CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money

World Net Daily ^ | Debbie Schlussel

[DNA Rules]

Tennis Lolita Anna Kournikova soaks her billionaire ex-husband for millions.

Not the real Anna Kournikova. But Lisa Bonder, who was Anna Kournikova before there was Anna Kournikova – 20 years ago.

If you've read about Bonder's child-support fight with her husband-for-a-month – billionaire Kirk Kerkorian – and before her, Anna Nicole Smith's continuing travails over her deceased Methuselah of a husband – you've been introduced to litigation's latest overcompensated victims: scorned women.

The current specimens all have ties to pro sports. But they're stark examples of a clogged legal system turning relationships into lifelong ATM machines for women. They're also excellent examples of the failure of feminism. In the end, these women achieve "independence" by using courts to mooch off men and the rest of society.

Whether it's Bonder-Kerkorian, Kelci Stringer, or even Juanita Jordan (soon to be ex-wife of Michael), these "disadvantaged" women are out for an unearned payday bigger than winning the lottery.

Tennis fans likely remember Lisa Kerkorian as Lisa Bonder, the '80s' sexy, tall blonde from Michigan, who hit pro tennis' top-10 rankings and dabbled in modeling and posters. Unlike Kournikova, she never achieved the crossover appeal outside the tennis world that garners the Russian tennis starlet an estimated $15 million per year in endorsement income. But Bonder did garner enough lucrative endorsements and tournament winnings to keep her in comfort.

She should be set for life, rather than seeking out, shacking up with, and shaking down a senior-citizen billionaire, Kerkorian.

Instead, Bonder, 36, had a multi-year affair with Kerkorian, 84, beginning in 1991. Does anyone believe a 26-year-old was truly interested in a 74-year-old? She was likely more interested in his billions. Kerkorian, the MGM studio and casino mogul worth over $6 billion, is so wealthy that he was the single-largest non-institutional stockholder in Chrysler and threatened a hostile takeover in the '90s.

But while he easily fought Chrysler's then-Chairman Lee Iaccoca, Kerkorian met his match in the scheming Bonder. He refused her constant begging for marriage so, in 1997, she got pregnant with his daughter. In a move to legitimize the child's birth, they married on the condition that she waive all spousal support and divorce a month later.

But Bonder found a way to get paid for this high-class prostitution act: child-support, perhaps the only reason she had this child with an 80-year-old. The prenuptial pact set per month support at $35,000, the divorce agreement specified $50,000 monthly, and Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3-year-old! Not enough, says Bonder, who sued for $320,000 per month, claiming the young child needs $144,000 monthly for travel, $7,000 monthly for charity, and $102,000 monthly for food.

Bonder lives in three estates, worth a combined $26 million. Yet, she's using the legal system – and her daughter – to play the victim. That's the legacy of feminism: Even rich, "independent" women's sports stars resort to shacking up with octogenarians and suing them for a big payday.

Kelci Stringer is another "victim." It's lamentable her pro-football player husband, Korey Stringer, died in Minnesota Vikings training camp on a hot day. But, as a first-round draft pick and starter, he was well compensated and insured for risk of injury. Stringer was also paid his multi-million dollar salary to stay in shape. But he didn't – getting fat over the off-season, dangerously trying to lose it and get in shape just a few days before camp.

But is that his fault? Not according to Mrs. Stringer's lawyers (and Jesse Jackson, who has – surprise! – interjected himself in this shakedown). They've filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Vikings. No matter that out-of-shape Stringer was up to a bloated 335-pounds. Newspaper photos showed him doubling over, gasping for breath during drills that in-shape athletes finessed.

Mrs. Stringer is a "victim," and instead of quietly dealing with her grief, everyone else must pay for this woman "scorned" by the Vikings. Costs of the suit will be passed on to Vikings' ticket-buying fans who, unlike wealthy Mrs. Stringer, are mostly working-class stiffs.

Don't feel sorry for Juanita Jordan – divorcing wife of basketball great, Michael – either. According to the New York Post, she put up with his affairs for years, tailing him with a private investigator.

What did she expect? Her own marriage was the result of a tawdry, litigious affair. She met Michael at Bennigan's restaurant in Chicago in 1988, got pregnant, gave birth and slapped him with a paternity suit. To avoid the suit, Michael whisked her off to a tacky Vegas quickie-wedding at the Little White Wedding Chapel in 1989. What an omen for the kind of smarmy marriage she'd have with a philandering sports star.

But even though she had prior warning and was an operative from the beginning in this questionable partnership, she could win 90 percent of the Jordans' property under Illinois law. Illinois is not a community-property state. Rather than splitting property 50-50, fault is a factor in deciding property division. Totally immoral, should Jordan's philandering, of which former groupie Juanita was well aware, entitle her to 90 percent of his worth? Is she really a victim? Under the law, yes.

The song, "The Sisters Are Doing it For Themselves," is bogus. Just look on the sports pages and the overburdened courthouses. For these newest Anna Nicole Smiths, The Sisters Are Suing it For Themselves. The litigation Lolitas will get their big payday in court.

[IronJack]

I'm also entitled to half his retirement because it's OURS.)

How is that, BUDDY??? Is he financing your retirement too?

[DNA Rules]

Where both marriage partners agree that one will stay home, I agree that the one who stays home is entitled to half the income/assets accumulated in the period of staying home... plus limited-time support if the share of assets is insufficient to get them back on their feet. I respect that those who have been out of the job market for some time need some time to re-establish themselves out there.

[DNA Rules]

I agree that grandparents should not have legal rights...my point is that some women are complacent in the expectation of maternal custody... until that presumption negatively affects them, via losing contact with their son's children.

[DNA Rules]

True. My objections are to cases where both parents worked, and are capable of continuing to work, and there is no fault as such (no adultery or anything). In such cases as those, I don't believe that the assets should be split down the middle, but should be divided proportionately based on who earned/paid for them.

But again, where both partners agreed that one should stay home and raise the kids, I agree that all financial assets accumulated in that period should be divided 50/50 in the event of a divorce.

[DNA Rules]

Several...my cousin has 12, can you top that?

[IronJack]

his retirement belongs to both of us. It's what we've agreed on.

Good for you. I'm not sure where the disagreement comes from then. I'm sure that a traditional husband who has provided for his wife their whole lives is not going to suddenly change his mind when he retires. If it's always been "what's mine is yours," I would imagine it would stay that way.

But what of the "stay at home" woman who spends half a lifetime frittering away the hours and spending hubby's paycheck as fast as he can earn it, who then dumps him and gloms half his 401k? Why should the poor schmuck eat dog food because this woman, who has never worked a day in her life, now has a pension he sold his soul for?

In this game, inequity cuts both ways.

[exodus]

Come May 1st, my son will be 18 and she can kiss my a$$.

To: n.y.muggs
Depends...in some places if your son goes to college, she can use that to milk you until he's 21
# 23 by GussiedUp
*************************

I understood differently, GussiedUp.

The father has to support the kid until he actually graduates, including any advanced degrees.

[DNA Rules]

My fault, I offered up a very partial quote.

Kids. Offspring. Progeny. Heirs to the estate. Carriers of the sacred bloodline...you said that you had 'several"; I noted that my cousin has 12. She read "Cheaper By The Dozen" as a kid, and interpreted it as a life plan.

[DNA Rules]

In this game, inequity cuts both ways.

Well...really, it should go neither way. If a right to half the assets is extended to a divorcing stay-at-home mom, even though the Mr. made the sacrifices to earn those assets, a right to joint custody should be enforced for the working dad, even if the Mrs. spent more time with them.

The inequity comes in when the first right is enforced, but the second one is not.

[IronJack]

the community property?

Ah, yes. Community property. From the same root as "communist." That's where I go to work and you don't and yet you get to claim half of what I earn, right?

I can hire a maid for a heck of a lot less than half of everything I make in a lifetime, and if she does a lousy job, I can just fire her and get another one without having to pay for her college, her new car, and her twice-annual trips to Vegas. If your claim to half my earnings is based on the WORK you supposedly do, then you're nothing more than an employee.

On the other hand, if you contribute half of the energy and cohesion and emotional support to a marriage for 20 years, then you're entitled to half the fruits of that marriage. I'll leave it to you to decide whether your contributions are spiritual or janitorial.

[IronJack]

I'm just a kept woman who should be happy my husband puts a roof over my head and food in my mouth!

Don't sell yourself short. You're probably good with a Weed Whacker and a snow shovel too.

[mountaineer]

Come May 1st, my son will be 18 and she can kiss my a$$.

Depends...in some places if your son goes to college, she can use that to milk you until he's 21

The father has to support the kid until he actually graduates, including any advanced degrees.

Actually, it depends on the relevant state law. For example:

Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.340 sec. 5.

If when a child reaches age eighteen, the child is enrolled in and attending a secondary school program of instruction, the parental support obligation shall continue, if the child continues to attend and progresses toward completion of said program, until the child completes such program or reaches age twenty-one, whichever first occurs. If the child is enrolled in an institution of vocational or higher education not later than October first following graduation from a secondary school or completion of a graduation equivalence degree program and so long as the child enrolls for and completes at least twelve hours of credit each semester, not including the summer semester, at an institution of vocational or higher education and achieves grades sufficient to reenroll at such institution, the parental support obligation shall continue until the child completes his or her education, or until the child reaches the age of twenty-two, whichever first occurs. To remain eligible for such continued parental support, at the beginning of each semester the child shall submit to each parent a transcript or similar official document provided by the institution of vocational or higher education which includes the courses the child is enrolled in and has completed for each term, the grades and credits received for each such course, and an official document from the institution listing the courses which the child is enrolled in for the upcoming term and the number of credits for each such course. If the circumstances of the child manifestly dictate, the court may waive the October first deadline for enrollment required by this subsection. If the child is enrolled in such an institution, the child or parent obligated to pay support may petition the court to amend the order to direct the obligated parent to make the payments directly to the child. As used in this section, an "institution of vocational education" means any postsecondary training or schooling for which the student is assessed a fee and attends classes regularly. "Higher education" means any junior college, community college, college, or university at which the child attends classes regularly. A child who has been diagnosed with a learning disability, or whose physical disability or diagnosed health problem limits the child's ability to carry the number of credit hours prescribed in this subsection, shall remain eligible for child support so long as such child is enrolled in and attending an institution of vocational or higher education, and the child continues to meet the other requirements of this subsection. A child who is employed at least fifteen hours per week during the semester may take as few as nine credit hours per semester and remain eligible for child support so long as all other requirements of this subsection are complied with.

Specific enough for you?

[Brytani]

To a point, the problem comes up when a father (as was in our case for a while) after taxes, child support, after school care, rent, phone, electric, health and car insurance was paid there was exactly $274 a month left for food, clothes, incidentials, fun etc. Doesn't work well when a person is being raped financially when they still have to support a child.

BTW, at the time we tried seeing if it was possible for me to stay home or cut my hours to part time so that we could avoid child care (after school) costs - we would have been negative $124 a month doing that.

Luckily things now are much better for us, but for a few years not only did we suffer financially (you don't want to see our credit reports) but also my step-son suffered. While his friends could join boy scouts, go to movies, get toys he did without, including times when field trips at school were out of the question. This is not what "best interest of the child" is supposed to be about.