dragonflie
Blueblood
Posts: 1,956
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Dec 13, 2016 13:48:43 GMT -4
I believe he is a con man, doesn't deserve a dime more and should be in jail because that's where con artists belong IMO, AND she should take care of the baby, because the baby was conceived within the marriage. I don't get being soft on him just because of a baby; and I'd feel the same way if the genders were reversed because when I was in college, I knew some nasty women who pulled shit just like this. This idea really bothers me for 2 reasons. One; even if he is a con-man, he is taking care of the child. You say Sherry should be taking care of the baby- well- she doesn't want to! That's the issue, so, she should pay. Like several people have already stated; would we be saying she should get a job if this was a stay at home mom and the father had lots of money (this child is still very young)? She has money (it's not as if she is sitting here trying to get by on mac and cheese and food stamps), THAT was their arrangement and she reneged on it. At the very least if we take him out of the picture there is still a child to be taken care of- and that is on her as much as him. She doesn't want to have the child in her home- so she has to pay for it. Two; this idea of "nasty women"... now- please understand I get that this happens. Women get pregnant and the man might not want the child but the woman says too bad. But- in that case it does still take two. If a man is dumb enough to have unprotected sex with a woman and then be pi$$ed that he has to pay for a resulting child- he's as much (more?) of an a$$hole. Yes, so many woman are secretly plotting to get pregnant, carry a baby to term for 9 months, have to raise child (clean shitty diapers, drag screaming kid places, have total and utter responsibility for another human creature- pay for said creature), all to trick a man. Yeah, I don't think this happens as much as deadbeat dads want us to believe. I think it's much more common for men to just assume the woman is on the pill or will "take care of it"- and when the "take care of it" means have the baby the men freak out and call her a manipulative evil bitch. Does it happen in rare cases (ala the rich athlete) sure- but that's NOT this case. There was no hole in a condom, or pretend birth control. They made a concerted effort to have a baby- getting a surrogate is the exact opposite of poking a whole in a condom. It's signing documents and paying money and going through a long process to be sure that you are going to have a baby together. Sherri went into this choosing to have the baby. It's more akin (if you believe that he's a con-man- which, to be honest, I don't really care either way) to if she had a baby, then realized he was an a$$ and abandoned the baby and him. Just because a surrogate had the child- it's no different. It's not her being "tricked", it's her being dumb, and an a$$hole to a child. She took part in the pregnancy until close to the end, then abandoned the child. If he's really such an awful person/conman than what a shitty person Sherri is for being ok with him being the primary (only) care-giver of her child. Either way, yes- she is a nasty woman. If she hates the guy so much- fine- good- who cares really- but why is it that the child gets all the awful consequences? If she has money then yes, a good portion of it should go towards the care of the child she purposely conceived and chose to bring into the world.
|
|
|
Post by kateln on Dec 13, 2016 14:00:39 GMT -4
What kills me about this woman is the hypocrisy. She hosts a show on the Food Network about people who cook "for God" or with soul, discusses her Christianity, and yet--treats this poor kid like he's an accessory that she could have just gotten rid of along with the husband
|
|
|
Post by LurkerNan on Dec 13, 2016 19:42:21 GMT -4
I have always said Sherri should at least pay for this child to be supported, seeing as how she is rejecting any bond with the child. Abandoning the child mid-gestation is deplorable. But she went to court and already agreed to pay $50K a year, which is much more than Lamar is expected to provide as his half of child care. What I find worrisome is his taking her to court because he "he says he believes her income's closer to $3 mil". He is citing a vague "expensive medical condition" and also wants his old legal costs from the divorce. I could see the divorce costs, that is sunk cost that he just night not be able to afford. But asking for more money just because she might have it? Here is another article referring to the illness that the baby suffers from: So he needs to eat certain foods - that should be easily manageable. He's a toddler, his food is already completely managed by his parent anyway. I think it should be manageable within the $50K already received. And I guess I question the genetic disorder... does Sally have the same disorder, seeing as he is the biological dad? Did he know this before deciding to have the kid? This is another fact you think he would have disclosed earlier. Does he have the same condition, and does he need a special diet too? And it Sherri expected to provide it for him?
|
|
|
Post by cubanitafresca on Dec 13, 2016 20:26:54 GMT -4
But that's how child support works. The amount is based on the income of the parent paying child support. If the income changes during the 18 years either parent can go to court to have it adjusted. And if he's right, and Sherri has been hiding some of her income - then she's the one in the wrong.
|
|
sumire
Blueblood
Posts: 1,992
Mar 7, 2005 18:45:40 GMT -4
|
Post by sumire on Dec 14, 2016 3:05:44 GMT -4
I got curious and looked up G6PD ( Wikipedia, Johns Hopkins). He could have the same disorder--something like 1 in 10 African-American men do!--but the mutation occurs on the X chromosome, so it came from the donor egg, not from Sally.
|
|
|
Post by Neurochick on Dec 14, 2016 13:11:45 GMT -4
Two; this idea of "nasty women"... now- please understand I get that this happens. Women get pregnant and the man might not want the child but the woman says too bad. But- in that case it does still take two. If a man is dumb enough to have unprotected sex with a woman and then be pi$$ed that he has to pay for a resulting child- he's as much (more?) of an a$$hole. Yes, so many woman are secretly plotting to get pregnant, carry a baby to term for 9 months, have to raise child (clean shitty diapers, drag screaming kid places, have total and utter responsibility for another human creature- pay for said creature), all to trick a man. Yeah, I don't think this happens as much as deadbeat dads want us to believe. Now, this happened decades ago, but when I was in college, I knew a few women who felt that getting married was a way to get out of working (yeah, that does sound stupid). Now, I went to college near West Point, and some of my classmates started dating seniors and mysteriously got pregnant about a month before graduation and you betcha they got married right after he graduated, right there in Cadet Chapel. Now I don't know how many of those marriages lasted so there is that. Yes, Sherri should pay child support and being a con artist is a crime because I sat on a jury trial of one. A con artist is one who misrepresents themselves for financial gain. A gold digger might be after a man for money, but in a lot of those cases, everybody's on board with it. I think in Sherri's case, she really thought the man cared for her, and that's sad. As for Neecy Nash, what I think happened was she found Sherri a black man who didn't have any children, so no "baby mama drama" sadly, when it comes to black men of a certain age, that's a rarity. So Sherri probably thought she had it made in the shade.
|
|
dragonflie
Blueblood
Posts: 1,956
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Dec 14, 2016 13:32:15 GMT -4
I have always said Sherri should at least pay for this child to be supported, seeing as how she is rejecting any bond with the child. Abandoning the child mid-gestation is deplorable. But she went to court and already agreed to pay $50K a year, which is much more than Lamar is expected to provide as his half of child care. But she makes more money than him. Ultimately it's not about him though- it's about the child. If she has more money than she should pay more- that is how child support works. Lamar is providing the actual physical care; I see no issue at all with expecting her to pay more than him. The child is two. If Lamar works he will have to pay for someone to watch the child. 50k is nothing even if you go with the original number that she makes 1.5 million. That still leaves her with well over a million dollars/year. That actually makes me feel ill, that she would have a problem giving more money to her child when she has the means. Taking this to court indicates there is evidence she has more money- but even if she didn't I would be ok with him requesting more. Who cares if he is a jerk/con-man, whatever- he is raising the child (and Sherri picked him (AND picked him to have a baby with- she chose that)- that baby didn't). I'm also curious where this idea that he is a con-man comes from? From the earth is flat and humans walked around with dinosaurs Sherri? Is it because he didn't work? If so, does that make every single Hollywood wife, or wife of a wealthy millionaire, who chooses not to work because they don't need to, a con-man as well? Especially considering he is raising a child now... are stay at home moms who have wealthy husbands all con-women if their husbands leave them and they request money? If it is illegal- as stated above- well, Sherri has the ability to take him to court- in all the stuff I've read every judge has sided with Lamar. It's not as if he pretended to have a job for their 3 year marriage- then the baby came and he said: haha! Sucker!! Sherri was on Twitter praising him as a stay at home husband. If he is a con-man- he's the worst con-man ever. He had it made, no work, no baby, just stay at home and chill. Having the baby (which Sherri went on Twitter many times to say she wanted, was trying for, was hoping for- as well as on her show, etc) is no trick on his part. If anything it seems like she wanted it more (at least just as much). Now he has a baby to raise by himself, and wow- he is rolling in the dough- at 50K as a single dad- he must be totally living it up! :/ He sure tricked her, rolling around town in his Rolls Royce, feeding the baby caviar and buying mansions... well she tries to scrape by on her meagre 1.45 million now- how will she ever make it? I also wonder what/how Sherri's friends and pastor/congregation have to say. This is a disgusting (un-Christian) thing to do. How has someone of her religious ilk not had people say- hey woman- stop being such a selfish bitch. ... when I was in college, I knew a few women who felt that getting married was a way to get out of working (yeah, that does sound stupid). Now, I went to college near West Point, and some of my classmates started dating seniors and mysteriously got pregnant about a month before graduation and you betcha they got married right after he graduated, right there in Cadet Chapel. Now I don't know how many of those marriages lasted so there is that. Ummm... but how is that tricking the guy?? He has no personal responsibility in getting her/them pregnant?? These are exactly the cases I mean- men crying about getting "trapped/tricked" by an evil woman and her evil vagina that forced him to be a father. Sorry- but in those examples I find the men gross, not the women. So- they know they want to be stay at home moms and not work- what's wrong with that? Being a stay at home mom isn't exactly sitting at home eating ice cream 24/7 with a baby to raise... but, even if it is for these women- no one forced the guy(s) to have unprotected sex- and then marry them! Eww- sorry- those guys are gross (if they actually claim they were tricked/trapped I mean).
|
|
Carolina
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,358
Mar 19, 2005 3:03:24 GMT -4
|
Post by Carolina on Dec 14, 2016 15:30:11 GMT -4
Again, where are these $1.5M, $3m and $10M numbers coming from? The internet? Lamar Sally? Those don't seem like very reliable sources, IMHO. Looking at her IMDb page, I think it is far more likely that the $4100 a month that she is currently paying is based on her actual earnings. I suspect Lamar's just pissed that his plan isn't allowing him to live higher on the hog and is throwing crap at the wall to try to get more money out of Sherri. When they split up she was a panelist on The View and probably was earning that much but she isn't anymore and he's pissed.
Of course Sherri should pay whatever the court says this baby is entitled to according to her income. I just don't see any reason to believe that she isn't already doing that. It seems like it would be difficult for someone at Sherri's level to be earning $1.5 or $3M a year without being a regular on a network show and Sherri isn't. The jobbing gigs that she does just don't seem like they'd add up to that much money.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 14, 2016 15:55:49 GMT -4
I mentioned it upthread, but while they were married, the first thing Lamar did to make himself useful was take over Sherri's finances. Sherri had a business manager taking care of everything and when Lamar asked her how much money she made, she had no idea. So Lamar did her this big favor by taking everything away from the business manager and making himself responsible for paying all the bills. Great way for him to get to know her finances intimately when it came time to ask for child support.
Her finances have changed and are probably back in the hands of the business manager, but he still probably has an advantage knowing some of the ins and outs.
He's a golddigger, but she allowed him to be one. She knew he was unemployed when she married him and she agreed to be the breadwinner while he stayed home. She agreed to let him take over the household finances as part of his "house husband" duties. She agreed to have a baby with him via surrogate and pay for it. His end of the bargain was being her husband, which at one time she wouldn't stop bragging about like she landed some great prize.
|
|
Gigiree
Sloane Ranger
Procrastinators Unite. . . Tomorrow.
Posts: 2,548
Jul 23, 2010 10:27:31 GMT -4
|
Post by Gigiree on Dec 14, 2016 16:35:53 GMT -4
While I agree that both people who have sex are responsible to support any child resulting from the sex, that doesn't mean when a partner deliberately sabotages birth control through actual physical interference or through lying in order to trap another person into a lifelong responsibility it is justifiable or should be shrugged off with a "you play, you pay" attitude. That is downright controlling and abusive, regardless of the gender of the responsible party.
O/T: They both seem like absolutely retched, awful people. I feel badly for the child trapped in this situation.
|
|