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

[DJJM3.COM]

WHy should the percentage be lowered for higher income making parents??

What child do you know NEEDS to live in a mansion?
If the child can live in a middle income environment that should be sufficient. Access to decent quality schools and a middle class neighborhood isnt asking too much IMO.... Raising a child in a wealthy environment just sets the child up for failure... That will make him/her thinking everything in life will remain that way.... and they wont have to work for what is wanted in life, the court will just give it to them.

[House]

What child do you know NEEDS to live in a mansion?
If the child can live in a middle income environment that should be sufficient. Access to decent quality schools and a middle class neighborhood isnt asking too much IMO.... Raising a child in a wealthy environment just sets the child up for failure... That will make him/her thinking everything in life will remain that way.... and they wont have to work for what is wanted in life, the court will just give it to them.

This argument is bogus as well

"Raising a child in a wealthy environment just sets the child up for failure"

WTF?

If you're pissed that this woman is asking for this amount of child support, then say so.

[DJJM3.COM]

This argument is bogus as well

"Raising a child in a wealthy environment just sets the child up for failure"

WTF?

If you're pissed that this woman is asking for this amount of child support, then say so.

Im not pissed about it...It just shows he isn't "lawyer-ed" up properly. Or secondly, not handling his affairs himself-which he should... This would offset his business getting to the press and subsequently, us discussing it on DHP. When you see these amounts being posted, it means he/his lawyer missed a court date and the judge based it just on his income..not what he is actually doing for the child.

[DJ Celeste Alexander]

What child do you know NEEDS to live in a mansion?

What person do you know NEEDS to live in a mansion?

Any child is deserving of WHATEVER benefits the parents have.

If the parent lives in a mansion the child deserves to be with them.

If the parent CAN afford luxuries for himself, He/She should lavish their child with the same. It would be crazy to see a parent all "geared" up in labels and the child gets all thier clothes second hand from a flea market

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

This argument is bogus as well

"Raising a child in a wealthy environment just sets the child up for failure"

WTF?

Agreed. Strange line of thinking.

[House]

Im not pissed about it...It just shows he isn't "lawyer-ed" up properly. Or secondly, not handling his affairs himself-which he should... This would offset his business getting to the press and subsequently, us discussing it on DHP. When you see these amounts being posted, it means he/his lawyer missed a court date and the judge based it just on his income..not what he is actually doing for the child.

do you have any facts to support these statements?

[DJJM3.COM]

It would be crazy to see a parent all "geared" up in labels and the child gets all thier clothes second hand from a flea market

That scenario would be extreme... But actually you can get "geared up" in labels from a flea market that are new. Swap-o-Rama in Alsip.

Second hand cloths come from the salvation army or the thrift store...

so what you said was crazy....

[DJJM3.COM]

do you have any facts to support these statements?

going thru one now....any questions?

[House]

going thru one now....any questions?

You're a lawyer? Or a guy who didnt "lawyer up"? Either way,a sample size of 1, that is inclusive of only yourself, is laughable.


btw, I pay 25%. Gladly.

[DJJM3.COM]

You're a lawyer? Or a guy who didnt "lawyer up"? Either way,a sample size of 1, that is inclusive of only yourself, is laughable.


btw, I pay 25%. Gladly.

im not not a lawyer, but a client of one. my case isnt in full swing yet, but its gonna be interesting to say the least....

[DeesKo]

Brother I am not advocating that this guy provide the least of what it would take to raise his child. Far from it. IMO he should be paying in the 30-40k range as that would be ample money to provide for his child best home, schools, wants, needs and the whole nine. It would also be ample money to accumulate wealth for the child so that he/she would be provided for beyond childhood.

Would his child, over the course of their lifetime, be better off or worse off with $70k vs $30k ?

Lastly you still have not addressed my question so I will state it again. What happens if, or when, he has a second or third child? Does the amount of support get lowered for the first? If so isn't that proof in and of itself that 70k wasn't what was needed, or warranted, to provide for the child?

I meant to make a comment about that but forgot & got sidetracked with customers. I've never been in a situation first hand involving more than 1 child, but it's my understanding that the equation that most courts use does have some sort of mechanism to catch or address multiple kids but in the end, no the amount for the first child wouldn't be reduced and it's entirely possible/plausible the 2nd child would receive the same amount and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's fine by me because I agree with your opinion that if you can't afford em, you shouldn't be havin' em. That shit falls under personal responsibility. If he insists on procreating to the point of making $4.55 million and living in the same poverty many non-custodial parents struggling to get by, that's his own damn fault.

Peace

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Would his child, over the course of their lifetime, be better off or worse off with $70k vs $30k ?




I meant to make a comment about that but forgot & got sidetracked with customers. I've never been in a situation first hand involving more than 1 child, but it's my understanding that the equation that most courts use does have some sort of mechanism to catch or address multiple kids but in the end, no the amount for the first child wouldn't be reduced and it's entirely possible/plausible the 2nd child would receive the same amount and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's fine by me because I agree with your opinion that if you can't afford em, you shouldn't be havin' em. That shit falls under personal responsibility. If he insists on procreating to the point of making $4.55 million and living in the same poverty many non-custodial parents struggling to get by, that's his own damn fault.

Peace

You really didn't answer the question but ok.

[DeesKo]

You really didn't answer the question but ok.

Yeah I did.

It is my understanding that no, the amount for the first child would not be lowered.

I'm not an attorney, every state has different laws & I've never personally been involved in a situation with multiple kids so I won't say definitively across the board, in every state.. but that's my understanding.

Now answer mine, would his kid, over the course of his entire life, be better or worse off receiving $70k vs $50k ?

[DeesKo]

.. and BTW Huey, this is exactly why I agree 100% with you that this is why it's never good to have the courts up in your child support business because it never turns out 100% right.

In the end, these two should have been able to come to some sort of agreement regarding direct cash child support, college funds, investment portfolios etc and kept it moving.

However, I can assure you that if the father did try to do those things in a fair and equitable manner taking into account what the legal equations show, and the mother refused it outright, it will be brought up in court and she will bear the brunt of that mistake.

Likewise, if the mother tried and the father refused outright, he will bear the brunt of that mistake as well.

That's one of those things that can be turned into a custody hearing for being unfit.

If there is one thing you should always expect your divorce attorney to do, it's to teach you how to look at the law and aim for a solution you can live with as CLOSE to that law as possible, without the courts involvement and to be flexible with compromise. If they don't do those two things.... they are going to end up getting you supremely f***ed in the end. It might not be at the first hearing, it might not even be at the 2nd hearing, but sooner or later their bad advice is going to screw the entire rest of your life up beyond repair.



Peace

[DeesKo]

What child do you know NEEDS to live in a mansion?
If the child can live in a middle income environment that should be sufficient. Access to decent quality schools and a middle class neighborhood isnt asking too much IMO.... Raising a child in a wealthy environment just sets the child up for failure... That will make him/her thinking everything in life will remain that way.... and they wont have to work for what is wanted in life, the court will just give it to them.

damn...

I strive every single day to provide more for my family than I did yesterday because it drives me to achieve more, and I hope that never stops until the day I die.

I don't think I could look myself in the mirror and say "ehhh, they got mediocre, that's good enough". My grandparents didn't do that, my parents didn't do that and I refuse to ever do that. That's the only way my family will ever achieve long-term financial security generation to generation and I'm damn sure not going to be the one to lose the momentum.

On a sidenote, that troubled issue you're referring to is a symptom of parental upbringing, not long-term financial security.

[House]

damn...

I strive every single day to provide more for my family than I did yesterday because it drives me to achieve more, and I hope that never stops until the day I die.

I don't think I could look myself in the mirror and say "ehhh, they got mediocre, that's good enough". My grandparents didn't do that, my parents didn't do that and I refuse to ever do that. That's the only way my family will ever achieve long-term financial security generation to generation and I'm damn sure not going to be the one to lose the momentum.

On a sidenote, that troubled issue you're referring to is a symptom of parental upbringing, not long-term financial security.

This thread isn't about long term financial security and intergenerational wealth

Unfortunately

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

Yeah I did.

It is my understanding that no, the amount for the first child would not be lowered.

I'm not an attorney, every state has different laws & I've never personally been involved in a situation with multiple kids so I won't say definitively across the board, in every state.. but that's my understanding.

Now answer mine, would his kid, over the course of his entire life, be better or worse off receiving $70k vs $50k ?

There was a second part to my question. I didn't answer your because I assumed it to be rhetorical. Obviously the more money the better off the child will be. But if that's your argument why not make it 100k or 200k? That argument doesn't fly with me.

[The Good Reverend Rollo Goodlove]

.. and BTW Huey, this is exactly why I agree 100% with you that this is why it's never good to have the courts up in your child support business because it never turns out 100% right.

In the end, these two should have been able to come to some sort of agreement regarding direct cash child support, college funds, investment portfolios etc and kept it moving.

However, I can assure you that if the father did try to do those things in a fair and equitable manner taking into account what the legal equations show, and the mother refused it outright, it will be brought up in court and she will bear the brunt of that mistake.

Likewise, if the mother tried and the father refused outright, he will bear the brunt of that mistake as well.

That's one of those things that can be turned into a custody hearing for being unfit.

If there is one thing you should always expect your divorce attorney to do, it's to teach you how to look at the law and aim for a solution you can live with as CLOSE to that law as possible, without the courts involvement and to be flexible with compromise. If they don't do those two things.... they are going to end up getting you supremely f***ed in the end. It might not be at the first hearing, it might not even be at the 2nd hearing, but sooner or later their bad advice is going to screw the entire rest of your life up beyond repair.



Peace

On this we definitely agree.

[DeesKo]

There was a second part to my question.

If you're talking about these:

What happens if, or when, he has a second or third child?

He'll be in the news again?

Does the amount of support get lowered for the first?

Not to my knowledge.

If so isn't that proof in and of itself that 70k wasn't what was needed, or warranted, to provide for the child?

It's my understanding it doesn't get lowered, so this one is null & void.

I didn't answer your because I assumed it to be rhetorical. Obviously the more money the better off the child will be. But if that's your argument why not make it 100k or 200k? That argument doesn't fly with me.

So if $70k is better for the kid than $50k, and $70k is in accordance with the legal precedents and guidelines, why not, out of a moral obligation to his kid, sign the papers and keep it moving?

Why not make it $100k or $200k ?

Because that would be excessively over the limits of what the courts have set as legally just percentage wise, because those percentages are applied equally across all income levels. You couldn't have someone making $35k a year and expect them to pay 35% of their income in child support per child so you can't expect a millionaire too, out of fairness to all.

[DJ Celeste Alexander]

That scenario would be extreme... But actually you can get "geared up" in labels from a flea market that are new. Swap-o-Rama in Alsip.

Second hand cloths come from the salvation army or the thrift store...

so what you said was crazy....

Yes it would be extream, just as extream as saying someone NEEDS to live in a mansion. My point is What ever the living circumstances are for a wealthy parent should also be lavished upon that child. If I live in a Mansion, then my child as a dependant should live with me in a mansion. If I can afford to and decide to lavish myself with the best, why shouldnt I willingly do the same for my offspring?

Agian I repeat, the ONLY reason why this amount of money seems to be outlandish is because its not anything WE can relate to making in our own personal experiences.

Oh and if you believe that the "labeled" stuff in Swap-O-Ramma are New AND real, I got this property in Florida for sale and......

[chldfknungrnd764]

Yes it would be extream, just as extream as saying someone NEEDS to live in a mansion. My point is What ever the living circumstances are for a wealthy parent should also be lavished upon that child. If I live in a Mansion, then my child as a dependant should live with me in a mansion. If I can afford to and decide to lavish myself with the best, why shouldnt I willingly do the same for my offspring?

Agian I repeat, the ONLY reason why this amount of money seems to be outlandish is because its not anything WE can relate to making in our own personal experiences.

I guess a spacious 3 bedroom bungalow wouldn't be enough?

In all of this there's an assumption that there will be good responsible money management for the child?

Is there a conversation of how the funds will go to the child as in funds for education and alloted money to be put away or is it writing the check with no questions asked?

If in some time down the line the child wants to live with Dad does the mother still get the money?

[DJ Celeste Alexander]

I guess a spacious 3 bedroom bungalow wouldn't be enough?

For me and mine It would be plenty. But I doubt if the Father & Mother of this particular child are living in a 3 bedroom bungalow.

[DJJM3.COM]

damn...




On a sidenote, that troubled issue you're referring to is a symptom of parental upbringing, not long-term financial security.

Right, and where its not the norm-but still occurs....


Long term finacial security will come from the child coming out of classes with 3.8 + GPA, going to college with 4 year degree or beyond, and getting hired in that childs preferred career choice...

Now a child can achive that if I have him/her in a safe working class neighborhood, with a "average to above" eductional system. With my moral & moderate financial support, he/she can do that..not a monthly check from the local county court system for 70,000 a month that I have to reimburse to the state.

[DJ Celeste Alexander]

I guess a spacious 3 bedroom bungalow wouldn't be enough?

In all of this there's an assumption that there will be good responsible money management for the child?

I guess as a responsible parent myself, I would assume that. Why would there be the assumption that the money would be mismanaged in the first place? because the amount is staggering?

[chldfknungrnd764]

Right, and where its not the norm-but still occurs....


Long term finacial security will come from the child coming out of classes with 3.8 + GPA, going to college with 4 year degree or beyond, and getting hired in that childs preferred career choice...

Now a child can achieve that if I have him/her in a safe working class neighborhood, with a "average to above" educational system. With my moral & moderate financial support, he/she can do that..not a monthly check from the local county court system for 70,000 a month that I have to reimburse to the state.

Interesting comments by all.