KidaDynamite said:

Ottensen said:

The thing is, Gabe is not broke, and he isn't even poor. That mofo is still working and makes a pretty penny doing it. This is just all kindsa nutty

Well, his 'pretending to be broke' ass needs to stop it!

That's even worse. It makes him look trifling as hell.

IF it were reversed ywould you be advocating Halle take him for everything?

SUPRMAN said:

KidaDynamite said:

Well, his 'pretending to be broke' ass needs to stop it!

That's even worse. It makes him look trifling as hell.

IF it were reversed ywould you be advocating Halle take him for everything?

No. She has her own money as well. I feel no one should have to give anyone anything. To me it makes the person seem as if they had a motive from the beginning and never truly loved the person they are getting money out of.

Why do people always feel like 'every' female is backing up females who take men for their money?!

[Edited 6/21/12 19:40pm]

KidaDynamite said:

Neophyte said:

Dang Halle, ensuring your kid has 'good' hair don't come cheap!

[Edited 6/21/12 10:30am]

Oh lawd!

It's so true though

KidaDynamite said:

SUPRMAN said:

IF it were reversed ywould you be advocating Halle take him for everything?

No. She has her own money as well. I feel no one should have to give anyone anything. To me it makes the person seem as if they had a motive from the beginning and never truly loved the person they are getting money out of.

Why do people always feel like 'every' female is backing up females who take men for their money?!

[Edited 6/21/12 19:40pm]

Both Halle and Gabriel used each other to be honest, I doubt either one "loved" each other. I'm having a hard time believing that now. Something went wrong in the deal they probably had...

[Edited 6/22/12 13:21pm]

Damn this all seems like a hot mess. All I hope for is that Nahla doesn't come out with a "Mommy Dearest" book years from now which could turn into a movie deal.

XxAxX said:

scriptgirl said:

via Black thespian

Oh Lawd, we know Halle Berry has gottabe fightin mad right now because a judgejust ordered the actress to fork over nearly a quarter of a million bucks a year inchild support to her ex-boo thangGabriel Aubrey.

Attorneys for Ms. Berry and Aubrey were incourt Monday where the family law judgeordered Halle to pay Nahla’s father $20,000 a month.

According to TMZ, although Nahla is 4, until Monday there was never a child supportorder issued by a judge, but there is one now!

i don't see why this isn't fair. maybe i'm missing something but men have to pay women for that too, in a divorce settlement. it's only weird because the gender roles are reversed.

[Edited 6/20/12 16:39pm]

It's not about whether the man is paying the woman or vice versa - it's about the child. Child support aims to ensure that the child's standard of living does NOT automatically go down to the level of the lesser-earning spouse. Child support aims to keep the child's standard of living as similar to what it was prior to divorce.

For example, if a child was attending a $20,000 private school, the child should continue to be able to attend a similar level private school, so the child support judgment will factor that in. It's not fair to the child that just because the parents are divorced, and one parent cannot afford that, the other parent does not pay for that school.

Even if Nahla is primarily in Halle's custody, and Halle is paying for her school and she lives in Halle's house, the court still wants to ensure that during the time when Nahla is in father's custody, she is enjoying a similar standard of living - so she can't go from a wonderful bedroom in a mansion with a pool, to spending weekends in a studio apartment with cockroaches, and riding around in a rickety VW bug, eating PBJ sandwiches. That's why the child support is high - it's about the CHILD. Now if the man pockets some of the money for himself on something that does not benefit the child at all, that's on him. And that's where the problem usually lies.

...

[Edited 6/25/12 3:04am]

Having a child is COSTLY. Should've thought of that before they decided to have one. Gabriel's got a comfortable place so he ain't got to worry about living in a bungalow. Being a model, you can get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just for WAKING UP!

[Edited 6/25/12 12:37pm]

artist76 said:

XxAxX said:

i don't see why this isn't fair. maybe i'm missing something but men have to pay women for that too, in a divorce settlement. it's only weird because the gender roles are reversed.

[Edited 6/20/12 16:39pm]

It's not about whether the man is paying the woman or vice versa - it's about the child. Child support aims to ensure that the child's standard of living does NOT automatically go down to the level of the lesser-earning spouse. Child support aims to keep the child's standard of living as similar to what it was prior to divorce.

For example, if a child was attending a $20,000 private school, the child should continue to be able to attend a similar level private school, so the child support judgment will factor that in. It's not fair to the child that just because the parents are divorced, and one parent cannot afford that, the other parent does not pay for that school.

Even if Nahla is primarily in Halle's custody, and Halle is paying for her school and she lives in Halle's house, the court still wants to ensure that during the time when Nahla is in father's custody, she is enjoying a similar standard of living - so she can't go from a wonderful bedroom in a mansion with a pool, to spending weekends in a studio apartment with cockroaches, and riding around in a rickety VW bug, eating PBJ sandwiches. That's why the child support is high - it's about the CHILD. Now if the man pockets some of the money for himself on something that does not benefit the child at all, that's on him. And that's where the problem usually lies.

Seriously? You thing Gabriel's got roaches and drives a rickety VW bug?

I think it's cause she tried to slander his name which probably would have or has done damage to his career.

morningsong said:

artist76 said:

It's not about whether the man is paying the woman or vice versa - it's about the child. Child support aims to ensure that the child's standard of living does NOT automatically go down to the level of the lesser-earning spouse. Child support aims to keep the child's standard of living as similar to what it was prior to divorce.

For example, if a child was attending a $20,000 private school, the child should continue to be able to attend a similar level private school, so the child support judgment will factor that in. It's not fair to the child that just because the parents are divorced, and one parent cannot afford that, the other parent does not pay for that school.

Even if Nahla is primarily in Halle's custody, and Halle is paying for her school and she lives in Halle's house, the court still wants to ensure that during the time when Nahla is in father's custody, she is enjoying a similar standard of living - so she can't go from a wonderful bedroom in a mansion with a pool, to spending weekends in a studio apartment with cockroaches, and riding around in a rickety VW bug, eating PBJ sandwiches. That's why the child support is high - it's about the CHILD. Now if the man pockets some of the money for himself on something that does not benefit the child at all, that's on him. And that's where the problem usually lies.

Seriously? You thing Gabriel's got roaches and drives a rickety VW bug?

I think it's cause she tried to slander his name which probably would have or has done damage to his career.

Which is why I knew it would go down this way. Calling someone a racist just based on hearsay is not gonna get you in favor with courts like it would with public opinion.

Timmy84 said:

morningsong said:

Seriously? You thing Gabriel's got roaches and drives a rickety VW bug?

I think it's cause she tried to slander his name which probably would have or has done damage to his career.

Which is why I knew it would go down this way. Calling someone a racist just based on hearsay is not gonna get you in favor with courts like it would with public opinion.

Huh??

I have no idea what either of you are talking about b/c I don't know anything about Halle and this Gabriel guy. Zilch. Nada.

I worked for a Beverly Hills divorce attorney before I went to law school, so I was just giving some legal perspective on what child support is about, and giving a hypothetical scenario.

It's about making sure the child has a similar level of comfort at both parents' homes. $20,000 per month really isn't that outrageous - my divorce attorney dealt with such sums all the time with his clients.

Anyway, I see this thread is more about personal opinions and gossip, so it probably doesn't matter for me to go into details about how courts determine child support amounts, but it's not willy-nilly. There's accounting and evidence involved - but ultimately it's about the comfort of the child. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, it's fair, because you don't want the child to favor the richer parent just because it's nicer to stay with the richer parent - that's not in the best psychological interest of the child.

The problem often occurs when one parent gave the other a large chunk of $ for child support, and then accused that parent of using the $ for him/herself, not the child. It was often hard to "prove" this.

^ But the child was already comfortable. I'm guessing the decision was to not make the girl have to choose. It seems like the child wanted to be around both parents. Gabriel's already living comfortably.

artist76 said:

Timmy84 said:

Which is why I knew it would go down this way. Calling someone a racist just based on hearsay is not gonna get you in favor with courts like it would with public opinion.

Huh??

I have no idea what either of you are talking about b/c I don't know anything about Halle and this Gabriel guy. Zilch. Nada.

I worked for a Beverly Hills divorce attorney before I went to law school, so I was just giving some legal perspective on what child support is about, and giving a hypothetical scenario.

It's about making sure the child has a similar level of comfort at both parents' homes. $20,000 per month really isn't that outrageous - my divorce attorney dealt with such sums all the time with his clients.

Anyway, I see this thread is more about personal opinions and gossip, so it probably doesn't matter for me to go into details about how courts determine child support amounts, but it's not willy-nilly. There's accounting and evidence involved - but ultimately it's about the comfort of the child. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, it's fair, because you don't want the child to favor the richer parent just because it's nicer to stay with the richer parent - that's not in the best psychological interest of the child.

The problem often occurs when one parent gave the other a large chunk of $ for child support, and then accused that parent of using the $ for him/herself, not the child. It was often hard to "prove" this.

Ah ok, that explains it. I don't think anyone was expressing upset over a woman paying child support in general. Just this particular situation, both are high profile though Halle is higher profile, both a quite financially stable. Personally, I could careless about the gender of who taken care of who and who has to pay who, just take care of the child.

morningsong said:

artist76 said:

Huh??

I have no idea what either of you are talking about b/c I don't know anything about Halle and this Gabriel guy. Zilch. Nada.

I worked for a Beverly Hills divorce attorney before I went to law school, so I was just giving some legal perspective on what child support is about, and giving a hypothetical scenario.

It's about making sure the child has a similar level of comfort at both parents' homes. $20,000 per month really isn't that outrageous - my divorce attorney dealt with such sums all the time with his clients.

Anyway, I see this thread is more about personal opinions and gossip, so it probably doesn't matter for me to go into details about how courts determine child support amounts, but it's not willy-nilly. There's accounting and evidence involved - but ultimately it's about the comfort of the child. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, it's fair, because you don't want the child to favor the richer parent just because it's nicer to stay with the richer parent - that's not in the best psychological interest of the child.

The problem often occurs when one parent gave the other a large chunk of $ for child support, and then accused that parent of using the $ for him/herself, not the child. It was often hard to "prove" this.

Ah ok, that explains it. I don't think anyone was expressing upset over a woman paying child support in general. Just this particular situation, both are high profile though Halle is higher profile, both a quite financially stable. Personally, I could careless about the gender of who taken care of who and who has to pay who, just take care of the child.

Bottom line.

morningsong said:

artist76 said:

Huh??

I have no idea what either of you are talking about b/c I don't know anything about Halle and this Gabriel guy. Zilch. Nada.

I worked for a Beverly Hills divorce attorney before I went to law school, so I was just giving some legal perspective on what child support is about, and giving a hypothetical scenario.

It's about making sure the child has a similar level of comfort at both parents' homes. $20,000 per month really isn't that outrageous - my divorce attorney dealt with such sums all the time with his clients.

Anyway, I see this thread is more about personal opinions and gossip, so it probably doesn't matter for me to go into details about how courts determine child support amounts, but it's not willy-nilly. There's accounting and evidence involved - but ultimately it's about the comfort of the child. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, it's fair, because you don't want the child to favor the richer parent just because it's nicer to stay with the richer parent - that's not in the best psychological interest of the child.

The problem often occurs when one parent gave the other a large chunk of $ for child support, and then accused that parent of using the $ for him/herself, not the child. It was often hard to "prove" this.

Ah ok, that explains it. I don't think anyone was expressing upset over a woman paying child support in general. Just this particular situation, both are high profile though Halle is higher profile, both a quite financially stable. Personally, I could careless about the gender of who taken care of who and who has to pay who, just take care of the child.