Lance Briggs sued over child support

[Sasori]

Originally Posted by jacqui

Black men take care of your children, 250 a week aint jack if your father is making $7-10 million a year. No we are not talking about white women but you best believe if we were, I think the sentiments would be different. That is my opinion and how I feel about the situation.

No its not, but then again, you aren't reading

According to Kessler's estimations, Briggs provided about $15,000 to Tribbett over the course of three months since the child was born, including the condo and car rental expenses. Kessler also contends that Briggs gave her roughly $10,000 for doctors' expenses related to Tribbett's pregnancy and delivery. Tribbett has since moved out of the condo.

the kid is 3 months old

expenses total: 25,000
True estimate of what was paid: 8,333 broken down per month in expenses which he paid

At one point, she had a condo, a car, and credit cards... she chose to move out of the condo and live at home.

What more do you want in this? She moved out of the condo in order to garner more in a lawsuit, so he reduced the monies she orginally had TO 250/week

[mlr710]

Sasori, that swooshing sound you heard was the point going way over your head. If you had read my posts with any clarity whatsoever, you would have understood that it was about the general principle of "child support"...which you seem to think, in a painfully robotic way, is an exact mathematical formula derived from....hmmm...from what exactly? Now how you separate a child's needs or "welfare" from that of the custodial parent is..well...scary...but I guess from your own personal experience...which actually makes my point...you are a little scarred and can't see that obviously raising a child entails more than a hard list derived from menagainstchildsupport.org........ or whatever fringe site that would create such a ridiculous thought. Any man or woman that thinks you can separate a child's welfare from that of the parent they live with is someone that shouldn't even be allowed to own a goldfish.

[mlr710]

OK......why don't we take bets on if Lance Briggs will be filing for joint or full custody so that his seed can live with him and be afforded the same lifestyle as daddy. Surely Lance wants the very very best for his child....surely he can afford a full-time nanny. I just know he wants his child with him and not living in a bedroom of this woman's parents house. Lets see if he fights for the right to give his child the very best that HE can afford...I mean, its his CHILD..right?? Yeah right......Lance would rather endure a prostrate exam from Andre the Giant than have this baby for one week.

[jacqui]

@Mir, I am not a man but a prostrate exam from Andre the Giant sounds very very very painful. lol

For that matter a prostrate exam from Webster or the little one from different strokes sounds painful.

[Sasori]

Originally Posted by mlr710

Sasori, that swooshing sound you heard was the point going way over your head. If you had read my posts with any clarity whatsoever, you would have understood that it was about the general principle of "child support"...which you seem to think, in a painfully robotic way, is an exact mathematical formula derived from....hmmm...from what exactly? Now how you separate a child's needs or "welfare" from that of the custodial parent is..well...scary...but I guess from your own personal experience...which actually makes my point...you are a little scarred and can't see that obviously raising a child entails more than a hard list derived from menagainstchildsupport.org........ or whatever fringe site that would create such a ridiculous thought. Any man or woman that thinks you can separate a child's welfare from that of the parent they live with is someone that shouldn't even be allowed to own a goldfish.

Not scarred by my experience at all, it was the first lesson on what woman not to look for and to never deal with. I believe in accountability in all actions through and through, and that goes for the actions of all.


It didn't go over my head, I'm using what you supplied as the purpose of this thread and its one-sided argument for pity, which I have little to none when you observe the entire situation

Here is the legal definition of child support, and it is mathematically derived

court-ordered funds to be paid by one parent to the custodial parent of a minor child after divorce (dissolution) or separation. Usually the dollar amounts are based on the income of both parents, the number of children, the expenses of the custodial parent, and any special needs of the child. In many states or locales the amount is determined by a chart which factors in all these figures. It may also include health plan coverage, school tuition or other expenses, and may be reduced during periods of extended visitation such as summer vacations. Child support generally continues until the child reaches 18 years, graduates from high school, is emancipated (no longer lives with either parent), or, in some cases, for an extended period such as college attendance.

But to answer your question

My past has shaped my logic and research made it sound. I believe in child support, and I despise dead beat parents... both the non-custodial as well as the custodial. Feelings of absense from one's parent aren't placed in it; if you can't be there, you must pay for the child, for that is all that counts, and the custodian is held in account of their actions of the managing of that money. I don't care how emotions play into it, if one parent has to go to the emergency room or get up late at night... it is the job of the parent and one shouldn't be paid for that job because they are inconvienced as you put it for being the custodial. Support for the child is required by both parents and those to be able to supportive of their children. Child support is there to ensure only that the child is supported financially in absence of one parent, it doesn't absolve the other's responsibilities of overall care or feelings of being overworked and/or under-utilized.

In other words, the custodian of the child should also be able to support their own lifestyle as well as child, and if not, give up parental rights or risk your child becoming a ward of the state. Child support isn't for the parent in any way shape or form, nor will you find the definition of child support to read that way.

Your arguments are for the welfare of the parent as well as the child. You would prefer that the parent [by the points which you are arguing] be taken cared for, but then your argument for this female is one sided, because you skipped over what was previously said to the finances she formerly had before moving out on her own accord to her parents house to file this suit. She had no medical bills to pay, she had no rent to pay, she had no car note to pay, because he took care of it for the duration of the child's 3 months of existence. The bum b.i.t.c.h wanted more from the situation and filed for more when the man originally took care of everything.

He has paid and continues to pay for his child. Not a dime of expense has been paid by her [he has records of payment for the hospital and all other monies in his rebuttal to her argument three days prior in the effort to shame into more money]

Other than initial childcare, which a mother should stay with her child for the first year before making other arrangements, that is as far as I go for direct support of baby mothers, but in their stead, most understand that they need something for themselves if what they have is true independence.

Your arguments is similar to hitting the lottery simply by giving birth, for if the father is a millionaire, the child should be a millionaire, and the person taking care of the child should share in that lifestyle of being a millionaire, and that is not so.

[afrocentric]

At one point, she had a condo, a car, and credit cards... she chose to move out of the condo and live at home.

What more do you want in this? She moved out of the condo in order to garner more in a lawsuit, so he reduced the monies she orginally had TO 250/week

so what if she did. don't nobody know why she moved out and moved in with her parents. how do we know he didn't bring some floosy up in the place while she was gone or whatever and she found out about it? or maybe he threaten her to get out of HIS condo.

[afrocentric]

Originally Posted by Sasori

the kid is 3 months old

expenses total: 25,000
True estimate of what was paid: 8,333 broken down per month in expenses which he paid

so what!.... thats chump change to him. he probably spent more than that on his cars. if he could avoid paying the bill then dam it he can avoid paying the child support.

[afrocentric]

He has paid and continues to pay for his child. Not a dime of expense has been paid by her [he has records of payment for the hospital and all other monies in his rebuttal to her argument three days prior in the effort to shame into more money]

how do you know? you live with him? just because he said it don't make it true. he could say anything just so he don't look like the bad guy.

[afrocentric]

The bum b.i.t.c.h wanted more from the situation and filed for more when the man originally took care of everything.

aint that a blip!!!! i bet you wouldn't say that if it was a yt women grabbing all his golds. you do see most of the atheltics have mixed or yt women on their shoulders talking bout they love them. and they(yt women) are the first to holla divorce, get the highest lawyer they could find to gather up paternity suits, child support, alimonies, half the house, the cars, and the dog. and you wanna say that this sista is greedy!!!


how many athelics do you see armed up with a black sista? it aint that many.

[Sasori]

Originally Posted by afrocentric

aint that a blip!!!! i bet you wouldn't say that if it was a yt women grabbing all his golds. you do see most of the atheltics have mixed or yt women on their shoulders talking bout they love them. and they(yt women) are the first to holla divorce, get the highest lawyer they could find to gather up paternity suits, child support, alimonies, half the house, the cars, and the dog. and you wanna say that this sista is greedy!!!


how many athelics do you see armed up with a black sista? it aint that many.

Please, scum is scum regardless of color, and I hold color no different than the rest. A gold digger of any color is still one who digs for gold. You are making it of color, not I

And who says a black woman hasn't gotten those riches as well? There have been plenty of concubines in the news who currently live a good life through their offspring, and still want more... Kim Porter comes to mind as well as the rest of Puff's line of baby mothers.

Plus, it isn't my fault these dudes pick other than black women, that is their issue, not mine

how do you know? you live with him? just because he said it don't make it true. he could say anything just so he don't look like the bad guy.

It is called record of payment which is submitted in the case for paternity and most requested during child support cases. It is the proof of the non-custodial parent to supply so it could be calculated into the case.

Plus, the condo was under his name but not his chief residence. It was purchased especially for her.

so what!.... thats chump change to him. he probably spent more than that on his cars. if he could avoid paying the bill then dam it he can avoid paying the child support.

So now we are going to ignore the fact that even if he paid in excess of $5,000 a month for his son in the beginning of his life and gets no credit for [since not only it is what he should've done, but it was a lie when she said she still has to pay on it]. He is not avoiding paying it at all, he has given support and says he will pay support for his child, he is simply not supporting her and her search for a labor free lifestyle

so what if she did. don't nobody know why she moved out and moved in with her parents. how do we know he didn't bring some floosy up in the place while she was gone or whatever and she found out about it? or maybe he threaten her to get out of HIS condo.

I answered this above, but will say again, the condo was is not his chief residence. It was purchased [as property records state and also submitted] for her when she was pregnant. Your example would mean that instead of taking the woman to his mansion... you take her to your future baby momma's house? Come on now, that is grasping at straws and trying to find an excuse for her.

Simply put, she thought and hoped that she would be a wife, they had sex, she got pregnant, realized she wasn't number 1, currently seeking ways to get back at him as well as secure her out.

This could be seen when she moved out of the condo. It is made to reduce her current holdings in the effort to gain more money through child support. If the judge already sees she is in adequate lodging, the amount the child would recieve for support would reduce due to said child's dwelling.

Which means... she, like her white and latina counterparts who take to this behavior, submit to activities which are gold-diggerish, even if it is done out of spite.

As I said before, I am for the child support system, the children should not suffer financially due to the reduced revenue garnered by single parent households. I also wished they made it mandatory for the father to stay in the child's life, but this only deals with finances. On the other hand, the single parent also has to make sure she has a solid foundation under her through her own resources, for as the definition used by law states, it is for the welfare of the child, not the convenience and welfare of the custodian... that happens as collateral and not their right. If they wanted a meal ticket, she should've MARRIED the dude and then had the child so she could get alimony... for that is for the spouse