Get knocked up by NBA...you'll be rich beeotch!
 

Babies momma in the money


Judge orders NBA star to pay $7,000 in monthly child support

Associated Press

SAGINAW, Mich. - A judge on Thursday ordered NBA star Jason Richardson to pay $7,000 in monthly child support for his 5-year-old daughter. The girl's mother had sought an increase from $4,000 to $45,426 a month.

Judge Patrick J. McGraw of Saginaw County Circuit Court's Family Division also ordered the four-year veteran of the Golden State Warriors to place $1,000 per month in a conservatorship account until the girl turns 18 or graduates from high school.

Richardson, 24, also must place $100,000 in a trust for his daughter at the beginning of each contract year, continuing to the end of the Saginaw native's six-year NBA contract. The money will be available to the girl when she turns 18 to a maximum age of 30.

Richardson's former girlfriend, Roshonda Jacqmain of Saginaw, requested the elevenfold increase in tax-free support last week. Her attorney, Brian Makaric of Saginaw Township, said Thursday evening that he had not seen McGraw's order and could not comment.

"We are very pleased with the judge's opinion," Richardson's lawyer, Bloomfield Hills attorney Richard S. Victor, told The Saginaw News. "The judge followed the law, and he protected the child. That's all Mr. Richardson wanted."

McGraw originally ordered Richardson to pay $8 in weekly support for his daughter in 2000, when he was enrolled at Michigan State University. The judge raised the payment to $2,000 a month in August 2001, shortly after the Warriors took Richardson in the first round of the NBA draft with the fifth overall pick, and later set it at $4,000 plus a $1,000 monthly payment to a conservatorship.

"This child's well being and future should be the No. 1 priority for each parent," McGraw wrote, "and both parents should realize that they are blessed to have a child who can be provided for without hardship."

Richardson, a 6-foot-6 shooting guard, tied for 16th in the NBA in scoring last season, averaging 21.7 points per game.


End of Article.

Lets do the math here. He was paying her $4,000 a month before. Lets say he had to pay that till she was 18 (age he will stop paying)-5 (age she is now)=13 (years he will be paying). 13 *12 (months in a year) * 4000 = 624,000 bucks he would had paid in child support to the daughter *cough* babies mommas leather couches and jacuzzis *cough* *cough*.

What th babies momma WANTED was...45,000 a MONTH. ok more math. using the same formula

18-5 = 13 * 12 * 45000 = OVER 7 million bucks. 7 MILLION dollars the babies momma wanted.

MIND, this money is suppose to be FOR THE KID, not the momma.

Alright, well lets see what she is getting instead.

18-5=13*12*7000 = 1,092,000 million bucks instead. For the baby right?

Ahhh theres more. The kid is also getting 1000 bucks a month, essentiall into a savings account. 1000 * 13*12 = $156,000.

Add that to the 100,000 he has to pay each year into a seperate account until his contract with the warriors expires (it's a 6 year contract). 100,000 * 6 = 600,000.

1,092,000 + 156,000 + 600,000 = $1,848,000 dollars that his *kid* is getting and that the mommy cannot *touch*.

Aren't we all wishing mommy got knocked up by an NBA star instead? Hell, I would be a lot taller than I am now!

Atleast this guy isn't Shawn Kemp.

WTF is Shawn Kemp when you need him?

LMAO @ Unfaithful porn clips...that was PORN?

Umm, when child support is set, it is set for the person's salary at the time. Since he will not make that amount of money for the rest of the baby's life (or even until it is 18), then it will be reduced again (possibly even to 0) when he retires or is injured. This way, the baby will have enough to live a lifestyle similar to his until her 18th birthday. What is wrong with that? At one time, he was paying $8 a month. Was that fair? Of course, because he had little to no income. Now that he has huge income, he has a responsibility to pay a portion of it to his daughter. Wouldn't you want your child to live according to the same standard of living that you are? And ensure that they can college? And make sure they are taken care of for life is something happens to you?

If I won the lottery, I sure wouldn't leave my kids in my lil 3 bedroom ranch and move into a multimillion dollar mansion without them. They would live the lifestyle I do.

What is wrong with that?

Agreed, AGDee. And you know, he's a big boy who was fully capable of keeping it in his pants or using birth control.

The fundamental flaw in this motif is that only the child is entitled to any sort of monetary share of the father's wealth, and the father is only required to care for the CHILD in a manner commensurate with his earnings capability.

The child is, obviously, under the care of the mother, meaning the mother is in control of the cash flow. This leads to a situation where the father may or may not be funding a lifestyle not for the child, but for the mother.

It is child support, not alimony.

Yeah seriously, what's wrong with having a child with someone with inflated earnings potential, then reaping the benefit to the tune of . . . $45k/month?

I see no problems with comparisons between children and lottery tickets.

How about this?
 

Let the wealthy dad file for and gain custody of the child. Then he can control how his money is spent.

ok well since I obviously can't get knocked up by an NBA player, here is my plan.

Lisa Leslie is my target (or insert highest paid WNBA player).

I knock HER up. She has our kid. Our kid grows up to be 3 feet taller than me, because really now its not that hard to be 3 feet taller than me.

Ok, so then obviously things don't work out with us and since she is so busy I take custody of the kid.

Now SHE is paying OUR kid 50,000 g's a month. Oh yeah, I don't have a job because I just went back to "school". Yeah...thats what I'll call it. School...

Meanwhile I now drive a Benz, I got dubs, I bought Ireland and my kid is taller than me. And my Posse which includes Kig RC, Rudey, KSigKid, ShaedyKD, and HottyToddy are all smokin cigars because we are G's like that.

While SUgar and Spice boozes it up with OTW because they are boozers like that.

While we watch Valkyrie do the Super bowl shuffle.

Who wants to help me?

I should add, having experience with the Friend of the Court in Michigan that they use a formula to determine the support and I don't know of any cases where they vary from that formula. That's why she only got $7000 instead of the $45K that she requested. The formula is strictly based on income and the number of days each year that you have custody of the child. If you have an extremely high income, then the child support will be extremely high. If you have a low income, then it will be very low. If he takes full custody (and surely he could afford an expensive lawyer who could get it for him), he doesn't have to pay a dime.

My bringing up the lottery was because that's the only way I'd ever make a large amount of money. Since my ex-husband and I have 50-50 joint custody, I would have to give him a huge chunk of my lottery earnings too. He then would also live the same lifestyle that I do, so that the kids are always living the same lifestyle.

You help produce a child, you are responsible for said child.

Works for me- we can roll like that.

If he was forced to pay the $45,000 a month or whatever, can he request a detailed summary of how that money was being used? I mean, I know children are expensive, but to the tune of $45,000? I'd want to know that the money was being spent on the child, and not the mother.

I'm also wondering what his involvement in the child's life is. Does he have any, or is he simply paying the child support?

Well according to HIM, he is a pretty big part of her life when he isn't playing bball. He pays for most of her clothes (which supposedly she is decked out), takes her theme parks during the summer, buys her expensive toys. I'm not sure what else a 5 year old needs. Maybe instead of getting her micomachines, he got her POW POW POWER WHEELS.

ofcourse with Dubs homie. You know we DO IT. Shiet.

Daddy thinks he paying too much... shut up rich boy!



Child support bid tops $45K
Thursday, August 04, 2005
SCOTT DAVIS
THE SAGINAW NEWS

Pro basketball player Jason Richardson is claiming that the new child support request his former girlfriend is lobbing at him is out of bounds.

Way out of bounds.

Roshonda Jacqmain of Saginaw is seeking monthly support payments of $45,426 -- a 10-fold increase over what she now receives for their 5-year-old daughter, Jaela T. Jacqmain.


Richardson, a Saginaw native and guard/forward for the Oakland-based Golden State Warriors, was in Saginaw County Probate Court this week to fight the request.

"It's totally outrageous," said Richard S. Victor, Richardson's Bloomfield Hills-based attorney. "What is she going to do with the money? Jason Richardson is taking care of the child's needs and then some.

"A mother should not be taking advantage of the fact that she has a child ... and make money from it."

Brian S. Makaric, Roshonda Jacqmain's Saginaw Township-based attorney, strongly denied any inference that his client is seeking too much money.

"They were boyfriend and girlfriend for five years. It hurts her," Makaric said of the inference. "They still have a relationship to the extent that they share a child together and they interact on a continual basis."

Serving as referee is Judge Patrick J. McGraw. He said he may issue a ruling in the case as early as next week.

The News was unable to reach Richardson or Jacqmain for comment.

Makaric said Jacqmain simply wants McGraw to follow a state formula in allocating child support; Makaric said it calls for $45,426 monthly payments.

The recent child support request was prompted partly by Richardson's signing of a six-year contract with his team, boosting his salary next season to $8.9 million, court records say.

That salary rises annually to $14.4 million in 2010, records indicate. Citing the increase, Jacqmain is seeking $73,048 in monthly child support payments that year.

"I'm not saying the child needs to ride in a luxury automobile or live in a (luxurious) home," Makaric said. "But the child should have advantages similar to a wealthy parent."

Victor, however, argues that state child support laws are designed only to meet the financial needs of the children. He said Richardson's monthly payment of $4,000 now provides for Jaela's living expenses, which are no more than $3,400 per month.

In addition, Richardson, 24, pays a court-ordered monthly amount of $1,000, which is set aside in a conservatorship for the child.

Victor said Richardson bestows many gifts on his child beyond the support payments, including furniture and, some months, $2,000 in clothing.

Victor said Richardson spends the summer and holidays with her, taking her to Disneyland and other places.

"This is a hands-on dad who takes her shopping for her school supplies," Victor said. "This is an actively involved dad who has not skirted his responsibility."

Jacqmain has disputed the amount of clothing bought for her child. Her attorney says Richardson sees his daughter periodically through the year when he is not playing but does not spend the whole summer with her.

Victor said that state case laws support his argument that the child's needs -- not a rigid child support formula -- set the standard for support in high-income cases.

But Makaric argues that Michigan judges routinely use the state formula to establish relatively high child support payments in high-income cases.

Jacqmain now resides in a "modest" home in Saginaw with her daughter and is unemployed, Makaric said. She is a year from finishing a bachelor's degree at Davenport University with a focus on health information technology.

Jaela will attend St. Stephen Elementary School in Saginaw in the fall, court records say.

"It would put them on more of a level where there is not a disparity," Makaric said. "It's not a healthy environment for the child to live in -- to live one way with Dad and to live in a different economic-social environment with Mom."

Even though Jacqmain is seeking a higher payment now, Makaric said, her life has vastly improved only in recent years.

"She lived in a women's homeless shelter for almost two years, raising the child on her own while (Richardson) was still in college," Makaric said. "The child took her first steps in a homeless shelter. (Jacqmain) is now managing to get by."

In 2000, McGraw ordered Richardson to pay $8 a week in child support for his daughter, and a year later, he signed a contract with the Golden State Warriors, starting with an annual salary of $2.4 million.

In August 2001, McGraw increased the support payment to $2,000 monthly, and later set it at $4,000, plus the $1,000 monthly payment to a conservatorship, court records say. v

For $45,000 a month, maybe a Power Wheels Escalade, complete with DVD player, navigation and a great sound system? She'll be the most popular kid on the block.

I'm picturing Pimp my Power Wheels

Maybe she should get a JOB. They're out there- I promise.

I don't know anything about the formula for calculating child support- but to me, saying that you NEED more thant $45,000 a month to raise your child screams exploitation.

No matter how much money he makes, it sounds to me like she is trying to keep herself in a "comfortable" lifestyle. Not just her daughter.

But isn't it better for the child to have a stay at home mom who is there to take care of her?

I don't even believe that, but I can't understand why mom should live in a modest house and be expected to work (while she's in school, mind you) while dad is making tons of money.

Right now she's getting $4,000 a month, right? That's not so out of line. She may ASK for more than $45,000, but that doesn't mean she's ever going to get it. People often seek more than is realistic in court.

Anyway, why is everyone slamming her for looking for more money but nobody is slamming him for paying $8 a week earlier? Why didn't he get a job then?

I just don't understand why if a parent is stupid rich, his or her kid shouldn't be stupid rich too. So the mom will benefit from that as well. Who cares. If your dad is a millionaire baller, you should get the benefit of that. If he didn't want to have the kid, he could've kept it in his pants back in the day.

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.

RHITs, which is what she's working on her degree in, pays, starting around $15 an hour.

You all are arguing that he shouldn't have to pay $7000 a month in child support. If the father wanted custody, he could get it. He has to want it.

All you have done is complain that she's getting too much. How much should she get and how should she raise this child in a standard of living similar to her father's?

The article said that dad buys her clothes and takes her to amusement parks in the summer. That's not parenting, that's entertaining. I don't consider that actively involved. Actively involved means he sits down and helps with homework, takes her to doctor appointments, does her laundry, cooks her food, etc. He's not tucking her in at night or reading her a bed time story.

Dee

Where did I say that he was getting paid for life? I said his money is guranteed unlike the NFL.

I am not arguing that him paying 7,000 is too much. I think that is fine. I am upset at the fact she seeked much more than that and then some. The college fund...that is great for the kid. So long as the baby momma don't touch it. 45,000 grand a month? That is a substantial hike man. Most of us are wondering whether or not the mommy is seeking lifestyle benefits. THAT is what we have a problem with. The kid getting all this money? No, that is fine. Baby momma driving around in a Lexo or a Cadilac wearin the bling bling while watching the Young and the Restless having the nanny pick up the daughter from day care. Nah uh. She probably couldn't afford that with 7,000 a month...but she sure could have afforded that had she gotten 45,000 a month!

You don't know the mother is doing any of these things, either, I'd like to point out. Take off the Mom Jeans and Motherly-Tint Sunglasses and try to see what I'm saying - HINT: I've never said $7k was too much.

I don't think anyone has been upset at the $7,000; I'm not even sure anyone is really upset about any of this. What I'm questioning, at least, is that if she's asking for $45,000, how that money would be used.

I don't think anyone has said the $7,000 is too much.

ETA: We don't really know her involvement - she may not exactly be an All-Star parent either (no pun intended).

Well, when I posted that I thought $7000 was fair, everybody argued with me.. who knew we were all in agreement?

I am almost positive that we were all saying that $7,000 is plenty fair.

What we were saying is that $45,000 + a month is beyond extreme.

Dee Dee Dee . . . you're strawmanning. People argued with the other provisos and untrue statements you added onto the statement about $7k being fair.

He should get custody and put her in a boarding school.

-Rudey
--That would be easier and cheaper.

Oh Dee you silly porkupine. Come give me a hug.




On second though, no...don't give me a hug. I don't want your needles poking me. How about I just blow you a kiss and give you a ring pop instead?

My stance from my first post was that the court was fair. My second post discussed the formula more specifically.