[S-Dubb]

Quote

The 28-year-old wide receiver from Belle Glade barely entered the first year of a five-year deal with the New York Jets — and already, a local woman had her paternity suit against Holmes re-opened, according to county court records.
– Click here to read the filing
Nicole King , 26, says she should get more money because Holmes is becoming much richer!
True dat! The MVP of Super Bowl XLIII, who was with the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time, signed with the Gang Green for $50 million. So, King cited a “substantial change of circumstances” as the reason she filed.
The Glades Central Community High School alumni and King signed an agreement in 2008 that paid King $4,000-a-month.
Their son, Santonio III, is nine.
Adam Swickle , Holmes’ Fort Lauderdale-based attorney, declined comment. King’s lawyer didn’t respond to requests for comment.

[MoMilk1991]

Because $4,000 a month for getting knocked up isn't enough?

[Displacednewyorker]

This is ridiculous. Women have it made. AFTER child support has been set, and the male is making his payments on time, then get's a raise and plans to bank the little extra income, said women wants that raise now. Where does it stop? You know that these players are also spending a lot of non mandatory monies on these children as well, ok, at least I hope they are.

We all know that the money isn't being spent on the child as it is intended for. Most of it is on materialistic wants of the babies mama. If you can't make $4k work per month, then there is a problem with the mom. The courts need to see that, but they don't.

I am going through this as well, granted not on the large scale as these ball players but still. It is shocking to me how the courts just keep pampering these women. No wonder none of them ever want to work.

I am an hourly worker, and the courts take overtime into consideration as well in my case. They average it out every 6 months. For every raise I have received since my daughter was born(12yrs), I have not seen it. The mother automatically gets her support payments raised every time I get one. I just denied, yes, denied a raise back in January just because of this fact.

I feel for these players. SMGDH...............

[S-Dubb]

MoMilk1991, on 28 March 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Because $4,000 a month for getting knocked up isn't enough?

The laws make zero sense.

[SecondHandJets]

There needs to be a cap on child support.

[wichitacommish]

Santonio III , thats awesome. At least its easier to remember than Antonio's 5th 3 year old.

[S-Dubb]

SecondHandJets, on 28 March 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

There needs to be a cap on child support.

^this?

This has gotta be the most off-wack,off base, dumb, no sense law out there.

If I'm a millionarie should the kid and mom be millionaires as well? c'mon man. On 4,000 a month plus her income isn't enough for her and 1 child? come the f*ck on bro.

It's not even like they were married. He just busted a nut in her and now she's entitled? I'd be mad at my dick.

[S-Dubb]

wichitacommish, on 28 March 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Santonio III , thats awesome. At least its easier to remember than Antonio's 5th 3 year old.

Yea that's Santonio 1, that's Santonio II, this here is Santonio III. Yea much easier. lol

[Jetsman05]

... you guys are wild

[JSOTF]

S-Dubb, on 28 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

^this?

This has gotta be the most off-wack,off base, dumb, no sense law out there.

If I'm a millionarie should the kid and mom be millionaires as well? c'mon man. On 4,000 a month plus her income isn't enough for her and 1 child? come the f*ck on bro.

It's not even like they were married. He just busted a nut in her and now she's entitled? I'd be mad at my dick.

LMAO! Great response!!!!


I think this is messed up too, when have you ever heard of a woman paying her husband child support....Let alone, getting $4,000 a month...

[Jetsfan115]

JSOTF, on 02 April 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

LMAO! Great response!!!!


I think this is messed up too, when have you ever heard of a woman paying her husband child support....Let alone, getting $4,000 a month...

remember mark gastinue quit football so he wouldn't have to pay so much in child support? always the jets luck huh?

[Mr_Jet]

I see both sides of this issue. Not all women who get child support are gold diggers and not all men who pay child support are dead beats. This is one of those issues where a few bad apples have ruined the bunch. Punishing the actual dead beats can end up hurting the honest hard working guys.

I've thought for years they should run the child support system like they do WIC. Instead of a father's income going directly onto a debit card for the mother to spend as she sees fit. There should be a list of items that the child support debit card would pay for. For example things like baby bottles, diapers, bibs, cribs, strollers, etc. Things only the baby could use. Products from companies like Johnson & Johnson and Gerbur would be on the list since they primarily make products that only a child could use. For older children the money from the card would be used to buy things the child would use daily in the household and for school. Shampoo, soap (body, dish, laundry), toothpaste, school supplies, etc. Along with buying clothing for the child may want or need. So products from companies like Nike for example could be on the list of approved items that can be bought with child support money. The only problem I could see from that is children would know what items were on that list and those items would be known as "child support clothes" or "child support outfits" and the children receiving child support could be subject to teasing and bullying from their peers. But a system like this would be a way of making sure the money the father was paying was primarily going to take care of the needs of the child.

But since there are more women than men that also means there are more women voters then men voters, so something like this will never happen.

[arizonaJETSfan]

you know what...I wouldnt mind the $$$ as much if she had to show an ITEMIZED work sheet of EVERY PENNY spent on care & custody of the child. I have been on both ends of the spectrum of support.

X 1= 1 child=$100 per week
X 2=2 children =$70 per week

X1 got 0 cents over what was ORDERED cause she was a money hungry BITCH
X2 got ANYTHING my sons needed cause she ALWAYS used it for my sons & never griped even though X2 KNEW X1 was getting more for 1 (& STILL bitching) than she was for 2.

Still, shyt is OUTTA control the way these hood rats are. Have a child & dont need a job...of course the man will have to pay. Not like we can MAKE em abort or keep a child no matter what WE as the other 1/2 of the baby creation party want.

[Smedsthejet]

Mr_Jet, on 02 April 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

I see both sides of this issue. Not all women who get child support are gold diggers and not all men who pay child support are dead beats. This is one of those issues where a few bad apples have ruined the bunch. Punishing the actual dead beats can end up hurting the honest hard working guys.

I've thought for years they should run the child support system like they do WIC. Instead of a father's income going directly onto a debit card for the mother to spend as she sees fit. There should be a list of items that the child support debit card would pay for. For example things like baby bottles, diapers, bibs, cribs, strollers, etc. Things only the baby could use. Products from companies like Johnson & Johnson and Gerbur would be on the list since they primarily make products that only a child could use. For older children the money from the card would be used to buy things the child would use daily in the household and for school. Shampoo, soap (body, dish, laundry), toothpaste, school supplies, etc. Along with buying clothing for the child may want or need. So products from companies like Nike for example could be on the list of approved items that can be bought with child support money. The only problem I could see from that is children would know what items were on that list and those items would be known as "child support clothes" or "child support outfits" and the children receiving child support could be subject to teasing and bullying from their peers. But a system like this would be a way of making sure the money the father was paying was primarily going to take care of the needs of the child.

But since there are more women than men that also means there are more women voters then men voters, so something like this will never happen.

Sounds sensible, though it would doubtless prove controversial if that money could only be used to buy products made by certain companies.

Going off topic a bit, WIC sounds as though it is a voucher based benefit. Are most state benefit programmes like that in the US, or do recipients have the freedom to spend the money they receive on what they want?

[Jetsfan115]

arizonaJETSfan, on 02 April 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

you know what...I wouldnt mind the $$$ as much if she had to show an ITEMIZED work sheet of EVERY PENNY spent on care & custody of the child. I have been on both ends of the spectrum of support.

X 1= 1 child=$100 per week
X 2=2 children =$70 per week

X1 got 0 cents over what was ORDERED cause she was a money hungry BITCH
X2 got ANYTHING my sons needed cause she ALWAYS used it for my sons & never griped even though X2 KNEW X1 was getting more for 1 (& STILL bitching) than she was for 2.

Still, shyt is OUTTA control the way these hood rats are. Have a child & dont need a job...of course the man will have to pay. Not like we can MAKE em abort or keep a child no matter what WE as the other 1/2 of the baby creation party want.

or use a condom and you have a 99% chance to not be in that situation.

[SokeSleezy]

Smedsthejet, on 04 April 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Sounds sensible, though it would doubtless prove controversial if that money could only be used to buy products made by certain companies.

Going off topic a bit, WIC sounds as though it is a voucher based benefit. Are most state benefit programmes like that in the US, or do recipients have the freedom to spend the money they receive on what they want?

it is voucher based...u get like a coupon type book that u use to buy groceries n stuff...

[Mr_Jet]

Smedsthejet, on 04 April 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Sounds sensible, though it would doubtless prove controversial if that money could only be used to buy products made by certain companies.

Going off topic a bit, WIC sounds as though it is a voucher based benefit. Are most state benefit programmes like that in the US, or do recipients have the freedom to spend the money they receive on what they want?

Like Soke said it's a voucher system for poor pregnant women and women with young children to get food and other things to promote better health for poor women and their children. There is a list of items that WIC will pay for and only from that list. They're only allowed to buy certain types of food at certain times. There is a limit to the amounts of certain foods they can buy with WIC each month. For example like they could only get four 13 ounce boxes of Corn Flakes. They couldn't get the 10 oz box or the 15 oz box, they have to get the 13 oz box. But that's basically what it is. The only gov't benefit that Americans (the poor ones that is) can get and spend any way they want is unemployment insurance and social security.

[SecondHandJets]

nah that's all bullshit. There needs to be a ceiling. Either that, or a court assigned CC with a bill that goes to the father. The bill is itemized as it is, so if there's a $400 purchase at Victoria Secrets, he can dispute that.

[Mr_Jet]

SecondHandJets, on 04 April 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

nah that's all bullshit. There needs to be a ceiling. Either that, or a court assigned CC with a bill that goes to the father. The bill is itemized as it is, so if there's a $400 purchase at Victoria Secrets, he can dispute that.

Maybe you're right. It would make more sense for a father to go after his money AFTER it's been spent inappropriately rather than prevent it from being spent inappropriately to begin with. That father would get his $400 back in no time because we all know how quick and efficient our judicial system is.

[Smedsthejet]

Mr_Jet, on 05 April 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:

Like Soke said it's a voucher system for poor pregnant women and women with young children to get food and other things to promote better health for poor women and their children. There is a list of items that WIC will pay for and only from that list. They're only allowed to buy certain types of food at certain times. There is a limit to the amounts of certain foods they can buy with WIC each month. For example like they could only get four 13 ounce boxes of Corn Flakes. They couldn't get the 10 oz box or the 15 oz box, they have to get the 13 oz box. But that's basically what it is. The only gov't benefit that Americans (the poor ones that is) can get and spend any way they want is unemployment insurance and social security.

Seems pretty draconian that they even prescribe what size boxes of foodstuffs they can buy with it. But it seems as though there are good intentions behind the programme if it is looking to promote better health as generally the cheapest food available is the unhealthiest, processed food. Some more freedom for its recipients sounds as though it would be beneficial. I can't think of any equivalent for such a programme in Britain. And with the economic downturn there are growing stories of families going without meals one night a week to get by and schools cutting down the size of school dinners, which is ridiculous.