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  
•       •       •

6298 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 04:02:12 PM

jst3p: Works fine with my ex and I, but it isn't always easy.


Meanwhile we still have an institutionalized and legal bias that gives women the first choice on custody.  This is masked by giving the primary caregiver first choice.
 
2013-02-07 04:03:45 PM

MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be

Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA
 
2013-02-07 04:08:25 PM

OgreMagi: MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA


I strongly disagree.
 
2013-02-07 04:09:43 PM

jst3p: One thing that annoys me more is that child support is not deductible. I should get to deduct it and it should count as taxable income for her, which is the way alimony is treated. I pay income tax on that 12k then give it to her. Meanwhile she gets an EITC and gets more in her "tax refund" than she had withheld all year.


This. So much this.
 
2013-02-07 04:11:13 PM

people: The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.


And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.
 
2013-02-07 04:14:39 PM

jst3p: OgreMagi: MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA

I strongly disagree.



Man, this look like crap

Did you have to deal with this?

divorce states: the worst
Colorado
Colorado may be a beautiful place to live, but it's a terrible place to get a divorce if you're the higher earner in a long-term marriage. In fact, it may be the worst state. Colorado has a "temporary" maintenance formula of 40% of the higher income minus 50% of the lower income that is often just carried over into the permanent award, regardless of the lower-earning spouse's ability to support themselves or the property division. For example, Dick earns $3,500 per month, and Jane earns $1,500 per month. Dick's "temporary" payment will be $650 ($1,400 - $750) per month. Here's the kicker though: If you have been married longer than 20 years, you will be ordered lifetime alimony if you go to the judge. The property split will be "equitable," which basically means you will be at the whim of the judge.

The bottom line: Negotiate a settlement if at all possible, otherwise you will not be feeling "Rocky Mountain High."
 
2013-02-07 04:16:22 PM

Mike Chewbacca: And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.


Its not about being a greedy biatch.

Its the nature of having a dual income family, and having the family finances -both of them- to pay for one house.

The person who is out, finds their income haing to pay for the old lifestyle, with scraps to pay for the new one.
 
2013-02-07 04:16:49 PM

people: The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.


The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters.  The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible.  The courts have even gone so far as to uphold child support on the homeless.

Turn it around and you see how unfair it is.  A woman who can afford the payments, but simply doesn't bother (usually to punish the man) is almost never held accountable.
 
2013-02-07 04:20:20 PM

people: Mike Chewbacca: And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.

Its not about being a greedy biatch.

Its the nature of having a dual income family, and having the family finances -both of them- to pay for one house.

The person who is out, finds their income haing to pay for the old lifestyle, with scraps to pay for the new one.


Couple that with women filing the majority of divorces(even if you excluded cases of abuse) and some men can be hit pretty hard by all of that.
 
2013-02-07 04:21:17 PM

people: Mike Chewbacca: And the vast majority of divorced moms aren't greedy biatches looking to screw their exes.

Its not about being a greedy biatch.

Its the nature of having a dual income family, and having the family finances -both of them- to pay for one house.

The person who is out, finds their income haing to pay for the old lifestyle, with scraps to pay for the new one.


And again, it's not about what's best for the parents, it's about what's best for the kids. Life is unfair. It sucks to have to make payments so your ex can continue to live in the house you helped buy. On the other, kids who live in poverty have a significantly greater chance of living in poverty as an adult. This really is a case of thinking of the children. When you're a parent, your needs are secondary.

By the way, I know two different families who divorced but the parents continued to live in the same house because they decided it was best for the kids. It wasn't best for them, but it was best for the kids.
 
2013-02-07 04:21:56 PM

OgreMagi: The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters.  The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible.


I mentally blocked this out of my brain.
 
2013-02-07 04:22:59 PM
This story is from September 1st, 2011, does anybody have an update?
 
2013-02-07 04:24:01 PM

dmars: Couple that with women filing the majority of divorces(even if you excluded cases of abuse) and some men can be hit pretty hard by all of that.


Suicide rate jumps significantly in men post divorce.

Mike Chewbacca: And again, it's not about what's best for the parents, it's about what's best for the kids. Life is unfair.


Well, its unfair to guys here.  Systematically.  Its not possible to generalize which gender is going to do a better job at raising the kids, but the women get this advantage.
Men just need to suck it up. .
 
2013-02-07 04:24:43 PM

people: jst3p: OgreMagi: MmmmBacon: The real lesson here: It kinda sucks to be Jon Cryer a divorced father.

FTFA

I strongly disagree.


Man, this look like crap

Did you have to deal with this?

divorce states: the worst
Colorado
Colorado may be a beautiful place to live, but it's a terrible place to get a divorce if you're the higher earner in a long-term marriage. In fact, it may be the worst state. Colorado has a "temporary" maintenance formula of 40% of the higher income minus 50% of the lower income that is often just carried over into the permanent award, regardless of the lower-earning spouse's ability to support themselves or the property division. For example, Dick earns $3,500 per month, and Jane earns $1,500 per month. Dick's "temporary" payment will be $650 ($1,400 - $750) per month. Here's the kicker though: If you have been married longer than 20 years, you will be ordered lifetime alimony if you go to the judge. The property split will be "equitable," which basically means you will be at the whim of the judge.

The bottom line: Negotiate a settlement if at all possible, otherwise you will not be feeling "Rocky Mountain High."



We were only married 5 years so I didn't have to worry about an alimony award but I did pay through the nose while the divorce was pending.

Not going before a judge is good advice, we were able to work things out.

You want to know why divorce is so expensive?

Because it is worth it.
 
2013-02-07 04:26:35 PM

Mike Chewbacca: By the way, I know two different families who divorced but the parents continued to live in the same house because they decided it was best for the kids. It wasn't best for them, but it was best for the kids.


This. This is the economic reality of struggling financially with two incomes.

You just cant afford a separate adult lifestyle.
 
2013-02-07 04:27:34 PM

OgreMagi: people: The vast majority of men are not deadbeats. A large percentage of the ones that are are basically destitute.

The courts' logic (and I use that term loosely) is they won't reduce child support when a man's income is lower because his potential is all that matters.  The courts refuse to take into account economic reality so getting a reduction because your income has been reduced through no fault of your own is pretty much impossible.  The courts have even gone so far as to uphold child support on the homeless.



 If you do this, the court may temporarily or permanently reduce the amount of future payments. At a hearing, the child support master or judge may modify the amount of child support you pay in two situations:

1) If there has been a substantial change in circumstances that impacts your ability to pay child support, or

2) If it has been three years since the child support order has created or modified and the amount you pay differs by 20 percent or $100 from the amount you would pay based on your current income according to the child support guidelines. The court may also order you to seek employment or participate in an employment-training program, such as those offered by the Texas Workforce Commission.

http://www.fathers4kids.com/html/ChildSupport.htm?article_id=74

First hit on google.
 
2013-02-07 04:27:44 PM

jst3p: You want to know why divorce is so expensive?

Because it is worth it.


Heh.
You.  You're ok.
 
2013-02-07 04:31:11 PM
There was a story around here about a guy who did freelance work, and the ex wife's divorce attorney calculated his potential income for an IT guy.  $70,000 or something,

I dont even want to look for that depressing piece of news.
 
2013-02-07 04:33:06 PM

people: Well, its unfair to guys here. Systematically. Its not possible to generalize which gender is going to do a better job at raising the kids, but the women get this advantage.
Men just need to suck it up.


Generally, women suffer more from financial losses than men because of unequal wages for men and women and because women usually have more expenses associated with the physical custody of children after divorce.

About one in five women fall into poverty as a result of divorce.
About one in three women who own a home and have children at home when they divorce lose their homes.
Three out of four divorced mothers don't receive full payment of child support.

Because most families now have two incomes, most men experience a loss in their standard of living in the years after a divorce, a loss generally between 10%-40%, depending on circumstances... First, if his ex-wife contributed a substantial income to the family, he will struggle to make up for this lost second income. Second, he is likely to be required to make child-support and other payments.284 This comes on top of having to pay for a separate home or apartment. In addition, if a father has custody or shares custody of his children, there will be additional expenses.

From this pdf.

It sucks for both, for different and similar reasons.
 
2013-02-07 04:34:17 PM
I'll just leave this here.

www.herogohome.com

/worst movie ever
 
2013-02-07 04:38:05 PM

Mike Chewbacca: because of unequal wages for men and women


This 77% figure is a myth.  Its also one to frequently cited. No idea why it has such legs.

Mike Chewbacca: It sucks for both, for different and similar reasons.


Wouldnt disagree with this.  Its not possible to stretch a budget However my issue is one sex gets a choice in what they want to do, either custody or not.  men, collectively do not get this choice.
 
2013-02-07 04:41:08 PM

people: Mike Chewbacca: It sucks for both, for different and similar reasons.

Wouldnt disagree with this.  Its not possible to stretch a budget However my issue is one sex gets a choice in what they want to do, either custody or not.  men, collectively do not get this choice.


Except in most states and Washington D.C.

Thirty-five states plus the District of Columbia have statutes that explicitly authorize joint custody as a presumption or strong preference. The following are some of the best relevant statutes from States which provide a presumption. Click on the links to take you to the relevant statute text.

http://ancpr.com/joint_custody_laws_in_the_united.htm
 
2013-02-07 04:44:37 PM

jst3p: joint custody


Joint custody =/= 50-50%

I'm using your terms above.  You yourself brought up the preference for primary care parent.

Thats gendered bias institutionalized by law.

Thats it.  Wrap it up.  its done.
 
2013-02-07 04:51:11 PM
If her expenses are $13k per month and she's getting $8k from him per month.  Having no job, where does the other $5k come from?
 
2013-02-07 05:10:37 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 it's cool for her basically to suck money from him while not even trying to work and while sucking as a parent.

Even if TFA was coming off as super bitter about how divorce settlements favor women, he's right here. Seriously reverse the sexes of the people involved here and question if you would still feel the same way if a woman were expected to be the breadwinner for an ex that didn't even take care of your child even when he still had custody of the child.
 
2013-02-07 05:42:38 PM

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

don't get divorced in California if you're a man.
 
2013-02-07 05:45:30 PM
 Because Sarah's children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn't.  That could have changed at any time.  The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

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.



If you remove the inflammatory language it kinda makes sense. The kids were removed from mom and the dependency hearing that was going on could drastically change parenting time, so they wanted to wait for the other court to decide before altering an order that might need to be altered again in the very near future.

It looks like the argument was "We don't think this division if parenting time is going to be permanent and if he stops paying she will lose the house. If it is temporary the child support will be reinstated but losing the house would have a negative impact on the child."

OK, that's a little sketchy, but no where near as bad as TFA paints it.

This article  has an update:

UPDATE: Since 2009, the courts have increased Sarah's custody rights -- and according to her lawyer, she now has custody of their son for 35% of the time ... and the courts NEVER ruled that she was an unfit parent.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/30/jon-cryer-sarah-trigger-child-support- ap peals-court-california-appeal-court-of-appeals-8000-per-month-son-two- and-a-half-men/


So it seems like a reasonable decision in hindsight (to me).

Then again I am working and farking and might be missing something.

I am kinda confused about the link being from 2011 and the update saying "since 2009" but I don't care enough to dig deeper.
 
2013-02-07 05:49:45 PM

katerbug72: I'll just leave this here.

[www.herogohome.com image 800x343]

/worst movie ever


content.internetvideoarchive.com

Keep the man away from the Chlorox.
 
2013-02-07 05:57:16 PM

jst3p: Because Sarah's children were taken from her by the Department of Children and Family Services due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated.

No one knew what the outcome of the dependency proceeding might have been; they only knew that Jon had custody and Sarah didn't.  That could have changed at any time.  The juvenile court could have done anything from returning full custody to Sarah to terminating her parental rights altogether.

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.


If you remove the inflammatory language it kinda makes sense. The kids were removed from mom and the dependency hearing that was going on could drastically change parenting time, so they wanted to wait for the other court to decide before altering an order that might need to be altered again in the very near future.

It looks like the argument was "We don't think this division if parenting time is going to be permanent and if he stops paying she will lose the house. If it is temporary the child support will be reinstated but losing the house would have a negative impact on the child."

OK, that's a little sketchy, but no where near as bad as TFA paints it.

This article  has an update:

UPDATE: Since 2009, the courts have increased Sarah's custody rights -- and according to her lawyer, she now has custody of their son for 35% of the time ... and the courts NEVER ruled that she was an unfit parent.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/30/jon-cryer-sarah-trigger-child-support- ap peals-court-california-appeal-court-of-appeals-8000-per-month-son-two- and-a-half-men/


So it seems like a reasonable decision in hindsight (to me).

Then again I am working and farking and might be missing something.

I am kinda confused about the link being from 2011 and the update saying "since 2009" but I don't ...


Also the courts reduced his child support from $10,000 to $8,000, and she was ordered to find employment (which she apparently failed to do). Also also, if she really is dependent upon the child support payments, reducing the benfits would make her lose her housing, and then Jon Cryer could then go to the courts and demand full custody because hey, his ex-wife is homeless.
 
2013-02-07 06:46:43 PM

Pivot: 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.


Wasn't there a method to report the death to the court without a lawyer?  That should have been straight forward.  Payments in escrow until the account is settled.
 
2013-02-07 06:52:38 PM

Baelz: "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.


Which it turns out they did - she has the child 35% of the time, and the kid is definitely entitled to the same standard of living in both houses, as well as not having to switch out of his home just cause his parents couldn't keep their shiat together.
 
2013-02-07 07:20:26 PM

jst3p: Colorado


None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.
 
2013-02-07 07:27:34 PM
The situation is so bad, he's moving into his brother's house...
 
2013-02-07 07:40:47 PM

BigMevy: jst3p: Colorado

None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.


And how many women in CO get stiffed (haha) by their exes?
 
2013-02-07 08:08:15 PM

BigMevy: jst3p: Colorado

None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.


In Colorado there is a formula that judges are reluctant to deviate from. I make 100k, my ex makes 14k according to the formula and parenting time split (50/50) I pay about $1,000 per month.

Either you aren't telling us something, he isn't telling you something or this is bullshiat.
 
2013-02-07 08:09:47 PM

jst3p: BigMevy: jst3p: Colorado

None of which stops a dad from getting screwed on child support.  I know a guy who's psuedo-ex (never even married because she was a crazy gash) is raking him over the coals.  He makes an ok living, but has to pay her $1500/mo for one kid.  She made out so well on the court's decision that she quit her job (she was going to school too, but that was just during the lead-up to the court case so she could soak him for another couple hundred, after which she promptly dropped out).  In all honesty, it's not all that different than Cryer's situation other than the obvious TV star aspect.  He has the kid about 70% of the time, so a little less there too, but still gets screwed.  Meanwhile she keeps getting into abusive relationships where there's jail-time involved, domestic violence, etc which is great for the kid.

So yeah, Colorado is not all unicorns and rainbows either.

In Colorado there is a formula that judges are reluctant to deviate from. I make 100k, my ex makes 14k according to the formula and parenting time split (50/50) I pay about $1,000 per month.

Either you aren't telling us something, he isn't telling you something or this is bullshiat.


And I am paying for 2 kids.

Smells like bullshiat.
 
2013-02-07 08:27:46 PM

jst3p: One thing that annoys me more is that child support is not deductible. I should get to deduct it and it should count as taxable income for her, which is the way alimony is treated. I pay income tax on that 12k then give it to her. Meanwhile she gets an EITC and gets more in her "tax refund" than she had withheld all year.


I'm a volunteer tax preparer; in some cases you CAN have it be declared income for the custodial parent, plus if you pay more than 50% of the support of the child you may be able to claim him or her.

On the topic of child support, I once came up with a crazy complex formula that had the idea of 'average QoL'.

The general idea is that each additional member of a household is less expensive than the first.  For example, a single person household is a '1'.  A 2 member household might be a '1.6', a 3 member a 2, 4 is 2.4, and each one beyond that another .4.

So if you have a divorced couple where the wife has total custody of 2 kids.  She works and earns $60k.  The ex-husband works, lives alone, but only makes $30k.

Under my formula, he wouldn't owe any child support, as under the rules her income divided by the household number is equal to his income divided by his household number.

Let's say he makes $60k like her.  Now it gets complicated - The goal is to pay <i>the kids</i> enough child support to raise <i>their</i> standard of living to be the average of their father and mother.  The formula gets complex, but in this case would be $10k/year.  What this does is puts the dad on a $50k 'living scale', Mom on a $30k one, and the kids the average between at $40k.

The formula is up for adjustment, of course.
 
2013-02-07 08:54:46 PM
jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?
 
2013-02-07 09:40:49 PM

SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?


Him and Mike Chewbacca's current SOs are standing over them with stick in hand.
 
2013-02-07 10:00:24 PM

SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?


If you look higher in the thread Jst3p responds to himself saying "Hey dumbass your link doesn't say what you think it says" He must be juggling alts.

jst3p: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

Hey dumbass, your link doesn't say what you think it says!

 
2013-02-07 10:21:14 PM
Gwendolyn SmartestFunniest  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.fark you
 
2013-02-07 10:27:38 PM
actually I said FfarkK you to Gwendylon mr fark
 
2013-02-07 10:28:26 PM
pphark you then
 
2013-02-07 10:29:11 PM
phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right
 
2013-02-07 10:46:49 PM

SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?


Perhaps your anger management issues are part of your custody battle problems.

I realize that I am just being a dick now, but you escalated that pretty quickly.
 
2013-02-07 10:47:31 PM

Gergesa: SauceIT: jst3p:The only guys I know personally who feel like they get shafted by the system allowed it to happen by not asserting and/or fighting for their rights.


FARK YOU! Going through some seriously biased crap in both CT and MA courts. If things are better in CO, great for you but don't, for one second, think that applies everywhere or that men griping about being shafted is their fault.

So what is it with you? Willfully ignorant or just trolling?

If you look higher in the thread Jst3p responds to himself saying "Hey dumbass your link doesn't say what you think it says" He must be juggling alts.

jst3p: jst3p: voran: Imagine a father saying "Judge, it's true I can earn a living but haven't lifted a finger to do so for six years, and it's true I lost custody because I'm dangerous to the children in my care, but my ex-wife needs to pay me a large sum of money every month for a child I rarely see and we need to pretend it's child support."

--
That's the crazy part right there.  But apparently its fair cause of the gender switch.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20213486,00.html

You couldn't be more wrong.

Hey dumbass, your link doesn't say what you think it says!


No, I was making a joke about how many times it was pointed out that I screwed up.
 
2013-02-07 10:48:38 PM

kvinesknows: phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right


There is a filter, there are ways to get around it but I wouldn't advise it.
 
2013-02-08 01:12:56 AM

jst3p: kvinesknows: phucc listen I a, going to keep doing this till one comes out right

There is a filter, there are ways to get around it but I wouldn't advise it.


Nah, keep going, let's see if he can figure it out...
 
2013-02-08 07:40:55 AM
This is what happens when you put your dick in crazy
 
2013-02-08 08:00:20 AM

people: 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.


Sorry to be so tardy in responding.

"Jon and Sarah were married in 2000.  Both were actors at the time.  They had a son, but divorced in 2004..."

The kid is somewhere around 9-11 years old. You only pay child support until the child is 18. So probably less than 10 years.
 
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