If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Two and a Half Men star Jon Cryer ordered to pay $8,000 in child support for a son 96% in HIS custody   (fathersandfamilies.org) divider line 160
    More: Weird, Jon Cryer, child support, child custody, so emotional  
•       •       •

6300 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 07 Feb 2013 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-07 07:56:07 AM  
The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer. While well-paid and technically successful, he's never been a break-out star, despite his talent. He's never gotten leading roles worth a damn. You could even argue that he lucked into a hit series, without which he'd be on some "Where Are They Now?"-show.

Couple all that with this clear travesty of justice, and it's obvious. It sucks balls to be Jon Cryer.
 
2013-02-07 07:57:06 AM  
Child support can include helping a non-custodial parent maintain an adequate residency for interactions with the child, or for future interactions with the child.
 
2013-02-07 08:08:28 AM  

Mangoose: Child support can include helping a non-custodial parent maintain an adequate residency for interactions with the child, or for future interactions with the child.


But in this case, it is defacto permanent alimony, despite the fact she has re-married and divorced since. She refuses to even try to work, hasn't worked in 6 years, and admits she lives beyond the means even Cryer's $8,000/month "child support" provides (she claims her monthly expenses are $13,000/month).
 
2013-02-07 08:11:35 AM  
He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.
 
2013-02-07 08:25:46 AM  

MmmmBacon: But in this case, it is defacto permanent alimony, despite the fact she has re-married and divorced since. She refuses to even try to work, hasn't worked in 6 years, and admits she lives beyond the means even Cryer's $8,000/month "child support" provides (she claims her monthly expenses are $13,000/month).


No it's child support. Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.

It sounds like a lot when you throw out $96,000 a year as a sum being awarded. When you stop to remember that the father makes 700k a month, it becomes a different story. He is paying little over 10% of 1/12 of what he makes in a year. He shows assets in excess of 7 million, 700K monthly income and expenses of 29K a month. Not including support payments.

Child support is not about what the average person can provide. If it were, just as many people would be getting the short end of the stick. It is about what each person in the specific case can provide.

There are no specific stipulations about looking for work and receiving any form of support payment.
 
2013-02-07 08:29:09 AM  
He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.
 
2013-02-07 08:30:44 AM  

Mangoose: There are no specific stipulations about looking for work and receiving any form of support payment.


Perhaps there should be? I have no problem with child support, even if it is used to maintain the household to some degree. But when the non-custodial parent is still receiving child support, and is clearly doing nothing on her own to support her household, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change.

She needs to get a job. If she were at least trying to work I wouldn't have too much of a problem with this, in the long run. But she's clearly a deadbeat.

The best day of Jon Cryer's life will be when his kid turns 18, and he no longer owes a dime to his Ex.
 
2013-02-07 08:53:49 AM  
Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail?  I can't decide.

Well, in my jurisdiction, the judge would apply the child support guideline calculation, as the law requires. If the other spouse presented a vocational expert who could opine to a reasonable degree of certainty as to what jobs were available to the unemployed or underemployed spouse and what he or she could earn, then the judge could impute income to that spouse prior to applying the guideline calculation.
 
2013-02-07 08:53:55 AM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


You're forgetting that he pays out on that to his obligations. Managers, agents, legal and accounting. Things like that. That won't be listed in his income because it is factored out from the studio that pays him. The studio pays the agreed upon portion to the agents, etc.. out of the agreed pay. Leaving him with whatever is left.

MmmmBacon: Perhaps there should be? ...

But when the non-custodial parent is still receiving child support, and is clearly doing nothing on her own to support her household, then something is clearly wrong and needs to change.

Why? What is wrong and what needs to be changed?

MmmmBacon: But she's clearly a deadbeat

mentally ill.

I don't really know the facts and I skimmed the brief listed as those things are boring. But this reeks of it.

If anything I'd be pissed that her lawyer made 50 grand on the two matters, which probably took all of 10 hours to work for whomever was doing it.
 
2013-02-07 08:57:08 AM  

Mangoose: If anything I'd be pissed that her lawyer made 50 grand on the two matters, which probably took all of 10 hours to work


That's adorable.
 
2013-02-07 09:05:18 AM  

kronicfeld: That's adorable.


This was a hearing to amend support payments not the original divorce proceeding.
 
2013-02-07 09:08:02 AM  
What a crock of BS.  I don't care how much he makes.  His ex is an unfit parent and a deadbeat and now he's forced to pay $96k a year to support her lazy ass.  It's wrong.
 
2013-02-07 09:25:05 AM  

Mangoose: kronicfeld: That's adorable.

This was a hearing to amend support payments not the original divorce proceeding.


Yes, I know. I handle those quite frequently. Way more than ten hours, particularly where you are no doubt dealing with more than simple W-2 income and all of the complex factual issues obviously involved, just based on what is cited in the article. It wouldn't cost my client $50K, but that's because my rate isn't as high as what her attorney's probably is.
 
2013-02-07 09:26:28 AM  
Yes, beat the victim!  That's how we should do it in America!  We certainly know everything we need to know from a press release turned into a news story!
 
2013-02-07 10:03:30 AM  
Sad for all involved.

/At least he can afford the payments.
 
2013-02-07 11:53:13 AM  

GAT_00: Yes, beat the victim!  That's how we should do it in America!  We certainly know everything we need to know from a press release turned into a news story!


"victim"?
 
2013-02-07 11:56:29 AM  
How many times do women pay this much income in child support to a man with 4% of custody?

Right.  Never.
Disgusting gender bias in Family Court... again.
 
2013-02-07 11:56:31 AM  
Note the article posting date of September 2011.
 
2013-02-07 11:57:07 AM  

Gwendolyn: He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.


Flip the genders.
 
2013-02-07 12:00:21 PM  
Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?
 
2013-02-07 12:00:50 PM  
My hubbys ex died when his youngest child was 18, by then he and I were married.  In Ontario, Family Responsibility payments are deducted automatically of your income by your employer.  When she died, we were paying 750.00 a month in support.  The daughter moved in with us and the support payments still continued to go to the ex even tho she was dead.  So not only were we supporting her, the 750.00 a month was just going into a black hole.  We had to retain a lawyer to get the payments to stop, he charged us 4 grand to do this.  The support payments still continued for a year after she died, by the time it was over we were owed almost 9 grand.  When it all shook out, his oldest daughter (29 at the time) received the bulk of the estate and the youngest got very little. Not only did we pay support for a child we were supporting, she didn't get most of it when everything was settled and we were out thousands.  The legal system, gotta love it.
 
2013-02-07 12:03:15 PM  

Gwendolyn: He is paying .07% of his income from Two and a Half Men a month to help maintain a home for his son to visit and who may be placed back there at any time. That's like a guy who makes $60,000 handing over $35 each month. I don't think that's completely unreasonable.


It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.  Can he afford to pay the money?  Certainly.  No one is arguing it's going to make him poor.  That doesn't make it reasonable.  The idea that it costs 96K per year simply to "maintain a home" that the kid sees maybe one day a month is lunacy.

This is an absolutely clear case of a person living off the money of someone else because she's too lazy to do anything for herself.  Being enabled by the courts is adding insult to injury.
 
2013-02-07 12:05:13 PM  
I wonder how much cheaper it would be to have her killed.
 
2013-02-07 12:05:39 PM  

Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.


Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.
 
2013-02-07 12:18:37 PM  
I think the true crime is that someone is paying Jon Cryer $700k/month.
 
2013-02-07 12:18:58 PM  

people: Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.

Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.


Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.
 
2013-02-07 12:23:34 PM  

MacWizard: people: Bhruic: It certainly is unreasonable.  The "he's rich, so it's ok" defense just doesn't cut it.

Its also assuming that he is going to make this money for the rest of his life.  He isn't.  This is his peak earning time.

Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.


I'm not going even look it up.  I'll just concede that.  Why?

Flip the genders.  There would be an outrage, with cries shaming the male.

It is amazing how people tolerate this gendered bias in family courts.
 
2013-02-07 12:31:53 PM  

MacWizard: Not for the rest of his life, just for the next 10 years or so.


His only real success is 'Two and a half men'.  He is unlikely to get another gig paying more than half a million per episode after this, and he probably suffers from typecasting at this point - much like star trek actors.

Charlie Sheen has proven to be unstable, yet a critical part of the show - which is why they brought him back even after his 'little meltdown'.

I doubt that the show is going to last another 10 years.  Maybe 5.
 
2013-02-07 12:37:21 PM  
First of all,

DUDE YOUR BLOG SUCKS!  You buried the lede.  The judge didn't change the support because there is another hearing scheduled to determine custody.  There was no point in amending the child support until after that hearing.  Cryer's lawyer probably knew that as well, but hey, it's never too early in the year to get ahead on your billable hours.  But the good news is the judge was probably pissed at both lawyers already so no damage done there.

Second, YOUR BLOG SUCKS!  Just wanted to emphasize that.
 
2013-02-07 12:39:07 PM  

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer. While well-paid and technically successful, he's never been a break-out star, despite his talent. He's never gotten leading roles worth a damn. You could even argue that he lucked into a hit series, without which he'd be on some "Where Are They Now?"-show.

Couple all that with this clear travesty of justice, and it's obvious. It sucks balls to be Jon Cryer.


He was amazing in Hot Shots!.

// Eagle River?!
 
2013-02-07 12:43:44 PM  

kronicfeld: Would the judge laugh him out of court or toss him in jail?  I can't decide.

Well, in my jurisdiction, the judge would apply the child support guideline calculation, as the law requires. If the other spouse presented a vocational expert who could opine to a reasonable degree of certainty as to what jobs were available to the unemployed or underemployed spouse and what he or she could earn, then the judge could impute income to that spouse prior to applying the guideline calculation.


You're either kidding, delusional, or trolling.

I hope it is the first.
 
2013-02-07 12:47:49 PM  

Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?


Should he try a little tenderness?
 
2013-02-07 12:50:18 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?

Should he try a little tenderness?


Ah, fantastic, someone is paying attention....Thanks!
 
2013-02-07 12:56:16 PM  
Not to let facts get in the way of anything, but since this article was published over a year ago, her parenting time has increased to 35%.
 
2013-02-07 01:01:36 PM  

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer.


Yeah, he has such a rough life.
 
2013-02-07 01:01:43 PM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of? this is almost as bad a dave foley still being held to pay child support based on his income from when news radio was still on the air.
 
2013-02-07 01:13:04 PM  

Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.


Did the point completely go over your head, or did you duck att the last minute?

It's not whether or not he has the money, it's the stupidity of him having to pay her for child support when he actually supports the child. She's trying to use this child support as her sole income because she's too useless to be bothered to get a job.

In essence, he is employing her as an unfit parent.

Example: My wife has custody of my stepsons, their dad has visitation, same scenario. In the real world, that means that HE pays my wife to help raise the two sons they had together. If this were Jon Cryer's situation, her ex would be unemployed, and instead of receiving child support to help raise the boys, she would instead be paying him money.

/California has all kinds of farked up laws regarding child support, divorce, etc...
 
2013-02-07 01:15:51 PM  

not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?


Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.
 
2013-02-07 01:17:19 PM  
Character gets hosed on show = Actor gets hosed in life...nothing to see here
 
2013-02-07 01:21:08 PM  

Krowdaddy Chixdiggit: Well that is just Ducky.....

/Anyone?


www.doctornerdlove.com
 
2013-02-07 01:21:26 PM  
Well, there's a delicate corneal inversion procedure... a multi-opti-pupil-optomy. But, in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets, they've got to go in through the rectum. Ain't no man going to take that route with me!
 
2013-02-07 01:30:04 PM  
"So according to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon's child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time.  Let me remind you; I'm not making this up. "

That is the only reason why the court decided to not change the obligation. Everything else is hyperbole.
 
2013-02-07 01:38:44 PM  

slayer199: What a crock of BS.  I don't care how much he makes.  His ex is an unfit parent and a deadbeat and now he's forced to pay $96k a year to support her lazy ass.  It's wrong.


After reading the headline, I seriously assumed this was Texas. Texas pretty much assrapes fathers when it comes to child support.
 
2013-02-07 01:40:41 PM  

Mangoose: It sounds like a lot when you throw out $96,000 a year as a sum being awarded. When you stop to remember that the father makes 700k a month, it becomes a different story. He is paying little over 10% of 1/12 of what he makes in a year. He shows assets in excess of 7 million, 700K monthly income and expenses of 29K a month. Not including support payments.


I wonder how many people think this is plausible and fair while at the same time railing against the IRS for daring to tax these poor "job creators".
 
2013-02-07 01:47:38 PM  

jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.


This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?
 
2013-02-07 01:57:22 PM  

browntimmy: jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.

This isn't chlid support, it's "Pay 100% of another person's expenses plus plenty more than is needed to babysit your kid for a couple hours a week" support. You think she's too busy not raising kids to find a job?


It is child support. What I think is irrelevant. I think my ex wife/co-parent should get a better job so that I don't have to pay 12k a year in child support despite the fact that I have them 50% of the time according to our agreement and in reality much more often than that.

As was stated by someone in this thread, who sounds like a lawyer,  Child support payments can be used in securing and maintaining a suitable residency for whatever visitation the court allows. And it can be used to maintain the people who are to be providing support to the child, in this case the mother.I find this entirely reasonable and as a percentage of total income he pays much less than most parents, even ones who have the majority of the custodial time.
 
2013-02-07 02:04:30 PM  

jst3p: not5am: Gwendolyn: He makes $600,000 an episode. 20 episodes a year divided by 12 months and he makes 1,050,000 a month. That's without any other income.

so that justifies that he should pay "child support" for a child he has near full custody of?

Yes, for reasons that have been stated repeatedly in this thread.


So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?

Child support should only be for supporting the child. IE food, clothing, medical bills and any other expanses that the child incurs. If a parent can't provide for themselves and their own basic needs in the long term(disregarding disabilities or other extraneous factors)  then they do not deserve custody in any manner.
 
2013-02-07 02:07:52 PM  

dmars: So, it should be OK for a father to not have a job as long as the mother con provide a place for him to live when he sees his kid? Are you suggesting that their is no bias in this case? Are you arguing that a bias is OK?


^^^

Society has a hard time flipping the genders in family court.  The overall institutionalized gender bias in family courts is atrocious.
 
2013-02-07 02:09:04 PM  
So, wait a minute... if I knock up some actress with a starring gig on a very popular show, skip out on my fatherly duties and never see the kid while she has full custody, I can STILL get $8,000 a month in "child support"?

I'm in the wrong line of business.  Where's Kaley Cuoco when you need her?
 
2013-02-07 02:10:57 PM  
Life imitates art...
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report