[discostu]

Here's your original comment on this thread:
"In the meantime, he has been ordered to pay $1,500 a month in child support for two of his children, Pierce, 17 and Ashley, 14. The couple's oldest child, Lauren, is 19."

And the Child Support Shakedown continues...

Now how is THIS PARTICULAR case part of the shakedown. Is this an unreasonable figure given his income level? Are either of these children not his? Is the mother unfit for custody for the children? Is he being denied visitation?

The system very well might be corrupt but this case is not an example of such corruption.

[sauropod]

Point taken.

I was trying to say (perhaps my original post did not state it very well) that there are a number of things to be taken into account for child support. Including the Sharon Bush's income level and earning potential.

In this PARTICULAR case $1500/mo. is not unreasonable given that Mr. Bush makes $1 Millon/year.

In MOST cases, monies such as this are paid out for people that make much much less than this. Anywhere from 50k up to maybe 100k. Sometimes much less than 50k. It is arbitrary and entirely up to the judge.

The decisions of the family law and special master judges are extremely hard to appeal. These decisions often manufacture "deadbeat dads" since they do not have the ability to pay such a monthly tax on their earnings.

Let me further be clear. If Mr. Bush is a philanderer, he deserves what he got.

[saradippity]

Lauren the 19 year old doesn't get the support. It is probably because she is attending college on a government grant based on her mother's income.Lots of people do that,leave the wife with assets which are not considered income,nor is child support and have the kid go for a government grant. Known quite a few wealthy people who did that.

I am just speculating. It may not be true in this case but it does happen.