No wonder Arian Foster's back is tweaked

[JDM]

We get it. She's a horrible person. But Foster banged this horrible person for a year. She's a hustler, but he's a sucker. And I have no sympathy for suckers. He knew the risks (money, family) but he liked that thing she does with her tongue.

Is the system broken? For sure. But no more broken than Foster's judgement.

I just answered the question that was asked. He's an idiot. I haven't disputed this.

But it's disturbing to me that it is a very real possibility that 3-4 years down the road, as a single, happy, reasonably successful male, I could have sex with one female one time, have her poke a hole in the condom, and be completely fucked over for it. It doesn't just happen to married men cheating. It happens to single guys just trying to have a decent time too.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

I just answered the question that was asked. He's an idiot. I haven't disputed this.

But it's disturbing to me that it is a very real possibility that 3-4 years down the road, as a single, happy, reasonably successful male, I could have sex with one female one time, have her poke a hole in the condom, and be completely fucked over for it. It doesn't just happen to married men cheating. It happens to single guys just trying to have a decent time too.

Let the buyer beware.

 

[JDM]

Fuck that. Have a system that's not absurdly broken.

 

[Tacoma_canuck]

Well, for me honestly, I don't give a fuck about either of these people and I'm tired of seeing celebrities dirty laundry being aired out all over the place. This entire thread is a futile exercise in debating the screwed up system and the morality of two people none of us know.

Are there flaws?Of course there are but as much as I don't want some gold digger (not that I am accusing this women of that) to get rich by screwing a guy over, there are far more situations on the other side of the ledger. There are literally millions of deadbeat "baby-daddies" out there who skirt the system and do absolutely nothing for the kids they donate their sperm to. Having said that, as adults, both parties need to protect themselves or deal with the circumstances. All the pissing and moaning is a waste of time.

 

[JDM]

Well, for me honestly, I don't give a fuck about either of these people and I'm tired of seeing celebrities dirty laundry being aired out all over the place. This entire thread is a futile exercise in debating the screwed up system and the morality of two people none of us know.

Are there flaws?Of course there are but as much as I don't want some gold digger (not that I am accusing this women of that) to get rich by screwing a guy over, there are far more situations on the other side of the ledger. There are literally millions of deadbeat "baby-daddies" out there who skirt the system and do absolutely nothing for the kids they donate their sperm to. Having said that, as adults, both parties need to protect themselves or deal with the circumstances. All the pissing and moaning is a waste of time.

Abortion.

Seriously, if you can't provide for the kid, don't have it. It's that simple. And the religious opposition doesn't cut it. The same religion says sex out of marriage is bad.

 

[Tacoma_canuck]

Yes, JDM, abortion is an option but it is rarely just that simple. Many of those same "baby-daddies" promise the women, "don't worry, I'm there for you" and all the other shit only to turn tail and run at the sight of the first shit-filled diaper. Should the woman assume just as much responsibility? Yes. But it takes two to tango.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Again, the courts view it as ALL children produced by Foster are entitled to the same lifestyle - not just the ones he produced with his wife.

And they're right.

The kids he had with his wife will have a college fund, and the best schools and live in great neighborhoods, etc. Why shouldn't this other kid get the same? Foster HAS the money.

Why is it right?

America is full of blended families for a variety of reasons...even in higher income situations...the kids under the roof with the high income earner are going to have it better than kids he/she may have had in a previous marriage, out of wedlock but paying for, etc. It should be fair and adequate, but it's never going to be the same.

 

[molsaniceman]

Why is it right?

America is full of blended families for a variety of reasons...even in higher income situations...the kids under the roof with the high income earner are going to have it better than kids he/she may have had in a previous marriage, out of wedlock but paying for, etc. It should be fair and adequate, but it's never going to be the same.

Most states its a percentage of your earnings More you earn the more you pay In Ga its around 23%

 

[HizzleRocker]

What Midnightangel is saying is correct:

The Court has to look at it from the standard of: Best interests of the child.

The Court does not care if Foster meant to have one kid and not the other. The Court will not play favoritism. All of his kids deserve the same standard of living - whatever that may be.

Now, the new girl will not get alimony; She will not get suit money; She will not get another dime, in all likelihood, except for child support payments as close as possible to the amount he spends on his other kids.

There are arguments for and against this, I get it. But to tell the courts to purposefully treat some kids differently than other kids, so that future hoes may learn - is a bit ridiculous, imo. Child support is about the kids, not the parents.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Wait, an NFL skill player not being faithful?

Antonio Cromartie is laughing at this.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Fuck that. Have a system that's not absurdly broken.

If it is so broken, and the consequences are so over the top for the men, Then gee ...why do the men keep doing it??? Free will buddy ..Free will. (that and your bias against women because of what they did to you in the past)

 

[JDM]

Your assumptions are laughable and wrong. I'm telling you how badly it's broken because it's badly broken.

Why do people make bad decisions? Because people are stupid.

 

[Midnightangel]

Why is it right?

America is full of blended families for a variety of reasons...even in higher income situations...the kids under the roof with the high income earner are going to have it better than kids he/she may have had in a previous marriage, out of wedlock but paying for, etc. It should be fair and adequate, but it's never going to be the same.

Because it's what's in the best interest of the child.

It's not about the mom - which is what a LOT of men here are trying to make it sound like - it's about the child.

That child deserves the same standard of living as his other kids. It doesn't matter that said child was delivered by another woman. Foster chose to have a child - that's the way the law looks at it. He chose to get in bed and have sex with a woman without a condom, knowing that pregnancy could be the result.

Therefore that child should be treated just as his other children.

She'll get up to 30% of his income, which includes more than just his NFL money. It also includes any money he gets from advertising things or speaking engagements, etc. The judge should award her between 500 and a million a year in child support. Oh, and he's probably going to have to pay for prenatal care as well.

For 18 years.

That's between 9 and 18 million.

I'll ask again....wouldn't a condom have been cheaper?

I'll never understand what men have against them.

 

[JDM]

This idea that the kid is due the same standard of living is absurd too.

 

[NinerSickness]

The Court has to look at it from the standard of: Best interests of the child.]

In other words the court has to lie, like it always does, and say they're looking out for the child's best interest, but what they're really doing is trying to stick it to a rich guy because he's rich. They all are / were scum bag lawyers, and the more money & litigation issues that go through the courts the more the lawyers get paid. And 98% of them are liberals, so they use that power for wealth redistribution.

This is just like everything else they do. They hold up some supposed victim in order to take people's money & then proceed to use it for something that has little to no positive effect on that "victim;" their buddies are sure to get paid (lawyers), and bimbos who use their kids for a money grab get paid, but the kid's screwed because he never gets any of that money; and he has a useless, parasite of a mother & a douche bag father who thinks writing a check = raising a kid.

If all they really cared about was the best interest of the kid, they would put the money in a trust fund in his name where he could access it on his 18th to 25th birthday. But they don't. They're liars.

 

[HizzleRocker]

In other words the court has to lie, like it always does, and say they're looking out for the child's best interest, but what they're really doing is trying to stick it to a rich guy because he's rich. They all are / were scum bag lawyers, and the more money & litigation issues that go through the courts the more the lawyers get paid. And 98% of them are liberals, so they use that power for wealth redistribution.

This is just like everything else they do. They hold up some supposed victim in order to take people's money & then proceed to use it for something that has little to no positive effect on that "victim;" their buddies are sure to get paid (lawyers), and bimbos who use their kids for a money grab get paid, but the kid's screwed because he never gets any of that money; and he has a useless, parasite of a mother & a douche bag father who thinks writing a check = raising a kid.

If all they really cared about was the best interest of the kid, they would put the money in a trust fund in his name where he could access it on his 18th to 25th birthday. But they don't. They're liars.

I really mean no personal offense when I say this, but you have no idea what you are talking about. First, the great great great majority of judges are conservatives. Most of them are former prosecutors, and prosecutors are always on the side of Security over Liberty, i.e. Conservative.

Second, I've never known or heard of a judge who gives 2 flying fucks what another attorney not associated with him makes.

Third, a lawyer cannot take a percentage of child support payments. It is illegal. The lawyer in family court matters can charge a flat fee, or in most cases an hourly rate. That lawyer will get paid the same amount regardless of how much child support payments are ordered. If a lawyer took a % of child support payments he would lose his bar license.

 

[Midnightangel]

In other words the court has to lie, like it always does, and say they're looking out for the child's best interest, but what they're really doing is trying to stick it to a rich guy because he's rich. They all are / were scum bag lawyers, and the more money & litigation issues that go through the courts the more the lawyers get paid. And 98% of them are liberals, so they use that power for wealth redistribution.

This is just like everything else they do. They hold up some supposed victim in order to take people's money & then proceed to use it for something that has little to no positive effect on that "victim;" their buddies are sure to get paid (lawyers), and bimbos who use their kids for a money grab get paid, but the kid's screwed because he never gets any of that money; and he has a useless, parasite of a mother & a douche bag father who thinks writing a check = raising a kid.

If all they really cared about was the best interest of the kid, they would put the money in a trust fund in his name where he could access it on his 18th to 25th birthday. But they don't. They're liars.

No. Child support isn't just paid by rich men, it's paid by all men that father children out of wedlock. It's simply not right for you to go around putting your willie in everything with a skirt and then running away to leave the woman to raise the child on her own. Those that choose not to pay end up in jail. And from what I hear if you're in jail for not paying child support the other prisoners don't treat you to kindly.

I've seen men that work at McDonald's paying child support. Are you saying they were rich?

Putting the money in a trust fund?

How does that help the child now?

Can the woman defer all the expenses involved in raising a child till he's 18?!

Child support is supposed to offset the cost of raising a child. I take it you're not a parent.

Diapers, formula, medical bills (just delivering the child alone can run you 40K), clothes, daycare, etc and it all adds up FAST.

And daycare is HUGE. I've heard men here say she should have to keep her job. OK, then she has to pay for daycare. Someone has to watch the kid while she keeps her regular job - so that figure gets tacked on to child support. We can't just leave the kid at home alone.

In a relationship where you're married you have the other person's entire income to help with that but in a situation where the two aren't married, the mother is going to need help.

That's where child support comes in.

All Foster's children are entitled to the same level of life provided by their father, not just the ones birthed by the mother.

He should have used a condom.

 

[TexasMan]

She looks a lot like Jessica Simpson.

 

[Mondio]

child support is decided upon placement. If she's not a fit mother, he can get the majority of the placement and then SHE can pay child support. She doesn't have to get anything. I'm not denying things aren't skewed towards the woman, but it can be done. My brother just went thru all this garbage in a divorce. He is the full legal and custodial parent. She was ordered to pay him child support. She can make no legal decisions concerning their child. The deck was certainly stacked against him, but he fought it all the way.

 

[Mondio]

In other words the court has to lie, like it always does, and say they're looking out for the child's best interest, but what they're really doing is trying to stick it to a rich guy because he's rich. They all are / were scum bag lawyers, and the more money & litigation issues that go through the courts the more the lawyers get paid. And 98% of them are liberals, so they use that power for wealth redistribution.

This is just like everything else they do. They hold up some supposed victim in order to take people's money & then proceed to use it for something that has little to no positive effect on that "victim;" their buddies are sure to get paid (lawyers), and bimbos who use their kids for a money grab get paid, but the kid's screwed because he never gets any of that money; and he has a useless, parasite of a mother & a douche bag father who thinks writing a check = raising a kid.

If all they really cared about was the best interest of the kid, they would put the money in a trust fund in his name where he could access it on his 18th to 25th birthday. But they don't. They're liars.

I know you think you know, but you really don't know shit