 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / January 2008a little advice needed
This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband put a temporary restraining order on me because i wanted to move an hour away and he thought i was gonna take the kids with me and not bring them back. Which was never mentioned or anything. Plus an argument between my brother and father happened while my children were there the last day i seen them. i havent seen them at all in six months and he threatens me with if hes not getting a child support check i cant talk to them and i can only talk to them two nights a week before seven. here lately he has been getting child support but not letting me talk to them at all (he wont answer his phone). he threatens me by saying he will take me back to court since i am four thousand dollars behind in child support. Anyone have any advice on this at all. > This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I > currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > thousand > dollars behind in child support. Anyone have any advice on this at all. ==== File a petition to enforce visitation. No atty. needed. Child support is a different matter unconnected to visitation. He cannot withhold visitation due to unpaid support. Has the restraining order been lifted? no. he wont lift it. he says it cant be unless i take it back to court . >> This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I >> currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to visitation. He cannot withhold visitation due to unpaid support. Has the >restraining order been lifted?  Signaturesteph the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was taking them with me and not bringing them back. the restraining order has nothing to do with the child support. but he is not letting me talk to them cause we have had some "Myspace wars " going on. just childish stuff >> This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I >> currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to visitation. He cannot withhold visitation due to unpaid support. Has the >restraining order been lifted? Signaturesteph > the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was > taking > them with me and not bringing them back. the restraining order has nothing > to > do with the child support. but he is not letting me talk to them cause we > have had some "Myspace wars " going on. just childish stuff This doesn't sound quite right. Judges will sign just about anything when it comes to RO's and they sign them ex parte so you have to ask for a hearing to give your side of the story. But an RO should not be used to modify the visitation terms in a divorce decree. And you have a Constitutional right to live wherever you want. Re your other comment - He can have the RO rescinded by telling the court it is no longer needed. In any event, RO's have expiration dates, but they can be re-upped. My personal opinion of RO's is they are attempts to control the other party. They do not protect anyone from anything. They are just pieces of paper that make people feel powerful. As an example - my ex knew I was taking our children on a vacation trip to an adjoining state to see my realtives. She got an RO telling me I could not take the children out of state. I got it rescinded, but the issue was she was just being nasty about a lot of things to give me a hard time. he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told me i have to take him back to court first. >> the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was >> taking [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >rescinded, but the issue was she was just being nasty about a lot of things >to give me a hard time. Signaturesteph > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told me > i > have to take him back to court first. === Why haven't you done that? ==== >>> the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was >>> taking [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>things >>to give me a hard time. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told me > > i > > have to take him back to court first. > === > Why haven't you done that? Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place? > ==== > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >>things > >>to give me a hard time. > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >> > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Better question: Why did she forfeit her children in the FIRST place? === Why is that a better question? I see no relevance. === === Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote > >> > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > === > Why is that a better question? I see no relevance. She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current predicament............... WHY? > === > === >> > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >> >> > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > She had to forfeit her children in order to be in her current > predicament............... WHY? === Are you saying that she might be abusive? That could be relevant. Hadn't thought of that. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > > > >> > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Are you saying that she might be abusive? > That could be relevant. Hadn't thought of that. Not exactly what I had in mind. My point is that she voluntarily surrendered her children to the father. Remember? It's the FATHER who's on trial in "family" court", not the mother. >> >> > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >> >> >> > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > surrendered > her children to the father. There is what we think, what we know, and what we can prove. I say your conclusion is based on what you think because you can't possibly know that is true and you can't prove it either. Remember? It's the FATHER who's on trial in > "family" court", not the mother. Family court is a civil matter without a jury so therefore the proceedings are called hearings and only require a lot of BS playing to a judge's predictability for rulings. In Family Court most of the "evidence" is made up and tailored to influence the judge's decision. There are no trials as in criminal proceedings for either party in Family Court. If there were trials the outcomes would be more father-friendly. >>> >> > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >>> >> >> > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > trials as in criminal proceedings for either party in Family Court. If > there were trials the outcomes would be more father-friendly. ======= They are called "trials" in FL. Sounds a little silly but that's what they call it. "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote in > ======= > They are called "trials" in FL. Sounds a little silly but that's what they > call it. It becomes a trial when the amount of money defines a Felony Failure to pay C$. Just a quick railroad job so everyone else can get back to their golf game. > >> "kennyfan06" <u40691@uwe> wrote > >> > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > === > Why is that a better question? I see no relevance. > === > === I do see relevance if she does not have the children. It says a lot about a mother. It's really rare that a mother lose custody of her children. This lady is hiding something. >"scaredfather" wrote > I do see relevance if she does not have the children. It says a lot > about a mother. It's really rare that a mother lose custody of her > children. This lady is hiding something. === Well, I do know several custodial dads. Actually, I know more custodial dads than custodial moms. In every case, the mother just didn't want custody and/or thought they'd be better off with their dad. If my dh and I were splitting (which we are not), I'd be going alone. My boys are simply closer to their dad. I would NEVER take them away from him. He is their world. When my ex and I split, we had no custody arrangement. The boys were free to mingle between parents and they did. I do not believe kids should be property to be divided upon divorce. I shudder at the thought. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > >"scaredfather" wrote > > I do see relevance if she does not have the children. It says a lot [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than custodial moms. In every case, the mother just didn't want custody > and/or thought they'd be better off with their dad. Key phrase: "just didn't want". > If my dh and I were > splitting (which we are not), I'd be going alone. My boys are simply closer > to their dad. I would NEVER take them away from him. He is their world. When > my ex and I split, we had no custody arrangement. The boys were free to > mingle between parents and they did. I do not believe kids should be > property to be divided upon divorce. I shudder at the thought. > he wont lift the restraining order i have tried to ask him too. he told me i > have to take him back to court first. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I don't think the RO can trump a judge's decision on visitation, or custody. Correct if I am wrong, but the RO and CC/CS would both be civil cases (except in cases of domestic violence), so wouldn't the judge who issued the RO have to stipulate in the documents that visitation is rescinded, or schedule a show cause hearing as to why it should be rescinded? I would file for the contempt and document everything you do to gain access to your children, and what things your ex-does to block access to the children. There's something missing...... It would be wise to read the RO carefully and make sure it says your access/visitation with the children are suspended or disallowed. Chances are the RO restrains you from leaving the jurisdiction with the children, but not bar you from your visitation, or access to the children. > > the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was > > taking [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > rescinded, but the issue was she was just being nasty about a lot of things > to give me a hard time. ...My personal opinion of RO's is they are attempts to control the other party." It's all mind game. If I were you, I would show up to his house and take my kids w/me on my days. The cops will not do anything. This sounds like k-fed and britney. You must of done s/thing really bad to lose custody of your children. I'm not here to judge but it sounds like you are not telling the whole story. ok hold up a minute............everyone is attacking me here......read my story again....and i am leaving nothing out. i cant go to his house and just take my kids. he put a restraining order on me because i was gonna move an hour away. i do not and never have abused my kids in any way shape or fashion. he has custody only because i didnt have the money for a lawyer at the time of the divorce and he got everything! including my children. I have nothing to hide here. You all must not know anymore about the tennessee state laws than i do. >> > the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was >> > taking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >really bad to lose custody of your children. I'm not here to judge but >it sounds like you are not telling the whole story. Signaturesteph > ok hold up a minute............everyone is attacking me here......read my > story again....and i am leaving nothing out. i cant go to his house and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to hide here. You all must not know anymore about the tennessee state laws > than i do. I think people are wonering about him getting custody because the vast majority of the time it is the woman that gets custody and the father that ends up with the short end of the stick. I can see how he could possibly get a restraining order preventing you from moving the dhildren an hour away, but how does that keep you from seeing the children at all. What is the wording in the restraining order? >>> > the restraining order was for me wanting to move and he thought i was >>> > taking [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>really bad to lose custody of your children. I'm not here to judge but >>it sounds like you are not telling the whole story. it just says it suspends my visitation rights.doesnt say for how long >> ok hold up a minute............everyone is attacking me here......read my >> story again....and i am leaving nothing out. i cant go to his house and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>>really bad to lose custody of your children. I'm not here to judge but >>>it sounds like you are not telling the whole story. Signaturesteph > This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I > currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > thousand > dollars behind in child support. Anyone have any advice on this at all. Like Gini said - CS payments and visitation are legally unrelated. What that means is your contact with the children is not dependent on whether or not you pay CS on time. Your divorce decree should spell out the terms of visitation (some states call it access). If the terms are not being followed you can suggest to your ex-husband your option to file a Motion For Contempt of Court to force your right to visitation. I would keep that legal option very low key by saying you want to work it out between the two of you as adults and not have to get the court involved with a contempt proceeding. If your decree has more generic visitation language (something like reasonable and seasonal visitation) you can get what each court calls their "standard visitation order". Most of them are very structured and detailed so they are not flexible enough to meet the realities of parenting. But they do lay out a schedule for every other weekend, alternating holidays, birthdays, summer vacations, etc. Many states are adopting legislation to allow the parents to develop and agree on what are called Parenting Plans. They are usually put together through a court related mediation facilitator and approved by the judge. They are modeled after the specific lifestyles of the parents and children and go so far as to detail if changes need to be made to the schedule, how the parents will communicate and be given compensatory time for any adjustments. thanks for all the comments. but we do have a parenting plan and a schedule of every other weekend and holidays. but the judge signed this RO and i havent been able to see them at all in six months because of it. his mom and wife now both work at our courthouse. his mom has been there for 20 years as a clerk and his wife a few years now. she is in the juvenile department of the courthouse. i live in Tennessee. >> This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I >> currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >the parents will communicate and be given compensatory time for any >adjustments. Signaturesteph > thanks for all the comments. but we do have a parenting plan and a > schedule [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a clerk and his wife a few years now. she is in the juvenile department of > the courthouse. i live in Tennessee. So if you have a parenting plan in place that covers your visitation rights, there must be some valid reason the court is not willing to enforce the existing order. What are you restrained from doing? >> thanks for all the comments. but we do have a parenting plan and a >> schedule [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > rights, there must be some valid reason the court is not willing to > enforce the existing order. What are you restrained from doing? === We seem to be missing some key pieces of information here. i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move and he thought i was gonna take the children and not bring them back. Swear to god thats the only reason! >> thanks for all the comments. but we do have a parenting plan and a >> schedule [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >there must be some valid reason the court is not willing to enforce the >existing order. What are you restrained from doing? Signaturesteph > i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move and he > thought i was gonna take the children and not bring them back. Swear to god [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > steph First, you don't have anything to prove to these people! Let's do this. 1. what court issued the RO? Was it criminal court or civil court? 2. If criminal court issued the RO, was the judge aware that there was a custody/visitation schedule already established? 3. Have you filed an appeal? If not, do so NOW! 4. What does the RO guidelines? (Are you aware that you can sue the county in a civil matter for bias since the ex's family works there an could have persuaded a judge with his decision?) 5. What proof was presented, and is it anything substancial? (If the proof doesn't warrent the judgement you are laying grounds for a civil lawsuit) 6. Go to the Circut court, and file for full custody, on the grounds that your ex has tampered and is hindering your visitation with false charges. File a civil suit for diress, and emotional distress since youe ex filed false claim against you and refuses you access to the children even supervised. It will not cost you a dime if you file "statement of indignacy" along with your other requests. 7. I have been reading, and if it were not for the fact that you are a woman, they would have sided with you. You will see things like "Femnazi", and other woman-hating comments on here from the fathers who have CS orders, and wives of men who have CS orders. Ignore it, deal with it, and start helping yourself. You can research your own case work-it's free, and you can represent yourself. >>"kennyfan06" <u40691@uwe> wrote: > i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move and > he > thought i was gonna take the children and not bring them back. Swear to > god > thats the only reason! === 7. I have been reading, and if it were not for the fact that you are a woman, they would have sided with you. You will see things like "Femnazi", and other woman-hating comments on here from the fathers who have CS orders, and wives of men who have CS orders. === Your post might have been impressive if you had your facts straight and knew how to spell judgment, duress, indigency, substantial and warrant. There are time limitations for appeals. Her's is well past. Sue the county for influencing the judge? That should be interesting. Asking her for additional information is not "siding with her?" Perhaps if you had asked her for more information, your post wouldn't have sounded so silly. Well, maybe. Now, please enlighten us--who are the "fathers who have child support orders," and the "wives of men who have child support orders?" > >>"kennyfan06" <u40691@uwe> wrote: > > i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > us--who are the "fathers who have child support orders," and the "wives of > men who have child support orders?" Heh-Sorry that you think you matter to me enough for me to want to impress you, but you aren't, so I'm not gonna get at you. >> >>"kennyfan06" <u40691@uwe> wrote: >> > i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Heh-Sorry that you think you matter to me enough for me to want to > impress you, but you aren't, so I'm not gonna get at you. <chuckle> Very impressive. Except for the fact that you are incorrect about a good portion of what you wrote. How do you think your post helped the OP? > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Except for the fact that you are incorrect about a good portion of what you wrote How so? What was I wrong about? All of the things I told the OP are true things she can do, but you're probably refering to the civil lawsuit statement I made. I wouldn't want a co-worker of my ex's family presiding over anything that is going to affect me in any way. The fact that the judge works with the ex's wife and mother is enough for him/her to have recused themselves. In the very least offers the NCP a chance to appeal every decision that judge made on the grounds of bias (if the RO was issued in criminal court) because there is a pre existing relationship-(the purpose of asking what court issued the RO). A judge can not issue a RO, or anything with the absense of proof. A person can't be indicted if there is no evidence supporting it, and the same goes for a decision to issue a RO. >> "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote: ..................................... >Except for the fact that you are incorrect about a good portion of what you >wrote How so? What was I wrong about? === Just about everything, including that all the men here have child support orders and the women are married to men with child support orders. === >All of the things I told the OP are true things she can do, === No they aren't. She can't appeal an old order. Appeals are time sensitive. She can't sue the county because employees might have influenced the judge. === >but you're probably refering to the civil lawsuit statement I made. I wouldn't want a co-worker of my ex's family presiding over anything that is going to affect me in any way. === Because you don't want it, doesn't make it a crime. She could have filed a request for an outside judge to hear her case due to a possible conflict of interest, but her circumstances really don't represent a conflict. === >The fact that the judge works with the ex's wife and mother is enough for him/her to have recused themselves. === Do you really think that a judge cannot hear a case if the case involves a family member of anyone working for the county? === >In the very least offers the NCP a chance to appeal every decision that judge made on the grounds of bias === No it doesn't. See above. === >(if the RO was issued in criminal court) because there is a pre existing relationship-(the purpose of asking what court issued the RO). A judge can not issue a RO, or anything with the absense of proof. ==== Yes, he/she can. They do it every day. ==== >A person can't be indicted if there is no evidence supporting it, and the same goes for a decision to issue a RO. ==== Are you aware of the basis for the judge's ruling? We are not. Please share. Are you aware that the "evidence" for a RO can be a person's sworn testimony? Yep. It happens every day. These points are all moot anyway since the time for an appeal has expired. Her ONLY option at this point is to request a hearing to have the RO lifted. If the judge denies that, she can file a timely appeal. ==== ==== > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote>> "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > ==== > ==== I'm not going to argue with you, for the last time! The law is written and leaves room for interputation, which attorney's argue in cases. If I have a dis\fferent interputation than you, that doesn't make me wrong. With that said-get over yourself and stick to dominating your family. Why are you still comming at me when I made it clear I'm not interested? <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote ...................... I'm not going to argue with you, for the last time! The law is written and leaves room for interputation, which attorney's argue in cases. If I have a dis\fferent interputation than you, that doesn't make me wrong. With that said-get over yourself and stick to dominating your family. Why are you still comming at me when I made it clear I'm not interested? ==== Because you misinterputated me. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > ...................... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ==== > Because you misinterputated me. Again, don't care what you think you know. Okay? You clearly like to argue with anyone who doesn't accept your way of thinking. Look at the way you come off.... If you can't see your own faults by now, you never will. <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > ...................... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ==== > Because you misinterputated me. Again, don't care what you think you know. Okay? You clearly like to argue with anyone who doesn't accept your way of thinking. Look at the way you come off.... If you can't see your own faults by now, you never will. === So....All the errors in your post are my fault. Your faults are my fault. Gotcha. > <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote > "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So....All the errors in your post are my fault. Your faults are my fault. > Gotcha. Looks like you have a new best friend, Gini. <chuckle> > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >> <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Looks like you have a new best friend, Gini. <chuckle> == I just wish she wouldn't misinterputate me. >> "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >>> <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > == > I just wish she wouldn't misinterputate me. Yes, misinterputation can be devastating. <sigh> > >> <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > >> "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > I just wish she wouldn't misinterputate me Maybe I did, but you came off as being very pushy and argumentive. I'm sure you have much usefull info to share, but take it easy a little bit. Don't come on so strong:) <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: ......................... > I just wish she wouldn't misinterputate me Maybe I did, but you came off as being very pushy and argumentive. I'm sure you have much usefull info to share, but take it easy a little bit. Don't come on so strong:) === You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild in the Usenet scheme of things. If you have a problem with me, use your kill file. I am not about to censor myself so you don't get your feelings hurt. You gotta wear your big girl pants around here--and don't post stupid stuff. Many people come here because they are lost in the system, broke, and can't afford much legal advice. We offer the best we can based on our many years of experience and research of family courts/law. We have an obligation not to steer them wrong. When we don't know, we must tell them that. There is far too much at stake for these dads (and occasional custodial /non-custodial moms) for us to give them bad, off-the-cuff advice. That said, you seem to have bought into, hook, line and sinker, the stereotype deadbeat dad. That is not what goes on around here. Most of the dads here not only have paid but have paid royally and paid and paid and paid and still been screwed by a system that only sees dads as walking wallets. Most of the dads here are/were deadbroke dads and many are angry about the states' enforcement of CS but not visitation/custody rights and the lack of accountability of how CS is spent. These dads want, above all, greater access to their kids and to make sure their kids are benefiting from the CS they are sending. Truth is, few dads here even have CS orders anymore. Many, if not most, of us are older and our kids are no longer minors. Now, hopefully, this will keep you from misinterputating me again. > <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote > "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > us are older and our kids are no longer minors. Now, hopefully, this will > keep you from misinterputating me again. You left out the part about how several of the dads here became custodial parents eventually, supported their children through college, and/or provided financial support long after CS orders were legally terminated. > "Gini" <ginih@verizon.com> wrote >> <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > parents eventually, supported their children through college, and/or > provided financial support long after CS orders were legally terminated. === Oh yeah--And that would be us! And you, of course! And, we didn't receive a dime of support from their moms, did we? Damn deadbeats! > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote"Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > kids are no longer minors. Now, hopefully, this will keep you from > misinterputating me again. > You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild in the Usenet scheme of > things. If you have a problem with me, use your kill file. I am not > about to censor myself so you don't get your feelings hurt. Whatever....Still argumentive.....All that because you don't like the advice I gave the OP.... Oh, well-I'm not going to censor myself because you don't like the advice I gave to another person:) >That said, you seem to have bought into, hook, line and sinker, the stereotype deadbeat dad. Not once did I use the term "Deadbeat", and if it's something to be "bought" into, I wasn't aware. There are two types of parents, those who do for the children, and those who don't do for the children. Where did you get "deadbeat" from? On Jan 25, 2:20 pm, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > .........................> I just wish she wouldn't misinterputate me > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > kids are no longer minors. Now, hopefully, this will keep you from > misinterputating me again. > You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild in the Usenet scheme of > things. If you have a problem with me, use your kill file. I am not > about to censor myself so you don't get your feelings hurt. Whatever....Still argumentive.....All that because you don't like the advice I gave the OP.... Oh, well-I'm not going to censor myself because you don't like the advice I gave to another person:) >That said, you seem to have bought into, hook, line and sinker, the >stereotype deadbeat dad. Not once did I use the term "Deadbeat", and if it's something to be "bought" into, I wasn't aware. There are two types of parents, those who do for the children, and those who don't do for the children. Where did you get "deadbeat" from? You left out "those who want to do for their children but are only visitors in their children's lives, and ore forced to pay huge amounts in child support that may or may not be used for the children, so they don't have any money left to do for the children when they get to visit with the children." <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote "Gini" wrote: ........................ > You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild in the Usenet scheme of > things. If you have a problem with me, use your kill file. I am not > about to censor myself so you don't get your feelings hurt. Whatever....Still argumentive.....All that because you don't like the advice I gave the OP.... === It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your "advice." The "advice" was wrong. You have every right to post stupid sh.t and I have every right to call you on it. That is not being "argumentative." If you wish to continue looking totally silly, post your crap. I have time. === > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote "Gini" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > your crap. I have time. > === > It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your "advice." The "advice" > was wrong. > You have every right to post stupid sh.t and I have every right to call you > on it. That is not > being "argumentative." If you wish to continue looking totally silly, post > your crap. I have time. All of that is in your opinion! If you want to waste your time trying to dominate the usenet group, go ahead-it's your time. Clearly, you are the dominating force in your marriage and want to be elsewhere. Stick to dictating the lives of your family and making them hate life while you belittle them until they bend to your will. I, on the other hand, do not bend. All of this little tit for tat crap you are trying to play with me would be better spent on someone who didn't know better. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . On Jan 28, 10:40 am, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > ........................> You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild in the Usenet scheme of > > things. If you have a problem with me, use your kill file. I am not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > your crap. I have time. > === > It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your "advice." The "advice" > was wrong. > You have every right to post stupid sh.t and I have every right to call you > on it. That is not > being "argumentative." If you wish to continue looking totally silly, post > your crap. I have time. All of that is in your opinion! If you want to waste your time trying to dominate the usenet group, go ahead-it's your time. Clearly, you are the dominating force in your marriage and want to be elsewhere. Stick to dictating the lives of your family and making them hate life while you belittle them until they bend to your will. I, on the other hand, do not bend. Like narrow-mindedness. > All of this little tit for tat crap you are trying to play with me would be better spent on someone who didn't know better. > <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote > "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: ................................... >> === >> It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your "advice." The "advice" [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Like narrow-mindedness. ====== She's sooo frustrated with being wrong, and incapable of admitting it, that she is now attacking my family :-) Poor desperate girl. On Jan 28, 10:40 am, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > ........................> You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild > in the Usenet scheme of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > your crap. I have time. > === > It has nothing to do with liking or disliking your "advice." The "advice" > was wrong. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being "argumentative." If you wish to continue looking totally silly, post > your crap. I have time. All of that is in your opinion! If you want to waste your time trying to dominate the usenet group, go ahead-it's your time. Clearly, you are the dominating force in your marriage and want to be elsewhere. Stick to dictating the lives of your family and making them hate life while you belittle them until they bend to your will. I, on the other hand, do not bend. All of this little tit for tat crap you are trying to play with me would be better spent on someone who didn't know better. ________________________ What on earth are you talking about? > On Jan 28, 10:40 am, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > ________________________ > What on earth are you talking about? ====== She says my family hates me because I told her she posts stupid crap. Geez, TM, keep up. >> On Jan 28, 10:40 am, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > She says my family hates me because I told her she posts stupid crap. > Geez, TM, keep up. <chuckle> I was trying to figure out where she got the idea that you were dictating the lives of your family. Figured I must have missed out on a post or two, since I had never seen that. Do you think she actually read what you wrote, or did she just reject it out of hand because you disagreed with her? >>> On Jan 28, 10:40 am, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > what you wrote, or did she just reject it out of hand because you > disagreed with her? === She read it; she just misinterputated [sic] it. (I love that word so much I decided to keep it.) Oh yeah, I run the newsgroup now too, so keep the shenanigans at a minimum. > > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:153792f0-a012-4ebe-9dc8-f9129c2e8eb7@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > > Stick to dictating the lives of your family and making them hate life Never said they hated you, and I don't know where you got the rest of that stuff from, cause I didn't say any such thing. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . On Jan 25, 2:20 pm, "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > .........................> I just wish she wouldn't misinterputate me > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > kids are no longer minors. Now, hopefully, this will keep you from > misinterputating me again. > You need to grow a thicker skin. I am very mild in the Usenet scheme of > things. If you have a problem with me, use your kill file. I am not > about to censor myself so you don't get your feelings hurt. Whatever....Still argumentive.....All that because you don't like the advice I gave the OP.... Oh, well-I'm not going to censor myself because you don't like the advice I gave to another person:) >That said, you seem to have bought into, hook, line and sinker, the stereotype deadbeat dad. Not once did I use the term "Deadbeat", and if it's something to be "bought" into, I wasn't aware. There are two types of parents, those who do for the children, and those who don't do for the children. Where did you get "deadbeat" from? "for the children". Anybody catch that? :) > -- > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yeah! Did you? No? Not surprised! You are a narrow minded person who seems 1/3 the time angry at women (mostly), and the other 1/3 pissed off at CS institutions, and 1/3 of the time bitching about consequences that occure to one who takes a chance on unprotected sex! So yeah, I noticed that, and more. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . On Jan 28, 5:42 pm, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote: > -- > [Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yeah! Did you? Every time. > No? Not surprised! You are a narrow minded person who seems 1/3 the time angry at women (mostly), and the other 1/3 pissed off at CS institutions, and 1/3 of the time bitching about consequences that occure to one who takes a chance on unprotected sex! Well thank you for your opinion. So yeah, I noticed that, and more. One usually DOES notice their own opinions. Your point? > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > never will. > === > So....All the errors in your post are my fault. Your faults are my fault. > Gotcha. There were no errors, just misspelled words, which everyone does. If you think they are errors, then that's what you thing, which is more than you know. Being pushy, and being right are two different things, but it's clear that you feel you can assert your pushiness as correctness. Then again, what part of "I don't care" do you NOT get? > Gini wrote: >> >>"kennyfan06" <u40691@uwe> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Heh-Sorry that you think you matter to me enough for me to want to > impress you, but you aren't, so I'm not gonna get at you. === Great. Since that is settled, hopefully you will refrain from giving such foolish advice. > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And hopefully you will refrain from being such a don't-know-it-all- let's face it, if everyone knew it all, none would be on usenet, and if you knew what you'd be doing something other than trying to down others in an attempt to make yourself feel important. If it were that serious, why is she here and not at the court house trying to get her visitation? Nothing was settled, I just left it alone, something you have no knack for. Stop trying to come at me, I'm not interested! <leabuckley@gmail.com> wrote "Gini" <gi...@verizon.com> wrote: > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > > Gini wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Great. Since that is settled, hopefully you will refrain from giving such > foolish advice. ===== >>And hopefully you will refrain from being such a don't-know-it-all- let's face it, if everyone knew it all, none would be on usenet, and if you knew what you'd be doing something other than trying to down others in an attempt to make yourself feel important. If it were that serious, why is she here and not at the court house trying to get her visitation? === She asked for advice on how to proceed. That's what this group is for. === Nothing was settled, I just left it alone, something you have no knack for. Stop trying to come at me, I'm not interested! === Your interests don't concern me in the least. You giving bad advice to folks who come here needing advice does concern me and if you do it, you're gonna be called on it. Don't like that? Too bad. === === > <leabuck...@gmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Don't like that? Too bad. Same for you > i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move and > he [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > steph First, you don't have anything to prove to these people! Let's do this. 1. what court issued the RO? Was it criminal court or civil court? 2. If criminal court issued the RO, was the judge aware that there was a custody/visitation schedule already established? 3. Have you filed an appeal? If not, do so NOW! 4. What does the RO guidelines? (Are you aware that you can sue the county in a civil matter for bias since the ex's family works there an could have persuaded a judge with his decision?) 5. What proof was presented, and is it anything substancial? (If the proof doesn't warrent the judgement you are laying grounds for a civil lawsuit) 6. Go to the Circut court, and file for full custody, on the grounds that your ex has tampered and is hindering your visitation with false charges. File a civil suit for diress, and emotional distress since youe ex filed false claim against you and refuses you access to the children even supervised. It will not cost you a dime if you file "statement of indignacy" along with your other requests. 7. I have been reading, and if it were not for the fact that you are a woman, they would have sided with you. You will see things like "Femnazi", and other woman-hating comments on here from the fathers who have CS orders, and wives of men who have CS orders. Ignore it, deal with it, and start helping yourself. You can research your own case work-it's free, and you can represent yourself. ------------------------------------ The advice she got from most of us here was to work this out as an issue between two adults and use the court as a last resort. We asked some questions to try to better understand her situation so we could help her. Your advice is to litigate the issues ad infinitum and accelerate the legal battles. The OP said she had limited resources. Suggesting litigation may sound great to you, but your advice missed the mark considering where this started. Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > i have a RO against me not to see my children because i was gonna move and he > thought i was gonna take the children and not bring them back. Swear to god [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > steph First, you don't have anything to prove to these people! Let's do this. 1. what court issued the RO? Was it criminal court or civil court? 2. If criminal court issued the RO, was the judge aware that there was a custody/visitation schedule already established? 3. Have you filed an appeal? If not, do so NOW! 4. What does the RO guidelines? (Are you aware that you can sue the county in a civil matter for bias since the ex's family works there an could have persuaded a judge with his decision?) 5. What proof was presented, and is it anything substancial? (If the proof doesn't warrent the judgement you are laying grounds for a civil lawsuit) 6. Go to the Circut court, and file for full custody, on the grounds that your ex has tampered and is hindering your visitation with false charges. File a civil suit for diress, and emotional distress since youe ex filed false claim against you and refuses you access to the children even supervised. It will not cost you a dime if you file "statement of indignacy" along with your other requests. 7. I have been reading, and if it were not for the fact that you are a woman, they would have sided with you. You will see things like "Femnazi", and other woman-hating comments on here from the fathers who have CS orders, and wives of men who have CS orders. Ignore it, deal with it, and start helping yourself. You can research your own case work-it's free, and you can represent yourself. ************************************** Feminaziism is a fact of life. Gender is NOT an issue with most of the posters here; rather what's RIGHT is. Bear in mind that helping a woman in regards to "child support" is like assisting the lion in subduing the lamb. Not a very popular concept. Can ya figure out why? That said, rare (and wrong in my lil ole opinion) is the poster who actually promotes short-changing the woman. Nothing wrong, however, with not helping her. With the vast resources and superior rights afforded to women, they simply don't need any help. "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote ............... > That said, rare (and wrong in my lil ole opinion) is the poster who > actually > promotes short-changing the woman. === Ah, Chris--Are you turning into an ole softie? Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > > > This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that means is your contact with the children is not dependent on whether or > not you pay CS on time. Non-payment is considered child abuse, thus subjecting the "abusing" parent to loss of visitation due to being "unfit". > Your divorce decree should spell out the terms of visitation (some states > call it access). If the terms are not being followed you can suggest to > your ex-husband your option to file a Motion For Contempt of Court to force > your right to visitation. I would keep that legal option very low key by > saying you want to work it out between the two of you as adults and not have > to get the court involved with a contempt proceeding. Why not just hire a feminazi lawyer to re-establish her custody of the children, thus putting all this to bed? > If your decree has more generic visitation language (something like > reasonable and seasonal visitation) you can get what each court calls their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the parents will communicate and be given compensatory time for any > adjustments. what do you mean femanizi lawyer?????? >> > This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I >[quoted text clipped - 18 lines] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> the parents will communicate and be given compensatory time for any >> adjustments. Signaturesteph Signature[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have custody of such child] . . > what do you mean femanizi lawyer?????? One who is pro-nazi/anti-man. Why so many question marks? > >> > This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I > >[quoted text clipped - 18 lines] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >> the parents will communicate and be given compensatory time for any > >> adjustments. >"Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote > . >> what do you mean femanizi lawyer?????? > > One who is pro-nazi/anti-man. Why so many question marks? === Keyboard stutter. Happens all the time. Sometimes it'll put down 50 of them before they can get it stopped. Pay the child support. At least that's what I see helps. Especially w/ women. Throw the dog a bone and e/thing should be fine. > This is really rare but i am a divorced mother who pays child support. I > currently pay 600.00 for my two boys. Back last year in july my ex husband [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > threatens me by saying he will take me back to court since i am four thousand > dollars behind in child support. Anyone have any advice on this at all. |
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.