Anger Toward Matt Leinart's Ex-girlfriend getting Child Support

[erpowers]

Today, I learned about the fact that Matt Leinart, the quarterback of the Arizonia Cardinals, is going through a battle with his ex-girlfriend over how much Leinart should pay in child support. The ex-girlfriend wants $30,000 per month, but Leinart does not want to pay that much. Leinart seems to be angry in that he already pays her $6,000 per month and has bought her a car. It seems to me that a number of people mainly men have taken Leinart's side.

When I went on the internet to find more about this story (I first heard about it on Jim Rome is Burning) I thought I would get some mean comments. I was surprised at how mean some of the comments sounded. One person said "the government has told women spread your legs, get a check". Another made a big deal about the fact that the ex-girlfriend and the child over a course of 18 years would get $6.5 million from Leinart. I felt the comment about how much money Leinart would lose was especially mean in that the amount of money is a very small percentage of what Leinart will make if he play for 18 years. $6.5 million is less than Leinart makes in one year. So, people, including Matt Leinart are upset that over the course of 18 years he will pay less in child support than he makes in one year.

Over the course of 18 years Leinart would make $153 million dollars just off his salary of $8 million per year. I know it is very unlikely that Leinart will play for 18 years, but even if he just plays 10 years at a salary of $8 million per year he will make $80 million just in salary. In addition, if Leinart continues to stay healthy and plays well he will eventually make more than $8 million per year. Yes, his child support payments will go up, but that would still just be a small portion of his earning, mostly likely less than 10%.

I understand that as of now Leinart only makes $8.5 million a year, but what his ex-girlfriend is asking for is less than 5% of what Leinart makes per years. So, I do not have a problem with the girl asking for $30,000 per month. I do not hate men and I am not trying to be mean to Leinart; however, he helped to make a kid and I think he should help to support the kid. He makes a great deal of money so he should pay a great deal of child support.

[trumad]

1. .

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[terisan]

2. Men who do not want to raise & support children should use birth control or abstinence.

Irresponsibility and fatherhood do not go well together.

Maybe couples engaging in sexual relations without marriage should each sign pre-parenthood agreements.

[opiate69]

51. ..........This argument sounds oddly familiar...

"Men who do not want to raise & support children should use birth control or abstinence.
Irresponsibility and fatherhood do not go well together."

[cynatnite]

3. Women should take what their given and STFU...

least that's what men who fuck women, but still hate them will say. Men like this usually care less about the children they father.

[etherealtruth]

190. Reading through this entire thread ...

... that seems to be the attitude of more than a few here :puke:

[Horse with no Name]

4. IF he valued his money more than he valued a child

He should have kept his pants buttoned and nobody would be having this argument.

[hiaasenrocks]

8. Clearly, it would be preferable for both of them to have kept their clothes on.

But both wanted to get in the sack.

[Horse with no Name]

10. And she is raising this child, no?

All she wants is child support, what is wrong with that?
Does he think that HIS time throwing a ball around and getting paid insane amounts of money for it is worth more than HER time of raising a child?
Her job is 24/7/365.
His is much less than that.

[hiaasenrocks]

11. It doesn't matter what he thinks he's worth.

The market decided that.

[Horse with no Name]

12. The law decides

Just like the law decides on the poor schmuck who makes minimum wage and is supporting a child. Clearly THAT child is not deserving of such a pittance amount--but that is the law and this rich athlete isn't above the man who makes minimum wage NOR is he above the law.
As I said...if his money was so precious...he should keep his sperm in check.

[hiaasenrocks]

14. They both should have thought about this when engaging in an act to conceive the child.

It's a 50/50 proposition.

I agree with you that people shouldn't be treated differently because of how the market decides their net worth.

The laws should provide for the child's needs, based on current economic trends, COL, etc.

[Horse with no Name]

22. Well the laws aren't based on SHOULD'S

(Here I go inserting FACTS (funny how "some" don't always want the facts)
But here is the California child support calculator.
The guy makes $8m a year, which is $666,666 a month

Child Support Payments


Father's Monthly Net Income: $666666
Mother's Monthly Net Income: $0
Father's Custodial Time: 0 %
Number of Supported Children: 1
Results

Father pays Mother: $ 80800

http://www.west.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/ivguy/support_calc.pl

Theoretically the court could FORCE him to pay $80k a month. He should be thankful she is only asking for $30k.

[hiaasenrocks]

194. That's odd. You entire argument is based on what "should" happen here.

[Horse with no Name]

197. I advocate that they SHOULD follow the law

That is the only SHOULD in my argument. However, you think they SHOULD (based on what YOU consider to be right)adjust the amount because YOU feel it is too high.
The kid is ENTITLED. That SHOULD be the end of story.

[theHandpuppet]

189. Just what I would have posted!

For some reason there's a lot of folks out there who believe it's perfectly all right to be paid insane amounts of money to play football a few months out of the year but a woman whose job it is to raise a child 24/7/365 until that child is 18 isn't worth being paid. Leinart sounds like a class-A jerk to me.

[LostinVA]

192. Good point

[Diamonique]

5. When I went through this...

... during my divorce, the judge stated that the child support should be enough for the child to live in the way/style he would be living if the absent parent were living under the same roof as the child.

So $30,000 seems quite fair.

[greenbriar]

17. Wow, that would pay off a LOT of bills

can I have just two months please

[glowing]

6. Tricky... Most of us would think 30,000 is outrageous...

Heck I don't even make that in one year. But as the courts go, the percentage is based on the earned amount, and in some states, earning potential. I would be happy to get 6000.00 a month. I would be fine with that.

But the reality is, that the money is supposed to go to the child's welfare. This child is in the upper echelon of the richer society... so I would say it takes more money to turn them into spoiled, pampered brats.

Strange things happen when people with money get caught up in these battles... its kind of shameful because most people make 30,000 in a year if they are lucky. Hard to feel simpathy in this case alone.

[hiaasenrocks]

7. More power to her....

if she can justify to the court why it costs 30k/month to raise a child.

[cynatnite]

9. They usually take a percentage of the father's income no matter what it is n/t

[hiaasenrocks]

16. Depends on the state.

[Mutineer]

18. California is her home state.

His too. He's going to end up paying more whether he likes it or not, which is probably why he's trying to gain joint or sole custody at this point, becuase he doesn't want to shell out.

[hiaasenrocks]

19. The custody issues cut both ways.

[Horse with no Name]

13. She doesn't HAVE to justify it

That child is legally entitled to it.

[hiaasenrocks]

15. I'm sure the court will be delighted to entertain that analysis.

[LostInAnomie]

20. $30K a month seems a bit steep.

I know, I know, the kid is entitled. But, $30K a month? What needs does a kid have that it needs that kind of money?

[cynatnite]

21. Whatever the mother determines the child needs...

It's based on the father's income.

[LostInAnomie]

24. Well, if it were me, and I was on bad terms with the mother...

... I would fight that shit like the Devil.

I'd agree to $6K a month and $24K a month in the child's trust fund.

[Pithlet]

23. Nobody needs that kind of money.

Child support isn't based solely on need, otherwise every child would get the same amount. This could be bad for a kid if the parent with the lesser income wins custody. Their lifestyle would change, sometimes drastically. And a flat rate based child support would be a bigger burden to poor parents. In fact, the less you make, the worse off you are. That's why they're usually based on percentage of income instead. It lessens the impact on a child's circumstances. When you get into the really high income, it can seem ridiculous, but that child is entitled to that same percentage as any other.

[LostInAnomie]

25. I said upthread...

... that if I were him I would agree to keep the support at $6K a month and then put $24K a month in a trust fund that only he can access. That seems fair to me. The proposed arrangement that is described in the OP honestly does sound like someone trying to cash in.

[Pithlet]

29. There's nothing fair about that.

The child gets a different percentage of the parent's income in support because the parent makes too much money? That's not fair. Trust fund doesn't cut it because they usually can't access that till they're adults. Their standard of living is still reduced. If you had stayed with the mother and the child lived with both of you, at that income they'd likely be consuming well more than 6000 a month. The whole point of making it a percentage is so the circumstances of the child don't change dramatically. That shouldn't change just because the parents make more money than the rest of us can even comprehend. As far as cashing in, the intentions of the custodial parent are irrelevant legally speaking. Child support through the eyes of the law is the child's entitlement, and any benefits the parent may or may not receive are irrelevant. I'm sure the girlfriend knows that child support is based on a percentage so I don't see how exercising her child's rights is evidence she's just looking to cash in. She's actually asking for less than what California usually grants.

[LostInAnomie]

37. That is fair.

Child support should see to the needs of the child. It should pay for clothes, food, education, insurance, and other necessities. It should not become a way for custodial parents to strike it rich.

The child should get whatever money is due to it, but is should go to the child instead of buying the custodial parent a lavish lifestyle.

[cynatnite]

38. So the rich wealthy father can live it up while the mother...

has just enough to care for the child.

Yeah, sounds real fair. NOT.

[LostInAnomie]

39. The inverse of that would be the father works his ass off...

... while the mother gets $30K a month and never has to work a day for the rest of her life. That sounds real fair. NOT.

The child should get the percentage since they are due. The custodial parent shouldn't get to have the cake of custody and then get to eat the rewards of the other parent's wealth.

[cynatnite]

41. The custodial parent has the child of the rich father...

that's why she gets 30K.

The father makes $8 million per year. He should pay 30k a month. The amount is based on the father's income. That's the law and it's right.

[LostInAnomie]

44. The father should see that the needs of the child are met.

It should cover food, clothing, education, insurance, and all other necessities. What is left over should go into the child's bank account. It should not become a source of lavish wealth for the custodial parent.

The custodial parent fought for custody. Custody and child support should be all they are due. They should not get custody, child support, a mansion, fancy cars, monthly trips to Maui, a huge bank account, and never having to work for the rest of their life. To due so reduces parenthood to the providing of material wealth. That is insulting.

[cynatnite]

46. Can I have your crystal ball?

I need one so I can see what someone might do in the future :sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

50. So, keep it from the child so she doesn't get any either.

I'm trying real hard to find the fair in that. The parents are split up because their relationship is over, but they're still a family of sorts as they're both still parents of the child. The welfare of the child is directly linked to the welfare of whoever has the child. Bottom line is, the kid is the son of a rich man. He should benefit from that the way any son of a rich man would. It's not fair to cut him off from that just to spite his mother. I don't understand why a rich man would want his kid to live a much lower standard just because he isn't with the kid's mother anymore and doesn't want her to have any of it. 30,000 is not a big deal to him, and in giving it he ensures his kid lives at least close to the life he otherwise would have if they'd stayed together. It seems selfish and petty for him to fight it, IMO. And since he doesn't have the law on his side, it seems pointless. Yeah, he worked hard for his money. Most people do. If a hard working money maker doesn't want a percentage of that income going to children, the solution is to not have children.

[Horse with no Name]

52. Much more eloquent than I.

:thumbsup:

[theHandpuppet]

191. Touche!!

Yep, it's all right for playboy Leinart to live it up but how dare that bitch who bore and will raise his child ask for any more than she needs to get by.

:sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

43. It isn't a way for custodial parents to strike it rich.

It's a way to ensure children don't get screwed. It's not about the parents. The fact of the matter is a child lives in the same means as the parent they're living with. The child shouldn't have to live with just enough while the other parent lives the high life with all the benefits that entails, just so we can make sure the custodial parent doesn't get what they don't have coming to them. There is nothing fair about that. The fact that some of the rest of us begrudge these kids and their custodial parents the benefits that the wealth brings them isn't reason enough to alter the laws, making them exceptions to the laws that benefit the rest of us. The vast majority of child support cases don't come even close to the amounts we're talking here, and the system based on percentage is better than a flat rate for most of us, particularly if we don't make a lot of money.

Bottom line is, in your scenario, if you and the mother stayed together, the child would be benefiting from that wealth. They shouldn't be shut out of the benefits that entails just because you two didn't stay together, and it isn't fair to withhold any of just so the ex doesn't get any benefit from it. Your relationship as a couple has ended, but your relationship as co-parents to your child has not. Punishing the child along with the ex makes no sense, and I see no fairness in it.

[cynatnite]

45. Over twenty years ago I got $100 per month in child support...

while my POS ex made $15 p/hour. He lived far better than my daughter and I did. I made minimum wage and even adding that $100 p/month we still lived in poverty.

The judge who decided on the child support pulled that number out of his ass. My lawyer tried to get us more with no success. This was the same judge who refused to give me a restraining order because I would be 'sleeping with my husband tonight'(his words). I only wanted the restraining order to keep him away so I wouldn't get the hell beat out of me.

I'm so glad the laws have changed.

[Horse with no Name]

49. You keep mentioning the core of this matter which several refuse to acknowledge

There are LAWS to protect the children from activist judges like you had.
There are LAWS that say what percentage is GOING TO GO to the child so that you don't have judges pulling random amounts out of their asses.
The fact that it is based on percentages and not on fixed amounts is what several seem to overlook.

[LostInAnomie]

63. It is easy to get caught up in the generalities and principles when discussing child support...

... and in doing so lose sight of the real argument. So in this respect I will restate my grievance.

If this woman was only concerned with seeing to the material needs of her child $6K ($72K a year) would be more than enough to provide a great life style, especially if she were willing to work to supplement. $30k a month ($360K a year) is an excessive amount of child support and in my view shows a greed on the side of the mother. A more fair arrangement would be for the child support to stay where it is at and put the other $24K, that the child is due, in a bank account that only it has access to. To say that a child needs to live a $30K a month lifestyle reduces parenting to providing material wealth and does a great disservice to the institution. If lifestyle were our only concern then it would make more sense to only give custody to the more wealthy parent. Obviously this is heartless and unfair, but it is also unfair for one parent to be forced to provide for the lavish lifestyle of the custodial parent. It turns custody into a gravy train.

It may not follow the law, but that is my opinion. It is cases like this that make the child support system look bad and makes it easy to ridicule.

[Horse with no Name]

64. Says you.

It is ENTITLEMENT for the child. It is what the LAW provides the CHILD. The child shouldn't have to live in substandard conditions because he isn't with his non-custodial parent. That is why there are LAWS.
And besides, how do you "randomly" come up with the number $6k?
Is that what you consider excess for yourself?

[LostInAnomie]

68. At $6K a month I hardly think the kid is going to be living in substandard conditions.

I guess the judge that originally awarded her that didn't either.

[cynatnite]

74. Why can't the wealthy father make sure his kid live in wealth, too?

He makes millions of dollars every year. Maybe the father should be able to buy a few more hummers or something.

[LostInAnomie]

77. If wealth is all that's important, why not automatically give custody to the wealthier parent?

eom

[cynatnite]

79. So now who has the most money is the indicator of who is the better parent?

:eyes:

[LostInAnomie]

83. That seems to be the argument that you are making. That material wealth is all that's important.

Not the quality of the parenting provided. Not the love shared between parent and child. Not how the child is raised. Only the material wealth is important.

How is $30K a month going to make the mother a better parent and provide a better life than $6K?

[cynatnite]

87. It's not the material wealth...it's the father paying his fair share...

the percentage of his income. That's it. A father should pay his share which is a percentage of his income. That's the law and that law wasn't made just for the rich. It was made for those parents who really need it. So why should the law be different here?

30K every month is a lot of money. I agree. But that father is a millionaire and he can easily afford it. The mother could have asked for a lot more and she didn't.

The law is fair and it's right.

[cynatnite]

66. I would think a weathly father who loved his child...

would have no problem in sharing the wealth with his child.

[LostInAnomie]

72. If wealth is all that's important why not just give him custody?

Since obviously he can provide the best lifestyle?

[cynatnite]

76. I don't know...maybe the mom wants to keep her child...

maybe the father doesn't want full custody. So, what is wrong with the father making sure his child lives in the same lifestyle he lives in?

[LostInAnomie]

80. Who said that the father was going to spend $30K on him a month?

Perhaps he doesn't want the child to grow up as a spoiled brat. $30K a month seems to take that decision out of his hands.

[cynatnite]

82. I continue to be amazed at the reasoning...

Wealthy father lives in mansion, drives high-dollar cars, dresses to the nines, jet sets around the world and doesn't want his child to be spoiled by withholding money.

Yeah, makes perfect sense. :crazy:

[LostInAnomie]

89. Who said anything about withholding money?

I simply said that he might not want his child to be spoiled. I don't consider $6k a month witholding anything, especially if custody is shared and the child will receive an inheritance.

[cynatnite]

94. Let's make it fair then...

If the father insists on paying that amount for child support then he should be required to live in the same lifestyle as his child. If his child has to live middle class...so does the father. If the child can't afford a trip to Paris...the father can't go.

If the child has to live on 6K per month...so does the father.

[LostInAnomie]

99. Or how about the mother gets $6k a month...

... and the child gets $24k a month that she can't ever touch? Afterall, the money is entitled to the child, not the mother.

[cynatnite]

105. Do you have a problem with a father living in the same lifestyle as his son? n/t

[MaraJade]

217. You hit the nail on the head.

The boy should be living the SAME lifestyle as his dad.

[Pithlet]

106. The child's welfare is tied to the welfare of the custodial parent.

How is that money going to do anything if it just sits in a bank until the kid grows up? A kid can't be responsible financially for his own money, so it's up to the custodial parent to manage it for them. They're the parent, too. The fact that it grinds some people's butts that the custodial parent benefit as well isn't reason enough to change the laws keeping the money away from the kid.

[LostInAnomie]

119. "How is that money going to do anything if it just sits in a bank until the kid grows up? "

Well it would give him a $5,184,000 to play with by the time he's 18, $6,048,000 by 21. That seems like a pretty good benefit to me.

I'm sure the best interest of the child is all the mother is REALLY concerned with though. :eyes:

[cynatnite]

120. Yeah, that greedy mom you keep going back to...

:eyes:

[LostInAnomie]

123. Mother, father, doesn't matter to me.

Custody shouldn't become a winning lottery ticket, no matter what the gender.

[cynatnite]

125. Agreed, but you keep going back to her for some reason... n/t

[LostInAnomie]

129. Because that is the narrative we are discussing.

If K-Fed managed to get custody of his and Britney Spears kids I would understand if she didn't want to have to pay him enough child support that he never had to work for the rest of his life.

Turning custody into a winning lottery ticket is an insult to parenting, and an insult to the idea of a meritocracy.

[cynatnite]

131. I've been talking about the child and you keep bringing up the mother...

What makes you think this child is a lottery ticket? How do you know that's what the mother is thinking or feeling? You think she looks at her child and sees a lottery ticket? Based on how much she's asking for which is reasonable under the law?

The bigger insult in all this is the thinking that because the father is rich, and the mother is not, that he doesn't have to pay what's fair to his child because he is rich.

[LostInAnomie]

143. I never said the child doesn't deserve the money.

The child deserves all the money that it is due. There comes a point though when child support is no longer support and becomes a lucrative income for the custodial parent. Just because this level of "support" is reasonable under the law does not make it right or justified.

[cynatnite]

145. So are you saying this couple is excluded under the law...

because of his father's wealth?

[LostInAnomie]

176. I'm saying it makes a mockery of the idea of support...

... if by virtue of being awarded custody you NEVER have to work another day in your life. It no longer should be considered support when it surpasses the poverty level for a family of four by more than 12X. It should be considered an income, and the non-custodial parent did not consent to providing an income to the other parent when they conceived the child.

I'll say it again, just because the law says it is fair doesn't mean it is.

[cynatnite]

178. It is when it's based on a percentage of the non-custodial parent's income...

no matter how much it is and no matter how much you don't like it he is a wealthy man and it's been determined by the courts he has a financial obligation to his child. That money goes to his child and it will be managed by the child's mother. Call it whatever you like, but that's the way it is and will always be so.

Change it just for them and you'll be damaging it for the rest of the parents who struggle to get decent child support.

[Pithlet]

181. I agree. And, no one will explain to me how this is anymore unfair

then inheritance. A spouse's wealthy parents die and they get millions. How is it fair that the spouse he/she married never has to work a day in his/her life again, just because he/she picked the right person to marry? I mean, it's not as though the parents worked for all that money just so he/she could sit on their butt. It's even worse, because unlike the father who has to pay support and chose whom to become parents with, they didn't get say at all. Their kid chose to marry, not them. Now he/she is sitting pretty, the greedy b!tch/bastard. The inheriting spouse should get just enough to live by and the rest can go in a trust until divorce or death of the freeloading spouse. It's the same convoluted logic. But, parent to child inheritance isn't fraught with the same social stigmas based on sexist notions, so there seems to be minimal outrage.

[Pithlet]

124. You're so certain of that.

You're certain it isn't her child's best interests driving her to fight for something the child is legally entitled to. I wonder why? She's not asking for something he isn't legally entitled to. In fact, less! I wonder how you'd feel if these were normal people. Would she be greedy for insisting on this child support for her child if it meant the difference between poverty and solid middle class for herself? Even knowing that it also means the difference between poverty and middle class for her child? Why are you so certain that just because more money is involved here, she isn't thinking about the circumstances her child will live in. How many mothers do you think would, if given a choice, choose a middle class upbringing for their child over a wealthy one? How many would choose it even if their child were entitled to the wealthy one by law?

[LostInAnomie]

136. Maybe because I don't see living with $72k a year of child support as struggling.

As if forcing her to live with a penny less than $360k a year in child support is depriving the child. :eyes:

Your example of child support raising a mother from poverty to middle class is not comparable. A middle class mother still has to work. She does not get the benefit of never having to work again because she raised the standard of living for her child.

Why doesn't this woman just ask him to put whatever the child is entitled to into a trust fund if best interest of the child is all she's concerned with? The child would turn 18 with millions in the bank and never have to work again. Why should custody have to turn into a winning lottery ticket for her?

Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.

[Pithlet]

144. It's not about deprivation.

It's about getting what one is legally entitled to. My example is absolutely comparable. We're talking about differences of degree, not kind. If the middle class child is legally entitled to the support to keep his circumstances from changing, the child of the wealthy is as well. They're both legally entitled to the same thing.

Why doesn't this woman just ask to do that falderal with trust accounts? Because it isn't what her child is entitled to. She has an ethical responsibility to advocate for her child, and that is true whether the benefit is a little or a lot.

Why should custody have to turn into a winning lottery ticket for her? Why should being the child or grandchild of a wealthy dead relative turn into a lottery ticket? I think being the parent of a child who's entitlement brings them wealth has its benefits the same way winning the genetic lottery does. It's one of those things that happens to some people that the rest of us wish would happen to us. And we don't base laws on the envy that causes for some. The law that says every child is entitled to the same thing regardless of economical level IS the right law. It is legal, and it is right that it is so.

[LostInAnomie]

179. I guess it's just a happy conicidence that what the child is entitled to...

... amounts to the custodial parent gaining control of over $6.5M

Envy has nothing to do with why I think the mother does not deserve $30k a month. I hate entrenched wealth and all that comes along with it. I think the inheritance tax should be 100%. I disagree with excessive child support because once it exceeds the actual necessities of the child and becomes a way for the custodial parent to amass wealth it is no longer support. It becomes an income, in this case a large income, and the non-custodial parent did not agree to provide the other parent an income when the child was conceived. Support, yes. Income, no.

[Pithlet]

184. I'm no fan of entrenched wealth, either.

I'm all for an inheritance tax, though 100% is rather ludicrous because the cut in incentive would far outweigh the benefit at that point. There's no compelling reason for that any more than there is to deny a child the full support they're entitled to because it enriches someone other than the child as well.

It doesn't matter how much it enriches the child's custodial parent. That is irrelevant because it's the child who is entitled to it. Whether or not it enriches any other party is irrelevant, as it should be. It's still support that the child is entitled to. It doesn't matter one whit what the non-custodial parent agreed to when it comes to the child's rights. By virtue of being wealthy and having a child, they're obligated legally, morally and ethically to pay the higher support then their non-wealthy peers because the CHILD is entitled to it, legally, morally and ethically.

This is the important part and the entire basis for child support laws: What either parent wants or needs or agreed to is irrelevant. Child support is for the child. Period. This is true across the board economically speaking. That child's legal entitlement doesn't change by virtue of anyone associated with him/her. No one. Just because the child lives with the less well off parent who will benefit by virtue of their association with the child means nothing as far as what that child is entitled to. Change the law to spite the non-custodial parent to hell with the child, and you weaken the laws that benefit other children as well. Make it a simple and fair process, or risk hurting the children who fall through the cracks.

[cynatnite]

146. Why do you think she sees her child as a lottery ticket? n/t

[bettyellen]

203. do you have a clue what it costs to live in major cities? send a kid to a private school

would eat up more than half of that. No one I know feels they could raise a kid on 72k unless they fled to a cheap suburb. with crappy schools. Dad's might like that because they could buy their kids affection and continue to look down on their Ex.
... and if you don;t "approve" you probably wouldn;t approve of half the things Dad wastes his money on... Thankfully, it isn;t your call to judge.

[gollygee]

196. The child deserves to live at the father's standard of living the entire time (s)he is growing up

that's the way it works.

[Pithlet]

84. Do you think he was going to send the kid off to live in a middle class suburbs

if they'd stayed together? 30,000 is a tiny fraction of his income. A blip on his financial radar. The odds are that child was going to consume at least that much is extremely high. Just living in the same house they did alone would consume that much. These people are out of the stratosphere. Besides, spoiling a kid has nothing to do with how much money you have. It's how much you let them get away with. Every parent knows this.

[Pithlet]

81. Why should the poorer parent have to do that

when the obvious solution is tie the amount of child support to how much the parent makes? That way a parent wouldn't have to feel pressure or guilt in holding on to custody if it meant a reduction in the child's means. Besides, our argument isn't that wealth is more important so this is why it should be done. Our argument is a child's circumstances should change as little as possible during the breakup regardless of what arrangements were made. Of course, amongst us hoi palloi, that's not always possible. But, there's no excuse for a sharp drop in a child's means when one parent is wealthy, just so they can cut out the other parent that they chose to have a child with in the first place. In every case, the damage should be ameliorated as much as possible. Basing child support on percentage of income is the best way to do this.

[Pithlet]

71. That's why a system based on percentage of income makes the most sense.

Base it on percentage of income and the type of custody arrangement, and it's pretty straightforward. Introducing factors such as whether one party is greedy, or whether or not an arbitrary amount of money should be enough, and then you're complicating things. Factor in the cost of living varying from place to place, and the fact that one parent may live in a different part of the country, and well, you see what I mean. There is a reason why percentage of income has become the popular method of dealing with it.

Your perception of greed is based on your own perspective. It's not based in fact. It's definitely not a thing to base laws on. She's still the parent of the father's child. The bond between them is not broken because their relationship is dead. Because they have kids, it isn't just a couple splitting up, but a family breaking apart. He chose to have a child with her. It's not as though she came out of nowhere totally out of his control and is just demanding a huge chunk of his income. She's the mother of his child and the welfare of his child is tied to her. Because she doesn't want to see the circumstances of her own child fall because they split doesn't make her greedy. Her own greed, whether or not it exists, doesn't factor into it.

[Yukari Yakumo]

57. True there...

That is what alimony is for.

[sarcasmo]

59. I am pretty sure D/U should have a Men Bashing thread.

That is what these Child Support thread always turn into. Comments like, my ahole ex still owes me money. What a great site this can be but not with these threads.

[Pithlet]

61. I guess it's all about perspective.

To me these always seems to turn into the women are greedy and want something for nothing thread. As far as people complaining about ex's paying up, I've heard it enough from both genders to know it isn't a man bashing thing.

[Big Pappa]

75. Why would anyone think that.

Thirty thousand a month would be my guess.

[Pithlet]

85. Why would anyone think that?

Because they're sexist.

[Big Pappa]

88. Thats not my reasoning.

You can jump on that sword if you like, but I would say the same if the woman had to give the man 30 grand. Greedy.

[Pithlet]

93. If someone makes the statement that women are greedy and want something for nothing

which was the statement I was referring to in the first post you responded to, then I'd say that person is being sexist.

As far as judging a non-custodial parent to be greedy, why would that be so? Is it greedy to want their situation and means to stay as close as possible as to what it was or would have been if you stayed together? If a child is entitled to a certain percentage of their parent's income, then it is the custodial parents responsibility to see that he/she gets it. Regardless of the level of income. Others may judge them greedy, but it's a judgment. It isn't based on fact. Is a parent always greedy asking for child support, or does it only become greedy past a certain level of income?

[Big Pappa]

107. I agree with

you to a point. After a certain dollar amount it stops being child support and turns into adult support. It would be great if lets say 20 grand a month went into a trust for th child and the custodial parent got 10 grand a month to care for the child. That would still give you 120 grand a year for this child. Better yet I believe in joint physical custody where each pays their own way.

[cynatnite]

110. And how do you do that when one parent is wealthy and the other is not n/t

[Big Pappa]

127. Easy, each

pays there own way. As long as basic needs are being met for this child, ie food shelter and clothing, and each household is stable go for it.

[cynatnite]

132. So have the father live in the same standards as the child...

Basic needs, you know.

[Big Pappa]

138. I have no prob

with that. Plus remember that 30 grand a month is tax free to the custodial parent, so he is really paying out about 39 grand a month. That would pay for a lot of basic needs.

[Pithlet]

113. No, it doesn't.

It doesn't turn into adult support because as I said in another post, the welfare of the child is tied to the welfare of the custodial parent. Of course it rises the parent to the same level as the child, but that's the way it goes. The wealthy parent decided to parent a child with that person, and their status as co-parent didn't change when they separated. Usually child support keeps the custodial parent from living in poverty, so even in normal cases, the custodial parent benefits from child support. We're just talking on a much grander scale with the rich, but it's the same thing.

Yes, in cases of 50/50 custody, if both parents are on the same level economically then both should pay. If one makes vastly more than the other, however, then it needs to be evened out so the child isn't living in poverty half the time (or drastically below the means they were used to, in cases like the football player). I favor 50/50 as much as possible.

[Big Pappa]

126. Poverty

I do not think this person is anywhere close to that. Or living below the means they were use to? Were they married? If not what she was used to has no bearing.

[Pithlet]

128. What does have bearing

Is the financial situation of both parents. If either or both are wealthy, then the child is entitled to the benefits of that wealth. A child of separated parents is no less entitled than the child who's parents are still together. That's what it boils down to. The fact that the child COULD live on less is irrelevant. Just because it makes us green to see some kid and his mother get so much dough is irrelevant. The fact that we live on far less is irrelevant. Any attitudes about either gender that anyone may or may not have is irrelevant. Personal attitudes about money are irrelevant. No one (or fewer, I should say) would begrudge a middle income kid from getting support from his father so he and his mother aren't plunged into poverty because his mother's job skills atrophied while she stayed home with him. Why this is distorted and changed when we move into the upper levels of income totally escapes me. Just because he isn't plunged into poverty doesn't mean he isn't entitled to the support of his father, even if the father makes tons of money.

[Big Pappa]

130. Then why would

some be so adverse into putting part into a trust for and only the child. 20 grand into a trust and 10 grand a month for support, is that such a terrible thing?

[Pithlet]

133. Because it isn't fair.

Why should the rules change for that child because his child support paying parent happens to be wealthy? Why isn't he entitled to get that money directly as his support with his custodial parent so their circumstance together changes as little as possible, the way all other children are? Because his custodial parent's situation also rises? That's true for many parents regardless of income level. There has to be a better reason to change the law to exclude them from what they're entitled to other than the rest of us are jealous. There's no compelling reason to force such an exception and reduce the level of comfort while they're a minor living with their custodial parent. And there's nothing greedy about seeing that your own child gets what they're entitled to, even if we're talking big bucks. It's no greedier than one insisting they get their millions they inherited from the grandparents. After all, they didn't work for it, either.

[Big Pappa]

140. I am not jealous

and can tell you I loathe dead beat parents, but 30 grand a month...you right it is an entitlement because I am sure it does not cost 360,000 a year to raise this child in a very rich environment. What kind of life could you give for a child if you were allocated 100 grand for that purpose? She gets 3x that much. That is greed.

[cynatnite]

148. and what do you call a wealthy father who makes $8 mil p/year...

who can easily afford it, but refuses? It's okay for the father to drive his hummers, have a mansion, and live it up but give just enough for his child to get by?

[Big Pappa]

151. I would

call him overpaid to throw a football. But I refuse to be jealous because of what he makes. And if you saw my previous post you will see that I felt he should still pay 30 grand a month, but have 2/3 of it put in a trust till the child is eighteen. Thus guaranteeing the child gets most of the money. That would leave 120,000 dollars a year to raise this child. Rough life.

[cynatnite]

157. The custodial parent determines how the money is handled...

If she thinks a portion of it needs to go into a trust fund maybe she'll do that. It's her choice since she has custody.

[Big Pappa]

160. Thank you

And this is where some see this as being greedy. His money for his child = She decides how to spend it. New car, vacation to Mexico, or just a trip to the casino al legal under the law. How nice. And his part of the decision making process, pay up or go to jail.

[cynatnite]

163. The custodial parent has always determined how the money is handled...

you don't like it because of how you THINK she might possibly spend it. Fortunately, the law trusts the custodial parent in just about every one of these cases.

[Big Pappa]

165. True

And you are correct, in most situations you have some control of how your money is spent. No checks and balances never lead to a good outcome.

[cynatnite]

171. Well, my ex-husband thought that, too...

he told the judge that I would take whatever money he was forced to pay and blow it on silly things like the rent. My ex wanted me to detail where every dime went. I kid you not. My lawyer had to cover his mouth to keep from laughing out loud. While the judge was still a complete asshole, he told my ex that since I'm the custodial parent...I decided how best to use it.

This was over the $100 per month. It's an attempt to paint the a mother as somehow being irresponsible and use it against her rather than thinking of what's best for the child.

[Big Pappa]

177. I am sure you did

what was is right as do most people. But I believe there should be some kind of minimal oversight.

[cynatnite]

180. That only happens when a custodial parent using it for drugs...

or something like that and neglects the child because of it.

There should be no oversight unless the custodial parent has done something to warrent it. Now, if the mother of this child blew the money rather than provide adequately for the child...yeah, maybe she does need someone looking over her shoulder. Otherwise, if she handles it responsibly...no.

[Pithlet]

153. I can't see any other reason to begrudge the child and his parent the wealth.

It is wealth the child is entitled to. He doesn't need it, but no rich person needs it. He doesn't need it isn't a compelling enough reason to deny it to him. The fact that his custodial parent also benefits is not enough reason to deny him. Would it be right to deny a person who inherits their parents' fortune the money simply because they don't need it and could live on a lot less? Few would support that law, I'm sure. But because a custodial parent benefits when a wealthy child gets what he's due, suddenly that's wrong and the law should be changed to deny him the money? I don't get it. By that logic, no one's individual means should ever change unless they worked for it directly themselves. Spouses who's personal means are less should live in a separate household more befitting their station, or they're just greedy and leeching off the rich spouse. People who inherit wealth should give it all away, or that's just wrong, using money they didn't earn themselves. Fact is, many people get rich through luck, inheritance, all kinds of ways other than earning a direct paycheck. It sucks it doesn't happen for all of us, but I don't think we go making laws just to spite people. And that's all such a law denying a child his support would be. Spite so the mother doesn't benefit from the money, too.

[Big Pappa]

164. Well.

"I can't see any other reason to begrudge the child and his parent the wealth" Your own words, when you say parent I take you mean the ex girlfriend. She is not "entitled" to a dime. That is why it is called child support. But 30 grand a month then become adult support.

[Pithlet]

175. Then all inheritance is just adult support as well and should be done away with.

By that logic. If we're going to get rid of any child support that could also benefit an adult, then it's only fair to get rid of all inheritance. It's just adult support, after all. While we're at it, we should eliminate any means of income if it's not earned. It makes as much sense as withholding support a child is entitled to just because an adult they're associated with benefits as well.

I asked you this before and you didn't respond. How is it adult support if the child benefits from it as well? A child's circumstances are bound inextricably to their parent or parents, regardless of whether there's been a divorce. If the parent is living a rich lifestyle, the child will. If they aren't, the child won't. So, by default the custodial parent will live the same lifestyle as their wealthy child. Give it a derisive name like "adult support", but that doesn't justify keeping it away from the child does it? You you won't tell me why that's justified.

[Big Pappa]

182. Who I leave my Inheritance

is my choice. Hence the difference. Besides they were not married, so by having his child entitle her to his wealth or is it reserved specifically for the child. You know it is late and you are making me think way to hard.

[Pithlet]

185. It's reserved for the child.

But the child can't have it if you insist that his/her custodial parent can't benefit in any way, so it's effectively withholding it from the child.

Yes, you can choose who you leave your inheritance to, but by your logic they still shouldn't get it because they didn't do anything for it. It's no different than keeping that football player's child from getting his full support because his mother will get money she didn't do anything for. He has to go without to prevent her from getting something she didn't directly work at a job for herself, because there's no way to separate the two. If supporting a child to the manner in which he's entitled also benefits the person they *chose* to have that child with, then they shouldn't have to support that child? I don't think so. It's as ridiculous as stipulating that your child inherit your money, but their spouse you hate doesn't get a dime of it, which means your child can't benefit from it, either. It's a cutting off the nose to spite the face kind of reasoning I just don't get. "I'm rich, and I'd like to pass that wealth on to my child, but he lives with his mother and I don't want her seeing a penny, so I'll fight to keep him from getting the support he's due." What kind of parent is that? I don't think the law should back them up on that, sorry.

[cynatnite]

62. It's not man bashing when women expect men to pay their share n/t

[BlueIris]

26. People who don't understand that men need to help raise the children they help put on this earth

make me want to throw things.

[Bennyboy]

27. PULEEEEEEEZZZZZE!

30 grand a month? Is Leinert responsible for this woman to have a lifestyle that surpasses 90% of all Americans?

Or is his responsibilty to provide support for his child? Should that be regardless of income? Is Leinert's rsponsibiblity greater than someone who is ordered to pay 500 a month? A grand a month?
I don't care if the guy is rich, he should not have to pay more than anyone else does.

I will tell you what this is doing. It will drive a wedge between Leinert and the mother of his kid. And that will be bad for the child.

[cynatnite]

30. In many states child support is determined by a portion of the father's income n/t

[Bennyboy]

32. That is wrong IMO...

Know how many guys I know that "lost" their jobs due to the high cost of child support just so they could make lesser payments? Rearranged their compensation? Load os them. there should be a flat, fair rate..a child is worth so much a month no matter who you are.

[Horse with no Name]

35. If they are that concerned

Keep their fucking pants zipped.

[cynatnite]

Well, COL in California is quite different than it is where we live...

so you're idea would never work at all. Raising a child isn't cheap by any long shot. Fathers should pay a portion of their income.

When I divorced over twenty years ago the asshole judge said child support was $100 per month. Even with my full time job at minimum wage that extra $100 bucks every month didn't keep me and my daughter from remaining in poverty while my POS ex-husband made $15 p/hour and had money to blow on his toys.

Thank goodness it's changed as it should have a long time ago. Judges can't just pull a number out of their asses anymore like the one I had did.

[tabasco]

48. So the mother of a man's child is just a fuck toy and the child is only hers?

If the father is rich, he just has to pay the mother like the child is only hers. Right? NOPE!

The kid is Leinart's too. A father should pay a generous amount to support HIS child.
Just because you know a bunch of douchebags doesn't mean we should make public policy based on their stupidity.

[Horse with no Name]

56. It shouldn't surprise me the level of hate for women

that crops up. But it does, time after time.

[Pithlet]

55. Such an arrangement hurts lower income people more.

Same principle as the flat tax system. The poorer you are, the bigger the chunk out of your paycheck. Not fair at all. Why on earth that would be a better arrangement, I don't know. And, a flat rate child support system would only screw a lot of kids because it's common for one parent to be the main bread winner. Some kids would drop further down the socio-economic ladder than others, and believe me, those things matter. Base it on percentages, and more kids stay within the means they lived with when their parents were together. That's why that system was adopted. It's much better for kids.

As far as your other point goes, for one thing, if someone quits their higher paying job so they don't have to pay as much child support, then, well, what can you say to that? That's beyond ridiculous. I guess I've been blessed having never known such a person.

[Big Pappa]

142. Why would it

not be determined by the mothers income? Oh I forgot moms get custody over dads in a disproportionate way.

[Pithlet]

167. It is, if she's the noncustodial parent.

You think women never pay child support? Men are gaining primary custody more and more these days. The only reason it wasn't true in the past was because the laws were based on sexist notions that women were the childcaregivers and men weren't capable. If there's any residual attitudes left over, blame it on the sexist past. But, it is changing, and fast.

[Pithlet]

169. It is, if she's the noncustodial parent.

You think women never pay child support? Men are gaining primary custody more and more these days. The only reason it wasn't true in the past was because the laws were based on sexist notions that women were the childcaregivers and men weren't capable. If there's any residual attitudes left over, blame it on the sexist past. But, it is changing, and fast.

[Pithlet]

It is, if she's the noncustodial parent.

You think women never pay child support? Men are gaining primary custody more and more these days. The only reason it wasn't true in the past was because the laws were based on sexist notions that women were the childcaregivers and men weren't capable. If there's any residual attitudes left over, blame it on the sexist past. But, it is changing, and fast.

[Pithlet]

170. It is, if she's the noncustodial parent.

You think women never pay child support? Men are gaining primary custody more and more these days. The only reason it wasn't true in the past was because the laws were based on sexist notions that women were the childcaregivers and men weren't capable. If there's any residual attitudes left over, blame it on the sexist past. But, it is changing, and fast.

[etherealtruth]

183. It is

Both parents income are taken into account when child support is determined ... the idea is that the child should benefit from the income of both parents

[alarimer]

47. Yes, he makes a lot of money; he should pay a LOT

Any other kids he may have will be wealthy. This child should be supported in the same way.

[RB TexLa]

28. Is she famous? Where does her half ($30K) a month come from?

[ben_meyers]

31. It's not always just the money, she lives in CA

Matt lives in Arizona (he's a neighbor of mine) and he is in a bit of a custody battle with the ex. Unfortunately this happens all too often when couples don't get along. It isn't helping that the ex. is dating the ASU quarterback now either. Athletes should be warned about the "18 year plan".

[U4ikLefty]

33. So let me get this straight...one child get $30,000/month while

a child born to a low-income dad gets $200/nmonth.

...and people call this fair???

[Horse with no Name]

34. It is just as fair as me making $60k a year as a nurse

because I was able to get an education, while another person who wasn't able to makes $15k.

[U4ikLefty]

209. So it is unfair if I use your analogy. n/t

[etherealtruth]

187. Is it fair that some children are born to wealthy parents ...

... and some to poor parents.

The issue you raise has to do with distribution of wealth (vs. child support).

Should children born into affluence benefit from their parent(s) affluence ... or not? This is not (and should not) be contingent on the marital status of the child's parents.

[Catherine Vincent]

36. I'm for the kid.

Pay up!

[MrSlayer]

40. You should pay child support but 30k a month is ludicrous.

I just dont see why the $6,000 isn't enough. That's $1500 a week which is about $400 more a week than I make and support myself and my entire family on. If she has a job and is only spending the support money on the child then why should he have to pay more? $1500 a week is more than enough to support a kid on. Just how many pairs of sneakers and how many Hershey bars does this kid need?

[cynatnite]

42. The father makes $8 million per year and it's based on his income n/t

[MrSlayer]

53. It's still ridiculous.

Six thousand is plenty.

[cynatnite]

54. And it's not ridiculous that a wealthy father who can easily afford it won't?

At least the wealthy father can still afford buy a few more hummers rather than give his child a better life.

[Pithlet]

60. It's much less than what he'd have if they'd stayed together.

Much, much less. I don't get why a parent would fight this. If I were wealthy, I'd want to share that wealth with my children. I'd want them to benefit from all of it just as I do. I wouldn't insist they live way below my means under any circumstances. It wouldn't change just because I split from their parent. I don't get that. "Oh well, kid, I'm rich, but since I split from your mom/dad, you aren't anymore. So long!"

I also don't get how the custodial parent is in the wrong for wanting their child to benefit from it, too. Yeah, so they benefit as well, but they're still the co-parent, even if they're no longer the spouse or significant other. A co-parent the wealthy person decided to have a child with. I also don't get why the children of a rich person aren't entitled to the same percentage as any other child is. I don't get why they aren't entitled to the trappings of wealth just because they don't live with that wealthy parent.

[w8liftinglady]

58. Jeesuz-I've been trying for 8 months to get the 460 my ex owes me.

it's a hardship folks.

[NoodleyAppendage]

65. I guess she's incapable of working? Her income + reasonable support is fair.

Ironic that women struggled for decades (and still do) for a place in the workforce and income pariety, but here's an able-bodied female who is more content in soaking her ex for an exorborant amount of money. 30K per month for child support? Give me a friggin' break. You are a FOOL if you think that all of that money is going directly to the child and the child's needs. Mommy's looking for a backdoor income.

J

[Horse with no Name]

67. another MALE weighs in

:eyes:Nowhere did you mention what the child is entitled to.

[NoodleyAppendage]

95. The child is entitled to have her needs met. That requires 30K/mo. ?

I have no problem with his being required to pay child support...as he should. But, what I do have an issue with is the mother using her child to soak her ex. I guess women are incapable of such behavior. Right.

J

[Pithlet]

101. They're entitled to whatever means they would have had

if the parents hadn't broken up. They're entitled to not having their means drastically reduced because their parents didn't stay together. Circumstances change, and not all children are going to have that. But, if either or both parents can afford to maintain those means, they're obligated to do so. This goes across the board, no matter the socio-economic level. Yeah, it's easy to begrudge anyone their wealth even if they're kids, but the fact of life is some are born into better circumstances than others. They don't choose that, and they don't deserve to lose that just because their parents separated or divorced.

[gollygee]

198. The child is entitled to live at the same standard of living as the wealthier parent

The child is entitled to have whatever opportunities would be available if raised by the wealthier parent.

[ShaneGR]

96. Realistically, a child is entitled to a proper upbringing...

It really is debatable if $30k a month is proper. In some cases, it can hurt a child to spend that much on them. They turn 18 and suddenly the spiggot gets turned off.

[cynatnite]

69. Yeah, that wealthy father needs more hummers...

don't want the greedy mother do it. She might do something awful with the money.

[NoodleyAppendage]

98. Not the point.

Give the kid more than ample funds for child support, but if she wants to soak him then she needs to do it through alimony.

J

[MaraJade]

218. Why should or MUST she work. . .

Her job is to mother the boy.

[Toasterlad]

70. First of All, Leinhart Won't Play for TWO Years.

He sucks.

Second, $6000 a month is more than enough for any child. I don't give 10 shits what the father makes. At $6000 a month, you're already producing a spoiled brat who thinks they can have whatever they want. I shudder to think what throwing more money at the kid will do.

Assuming Leinhart is a man, he's already got a trust fund established for the kid, and his college money already set aside. If he's a weaselly fuck, $6000 a month is still plenty.

Oh, and without knowing anything about the mother, I can already tell you she's a man-trapping, gold-digging, syphilis factor piece of shit.

NEXT!

[Horse with no Name]

73. I suggest you return to the rock you crawled out from under

the vermin there misses you.

[Toasterlad]

86. Food for Thought.

I'll definitely consider your well-crafted rebuttal. Well played!

[cynatnite]

78. Wel, at least the wealthy father can buy a few more hummers now...

rather than give that extra money to his child.

And you're a typical woman-hating male. You hate us and you still want to fuck us any way you can.

[Toasterlad]

90. No Offense, But....Definitely Don't Want to...You Know...

I'd be willing to fuck Leinhart, but I saw a depressing picture of him from the Combine. Whew! SOMEBODY was putting away the donuts between the end of the college season and the start of the Combine! Yikes. I'd imagine he's in better shape now, but I haven't seen a recent shirtless picture, so who's willing to take the chance?

BTW, in case you didn't get it from the above, I'm gay.

I'm quite pro-women, actually. However, as a sports fan (and a college student), I've seen MANY women throw themselves at male athletes just praying to get knocked up so they'll have a meal ticket for life. I look at Leinhart's ex as I would at any person - male or female - who attempts to blackmail someone, legally or otherwise, into supporting them for the rest of their life. A true feminist would be just as disgusted by this woman's behavior as I am.

[cynatnite]

100. It's always the woman's fault...never the man who CHOSE to have SEX with her...

There is no excuse for the sexist horrible names you called her. None. I don't care if you're gay, I don't care how much you claim to support women's rights or anything. That kind of name calling is beneath anyone, IMO.

This asshole should have kept his pants zipped up if he was so worried about women like this. It's not ALL her fault. And he should live up to his responsibilities like most men do. If the courts say pay...pay. If the courts say pay 30K...pay. He's a millionaire...he can fucking afford it.

[opiate69]

104. This asshole should have kept his pants zipped up if he was so worried about women like this.

And, any woman who wants an abortion should have just kept her legs closed, right??

[cynatnite]

109. We're talking responsibility here....

She got pregnant and exercised her right by choosing to have a baby.

You want to blame her...like she seduced him to the point of him not being able to control himself. Where does his responsibility for this begin?

[opiate69]

111. I'm doing nothing of the sort..

merely pointing out that your argument is exactly the same as a popular anti-choice argument.

[cynatnite]

114. An anti-choice arguement is blaming the woman for being pregnant...

that's what they've done to us while the men go on with business as usual.

Don't you find it odd that pharmacists want to deny women basic birth control, but have no problem in dishing out viagra to men?

[opiate69]

116. And your argument is blaming the man for getting her pregnant.

So, how about everybody just stop trying to assess blame, and try to figure out what's appropriate and what's excessive?

[cynatnite]

118. No, I want the man to take responsibility for his actions...

the mother is...she's got full custody of the child. She wants the father to pay according to the law. The judge ruled 30K per month. Yeah, it's a lot of money and the father makes millions of dollars every year.

But that law wasn't designed just for them and it shouldn't exclude them. It was designed so custodial parents won't be left in the lurch by fathers who don't want to pay their fair share.

[Toasterlad]

134. Didn't Say It Was ALL Her Fault.

I'm even willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because I wasn't in the room when they had sex, and I didn't hear her say she was on the pill, or insist he use a rubber, which he apparently refused to do. I'm prepared to believe that he totally forced her to have unprotected sex against her will. Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not pro-Leinhart. I think he's an overpriviledged asshole (much like his baby will be @ $30K per month). He is definitely responsible for any bastard child he sires. And, as far as I can tell, he's already taking responsibility for it...to the tune of $6000 per month. Which is more than I make, and I actually WORK for my money.

Now, please explain to me how that woman who did nothing more than allow herself to become pregnant with the possible #1 pick of the NFL draft is entitled to $30,000 per month? Oh, I'm sorry...you're probably going to pretend that the CHILD will get all that money. Then, please explain to me why the CHILD is entitled to more than $6000 per month for doing nothing more than exist?

Oh...I get it. It's because he's a MAN. That $30,000 a month will ABSOLUTELY go a LONG way toward righting the legitimate wrongs that women face every day! This woman is a hero! She's fighting back against the male-dominated society which impregnated her against her will and is now forcing her to settle for a measly %6000 per month to raise her child! Why didn't I see it?

She better suck that golden teat for all it's worth, though, because I doubt Leinhart will be playing ball for long.

P.S. Interesting side-note: Did you know that "Underprivileged" is covered under spell-check, but "OVERprivileged" is not? Good old Democrats! ;)

[cynatnite]

135. Because it's the law...

In the state of CA the father is required to pay a portion of his income no matter how little or how great it is. That's all there is to it. That simple.

Yes, it's a lot of money. And I'd love to have it for a month or two.

But it's the law and just because we think it's too much doesn't mean they should be excluded from it, either.

[Toasterlad]

139. And If She Lived In Saudi Arabia, And Was About to Be Stoned For Having a Bastard Child

Would that be cool because it's "the Law"?

If you care about the plight of women, you should be decrying this woman, not supporting her. She is undermining everything women legitimately fight for on a daily basis. She is the WORST kind of stereotype.

[cynatnite]

150. What does Saudi Arabia have to do with it?

:shrug:

I'm not talking about the woman. I'm talking about the child. The money is for supporting the child. That's it.

The father is wealthy...he makes millioins of dollars a year. Thirty thousand a month is a tiny amount. It's less than one percent of his monthly income.

That law was designed to help custodial parents and you want to exclude those who you think would get too much money. :wtf:

[Toasterlad]

156. I Want to Focus On Children Who Don't Get ANY Money

rather than children who get too much. Cases like this only serve to piss people off, and to encourage them to think of women as sponges who are out for whatever they can steal. There are women who are legitimately screwed over by the men they've been with, by our legal system, by the government they trusted to protect them. THIS woman is not one of them, and her child would do well to grow up with the knowledge that fucking a soon-to-be-rich person is no validation that you, yourself, are entitled to be rich.

[cynatnite]

162. No, you're wrong...

This case is being handled no differently than any other. The only difference being is that this is a rich father. Under the law, the child is guaranteed a percentage of the non-custodial parent's income. That's how it works.

Yes, it's a lot of money. No one is disputing that. The wealthy father has an obligation to his child and child support should not be determined by what we think is enough...but by a percentage of the father's income.

The mother could have legally asked for a lot more and gotten it. She didn't.

[Toasterlad]

168. I Didn't Say The Judge Wasn't Following the Law

I said there were legitimate cases of women in need that could be focused on.

Unless Leinhart is a complete asswipe scumbag, he will do right by his child, no matter what the law requires. He has no excuse not to, and every reason to do so: he's in the public eye, and it's crucial that he maintain a wholesome image, endorsement-wise. Leinart will pay whatever the judge tells him to pay (assuming he has it).

[nolabels]

154. I think both parents are effed up

Bringing a child into the world through an unstable relationship is going to damage the kid in some measure no matter how it works out.

[Robeson]

202. "Leinhart Won't Play for TWO Years"....

...you lost me after that...

[Toasterlad]

206. Cardinals Fan?

My condolences. :yoiks:

[Robeson]

212. I can see how someone who thinks he'll be out in "TWO" years...

...wouldn't recognize a Vikings avatar.

[Toasterlad]

215. I Recognized the Vikings Avatar. I Don't Recognize Your Point.

Re: Vikings - my continued condolences.

[Catherine Vincent]

91. You know he doesn't want to pay what she is asking for because he is afraid

she will spend a penny of it on some other dude. Men hate that. But then he should have thought about that before he laid up with her. Just pay up or shut up.:)

[ShaneGR]

92. $30,000 a month/ $360,000 a year

With all due respect, that seems just a little bit much. The problem I see is that this kind of thing teaches women, find a rich guy, manage to get pregnant, cash in. I'm not saying this particular woman intended that, but there's no doubt that plenty do and no matter how much the mother gets the child still isn't brought up properly. They're viewed as nothing more than a paycheck.

[Pithlet]

97. Yeah, well. If they didn't want any woman to cash in on their income

The solution is simple. Don't make them the mother of their child. Or perhaps be a bit more choosy on who they make the mother of their child.

Because you know how women are :sarcasm:

[cynatnite]

103. Wealthy father makes $8 mil p/year...and he was more than willing to have sex...

he needs to be a responsible father and pay what the courts say.

[gollygee]

201. It costs a lot to raise a child at that standard of living

child support is based on not changing the child's standard of living after the parents break up.

[qdemn7]

102. All this horseshit...

About he "should have kept his pants zipped", sounds EXACTLY like what the state of Texas was arguing when Roe v. Wade was being argued. "The women made her choice when she decided to have sex." It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. And then people are complaining about misogyny. There's plenty of man-hating going on here. Just proves that no matte HOW Progressive some people claim to be, they still view men as a paycheck on legs. So much of the talk about "equality" rings quite hollow. And $6K is enough for ANYONE. I'd have my lawyer fight this tooth and nail. Yeah, I'm a man and I'm concerned about MEN first. You don't like that, tough fucking shit. :mad:

[Horse with no Name]

108. What it PROVES is that men still consider women as gold digging whores

and are willing to DENY their biological children of what is rightfully theirs.
What I have seen in this thread is VERY little consideration for the child and venom and hatred for that "gold digging whore".
Newsflash! It isn't about HER...it is what the LAW provides for the child.
SO many of you think women are NOTHING but your fucking cum dumpsters and then want to yell foul when you impregnate one.
THAT is fucking offensive.
If you are so protective of your fucking money--then perhaps you should stick to blow-up dolls or at least be willing to take care of your LEGAL responsibility if you have unprotected sex and get someone pregnant.

[cynatnite]

If I was religious I'd yell an 'AMEN' to that n/t

[cynatnite]

115. n/t

[opiate69]

117. "Men", or "SOME men"???

[Toasterlad]

137. Oh, My, Yes...Because NO Women Are Gold-Digging Whores

ESPECIALLY women who have unprotected sex with college atheletes about to be drafted by the NFL! They're all pure as the driven snow!

If you're SO concerned about women being used and discarded by men, how's about turning your outrage to the women who receive NO child support from the men they DIDN'T intentionally become impregnated by? There's a lot more of those kind of women than the ones who are drawing $6K a month and demanding more.

[Catherine Vincent]

205. Amen, sister!

:thumbsup:

[cynatnite]

112. Where does the man's responsibility begin?

Women get accused of being sluts, greedy, and more because they're the ones pregnant.

[Pithlet]

121. It would be interesting to note the reaction

If, say, Paris Hilton got pregnant by the pool boy, and he got custody and sued her for millions in support. Would she be the horrible mother who let her own baby live in poverty by refusing to pay and fighting it in court? People say they'd have the same reaction as to this football player, and some individuals may. But, I don't think we'd be seeing the overall horrible disdain of the greedy pool boy just trying to get something for nothing. In fact, I'd bet we'd see more people sticking up for him, for trying to do right by his son that the lazy whore didn't want to bother to raise herself as any good mother would.

[cynatnite]

122. Exactly n/t

[Toasterlad]

141. I Can Honestly Say...

I'd have ALMOST as much disdain for the pool boy as I do for Paris Hilton. And if the pool boy was getting $6000 per month, I'd have JUST as much disdain for the pool boy.

[Marr]

221. Oh, no way.

We'd be seeing alot of "why doesn't he just get a job" and "lazy golddigger". C'mon now-- the disdain would be *much* worse if the genders were reversed. How many jokes have you heard about that guy that Britney Spears married?

[SoCalDem]

147. Here's the basic idea.

Each human is in charge of his/her own DNA.. if one chooses to co-mingle their DNA with that of another, BOTH are responsible for the resulting human being that's created.

If you don't want to raise it or pay for the raising of it, keep your DNA to yourself :)

It's just that simple..

[Toasterlad]

149. That's Not the Issue. The Issue Is How Much That Responsibility Costs.

Leinhart is already taking responsibility. He's paying $6K a month. Now, a judge wants him to pay $30K a month. Where will that judge be when Leinhart is cut this year for general suckery?

[cynatnite]

152. Actually, under the law...Leinhart would be required to pay 80K per month...

The judge said 30K.

Leinhart does make about $666,000 per month if you average out what his yearly is.

I can see why this would be such a hardship for him. :sarcasm:

[Toasterlad]

161. Trust Me...Leinhart Won't Be Making That For Long.

Will you "release" him from his obligation when he's making the league minimum? How about when he's out of football all together? Or will he still be obligated to pay the full amount because "that's what he gets for not keeping it in his pants"?

[cynatnite]

166. Maybe the mother knows that being a pro football player doesn't last forever...

maybe she's thinking ahead in asking for 30K so to help make sure the child is cared for in ten or fifteen years.

In cases like these, child support is usually modified when circumstances change. They always do over time since kids grow up.

[SoCalDem]

155. If he'd have "kept it in his pants" he would not have to even worry.

[Toasterlad]

158. Yes, Because SHE Bares NO Responsibility.

:eyes:

[SoCalDem]

159. She bears half the responsibility, and is apparently raising the child

he should pay whatever he's supposed to pay, and if his wages drop, I'm sure he can go to court and get the payment lowered.

[cynatnite]

173. Courts do modify these as a child grows or if his situation changes n/t

[cynatnite]

172. She forced him to have sex so she could get pregnant and steal his money? n/t

[SoCalDem]

174. Beware of girls carrying ziploc baggies & turkey basters..:) n/t

[LisaL]

208. What is it you are suggesting? Responsibility for what?

Having the child?

[Forkboy]

186. Good for her.He should keep his dick in his pants if he didn't want to pay for a child.

That was simple.

[dsc]

188. cry me a river

He is left with the vast majority of his money and the kid is entitled, end of story. I will say one thing. I do hope that some of the kid's money is held in reserve, and assuming she is a good parent she will, because football careers are notorious for being short so this money could easily dry up faster than anyone knows.

[LostinVA]

193. This is child support, not alimony/palimony

Child support is about percentages -- 30k is fair.

[gollygee]

195. Child support is high for rich parents because if the parent is rich then the child is rich too.

Also, if child support weren't based on percentages then in every custody battle the wealthier parent could argue, "I can give the child greater opportunities" and therefore the wealthier parent would always win custody.

[LTR]

199. Give Leinert full custody

This is another kind of double standard. Often, it seems the woman gets priority for custody.

Let's see what all of this is made of.

There. Situation solved.

[gollygee]

200. Did he want custody?

Not all men seek custody.

Usually courts try to stick to the status quo, and usually the status quo is that the mother is the primary caregiver.

[LisaL]

207. Oh that's ridiculous.

Are you suggesting he should get custody because the mother wants child support?
By the way 30,000$ a month is a lot of money, but he makes a lot of money, so it's not like he will go broke if he has to pay it. Most people will never see 30,000$ a month, but then most people will never see the kind of money he makes.
I don't see what the problem is there at all. He makes a lot, it only makes sense he pays a lot in child support.

[WinkyDink]

204. Maybe he should have to raise his son by himself.

[AngryAmish]

210. $30,000 a month - What is she feeding that kid, unicorns?

thank you profootballtalk.com

[Nikki Stone1]

211. Misogyny: the answer many men have when you ask them to be responsible

Not all, just enough that it keeps a lot of us in a constant state of disgust.

[MaraJade]

219. All too true. . .

I am disgusted by the number of men who think it is okay for their children to live lesser
lifestyles than they themselves live.

[Katherine Brengle]

213. It's absolutely reasonable based on the amount of money he makes --

and no amount of money gives a kid its father back.

I have very little respect or sympathy for men who walk out on their families (women too).

[Darth_Kitten]

214. Why are you stating you don't hate men......

and you are not trying to be mean to Leinart? You will probably never hear most of the loudmouths on ANY sportsboard saying "Well, I don't hate women,etc"
Why apologize for your opinion?

He makes a lot of money and can pay. Period.

[MaraJade]

216. The bottom line is that

Leinart should pay to keep his son in the same type of lifestyle HE enjoys. Period.
He fathered the child and he should pay. Why should the child suffer any kind of
deprivation when Leinart isn't suffering deprivation? If he didn't want to pay to
keep up the lifestyle of his flesh and blood, he shouldn't have had sex.

There are far too many men who want sex without consequences. The woman and the child
are absolutely ENTITLED to the money.

[Marr]

220. I think there are some people here who'd argue she's entitled to his head,

just because she's a woman gosh darnit, and the woman is always the good one.

Sorry, but $30k/month is ludicrous. If you think it's reasonable, seriously-- stop and consider whether you'd feel that way if the genders were reversed. Be honest.