Deadbeat dad, singer & Ruben Studdard look-alike Sean Levert died of natural causes; prob. faked his death to avoid paying all that C.S.

"Chris" wrote in message
news


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

.
.
"DVD" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"DVD" wrote in message
...

Gini wrote:


===
Yeah. Unlikely. But, it happens and I guess DVD thinks that the first
wife should be entitled to anything she wants whenever she wants it no
matter the impact on the subsequent children, or no matter what the
first
wife spends the money on--student loans, hairdresser, repossessed
vehicles, 4 bed/3 bath condo for her and the two kids, happy hour...




DVD thinks the first wife should be entitled to whatever she gets
awarded
in court. Oddly enough, she IS. Since I have no idea what situation you
are bitter about, I can easily come up with a story that rivals your
little anecdote. It won't change the fact that the 2nd wife has every
right to complain but absolutely no rights when it comes to changing
the
settlement.


You mean the settlement that was restructured *after* the subsequent
children were born? Are the subsequent children not entitled to be
supported, too? Or do you find subsequent children to be irrelevant?
No
man
should ever have children after a divorce because whatever he makes is
owed
to the first children? Is that it? If not, please do let me know what
you
think on the issue--I do not want to be accused of putting words in
your
mouth.



I wasn't the judge in that case, since the judge ordered it I would
expect the father to live up to it. I have heard both sides of many
divorces and the one thing that is sure in every case, both sides are
always lying about how they are getting screwed.

Hope it never happens to you, because then you will have to lie TOO!

Oh, s/he already does. Haven't you noticed?