Replies

I don't think the point of the article is that he was unwilling to support his child, it clearly says Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3 years old and yet that was not enough for the mother.

Now, I'm sorry but I'd venture a bet there isn't a single poster on FR who wouldn't be thrilled to have 75k coming in a month, and some would be thrilled to have that coming in a year. The point is greed and the family's court willingless to support that greed.

Can you justify in anyway any child needing $320,000 a month, which is what the mother demanded, for living expenses? Can you even justify $75,000 a month? Reading the article again, the mother was requesting $102,000 a month for food for a 3 year old. What 3 year old need that?

These are examples of people with the financial resources to hire the best lawyers to protect their interests, to use the legal system to their advantage, yet they are charged with absolutely unreal child support obligations time and time again. Look at how much Rudy Guilliani has been ordered to pay his ex-wife and for another eye-opener look how much Mic Jagger was slapped with for his daughter. If family courts can do this to people who have the unlimited resources to fight against it, image what they do to the average Joe.

The "best interests of the child" has long been conflated with "what the mother wants". Momma wants $320,000 a month? She gets it. Men out there, do three things: be a co-equal caregiver of all your kids from birth, even if so being entails career sacrifice; get a prenup; fight like everything depended on it in the event of a divorce.