-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
FJ1200guy said:Janey....
It wasn't a "general dig"... I just don't want to name names. LOL... it was a poke at reading either not enough, or too much into simple posts. I'll keep it simpler from now on. dang sarcasm always gets me yelled at.
As far as getting only one side of the story... well... yeah? So that's what we address.
Lyle
Hmmm, well, ok, I can accept that. Just do me a favor. If you decide to take a "poke" at me, name me....That way I'll know if it's appropriate for me to call you a Dick or not!
As far as addressing the side we get...Thats up to everyone individually of course. You can trust that the poster is telling you the absolute truth, and go with that, or you can try to look at it from both sides and give a neutral response, which is what a judge will do, and will likely be a closer to realistic response. And , truthfully, things are usually never JUST one person's fault. It happens occasionally, but not alot.
And btw, I can't speak for Ellen, but it seems to me that the side she's taking, and I KNOW the one I'm taking, is the kids side. No more missing activities or being humiliated in front of their friends anymore, even if its a bit unfair to dad.
After all, as a parent, its your job to take the S H I T, so they don't have to. Right?
B
Boxcarbill
Guest
FJ1200guy said:
If you have graduated from the reading material of "See Spot run," perhaps you can devote some time to l logic. See if you can figure out the logical fallacy in the above statement.
I'm a bit tired BCB, but, how about the rights of children being relative to the perspective of the one who is fighting for them or hiring a male attorney to slap down the men who are fighting for the childrens' rights?
Did anyone really answer the only valid question the man asked? {HOW OLD DOES A KID HAVE TO BE FOR HIM OR HER TO DETERMIN WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE?} The other question asked was answered by the poster on his second (and final) post on the first page. {And do you want to know the main reason why ?Because, they tell me that they want me there!}
BTW, he fails to mention anything about supporting his kids short of going to school events. Perhaps, what he has failed to mention is his lack of CS paid? There may be reasons for anger or resentment by the mother other than alleged adultry. Of course, she does NOT have a right to keep him from participating with the children at school activities unless otherwise ordered in the decree or subsequent orders.
Did anyone really answer the only valid question the man asked? {HOW OLD DOES A KID HAVE TO BE FOR HIM OR HER TO DETERMIN WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE?} The other question asked was answered by the poster on his second (and final) post on the first page. {And do you want to know the main reason why ?Because, they tell me that they want me there!}
BTW, he fails to mention anything about supporting his kids short of going to school events. Perhaps, what he has failed to mention is his lack of CS paid? There may be reasons for anger or resentment by the mother other than alleged adultry. Of course, she does NOT have a right to keep him from participating with the children at school activities unless otherwise ordered in the decree or subsequent orders.
F
FJ1200guy
Guest
Of course. I always answer the questions before being sucked off into a tangent.
This is from my very first post (never mind all the posts prior that a poster deleted).
"The ages a judge will listen to a child isn't set in stone, don't let anyone say different. A judge may put more weight in what a certain 12 year old says, and less in another 16 year old. Who knows what the heck they are thinking... The judge listened to my kids, 11 and 12. Go figure."
As for BCB... I never claimed to have graduated from"See Spot Run". Typical of you to assume, eh? All that time at college... wasted. sigh
This is from my very first post (never mind all the posts prior that a poster deleted).
"The ages a judge will listen to a child isn't set in stone, don't let anyone say different. A judge may put more weight in what a certain 12 year old says, and less in another 16 year old. Who knows what the heck they are thinking... The judge listened to my kids, 11 and 12. Go figure."
As for BCB... I never claimed to have graduated from"See Spot Run". Typical of you to assume, eh? All that time at college... wasted. sigh
yes, the WHOLE family needs therapy to deal, irregardless of who is at 'fault".
even so called healthy people can benefit from counseling if it helps them to deal with the "problem" people in thier life. And for most of us 'divorced people" we are looking at dealing with problem people until our kids are 18 at least.
you now my husband was the one betrayed and cheated on, yet he has been nothing but a supportive dad and ex.and yet his ex is the one who makes life difficult and plays the 'poor dumped wife and mommy card" I came on the scene later and I am still no matter what, cast as the scarlet woman who broke up the family, it is pretty funny to those who know the facts. but it is a role I am very aware of especially in court and other places like school or kids counseling situations where the truth has a tendancy to be hidden by her.
our situation is not as volatile as the OP's but the ex loves to make public scenes, especially when her life is not going the way she wants at the time. Manys the game we sat on the opposing side to avoid conflict with the ex. there are other ways too, to show you care.
but the most important thing my husband did was take an active role in getting counseling for himself and trying to take an active role in the kids getting some. we cannot change the ex, but we can learn to deal with her idiosynchrasies (sp)
even so called healthy people can benefit from counseling if it helps them to deal with the "problem" people in thier life. And for most of us 'divorced people" we are looking at dealing with problem people until our kids are 18 at least.
you now my husband was the one betrayed and cheated on, yet he has been nothing but a supportive dad and ex.and yet his ex is the one who makes life difficult and plays the 'poor dumped wife and mommy card" I came on the scene later and I am still no matter what, cast as the scarlet woman who broke up the family, it is pretty funny to those who know the facts. but it is a role I am very aware of especially in court and other places like school or kids counseling situations where the truth has a tendancy to be hidden by her.
our situation is not as volatile as the OP's but the ex loves to make public scenes, especially when her life is not going the way she wants at the time. Manys the game we sat on the opposing side to avoid conflict with the ex. there are other ways too, to show you care.
but the most important thing my husband did was take an active role in getting counseling for himself and trying to take an active role in the kids getting some. we cannot change the ex, but we can learn to deal with her idiosynchrasies (sp)
B
Boxcarbill
Guest
FJ1200guy said:
As for BCB... I never claimed to have graduated from"See Spot Run". Typical of you to assume, eh? All that time at college... wasted. sigh
B-u-z-z-z-z-z. I'm sorry but your response is incorrect.
The correct answer is that the word "If" in this sentence: "If you have graduated from the reading material of 'See Spot run,' perhaps you can devote some time to l logic" is used to express condition. Therefore there is no assumption that you have graduated from "See Spot Run." (You, however, have provided yet another example of a logical fallacy in your post.)
We do have some nice consolation prizes for you backstage.
The It
"Did anyone really answer the only valid question the man asked? {HOW OLD DOES A KID HAVE TO BE FOR HIM OR HER TO DETERMIN WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE?}"
Quite honestly, I don't know if we did or didn't answer his question! The answer is 18 years of age, in all states.
He's already lost one attempt at gaining a change in custody and the judge declined to listen to the children or to hear anything from the counselor, and what I infer is the guardian ad litem. From that, I don't expect the court to be willing to even grant the children an opportunity to be heard; certainly, the court is under no obligation to do so.
EC
"Did anyone really answer the only valid question the man asked? {HOW OLD DOES A KID HAVE TO BE FOR HIM OR HER TO DETERMIN WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE?}"
Quite honestly, I don't know if we did or didn't answer his question! The answer is 18 years of age, in all states.
He's already lost one attempt at gaining a change in custody and the judge declined to listen to the children or to hear anything from the counselor, and what I infer is the guardian ad litem. From that, I don't expect the court to be willing to even grant the children an opportunity to be heard; certainly, the court is under no obligation to do so.
EC
F
FJ1200guy
Guest
BCB... well? What are the consolation prizes??? Do you really think it's necessary to analyze every sentence structure a person writes? If so, you'll have alot to do reading my posts. I know you're not stupid, and that you know what I meant... as I know what you meant. While I may not buy that you are a real lawyer, at least you have that typical lawyer-type mentality that endears that profession to us all.
Stealth? Once again you demonstrate how you would disagree with me even if I said the sky was blue. LOL
These are different posts. Too hard a concept for you baby? "Two separate issues?" Does that help you out at all? "NOT the same thing?"
I guess I will have to explain briefly... since YOU brought it into this.
I believe Christmas visitation should be alternated between parents. That seems fair to me. I still answered his question... the same as everyone else did. You and I both know you are only giving him advice that will stir his pot... (I don't mean your legal advice, that is always good, I meant the personal stuff). He WILL NOT get every X-mas. It was obviously a mistake, and it WILL be corrected, so why get him going? And again, it's JUST an opinion, as I noted... take it easy!
Now this guy... is being told to bail on his kids. NOT to share sport time... not to settle for splitting game time with his kids (which would be fair). If the other guy was being asked to give up every X-mas to his ex... THEN I would have treated it the same as this post.
I know, I know... no matter what I say you won't agree. Just like Bill, you put on your blinders, and forget any other issue except the one someone dis-agrees with you on. As long as I stand up to you and Bills bully tactics, I'll be listening to your petty grammar nit-picking, or your faulty thread comparisons.
Fine, bring it.
Stealth? Once again you demonstrate how you would disagree with me even if I said the sky was blue. LOL
These are different posts. Too hard a concept for you baby? "Two separate issues?" Does that help you out at all? "NOT the same thing?"
I guess I will have to explain briefly... since YOU brought it into this.
I believe Christmas visitation should be alternated between parents. That seems fair to me. I still answered his question... the same as everyone else did. You and I both know you are only giving him advice that will stir his pot... (I don't mean your legal advice, that is always good, I meant the personal stuff). He WILL NOT get every X-mas. It was obviously a mistake, and it WILL be corrected, so why get him going? And again, it's JUST an opinion, as I noted... take it easy!
Now this guy... is being told to bail on his kids. NOT to share sport time... not to settle for splitting game time with his kids (which would be fair). If the other guy was being asked to give up every X-mas to his ex... THEN I would have treated it the same as this post.
I know, I know... no matter what I say you won't agree. Just like Bill, you put on your blinders, and forget any other issue except the one someone dis-agrees with you on. As long as I stand up to you and Bills bully tactics, I'll be listening to your petty grammar nit-picking, or your faulty thread comparisons.
Fine, bring it.
stealth2
Under the Radar Member
Lyle - the man has a court order already giving him half of EVERY Christmas Day. What is it you think I don't understand? I dunno, dude - you get mighty defensive mighty quick. As well as insulting. Oh well - if it makes you feel better, go on ahead. Doesn't matter to me - water off a duck, baybee, water off a duck.
F
FJ1200guy
Guest
I understand it fine... but you seem to be missing a few things. Whatever. Like I said... you will always see things how you want... probably always been that way, nothing I can say that will ever change it. Your point is always the only valid one. Fine.
I am not saying anything about his current CO except that his ex isn't happy with it, that's all... my OPINION is that she will be able to get it modified to alternate if she wants to... I don't know or care why she isn't satisfied...
"I gave CP notice today and she wouldn't sign it for me saying I don't have her this Christmas."
I have a right to get defensive with people like you putting words in my mouth (or in my posts... lol). Anyways, the whole point to my addressing this at all was because you insinuated the 2 posts were the same. Not to defend my opinion... if you disagree, that's cool with me. I understand your point, and did the first time I read it. What, you don't think people can read your posts, understand them AND have a different opinion?
And as far as insulting you... well you get what you give, so don't whine about it.
"What I find astounding, Lyle, is how you took almost the complete opposite stance to the father who wanted to make sure he got his court-ordered Christmas time. You basically told him to let it slide for now. Huh?"
A decent woman would have said "Oh yeah... they ARE different. I don't agree with the opinion you wrote to the X-mas guy, but yeah I see they are different."
Just can't do it though, can you? You have to try to put your spin on it...
Heck, at least when BCB attacks my stuff, he's right on. LOL
Anyways... for more of this conversation email me, because the thrill is gone here. I DO enjoy our conversations, Stealth... strange as that may seem to you. I may poke back, but I think highly of you.
I am not saying anything about his current CO except that his ex isn't happy with it, that's all... my OPINION is that she will be able to get it modified to alternate if she wants to... I don't know or care why she isn't satisfied...
"I gave CP notice today and she wouldn't sign it for me saying I don't have her this Christmas."
I have a right to get defensive with people like you putting words in my mouth (or in my posts... lol). Anyways, the whole point to my addressing this at all was because you insinuated the 2 posts were the same. Not to defend my opinion... if you disagree, that's cool with me. I understand your point, and did the first time I read it. What, you don't think people can read your posts, understand them AND have a different opinion?
And as far as insulting you... well you get what you give, so don't whine about it.
"What I find astounding, Lyle, is how you took almost the complete opposite stance to the father who wanted to make sure he got his court-ordered Christmas time. You basically told him to let it slide for now. Huh?"
A decent woman would have said "Oh yeah... they ARE different. I don't agree with the opinion you wrote to the X-mas guy, but yeah I see they are different."
Just can't do it though, can you? You have to try to put your spin on it...
Heck, at least when BCB attacks my stuff, he's right on. LOL
Anyways... for more of this conversation email me, because the thrill is gone here.
I DO enjoy our conversations, Stealth... strange as that may seem to you. I may poke back, but I think highly of you.