WTF $21,782 a month in child care!?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
3
0
But don't you see Skoorb? They're both results of the same system. Puffy can afford to pay his child support, unfortunately others of us aren't so lucky. By validating her greediness just because Puffy can afford it you screw the rest of us.

Did you know that it's very uncommon for child support amounts to go down? Even when one loses their job? If Puffy somehow went bankrupt tomorrow, he'd still have to pay that child support. Is that still fair?
I didn't validate it. I think it's ridiculous, as I said above. But, if anybody can pay it, it's him. The thing about child support--we all know this, so don't be coy--is that if you're rich you pay a lot. It's rather like the speeding ticket system in Sweden. I can't afford 21k so I'd not be asked to pay it. Puffy can in about three seconds of be alive, so he pays it. That is silly, of course, but it's not like 21k is in and of itself a ridiculous number, but rather that the system has a gradient based upon the giver's income.

If he went bankrupt he'd have no money left to pay the 21k.
 

MechJinx

Senior member
Mar 22, 2004
421
0
0
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
Originally posted by: Skoorb
again your jealousy is showing skoorb.

The guy has a talent (i have to agree the music and clothes suck) and worked hard to get where he is. Its not like he won the lottery and is now living good. The guy had to work hard to get where he is.

The women got knocked up and took advantage of a broken legal system. Child support is supposed to take care of the child. it does not take $20+k to take care of a child. The mother has to contribute also.
I'll make it simple then: both people did comparitively little for the vast sums of money they've come upon. In essence they both lucked out. One did it nefariously, but if that 21k was being extorted out of somebody else I would have more sympathy for them. Sure, puffy "earned" the money, but he didn't break his back for it or invent something spectacular. He lucked into it in a very short period of time. 21k to him is nothing. It's peanuts. Easy come, easy go. I'm far more distraught over crawford's brother (recent thread) who now has to find a way to replace his car.
But don't you see Skoorb? They're both results of the same system. Puffy can afford to pay his child support, unfortunately others of us aren't so lucky. By validating her greediness just because Puffy can afford it you screw the rest of us.

Did you know that it's very uncommon for child support amounts to go down? Even when one loses their job? If Puffy somehow went bankrupt tomorrow, he'd still have to pay that child support. Is that still fair?
Man, that is messed up. It should only be an amount in accordance with what the person paying the support can afford. It shouldn't ruin their life. Again, another example of just how broken the system is. That sucks.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,284
12,032
146
Originally posted by: MechJinx
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MechJinx
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: MechJinx
While I think it is rediculous to pay 21k a month in child support, part of what is missing in this thread is the fact that the child is growing up in a broken/dysfunctional home. Maybe by forcing men to pay the outrageous child support, they will think twice about getting a girl pregnant and walking. While I don't think that is the driving force behind the demand of this woman from P.Diddy, it was obviously greed, restricting child support to the bare minimum is not the answer either. It doesn't rectify the problem that someone (man or woman, I don't care which) has walked away from their responsibility of raising a child. The judicial system is broke, but the fix is not to reduce the amount of child support across the board. That just makes it broken a different way.
So child support is supposed to be PUNITIVE???

Go sh!t in your hat, ok?
Umm, you missed the entire point of my post, the system is broken, but the fix is not just reduce child support across the baord, that just makes it broken a different way. Take a chill pill and get over yourself.
The "fix" is to determine the amount it requires to raise a child with the minimum amount of sustenance, safety, and shelter and make a set amount based on that.

Otherwise getting pregnant by wealthy men will become a gambling sport with an assured payoff.
Thus, ensuring that rich people with ambiguous morals can father all the children they want and not worry about the consequences. The system is still broke, just in a different way. We require tests and degrees to do dangerous, important, etc work, but any asshat off the street can become a parent. At the fundamental level, the system is broke, the fixes you are suggesting just make it a broken system in a different way. So, why change it with your fixes, what makes that any better than the completely screwed up system we have now? Why waste tax money changing the system unless it helps solve the fundamental problem which is that there are people out there who have no idea what is entailed in having sex and becoming a parent?
It is not up to you, or the government, to govern how many children people have, or how they choose to have consensual sex.

You, and the government, are not the morality police. Morality is best left to public opinion and peer pressure.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
14
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: waggy
this is nuts!

It does not take a $252,000 to take care of a kid!

This lady is just looking to cash in.
and the courts are happy to oblige.

You got that right!! In Wisconsin if your Ex ain't happy with the money she is gettig for C.S. she can take your ass back to court every 3 months.

Ausm
 

AtaruMoroboshi18

Senior member
Apr 1, 2005
552
1
81
Marriage in America is now becoming obsolete, divorces, child support, alimony, etc. There's a marriage strike happening and it's going to continue to happen unless these things are cleared up.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,284
12,032
146
Originally posted by: AtaruMoroboshi18
Marriage in America is now becoming obsolete, divorces, child support, alimony, etc. There's a marriage strike happening and it's going to continue to happen unless these things are cleared up.
Considering the fact that the objects of the OP's story were never married, your post makes no sense.

Lack of marriage does not absolve someone of their responsibility to their offspring.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
5
81
Originally posted by: MechJinx
Thus, ensuring that rich people with ambiguous morals can father all the children they want and not worry about the consequences.
If the sex was consensual, and the women are getting paid enough support to raise the child well (MUCH less than $21k a month), what's the issue?

Being rich means you don't have to worry as much about certain consequences, that's just the way it is. Of course, you have to worry a lot MORE about other things that poor people don't...
 

AntiEverything

Senior member
Aug 5, 2004
939
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But don't you see Skoorb? They're both results of the same system. Puffy can afford to pay his child support, unfortunately others of us aren't so lucky. By validating her greediness just because Puffy can afford it you screw the rest of us.

Did you know that it's very uncommon for child support amounts to go down? Even when one loses their job? If Puffy somehow went bankrupt tomorrow, he'd still have to pay that child support. Is that still fair?
I didn't validate it. I think it's ridiculous, as I said above. But, if anybody can pay it, it's him. The thing about child support--we all know this, so don't be coy--is that if you're rich you pay a lot. It's rather like the speeding ticket system in Sweden. I can't afford 21k so I'd not be asked to pay it. Puffy can in about three seconds of be alive, so he pays it. That is silly, of course, but it's not like 21k is in and of itself a ridiculous number, but rather that the system has a gradient based upon the giver's income.

If he went bankrupt he'd have no money left to pay the 21k.
Right, he wouldn't be able to pay it if he went bankrupt. But they state would keep sending him a bill every month. And every month he couldn't pay it it would add up, that's called arrears. And once you've built up arrears, that can never be forgiven. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't clear child support arrears. Then after a few months of being broke and not being able to pay $21K per month, they'll take away his drivers license. Then after a few more months they may consider jail time.

So tell me again, how does ability to pay factor into it? I'm not being coy, you're being fvcking ignorant.

When a man's income goes up, so does his child support. When his income goes down, the child support doesn't. How's that fair?
 
Aug 26, 2004
14,685
1
76
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
When a man's income goes up, so does his child support. When his income goes down, the child support doesn't. How's that fair?
its not...

personally, i don't give a sh1t if the kid's father is bill gates...he shouldn't have to pay that amount for child support...
 

CStan

Senior member
Apr 1, 2002
309
0
0
P.diddy worked his way to the top. i remember reading (watching?) something on how he had three jobs when he was 12 to support his mom. Fact is, diddy is a business man, like any other, who profited off his musical talent, and now expanding into other markets (clothes, reality tv). Oh, and if you say "what musical talent?", then just look at the long list of albums he created, or produced over the past 15 (15?) years. You might not like his music but millions of people do (did?) so he cashed out.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
414
126
Originally posted by: quakefiend420
Originally posted by: AntiEverything
When a man's income goes up, so does his child support. When his income goes down, the child support doesn't. How's that fair?
its not...

personally, i don't give a sh1t if the kid's father is bill gates...he shouldn't have to pay that amount for child support...
i agree with you, the mother needs to get off her fat ass and get a job
 

oogabooga

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2003
7,806
3
81
is the 120,000 in tuition, healtcare, books, etc on top of the 21k per month? that is just .. wow *shakes head* someone won the lottery....
 

imported_Beavis

Senior member
Dec 18, 2004
496
0
0
That's waaaaaaaaaaay to much child support,

And thats also abuse of power

check this story out

Sperm donor fights order to support 2 children

Friday, May 20, 2005
By Barbara White Stack, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing a case with the potential to strike fear in the hearts of sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material and nothing more -- certainly no responsibility for babies created with it.

The justices heard arguments this week in a case that forces them to weigh the right of children to financial aid from two parents against the right of men to provide sperm for in-vitro fertilization without the donors being held responsible for any offspring.

"There is a lot of fear surrounding this court case because if the court extends this beyond support, to rights and obligations, then I think it will create a serious chilling effect," said Lawrence Kalikow, a Bucks County lawyer who is an expert in surrogacy, sperm and egg donation cases.

The genesis of the case is a decade-old deal between ex-lovers, Joel L. McKiernan, now of Mt. Lebanon, and Ivonne V. Ferguson, now of New York. He agreed to provide sperm for babies she wanted and she agreed to absolve him of responsibility for their progeny.

Through in-vitro fertilization, she bore twins and raised them alone for five years. Then she sued McKiernan for child support in Dauphin County.

The Common Pleas Court judge there acknowledged that the couple had a binding verbal contract that released McKiernan from the normal responsibilities of fathers. But he decided the contract was invalid because the two had wrongly bargained away rights of the twins, particularly their right to child support from two parents.

Then the court ordered McKiernan to pay $1,500 in support a month. He appealed. Last July Superior Court said the lower court judge was right. That's what got McKiernan before the Supreme Court this week.

There Justice Ronald D. Castille asked Elizabeth A. Hoffman, the Harrisburg lawyer representing Ferguson, whether the court's invalidating the verbal contract between Ferguson and McKiernan would make it difficult for infertile couples to obtain sperm donors.

Hoffman's argument was that anonymous donors to sperm banks wouldn't be affected because their contracts are with the banks, not with the potential mothers.

And she stressed that only cases involving single mothers are relevant because in Pennsylvania children born to married women are assumed to be those of the husband. In those cases, then, the children have two parents to provide support.

At this point, sperm donation centers don't seem to be in panic. One of the largest in the country, Cryobank of California, mentions the Pennsylvania decision on its Web site but assures its donors they're unaffected. California has a law protecting donors from support actions. Pennsylvania does not.

A supervisor at Cryobiology Inc. of Columbus, which has a sperm collection center in Pittsburgh, was unaware of the case as was the executive director of the Reproductive Science Institute with three offices outside Philadelphia.

Both Donna Ridder of Cryobiology and June Amarant of Reproductive Science said they thought their contracts would protect donors.

The lawyer representing McKiernan wasn't so sure. Attorney John W. Purcell Jr., of Harrisburg, said that if a judge decided that a contract between mother and father was invalid because it denied children their rights, it could nullify a contract between a man and a sperm center denying children rights.

And such anonymous donors are traceable. Banks ordered by courts to find and identify donors have the means to do it.

Donors should have some concern, said Erie lawyer Joe Martone, who is handling a case that is the reverse -- an egg donor seeking custody rights to triplets she didn't bear and has never supported.

The vast majority of cases in which children are conceived from donated eggs or sperm work out happily ever after, Martone said.

But if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' decisions in this case, Martone said, it's possible that single parents who conceived with donated genetic material will demand the names of the donors and seek support.

He and attorney Kalikow agreed the problem would be resolved if Pennsylvania passes legislation -- as at least a dozen other states have -- regulating sperm and egg donation.

Although this is a Pennsylvania case, it could have repercussions elsewhere, Purcell said. If a bank in California ships sperm to the doctor of a single woman in Pittsburgh, it is conceivable that the Pennsylvania-born child would be covered by the Pennsylvania decision, he said. Or, he said, it's possible a child would be covered if the mother moved to Pennsylvania to deliver.

If the court rules that McKiernan must continue to pay, he said, that could chill donation everywhere.

And that, Kalikow said, would hurt infertile couples. "If donors don't want to donate, then intended parents have that option foreclosed."

Both he and Percell said there is an example in Pennsylvania law that would enable the Supreme Court to release sperm donors of obligations to be the second parent to children born to single mothers.

In cases of abused or neglected children, it is fairly common now for courts to terminate the rights of both parents then permit one person, usually an unmarried or widowed foster parent, to adopt. That action leaves the child without two parents to support him.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm
 

Attrox

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2004
1,120
0
0
WTF! :|
Most family gets by with even less than 5k a month.
WTH happen to the judicial system of the U.S that things like this is allow to happen. :|
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But don't you see Skoorb? They're both results of the same system. Puffy can afford to pay his child support, unfortunately others of us aren't so lucky. By validating her greediness just because Puffy can afford it you screw the rest of us.

Did you know that it's very uncommon for child support amounts to go down? Even when one loses their job? If Puffy somehow went bankrupt tomorrow, he'd still have to pay that child support. Is that still fair?
I didn't validate it. I think it's ridiculous, as I said above. But, if anybody can pay it, it's him. The thing about child support--we all know this, so don't be coy--is that if you're rich you pay a lot. It's rather like the speeding ticket system in Sweden. I can't afford 21k so I'd not be asked to pay it. Puffy can in about three seconds of be alive, so he pays it. That is silly, of course, but it's not like 21k is in and of itself a ridiculous number, but rather that the system has a gradient based upon the giver's income.

If he went bankrupt he'd have no money left to pay the 21k.
They then label you a deadbeat dad, seize your drivers license and take it from your bank account. If I were him I'd wipe my @ss with every single bill...

I would demand receipts as well as to how she was spending it....but then again the "Family Court System' could care less how many happy meals she feeds the kid and how much blow she snorts.
 

Nebben

Senior member
May 20, 2004
706
0
0
This thread is amazing.

How about marrying the woman you supposedly love, then having sex, then raising the children you give birth to?

Nah, that's far too old fashioned. Let's just impregnate random women and then cry about having to support our children. After all, it was her decision, too.

It doesn't cost $21k a month to raise a child. But the permanent damage to the children caused by the total lack of a father in the picture is exponentially more important than this stupid argument about money. The phrase "Child support" in this context is absurd. Sending a check every month does not support your child, being a father does.
 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,175
1
0
Most states have child support set as a percentage of the father's income. I've never seen support actually get used exclusively for the children (including housing and utilities). No, it's just a payment the woman takes for herself. Also, how many times have you heard of fathers getting custody and mom paying support?

$21k / month is absurd
 

Deadtrees

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2002
2,351
0
0
Hire a killer for $21,782. Kill that lady of greed. Donate the kid somewhere. Problem solved.
 
May 25, 2005
46
0
0
Originally posted by: DAGTA
Most states have child support set as a percentage of the father's income. I've never seen support actually get used exclusively for the children (including housing and utilities). No, it's just a payment the woman takes for herself. Also, how many times have you heard of fathers getting custody and mom paying support?

$21k / month is absurd
My mom would of thrown a sh!t fit if she would of had to pay for child support. But when I lived with my mom ohh boy she loved to see that check come in every month.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,706
532
126
Originally posted by: tocoolformyself
So why doesn't he just let the child stay with him?
The mother would probably have to cut several of the childs fingers off and starve him half to death before the courts would even consider giving custody to the father. Men don't have a legal leg to stand on there either.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
81
Originally posted by: waggy
this is nuts!


Ok this is just nuts. i don't care how much money the guy makes. he was paying $5k a month for child care. the mother claimed she couldnt afford to take care of the child on that. so went to court and asked for $35k a month but only got the $21k.

It does not take a $252,000 to take care of a kid! this lady is just looking to cash in.
I guess she needed extra cheese on her Whopper
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY