Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JPC sr  It is because the custodial has the prize, the custodial has the best part, it is like me giving you a brand new Cadilac car and the person crying that they want money for gas and oil because a Cadilac costs so much money to drive. So if you do not want to feed and house the kids or the Cadilac then give them to me and shut the hell up.
You and other custodials talk like you got stuck with the burden of the children instead of having the best part - the custodial has the prize by having the children. If you want the separated parent to pay for the kids then give them the kids and let them pay. If you give me a new car then I will not ask you to give me a monthly allowance for gas and insurance. I will take the car and the kids and you can go to hell. No cost to you, no obligation, give me the prize and you are free to go.
The custodials are holding the children as hostages like kidnapping saying the separated parents must pay the ransom money in child support or else they never see their God given kids again.
It is not just dishonest but it is immoral and indecent.  |
First and foremost, I'm not speaking from the point of view of the parent with primary physical placement, I'm speaking from the point of view of the child of a divorce. See, I wasn't a prize, a Cadillac. I am a human being, needing two parents to raise me best. (For you parents who are widow(er)s, that's not what I'm talking about) When a parent splits with their spouse, they don't give up their parental responsibilities. This is from the point of view of the offspring, mind you. We want both parents involved in our lives, even if the other parent is a piece of crap. If you didn't look at your child as an object, but as a person with feelings and needs (other than government cheese), you might begin to have a clue what I'm talking about (but, alas, I don't hold much hope for you anymore). Parenting isn't something you can turn on and off at will. You're the parent, even when you're crap. You are still responsible to the child. Yep, it's no longer discussion-worthy, it's just a plain fact. Your opinion, my opinion - they don't matter. It's a hard fact. So, you can't just drop off the kids with the "prize winner", you have to still be a father.
Second, it doesn't work like ransom. Now, I'm speaking from both points of view - primary placement Dad, and son of divorced parents. See, my mother never paid a nickel, my dad never asked for a nickel, and never once said a word about the fact she didn't. As a matter of fact, he told me in my twenties that had she offered (she didn't, she was a piece of crap like you), he wouldn't have taken it because he was a man. I disagreed with his reasoning, but intelligent people have that perogative. Anyway, he also never once stopped her from visiting. SHE wouldn't come, but he never stopped her. Verified by both parents. I've never stopped my children's mother from visiting my children. SHE's not come, but never because I've stopped her. The law doesn't work that you have to be paid in child support for visitation, and if it did (it doesn't), morally that would be wrong anyway. Because (read above), the non-supporting parent is STILL A PARENT. It would be wrong of a parent to deny access to the other parent based upon money. Maybe your ex-wife was as vindictive as you were, I don't know. Maybe you've heard of bad people. Either way, that's not the law. So, you fool, government is not only NOT doing what you say, the law AGREES with you that both parents (who are not abusive) should have unfettered access to their children (in most cases).
This is why I ask you why you can be so sure about your opinion, when you are so FACTUALLY WRONG. You know nothing of which you speak except your own little guilt and hatred and indignation at the wrongs done to you and by you.