I hate most of this post - in specific, try to find the two categorical statements that simply are irrelevant and borderline illogical . . .

Unless she was raped, she was part of the "keep it in the pants" part of this decision as well. It takes two parties to have sex.

Also, the $8 per week was while he was in college; D1 athletes aren't allowed to get jobs, and it doesn't look like she had any complaint with how much he gave.

It seems like he's had a hand in the child's life and has provided for the child on his own; that is if indeed he's providing the extra $2000 a month for gifts and the such for his kid.

I have no problem with the kid being stupid rich - I have a problem with a mom (or if the genders were reversed, a dad) trying to make herself/himself stupid rich in this way.

What's the new Kanye song???

"I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger... But she ain't messin' with no broke N****..."

HAHAHA!!!!

This is what I think as well. Of course the child should have the benefit of that money. I just think that the mother is trying to exploit this situation and live off of the money as well. I do not think that is right. I understand she is in college.... I wonder if she is REALLY in college (like full time actually getting it done) or if she is just SAYING she is in college (signed up for 3 or 6 hours and not really even trying to graduate)?

I don't think people are trying to slam her for asking for more money. I think people are slamming her for asking to raise that amount by more than $40,000 a month. I personally find that very extreme. The court imposed an increase to $7,000 a month, which I find completely reasonable given the situation. That amount of money should be able to keep the child in VERY comfortable surroundings and take care of her very well. It is still quite alot of money.

I think the keep it in your pants arguement is completely irrelevant.

One thing that I think makes the situation difficult is that a five year old child and her mother's needs are so intertwined that it is difficult to separate them as pertains to the amount of child support the mother should be given.

For example, a Navigator would be much safer for the little girl to ride in than a mid eighties Toyota. But since a little girl cannot drive or buy a vehicle, the vehicle would have to belong to the mother.

A child is much better off living in a nice house in a nice neighborhood than some crappy apartment in the middle of a bad neighborhood. Obviously though, mom will be living in the house also.

The little girl should have nutritious food to eat, not just boxes of mac and cheese or Ramen noodles. Healthy eating can get expensive. So should mom have one shelf with all her cheap, nasty food and daughter has the shelf with all the good stuff?

It's late and I'm tired, but does any of this make sense?

It definitely makes sense.

There are some questions that come up in this. Is she working at all, or would she just be relying on the money that he is sending? Could it be guaranteed that the money would be spent only on the child and the child's upbringing?

As you said, there are also degrees of spending. If she wants to get a safe vehicle and a home in a safe neighborhood, that's one thing. If she wants the child to be adequately clothed, that also is important. However, if she's outfitting the kid in baby Burberry and also using the money to outfit the car with a big sound system, that's something completely different.

It makes sense, but when you're off the bat asking for that much money, you're making it seem like you're trying to get something out of having an NBA star's baby. That to me sounds a little fishy, especially when the father is taking an active role in the child's life.

Except, she didn't have an NBA star's baby. She had a poor college student's baby. The poor college student happened to become an NBA star. I think that for the number of years he'll actually have to pay out a lot, averaged with the number of years that he'll pay less than $1000 a month, it will come out pretty even. I definitely think the $45K she requested is outrageous, but given his income, $7000 with the $100,000 trust fund seems fair. The kid will be able to go to a good college on that trust fund and will live a lifestyle similar to what they would if mom and dad were married. If he really wanted to NOT pay child support, he could simply take custody. He certainly makes enough to hire a lawyer who could get it for him.

Dee

Agreed.

You are right. Good point, I didn't think about that. Know one will really know what was going on in their minds though considering Richardson was one of the top HS players in the nation at the time and almost went pro out of high school. He decided to go a year into college and that turned out to be a good idea for him. He made a lot more money waiting to leave his freshman year of college rather than senior year of HS.

But, one serious injury could've knocked him out of the running for an NBA spot. In fact, one serious injury could cut out her child support forever, so she should get what she can while she can.

You know what. If your son is a stud athlete and must choose between the NFL and the NBA, tell him to choose the NBA. The cool thing about the NBA is guranteed money baby. MLB is guranteed money too.Injured or not. NFL, they cut your ass, SEE YA WOULDN'T WANNA BE YA! That is why T.O. has been holding out. He wants the for sure money. Well, he also wants a lot more of it.


Can you imagine if AROD didn't play? The Dodgers have a player name Darren Driefort. Ever heard of him? No? Well there is a reason for it. He has probably pitched in 10 games the last 4 years (a little exaggerated). They signed him to a 5 year 55 milion dollar contract 5 years ago. Immediately he needed Tommy John surgery. Oh yeah, then after that he needed it in the other arm. Oh yeah, then his knee went out. Oh yeah, then his other knee went out. Oh well, he still got his money!

To be more succinct than Bobby, this is completely untrue.

Besides this, if your argument is that the child deserves a lifestyle similar to the father's (which it is), then if the father's injury would deny him this lifestyle, shouldn't it deny it to the child too?

Unless "She should get what she can" doesn't refer to the child . . .

Either way, your argument is absolutely inconsistent throughout.

So, you guys are saying that an NBA player who gets injured gets his contract money for life? I thought he only got it for the duration of his contract, not forever. And of course the child's lifestyle would change if Dad was hurt, and I would expect that it would. But, Dad has the option of saving for the future, why shouldn't the savings apply to the child too?

If my ex-husband had full custody of my kids, I'd be paying him $1000 a month child support and I don't make anywhere near what this guy makes. I really don't understand why you guys have such a problem with a non-custodial parent paying a percentage of their salary in child support.

He shouldn't even allow his kid to live in Saginaw! Where does he live? Probably not a hell hole, poverty stricken, high crime area. All the other NBA kids around here are in the West Bloomfield or Grosse Pointe in mansions, with the best schools, NOT Saginaw. The mother is going to a crappy college to get a crappy degree that won't earn her more than $15 an hour and she's raising a kid alone. When do you want her to work? How do you want her to pay for day care? Why doesn't he take custody so he can keep all his money? Let him raise the child by himself and hire a nanny.

I spend at least 50% of my income on my kids. He's being asked to spend less than 10% of his income. Why is that so difficult?

Well, I excised the emotional drivel and your anecdotal arguments - but I'd like to point out that no one has trouble with him paying child support, at least that I've heard. You're inserting arguments that aren't there.

I have a significant problem with paying "lifestyle support" for the mother of the child - it's difficult to draw the line, I understand, but exorbitant child support, particularly in situations in which the father is active in the child's life, cannot be justified as anything but. Note that this is why I fully support putting a lump sum each year into a trust for the child to earn at age 18 - this will ensure the child's prospects at college and a comfortable lifestyle until he or she can become a wage-earner him/herself.

If you really want to argue about why the child lives in Saginaw or whatever . . . why does the child live with the mother, period? The father should be awarded custody if the child's life would be markedly better outside the home of a mother without the time for her, and with job prospects capping out at $15/hour, as you put it . . . or was that more emotive hyperbole?

I think $7,000 a month will cover day care.