Patterico's Pontifications

11/2/2007

Court Orders $28,000 a Month Child Support

Filed under: Law — DRJ @ 7:51 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently reinstated an order that Florida attorney Willie Gary pay $28,000 a month in child support to his former lover for their twin children:

“When Atlanta resident Diana Gowins gave birth to twins fathered by a married multimillionaire, she felt her children deserved the finer things in life.

The father, high-profile Florida-based attorney Willie Gary, gave his former lover money for the twins, but when he felt she was misusing the child support, he took her to court in November 2005. Gary convinced Fulton County Superior Court Judge Cynthia Wright to reduce his payments from $28,000 a month to $5,000.

However, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a decision Friday siding with the mother, tossing out the judge’s order to reduce the father’s payments.”

Gary had initially agreed to pay $28,000 a month in child support and he can afford the increased payments – his income is $13M a year. However, Gary’s attorney Kenny Schatten said they may appeal because of the way the child support has been spent:

“Schatten said Gary only challenged how much he pays for his 6-year-old daughter and son after he discovered that Gowins stopped putting money into a college fund and spent much of the cash on herself. Gary’s attorneys have accused Gowins, who lives in a $600,000 home in south Atlanta, of splurging on designer clothes, a Steinway piano, cruises without the kids and a tummy tuck. She also spent thousands on private school tuition and diamonds for her oldest child, a teenage daughter from a previous relationship, Gary argued in court documents.

The Fulton judge told Gowins, a former nurse, to go to work and watch her lavish spending, but she refused, saying she has a right to be a stay-at-home mom.”

Moral: Never get between a mother and her children child support.

— DRJ

83 Responses to “Court Orders $28,000 a Month Child Support”

  1. Gary should do two things:

    1) Thank God he is rid of this woman.

    2) Put money aside for the kids once they are free of her clutches.

    My only real question is why Gary didn’t get custody? Did he not want it? It would seem that the interests of the children don’t seem to coincide with being with the mother. Is the system that biased?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  2. Kevin, uless the mother does crack in court, infront of the judge, it’s still pretty rare the father get custody, even if he wants it.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  3. You’d think it would be a simple matter for the court to stipulate that the child-support money be put into a court-monitored bank account where it can only be withdrawn for the benefit of Gary’s children or in true financial emergencies. Of course that would be the simple solution so it’s right out.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  4. Ouch!
    At first I agreed with Kevin about trying to get custody but after reading
    http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/11/02/garyed1102.html?cxntlid=inform

    I’m not so sure.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  5. What a piker, 13 million in income and he quibbles about 28K a month? Bet he attended NYU Law.

    Thomas Jackson (bf83e0)

  6. 13 million a year, 28,000/month child support should be no problem for him, it’s the scaled equivalent of a guy making 130,000 paying 280/month for two children. i think this blog should give equal time and space to the mom so we can hear her story. why are you carrying water for an adulterous florida multimillionaire? is this a christian thing, harlots who bear children to married men should raise them in poverty? the law takes a different view, and that’s one law i support.

    assistant devil's advocate (b2af4d)

  7. Maybe, he didn’t want custody because his wife would object? You try bringing your twin love childs home with you because you don’t want to pay child support and see what your wife says.

    And, if he wanted a college fund for the kids, why did he not start his own and deduct it from the 28k? Also, why did he give her all this money to begin with? How much can you spend on the kids? Did he expect for her to give it back? Sounds like it was guilt on his part and now he feels less guilty. I have no problems with her buying a Steinway or taking a separate vacation. As to paying tuition for her daughter – thousands doesn’t sound that much. Maybe, she should pay that back. And as far as the diamonds for the girl – that could mean a pair of diamond studs. Big deal.

    It looks like atty money bags screwed up royally. Luckily, he can well afford it.

    dave (185b67)

  8. DRJ wrote:

    Moral: Never get between a mother and her children child support.

    Uhhh, no. The article stated:

    When Atlanta resident Diana Gowins gave birth to twins fathered by a married multimillionaire, she felt her children deserved the finer things in life.

    The moral of the story is: if you are married, don’t screw around. She may have been a gold-digger for all we know, but it seems rather unlikely that she raped him; his behavior led to this just as much as did hers.

    Dana (3e4784)

  9. He is not exactly a poster child for the poor dads who are struggling but I would hope the ladies who are slamming him would note that he did not object until he found that the money was not going to the kids as required. As for deducting money for a college fund, you are obviously not well informed on child support laws. I once got caught up in a similar (although small potatoes compared to this) situation. My daughter wanted to go on a school trip to Europe. I said I would pay if my ex gave the daughter her spending money for the trip. A week before the trip, my ex called and said she had decided not to come up with spending money. Ha Ha.

    I decided that I would give the daughter half her child support for that month as spending money. I then took the other kids on a trip to meet her in England and spend another week there. When I got home, I found my ex had had my bank accounts frozen and I had bouncing checks all over. She thought it was very funny.

    It turned out the daughter was in on the plot. My lawyer laughed and said they rolled me like a drunk. The fact that the daughter was gone for the period of the child support on a trip paid for by me made not a scintilla of difference to the court. Fathers are far down the line for sympathy from the courts. That daughter did not go on any trips for another ten years but the ex was scott free.

    Moral of the story; when fathers go to court, they should bring their own KY Jelly.

    Mike K (6d4fc3)

  10. Thomas Jackson,
    What a piker, 13 million in income and he quibbles about 28K a month? Bet he attended NYU Law.

    It doesn’t sound as if he’s quibbling about the amount — but about whether or not the amount is actually spent on support for his children.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  11. dave,
    I have no problems with her buying a Steinway or taking a separate vacation. As to paying tuition for her daughter – thousands doesn’t sound that much. Maybe, she should pay that back. And as far as the diamonds for the girl – that could mean a pair of diamond studs. Big deal.

    I don’t have a problem with those purchases either — as long as the money is not coming from his child support payments.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  12. is this a christian thing, harlots who bear children to married men should raise them in poverty?

    Is $5K a month poverty where you live, ada?

    Pablo (99243e)

  13. Dana,
    The moral of the story is: if you are married, don’t screw around. She may have been a gold-digger for all we know, but it seems rather unlikely that she raped him; his behavior led to this just as much as did hers.

    All that being true, the purpose of child support is to, well, support the children — not on herself and her other child.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  14. I don’t have a problem with those purchases either — as long as the money is not coming from his child support payments.

    Exactly. But why be common sensical when we can just disguise alimony as child support? Nontaxable income for her, no deduction for him. It’s almost like they were married! And it must be in the best interest of the children for her to go on a cruise without them, so it’s all good!

    Pablo (99243e)

  15. anursa: Why shouldn’t a piano come out of child support? The article is unclear as to whether he is paying the mother separate support or it is suppose to come out of the child support, etc. However, since she is the sole caretaker for his kids, why shouldn’t she have a vacation paid by him? If you hired a nanny to care for your kids, you would be paying her money and giving her time off for vacations. Exactly, how much of this 28k can be spent on the kids? It seems like he was also paying her off and now is experiencing sour grapes about it. Too bad.

    dave (903d71)

  16. Are these payments intended to raise the children, or are they intended to punish him for immorality?

    If it’s the latter, he should be entitled to a jury trial and there should be a tort on the table. If it’s the former, then they should reflect the true cost of raising the children.

    Pablo (99243e)

  17. Dave,

    Why shouldn’t a piano come out of child support?

    Why should it?

    Pablo (99243e)

  18. Children play piano.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  19. Is $5K a month poverty where you live, ada?

    Not poverty but well below the $$$ needed to provide for the children of a guy who rakes in 13.5 million a year. Why should these kids live on less/do with less than his other kids?

    $330k a year is a bargain for a guy who makes as much as he does.

    dave (903d71)

  20. Do the courts require a child support recipient to document how the money is being spent? If not, a law should be enacted to change that.

    There Oughta Be a Law

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  21. If it’s the former, then they should reflect the true cost of raising the children.

    It should reflect the true cost of raising and providing for the children of a guy who makes $13 million a year and has how many $$$ in assets. A couple of thou for the other kids tuition and a couple of hundred for a pair of diamond studs is chump change. Coming in to court and haggling over it will win him no favors.

    Reminds me of Ron Pearlman who had an accountant figure out that his kid was entitled to $2.25 a day for lunch or something.

    dave (903d71)

  22. Not poverty but well below the $$$ needed to provide for the children of a guy who rakes in 13.5 million a year.

    Please, show me that math, especially the part where a father’s income determines what it costs to raise a child.

    How much does it cost to raise a billionaire’s kid?

    Pablo (99243e)

  23. It should reflect the true cost of raising and providing for the children of a guy who makes $13 million a year and has how many $$$ in assets.

    No, that’s his money and it’s his choice as to his desired level of generosity. If they were married and he wants to be a tightwad with his kids, does the government step in and tell him how much he has to spend on them? Does the government tell you what percentage of your income you must spend on your children?

    Pablo (99243e)

  24. Show me case law where kids outside the marriage are entitled to a pittance of support compared to those kids born inside a marriage and living with the father?

    dave (903d71)

  25. “How much does it cost to raise a billionaire’s kid?”

    Including security costs?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  26. Dave,
    Why shouldn’t a piano come out of child support?
    That may depend on who is benefitting from the piano. If it’s for his children, you could make an argument. If it’s for other than his children, than no. If it’s for both, then the cost should be apportioned.

    However, since she is the sole caretaker for his kids, why shouldn’t she have a vacation paid by him? If you hired a nanny to care for your kids, you would be paying her money and giving her time off for vacations.

    I don’t think the law or the courts agree with your analogy. The money is to be spent for the children, not for her solo vacations.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  27. First, I’m not exactly crazy about the State forcing people to give their money to someone else in the first place.

    Second, I’m definitely not crazy about the State doing it and then the money not being spent on what the State assumed it would be spent on.

    And finally, who cares if this guy makes 13 million dollars a year, 13 thousand, or three kajillion? Funny how the concept of private property apparently flies out the window when people have the opportunity to take a shot at someone richer than they are.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  28. Show me case law where kids outside the marriage are entitled to a pittance of support compared to those kids born inside a marriage and living with the father?

    Show me case law that says kids inside a marriage are entitled to anything more than basic needs.

    Pablo (99243e)

  29. If it’s for both, then the cost should be apportioned.

    A piano in the home is a benefit to any child whether they personally play or not. Obviously, the court agreed with me.

    I don’t think the law or the courts agree with your analogy. The money is to be spent for the children, not for her solo vacations.

    Obviously, the law and the courts do agree with me since they reinstated the 28k a month payments.

    Show me case law that says kids inside a marriage are entitled to anything more than basic needs.

    Show me it doesn’t? The court of appeal reinstated the 28k payments. So, obviously they thought the kids deserved more than a few dollars a day for mac & cheese.

    dave (903d71)

  30. It turned out the daughter was in on the plot.

    Damn Mike. Hell of a kid you got there. She single?

    Sorry for that snark. It’s your kid, not fair of me. But still, Jesus man…

    If you hired a nanny to care for your kids, you would be paying her money and giving her time off for vacations.

    Then again, the Nanny would be working, unlike the mother in the article.

    Not poverty but well below the $$$ needed to provide for the children of a guy who rakes in 13.5 million a year.

    Well, if that 60k wasn’t her only income (she doesn’t work), then it would be more than enough.

    336k a year for two kids?

    I could raise those kids at 200k a year. With plenty of wiggle room. I’d even take them on cruises with me. And I hate kids.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  31. I don’t think the law or the courts agree with your analogy. The money is to be spent for the children, not for her solo vacations.

    But could be spent on a nanny (or family friend, or whoever) to watch the kids while she goes on the trip she paid for herself. that would be fine and dandy.

    But again, that she would pay for the trip herself is unlikely, as she doesn’t work.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  32. This guy entered into a negotiated settlement for $28k and at the time was quite aware that she didn’t work and how she spent money. The Georgia Supreme Court said nothing has changed from the time he entered into the $28k settlement to justify a modification.

    dave (903d71)

  33. To the legal scholars that hang out here: would the father be able to insist the child support go into a trust account, administered by someone of his choosing? Then the mother would have to prove that the money was going to support his children.

    Just a thought, not sure if it’s workable.

    Steverino (e00589)

  34. A piano in the home is a benefit to any child whether they personally play or not. Obviously, the court agreed with me.

    No, not quite. The law doesn’t allow for accounting of what child support is spent on. It’s tax free income to the mother with no strings attached and no questions asked, other than such things as court ordered tuition, payments into college funds and the like. The collecting parent has no obligation to spend the money on things that benefit the child. as long as the basic needs are met, there are no repercussions if she wants to blow the rest of it at a casino.

    Pablo (99243e)

  35. Show me it doesn’t?

    Sure, I’ll go find you something that doesn’t exist. Be right back.

    Genius!

    Pablo (99243e)

  36. To the legal scholars that hang out here: would the father be able to insist the child support go into a trust account, administered by someone of his choosing? Then the mother would have to prove that the money was going to support his children.

    I’m no legal scholar, but I know the answer to this one: No.

    There is nothing in the law in most states that requires any sort of accounting, or even that the money be spent to benefit the children. Some states, maybe half a dozen, leave a judicial option to require such an accounting but it’s a rare thing that such an order is made.

    It’s tax free income and as long as the kids’ basic needs are met, she can go blow the rest in slot machines if she wants to, with no repercussions.

    Pablo (99243e)

  37. Well, if that 60k wasn’t her only income (she doesn’t work), then it would be more than enough.

    Keep in mind, Scott, that’s tax free. So it’s more like $80-90K in earned money.

    Pablo (99243e)

  38. Sure, I’ll go find you something that doesn’t exist. Be right back.

    You are the one who asserted that kids inside a marriage are not entitled to anything more than having their basic needs provided for. So, if that is true, you would be able to find case law or statutes to that effect.

    Genius!

    Asshole!

    dave (903d71)

  39. Keep in mind, Scott, that’s tax free. So it’s more like $80-90K in earned money.

    Jesus… How do I get in on this racket??

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  40. You are the one who asserted that kids inside a marriage are not entitled to anything more than having their basic needs provided for. So, if that is true, you would be able to find case law or statutes to that effect.

    No, if you’re asserting that there is an entitlement for children of married parents, you’d need to show where it is codified in the law. You cannot and you will not because no such entitlement exists over and above the statutes regarding neglect. Do you really need me to find those for you?

    Asshole!</blockquote
    Brilliant!

    Pablo (99243e)

  41. BTW, the State of Georgia, which has like billions of dollars, has determined what it costs to raise their kids. It’s about $15 a day, on average.

    Link (PDF)

    Pablo (99243e)

  42. How do I get in on this racket??

    Have a child by a rich guy. Unless the name you use here is a deep cover, I don’t think you’ll be able to manage it.

    Steverino (e00589)

  43. Oh, get off it! I said married because most likely those kids will share his lifestyle. It’s sick for you to suggest that the court is going to allow kids born out of wedlock to live such a disparate lifestyle with a father’s other kids. And the bottomline is that in this case, the Supreme Court agreed the mother was entitled to $28k. Get over it.

    If it is any consolation to you, the chances of you earning $13 million a year and having women throwing themselves on your dick, will never happen to you. Sleep well knowing that you will never have this poor guy’s problems.

    Now pardon me while I go earn a living.

    dave (903d71)

  44. Oh, get off it! I said married because most likely those kids will share his lifestyle.

    Most likely? So you mean, it isn’t in the law or anything like that, right? Show me where kids of a married couple are entitled to anything more than their basic needs. Or shall I just thank you for making my point, dave?

    Pablo (99243e)

  45. Unless the name you use here is a deep cover, I don’t think you’ll be able to manage it.

    It’s discrimination based on my sex-organs, I tell you!

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  46. BTW,

    It’s sick for you to suggest that the court is going to allow kids born out of wedlock to live such a disparate lifestyle with a father’s other kids.

    No, it’s sick for you to think that making such determinations is the purview of the state. You’ve offered no evidence that such a disparity would exist or that it played any part in the court’s determination if it did. Even with the order as it stands, there could still be a huge disparity between the two lifestyles, and there’s also nothing stopping Mom from moving to the ghetto and saving 99% of the money for her retirement. Or, blowing it on dice games in the alley.

    Pablo (99243e)

  47. Pablo is by and large correct. The child support obligation is to the custodial parent, not to the children, to recompense him or her for their upkeep which is according to his or her judgment. I know of cases where a profoundly handicapped child, under conservatorship, had court-administered trust funds into which the child support was paid but not normal custody cases. And illegitimacy as a basis for discrimination has been struck down as violative of Equal Protection a long time now.

    nk (7aed24)

  48. Then there’s the reverse effect, when there’s a second family and a huge support obligation to the first, the courts don’t give a damn about the disparity as long as the collecting parent is living well, and it’s the paying father whose live-in kids are living hand to mouth.

    We haven’t discussed Title IV-D and the enormous bureaucracy that feeds off of what used to be a child support collection program for welfare recipients, have we? Don’t get me started.

    Pablo (99243e)

  49. The child support obligation is to the custodial parent, not to the children, to recompense him or her for their upkeep which is according to his or her judgment.

    Fair enough. I guess I’m at a loss as to how money for tuition for someone else’s child or for vacations that don’t include his children are part of upkeep for his children.

    Steverino (e00589)

  50. I guess I’m at a loss as to how money for tuition for someone else’s child or for vacations that don’t include his children are part of upkeep for his children.

    They’re not, of course, but it simply doesn’t matter. He has no recourse when money he pays for the care of his children is spent otherwise. And of course, this isn’t just this rich guy’s problem, this is a problem for millions of guys who are paying support and their millions of kids whose fathers have been reduced to a paycheck.

    Pablo (99243e)

  51. Jeez, sign me up for that whole fatherhood thing. I’ve always wanted to be an indentured servant.

    Eric (09e4ab)

  52. There’s no responsibility to choose the mother of your children carefully? I feel sorry for the kids in cases like this.

    Well … maybe not that I don’t feel sorry for the parents, too. In many instances their resentment of each other overrides their genuine love for their children. The law cannot do everything, and making people good parents is one of the things it cannot do.

    nk (7aed24)

  53. “It’s almost like they were married! ”

    I suspect that’s the point.

    whitd (10527e)

  54. Damn! Now she can get her hair/nails done…ain’t that a bitch, but on theotherhand dude should’ve wrapped it up…oh well

    nakez (599e19)

  55. This man keep screwing around on his wife. On August 17, 2007 he was accused of raping a 27 year old woman in stuartFl. He needs to go his ols a.. home.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  56. I think 28,000 is too much money to pay for 6 year old children…..My kid is 17 and all i’ve ever received is 60.00 a week which is something to complain about. This heffa should be greatful he was even willing to pay 5000.00 hell i’ll take 5000.00… Hell i’ll take 500.00… Do you even know how many women out there can’t get a thin dime for their kids.. That woman is not only buggin but she’s being VERY greedy if you ask me…..STOP THE MADNESS!!!!! Oh and she knew he was married to she set him up and he fell for it…

    dawn (c3ff6f)

  57. HE KNEW HE WAS MARRIED tOO. HE’S A LAWYER, HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT THAT OLD PENIS IN HIS PANTS FOR HIS WIFE. dAWN, YOU ARE SO STUPID, I WOULDN’T SETTLE FOR 5000.00 IF I COULD GET 28,00.00. WHY SELL YOURSELF SO CHEAP. AREN’T YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WORTH MORE THAN 50.00?

    tessa (f69e1e)

  58. HE KNEW HE WAS MARRIED tOO. HE’S A LAWYER, HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT THAT OLD PENIS IN HIS PANTS FOR HIS WIFE. dAWN, YOU ARE SO STUPID, I WOULDN’T SETTLE FOR 5000.00 IF I COULD GET 28,00.00. WHY SELL YOURSELF SO CHEAP. AREN’T YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN WORTH MORE THAN 60.00? oH, BY THE WAY STOP SLEEPING WITH BROKE MEN.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  59. So, what about the part where the money is supposed to be for raising the kid, and not what you should or should not get paid? What makes you think that having sex with someone puts you in a position to decide how much you should get paid for it?

    Are you a whore, Tessa?

    Pablo (99243e)

  60. No, I’m not a whore but I don’t fool around with men who are broke because I know they haven’t achieve anything worthwhile in life. Why would I waste my time with a broke ass man. I’m not going to take care of his broke ass and how in the world will he be able to take care of his child if I got pregnant. Broke men have no business having sex because they can’t take care of the responsibilities that come alone with having sex. That why some of these women can’t ge but 50.oo or 60.00 dollars. They knew he was broke before they decided to have sex with them.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  61. There’s nothing Tessa says that I can disagree with. And I say the same thing to the men too. Pick the mother of your children carefully.

    nk (580aa7)

  62. nk – I just think that tessa should apply the same standards to women considering having sex that she does to men.

    JD (49efd3)

  63. JD,

    I don’t want to go there because the Libs have managed to find a pro-abortion argument by allying themselves with the “father’s rights” crowd. I stopped visiting Prawfsblawgs because they have some guy, Jeffrey M. Levin (?), proposing that since women can have abortions on demand, fathers should not have to support unwanted children. Although I agree that bringing children into this world is a dual responsibility, I don’t see that the abandonment of that responsibility by one parent excuses its abandonment by the other.

    Tessa is right if applied both ways. Ladies and gentlemen, your kid will need both a mother and a father. Ladies, be careful what father you pick. Gentlemen, be careful what mother you pick. If you pick wrong, be prepared to be both.

    nk (580aa7)

  64. nk, I agree with you

    tessa (f69e1e)

  65. not tessa i’m not stupid i’m just not a greedy bitch which i guess you and the tramp both are. The most important thing you can give a child you can’t buy and that’s love now who’s stupid

    dawn (c3ff6f)

  66. It takes more than love to raise a child. but love in an important quality. A child needs all of the following things: emotional, physical(money), Intellectual,social, and moral development. If you are smart woman or man you would make sure a man or woman can provide all these things before you decide to have unprotected sex with them.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  67. I’m not going to take care of his broke ass and how in the world will he be able to take care of his child if I got pregnant.

    But if he’s got money, he should turn your broke ass into a princess once you get knocked up.

    What’s her plan to take care of her child? What ever happened to equality?

    Broke men have no business having sex because they can’t take care of the responsibilities that come alone with having sex.

    So, what about broke women? Ya think Diana Gowins might maybe ought to get a J-O-B?

    Pablo (99243e)

  68. But if he’s got money, he should turn your broke ass into a princess once you get knocked up.

    It sounds fair to me, Pablo. You can see it as punishment. I don’t. That men can’t keep it in their pants is a fact of nature. When they create children and mothers it’s a human responsibility to reach into their pocket as deep as possible. Deep into their hearts, as well.

    nk (597e8b)

  69. Yes, If a rich lawyer is stupid enough to have unprotected sex with a broke ass womnan then he should pay. Child support is based on your income and this lawyer should have known better.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  70. When they create children and mothers it’s a human responsibility to reach into their pocket as deep as possible.

    But for that last phrase, I agree, nk.

    Yes, If a rich lawyer is stupid enough to have unprotected sex with a broke ass womnan then he should pay. Child support is based on your income and this lawyer should have known better.

    So a rich lady lawyer who sleeps with a broke ass man and gets knocked up ought to put him on easy street too, then, right?

    Why shouldn’t child support be based on supporting a child?

    Pablo (99243e)

  71. Pablo, that’s the law, maybe you should try to change it. We all have our on personal feeling about things in life but our personal feeling don’t count when there are laws that we all have to follow. If we don’t follow them we have to pay the price even if we are stupid and don’t know them.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  72. Palo, If b. Spears ex husband gets custdody of there children he will be set for life because she is rich and he isn’t. Why do you think he wants custody of those kids? He is not stupid. She had to give him a large sum of money just to get rid of him. Pablo, all I have to say is let the rich sleep with the rich and the poor sleep with the poor then noone will have to worry about there money.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  73. This discussion illustrates very well what an inadequate tool the formal law can be in something so vital as caring for our children. And the importance of the societal norms and mores governing sexual behaviors that we abandoned in the last forty years.

    nk (597e8b)

  74. Pablo, that’s the law, maybe you should try to change it.

    Oh, I am. But one of the big obstacles is people who think that a woman is entitled to get a free ride by virtue of having a kid, as opposed to having an equal part in taking responsibility for the child.

    Then there’s Title IV-D, and the bureaucratic cash cow that child support collections have become, but again, don’t get me started.

    Pablo (99243e)

  75. Pablo, gary is a married man, he has a woman at home he doesn’t have to take any chances with his money. This situation didn’t stop him from sleeping around. He has stated in Stuarts’ newspaper that he had sex with a woman in August, 2007 who has accused him of rape. His penis keep getting him in trouble. He should save that wrinkled penis for his wife and stop screwing women who are old enough to be his children. He knows that they only want his money. What would a 27 year old woman want with a 60 year old rich sugar daddy? Maybe he’s stupid enough to think that they want him and if he does he has a serious problem and needs a lot of help mentally.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  76. Tessa, twos words: Child Support.

    Not ‘ya gotta pay the ho money. Not shoulda kept it in your pants money. Not you gotta pay for being a bastard money. Not the price you pay for being stupid money. Child Support. You want all the rest of that? Sue for it, and show your damages. In the meantime, child support.

    They’re very simple words with what should be a very narrow meaning, and the State of Nevada has figured it out. This is why they put a cap on child support.

    What you think of the guy matters not even a little bit. And if you’re going down that road anyway, you need to recognize that women who get paid for having sex are called whores.

    Pablo (99243e)

  77. Pablo, A whores money spends just like any other money. Why are you so upset about this whore getting money, it’s not yours.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  78. All men who want to sleep aroung and not pay child support based on their income should move to Navada.

    tessa (f69e1e)

  79. Way to ignore the argument, Tessa…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  80. You do not understand child support is not for the child expenses but for the parent to live in the agreed upon life style. He agreed to 28K, technically she does not have to spend one penny on the kids. She needs to provide them a home, heat, food, clothes etc…

    patty (b62683)

  81. You do not understand child support is not for the child expenses but for the parent to live in the agreed upon life style.

    Hell of a lifestyle for an unemployed medical worker…

    Heck of a racket you ladies got going there.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  82. btw, Patty…

    You’re confusing “child support” with “alimony”.

    Child support is for the kid. Says it right in the name, in fact.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  83. …technically she does not have to spend one penny on the kids. She needs to provide them a home, heat, food, clothes etc…

    I’ve been making that point all along. But he sure has to, doesn’t he? Except that it doesn’t necessarily go to the kids, even though its child support.

    You don’t have to be Hooked on Phonics to see the problem here.

    Pablo (99243e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4386 secs.