State Aid and Custody

[stealth2]

I would, however, expect Dad to bring up your judgement and whether you should be granted as much parenting responsibility as you apparently have. Not to be judgemental, but it does raise an eyebrow that you've been in a financial position to consider applying for state aid for some 15+mos, yet still thought it wise to bring another child into the world.

Just something you should also bear in mind.

 

[CJane]

I would, however, expect Dad to bring up your judgement and whether you should be granted as much parenting responsibility as you apparently have. Not to be judgemental, but it does raise an eyebrow that you've been in a financial position to consider applying for state aid for some 15+mos, yet still thought it wise to bring another child into the world.

Just something you should also bear in mind.

Oh, believe me, I've thought about that too. And yes, I've been in a position to consider it, because it would be a huge HELP... not because we're starving without it. And, this child wasn't exactly planned. We were using 2 different kinds of BC, and yet here I sit, 16 weeks along.

Calling my judgement into question on that one would be kind of silly on his part though, wouldn't it? If you consider that he's been claiming for over 2 years that he could never afford to pay child support for the 2 kids he's got, and HIS wife is now 7 weeks pregnant?

The mess just gets bigger.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

It would be for me and the kids. It's actually something I've agonized over since the divorce was final. The amount of aid I'd qualify for would be a huge help, but not if it's going to negatively impact my current proceedings. I've been afraid to apply in the past because I was terrified he'd immediately use it against me as a way to get physical custody of the kids, and I didn't know if that was possible.

Thanks for the info.

He has primary custody of your children, that affects your ability to file for PA for those same children, do you get it yet????????????????????
Sure, it would be wonderful to not only not have to pay child support for them but to also get paid for your parenting time!

You are now pregnant, the father of that child is responsible for your and that child's support especially since you are living together, not your ex and not the state. If you apply for PA you might get it for the child you are having with the man you live with right now, not from your ex, he didn't get you pregnant.

Next time you want to get paid to have a baby, choose a man of means or simply get paid to have sex, oh that would be prostitution

Let's see, Gas is over $3 p/gal for regular, so if you use 1 gal each way thats 4 gal per day you transport the children to school pr $12 p/day times 12 days per month or $144 per month without changing custody, PA is not going to give you money because you choose to move further away.

 

[CJane]

He has primary custody of your children, that affects your ability to file for PA for those same children, do you get it yet????????????????????
Sure, it would be wonderful to not only not have to pay child support for them but to also get paid for your parenting time!

You are now pregnant, the father of that child is responsible for your and that child's support especially since you are living together, not your ex and not the state. If you apply for PA you might get it for the child you are having with the man you live with right now, not from your ex, he didn't get you pregnant.

Next time you want to get paid to have a baby, choose a man of means or simply get paid to have sex, oh that would be prostitution

Let's see, Gas is over $3 p/gal for regular, so if you use 1 gal each way thats 4 gal per day you transport the children to school pr $12 p/day times 12 days per month or $144 per month without changing custody, PA is not going to give you money because you choose to move further away.

Ok, I'm going to try one more time to explain this to you, and then I give up. I have no idea WHY you've decided that everything I do is based in some bizarre 'get back at the ex' mentality, but clearly you have.

*deep breath*

The fact that my ex has LEGAL custody of the children does NOT affect my ability to apply for state aid. I PHYSICALLY have the children a little more than 50% of the time. I have ALREADY spoken to the people at the DFS office, and I KNOW that I will qualify for state aid (pregnant or not) based on my income and the time that the children are in my care.

I DO NOT pay child support, and neither (currently) does my ex. So, I am not trying to 'get out of' anything at all. I'm simply asking questions to get information before I make ANY decisions at all. It's what rational, intelligent people do when contemplating major decisions that impact lots of people.

I am NOT looking to 'get paid' to have this child, any more than I was looking to 'get paid' to have the others. Your attempts to be offensive, judgmental and rude are not going to get me all riled up, if that is your intent. I have managed to keep my children clothed and fed for the past 2 years without state aid or child support, and I will continue to do so. I am not asking my ex to support this new child, and your assumption that my intent is to do so is absurd.

I'm not sure what your gas price info has to do with anything at all, but I'll give you more accurate info, just in case it's relevant.

Gas is $2.45/gal
I use roughly 2 gal/day just for transporting the kids to the school in his district/back to my house.
I drive the kids to/from school 3 days each week.
That's 6 gallons/week @ $2.45/gal = 14.70/week in fuel

If I hadn't moved, I would be transporting them a total of 18 fewer miles/day. That's a little more than 1/2 a gallon per day that I'd be saving. So, if I hadn't moved, I'd save almost $4/week in gas. Of course, I'd also be living in his area of town still, which means my rent would (best case scenario) be double what it is now. In that case, I would DEFINITELY NEED to be on assistance, pregnant or not.

 

[Whyte Noise]

He has primary custody of your children, that affects your ability to file for PA for those same children, do you get it yet????????????????????
Sure, it would be wonderful to not only not have to pay child support for them but to also get paid for your parenting time!

You are now pregnant, the father of that child is responsible for your and that child's support especially since you are living together, not your ex and not the state. If you apply for PA you might get it for the child you are having with the man you live with right now, not from your ex, he didn't get you pregnant.

Next time you want to get paid to have a baby, choose a man of means or simply get paid to have sex, oh that would be prostitution

Let's see, Gas is over $3 p/gal for regular, so if you use 1 gal each way thats 4 gal per day you transport the children to school pr $12 p/day times 12 days per month or $144 per month without changing custody, PA is not going to give you money because you choose to move further away.

rmet, you need to read better.

There is a difference between physical custody and legal custody. Physical custody denotes who has physical possession of the children and when. Legal custody has to do with who has the decision-making responsibilities with regards to the children.

CJane had JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY and her ex has SOLE LEGAL. The reason she's seeking a modification (which is only to change the SOLE LEGAL to JOINT LEGAL) is because it says SOLE LEGAL to the ex as the designation, and then goes on to list JOINT LEGAL requirements. So, it says both things in the court order and is confusing as to which designation it really is. She's seeking to clarify the legal custody aspect (not physical custody) of her current order as they already have joint physical and doesn't need/want to modify that.

And like I said, it doesn't MATTER what the court order says on who is "supposed" to have custody. If the children are in your physical custody then they could qualify for aid. In my case, my ex had SOLE PHYSICAL and we have JOINT LEGAL. In the court order he had possession of the children. In reality they were living with me. So, no matter what that court order said and the fact that I was ordered to pay my ex child support, Missouri most definately would have went after him for CS purposes (even though HE was the court ordered CP) if I had gotten my children on MC+ at the time they were living with me in Missouri. Unless, of course, you're going to call the Missouri DFS workers I spoke with extensively wrong.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

rmet, you need to read better.

There is a difference between physical custody and legal custody. Physical custody denotes who has physical possession of the children and when. Legal custody has to do with who has the decision-making responsibilities with regards to the children.

CJane had JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY and her ex has SOLE LEGAL. The reason she's seeking a modification (which is only to change the SOLE LEGAL to JOINT LEGAL) is because it says SOLE LEGAL to the ex as the designation, and then goes on to list JOINT LEGAL requirements. So, it says both things in the court order and is confusing as to which designation it really is. She's seeking to clarify the legal custody aspect (not physical custody) of her current order as they already have joint physical and doesn't need/want to modify that.

And like I said, it doesn't MATTER what the court order says on who is "supposed" to have custody. If the children are in your physical custody then they could qualify for aid. In my case, my ex had SOLE PHYSICAL and we have JOINT LEGAL. In the court order he had possession of the children. In reality they were living with me. So, no matter what that court order said and the fact that I was ordered to pay my ex child support, Missouri most definately would have went after him for CS purposes (even though HE was the court ordered CP) if I had gotten my children on MC+ at the time they were living with me in Missouri. Unless, of course, you're going to call the Missouri DFS workers I spoke with extensively wrong.

I can read just fine and have read all her posts and she is still running the same scam. She is NCP and has always been NCP Her Ex has had Sole legal custody from the begining and allowed her significant physical parenting time as they lived in the same community. She agreed to this in her divorce and has been looking for ways to change it since then. She changed the circumstances by moving away making sharing physical custody difficult financially therefore wanting to apply for public assistance because the man she is shacked up with can't support her now she is pregnant with his child.

 

[Whyte Noise]

I can read just fine and have read all her posts and she is still running the same scam. She is NCP and has always been NCP Her Ex has had Sole legal custody from the begining and allowed her significant physical parenting time as they lived in the same community. She agreed to this in her divorce and has been looking for ways to change it since then. She changed the circumstances by moving away making sharing physical custody difficult financially therefore wanting to apply for public assistance because the man she is shacked up with can't support her now she is pregnant with his child.

Honey I hate to disappoint you, but moving 12 MINUTES away isn't making sharing physical custody difficult financially. Especially not in rural Missouri.

Are you even reading what she's saying or just picking what parts to skim over? Or, do you travel by supersonic jet where 12 minutes somehow equals hundreds of miles?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Honey I hate to disappoint you, but moving 12 MINUTES away isn't making sharing physical custody difficult financially. Especially not in rural Missouri.

Are you even reading what she's saying or just picking what parts to skim over? Or, do you travel by supersonic jet where 12 minutes somehow equals hundreds of miles?

Go back and read.
She has moved 12 miles away which she claims is only 10 minutes away that means she is averaging close to 70 mph in rural Missouri.
This means that to travel back and forth 2 times a day to take them to school means that they would be on the road 24/ she48 miles a day more and an additional hour than now as opposed to remaining in the same community and op having visitation. Should the tax payers or her ex pay because the man she is having a child with can't support her? That is the cost of moving away and focusing on her new family. OP says she now needs public assistance because of her choices.

She claims that her ex's counter suit will result in her being a EOW visitation mom so it will affect her parenting time further diminishing her claim on public assistance. PA wouldn't be as big an issue if she was CP but she is not, if she is not working it is because she is pregnant not to care for these children.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Go back and read.
She has moved 12 miles away which she claims is only 10 minutes away that means she is averaging close to 70 mph in rural Missouri.
This means that to travel back and forth 2 times a day to take them to school means that they would be on the road 24/ she48 miles a day more and an additional hour than now as opposed to remaining in the same community and op having visitation. Should the tax payers or her ex pay because the man she is having a child with can't support her? That is the cost of moving away and focusing on her new family. OP says she now needs public assistance because of her choices.

She claims that her ex's counter suit will result in her being a EOW visitation mom so it will affect her parenting time further diminishing her claim on public assistance. PA wouldn't be as big an issue if she was CP but she is not, if she is not working it is because she is pregnant not to care for these children.

*smacks rmet with a large trout*

Speed limit on most rural roads in Missouri is 60 MPH. There are some that are 55, and even a few that are 45, and even some that still have covered 1 lane bridges on them and you have to stop and yield ROW if needed, but MOST are 60 MPH. 12 minutes, 10 minutes, it's friggin' semantics you're trying to argue here. I'd round it down to 10 minutes myself even if it took me 12. Sheesh, stop trying to micro-manage every single thing the woman is saying. It's 18 miles from where I lived in Monroe City to where my husband's children were in Shelbina, but I always said it took 20 minutes to get there. And yeah, the speed limit was 60 MPH on Hwy. 36. So does that mean I was only doing 57.3 MPH since I "said" 20 minutes?

It's no secret that you have a problem with us "NCP" moms and that you seem to come down on us extra hard. Save your critiscism for those that deserve it.

Her ex "countered" for sole legal and physical a while ago. If you'd read you'd know that her asking about public assistance now isn't connected to that at all, nor is it about greed as you blatantly want to accuse her of.

Have you even read what their custody schedule is? Do you not realize that she has the children half of the time now? If you can find me an employer in Missouri that's willing to work around YOUR (the parents) custody schedule, I'll kiss your ass. Work is hard enough to find there, much less work with "restraints" placed on it such as "I can only work this day, this day, and this day because I have my kids the other days". That's why we moved from Missouri, because decent paying jobs are very hard to come by in the first place. And please, don't throw job statistics at me because I lived it. In St. Louis, St. Joseph, Kansas City, the employment rate may be great. Live in Monroe City, Shelbina, Paris, etc. (the rural part of the state) and tell me how easy it is to find work locally.

You're way off on the gas and mileage there too. She even broke it down for you. She'd travel 18 miles less per day TOTAL, and save $4 a week in gas. FOUR dollars. She isn't the one that made an issue of her move and the distance, YOU are. She didn't even say a thing about it until you did and that was to correct your faulty math. You want to say that her move has created a financial burden on her and THAT is why she wants to apply for public assistance. Her "cost of moving away" as you put it is 18 more miles a day x 3 days a week which is 54 miles a week extra for her and FOUR friggin' dollars a week in gas. Things are cheap in Missouri, true, but even $4 isn't going to make or break you and I highly doubt that same $4 is the reason she's needing public assistance.

She doesn't need the assistance because of her choice to move. Hell, like she said, if she'd stayed she'd be out more than the $4 a week ($16 a month) in gas because she'd be paying higher rental for a house. I'd much rather pay $16 more a month for gas than an extra $200 or so in housing myself.

Why wouldn't PA be a big issue if she was the CP? There is none in her case, they share time equally. He (the "CP") is as entitled to it as she (the "NCP") is. It has to do with those court appointed monikers of CP and NCP and that's it. Custodial or non-custodial she is a PARENT, and the laws of Missouri state that as a parent, she is entitled to certain things as her parenting time stands right now. The children are in her physical possession enough time for them to approve assistance. You not liking the fact that she's the "NCP" in your mind won't change that.

And you know, maybe... and I know this may be a hard concept to wrap your brain around... but just maybe... Her being an EOW mom and her ex's proposal to limit her time with her kids gets to her because of the actual time she will lose with her children and not being with them as a mother and nothing at all to do with the public aid she asked about. Who'da thunk it????

 

[rmet4nzkx]

*smacks rmet with a large trout*

Speed limit on most rural roads in Missouri is 60 MPH. There are some that are 55, and even a few that are 45, and even some that still have covered 1 lane bridges on them and you have to stop and yield ROW if needed, but MOST are 60 MPH. 12 minutes, 10 minutes, it's friggin' semantics you're trying to argue here. I'd round it down to 10 minutes myself even if it took me 12. Sheesh, stop trying to micro-manage every single thing the woman is saying. It's 18 miles from where I lived in Monroe City to where my husband's children were in Shelbina, but I always said it took 20 minutes to get there. And yeah, the speed limit was 60 MPH on Hwy. 36. So does that mean I was only doing 57.3 MPH since I "said" 20 minutes?

It's no secret that you have a problem with us "NCP" moms and that you seem to come down on us extra hard. Save your critiscism for those that deserve it.

Her ex "countered" for sole legal and physical a while ago. If you'd read you'd know that her asking about public assistance now isn't connected to that at all, nor is it about greed as you blatantly want to accuse her of.

Have you even read what their custody schedule is? Do you not realize that she has the children half of the time now? If you can find me an employer in Missouri that's willing to work around YOUR (the parents) custody schedule, I'll kiss your ass. Work is hard enough to find there, much less work with "restraints" placed on it such as "I can only work this day, this day, and this day because I have my kids the other days". That's why we moved from Missouri, because decent paying jobs are very hard to come by in the first place. And please, don't throw job statistics at me because I lived it. In St. Louis, St. Joseph, Kansas City, the employment rate may be great. Live in Monroe City, Shelbina, Paris, etc. (the rural part of the state) and tell me how easy it is to find work locally.

You're way off on the gas and mileage there too. She even broke it down for you. She'd travel 18 miles less per day TOTAL, and save $4 a week in gas. FOUR dollars. She isn't the one that made an issue of her move and the distance, YOU are. She didn't even say a thing about it until you did and that was to correct your faulty math. You want to say that her move has created a financial burden on her and THAT is why she wants to apply for public assistance. Her "cost of moving away" as you put it is 18 more miles a day x 3 days a week which is 54 miles a week extra for her and FOUR friggin' dollars a week in gas. Things are cheap in Missouri, true, but even $4 isn't going to make or break you and I highly doubt that same $4 is the reason she's needing public assistance.

She doesn't need the assistance because of her choice to move. Hell, like she said, if she'd stayed she'd be out more than the $4 a week ($16 a month) in gas because she'd be paying higher rental for a house. I'd much rather pay $16 more a month for gas than an extra $200 or so in housing myself.

Why wouldn't PA be a big issue if she was the CP? There is none in her case, they share time equally. He (the "CP") is as entitled to it as she (the "NCP") is. It has to do with those court appointed monikers of CP and NCP and that's it. Custodial or non-custodial she is a PARENT, and the laws of Missouri state that as a parent, she is entitled to certain things as her parenting time stands right now. The children are in her physical possession enough time for them to approve assistance. You not liking the fact that she's the "NCP" in your mind won't change that.

And you know, maybe... and I know this may be a hard concept to wrap your brain around... but just maybe... Her being an EOW mom and her ex's proposal to limit her time with her kids gets to her because of the actual time she will lose with her children and not being with them as a mother and nothing at all to do with the public aid she asked about. Who'da thunk it????

My ex and I live about 40 miles apart and have 50/50 custody. When we originally divorced, his address was set as their primary address 'for the purposes of school' so that this wasn't an issue.

Honestly, unless the school district you want to move them to is far superior to the one that they're in, and there would be a HUGE benefit to the change, I'd leave things as they are for now and avoid the court battle.

I have nothing against NCP, I do have something against people who have poor judgement and then want the public to pay for it. So she is flying around in her car 2 times a day increasing their already 40/52 mile commute by her own choice. She could have stayed in the same community, got a job and had a better chance of getting more parenting time and possibly child support. She moved and created the distance. OP stated the distance was an additional 12 miles and 10 minutes each way to school since their recent move, not less, that was dad's reason for objecting to her opening up the subject of custody. As she herself advises another, "Honestly, unless the school district you want to move them to is far superior to the one that they're in, and there would be a HUGE benefit to the change, I'd leave things as they are for now and avoid the court battle." She should take her own advice.

 

[Whyte Noise]

You're still not getting it rmet.

The only thing she opened up was the LEGAL custody part, nothing at all to do with the physical custody. Dad decided to do that as "payback" against her. It wasn't her choice, it was his. To be honest, the only thing she wanted to begin with was a clarification of the order since it states both sole AND joint legal wording. Her attorney is the one that made it a modification because it says "sole legal" to dad and even though further reading classifies it as "joint legal", it would still have to technically be a modification of the current order to change the word "sole" to "joint".

Your comment about her heeding her own advice isn't even warranted as her quote had to do with changing school districts and that's not even an issue in CJanes case. CJane moved and did the transportation because of that move. She moved 12 more miles and still does the transportation to the SAME school. She's not the one complaining about it, nor was she wanting to change it. And you can bait and switch it all you want, a 12 mile difference won't matter at all to the judge when she's still providing transportation to the same school they were in to begin with, has been for over a year, and her ex is JUST NOW wanting to use it against her as a reason to change the current custody arrangement.

She's not asking for more parenting time, she's not ASKING for child support, all she wants is to clarify the wording that is screwed up in the order. She never said she wanted all that, once again it's you inferring what she "could" have done and not what the reality of the situation is. Her ex is the one now trying to use the status quo that he agreed to and accepted for the past year or more as a reason to take time away and I'm sorry, but I highly doubt a judge is going to fall for that.

Anyways, I'm done with this one. Trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain it to a brick wall. Neither listen.

 

[whatthistime]

Go back and read.
She has moved 12 miles away which she claims is only 10 minutes away that means she is averaging close to 70 mph in rural Missouri.
This means that to travel back and forth 2 times a day to take them to school means that they would be on the road 24/ she48 miles a day more and an additional hour than now as opposed to remaining in the same community and op having visitation. Should the tax payers or her ex pay because the man she is having a child with can't support her? That is the cost of moving away and focusing on her new family. OP says she now needs public assistance because of her choices.

She claims that her ex's counter suit will result in her being a EOW visitation mom so it will affect her parenting time further diminishing her claim on public assistance. PA wouldn't be as big an issue if she was CP but she is not, if she is not working it is because she is pregnant not to care for these children.

Oh look, rmet (which must stand for "random maniac emitting trash") is attacking yet another woman who wants to take care of her children and have equal parenting time. What a surprise. I would bet money that, given the time you spend on here rmet, you MUST be on public assistance. But you know, that's okay because assitance is a helping hand to a better place. I'm sure you get that.

The number of single parent working families on food stamps increased 30 percent during 1999 while the number earning over $1,300 per month and showing medical assistance doubled. The number earning over $1,300 and holding coverage more than doubled again by December 2001. After 2002 the total number of one-parent working families on food stamps declined, however, with a significant drop in the number of marginally employed families receiving food stamps.

On average, by September 1999, the increased allowable wages under the food stamp formula permitted a 4-person family earning up to $1,700 a month to claim under $100 in food stamps and medical coverage.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but raising kids, alone or with marginal help, working and paying child care if you have to, the increasing costs of gas and food along with the pay for play policy most schools have now, along with having to supplement school teachers supplies etc. etc. etc....there are times when the only thing people I know could do is apply for assistance and believe me, it's hard to get. Here in Tx, the majority of people on welfare are illegal immigrants. Now if you want to rant about that, go right ahead, rmet, but to attack a lady who is trying to do right by her kids and take responsibility for circumstances in her life..thats just b/s. Moreover, attacking a person's religious views has no place.
As usual, rmet has nothing more to do than try to appear like it knows something about something. Do us all a favor and sit on your fingers if you don't have proper input.
Thank you and good night

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Oh look, rmet (which must stand for "random maniac emitting trash") is attacking yet another woman who wants to take care of her children and have equal parenting time. What a surprise. I would bet money that, given the time you spend on here rmet, you MUST be on public assistance. But you know, that's okay because assitance is a helping hand to a better place. I'm sure you get that.

The number of single parent working families on food stamps increased 30 percent during 1999 while the number earning over $1,300 per month and showing medical assistance doubled. The number earning over $1,300 and holding coverage more than doubled again by December 2001. After 2002 the total number of one-parent working families on food stamps declined, however, with a significant drop in the number of marginally employed families receiving food stamps.

On average, by September 1999, the increased allowable wages under the food stamp formula permitted a 4-person family earning up to $1,700 a month to claim under $100 in food stamps and medical coverage.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but raising kids, alone or with marginal help, working and paying child care if you have to, the increasing costs of gas and food along with the pay for play policy most schools have now, along with having to supplement school teachers supplies etc. etc. etc....there are times when the only thing people I know could do is apply for assistance and believe me, it's hard to get. Here in Tx, the majority of people on welfare are illegal immigrants. Now if you want to rant about that, go right ahead, rmet, but to attack a lady who is trying to do right by her kids and take responsibility for circumstances in her life..thats just b/s. Moreover, attacking a person's religious views has no place.
As usual, rmet has nothing more to do than try to appear like it knows something about something. Do us all a favor and sit on your fingers if you don't have proper input.
Thank you and good night

I'm not surprised you crawled out of the woodwork for this one.

Sorry, I'm not on public assistance, nor is OP's question about food stamps.

 

[legalcuriosity]

Oh, believe me, I've thought about that too. And yes, I've been in a position to consider it, because it would be a huge HELP... not because we're starving without it. And, this child wasn't exactly planned. We were using 2 different kinds of BC, and yet here I sit, 16 weeks along.

Calling my judgement into question on that one would be kind of silly on his part though, wouldn't it? If you consider that he's been claiming for over 2 years that he could never afford to pay child support for the 2 kids he's got, and HIS wife is now 7 weeks pregnant?

It doesn't matter his claim whether he can or can not afford to pay child support. Most people can't because the amount calculated is so highly exaggerated. That is not the point here though.

He is not the one applying for state aid. YOU are! In all honesty, NO -- it would not be silly for him, or anyone, to bring it up. This was the exact same thought I had until I saw Stealth tossed it out there. It brings up a very valid question your ability to even support yourself and now you're bringing an additional child into this -- planned or not. You even wrote that you were contemplating applying for state aid months after the divorce. He has every right to question whether you should have the children half the time, just because your ability to financially do your part is in question.

You should be prepared for him and/or his attorney to grill you on your finances/financial ability and the such.

 

[legalcuriosity]

Now I don't know about anyone else, but raising kids, alone or with marginal help, working and paying child care if you have to, the increasing costs of gas and food along with the pay for play policy most schools have now, along with having to supplement school teachers supplies etc. etc. etc....

You should know what the hell you're talking about before spewing crap. You are obviously clueless when it comes to this.

What you mentioned is simply a community NOT support their school district. They want to live in a nice place with nice schools, but refuse to support them. If you can't afford to support it, then move. It's quite simple.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.