Every once in a while, I’m on the guy’s side in a fight.  Like when women insist a man should put the toilet seat down.  I have no comment.  Since I’ve always lived with more men than women, I can’t see how one can argue that the seemingly-arbitrary down is better.  So I try not to say anything, lest I undermine my sisters.  

But in this case I have to admit: if I were Donald Bren I’d be pissed (article here).  Of course one has to be careful basing an opinion off of what the press reports, but the net of it is this: billionaire Donald Bren’s ex girlfriend  - one of many, apparently – and her two kids Christie and David have been trying to win $400,000 a month in child support.  That’s right: a month.  Each kid wants almost $5 million a year from a father who seems to have been more of a sperm donor than anything else.  The children are now 18 and 22.  The fight has been going on for 7 years, but it really doesn’t sound like they were starving: according to his side he’s already given them over $9 million.  That seems adequate to raise 50 children, much less two.  And her lawyers agree that he did pay $10,000 a month per child in child support for many years.  And let’s remember: Jennifer McKay Gold was never even his wife.    

David and Christie are kids for crying out loud!  Barely past puberty!  Who knows how to spend that much money?  If I were the judge I tell them to get jobs and come back in ten years and tell me what they learned about earning money.  I’d ask whether they think it’s really fair to forcibly take it away from a guy who never planned on having them in the first place.  

Child support laws are supposed to protect innocent children from financial neglect.  We don’t want them to starve or be forced to live on welfare simply because one of their parents refuses to contribute.  Clearly, at $10K per kid per month, starvation in this case was never a hazard they faced.  In fact Donald Bren’s mega-million dollar drama highlights two huge problems with the current system.   

The first is that there’s no cap on what is considered a ”reasonable expense” to raise a child.  It makes no sense that the amount is predicated on how much a parent earns if they earn more than, say, $250K a year.  If it really took as much as $10,000 per month per child to raise one, we certainly wouldn’t have an over population crisis.  (Obviously it’s Jennifer McKay Gold’s opinion that it takes far more.)   

The other problem is that there’s no financial distinction between a woman using a man for his sperm and the two of them having a mutual agreement in advance to raise kids together.  If someone were to strike a deal with Jennifer McKay Gold before she had the children, I’m guessing she would have been much more reasonable.  If someone said, “he’s never going to marry you.  Given that, do you think $9 million would be enough for you to raise two children on?”  I bet she would have taken the deal.  And if she wouldn’t, there are at least a hundred million or so other beautiful, smart, great moms who would. 

The point is, having a rich man’s baby shouldn’t guarantee any woman a life of leisure.  It shouldn’t be an invitation to extort him.  And he ought to have something to say about whether the kids live in an ordinary neighborhood with the rest of us working stiffs or on a mansion on the hill.  Jennifer McKay Gold has told everyone that she’s the one who ended the relationship – it seems to me she should have thought of her kids then.      

(There’s a short blog about whether there should be a cap on what it takes to raise a child here.) 

While we’re at it, let’s look at Bren’s character.  Is he as stingy as the usual child support lawsuit would suggest?  Apparently not.  He has given huge sums of money to philanthropic efforts.  Personally, I love that in a guy.  I believe in tithing myself, giving a certain amount every year to the causes I decide are most worthwhile.  But it’s my money.  I’m the one who gets to decide.  Not some judge who orders me to pay money to people who should be happy with the $9million I already gave them and who ought to go get jobs. 

Speaking of which: what kind of a mother convinces her kids that they deserve $5M a year simply based on who she was having sex with way back when?  She’s the one who ended the relationship.  Independence always comes with a price.    And anyone who is looking for that much money is clearly looking for an excuse not to get a real job.  Wouldn’t that be annoying to any parent who has worked hard to become successful?  I work pretty hard.  I know it would bother me.     

Best,

cj

postscript: here’s more on the legal battle from Beverly Hills.  The kids are saying that because they missed having a father, they’re entitled to $134million.  Here’s another one which quotes his lawyer saying ”it’s irrelevant whether he was a good father”.  I agree: this is supposed to be a trial about child support, not compensation for being a bad dad.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm and is filed under What's New in the News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.