No, I say my child, because I am evidently the only parent in this equation.
It is possible to be a genetic sperm donor and nothing more.

While your at it could you please try and find out why my kids haven't seen a dime of the $16,000.00 of child support my ex should have paid towards their lifestyle(including sports..etc..) for the last 6 years?.....

y comments might be based on my own personal experiences...I deal with it....it is what it is....but I take acception to indignant people such as the "posse" here that refuse to acknowledge the double-edged sword that exists on both sides of the fence....

How come when a court "awards" a mother with child support or custody these days..it is a miscarriage of justice...a court of a biased opinion..yet at the same time society can dismiss a man providing for his obligations and responsibilities based on that same premis?

So if he was able to go to court and prove his income was $25,000 and he is paying $7,200 per year in cs...leaving him with $17,800 or $1,483.33 per month. What would be a satisfactory amount of cs?

Only last week we went out on the friday and i asked him on the sunday if he fancied comeing to mine (he had text and said he wasn't doing anything) then he didn't answer the text until 4 hours later and said he'd fallen asleep (didn't seem very honest to me)
He also had cancelled two other dates due to illness - one tme a headache, and the 2nd time cos he was hungover and the third time cos he had 'man' flu.

.but god did not invent Hypocrisy, Backstabbing, Killing in his name, wars over his name people did that ...people forget to recognize that Gods plan continues to ...evolve if you will

First off Capitano....if I need to tell you what the difference between what a scumbag deadbeat father "legally" got away with paying, instead of having a civil discussion on what would be an adequate amount of finacial and moral support to raise a child...then I have no further reason to be as nice too you as I have been in the past....GAME ON Capitano!!

our 6 year old son & our 4 year old daughter & two months pregnant with our third child.

He was originally assigned in Oct 1995 $1100/mo in child support and he was suppose to provide medical insurance for the children. He stopped seeing his children before the baby was born May 1996 & got his child support lowered to $600/month. The medical coverage never surfaced after the divorce.

God's plan is perfect

. If there is no correcting it then he is missing someone who gives unlimited love and support once comfortable.

Just because a person dislikes tattoos on a woman... that makes him shallow and an idiot? What if he was severely disappointed? What if he is educated?

The legal standard used in all states is “the Best Interests of the Child.” In many States, including Michigan, the Child Custody Act will include the child’s preference among the factors that the court needs to consider in modifying custody.

In Michigan, the judge has almost limitless latitude in deciding whether he will listen to a child’s preference and in deciding how much weight that preference will be given. But it is safe to say that in Michigan, there is no specific "age" when a child can dictate with whom she wants to live.

Every case is fact-driven and the particular circumstances of the family’s situation will matter as much or more than the child's age and the child’s preference.

In a case decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals more than twenty-five years ago, the court made this very enlightened statement:

A child custody determination is much more difficult and subtle than an arithmetical computation of factors. It is one of the most demanding undertakings of a trial judge, one in which he must not only listen to what is said to him and observe all that happens before him, but a task requiring him to discern and feel the climate and chemistry of the relationships between children and parents. This is an inquiry in which the court hopes to hear not only the words but the music of the various relationships. [Dempsey v Dempsey, 96 Mich App 276, 289; (1980)
Family lawyers would all agree that the older a child is, the more his or her preferences tend to influence the judge. When a 15-year-old child, for example, has a strong and reasoned preference for being with one parent, forcing that child to remain in a home where she does not wish to be could quickly lead to more serious family problems. Where domestic harmony becomes a factor, that may carry more weight in the judge's estimation than the child's preference itself.

That factor weighed heavily in the court of appeals’ review of the trial court decision in Foskett v Foskett, 247 Mich App 1 (2001). There, one of the children had a strong preference to live with the father. After interviewing all of the children in camera, the trial court changed custody of all of the children to the father. The mother appealed, challenging the trial court’s findings of fact. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the court’s findings of fact were against the great weight of the evidence and could only have been reached by the court’s reliance upon the unrecorded information that the judge gleaned in his in camera talk with the children.