Blake Griffin Ordered to Pay over $3,000,000 annually in child support to his ex-fiancee

[Shad]

Brynn Cameron is getting over 3 million dollars a year of free money just because he broke up with her. If she broke up with him, would the roles be reversed? Most likely not.

He agreed to the settlement. If he broke up with her it could be very well the same as part of the settlement was about children. Griffin does not have a career which lends itself to being a average Joe father. That is another issue with the case.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Brynn Cameron is getting over 3 million dollars a year of free money just because he broke up with her. If she broke up with him, would the roles be reversed? Most likely not.

It's not "free money", it's paying what society says is the comitment he made when they had a child together. If the roles were reversed, and he was the child's primary caregiver we would expect the same sort of thing for her. It's not about who broke up with whom. It's about who is the child's legal guardian.

 

[Shad]

It's not "free money", it's paying what society says is the comitment he made when they had a child together. If the roles were reversed, and he was the child's primary caregiver we would expect the same sort of thing for her. It's not about who broke up with whom. It's about who is the child's legal guardian.

Two children

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Two children

Even moreso, then. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Willamena]

Brynn Cameron is getting over 3 million dollars a year of free money just because he broke up with her. If she broke up with him, would the roles be reversed? Most likely not.

It's not a privilege of gender to be saddled with the kids.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Why should it be smaller? Again... S-H-A-R-I-N-G

Because clearly three million dollars will not be spent annually directly on providing for the child. There are only so many things that you can buy for one child. Everything the child could need or want would cost 5-10% of that, at most. But, at that price, it's not about sharing responsibility for the child, because I highly doubt even the wealthiest celebrities would spend 258K/month on one child. In all likelihood, the majority of the money will be used to fund a lavish lifestyle for his ex-fiancee, and potentially for her future partners.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It's not "free money", it's paying what society says is the comitment he made when they had a child together. If the roles were reversed, and he was the child's primary caregiver we would expect the same sort of thing for her. It's not about who broke up with whom. It's about who is the child's legal guardian.

And why should society expect that type of payment, for either gender? There is no reason that one needs over three million dollars annually to provide for a child. That's an absurdly high amount.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Because clearly three million dollars will not be spent annually directly on providing for the child. There are only so many things that you can buy for one child. Everything the child could need or want would cost 5-10% of that, at most. But, at that price, it's not about sharing responsibility for the child, because I highly doubt even the wealthiest celebrities would spend 258K/month on one child. In all likelihood, the majority of the money will be used to fund a lavish lifestyle for his ex-fiancee, and potentially for her future partners.

It's not JUST about buying material goods for the child, it's also about the commitment one has to the child.

It may even, if you like, have value as a deterence to others from entering into parenthood without proper commitment, although whether this was intentional on part of the judge or ultimately effective is debatable.

Still not really seeing the problem here. As a percentage of income, there's nothing unusual or excessive here.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And why should society expect that type of payment, for either gender? There is no reason that one needs over three million dollars annually to provide for a child. That's an absurdly high amount.

Stop fixating on the amount. It's about the percentage. It's about society's expectation of where your priorities and commitments should lie.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

As for funding her "lavish lifestyle" he made a defacto commitment to do so when they were in a relationship. Neither the amount involved, nor the fact they broke up changes this.

It bemuses me you seem to think the fact she's going to spend the money somehow negates her right to it. So it goes to support a "lavish lifestyle"? So what? Presumably it would go to the same cause if they were still together. This is just an honouring of commitment.

I think your actual issue may be with the obscene salary of professional athletes.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Stop fixating on the amount. It's about the percentage. It's about society's expectation of where your priorities and commitments should lie.

I guess that's where we differ in opinion. To me, child support should be about adequately providing for a child. Naturally, a less wealthy person will spend a greater percentage of his/her income on childcare. I'm not concerned about legally enforcing "priorities and committments" as long as the child is happy, healthy, and well-provided for. Of course being a deadbeat parent who abandons his fiancee for another woman is not good, but I don't think it's society's responsibility to try to enforce personal, moral expectations. I also think that it's possible that if he had committed a minor crime or misdemeanor, he would be paying a significantly lower amount of money.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I guess that's where we differ in opinion. To me, child support should be about adequately providing for a child. Naturally, a less wealthy person will spend a greater percentage of his/her income on childcare. I'm not concerned about legally enforcing "priorities and committments" as long as the child is happy, healthy, and well-provided for. Of course being a deadbeat parent who abandons his fiancee for another woman is not good, but I don't think it's society's responsibility to try to enforce personal, moral expectations. I also think that it's possible that if he had committed a minor crime or misdemeanor, he would be paying a significantly lower amount of money.

I don't follow any of your logic here.

True, alimony and family payments have an element of old fashioned restitution for being a "tainted woman" about them, and as discussed, we can argue that the pendulum may have over corrected, if you like. However, I still just see this as a simple percentage issue. If I broke up with my wife, paying 10 percent of my income for child support seems reasonable, if not a little light. If i suddenly started making millions of dollars a year, I wouldn't expect the percentage to change. If I were making millions of dollars and broke up with my wife, then suddenly had a massive pay cut, I wouldn't expect the percentage to change. I'm not seeing the problem here.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ultimately, one could argue that if you don't want to pay child support, don't have kids.

 

[Woberts]

And why should society expect that type of payment, for either gender? There is no reason that one needs over three million dollars annually to provide for a child. That's an absurdly high amount.

What, so rich people should be allowed to abandon their kids without repercussions?