt for flying into > > Mexico.....and > > > > have > > > > > > > taken > > > > > > > > my duaghter on many trips out of the country. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > > > > "Phil #3" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:ESdEc.4809$lh4.3460@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was > demanded [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > Free hint for the clueless......since I was NOT the one asking the > questions, there is absolutely no way to answer the question..... Hint: Non sequitur. > sheesh > [quoted text clipped - 275 lines] > > > > > > > > > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > > Hint: Non sequitur. Hint You should look up the term. Your question was "Why do you suppose it was different for you?" (WRT being questioned at the border) My response "since I was NOT the one asking the questions, there is absolutely no way to answer the question" Seems to me YOU have the problem following the thread. Please explain how I (or you or bob or anyone else for that matter) am supposed to know what customs and immigration on either side of the border are actually thinking when one is questioned differently than another........I won't be holding my breath. BTW Don't bother with some conspiracy blather. You really are in a competition with bob for NG moron, aren't you? > > sheesh > > [quoted text clipped - 284 lines] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "P. Fritz" <paulfritzREMOVEME@voyager.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > Seems to me YOU have the problem following the thread. How's that? > Please explain how I (or you or bob or anyone else for that matter) am > supposed to know what customs and immigration on either side of the border > are actually thinking I didn't ask what ANYONE was thinking. > when one is questioned differently than > another........I won't be holding my breath. BTW Don't bother with some > conspiracy blather. > > You really are in a competition with bob for NG moron, aren't you? Ad hominem......................... next. > > > sheesh > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In article > > > > > > > > > <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > >Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 266 lines] > > > > > > > > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to produce some > documentation that I had permission to take him across the border from his [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Sexism at it's finest. > Phil #3 Indeed. US law, and perhaps Canadian too, presumes that the mother has custody and authority. The father, as you found out, has none. There are no equal rights in US law today. Bob SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] > > I took my son into Canada several years ago and was demanded to produce some > > documentation that I had permission to take him across the border from his [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > custody and authority. The father, as you found out, has none. There > are no equal rights in US law today. That's pretty much a given that the woman has custody. Such action just goes to show that the system is so biased against men that they don't even check the woman because they already know that she most likely has custody. This goes along the lines of not checking citizenship of a blonde hair, blue-eyed, person who speaks perfect English entering the U.S. from Mexico. It's pretty much a given that they are NOT a Mexican citizen. > Bob > >> In article <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > >Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > to take the child out of the country? > ==== Not on a per trip basis. Here is how I understand it. In 2001 Congress passed the Two Parent Law for a child to get a passport. Both parents must sign off on the passport application. In cases with a custody decree the parent with custody must document they have the right to sole custody on the application, or if they have joint custody the right to allow the child to travel and/or the court controls the child's travel. These procedures are intended to prevent a person who is not authorized to take the child out of the country from getting a passport without the other parents knowledge. Passports for children under 14 are valid for only 5 years. Custodial parents are instructed to put their child's passport information in the federal database so they can prevent an international abduction. Airlines set up their own procedures for international travel, but most require proof of age and identity including the passport. Travel to and from Mexico and Canada is less restricted and the child is required to have the same passport or visa documentation as the accompanying parent. This stuff is enforced through the State Department and Interpol using the Hague Convention Treaty. Since middle eastern countries did not sign the Hague Treaty parents are advised by the State Department not to allow their children to travel there. >"Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote ..................... >> ==== >> Is it not now true that either parent must have a release from the other [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Hague Treaty parents are advised by the State Department not to allow their >children to travel there. === Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking it applied to getting a passport but wasn't sure. === === > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > intended to prevent a person who is not authorized to take the child out of > the country from getting a passport without the other parents knowledge. If the custodial parent signs for the passport, that effectively allows the NCP to take the child out of the country, no? > Passports for children under 14 are valid for only 5 years. Custodial > parents are instructed to put their child's passport information in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from Mexico and Canada is less restricted and the child is required to have > the same passport or visa documentation as the accompanying parent. Children travel freely to Mexico all the time without passports. > This stuff is enforced through the State Department and Interpol using the > Hague Convention Treaty. Since middle eastern countries did not sign the > Hague Treaty parents are advised by the State Department not to allow their > children to travel there. > > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > > Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > If the custodial parent signs for the passport, that effectively allows the > NCP to take the child out of the country, no? Not if the CP retains physical possession of the passport. If the NCP, or anyone else, gets ahold of the child's passport the State Department database can put a hold on the child's travel. > > Passports for children under 14 are valid for only 5 years. Custodial > > parents are instructed to put their child's passport information in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Children travel freely to Mexico all the time without passports. Each country has different requirements. The passport is technically for re-entry back into the U.S. and the U.S. government does not require a passport to return to the U.S. from Mexico. > > This stuff is enforced through the State Department and Interpol using the > > Hague Convention Treaty. Since middle eastern countries did not sign the > > Hague Treaty parents are advised by the State Department not to allow > their > > children to travel there. > > > > In article <wA5Ec.4535$lh4.4251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > > > Whiteside [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] > re-entry back into the U.S. and the U.S. government does not require a > passport to return to the U.S. from Mexico. So much for the federal database to prevent international abduction. > > > This stuff is enforced through the State Department and Interpol using > the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > their > > > children to travel there. > > "Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message > news:cbql3s01sob@drn.newsguy.com... > > In article <9c4Ec.4433$lh4.2699@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob > Whiteside > > says... > > > > > > > > >"Indyguy1" <indyguy1@aol.com> wrote in message > > >news:20040628201808.19468.00000776@mb-m17.aol.com... > > >> Meleah wrote: > > >> > > >> >I give up!!! > > >> > > >> Don't give up, just ignore them. > > >> > > >> I never said my daughter could not support her son. I said he > > >> >is threatening to top paying child support. The other issue is the > > >concern > > >> >of safety. > > >> > > >> You made yourself perfectly clear, but some don't let that get in the > way > > >of > > >> their tirads. > > >> > > >> Here's the deal. *If* your daughter has a court order for CS then she > > >needs to > > >> get his wages garnished by the military. Once she does that she won't > have > > >to > > >> worry about his threats to stop paying. > > >> > > >> As far as a 4 yr old flying to Japan, first I'd look into how the > airlines > > >> handle this. I wouldn't be surprised if children of that age are not > > >allowed to > > >> fly unattended for that many hours. If they aren't your daughter could > > >offer to > > >> fly with the child and be flown back, and then flown back to retrive > him > > >at > > >> the father's expenses. Or the father could do the same, as his expense. > > >This > > >> could even be suggested *if* the airlines allow a child of that age fly > > >> unattended. > > >> > > >> What I would also do if I was your daughter is to find out how Japan > looks > > >at > > >> custody and if they fully honor the USA's custody orders. Just in case > > >the > > >> father gets any funny ideas. > > >> > > >> Bottom line is once you get the wages garnished he will no longer have > a > > >threat > > >> to use with your daughter. The Japan thing can be pushed by the father, > > >but it > > >> will most likely need to be decided by a judge, so that will mean her > ex > > >will > > >> need to take this into court to get it ironed out. I highly doubt many > > >judges > > >> will feel it's ok to put a 4 yr old on a plane alone to fly overseas. > > > > > >It won't matter what a judge rules. The airlines won't fly the kid to > Japan > > >without an adult companion. > > ==== > > Did I miss the post where she said the child would be flying alone? > > ==== > > ==== > > No. But practically the child cannot travel alone without the company of an > adult. And I believe the airlines are very cautious about not allowing a > child to leave the U.S. with a person other than the CP. > > Remember the case where the judge ordered the plane to land and the airline > to return the child to the origin city? That child was traveling in the > company of the NCP and the court feared once the child left U.S. air space > the child would not return. In that case, the airline did not follow their > own procedures for checking the relationship between the child and the adult > traveler. Both my ex and I have flown frequently out of the country alone with our daughter. The ONLY time that either of us were required to show proof/permission was when I went to Mexico, and it was the Mexican government that demanded it. > > > > > > "Gini" <ginih@jlink.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > > > > Apparently Paul, you must be special. ;) T Bob wrote: >> Meleah wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >United will not accept an unaccompanied minor to Japan. Thats good info to know, Bob. Thanks for posting it. Mrs Indyguy No need to get really agistated about this situation. I think Don said it very plainly in that being under a CS order there's really nothing he can do except pay or go to jail...granted not really the best choice, but that's the one we're saddled with. If he does hold out, he'll eventually be found in contempt, and will answer for it eventually. Even if he does or not, there's no way short of a custody battle that he'll get the kid with him to Japan. I'm not too familiar (yet) with visitations, but there obviously has to be something governing across borders visits much less overseas visits. I will actually do the one thing that you probably don't expect from anyone here. It does seem that the mother is allowing the father to do everything he can in maintaining a relationship with his son. That is commendable and should be a note to everyone subjected to the CS system. Perhaps the ex has to see it from the standpoint that the visit overseas might just be a little too much. But hey, if that's what he's going to want by forcing contempt on himself - he should know exactly what's going to happen eventually. Just tell the mother that the "free money" is going to stop temporarily and to be prepared for that. Thanks so much for your opinion. I guess if the only choice is for him to go to jail, she will not go through with anything. She will not see her son's father in jail over money. Her main issue was the overseas traveling. I hung up with her a little while ago. Her ex told her that he has one month a year off. She asked since he would have to fly here to get him would he have a problem just keeping him a month state side. Hopefully she will get a positive response from that. > No need to get really agistated about this situation. I think Don said it > very plainly in that being under a CS order there's really nothing he can [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > mother that the "free money" is going to stop temporarily and to be > prepared for that. Personally, it would be a good thing if the ex got a good view of this newsgroup. Once he see some of the other stories that get played out here, he'll thank his lucky stars for such an understanding woman and shut his mouth for a while. And if there were more understanding women out there then the proper vent of all this fury would be directed at the correct source - the CS system - not the ex's and the kids. First, ignore Bob. He is all over alt.child.support spouting his hatred toward women. He cannot see a person past his hatred, so his comments in NO WAY are reflected at you personally. If your daughter's ex is military, he'd be playing an even bigger whopper of a game to stop paying child support than a simple contempt charge in the USA legal system. The military takes financial obligations quite seriously. Your daughter may wish to contact his commanding officer and explain the situation. Perhaps the commanding officer could have a little talk with him and recommend a compromise to the visitation such as a month in the states as you say in another post. The commanding officer could also enlighten him as to the military consequences of what he proposes to do. Any REASONABLE person can understand why a parent would have difficulty sending a child overseas ESPECIALLY at this time in history. FURTHERMORE, the age of the child makes this an unrealistic expectation for travel to visit. Lacking a compromise, I don't know as though she has any legal right to deny him visitation based upon his residence if the court order does not specify. She may be held in contempt for disallowing visitation, although her argument may have some bearing. THAT is a crap shoot if it is not spelled out. It may not comfort you, but the military will not allow children in a hot zone whether it be visitation or otherwise. When my best friend and her husband (both military) were deployed to Korea about 20 years ago, the children had to remain in the states... period... end of story. So any place the military would ALLOW children should be relatively safe. As we have seen, air travel has never been guaranteed safe, not even in the USA... but, then again, neither is going to school. >Hmmm..ok. I heard that this was a forum for mainly men, but I will take my >chances. I need help/advice. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >surgery coming up may not be affordable. Any advise?? All she expects is the >child support (400/m) and to keep peace for the child's sake. > First, ignore Bob. He is all over alt.child.support spouting his > hatred toward women. He cannot see a person past his hatred, so his > comments in NO WAY are reflected at you personally. Beverly's hatred of men does not make anyone else wrong. Beverly is all over a.c.s spouting her hatred toward men. SHe cannot see a person past her hatred, so her comments in NO WAY are feflected at anyone personally. SignatureWhen did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] Thanks to all for the advice. Actually, the court did place restrictions on her husband and the child is not allowed out of the parish they live in (same as county). He says he will get this changed in court....ah...well. We will see. My daughter did just call and tell me that he sent her email apologizing for the things he said to her last night (making remarks about her dad, who was killed in a car accident last year). He said he was angry with his present wife and took it out on her. Oh, well, we will see. Again, thanks for all the advice. Much appreciated! > First, ignore Bob. He is all over alt.child.support spouting his > hatred toward women. He cannot see a person past his hatred, so his [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >surgery coming up may not be affordable. Any advise?? All she expects is the > >child support (400/m) and to keep peace for the child's sake. and the only way he'll stop paying is if he terminates employment...make sure your daughter has an open IV-D (child support) case in her local parish. Have them initiate a wage withholding to collect support as it becomes due. So long as the child support order is not a 'direct-pay' order there should be no problem with this. Thanks for the information Frank. I will have her check into that. > and the only way he'll stop paying is if he terminates employment...make > sure your daughter has an open IV-D (child support) case in her local > parish. Have them initiate a wage withholding to collect support as it > becomes due. So long as the child support order is not a 'direct-pay' > order there should be no problem with this. > however, does have a problem with him flying overseas with the state of the > world right now Do I have to say that this argument is crap, isn't it obvious? Your daughter's ex is right in threatening to withold wife-support if this is the only reason she can come up with. What're the chances of a plane bound for japan being hijacked or bombed? >> however, does have a problem with him flying overseas with the state of the > world right now > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What're the chances of a plane bound for japan being hijacked or >bombed? What were the chances that planes would be hijacked in the USA and flown into tall buildings? Most citizens were shocked because we did not believe this could happen. Now we don't know what to believe. Whether there is a real threat or not, can you blame her for being a bit scared? > What were the chances that planes would be hijacked in the USA and > flown into tall buildings? Most citizens were shocked because we did > not believe this could happen. Now we don't know what to believe. > Whether there is a real threat or not, can you blame her for being a > bit scared? Yes, I can > > however, does have a problem with him flying overseas with the state of the > world right now > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What're the chances of a plane bound for japan being hijacked or > bombed? The odds are better toward winning the lottery, twice. There are many flights between Japan and the US and Europe and the US daily without a problem. One is far safer in an any commercial airplane than in an average automobile in any average American city. Phil #3 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.