>Again and again and again ....
>
>You are simply text book and not in reality making up
>assumptions that simply don't relate to 2dvldog.
Fair enough - just as soon as you stop making assumptions, too.
>
>He said the mother started out with primary custody (aka mommy
>bias) and the father has fought thru the bias much to the gain
>of the children.
The father CLAIMS bias. Unfortunately, there's no evidence of that. The easiest thing in the world is to claim bias.
>
>The father said his children had never seen the inside of a
>day care center and you simply don't know the salary level the
>lazy mom might demand if she would work to support her five
>children.
Talk about ad hominem attacks. A mother who can afford to stay home with her kdis and chooses to do so is lazy? Now who's the one who's biased?
When I was married, it was very clear that it didn't pay for my wife to work - even though she'd be making $40-50 K per year. First, you have day care expenses. Then an extra car. Then lunches out. Then a cleaning lady. Then more clothing. And so on. You can quibble about some of those, but we made a sound, financial decision that her working would not benefit us financially, but would be worse off for our daughter because she'd be in day care. So are we lazy?
Furthermore, I don't need to know the salary level she MIGHT command. Unless she's in a very specialized line of work, they're going to impute minimum wage. So far, there's been no evidence that she's a rocket scientist or plastic surgeon.
>
>You also assume the father's CS $$$ is strictly being used to
>support his children. Very doubtful since there is no
>acountibility in the system.
That's the way
child support works. But, frankly, I've seen very few cases where the money provided for support was greater than what it costs to raise a child. Jade and I both pointed out the chance that if the mother goes back to work, his support could go UP. All we're suggesting is that it's not necessarily beneficial to ANYONE for her to be working.
What does that have to do with accountability?
>
>Here is reality. The money received from the father's labor
>is for the gain of his children...not for the gain of an
>exwife or another man's children including the exwife's new
>husband, attorneys and judges.
Do you feel better now that you have that out of your system?
Do you have evidence that the money he's paying for support is not being used for the kids? If not, then stop with the inflammatory stuff.
>
>The children are currently thriving in the custodial
>arrangement, school, socially and in outside activities. The
>children need to be protected from the mother.
You really need to take a step back. The children are thriving with
shared physical custody. No allegations of abuse of any kind. Now, the mother wants to watch them during the day to accomodate the father's work schedule and that's some evil scheme?
>
>You should not assume these children's, the other children, or
>all the adults are best served by cowing down to the mother's
>misguided ego.
Nor by the father's misguided ego. Nor by yours.