http://www.suntimes.com/output/show/kid05.html
"MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich.--Musician Kid Rock has asked a judge to compel
his ex-girlfriend to pay the $25 per week she owes in child support
and take their child to tutoring."
What tha'???
Ginny
RED57 at AOL dot COM - remove "me too" to email
--
Moderator and Big Chief Bulls-eye, ascm
"Less means something is missing. Free means freedom."
Need help? Email ascmhlp AT yahoogroups DOT com
We got one of those at work. He's set aside an account for his son's
college but if his son doesn't go to college, he's going to take it back
and his son will be on his own. The guy isn't hurting for money - he's
got over 100,000 shares of company stock (this is a Dow 30 company).
Quote from the article:
Last year, Russell was ordered to pay a token $25 a week in child
support to the millionaire. Ritchie's lawyer claims Russell has paid
only two weeks of payments since late October.
"It's a way to show that she is in [her son's] life and takes part in
raising him," the lawyer said.
And.. you know.. the thing is, I agree with the ruling, if the facts are
as stated in the article.
Parents, no matter what their income, have a responsibility to support
and raise their child. Truly, $25 per week is just a token gesture.
And, yes, Kid Rock, is a millionaire who could easily overlook it.
BUT- what if he weren't? Would you excuse any other deadbeat parent? I
quite frankly doubt it. I also suspect that there main issue here is
more likely the time spent with the child, or lack thereof.
The law is, or rather should be the law, applied equally to all.
Leslie G
Tom wrote:
Well, I agree totally with this guy. Good luck to him.
--
All the words after the at in my address are spelt kcab ot tnorf.
>Quote from the article:
>
>Last year, Russell was ordered to pay a token $25 a week in child
>support to the millionaire. Ritchie's lawyer claims Russell has paid
>only two weeks of payments since late October.
>
>"It's a way to show that she is in [her son's] life and takes part in
>raising him," the lawyer said.
>
>And.. you know.. the thing is, I agree with the ruling, if the facts are
>as stated in the article.
>
>Parents, no matter what their income, have a responsibility to support
>and raise their child. Truly, $25 per week is just a token gesture.
>And, yes, Kid Rock, is a millionaire who could easily overlook it.
>BUT- what if he weren't? Would you excuse any other deadbeat parent? I
>quite frankly doubt it. I also suspect that there main issue here is
>more likely the time spent with the child, or lack thereof.
>
>The law is, or rather should be the law, applied equally to all.
>Leslie G
I am inclined to agree Leslie. As much as I don't care for Kid Rock's
music, from all appearances, he is an involved parent to his son I
think the mother needs to have *something* invested in her kid or else
just give up the rights to it all together. Hell, she's getting off
easy, given that Kid Rock is a millionaire. The odds of that are
pretty slim, and if she had slept with anyone else, it would be
costing her a damned lot more than $100 a month to raise that kid.
Shoeless
------------------------------------------------------
The two most important things in life are good friends
and a strong bullpen. Bob Lemon, 1981
>Quote from the article:
>
>Last year, Russell was ordered to pay a token $25 a week in child
>support to the millionaire. Ritchie's lawyer claims Russell has paid
>only two weeks of payments since late October.
>
>"It's a way to show that she is in [her son's] life and takes part in
>raising him," the lawyer said.
>
>And.. you know.. the thing is, I agree with the ruling, if the facts are
>as stated in the article.
>
>Parents, no matter what their income, have a responsibility to support
>and raise their child. Truly, $25 per week is just a token gesture.
>And, yes, Kid Rock, is a millionaire who could easily overlook it.
>BUT- what if he weren't? Would you excuse any other deadbeat parent? I
>quite frankly doubt it. I also suspect that there main issue here is
>more likely the time spent with the child, or lack thereof.
>
>The law is, or rather should be the law, applied equally to all.
>Leslie G
I am inclined to agree Leslie. As much as I don't care for Kid Rock's
>Good for him! It's not good for kids anyway to be handed everything.
>If the boy wants to go to college, he can. If he wants to work
>instead he'll have to fend for himself like everybody else.
>
>I've seen young people basically ruined by lenient parents who were
>always ready to fix their problems by giving them more money.
Yup. I have a friend who's the son of the president of a major credit
card company ($$$$$), and the owner of a very successful placement
agency. Eventually, he will have tons of money.
Until then? He used to get up at 4:30 for his paper route (when he was
about 10), and earn his own allowance. When he was in university
(which is parents did pay for), if he needed extra money, his mother
would find manual work for him at $10/hr. To the best of my knowledge,
he's never gotten a handout in his life.
He's a bit of a gadabout - he's done things like been bartender on a
cruise ship and such - but he's earned every dollar he has.
Renee