Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Former Arkansas Razorback standout running back Darren McFadden reached a custody and child support deal to pay $8,000 per month to the mother of his 16-month-old son.
with the apparently recession-proof hip-hop mogul agreeing to shell out $40,000 a month in child support—$20,000 per girl—to his two daughters until each reaches 19½ years of age.
Personally, i have a problem with the amounts. While i think that a father should be held accountable for making sure that their children are OK financially, i think $8000 or $20000 a month is overdoing it.
With Darren McFadden's situation, that $8k a month could convince a lot of women to find a NFL or other pro player to have a baby with. I've heard of some women taking fertility pills prior to sleeping with athletes hoping to have a child and a meal ticket. Think about it, McFadden's baby mama gets $96k every year for 18 years to do nothing. How will this not encourage a woman to try to get an athletes baby?
Personally, i think that the amount of child support or alimony should be that while a child enjoys a decent life a mother is still responsible for making a living if she is physically and mentally able to. This would encpourage self-reliance.
What do ya'll think? Cap child support and alimony?
No there should be no cap. If the dad was living with the child, all the dads money would go toward supporting the child. The child would live in the same mansion and have all the other perks of having this rich dad. In your version, the kid lives by a lower standard just because the dad doesn't want to part with his precious money and allow his kid to live the same life style he is living. If he doesn't want to pay so much child support, stop jumping in bed with so many women and when you do, use a condom and birth control.
No there should be no cap. If the dad was living with the child, all the dads money would go toward supporting the child. The child would live in the same mansion and have all the other perks of having this rich dad. In your version, the kid lives by a lower standard just because the dad doesn't want to part with his precious money and allow his kid to live the same life style he is living. If he doesn't want to pay so much child support, stop jumping in bed with so many women and when you do, use a condom and birth control.
Abso-f******-lutely! Not to mention the parent's ability to make that money because they aen't the ones watching and taking care of their child.
Oh and as to the point of women tryign to find wealthy men to inpregnant them. Well, last I checked it takes 2 to have intercourse. So unless the man was raped or was unaware that sex can lead to a baby, there is no reason not to take care of your child. And fi he was stupid enough to ahve unprotected sex with a woman who he doesn't know well enough to know that they are or are not just golddiggin', well he is just as stupid as she is.
Wow, I didn't originally waste my time reading the original post, but now that I did, I see I have been going about seeking my dreams of being a millionaire the wrong way. All I have to do is take fertility drugs and have sex with an athlete! That would be so much easier!
If any man is not smart enough to use a condom when he does not want children or STD's, it is his lack of foresight that is the problem. I gaurantee you that every athlete is warned about the money seeking women by friends, family, coaches and teammates, they just don't care because they want to have a night of fun. And if you say but they don't think about it when they are drinking, then the person shouldn't be drinking if it impairs their thought processing abilities.
Why is it that men have no problem "creating" the children? They have no problem with deciding to move along and find new women to "create" more children with? Then they complain about having to take financial responsibility for the children that they have already brought into the world.
Ideally, some men would love to walk away from both the woman (from the failed relationship) and the children that were created as a part of the union. It is so sad really. There are way too many children (especially AfrAm) whose fathers have abandoned them because they are 1) too selfish to want to financially support them 2) would prefer to use their money to wine & dine the next lady on their roster and 3) have no sense of true parental commitment despite the fact that they willfully created children.
If men do not want to pay child support then they should have a vasectomy. There shouldn't be a monetary cap just because the amount of the child support payment maybe large. It is typically in line with what the father earns or is worth. Why should a child be limited to a small amount when the father earns big $$$$.
So, what happens when our star athlete blows out his knee and his career ends, and he no longer makes enough to pay a half a million a year for the next 15 years to his kids? And he has an IQ of 85 and he spent four years in college getting Cs in remedial courses and will be lucky if he can use his name to get a job selling used cars. And his ex is raising their two spoiled little Paris Hiltons. Does mom have any responsibility, like other single moms, to go out and get a job at Walmart and help support the kids?
So, what happens when our star athlete blows out his knee and his career ends, and he no longer makes enough to pay a half a million a year for the next 15 years to his kids? And he has an IQ of 85 and he spent four years in college getting Cs in remedial courses and will be lucky if he can use his name to get a job selling used cars. And his ex is raising their two spoiled little Paris Hiltons. Does mom have any responsibility, like other single moms, to go out and get a job at Walmart and help support the kids?
The same thign that woudl happen if they were raising the children together. Money gets tighter, both have to work. If I am not mistaken, child supporta dn alimony are directly related to how much one gets paid. Obviously, if he no longer makes the money, that effects how much he can pay. BTW, no one said mom's don;t work or have responsibility. The issue is, when you spend your life taking care fo the kids and not building a resume, it's kind of ridiculous to believe that you will be able to go out in the work force and start making enough to cover half.
Child support is based on your income. So if your income goes down, you go to the court and get it reevaluated. It's actually very simple.
Yes moms have a responsibility to go to work to raise their kids. But if you are getting enough in child support to pay all the bills than you don't really need to work. Of course that will come back and bite you in the end unless you save money, cause once the kid is over 18 and no longer a full time student, you are SOL. It's best to work, even if only part time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to mention, $40,000 to Russel Simmons is nothing.
