On Necole Bitchie's site is the article, Tyrese wife takes him to cleaners... This is the type of news that gives me heartburn. If you look at the article, you'll see that this "lady" is requesting that she be given $12k a month to meet the expense of having his kid. My first response is, "she's got to be out her got damn mind." Followed by, "and Rihanna is the one that got beat up?" But this just goes to show you just how ABSURD our legal system is when it comes to these situations. The simple fact that you could submit a legal document to the justice department claiming that you need these type of funds as child support is OUTRAGEOUS. Her and her lawyers should be FINED for wasting gov't time and resources. The fact that there are other examples of some exorbitant amount of money being paid to these "women" for alimony/child support is just as criminal.I'm just gonna stop b/c these situations are such a clusterfuck of nonsensical bullshit that I really dont have the words to do it justice and just thinking about it turns my brain to pudding.
Justice
Equals
Litigious
Larceny
Opportunity
18 comments:
See it from the other perspective just for kicks.
If you have a child, you're responsible for its upbringing to the same standard of living you have. In Louisiana there's a strong system whose underlying theory is that children should have the same standard of living whether they're living with both parents or their parents aren't together.
And it's not like the fathers are going broke.
And shouldn't it be a reality check to choose high-quality women with real lives and interests?
I dunno. Seems like if you're a celebrity who hooks up with somebody who only wants you because you're a celebrity, and you're having unprotected sex - you may pay a price. He's just lucky it's only money.
The underlying theory that the children should have the same standard of living is at the very heart of the problem. Its set a standard that is unrealistic. Why should you be entitled to a lifestyle that you might've had if a past relationship would've stayed intact?
Whether or not the father's are going broke doesnt matter and it shouldnt only be a lesson to men.
Because it's not the child's fault that the relationship broke up. The child didn't ask to be born, cannot care for itself, etc.
I don't know the theories in other states. In LA, there's a very strong family orientation. You cannot abandon your children, spouses (community property regimes), parents (or risk disinherison), etc. because you are responsible for your family. I know the rest of the country is more oriented to the theory of the rugged individual, and how dare we expect a hard working man give up his Jag for diapers?
I hadn't ever thought of it before I learned it, but I like the concept that children should not be punished for their parents' issues. I have no patience for whining fathers who don't want to pay for their children's lives. Who besides their parents should? This legal theory came as a result of studies decades ago showing that after a divorce, children all too often fall into poverty after a divorce - the father's standard of living remains constant while mother (who may have made serious sacrifices for the marriage & child) & child's plummets. Unfortunately, it remains all too often true.
And while these are extreme examples that are posted here, in my experience many fathers have very little understanding of how expensive children really are.
Unfortunately, here in New Orleans last month a man who didn't want to pay child support took his adorable young son to the park and slit his throat. That just seems to me to be an extreme reaction to responsibility. I guess others would say that it shows how there's such a problem with child support structures that a father would be pushed to this ... but I don't buy it. He was not ordered to pay much, and THE CHILD IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TOO. If you don't want to pay, keep it in your pants - it really is that simple (sorry to sound like Nancy Reagan, but just so no to unprotected sex with people you don't want to parent with). The mother, from all accounts, did her darn best to raise him well - but why should all the burden fall upon the mother - she took full responsibility for every aspect of the child's life, why shouldn't the father take some financial responsibility? And if a mother has left the workforce during the relationship to be a stay-at-home mother, forgoing promotions and career advancement, she should not be penalized for that choice after a split - and nor should the child.
Of course I agree with your point about golddiggers - I don't understand how women (and occasionally men I guess) act like that and don't want to because I think it's dreadful. And alimony usually now reflects the reality that both parents work (by law in LA, after children are five). Alimony has become far more rare than it used to be.
So yeah, mothers definitely should learn and pay the price too. Don't believe promises (rich) men make to get into your pants, for one. But the reality is that the women do pay. Ever tried to raise a kid alone? Been pregnant for 9 months or pushed a watermelon out your ass? If all that ain't payin for indiscretion, what is? Not slept for six months while pregnant and then another year after the damn cryin baby is born? Lived with constant spit-up all over you, tied to a screaming bundle of "joy" so your breasts don't engorge and explode with unexpressed milk? And that's just the first few months! Being a parent is damn hard, but I didn't see mention of Tyrese or TI trying to sue for custody. They're just complaining about paying for private school? (And full disclosure - even knowing this about them, I would sleep with either of them in a heartbeat because they are FINE. But there would be a condom involved!)
But I really don't believe children should pay a price for a situation they did not create. They are children, and once we have children our very primary purpose in life is to care for them to the best of our ability. (Says the woman who has no children because she's way too darn selfish with her time and money. And I say yay for birth control.)
Oh good lord, I feel like I've hijacked your blog with these long comments. Sorry. Blame Gail for not posting enough for me to comment on! :)
Why do men get all pissed off about providing a good home for their children? You should get castrated if you don't want to provide for the children you create. Producing a child is a risk of sexual activity, and once the child is here, you have a moral and legal obligation to that child. If you do not have primary custody, then by extension, you have a moral obligation to the person who is providing for that child, usually the mother. She wasn't a golddigger when you were laying down with her, so stop your b#tching after the baby is here.
Plus, she was a college student in the UK when they got together, and he sweet talked her and brought her here. He also pulled an Ike Turner on her when she was pregnant. And, I believe that nonsense about "he doesn't like when the child's shoes are scuffed," so I can believe he falls into the category of people who are needlessly materialistic. But, anyway, these male whores, er, dudes either need to get custody, or wrap it up (or get a vasectomy) if they don't want a baby with every chick they get with.
JAT
I meant neutered, not castrated. Sorry.
JAT
@nola
Your argument is for child support in general and that isnt the issue. The issue is paying an absurd amount of it simply b/c you make a good living. In terms of the mother making sacrifices, thats a reality in every household and one that the mother does knowingly. Forcing a father to compensate her for that is ridiculous.
"And if a mother has left the workforce during the relationship to be a stay-at-home mother, forgoing promotions and career advancement, she should not be penalized for that choice after a split - and nor should the child."
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with that. Why should a Father be penalized b/c the Mom decided to be SAHM. If you're going to preach accountability for the Father, it needs to apply to the Mothers as well. Also, maybe that Mom shouldnt have custody.
LOL @ trying to use the burden of carrying a child to term as some sort of way women pay. Nice try.
I honestly dont put a lot of stock in the "children didnt deserve to pay for parents' mistakes and blahblah..." b/c it doesnt really mean anything. Yes it would be great if mom & dad were together. They arent. I'm all for child support...as long as the reasoning makes sense. If the reasoning is making for Fathers to support a Mother's lifestyle altogether, there is a huge problem and I think it needs to be addressed.
Lastly, you are MORE than welcome to comment ad nauseum. I appreciate all comments!
@JAT
I think the problem is more that men are asked to shoulder MORE of a burden than the mother and in some cases being asked to completely support the mother's lifestyle. Thats ridiculous. THAT is a FAIL in the system.
Custody...is another issue that there may need to be a blog about someday.
LOL ad nauseum. :)
Yes, the argument for child support is the same argument here - child support is based upon the needs of the child AND the parent's ability to pay.
""And if a mother has left the workforce during the relationship to be a stay-at-home mother, forgoing promotions and career advancement, she should not be penalized for that choice after a split - and nor should the child."
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with that. Why should a Father be penalized b/c the Mom decided to be SAHM. If you're going to preach accountability for the Father, it needs to apply to the Mothers as well. Also, maybe that Mom shouldnt have custody."
Did you say that maybe a stay at home parent shouldn't be awarded custody because he/she has made sacrifices to be the best possible parent? Are you serious? If you think that putting kids in day care is better than having a stay-at-home parent, then that's a fundamental disagreement, and I could throw research at you to undermine your opinion, but it doesn't matter.
And whether one person stays home to take care of THE WHOLE FAMILY is a decision that the couple makes. Some men really coerce their wives to do it, at great personal sacrifice, but then are quick to bail on the relationship later and blame the mother. Good grief.
I just hope that if/when you choose to have kids that beforehand you make it VERY clear that you will not respect choices made for the best interests of the child, but that you expect your wife to fiscally contribute and that is all that matters. Y'all can figure out who shuttles the kids where, who takes off from work when kids are sick, etc. etc. - but I hope you're fair about it because otherwise she's doing more than you, and her sacrifices won't be valued.
How many stay-at-home parents do you know? Because all the dozens that I know work incredibly hard and are accountable every single second of their lives. They don't get to go off to work and just be responsible for a job. My life of work, school, etc. is so easy compared to theirs because I'm just responsible for myself. Childrearing is the most difficult and absolutely most important job in the world, and it really concerns me when young men such as yourself fail to recognize or value it.
There may be stay-at-home parents who watch soap operas and eat bon bons all day, but they're nothing like the ones I know, who exhaust me just watching. And I'm told I have a tremendous amount of energy and accomplish a great deal.
Why should a father be "penalized" you ask? It's not being penalized to take responsibility. It's called being a man to take responsibility rather than expecting somebody else to pick up slack.
I don't understand why Tyrese or TI or any of these other very wealthy men would want to deny their children anything. It's unfathomable to me that a parent would put their own desires before their children's needs.
Fortunately the law agrees with me sometimes.
And yeah, Anonymous makes good points.
@nola
The problem is that the definition concerning a child's needs and a parent's ability to pay leave way too much leeway for opportunistic people to leech from others. If its going to be a parent's ability to pay, make the parents pay an equivalent amount.
If you cant AFFORD to have custody of your child, then maybe you shouldnt have it. I dont see any philosophical difference there. You choose to be a SAHM when there's no one to pay for your rent? How does that make you a responsible person...let alone a parent? I'd also be willing to bet that there's as much research to support opinions on either having a SAHM or daycare that would render either opinion right or wrong.
I didnt make the point about whether a woman is coerced into being a SAHM b/c there's just as many women who have no intention of getting a job or are just lazy altogether. Who can say who is who.
To be a SAH parent, you have to be funded somehow...or else, arent you "expecting somebody else to pick up the slack" that comes from bills & rent?
Whether or not SAH parenting is hard to do is irrelevant. I've never made an argument for it being easy or difficult. Fact is, you have to be financially able to support that lifestyle. If you cant, it shouldnt be your ex's responsibility to support you. If the intent is that he's supporting the child, maybe he SHOULD be the one that has custody...as opposed to someone who cant provide that support...or wont.
I agree children shouldn't suffer because of the parents, and I think it is horrible for a man to slit his child's throat to avoid paying child support. However, I think women & the court get excessive in their demands for child support. I think women use their kids to get back at the fathers for the marriage/relationship not working.
Terms for child support need to be negotiated with certain stipulations. Both should agree on the child schooling. And if they agree to send the children to private school then the father should pay HALF of the tuition DIRECTLY to the school. A mother shouldn't be able to say "it will cost $3,000 to send the kids to private school and then the heffa enrolls the kids in public school for free and take the money to go buy herself Luis Vuitton and Prada products!
If a mother is going to argue that a man has to be financially responsible for his children after they seperate, then the same applies to her. So if they think the children would have had a $12,000 lifestyle if the couple stayed together then the mother needs to come up with $6,000 on her own.
At the core of the situation the mother is an adult and she needs to provide for herself if she doesn't want to be with the father of her kids....that means she needs her own job/career. Marriage is a team sport, if you don't want to be on the team anymore then you shouldn't get team benefits.
And if male whores should have to get a vasectomy, then a woman that wants have sex with the men she meets at the clubs, then she should be a responsible whore and get a hysterectomy.
And before any female out there try to say that my comment is based on me being vindictive or hateful or just looking out for my own interest...let it be known, I am a gay man so I won't be getting anybody "accidently" pregnant. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. A woman shouldn't be able to "get ahead" because she had sex and not has a kid with a man she didn't know in the first place or doesn't want to live with anymore.
Pharoah I sure hope you're gay and that explains your lack of understanding of female anatomy! A hysterectomy is completely different than a vasectomy! I hope you mean tubal ligation! Shudder. A hysterectomy is roughly equatable to castration in many way. But phew, I don't need to draw you a picture or talk to you about the clitoris or g-spot while we're on the topic. :)
I've read a lot of family law cases and trust me when I say that y'all are going on raw emotion and anecdotes rather than law or actual reality if you think that there is a trend of men being victimized by women or a legal system. Or don't trust me and look it up in legal databases. And Pharoah, most of what you say should happen actually does.
You're also not distinguishing between alimony and child support. Child support is for the CHILD, not for the woman, and expenses usually must be documented. And in Louisiana (again, the only law that I know intimately), both parents ARE required to provide financially. Often equally. Unless the child is very young or disabled, and then special accommodations may be made, depending on other circumstances such as ability to pay.
You missed my point entirely. To be a stay-at-home mother during a marriage means staying at home. Missing out on career advancement and promotions. If you then go back eight years later after a divorce, you simply do not have the same earnings capacity as somebody who never left. And yet you should be the one primarily financially responsible after you've made the sacrifices for the family unit? That seems very illogical to me and definitely not in the best interests of children.
Further - the realities and importance of being a stay-at-home parents are VERY MUCH the issue here and should not be dismissed.
Look closely at the research methodology of those studies. And also look at day care realities including cost and quality.
Perhaps a reason for our opinion differences is that we're looking at different situations - I'm looking at marriages ending and y'all seem to be alluding more to situations where marriage or long-term commitment never occurred. Then there are some distinctions. But I'm less familiar with that personally - most my people shack up together before getting knocked up.
My point for all this (because clearly this is becoming tiring and not productive) is just to get you to see the other side. Rather than just emotionally reacting to poor Tyrese, just think that there are other perspectives and realities. This shouldn't be a gender-based disagreement - it should be about fairness and what's best for the child.
I'm going to have to agree with you. Be fair but don't be outrageous. How do you actually justify 12k per month? Nothing that the child needs will EVER come close to costing that much. I understand he is a celebrity and such but just having his child doesn't mean that you should solely rely on his primary source of income for the rest of your life.
@nola
You do yourself a disservice by trying to devalue someone else's argument as just them reacting emotionally. I didnt miss your point concerning SAHM at all. I just dont consider it a valid argument. Everyone knows what the consequences of being a SAH parent are in terms of their career. You choose to respond as tho a mother is FORCED to become a SAH parent. That, more often than not, is a choice.
Your research argument is a loser. You know it. I know it. We all know it. There is no meaningful way to prove that either staying at home or daycare is better for a child w/o injecting bias. The results of those studies are whatever the paying entity want the results to be.
I've at no point ever alluded to whether the marriage was longstanding or if it were some one night stand. In my opinion, thats just as irrelevant as whether or not being a SAH parent is hard.
I agree that it should be about fairness. In fact, thats been the point I've been making this whole time. Problem is, child support has never been about the children. Nobody in their right mind believes a child costs such a superfluous amount of money. Its just a tool that is available for people to use to punish the higher earner (normally the man) for the breakup of the relationship.
@Pharaoh, Vick
Totally agree.
@ nola
"Child support is for the CHILD, not for the woman, and expenses usually must be documented."
Child support is truly repayment for things that the custodial parent has purchased or provided for the parent. Diapers do not cost $2k per month. Daycare doesn't have to cost $8k per month. An extra room in your home for your child shouldn't cost an extra $1k. And it doesn't cost an additional $1k per month to feed your child.
This is simply greed an I hope the judge treats her in the same fashion that T.I's children's mother was done. The same way that 50 cents son's mother was done. A baby isn't your money tree and for you to treat your child as such is just disgusting.
She basically lost my respect when she listed off the reasons why she needed the money.
Big Fail.
UPDATE: http://necolebitchie.com/2009/03/03/tyreses-ex-wife-gets-her-money-plus-jeezy-and-khloe-just-friends
Post a Comment