California: Toni Anderson Litigates 50-year-old claim for child support; "I was panicked all these years. Now, it's his turn."

jamocadyn · 2019-03-29T20:53:13+00:00

This guy is probably in his 70s or older...I'd shoot the witch and take the jail time....it's kind of like a retirement home anyway...

DangZagnut · 2019-03-29T19:57:55+00:00

So she was able to support her child without child support. Interesting. So I guess she didn't really need it after all.

The article spins it as "only $150 a month".

Yeah lady, in 1969 that was $1,026.32 a month adjusted for inflation.

lostapwbm · 2019-03-29T19:10:09+00:00

If anyone asks you why you don't want to be married, remind them that there is no statute of limitations on child support in certain states and a 'handshake' agreement means nothing to the Family Court.

A California woman finally won her fight to get child support from her ex-husband nearly 50 years after they divorced.

Toni Anderson, 74, says her ex-husband chose to go to Canada rather than pay child support in the early 70s, leaving her alone with their 3-year-old daughter at the time.

She supported her daughter while working as an interior designer in Los Angeles at a firm her daughter now runs. Anderson says she rents part of her home, and now that she is retired, money is tight.

Anderson says it then dawned on her that there's no statute of limitations on child support.

So after 50 years of asspats for being a 'strong, independent single mother who don't need no man', she's 70, her money's not right, despite being a 'career woman' she decides to use her ex as an insurance policy to be cashed in, a rainy day fund.

This is why some men voluntarily put themselves on child support, specifically so that they have a paper trail with the state and a woman can't come after them 50 years after the fact. And some times it is the smartest move to make. The court doesn't give a shit that you gave your ex $1000/month in an envelope outside of the Walmart. If it didn't go through the Court/Family Services, it doesn't count and you can be dragged into court, up to 50 years later, on a child support claim.

After notifying her ex-husband she wanted him to pay up, she realized what he owed was more than $170,000.

"He was only supposed to give me, like, $160 a month. Well, that was 50 years ago. That today is a lot more money," Anderson said.

His version:

Lenhart didn't pay child support all these years, believing he and his wife had made an out-of-court, handshake agreement back in 1970 that absolved him of making any payments, the man's attorney said Wednesday.

Remember kids: The handshake agreement doesn't mean shit unless the family court recognizes the agreement. Family Court is not the place for kindess, or tenderness, or mercy.

Save that shit for somewhere civilized, like the criminal court.

She says she wants to spread the word to other single parents in California, saying you can still collect.

"I think he's a little bit panicked," said Anderson of her husband's reaction to her pursuit. "And I'm very happy because I was panicked all these years. Now, it's his turn."

The gentler sex.

She can nurse a 50-year grudge because she didn't hurt you enough, and when she sees an opportunity, she wants to see you 'panic' and suffer and hurt.

RickSanchezH1664 · 2019-03-29T22:38:16+00:00

Say what you want but this just led me to find out that I can sue my POS mom who abandoned me and my sister. Not that I want to or need to, but she feels the need to try and fuck with us every now and then. Now I’ll just have my lawyer send her a letter.

Title	California: Toni Anderson Litigates 50-year-old claim for child support; "I was panicked all these years. Now, it's his turn."
Author	lostapwbm
Upvotes	2
Comments	4
Date	March 29, 2019 6:52 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/b714nl/california_toni_anderson_litigates_50yearold/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/california-toni-anderson-litigates-50-year-old.490393 https://theredarchive.com/post/490393

Comments