|
Post by Neurochick on Dec 14, 2016 16:45:06 GMT -4
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). Well, that's why many of those marriages didn't last, but here's the thing, it's still fraud. If I say I'm on the Pill and I'm NOT, that's lying and IMO that's abusive. It's just as abusive as a man sticking pins in a condom so his gf will get pregnant. My late friend's husband did that to her. HE wanted a baby (even though he had kids he couldn't take care of) but she didn't. She didn't get pregnant and told him that if she did she would have had an abortion because she didn't want a child. Back to Sherri. Someone once said that child support is supposed to be just that, support for the child and that's the reason she should pay. I believe her ex was a gold digger but now there's a child that needs to be taken care of. I also think that Sherri wanted a house-husband because she wanted someone to take care of Jeffery full time.
|
|
dragonflie
Blueblood
Posts: 1,953
Mar 14, 2005 2:10:14 GMT -4
|
Post by dragonflie on Dec 14, 2016 20:35:07 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. I agree totally- except for this; is this a case of anyone being tricked? (Sherri/Lamar) regarding pregnancy- no. Now, in the other cases I question the story- only because I have seen first hand how often men just assume the woman is on the pill- don't double check- don't take any personal responsibility themselves to ensure no baby. The onus is on the woman, almost always. Now- if a woman did say she was on the pill (before they had sex- I can't count the # of times girls have told me the guy asked after!)and that was a lie I totally agree that that is a manipulation, and utterly gross and wrong. The thing is- men need to start taking responsibility too- the pill does sometimes just not work. I also can't tell you the # of times (I work with low income groups- teens in particular)a guy has told me : "I thought she was on the pill/she told me she was!" the girl says this is not true... then, after conversation it does come out that the guy just assumed. Topic: Sherri's figure of 1.5 million came from her own papers/divorce. Her pre-nup actually stipulated her worth at 10 million- I believe. I also read Lamar first asked for child support from the surrogate- that may seem sleazy, but if he didn't know what to do as a single dad... sure doesn't seem like he is trying to get Sherri's money (until he was told that SHE was the bio mom according to the law).
|
|
Nysha
Blueblood
Posts: 1,029
Jul 7, 2007 2:19:58 GMT -4
|
Post by Nysha on Dec 15, 2016 0:08:56 GMT -4
I thought the state of California went after the surrogate when Lamar signed up for state assistance because Sherri wouldn't allow her name to be on the birth certificate, so the surrogate's name ended up on it.
This isn't a case where someone lied about birth control or poked holes in a condom, both parents agreed to this pregnancy. He's not a puppy that Sherry agreed to purchase and changed her mind about, he's a child who has a right to the same standard of life as Sherry's other son.
|
|
|
Post by MrsOldManBalls on Dec 15, 2016 9:39:13 GMT -4
He's not a puppy that Sherry agreed to purchase and changed her mind about, he's a child who has a right to the same standard of life as Sherry's other son. What is her other son's quality of life like? Who takes care of his needs?
|
|
DaisyNukem
Landed Gentry
Posts: 542
Mar 15, 2005 14:00:21 GMT -4
|
Post by DaisyNukem on Dec 15, 2016 9:53:44 GMT -4
I'm way too familiar with this scenario from my own life. The way it works where I live is that child support agreements have a clause where both parents must provide their income tax returns every year. If someone's financial situation has changed, then the order of support is amended to reflect the latest salary. Part of the unfairness of it (although I don't really think it's unfair) is that this year's child support is based on last year's income. So, if Sherri's earnings have gone down, that would be reflected in the next year's child support.
To me, what it comes down to is this. That child did not ask to be born. Sherri willingly went to above average amounts of trouble to have a baby. Even if the baby was the result of a drunken one-night stand, both parents are responsible for the child's care. Sherri has chosen the tactic of pretending that the child doesn't exist, which is it's own kind of terrible. But she still has to pay. Sucks to be you, Sherri, but maybe be smarter next time.
|
|
|
Post by Neurochick on Dec 16, 2016 16:24:24 GMT -4
To me, what it comes down to is this. That child did not ask to be born. Sherri willingly went to above average amounts of trouble to have a baby. Even if the baby was the result of a drunken one-night stand, both parents are responsible for the child's care. Sherri has chosen the tactic of pretending that the child doesn't exist, which is it's own kind of terrible. But she still has to pay. Sucks to be you, Sherri, but maybe be smarter next time. It may not be fair to Sherri but as someone pointed out to me, "child support" is just that, support for the CHILD (even though sometimes the parent uses the $$ for themselves but I don't think that's most cases) This same person said to me, "think about what the world would look like if child support didn't exist."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 27, 2024 9:52:49 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 8:39:43 GMT -4
Well, Well...Looks like Lamar Salley got blocked in California, which will punt this case back to New jersey where the amount of support he gets will most likely be reduced. Shouldn't have been greedy, dude.
|
|