He is. He doesn’t (anymore).
I am also not a family lawyer and really don’t know any better, but this is not what I was taught. It’s my understanding (and a quick Google/Wikipedia check backs this up) that accounting procedures are the exception rather than the rule. If you have a cite I’d love to see it, but maybe you’re in a state that follows the exception?
Lucky for him, good ol’ Google caches things- ya know, in case he wants to get in contact with that impostor/ alternate universe Scummy who: is also from his city in PA, has the same hobbies, has the same education background, has the same job, has the same physical ailments, is married to a foreigner from the same country, and has a bird with the same name! What are the freaking odds of that? I’m too fat to figure it out, but I’m sure it’s probably EXTREMELY unlikely.
Notice that his rage-filled rantings immediately stopped once he got called out on lying about something so stupid.
Morally I think he should, but why does the law only require it if he is separated/divorced from the mother of the child? Mom and Dad could leave the kid with a nanny while traveling the seven seas and the law doesn’t care. Why do divorced people need to come under the umbrella of the state?
Yes. All 30 grand per month went to housing, food, and clothing (according to the court) and if the man complains one bit, then that obviously means that he is trying to skip out on his obligation to care for his child. 
It is against the law not to provide for one’s child during marriage, too, you know.
It’s hard to feel sympathy for a man that can afford $30,000 a month in child support so excuse me while I try to muster up some tears because he has support his own child.
Right, but as has been pointed out in this thread, during marriage, “providing for one’s child” means basic food, shelter, clothing. Not a percentage of income.
Wow. I’m dizzy from all of that circular talk. Bottom line: It does not cost $30,000 per month to support a child. While there are more sympathetic figures out there, it still is not fair from a legal standpoint to make anyone pay that figure and call it “child support”. It is far in excess of what is required to support that child.
Like I asked our friend Scumpup earlier- exactly how much is appropriate then? And remember: a child of a celebrity may very well need security, to go to private school, etc.
But if one lives a lavish, wealthy lifestyle, why should one’s child be deprived of the same lifestyle, just because you and the mother are not together any more?
Having looked at that page, I have to say that he was wise to remove it, not because of his lying about not having a page and then removing it, but rather simply because of the way he looked on the photos on that site.
Scumpup: a misogynist, a liar, and hard on the eyes.
But hey,he’s not fat. He’s got that on me, I suppose.
Well I think normally people would be going after all her slutty outfits and plastic surgery to dehumanize her, but Mel pretty much covered all that.
Exactly. It’s a crazy amount, but exists in the same sphere as getting $25 million to do a movie,paying $14.5 million for a single home, or a $15 for a movie ticket.
Oh boo hoo. Poor, poor Mel. :rolleyes:
You know it isn’t about the money. Its about finding out the person you loved and thought loved you actually doesn’t love you, but instead took you for a chump and now she has her hooks into you legally for the next 18 years.
Really? You think he loved her?
Nobody make him stick his dick and her, and financial support is a right which belongs to the child, not the mother.
I don’t see why a man should even have to force to support his own kids. Shouldn’t they do it because they love them? Why do so many men act like their children are just shit on their shoe that they can’t get rid of?
Yeah, and the very first reply to this thread grunted that particular grunt, actually. I was going to be a good sport and not bring that up until I got an answer, though.
I think we’ve all been there, Dutchman. You love her with all your heart, you punch the shit out of her and bellow and hoot and demean her to show you how crrrraaazzzy she makes you, and is it enough? Is that enough? Fuck and no, it isn’t. She goes and consorts with the type of bitch who… I’m not sure. Makes eyes at you and would blow you in a second. What the fuck is that about? And then when you tell her you’ll put her in the rose garden because of something about a jacuzzi or something, and remind her that she knows you’re capable of it, what does that fucking tramp do? What does she do?
Eh. You’re thinking of it backward. Until the breadwinner runs out on the family, or terrorizes the mother of his children, or whatever, the state doesn’t get involved in his family’s lives - don’t abuse the kid and we don’t need to know. So sure, it’s possible to spend much less money on a kid if you’re actually, you know, there. Once pops skips town, suddenly the law is forced to get involved because some significant proportion of dads are deadbeats. So what’s the law supposed to say, welcome to the soup kitchen because it turns out the fuckface who sired you, kids, and who knocked you up, mom, is a fuckface? Remember, the law has to apply evenhandedly across the board. You come up with a mathematical formula that can be readily applied to thousands upon thousands of families with relatively little manpower to enforce it. Child support law’s not some kind of elaborate scheme cooked up in the back rooms by a secret misogynist conspiracy; it’s a necessary reaction to the epidemic of deadbeats creating problems and running from them.
You do realize the Mel has supported far more kids than you have, And even more than that indirectly through his philanthropy.
Not misandrist, not not misogynist. I mean, neither one.