Posted on 03/29/2006 12:48:46 PM PST by Proud_USA_Republican
The 16-year-old "love child" of New York Yankees pitcher Randy Johnson said her star father coldly responded to letters she sent to him and that she cannot bear to watch him pitch on TV anymore, the New York Post reported Wednesday.
"I would get cards back from him with just his signature — 'Randy,' " said Heather Renee Roszell, who sent the letters in an effort to meet Johnson.
Johnson broke off his relationship with the girl's mother, Laura Roszell, 46, while she was pregnant, and he has seen Heather only once, shortly after she was born. He does have "reasonable visitation rights" from a custody agreement, Roszell told the Post.
Heather, who lives with her mother in Langley, Wash., told the Post that she stopped writing letters because "I never got [more of] a response, so it got to the point where I didn't want to deal with not getting the response.
"I don't have a relationship with him."
Johnson is suing Laurel Roszell for $97,000 for child-care payments he made for Heather, according to court documents revealed by the New York Daily News and New York Post on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
That money wouldn't be going to the kid. It goes to support the mother's grand lifestyle.
$70K a year tax free??? Why shouldn't she have to pull some weight on this deal?
I Googled the following & you need to pay attention to: the following:
The remaining season on Johnson's previous contract, calling for a salary of $16 million in 2005, was affected by the structuring of the new three-year pact.
Johnson will be paid $10 million in 2005 and $14.5 million each in 2006 and 2007. While his deal with Arizona called for $6 million due in 2005 to be deferred at 2 percent interest, the Yankees are deferring a total of $9 million without interest -- $3.5 million payable in both 2008 and 2009, and $2 million in 2010.
Based on the above documented information, consider the fact that Randy made at minimum, $24.5 million in the last two years, okay? Divided by 24 months, he's raking in well over $1 million a month, not considering his lucrative sponsorship contracts, or previous deals. So puhleeze forgive me if I'm not crying in my beer that the sonofabitch is suing to get some of his $69,000.00 a year back, paying only $5,750.00 a month for the last 9 years.
It's absolutely pathetic that any multi, multi millionaire would begrudge his estranged daughter, whom he rejected shortly after her birth, to the point of suing her custodial mother for some millionaire chump change. Randy Johnson has made it abundantly clear what is important in his life and at least he's brutally honest. Randy makes more money in an hour pitching in a game than he pays in child support for Heather for an entire year. To put it in more of a realistic perspective, Randy Johnson makes more money sitting on a toilet taking his daily crap than he pays for Heather's child support (unless he's too mean to crap on a daily basis). And EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT THAT!
As I stated in a later post, I do NOT agree that money is his only moral obligation. But it IS his only legal obligation.
As far as the calibration of child support, you are quite correct. Unfortunately, that is irrelevent to the facts in this case. The money in question is for day care, not child support.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, eh?
Is this a crappy way to treat his daughter? Absolutely!
Is it right to make special rules against those who make a lot of money because they make a lot of money? Absolutely not.
You betcha, when it comes to paying for children you bring into this world.
Is it right to make special rules against those who make a lot of money because they make a lot of money? Absolutely not.
No one is making special rules. A parents salary is always factored into how much child support is paid. Randy's gotten off easy for the last nine years. Now that he's acting like an @ss about wanting some of his precious money back, I hope Heather finds the best lawyer his money can buy to restructure their child support agreement so that he'll be sorry he ever opened up this can of worms.
You are acting like nothing more than a class warfare victim, sir. Your argument is illogical - it is based on pure emotion.
Yes, the mother has a right under our legal system to pursue a higher level of support based on his income. But he has the legal right not to pay for services not rendered (the day care).
We actually don't disagree on the moral dimensions here. But your "screw the rich guy" stance, to be honest, is little more than socialism.
Have a good day.
But your "screw the rich guy" stance, to be honest, is little more than socialism.
What a fallacious statement! Am I repulsed at Randy Johnson's behavior? Yes. But I've got news for you. Child support has been paid based on a sliding scale according to income for decades. For you to call that socialism is laughable. And I don't have a screw the rich guy stance. My stance is screw Randy Johnson.
My main problem with your argument, maam, is that you are advocating that Johnson forfeit his legal right not to pay day care when it was not warranted.
Note that I did not say that the mother does not have the legal right to pursue a higher child support amount - perhaps even retroactively. Absolutely, if she can convince the court, he should pay.
But, that does not mean that day care money can be substituted when day care was not paid for.
For me, I have no animus toward Johnson. I find his actions deplorable. I find his attitude deplorable. But I find his legal actions here defendable - legally, not morally.
Why do you think I'm angry, BTW?
I'm not meaning to make an argument over it, and I shouldn't have assumed you were angry at me. I'll admit this story makes me angry and it is directed towards Johnson's unmitigated gall to file such a lawsuit. Yes, I know he is legally entitled to do so, but it doesn't take a genious to realize that Randy Johnson has had a great child support deal.
If you re-read the article, note that Rozelle didn't even seek child support until 1998, and Johnson demanded a paternity test to prove he was the father, which was his right to do. But he didn't pay any child support for the first 8 years of the child's life. Rozelle can hardly be considered a gold digger because she agreed to a very reasonable child support amount considering that she could have gotten more based on his salary.
Suing Heather's mother for day care back pay plus interest is his right, but it is terribly cruel. If he should win, God forbid, Heather will be the one who suffers. This louse has already rejected her and now this ridiculous lawsuit is hurting her again. And yes, as a parent of now grown children, I cannot even fathom having a child and only seeing her once, never mind being such a penny pinching multi-millionaire that I would refuse to pay extra for a car and a community college education.
Yes, Johnson is a louse. He's within his legal rights, but certainly outside what is truly right. It sounds a lot like he's been "lawyered up".
The mother can very well take him to court for more support, and would probably win. That is also her legal right.
You are also correct in stating that the doughter is the one who will suffer.
In the end, I deplore his decision making process, but recognize his right to, legally, be an ass.
Well, I'm glad we agree to agree! Good talking to you;-)
Sorry to you too, pal. Check out my posts 106, 108 and 110. Then, if you still want to bitch to me on Johnson's behalf, have at it. After you step back and take a real hard look at what this POS is doing to his daughter, feel free to continue defending him. You'll be in a very lonely corner, but maybe Randy will invite you to an autograph signing.
Rather be right than in a crowd.
I have no doubt that your version of what's right will keep you standing alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.