Quote:
Originally posted by CkretCrush8
To give another opinion....I agree with what everyone has said thus far; however, I do believe that a child's way of living should remain the same. Why should she suffer because of the divorce of her parents, especially if it was arranged. He said himself that he would supply for all of her needs. If my natural father was able to do exceedingly and abudantly above all that I can ever ask for, I'm sure my mother would have done the exact same thing; however he is not in the position. Mr. Kirk is in the position to support his daughter. He isn't upset at the amount that Lisa is requesting, but the fact that she went public with her case. The child involved in any divorce case, should always benifit off of the "wealthier" parent, in my opinion.
|
I agree to the extent that a child should benefit from the income of the parents, BUT, we are talking about $300 THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH, on a 3 year old vs. the $50-75 THOUSAND the child and her mother are currently getting. How would a child that young appreciate the difference in her upkeep at those amounts and at that age? Lets not forget that child support is 100% TAX FREE to the custodial parent.
I wonder how willing the mother would be to give the billionaire father full custody and allow the child to live in the style of the wealthier parent (since that is the basis of her argument)? I betcha she wouldn't want to give up the child and have to WORK for a living!
You KNOW she isn't going to part with her meal ticket!!