His wife made an ALLEGATION that he was backed up $100K in child support.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pardon me if I observe, this thread, as many other P&N threads tend to do, has gone far beyond the individual conduct of Jack Walch, and now focuses, on the far larger questions
about males, females, and children's right's after a failed marriage.
In short, far larger social questions with no easy answers.
But still, if we remove the conduct of Jack Walch and his ex-wife from the social larger questions, there are still countless numbers of "dead beat", dads and Moms, not only in the USA, and also a far larger number all over the world.
With the larger legal doctrine being, what a court in terms of child support can realistically order. With the giant legal inequity being, if either mommy and daddy are "independently wealthy" after the marriage falls apart, said innocent child, can look forward to large child support payments. Yet if Mommy and Daddy don't have two pennies to rub together at the time of divorce, said innocent child produced after the marriage or co-habitation falls apart, can only look forward to very small or non-existent child support.
With the other world wide legal doctrine becoming, if the parent without child custody later becomes far wealthier, the parent with child custody can go back to court, and ask for an increase in child support that will usually be granted by courts. But still that doctrine does not last forever. If the dead beat party in the marriage forgets to become wealthier until after the children he fathered, reach the age of 18 or 21, the parent with custody has no legal recourse.
Which I maintain, any "legal consent agreement" made between Jack Walch and his ex-wife in 4/2008, tells this forum nothing either way. Because such "consent agreements"
typically come with non-disclosure agreements on the side. And if Jack Walch's ex-wife then tries to make more claims, or brake her non-disclosure agreement she will breech the contract.
Just an observation I can't prove one way or the other in the case of Jack Walch.
Other wise, and IMHO, I other wise conclude Jack Walch is a reprehensible human being and a 24 carat phony. With my only regret being, I live in another State and can't legally vote to give Jack Walch the old heave ho.