Parenting Police.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I think the guy "TP" has flipped his lid and its all my fault.

So, I ask questions based upon your words, and I've flipped my lid?

He probably sees that I am going to destroy his nasty little world.

And, how would that be? Oh, wait, you don't answer my questions anymore, never mind.

Some reason I think you have set "TP" up to push him over the edge. You made the change so can not you show him how to accept the defeat with some dignity? He fails to understand and I can not communicate it to him.

Interestingly, I feel no loss of dignity. Maybe it's the lack of defeat? No one has "set me up", I think the 99% of us that all agree on this have more than enough ability to think for ourselves, thank you very much.

Oh, by the way:
What type of abuse do you consider it to be when a non-custodial parent provides virtually no support directly to their child - especially when they are physically fit enough to work but choose not to provide financially for their child?

What part of being a MAN were you living up to by letting "them figure it out"? Is that what you're hoping your son will do also, abandon his offspring to 'let them figure it out'?

Why do you not answer the questions that are not actually beligerant but just show you what you're actually saying? Are you really that afraid of your own words?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

What type of abuse do you consider it to be when a non-custodial parent provides virtually no support directly to their child - especially when they are physically fit enough to work but choose not to provide financially for their child?

There is no abuse at all of any kind in that situation. Except for the outside abuse of slandering that parent for doing nothing wrong.

Originally Posted by This_person

What part of being a MAN were you living up to by letting "them figure it out"?

There is nothing wrong with letting the children to "figure it out" for themselves. Many parents think that is the best way for children to learn.

Originally Posted by This_person

Is that what you're hoping your son will do also, abandon his offspring to 'let them figure it out'?

I do not hope for such things but stuff happens and if others have troubles it still does not make you better than they are.

Originally Posted by This_person

Why do you not answer the questions that are not actually beligerant but just show you what you're actually saying? Are you really that afraid of your own words?

I stand by my words and I stand by everything that I wrote.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

There is no abuse at all of any kind in that situation. Except for the outside abuse of slandering that parent for doing nothing wrong.

Would you consider it abuse if the custodial parent did the same thing? If so, why? If not, why not?

There is nothing wrong with letting the children to "figure it out" for themselves. Many parents think that is the best way for children to learn.

Now, realize, we're talking about a child, a minor, a primary-school aged person (maybe even younger) "figuring it out" for themselves when it comes to providing food, housing, shelter.... Is this really what you think - that a second-grader should figure out how to feed themselves? This is what I mean, Jimmy, you can't change the subject mid-question.

I do not hope for such things but stuff happens and if others have troubles it still does not make you better than they are.

If there's nothing wrong with it, why would you hope "such things" don't happen? Do you feel you didn't provide a good example?

I stand by my words and I stand by everything that I wrote.

No, you don't. That's why you have to change the subject and ignore the questions. Try keeping to the subject IF you answer any of the above (though, I doubt you will, you'll say again that I'm twisting your words and just don't understand).

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Would you consider it abuse if the custodial parent did the same thing? If so, why? If not, why not?

It is up to the custodial to provide for the child(ren) and that is what custody means. If the custodial does not provide then they will lose custody and face criminal charges. If the custodial can not afford to provide then there are plenty of options available to help provide all they need to overfull. If the custodial does not like it or does not want to do it then they can give custody away to those that will provide.

Originally Posted by This_person

Now, realize, we're talking about a child, a minor, a primary-school aged person (maybe even younger) "figuring it out" for themselves when it comes to providing food, housing, shelter.... Is this really what you think - that a second-grader should figure out how to feed themselves? This is what I mean, Jimmy, you can't change the subject mid-question.

That is not what you asked, and if you mean some thing secret but now preach it like I was to read your mind then it is just more baby postings.

I answered what you asked and not some secret question that you did not write down.

So no children do not figure out how to feed themselves as that is the custodial's job to teach the kids.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is up to the custodial to provide for the child(ren) and that is what custody means. If the custodial does not provide then they will lose custody and face criminal charges. If the custodial can not afford to provide then there are plenty of options available to help provide all they need to overfull. If the custodial does not like it or does not want to do it then they can give custody away to those that will provide.

You know, I never understood why the courts went from calling "custody" "placement". Now I know. People like you! The wording that is currently used (most places, most times) is physical placement instead of custody. The courts usually say something like "shared custody with primary physical placement with the mother (or father)". Once again, we get back to the age old question you haven't answered - WHY is it not up to BOTH parents? The child is both parents' child, why should the care not be up to both parents?

That is not what you asked, and if you mean some thing secret but now preach it like I was to read your mind then it is just more baby postings.

It is what I asked. You said that you abandoned your whole family (deserted was actually the word you used) so that they could "figure it out". What did you mean, if not what I asked?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

You know, I never understood why the courts went from calling "custody" "placement". Now I know. People like you! The wording that is currently used (most places, most times) is physical placement instead of custody. The courts usually say something like "shared custody with primary physical placement with the mother (or father)". Once again, we get back to the age old question you haven't answered - WHY is it not up to BOTH parents? The child is both parents' child, why should the care not be up to both parents?

It is because they got a divorce or separation and that is why it is not up to both. They must stay together like married and then it is both. This other wrong way we have now just gives a legitimacy to divorce and to adultery and license to sin, and legalized stealing.

Originally Posted by This_person

It is what I asked. You said that you abandoned your whole family (deserted was actually the word you used) so that they could "figure it out". What did you mean, if not what I asked?

For my ex wife and our family and associates to figure out what they were to do. Not for the little child to figure out.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is because they got a divorce or separation and that is why it is not up to both. They must stay together like married and then it is both. This other wrong way we have now just gives a legitimacy to divorce and to adultery and license to sin, and legalized stealing.

What does the status of the marriage have to do with the status of being a parent?

For my ex wife and our family and associates to figure out what they were to do. Not for the little child to figure out.

So, when you answered: "There is nothing wrong with letting the children to "figure it out" for themselves. Many parents think that is the best way for children to learn.", you were referring to your ex-wife (who, actually, was your wife at the time per your story), not your child?

[MMDad (Premo)]

Hey Jimmy, if you were to win ( ), would you give up your drinking and drugs to take office? Or would you continue to use like a Kennedy?

[pixiegirl (Premo)]

JPC, forgive me if this has been asked and answered elsewhere before and I missed it. BUT why did your marriage disolve and who made the request that the marriage be ended?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

What does the status of the marriage have to do with the status of being a parent?

I never said it does. You are just taking us back to twisting again. I choose my words carefully.

I said that custody make a determination as to who provides for the child. If the parents get married and stay married then they both have custody. When the child(ren) are taken by one parent then they take the custody to provide onto themselves. Of course the law now does it incorrectly and the unjust laws just further divide the family unit and that needs to be reformed.

Originally Posted by This_person

So, when you answered: "There is nothing wrong with letting the children to "figure it out" for themselves. Many parents think that is the best way for children to learn.", you were referring to your ex-wife (who, actually, was your wife at the time per your story), not your child?

No, it was two completely separate post talking about two completely separate subjects.

Same words but different posts and two different subjects.