just a few questions regarding support

[GrowUp!]

Because it doesn't happen, in MA and there is whole coalition of fathers who can tell you differently. You are making it up to make a point.

Oh please. I have been and participated (past tense) in several forums of these alleged "coalition of fathers" and "father's rights" groups. All I have seen them do is bitch and moan and do NOTHING to try to fight their alleged cause. If I took a look at a handful of cases where the father got nothing, I am sure there were missteps along the way where THEY f-ed up & laid down like a rug.

 

[GrowUp!]

Oh yes the facts do support it. No matter what is shown to you, you are more concerned with being right.

What facts? You keep mentioning these so-called "facts", but yet you have provided nothing to support these "facts." Just because you say it or a bunch of bitter guys (and I am a guy!!!) say it is does not make it fact.

 

[Just Blue]

Baystate, Why is it you call anyone you don't agree with an idiot? And if there are really SEVERAL men in your building that are custodial parents, that is great! Because it doesn't happen, in MA and there is whole coalition of fathers who can tell you differently. You are making it up to make a point.

RIght here! I have already posted this...but here it is again!!!

 

[GrowUp!]

Well unfortunately common sense does not lower the high rents in Massachusetts. As I previously said one can get a crappy apartment in a town with a high crime rate, for $1000 to $1200. These are normal rents in Massachusetts as I explained previously.

Bullcrap!!! If the crime was this high, there is no way in hell that rent would be that high. Ever hear of supply and demand?

Here's an idea...show us some links from CREDIBLE SOURCES to back up this so-called high rent in high crime districts. The only correlation I see is charging so much for rent. That, in itself, would be the crime.

 

[Pat88998899]

The quality of people on here is getting worse and worse, and I think we have hit rock bottom. Shay, you win the award for the lowest. Congratulations![

For asking you to back up your quotes with law?

Quality? Many on this forum know my life as I have shared. But thanks for your *ONCE AGAIN USELESS RESPONSE*.

I am so done with you, I don't think you would even know how to wipe the right way.

Back up what quote of mine??!! Your taking Baystate girls quotes and saying they are mine, just like she is!

 

[GrowUp!]

I am going by my experience with people in my state and with people who I have made a point to help and you know that what I am saying is not true. Based on what??? You make absolutely no sense.

Correction: you are going by HEARSAY -- not experience. Crack open a dictionary and look up the word "experience."

Consider this schooling complimentary. Still waiting for links to credible sources to back up these facts you keep mentioning. Christ...and I am only on page 3 or so of this.

 

[Just Blue]

Bullcrap!!! If the crime was this high, there is no way in hell that rent would be that high. Ever hear of supply and demand?

Here's an idea...show us some links from CREDIBLE SOURCES to back up this so-called high rent in high crime districts. The only correlation I see is charging so much for rent. That, in itself, would be the crime.

Actually if you are near Boston...Roxbury, Dorchester, Chelsea...ect...it is that high...Nice towns near Boston are REALLY expensive!! 2 b-room in a good town or city is around $1,500.00-$2,500.00 ...BUT...If you head a little west of beantown it get much cheaper!

 

[Pat88998899]

You really are soft as **** aren't you?? I think your made up theory is bogus...so I must hate men?? Go find worrieddad or ossie and tell them that...

It is so ironic that you call everyone names, because they all suit you! I don't have any theory. I report facts. And maybe if you spent less time on here and more time in the courts, you would see what is really going on. But you don't want to, you would rather argue and call people names. So what does that say about you?

 

[GrowUp!]

I already told you where to go to find out about what I am saying. That site backs up everything I say and more!

Really? You provided a link? To a CREDIBLE SOURCE? What page was this on??

 

[Just Blue]

Back up what quote of mine??!! Your taking Baystate girls quotes and saying they are mine, just like she is!

Are you suggesting I am altering your post??

Your post #29, page 2.

Today, 06:25 PM
Pat88998899
Member Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 162

Quote:
Originally Posted by baystategirl
Yup! As a matter of FACT there are several men in just my bldg that are CP's...

Pat, You are an idiot...Shared parenting is issued by Massachusetts courts all the time. Father's are granted primary custody all the time. Low cost and subsidized housing is available to ANYONE who qualifies. You are not right. You are wrong.

Baystate, Why is it you call anyone you don't agree with an idiot? And if there are really SEVERAL men in your building that are custodial parents, that is great! Because it doesn't happen, in MA and there is whole coalition of fathers who can tell you differently. You are making it up to make a point.

 

[GrowUp!]

And what statute is it that you would like me to post? I hope you guys don't come on too often to give people legal advice, or god help them!

Do you want me to post the statute that tells the judges that it is ok to be bias?

Oh yes! Please do so. Post that statute that specifically states what you are claiming. I am sure Constitutional lawyers all over the country would just love to see it.

So, please post that statute that says exactly what you claim it does (which I bolded). I certainly hope that link is directly from the state Supreme Court site and not from somewhere else. Like The Onion.

Right after you post the links to the other stuff I requested.

 

[GrowUp!]

LOL Any Massachusetts family attorney will know exactly what I am talking about, so I welcome one.

Oh...oh...look at this. Backpeddling Pat.

 

[GrowUp!]

G.L. c.208, §28 Children; care, custody and maintenance; child support obligations; provisions for education and health insurance; parents convicted of first degree murder
Section 28. Upon a judgment for divorce, the court may make such judgment as it considers expedient relative to the care, custody and maintenance of the minor children of the parties and may determine with which of the parents the children or any of them shall remain or may award their custody to some third person if it seems expedient or for the benefit of the children. In determining the amount of the child support obligation or in approving the agreement of the parties, the court shall apply the child support guidelines promulgated by the chief justice for administration and management, and there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the order which would result from the application of the guidelines is the appropriate amount of child support to be ordered. If, after taking into consideration the best interests of the child, the court determines that a party has overcome such presumption, the court shall make specific written findings indicating the amount of the order that would result from application of the guidelines; that the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances; the specific facts of the case which justify departure from the guidelines; and that such departure is consistent with the best interests of the child. Upon a complaint after a divorce, filed by either parent or by a next friend on behalf of the children after notice to both parents, the court may make a judgment modifying its earlier judgment as to the care and custody of the minor children of the parties provided that the court finds that a material and substantial change in the circumstances of the parties has occurred and the judgment of modification is necessary in the best interests of the children. In furtherance of the public policy that dependent children shall be maintained as completely as possible from the resources of their parents and upon a complaint filed after a judgment of divorce, orders of maintenance and for support of minor children shall be modified if there is an inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount that would result from application of the child support guidelines promulgated by the chief justice for administration and management or if there is a need to provide for the health care coverage of the child. A modification to provide for the health care coverage of the child shall be entered whether or not a modification in the amount of child support is necessary. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the order which would result from the application of the guidelines is the appropriate amount of child support to be ordered. If, after taking into consideration the best interests of the child, the court determines that a party has overcome such presumption, the court shall make specific written findings indicating the amount of the order that would result from application of the guidelines; that the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances; the specific facts of the case which justify departure from the guidelines; and that such departure is consistent with the best interests of the child. The order shall be modified accordingly unless the inconsistency between the amount of the existing order and the amount of the order that would result from application of the guidelines is due to the fact that the amount of the existing order resulted from a rebuttal of the guidelines and that there has been no change in the circumstances which resulted in such rebuttal; provided, however, that even if the specific facts that justified departure from the guidelines upon entry of the existing order remain in effect, the order shall be modified in accordance with the guidelines unless the court finds that the guidelines amount would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances and that the existing order is consistent with the best interests of the child. A modification of child support may enter notwithstanding an agreement of the parents that has independent legal significance. If the IV-D agency as set forth in chapter 119A is responsible for enforcing a case, an order may also be modified in accordance with the procedures set out in section 3B of said chapter 119A. The court may make appropriate orders of maintenance, support and education of any child who has attained age eighteen but who has not attained age twenty-one and who is domiciled in the home of a parent, and is principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance. The court may make appropriate orders of maintenance, support and education for any child who has attained age twenty-one but who has not attained age twenty-three, if such child is domiciled in the home of a parent, and is principally dependent upon said parent for maintenance due to the enrollment of such child in an educational program, excluding educational costs beyond an undergraduate degree. When the court makes an order for maintenance or support of a child, said court shall determine whether the obligor under such order has health insurance or other health coverage on a group plan available to him through an employer or organization or has health insurance or other health coverage available to him at a reasonable cost that may be extended to cover the child for whom support is ordered. When said court has determined that the obligor has such insurance or coverage available to him, said court shall include in the support order a requirement that the obligor exercise the option of additional coverage in favor of the child or obtain coverage for the child.

When a court makes an order for maintenance or support, the court shall determine whether the obligor under such order is responsible for the maintenance or support of any other children of the obligor, even if a court order for such maintenance or support does not exist, or whether the obligor under such order is under a preexisting order for the maintenance or support of any other children from a previous marriage, or whether the obligor under such order is under a preexisting order for the maintenance or support of any other children born out of wedlock. If the court determines that such responsibility does, in fact, exist and that such obligor is fulfilling such responsibility such court shall take into consideration such responsibility in setting the amount to paid under the current order for maintenance or support.

No court shall make an order providing visitation rights to a parent who has been convicted of murder in the first degree of the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless such child is of suitable age to signify his assent and assents to such order; provided, further, that until such order is issued, no person shall visit, with the child present, a parent who has been convicted of murder in the first degree of the other parent of the child without the consent of the child's custodian or legal guardian.

OG...stop interferring with facts and law and other stuff you're obviously pulling out of your backside.

 

[Pat88998899]

Correction: you are going by HEARSAY -- not experience. REALLY, AND WHAT ARE YOU BASING THAT ON, NOTHING I SAID!! Crack open a dictionary and look up the word "experience." Yes, dear, I have much experience , NO HEARSAY, having sat thru hearings and trials, speaking to attorneys and fathers, and mothers. I love how you just jump in and attack! What "experience" do you have. Talking on this site endlessly like these others?
. Still waiting for links to credible sources to back up these facts you keep mentioning. GO SIT IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM, OR TALK TO MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY ATTORNEYS. AM i YELLING? YES I AM

 

[GrowUp!]

Oh god, I hope you aren't a lawyer! Instead of reading my posts, from way back you are jumping in the middle and reading the hysterical posts of et al, assuming that they are quoting me correctly which they are not. You know what assuming does.

Do any of you sit in Massachusetts courts, observe hearings and trials, or speak to Massachusetts attorneys or fathers in Massachusetts, and so know what goes on in the courts? Are you really expecting me to find a law that explains the corruption that is going on in Massachusetts courts?? Oh, I am sorry, corruption doesn't exist, just ask Baystate Girl and Jane, and apparently yourself.

Bwahahahahaha. You are one stupid broad. Thanks for the laugh. Now you're talking about corruption. Christ woman...you're all over the road more than a drunk driver. Keep pulling crap out of your ass in desperation....you might drop 75 pounds before it's all said and done.