[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

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, . 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.

Excuse me, she didn't get pregnant by herself. He did carry on a decade long affair with the woman. He could have broken up with her if she was scheming. It takes two to tangle. No 74 year old billionaire takes up with a 26 year old hottie because he thinks she is a great homemaker and no 26 year old hooks up with a 74 year old billionaire because they both like The BackStreet Boys.

[Rebelbase]

There is a mindset in the female community that affects many with this "child support is a substitute for alimony" belief.

My ex was getting close to $1000/out of me for child support, partially due to my having an idiot for my first attorney. I faithfully paid to keep things smooth even when it got to the point where the kids were about 50/50 at each house (live near each other).

Long story short, she did something stupid that put herself in a postion where I had to pay her only 1/10 of the original amount.

Hell hath no fury like a woman who loses her child support. She spent thousands trying to get me to pay her more and ended up only getting an additional $40/mo.

[krb]

He could have broken up with her if she was scheming.

Scheming (depending on how good the scheme) by its very definition often times precludes one knowing it is going on.

[DNA Rules]

Excuse me, she didn't get pregnant by herself.

Odd how many women acknowledge this when it comes time to cash their ex's check, and deny it in the same breath when the ex wants custody!

[Brytani]

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.

[DNA Rules]

Excuse me, she didn't get pregnant by herself.

If a woman can abort by herself, over the objections of a baby's father, why should the baby's father be obligated to that which the law told him he could not save?

Of course women don't get pregnant by themselves. Why do some only recall that fact when doing so garners them cash?