This Open Thread has been brought to you by the universe’s most adorable cosplayers.
About ozyfrantz
Ozy Frantz is a student at a well-respected Hippie College in the United States. Zie bases most of zir life decisions on Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, and identifies more closely with Pinkie Pie than is probably necessary. Ozy can be contacted at [email protected] or on Twitter as @ozyfrantz. Writing is presently Ozy's primary means of support, so to tip the blogger, click here.
Like I said wonder if that was the case in this instance.
Do you think that *should* be the case? Why or why not?
I often hear that child support is all about supporting the child so based on that I’m of the mind that it should be based on what is needed to support the child. I asked that in the form of a question because there might be reasons for why its that high.
So while we are asking questions:
So because nobody here is involved in the case no one can talk about it here?
Danny,
“The calculation behind support amounts.”
Mmmm, okay. Since people seem to be beating around the bush on this topic, I’ll bite. Why, Danny, did you think that was the case? Do you think that *should* be the case? Why or why not?
Lamech,
Give us the specific details of this case, including what determined the arrangements and who was happy with what, or spare me the obnoxious lecture and grandstanding. In the meantime, if you think a child should only be ensured the bare minimum based on what you think their needs are/should be, then just say so.
Colette:
You thought *what* was about supporting them with what they need?
The calculation behind support amounts.
No, it is not your place to decide the kids should only receive enough money from one parent to cover medical bills when the case has already been decided and nobody else here is involved.
So because nobody here is involved in the case no one can talk about it here?
@Collete: “No, it is not your place to decide the kids should only receive enough money from one parent to cover medical bills when the case has already been decided and nobody else here is involved.” See we in this thing called a democracy. The the legal system is sort of exactly the thing that are other people’s business. Especially court cases which are open to the public for a reason. In fact I think having an opinion about the legal system is sort of the entire point of a democracy. Or do you think that we should have secret… Read more »
Also, she didn’t “help design a collar,” she *designed* the collar.
Danny, “But I thought it was about supporting them with what they need, not replicating their lives as they were before divorce.” You thought *what* was about supporting them with what they need? Lamech, “The two things she did (help design a collar and help the company) I would argue would be best served by giving her a portion of the patent/trademark rights and company, or at least the income from it. It would probably awkward if she had any control over it.” She didn’t “help the company” which could mean anything; according to the article, she helped *run* the… Read more »
Colette Wedding,
“Don’t really think it is our place to decide why or why not this kid should be entitled to an amount of money toward his/her care that he/she was capable of receiving when his/her parents were still married.”
It’s not my place to have an opinion on the legal system of the country I live in?
The two things she did (help design a collar and help the company) I would argue would be best served by giving her a portion of the patent/trademark rights and company, or at least the income from it. It would probably awkward if she had any control over it. “I hope if that decline happens he is able to get a downward adjustment.” Hopefully he can hire the legal resources to get this done quickly. Eh, I suppose without knowing more details than in provided in a semi-questionable news source it would be hard to judge well. I think the… Read more »
Colette: Feel free to make the argument that this guy’s money should go to dying children not his own, but my point is this guy was capable of putting that much money toward his children’s care before the two were divorced. But I thought it was about supporting them with what they need, not replicating their lives as they were before divorce. Lamech: Specifically in this case he’ll probably inevitably see his show become less popular, his income degrade and have a hell of a time getting the support payments back to something reasonable, furthermore he should be saving the… Read more »
“Why are this guys kids entitled to more than the ones who are actually dying for lack of resources?” Feel free to make the argument that this guy’s money should go to dying children not his own, but my point is this guy was capable of putting that much money toward his children’s care before the two were divorced. “More weird in my mind is the spousal support. I DO see the argument that someone gave up a career/school/whatever to be a homemaker that has degraded the ability to make money and something should be done about it. “ That,… Read more »
P.S. Of course, its possible that Danny’s question is answered in the affirmative, and those children do have such an ailment. Although in that case why wouldn’t the court just order he pay their medical fees?
@Colette: “Don’t really think it is our place to decide why or why not this kid should be entitled to an amount of money toward his/her care that he/she was capable of receiving when his/her parents were still married.” So those children are entitled to 60,000 grand worth of money a year? What makes those kids special? Those kids don’t need all of that money to be healthy. However there are plenty of children who DO need more money to be healthy. Kids who lack health care, food or clean water. Why are this guys kids entitled to more than… Read more »
@Danny: “Unless the children have some sort of ailment that requires expensive care or something?” I think courts always assume that people should give a fraction of their income to the child/spouse. Now, I’m of the opinion that the child support system is screwed up in a bunch of really silly ways. Specifically in this case he’ll probably inevitably see his show become less popular, his income degrade and have a hell of a time getting the support payments back to something reasonable, furthermore he should be saving the larger part of that money for when his income does degrade.… Read more »
Pardon me, two kids.
Don’t really think it is our place to decide why or why not this kid should be entitled to an amount of money toward his/her care that he/she was capable of receiving when his/her parents were still married.
So the Dog Whisperer has gotten a divorce (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/dog-whisperer-host-cesar-millan-finalizes-divorce-193255265.html).
I’m all for helping children out and all but really is this big of a settlement call for?
TMZ is reporting that the self-taught expert dog trainer must pay his ex-wife, Ilusión, a one-time amount of $400,000, a monthly spousal payment of $23,000, and another $10,000 for monthly child support.
Unless the children have some sort of ailment that requires expensive care or something?
This morning I wrote about Roger’s acid trip on MAD MEN last night, which reminded me of one of my own:
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2012/04/roger-gets-his-space-ticket.html
Trigger warning: bullies
Ferris is quite right about how vague the criteria for being a “creep” actually is. The thing is, I think that’s precisely why “creep” is such a beloved insult for so many people: It lets the wielder blur the lines between “You’re ugly/weird/unpopular” and “You’re a bad person.” It has the effect- and probably in many cases the intent- of blurring the distinction between the social and moral, and often the sexual and moral. On the one hand, “creep” has a negative moral connotation that simply calling someone weird or socially awkward or unattractive doesn’t, by itself, have. It doesn’t… Read more »
@Danny: They just want to spread sexist crap. ‘
Also here is a “nice” article. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-04-19/Life-expectancy-improves-slower-for-women/54419298/1 The death gap is closing some. Hurrah! Now the problem is with this article is a bunch of people seem to think this is a problem. … Apparently men facing a reduced level of oppression is bad for women. I remember a similar thing when the gap in workplace deaths closed some when men started dying less. It is not tragic when inequality between the sexes is reduced.
I’m all for women having a fair chance at jobs but sometimes I wonder what the real motivation is when people invoke the “would this have happened if there were (more) women around” argument.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/22/lawmakers-complain-secret-service-gender-gap-after-scandal/
Other than this one, are there any blogs (or books for that matter) that make one less depressed about gender relations? I’ve been very masochistic and reading Jezebel lately, and I don’t know where to turn…
@F: Your comment yesterday appears to have been intended for L, not me. (Yes, “L” and “The_L” are two different people.)
I spent yesterday building a Lego model with my boyfriend and watching Avatar episodes on Netflix. Those kids are adorable. :3
I have to agree with woop, manboobz is kind of a bit completely terrible. Why is manboobz on the side bar?