Bobby I attacked loudest. But when the OP said that basically there was nothing wrong with dad. No drugs, no abuse NOTHING. It is misleading and untrue and I don't want some other punter reading that and thinking if you're prepared to spend big you can remove a good parent from a child's life. So I went on the attack GOOD. WHY? because it meant the OP felt obliged to correct the record.
Bobby - don't doubt there are punters out there who have been outspent and simply could not afford to continue with family law. OR they've got orders to provide time with the kid and the other parent doesn't follow them. So all that $$ to get court orders means nothing. That sort of abuse of the system should not be condined and that is what our original poster sounded like.
Does make for an interesting argument about child support. So you've got all of your parental responsibility remove. Except for the $$?? For me, I reckon dad should have to pay child support. But if mum was that prepared to fight tooth and nail to get dad removed from the kid's life then I reckon it is wrong for her to expect and accept child support. You don't want dad in the kid's life ok, then you don't want his $$ either. just my opinion.
Bobby - don't doubt there are punters out there who have been outspent and simply could not afford to continue with family law. OR they've got orders to provide time with the kid and the other parent doesn't follow them. So all that $$ to get court orders means nothing. That sort of abuse of the system should not be condined and that is what our original poster sounded like.
Does make for an interesting argument about child support. So you've got all of your parental responsibility remove. Except for the $$?? For me, I reckon dad should have to pay child support. But if mum was that prepared to fight tooth and nail to get dad removed from the kid's life then I reckon it is wrong for her to expect and accept child support. You don't want dad in the kid's life ok, then you don't want his $$ either. just my opinion.
