MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 191
|
|
The only one we know for sure "starved" the child is CJane, who refused to pony up lunch money and the child didn't get to eat. We don't know if dad ever got the email.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30354
|
|
No, I think by the time she was notified, it was too late to do anything. I think it was an accident, it happens. Funny thing is many many people eat far less than what this child ate that day, yet she is calling this poor parenting.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20167
|
|
"The only one we know for sure "starved" the child is CJane, who refused to pony up lunch money and the child didn't get to eat. We don't know if dad ever got the email."
Unless she did pony up, or is that no longer what cs is for, to provide for the child's needs, especially needs that occur during the cp's time? Sure, c_jane could have added money to the lunch account, but who has the primary responsibility to do so, the cp or the ncp? Are ncp's just supposed to assume that the cp will fail to meet their responsibilities and mitigate by paying above and beyond their legal responsibility, even before the failure occurs? Why are you so quick to dismiss the cp's responsibility and instead jump on the ncp who is already paying a good amount of cs? We don't know if dad got the email, I'm gonna say if that is the means of communicating the balance of the lunch account and the cp has chosen that school lunch is what the kid will depend on for his noon meal, it is the cp's responsibility to check it, and either add money to it, or provide an alternative.
What else do you expect the ncp to pony up for when the cp fails to provide?
|
MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 191
|
|
As long as one is not being taken advantage of, whatever the child needs. It they are unable, then so be it. Both parents are morally obligated to take care of the children. I do understand that from a financial standpoint, only the NCP is legally obligated to provide.
I'm just not a fan of the NCP in this thread...I cringe at the word exhole. I can't speak for her ex, but her posts scream at being incapable, by choice, of co-parenting. I can understand being angry for a certain period of time during and after divorce, but it's been 15 years.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20167
|
|
"I'm just not a fan of the NCP in this thread...I cringe at the word exhole. I can't speak for her ex, but her posts scream at being incapable, by choice, of co-parenting. I can understand being angry for a certain period of time during and after divorce, but it's been 15 years. "
Neither am I and I can understand your dislike of her co-parenting skills, but that doesn't make her wrong by default. She is providing and meets her legal financial obligation every month and then some. To lay all the blame on her and excuse the cp for the lunch account is wrong.
|
MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 191
|
|
Actually I thought my post said the CP's position is unknown. It did sound to me like the NCP would deny the lunch money to make the CP look bad. She's not wrong be default, but I guess her hatred clouds alot of her posts when I read them.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20167
|
|
"Actually I thought my post said the CP's position is unknown."
I'm talking about this one:
"The only one we know for sure "starved" the child is CJane, who refused to pony up lunch money and the child didn't get to eat. We don't know if dad ever got the email."
We do know she pays cs, no?
|
c_jane
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/06/07
Posts: 1759
Loc: In the Great State of Texas
|
|
I know there are some NCPs who will REFUSE to pay for ANYTHING for the child(Ren) beyond the CS. It's been SHOWN that I provide 100% of DS's costs while at FOTY's house (I'll go with Father Of The Year for now). I also give DS an allowance every week, pay for his cell phone & usage, pay for whatever he asks for school wise, bought him a used Jeep, buy him clothes/underwear for my house, etc.
The lunch thing was just to point out that FOTY, even WITH my 100% support of DS @ BOTH houses, can still forget/not be responsible enough/not have $$ enough/whatever to put 5 friggin' dollars in DSs lunch account so he can eat lunch.
And anyone like FOTY who takes 5 YEARS to get thru HS is no genius.
--------------------
John Constantine: God's a kid with an ant farm.... He's not planning anything.
|
MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 191
|
|
"And anyone like FOTY who takes 5 YEARS to get thru HS is no genius."
Well.....you married him. I'm not sure where that puts you.
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6481
|
|
[quote]"If that house doesn't have a fenced in back yard and I have to pay $5,000 to fence it in, that's MORE money spent because of ys. If it was just me, I would really have wanted a cute little TAB camper that could be towed by any car. Instead, I have a 23 foot travel trailer (at twice the cost of the TAB) and have to have a vehicle with adequate towing power. That means gas guzzler instead of a car that would be more economical. There are MANY extra costs of having kids."
That's not about what it costs to raise kids. Those are 100% choices.
Get rid of dog.
Sell the trailer.
Difference choices have different outcomes. [/quote]
*************************************
Why should I get rid of the dog and sell the trailer ? They are paid for and we rather like them.
Of course those decisions were choices. Having kids is also a choice. There are costs that we incur because we decided to raise them. Some choices have costs. Choosing to have kids is going to cost someone some money. They are expensive.
There are many extra costs that we incur because we have chosen to have kids. Those costs that we would not have had if we had not chosen to have kids. I grew up having cats for pets. I enjoyed that. I liked dogs, but figured they require a lot more care/committment than I was willing to give so never felt the need to have one. When ys begged for a dog for years, my husband decided to buy him one. Now I love her. Why would we get rid of her ? I'm not complaining about her in ANY way. I'm just stating a fact......I wouldn't have her if I hadn't had a kid who wanted one. Therefore, I wouldn't have all the costs associated with her.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that I think pets or RV's are necessary costs of having a child ? I don't. I'm just saying they cost money. We wanted to provide the enjoyment of a dog and a trailer FOR our kids. If there were no kids, there would be no dog and trailer. These are some of the costs we chose to incur for out kids. Our costs for having our kids. You'll have different costs for haing your kids. They are still costs.
Are you under a mistake assumption that I think a CP should be able to demand that a CS paying NCP pay a "share" of the $5,000 fence fund ? If so, please understand that I think that would be ridiculous. THAT parent should get rid of THEIR dog. That wasn't what was being discussed at all.
CJ insists she spends next to nothing on/because of her son (aside from the CS she pays to her ex). $50 for jeans was about it, so she thinks it's ridiculous that her ex gets $750 a month. Wouldn't you suspect that CJ occassionally FEEDS her kid when he's at her house ? I would. It sounds odd that she wouldn't have CHOSEN to indulge in a vacation or two with him over the years. I find it hard to believe that there are NO cheaper housing choices anywhere within commuting disrance to her job that she would have considered/chosen if she never had kids. If there are ANY, that means the cost difference between the cost of, say, the one bedroom apartment she might have chosen as a single childless woman and this specific 3bed/2bath house in this specific neighborhood is a cost that she has because of her decision to have this kid
.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
