$70,000 a month in child support?(Trick please!)

[Moksha]

The amount is egregious.

To you, yes. To multimillionaire fathers, no.

If anything is egregious, it's the amount sports players get paid in the first place.

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Single mothers... they sure do have the nice life.

Absentee fathers who make millions = poor, abused souls.

Much like it was the fathers choice to engage in unprotected sex and conceive a child it was the "single mothers" choice as well. I take umbrage with your attempt to try to paint everyone in this thread who does not share your view as being sexist or against single mothers. Particularly your lumping my comment, which was in no way sexist, into that category. You sir are on bullshit.

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

...it's the height of injustice because the mother might buy some shoes for herself.

With child support money?

[DaBownca]

Much like it was the fathers choice to engage in unprotected sex and conceive a child it was the "single mothers" choice as well. I take umbrage with your attempt to try to paint everyone in this thread who does not share your view as being sexist or against single mothers. Particularly your lumping my comment, which was in no way sexist, into that category. You sir are on bullshit.

May I add are we sure he is "absentee"?

[Moksha]

Much like it was the fathers choice to engage in unprotected sex and conceive a child it was the "single mothers" choice as well. I take umbrage with your attempt to try to paint everyone in this thread who does not share your view as being sexist or against single mothers. Particularly your lumping my comment, which was in no way sexist, into that category. You sir are on bullshit.

Sorry if I misread any hint of bias in your posts

And a small fraction of that money will actually go towards his child. The rest will go to designer labels and trips. ...It's pathetic.

I still find it absurd as only a fraction of that money will actually be used for the child.

I think the vast majority of guys would want to do right by their child. His moves aren't surprising as I think most guys would do the same. Doesn't sound good on the mothers part however.

[Kemmot]

Now she got habits! I am over here dying. You just can't make this up!
*back to studying*

They after that 'creamy-crack', along with that shoe fetish and that prada gucci craving. Dont play dumb now, come on.

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Sorry if I misread any hint of bias in your posts

You didn't say shit about bias. You accused me of sexism. Get your bullshit straight. And I stand by my statements. I can see no other point of asking for that amount of money in child support. If I was the custodial parent of a child with a woman who made 5 mil a year I wouldn't ask for anything approaching that amount of money.

[Moksha]

I can see no other point of asking for that amount of money in child support. If I was the custodial parent of a child with a woman who made 5 mil a year I wouldn't ask for anything approaching that amount of money.

Deesko just showed that it's what she is legally entitled to in Georgia... she (I should say, "her lawyers") are asking for something that is absolutely standard for people in this pay scale.

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Deesko just showed that it's what she is legally entitled to in Georgia... she (I should say, "her lawyers") are asking for something that is absolutely standard for people in this pay scale.

Lawyers shouldn't be involved to begin with.

[MadMixer]

You didn't say shit about bias. You accused me of sexism. Get your bullshit straight. And I stand by my statements. I can see no other point of asking for that amount of money in child support. If I was the custodial parent of a child with a woman who made 5 mil a year I wouldn't ask for anything approaching that amount of money.

Didnt you get the memo? It aint about reasonable amounts...its about all you can get

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Didnt you get the memo? It aint about reasonable amounts...its about all you can get

Like I said pathetic.

[djLesCole]

It takes 2 to tango. Two people layed down together, and unless rape was involved, two people declined to use protection together. We're quick to say "too bad, he should have used a condom, now he has to pay". But what about the fact that she also knew the potential consequences beforehand? Why does she never have to never work again because they both were foolish? Now in this particular case, she's a model so she may continue to work, but we all know that there are gold-diggers out there praying to get pregnant by someone w/ money just so they can live the easy life.
Meanwhile, the child is innocent and SHOULD BE CARED FOR APPROPRIATELY. If one parent is a multi-millionaire, I'm all for that child getting $70K month. But what if the courts were to say $5K per month is sufficient for month-to-month child care, and the other $65K per month should be placed directly into a fund that the child will have access to at age 18?
Do you honestly believe you would see no decline in groupies on the hunt for these situations?

[DJ Celeste Alexander]

There are and will be MANY views of this amount that this particular father MAY be ordered to pay. All of which I can empathize with but here's the deal.....

If this child was living with the father as the custodial parent, who's to say that this wouldn't be reasonable in an amount because of the lavish lifestyle that the father can afford to bestow upon his child. Someone brought up the point that IF the child was living with the father $70,000 a month in living expenses wouldn't seem so absorbent because the child's father "has it like that" Its also been pointed out that the amount is ONLY a small percentage of the father's monthly gross income.

YES it seems like Waaaaaaaaaaaay too much to us, Hell NONE OF US HAVE IT LIKE THAT.

Bottom line, Its commendable that This father wants to and has gone out to do the right thing for his child. Its absolutely absurd that this amount is what is being asked for, just to raise a child on a monthly basis. At some point (if this ever actually goes to court) a reasonable amount will be derived at. AND IF it ends up being this ridiculous amount, the judge will put certain controls on how this money will be distributed. Hopefully it will be put in a trust for the child's future education or someone will be appointed financial adviser in trust of the account, so the mother doesn't take this money and go all Willy nilly with it, while the child doesn't get the type of care
he/she deserves. Over All, lets hope that whatever happens in the interim, this child comes out better for it.

[DeesKo]

The laws are archaic and the system needs reform.

I could not agree more... albeit from a slightly different perspective. What is outdated is the raw deal custodial parents, particularly mothers, get when the discussion of child support comes up.

1. The general assumption that custodial parent = mother = golddiggin' ho lampin' in luxury off a man's hard-earned money.

2. The fact that non-custodial parents in general seemingly refuse to get a basic understanding of how expensive it is to raise a child, thereby ensuring that no matter what child support they pay, it's always "too damn much". The most common comment ever uttered in relation to child support isn't "I'll take that one in brown" it's "they don't NEED that, I didn't have that and I turned out ok".

3. The fact that the custodial parents are expected to front the money for any & all unexpected expenses and/or pay the bills first, and get reimbursement from the non-custodial parent after the fact if they are lucky or find a way to pay it all out of the non-fluctuating child support if they aren't.

Costs of raising a child vary week to week, month to month. You set a firm amount and the non-custodial parent goes out quoting the slowest month on record to back up their assumption that they're paying too much in child support, ignoring things like daycare going up dramatically in the summer vs school year, field trips etc. (see #2)

IMO the money should go to an account and *both parents* issued a card. and there should be documentation of what gets spent. It takes two to raise a child, and the support should reflect what both parents make and be a reasonable difference between the two.

I can dig that.

I can also tell you I personally know some real shitty women who have done men dirty who wanted to and did take care of their children. They were mad that the relationship between the adults didn't work, so they decided it was time to the man to pay. For this reason alone, sometimes it's good to have the man involved.

I can tell you personally, I've known faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more men who complain about how much they pay in child support but can't even tell me how much their kid's daycare is per month than I know women who are out buying Gucci bags with their child support money. Like a 25 to None ratio.

[reese 60615]

payless shoe source, aldis, cricket, section 8, link card, mediaid, ssi, used car, bootleg movies, bootleg cable, plenty weed, loose squares - $70,000 = $66,122.50 left.

[DeesKo]

Like I said pathetic.

Dog, you realize you are arguing the same point as Kemmot, Reese & MadMixer right?

You make it more palatable, and make more coherent points, but you are...

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Dog, you realize you are arguing the same point as Kemmot, Reese & MadMixer right?

You make it more palatable, and make more coherent points, but you are...

Maybe the point has merit. Again if I were the custodial parent I wouldn't ask for this much as it is an absurd amount of money to ask for. If I were the non custodial parent and so ordered I would pay it however I would make damn sure not one single cent went to anything that didn't directly benefit the child. I personally, given the fact that I would never ask for such an amount, can not see any other motive for asking for so much. I have yet to see any argument in this thread to sway me from that position.

[DeesKo]

Maybe the point has merit. Again if I were the custodial parent I wouldn't ask for this much as it is an absurd amount of money to ask for. If I were the non custodial parent and so ordered I would pay it however I would make damn sure not one single cent went to anything that didn't directly benefit the child. I personally, given the fact that I would never ask for such an amount, can not see any other motive for asking for so much. I have yet to see any argument in this thread to sway me from that position.

Because you seem insistent on the notion that the mother is going to be spending this money frivolously on herself. She very well may, at which point he has cause for revisting the custody/child support issue, but to just assume it, and the opinions being voiced about this woman none of us know could be construed as being indicative of a sexist, or at least harmfully biased viewpoint.

I find it funny that in one of my last posts I commented that when it comes to child support, men in particular seem to focus on the lowest common denominator regarding what is a valid amount, and what child support is for.... I think the quote I used was "I didn't have that and I turned out fine".

In this very thread people were commenting on what child support is to be used for and never once was anything above the most basic needs (food, clothing, shelter & education) discussed. Trust funds, college accounts, vacations & educational trips to broaden the kids mind etc weren't even mentioned......


....except when it came to the father.

What allows us to just ASSUME that rather than setting up college funds or trust funds or long-term investments or doing the other things, the mother will automatically be spending it all on Gucci & Prada?

Don't you find the fact that men are INSISTENT on the idea that this is what will happen, at least somewhat saddening as it relates to men & women/parental relationships. There isn't a single iota of trust exuded from men towards women in this thread.

Peace

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Because you seem insistent on the notion that the mother is going to be spending this money frivolously on herself. She very well may, at which point he has cause for revisting the custody/child support issue, but to just assume it, and the opinions being voiced about this woman none of us know could be construed as being indicative of a sexist, or at least harmfully biased viewpoint.

I find it funny that in one of my last posts I commented that when it comes to child support, men in particular seem to focus on the lowest common denominator regarding what is a valid amount, and what child support is for.... I think the quote I used was "I didn't have that and I turned out fine".

In this very thread people were commenting on what child support is to be used for and never once was anything above the most basic needs (food, clothing, shelter & education) discussed. Trust funds, college accounts, vacations & educational trips to broaden the kids mind etc weren't even mentioned......


....except when it came to the father.

What allows us to just ASSUME that rather than setting up college funds or trust funds or long-term investments or doing the other things, the mother will automatically be spending it all on Gucci & Prada?

Don't you find the fact that men are INSISTENT on the idea that this is what will happen, at least somewhat saddening as it relates to men & women/parental relationships. There isn't a single iota of trust exuded from men towards women in this thread.

Peace

If it were a man I would have the same viewpoint. I've expressed so numerous times.

[DeesKo]

If it were a man I would have the same viewpoint. I've expressed so numerous times.

I am pretty sure you don't have kids, (and in no way does that negate your opinions) but I do know you're a stand-up dude.

While income alone does not raise a child or guarantee anything, would you agree that household earnings directly influence a child's life?

Would you agree that having access to income can provide opportunities for a child that they may otherwise not have?

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

I am pretty sure you don't have kids, (and in no way does that negate your opinions) but I do know you're a stand-up dude.

While income alone does not raise a child or guarantee anything, would you agree that household earnings directly influence a child's life?

Would you agree that having access to income can provide opportunities for a child that they may otherwise not have?

I agree on both points.

[DeesKo]

I agree on both points.

Would you also agree that in situations of seperated households, there is no assumption or expectation of collective decision making between the father & mother?

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Would you also agree that in situations of seperated households, there is no assumption or expectation of collective decision making between the father & mother?

I can't agree with that necessarily as it is completely dependant on the two people involved.

[DeesKo]

I can't agree with that necessarily as it is completely dependant on the two people involved.

ok... ok....

Would you agree that in situations of seperated households, either party could at any moment get up and walk away from everything BUT their binding legal obligations?

[MadMixer]

take away personal bias and this thread could turn into something