Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(JSOnline)   Think your child support is too high? Forget about buying a judge, skip the middleman and get a legislator to rewrite the law for you   (jsonline.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, child support, Wisconsin State Journal, Portage  
•       •       •

2787 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jan 2014 at 2:20 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-12 11:03:57 AM  
I will never understand how people will have children, and then do everything they can not to support them.

I understand that in some cases, child support becomes a financial burden if your income drops and the payments do not adjust, I understand that divorce is messy and people try to screw each other, but how the hell do you justify a wealthy man trying to BUY a legislator to spend less I child support???
 
2014-01-12 11:09:23 AM  
I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate and agree with this. The cap is currently higher than $150,000/year and assets are considered in that number. I could give my kids a premium life for $150,000/year and send them to a top-end college.

The law sucks and this guy is doing the right thing getting it changed.
 
2014-01-12 11:10:45 AM  

what_now: I will never understand how people will have children, and then do everything they can not to support them.

I understand that in some cases, child support becomes a financial burden if your income drops and the payments do not adjust, I understand that divorce is messy and people try to screw each other, but how the hell do you justify a wealthy man trying to BUY a legislator to spend less I child support???


It's easy...just subtract conscience and empathy and add in a sense of massive entitlement and a rock solid belief that the universe really does revolve around you. Then you realize that there are no limits to what you can do to other people. After all, if these people were important they would hire their own legislators and fight back.
 
2014-01-12 11:18:55 AM  

ajgeek: I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate and agree with this. The cap is currently higher than $150,000/year and assets are considered in that number. I could give my kids a premium life for $150,000/year and send them to a top-end college.

The law sucks and this guy is doing the right thing getting it changed.


FTA: Kleefisch's bill would cap the amount of income subject to child support to $150,000 a year - and assets could not be used in the calculation.

His bill doesn't cap the child support at $150K, it caps the number used to calculate support at 150. So even if he made 10million next year, child support he pays would be based on him making 150K. IANAL nor am I in Wisconsin but that would be what? 2-3K per month in child support? Rich dude is just being a dick.
 
2014-01-12 11:28:05 AM  

dugitman: His bill doesn't cap the child support at $150K, it caps the number used to calculate support at 150. So even if he made 10million next year, child support he pays would be based on him making 150K. IANAL nor am I in Wisconsin but that would be what? 2-3K per month in child support? Rich dude is just being a dick.


Ah, yeah I misread that (though given the way it's written, I hope that's understandable). I rescind my previous statement. He is being a dick.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-12 11:40:02 AM  
Isn't that how it usually works?  Laws are for peasants.
 
2014-01-12 12:04:19 PM  

what_now: I will never understand how people will have children, and then do everything they can not to support them.

I understand that in some cases, child support becomes a financial burden if your income drops and the payments do not adjust, I understand that divorce is messy and people try to screw each other, but how the hell do you justify a wealthy man trying to BUY a legislator to spend less I child support???


There does need to be some reform in how alimony and child support work, but this guy is going about it in a particularly scummy way.

Child and spousal support should exist so that divorces don't result in people being left in abject poverty, but at the same time they shouldn't be so high as to allow someone to live in the lap of luxury off of them alone without contributing themselves.

You would think that someone would want to do everything they could to provide for their children, but there's also a difference between what a person should want to do and what a person should be legally mandated to do.

I also have a lot more compassion for middle class people who are thrown into financial hardship over spousal and child support payments than rich assholes who can afford it anyway and are just trying to game the system.
 
2014-01-12 12:07:43 PM  

what_now: I will never understand how people will have children, and then do everything they can not to support them.


I blame evolution for making sex pleasurable.
 
2014-01-12 12:21:38 PM  
The problem, as all fathers know, is that the money is not being spent on child-support. I send my ex-GF (was never ever married to her or lived together) a huge check every month that is direct-deposited into her personal checking account. Because of the disparity in our incomes, I'm essentially paying all her rent, food, car payments, health care bills 2x over each month. I seriously don't know why she even works when she could easily live off my "child-support" payments . er . . . I mean "baby's momma-lifestyle support" payments.

I understand the legal thought process is that my child should have a "lifestyle" comparable to mine. But that's not what happens in the real world when she spends so much of it on herself.  And to top it off, the judge said b/c of the disparity in incomes, he had to "level the playing field" and made me give her $15,000 for her legal fees (less I use my financial resources to legally harass her). So of course she turns around and uses the $15K to sic her attorney even further on me.

I love my 8-yr son tremendously. But he's the only reason I don't go full nuclear. If a child weren't involve, lets just say things would be different. I'm telling you, at least with California family law, fathers are screwed. And there's nothing I can do about it.
 
2014-01-12 12:24:18 PM  
Records show Eisenga, president of  American Lending Solutions in Columbus, has donated $3,500 to Kleefisch, an Oconomowoc Republican, and $7,500 to his wife,  Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch in 2010. He has chipped in another $15,000 to  Gov. Scott Walker.

So chick marries rich dude. Splits after 6 years. Judge upholds pre-nup letting him keep his 30 mil fortune and not pay maintenance on the ex but calls for 18k a month child support payments.

Rich dude balks, cries poverty now that he's only making 231k a year on paper rather than the previous 1.2 mil a year and spends 2 years trying to get his Republican stooges to change the law for him.

Do I have all that right?

Christ, what a pack of assholes.
 
2014-01-12 12:25:31 PM  
This may be only speculation, but this probably isn't the first time a wealthy person has had legislation written to benefit themselves.
 
2014-01-12 12:41:45 PM  
but at the same time they shouldn't be so high as to allow someone to live in the lap of luxury off of them alone without contributing themselves.

This is about the children. They were married for six years and have three children, how much should these children be supporting themselves?

Of course $150k is a lot for child support, but this guy makes millions every year. There's someone better this his toddlers to spend it on?
 
2014-01-12 12:46:21 PM  

ajgeek: I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate and agree with this. The cap is currently higher than $150,000/year and assets are considered in that number. I could give my kids a premium life for $150,000/year and send them to a top-end college.

The law sucks and this guy is doing the right thing getting it changed.


I think you need to reread the article
Under current law, judges determine child-support payments based on a percentage of annual income and, in some cases, assets. Kleefisch's bill would cap the amount of income subject to child support to $150,000 a year - and assets could not be used in the calculation.

So not getting 150k to support the kid, anything you earn over that would just not be used to calculate how much child support you pay, and you could have 30 million in a bank account but if you don't earn any 'income' would you not have to pay any child support.
 
2014-01-12 12:54:49 PM  

Primum non nocere: The problem, as all fathers know, is that the money is not being spent on child-support. I send my ex-GF (was never ever married to her or lived together) a huge check every month that is direct-deposited into her personal checking account. Because of the disparity in our incomes, I'm essentially paying all her rent, food, car payments, health care bills 2x over each month. I seriously don't know why she even works when she could easily live off my "child-support" payments . er . . . I mean "baby's momma-lifestyle support" payments.

I understand the legal thought process is that my child should have a "lifestyle" comparable to mine. But that's not what happens in the real world when she spends so much of it on herself.  And to top it off, the judge said b/c of the disparity in incomes, he had to "level the playing field" and made me give her $15,000 for her legal fees (less I use my financial resources to legally harass her). So of course she turns around and uses the $15K to sic her attorney even further on me.

I love my 8-yr son tremendously. But he's the only reason I don't go full nuclear. If a child weren't involve, lets just say things would be different. I'm telling you, at least with California family law, fathers are screwed. And there's nothing I can do about it.


Then get your son to live with you.  Petition the court.  Why did you agree for him to live with her?
 
2014-01-12 12:56:42 PM  

Primum non nocere: The problem, as all fathers know, is that the money is not being spent on child-support. I send my ex-GF (was never ever married to her or lived together) a huge check every month that is direct-deposited into her personal checking account. Because of the disparity in our incomes, I'm essentially paying all her rent, food, car payments, health care bills 2x over each month. I seriously don't know why she even works when she could easily live off my "child-support" payments . er . . . I mean "baby's momma-lifestyle support" payments.

I understand the legal thought process is that my child should have a "lifestyle" comparable to mine. But that's not what happens in the real world when she spends so much of it on herself.  And to top it off, the judge said b/c of the disparity in incomes, he had to "level the playing field" and made me give her $15,000 for her legal fees (less I use my financial resources to legally harass her). So of course she turns around and uses the $15K to sic her attorney even further on me.

I love my 8-yr son tremendously. But he's the only reason I don't go full nuclear. If a child weren't involve, lets just say things would be different. I'm telling you, at least with California family law, fathers are screwed. And there's nothing I can do about it.


Next time wear a rubber or be more picky where you put your penis
 
2014-01-12 12:57:42 PM  

what_now: but at the same time they shouldn't be so high as to allow someone to live in the lap of luxury off of them alone without contributing themselves.

This is about the children. They were married for six years and have three children, how much should these children be supporting themselves?

Of course $150k is a lot for child support, but this guy makes millions every year. There's someone better this his toddlers to spend it on?


I agree it should be about the children, however there's no real oversight to make sure child support is only spent on the children.  This particular case isn't the best example, because this guy seems very unsympathetic, and I agree that he should want to make sure his children have a good life, I just don't know if I agree that he should be legally mandated to pay beyond a certain point.

In an ideal world child and spousal support should be enough that whoever is receiving it is able to provide for the needs of the children and themselves while also working themselves and not have to resort to government assistance.  If you have a kid with a millionaire does that mean that you should continue to receive payments that allow you to raise the kid as you were still married to the millionaire, or should enough to live a standard middle class lifestyle be the expectation?  I'd argue for the latter.

For more typical situations where both parents have roughly similar incomes or earning potential the best policy might be to set up an account similar to the Health Savings Accounts that some health plans offer, but instead of the money being mandated to be spent on healthcare related items, have it be mandated to be spent on childcare related items.  That way the money is guaranteed to go where it is supposed to go, to the child, instead of being spent by the parent receiving the funds for their own lifestyle enhancement.  It would also be worthwhile to require the parent receiving the funds to contribute an equal amount to such an account to insure that the non-custodial parent isn't bearing the complete financial burden of raising the child.
 
2014-01-12 01:30:14 PM  
I'm somewhat confused why the article doesn't mention a bribery investigation going on right now.

Because that's what this sounds like.
 
2014-01-12 01:36:41 PM  

Rincewind53: I'm somewhat confused why the article doesn't mention a bribery investigation going on right now.

Because that's what this sounds like.


There are no laws against bribery.

Well, okay, yes there are.  But the law doesn't apply to anyone with enough money to bribe anyone anyway.
 
2014-01-12 01:47:33 PM  
People bribe me to make their houses brighter all the time.
 
2014-01-12 01:51:16 PM  
For those saying that "just because he is a millionaire doesn't mean he should have to pay any more than necessary to ensure basic living", I think the problem is that the millionaire can then easily undermine the other parent.

"I'm going to Disney for a week and we have a private castle arranged and the princesses come every morning and make breakfast and Mickey Mouse reads bedtime stories every night. Oh, it's your mother's year for Christmas? That's a shame. What does she plan on doing? Oh, dinner at home and gifts from Wal-Mart. That's a shame. You really should ask her if you can live with me. Maybe mention it to the judge next time."
 
2014-01-12 01:55:21 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: For those saying that "just because he is a millionaire doesn't mean he should have to pay any more than necessary to ensure basic living", I think the problem is that the millionaire can then easily undermine the other parent.

"I'm going to Disney for a week and we have a private castle arranged and the princesses come every morning and make breakfast and Mickey Mouse reads bedtime stories every night. Oh, it's your mother's year for Christmas? That's a shame. What does she plan on doing? Oh, dinner at home and gifts from Wal-Mart. That's a shame. You really should ask her if you can live with me. Maybe mention it to the judge next time."


Man, you took a sad thread and made me even more sad in it.
 
2014-01-12 02:17:36 PM  

Bloody William: Three Crooked Squirrels: For those saying that "just because he is a millionaire doesn't mean he should have to pay any more than necessary to ensure basic living", I think the problem is that the millionaire can then easily undermine the other parent.

"I'm going to Disney for a week and we have a private castle arranged and the princesses come every morning and make breakfast and Mickey Mouse reads bedtime stories every night. Oh, it's your mother's year for Christmas? That's a shame. What does she plan on doing? Oh, dinner at home and gifts from Wal-Mart. That's a shame. You really should ask her if you can live with me. Maybe mention it to the judge next time."

Man, you took a sad thread and made me even more sad in it.


Sorry. But the paying parents that complain bitterly about the amount of child support probably fall into two categories: 1) parents whose child support obligation is truly a hardship, and 2) parents who can afford the payment but hate their ex and are likely playing the kid against the ex.

Also, note that there is a huge difference between burdensome child support and hardship. Having a kid is always financially burdensome.
 
2014-01-12 02:24:35 PM  
What is amazing is how affordable it is now to purchase Scott Walker and his teaparty legislature in WI. This guy paid about 200K for the ability to write his own bill basically to screw over his divorced EX (and a lot of kids in the state). Nice huh? Yeah, he is a giant dick, but the GOP does not care, they want the cash. Previously, this was done by groups (roadbuilders who got 4 billion in contracts for a few tens of thousands) and a mining company (who got the ability to actually write their own bill stripping pesky protections for less than a mil) and by car dealers that had lemon laws removed, but not by individuals. I'm sure that this will continue to be profitable for the GOP as other individuals see how affordable it is and how you can just write your own laws for anything! These contributions allowed Walker to outspend his recall opponent at a 6 to 1 ratio, and it is going to get even worse.
 
2014-01-12 02:32:04 PM  
Two problems: One, that someone can basically buy a legislator like this. Wisconsin has been turned into the anti-Minnesota, or a weird and terrifying place to live in other words.

Two, that he's stuck giving 18K a month and no less than 15K a month in child support. That is farking ridiculous. What kid needs 15K a month to be supported? Have him pay for at least half of college/trade school and give whatever the average cost of raising a child is per year split into twelve-month blocks. That seems fair.
 
2014-01-12 02:32:19 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: For those saying that "just because he is a millionaire doesn't mean he should have to pay any more than necessary to ensure basic living", I think the problem is that the millionaire can then easily undermine the other parent.

"I'm going to Disney for a week and we have a private castle arranged and the princesses come every morning and make breakfast and Mickey Mouse reads bedtime stories every night. Oh, it's your mother's year for Christmas? That's a shame. What does she plan on doing? Oh, dinner at home and gifts from Wal-Mart. That's a shame. You really should ask her if you can live with me. Maybe mention it to the judge next time."


At 12 or 13 the kid can advocate for where they would rather live but I was assured that they need to have a damn good reason to do it. Once physical custody is set it is very very hard to have it changed. I have primary custody of my son and mom lives hours away so she doesn't do the day to day stuff, she just gets to be the fun parent.
 
2014-01-12 02:38:17 PM  

dugitman: ajgeek: I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate and agree with this. The cap is currently higher than $150,000/year and assets are considered in that number. I could give my kids a premium life for $150,000/year and send them to a top-end college.

The law sucks and this guy is doing the right thing getting it changed.

FTA: Kleefisch's bill would cap the amount of income subject to child support to $150,000 a year - and assets could not be used in the calculation.

His bill doesn't cap the child support at $150K, it caps the number used to calculate support at 150. So even if he made 10million next year, child support he pays would be based on him making 150K. IANAL nor am I in Wisconsin but that would be what? 2-3K per month in child support? Rich dude is just being a dick.


Note how this is the mirror image of arguments against estate taxes. Even if the tax doesn't touch the first $1 million or more and there is nothing preventing heirs from being well provided for, the wealthy find it offensive that they can't keep people they might not like from getting the rest of it. It's about wealth being an entitlement to exercise power over others.
 
2014-01-12 02:40:45 PM  

plushpuppy: Primum non nocere: The problem, as all fathers know, is that the money is not being spent on child-support. I send my ex-GF (was never ever married to her or lived together) a huge check every month that is direct-deposited into her personal checking account. Because of the disparity in our incomes, I'm essentially paying all her rent, food, car payments, health care bills 2x over each month. I seriously don't know why she even works when she could easily live off my "child-support" payments . er . . . I mean "baby's momma-lifestyle support" payments.

I understand the legal thought process is that my child should have a "lifestyle" comparable to mine. But that's not what happens in the real world when she spends so much of it on herself.  And to top it off, the judge said b/c of the disparity in incomes, he had to "level the playing field" and made me give her $15,000 for her legal fees (less I use my financial resources to legally harass her). So of course she turns around and uses the $15K to sic her attorney even further on me.

I love my 8-yr son tremendously. But he's the only reason I don't go full nuclear. If a child weren't involve, lets just say things would be different. I'm telling you, at least with California family law, fathers are screwed. And there's nothing I can do about it.

Then get your son to live with you.  Petition the court.  Why did you agree for him to live with her?


Possibly because most custody laws assume anyone with a penis is an inferior parent.
 
2014-01-12 02:42:35 PM  
espn.go.com
 
2014-01-12 02:43:56 PM  

GoldSpider: Possibly because most custody laws assume anyone with a penis is an inferior parent.


But I've long been assured by right wingers that the woman's place is in the home and to raise children.  Why do you hate mothers?
 
2014-01-12 02:45:06 PM  

Weaver95: It's easy...just subtract conscience and empathy and add in a sense of massive entitlement and a rock solid belief that the universe really does revolve around you. Then you realize that there are no limits to what you can do to other people.



State circuit court website shows that the State had to go after him in 2011 for $ 224,178.37 in delinquent taxes ... so, yeah, he's one of those guys.
 
2014-01-12 02:45:52 PM  
This is clearly a case of a rich guy buying several lawmakers so he can get the law changed to suit him. He and the Republicans in question should be charged with bribery/corruption.

That said, how does any kid need $18,000 a MONTH for support?!? I know that's for three kids, but WTF does that much money go towards?  Does each kid get their own mansion and limo?
 
2014-01-12 02:47:45 PM  
The real problem is that apparently because we have such a glut of politicians in this country they can be bought so cheaply.  I would like to see legislation establishing a minimum purchase price on office holders.
 
2014-01-12 02:47:50 PM  
I'll off the wife & kid(s) for less than he's having to pay to bribe the politicians. EIP.

/not intended as a factual statement
 
2014-01-12 02:49:38 PM  
And this millionaire's kids are on the BadgerCare insurance program for poor kids. Link
 
2014-01-12 02:50:00 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: GoldSpider: Possibly because most custody laws assume anyone with a penis is an inferior parent.

But I've long been assured by right wingers that the woman's place is in the home and to raise children.  Why do you hate mothers?


I guess if they are divorced they don't believe in the sanctity of marriage, you know they had affairs on their husbands or didn't forgive their husbands for the husband's affair or they didn't allow the husband to rule the house properly.

They did something unwomanly.
 
2014-01-12 02:50:19 PM  

Wyalt Derp: I'll off the wife & kid(s) for less than he's having to pay to bribe the politicians. EIP.

/not intended as a factual statement


That's the thing, he has already spent more on the bribes than the new law will probably save him; he just appears to be doing it to mess with his ex.
 
m00
2014-01-12 02:51:19 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Two, that he's stuck giving 18K a month and no less than 15K a month in child support. That is farking ridiculous. What kid needs 15K a month to be supported? Have him pay for at least half of college/trade school and give whatever the average cost of raising a child is per year split into twelve-month blocks. That seems fair.


Yeah 15k/mo is pretty asinine. I'm picturing lots of Vegas vacations for mom.
 
2014-01-12 02:52:40 PM  

BigBooper: This is clearly a case of a rich guy buying several lawmakers so he can get the law changed to suit him. He and the Republicans in question should be charged with bribery/corruption.

That said, how does any kid need $18,000 a MONTH for support?!? I know that's for three kids, but WTF does that much money go towards?  Does each kid get their own mansion and limo?


College funds and trust funds? The idea might be that the custodial parent should be able to spend as much on the kids as if the wealthy parent was part of the household.
 
2014-01-12 02:59:05 PM  

what_now: I will never understand how people will have children, and then do everything they can not to support them.


Those "people" are republicans. Can't abort but no support until they are of draft age.  At that age, if the parents are in the 1%, the offspring doesn't get drafted.
 
2014-01-12 03:04:50 PM  
Better Business Bureau doesn't think much of his lending business

Link
 
2014-01-12 03:09:54 PM  

Nem Wan: BigBooper: This is clearly a case of a rich guy buying several lawmakers so he can get the law changed to suit him. He and the Republicans in question should be charged with bribery/corruption.

That said, how does any kid need $18,000 a MONTH for support?!? I know that's for three kids, but WTF does that much money go towards?  Does each kid get their own mansion and limo?

College funds and trust funds? The idea might be that the custodial parent should be able to spend as much on the kids as if the wealthy parent was part of the household.


If that's the idea, that's a problem.  If the non-custodial parent no longer receives the benefits of the relationship or custody of the kids, that parent should no longer be expected to pay for the custodial parent and the kids to maintain the same lifestyle as before.

There should be an expectation that the non-custodial parent provides support so that the custodial parent isn't unduly burdened by now having to raise the kids on a single income, and the kids shouldn't be left wanting for any basic needs, but $6K per month per kid is pretty ridiculous.

At those amounts the custodial parent isn't having to contribute financially at all, and is living a better life with the kids than the average family with two working parents who have stayed together.
 
2014-01-12 03:14:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: At those amounts the custodial parent isn't having to contribute financially at all, and is living a better life with the kids than the average family with two working parents who have stayed together.


I know, right?  It's such a BURDEN on the rich people to have to pay a small percentage of all the HARD EARNED MONEY they made to support their children.  It's not like their kids helped make them the money.  Our standards should be as long as the millionaires kids aren't starving in the streets he shouldn't have to pay a dime.

'Merica.
 
2014-01-12 03:20:04 PM  
The GOP's full of deadbeats.  I don't think anyone's surprised.
 
2014-01-12 03:24:52 PM  
 
2014-01-12 03:25:14 PM  

Primum non nocere: The problem, as all fathers know, is that the money is not being spent on child-support. I send my ex-GF (was never ever married to her or lived together) a huge check every month that is direct-deposited into her personal checking account. Because of the disparity in our incomes, I'm essentially paying all her rent, food, car payments, health care bills 2x over each month. I seriously don't know why she even works when she could easily live off my "child-support" payments . er . . . I mean "baby's momma-lifestyle support" payments.

I understand the legal thought process is that my child should have a "lifestyle" comparable to mine. But that's not what happens in the real world when she spends so much of it on herself.  And to top it off, the judge said b/c of the disparity in incomes, he had to "level the playing field" and made me give her $15,000 for her legal fees (less I use my financial resources to legally harass her). So of course she turns around and uses the $15K to sic her attorney even further on me.

I love my 8-yr son tremendously. But he's the only reason I don't go full nuclear. If a child weren't involve, lets just say things would be different. I'm telling you, at least with California family law, fathers are screwed. And there's nothing I can do about it.


After I divorce my unemployed wife (no alimony, but with child support), first thing she did was get a loan to get a set of bolt-ons.

The support payments take into account only my income, and I am also responsible for 50% of other expenses as well. This ignores that our child lives with me nearly 50% of the time, and that we have joint custody.

Child support formulas are farked up.
 
2014-01-12 03:28:40 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: TuteTibiImperes: At those amounts the custodial parent isn't having to contribute financially at all, and is living a better life with the kids than the average family with two working parents who have stayed together.

I know, right?  It's such a BURDEN on the rich people to have to pay a small percentage of all the HARD EARNED MONEY they made to support their children.  It's not like their kids helped make them the money.  Our standards should be as long as the millionaires kids aren't starving in the streets he shouldn't have to pay a dime.

'Merica.


Like I said, this particular guy seems like a jackass, and it's hard to have sympathy for him, but there's a huge difference between starving in a gutter and receiving a 216K/year income just because you had kids and got divorced.

I'm not fond of a system that can mandate the non-custodial parent to fully support the lifestyle of the custodial parent without the custodial parent having to contribute financially at all.  In a perfect world the custodial parent would have to contribute financially towards the children equally to the non-custodial parent.  If custodial parent isn't capable of earning that level of income, the requirements for the non-custodial parent should be dropped to whichever is the greater of either the amount the custodial parent can contribute or the difference between what the custodial parent can contribute and the median costs for raising however many children are involved for that general geographical area.
 
2014-01-12 03:32:45 PM  

BigBooper: This is clearly a case of a rich guy buying several lawmakers so he can get the law changed to suit him. He and the Republicans in question should be charged with bribery/corruption.

That said, how does any kid need $18,000 a MONTH for support?!? I know that's for three kids, but WTF does that much money go towards?  Does each kid get their own mansion and limo?


Private schools, the aforementioned college funds, I'm guessing if she has a Milwaukee attorney she's out in the western 'burbs (where a shack starts at $300K), and good old fashioned "maintenance".

/Seriously this guy is worth $30M and he has some backwater dipshiat from Portage for a lawyer?
 
2014-01-12 03:36:29 PM  

Slackfumasta: After I divorce my unemployed wife (no alimony, but with child support), first thing she did was get a loan to get a set of bolt-ons.


Pics or it never happened
 
2014-01-12 03:40:12 PM  

plushpuppy: Primum non nocere: The problem, as all fathers know, is that the money is not being spent on child-support. I send my ex-GF (was never ever married to her or lived together) a huge check every month that is direct-deposited into her personal checking account. Because of the disparity in our incomes, I'm essentially paying all her rent, food, car payments, health care bills 2x over each month. I seriously don't know why she even works when she could easily live off my "child-support" payments . er . . . I mean "baby's momma-lifestyle support" payments.

I understand the legal thought process is that my child should have a "lifestyle" comparable to mine. But that's not what happens in the real world when she spends so much of it on herself.  And to top it off, the judge said b/c of the disparity in incomes, he had to "level the playing field" and made me give her $15,000 for her legal fees (less I use my financial resources to legally harass her). So of course she turns around and uses the $15K to sic her attorney even further on me.

I love my 8-yr son tremendously. But he's the only reason I don't go full nuclear. If a child weren't involve, lets just say things would be different. I'm telling you, at least with California family law, fathers are screwed. And there's nothing I can do about it.

Then get your son to live with you.  Petition the court.  Why did you agree for him to live with her?


In some states, you can request receipts to show where the money goes in the future.
 
2014-01-12 03:48:49 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Three Crooked Squirrels: For those saying that "just because he is a millionaire doesn't mean he should have to pay any more than necessary to ensure basic living", I think the problem is that the millionaire can then easily undermine the other parent.

"I'm going to Disney for a week and we have a private castle arranged and the princesses come every morning and make breakfast and Mickey Mouse reads bedtime stories every night. Oh, it's your mother's year for Christmas? That's a shame. What does she plan on doing? Oh, dinner at home and gifts from Wal-Mart. That's a shame. You really should ask her if you can live with me. Maybe mention it to the judge next time."

At 12 or 13 the kid can advocate for where they would rather live but I was assured that they need to have a damn good reason to do it. Once physical custody is set it is very very hard to have it changed. I have primary custody of my son and mom lives hours away so she doesn't do the day to day stuff, she just gets to be the fun parent.


I sort of hope that's not true. My young cousin is terrified of his (drunkard of a) father who has bipolar disorder (diagnosed, but not medicated). If he could say that he doesn't want to see his father any more, and the courts would approve that, my aunt could move away, but as it is, the father calls kidnapping if my aunt takes the kid to the city for a day.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report