TV star father has sole custody of child, but must still pay Child Support

1ArmyOfNone · 2010-05-10T16:51:18+00:00

I don't get this article either. It's simple. She doesn't have custody, so he shouldn't be legally obligated to pay her money to support a child she doesn't have to support. Her losing her house is irrelevant. Also, they don't attribute the quote to anybody, but saying that since he makes a half million a month that he's complaining about $8000 is ridiculous. Come to think of it, I could use 8 grand a month and since he makes half a million a month, why not just order him to give me 8 grand, too? I mean, he makes a half million? Why? Because that's a ridiculous reason to make somebody pay somebody else money, because they have a lot of it.

Then, the end of the article starts talking about Charlie Sheen's legal troubles for no reason. The article wasn't even about Sheen. This was terrible journalism all around. At no point were any good points made.

ashpatil · 2010-05-08T17:54:37+00:00

They don't explain why he has to pay child support, except so that his ex doesn't lose her house.

But his ex is married, can work for herself, and does not look after the child because she had previously abused the child, so I just don't understand.

Maybe its just an "only in California" thing.

Title	TV star father has sole custody of child, but must still pay Child Support
Author	ashpatil
Upvotes	11
Comments	2
Date	May 8, 2010 5:52 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c1iod/tv_star_father_has_sole_custody_of_child_but_must/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/tv-star-father-has-sole-custody-of-child-but-must.1049577 https://theredarchive.com/post/1049577

Comments